Driving No Where

Massachusetts has tough regulations for young drivers. People have to be 16 and a half before they can get their license. They have to go through a driver's education class, including time spent behind the wheel taking formal lessons. New drivers must wait six months before they can drive their friends. Apparently, many don't think that's good enough.

According to the Boston Globe, the state wants to make extreme new changes to the system:

• Raise the minimum age for junior operator's licenses to 17 1/2 and learner's
  permits to 16 1/2.
• Extend the duration of learner's permits, when teenagers must be accompanied by a licensed driver who is at least 21, from six months to 1 year.
• Allow the Registry of Motor Vehicles to overhaul driver's education
  courses around the state.
• Require 50 hours of supervised driving for learner's permit holders, up from 12 hours.
• Toughen penalties for junior operator's license violations such as driving after midnight or driving with minors as passengers when not accompanied by an adult.
• Prohibit those with learner's permits and junior operator's licenses from using cellphones while driving.
• Impose a one-year license suspension for minors caught drag racing.

Perhaps I'm biased. At almost 22, I'm only five or six years removed from getting a license. However, I think this plan is extraneous and ineffective. Many politicians and others probably figure getting a license represents all fun and games to teenagers. However, nothing could be further from the truth. An extra driver in the family can be a boon. Are parents going to be expected to cart their children around until they're legally adults?

Teenagers have jobs, extracurricular activities and schools to attend, parents don't always have the time or desire to bring them there. More than that, the ability to drive provides an important freedom to teenagers that extends beyond the fun and games and represents an important step toward adulthood. When I first got my license, it gave me the opportunity to spend more time with my family, which was divided from a divorce. Where once I was only able to visit my father's side on weekends, with a license I was able to have dinner on a Thursday or take my little brother and sister out for some after-school fun. I could never adequately describe how much I cherished that newfound interaction I could have with my own flesh and blood. Clearly, increasing the age before people are able to get a license represents real hardships for families as well as teenagers who deserve a chance to grow into adulthood.

Worst of all, the effectiveness of this new plan can be debated: the State House can do better. Improved driving regulations are essential, but this new proposal fails miserably. The current proposals effect all teenagers: good drivers and bad. At almost 22, I've never been in an accident. I've never had a speeding ticket. By all accounts, I'm a pretty good driver and was from the start. Would it have been fair to strip away my access to my family or force my mother to take time from work to ship me around on errands - when I proved I was a safe and competent driver?

Why would voters expect a 17 1/2 year old to be a better driver than someone who's 16 1/2? What's the difference in a year? If Massachusetts wants teenagers to excel behind the wheel, the state should focus on setting policy that will actually work: more difficult testing. There were dozens of people in my graduating class who passed their driving test by merely taking a spin around the block. Many didn't even have to do a three-point turn or parallel park. Driving exams tend to be quick - just two or three minutes - and can't adequately gauge driving ability. Creating a more difficult and strenuous test would force all drivers to be fully competent before passing.

Despite my criticism, the current proposal does have a few good ideas. Most importantly, it's clear the state feels current Drivers' Education courses aren't difficult enough. Increasing the amount of hours spent behind the wheel will undoubtedly create better drivers. However, Massachusetts must be wary: current driving courses already cost hundreds of dollars, this proposal will likely more than double the cost. While I could condemn such prohibitive costs based on elitism alone, there are far greater problems: if people can't afford driving lessons, they'll wait until they are 18 before they get their license. By waiting until a driver is 18, he or she is able to skip many of the regulations affecting younger drivers - including the policy on driving lessons .

Voters should ask themselves this: Who would you rather have behind the wheel? A 16 and a half year old who has taken formal lessons or someone who's 18 and has had none? Let's increase the amount of time spent behind the wheel at Drivers' Ed, but investigate the costs of such an increase compared to the benifits so we can arrive at a fair number. Driving may be a privilege, but it shouldn't be a privilege only extended to the wealthy.

Court Ruling an Outrage

At the risk of asking of asking "what have you done for me lately," the Massachusetts SJC ruling reported in today's Boston Globe is outrageous. I wonder how many thousands of marriages have been handed out in Massachusetts to non-residents over the years? However, now that marrying people in Massachusetts is a contentious issue, damn all those people from around the country dreaming of a picturesque wedding on the Cape and Islands. Heck, we don't want all those people spending money here in Massachusetts - millions and millions of dollars.

Just listen to Mitt Romney, "we don't want Massachusetts to become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage." Oh, wait. He didn't say anything about straight marriage. Apparently, we want their money... but not The Gays! I mean, isn't HIV transmittable through Benjamin Franklin green? After all, the guy was from Philly - and that's the same city as that gay movie with Denzel Washington! We just can't put Massachusetts citizens at risk of handling Benjamin Franklin's portrait if The Gays! have handled it.

Actually, I take it all back. Mitt Romney is absolutely right. The 1913 law may have been ignored for years, but it's a law god-damnit! In fact, there are lots of old laws we don't follow anymore. We have years of catching up to do, so I'll brush you all up on laws we need to enforce now! In fact, just look at this list:

Quakers and witches are banned.

Let's have ourselves a real Salem Witch Hunt. Back in the 1600s, they only killed fake witches in Salem. Today, there are probably hundreds of Wiccans living there. Let's round them up and prosecute them all. After all, it's a state law.

No gorilla is allowed in the back seat of any car.

In light of recent events at the Franklin Park Zoo, maybe this isn't such a bad idea. Still, though, I wonder what triggered such an important benchmark in Beacon Hill legislative action? The State Legislature should be proud.

All men must carry a rifle to church on Sunday.

I can't think of a reason why, but this is a great idea. I'm glad things under the golden dome are working out so smoothly.

Snoring is prohibited unless all bedroom windows are closed and securely locked.

Here's hoping the Secret Police force we'll need to create to keep track of all these wonderful laws we've been ignoring for decades and centuries won't hear my father in the dead heat of summer. After all, he doesn't have the money for Central Air. Actually, by God, he's breaking the law. Sorry Dad, but no one is above the law.

An old ordinance declares goatees illegal unless you first pay a special license fee for the privilege of wearing one in public.

Oh, good. If there's ever something that infringes on my rights as a human being, it's other people sporting goatees. If they're going to be annoying, they may as well provide Mitt Romney with another special revenue (although, none of these increased fees he's created are taxes! He would never raise taxes!). Has the legislature created the Department of Goatee regulation yet? It should be a top priority.

Okay, the joking is over: I'm pissed. The state legislature must immediately rectify this SJC debacle immediately. Since 1913, our state's honor and integrity has been stained. The law is and has always been a bigoted law. Massachusetts residents cannot conscionably allow this law to exist when we know exactly why it was created. In 1913, it was a racist law. Today, it's bigoted roots shine through.

Let's Be a Moral Leader on Energy

The Audubon Society has given its blessing to the Cape Wind project. Apparently, it's not going to have a big impact on the seagull population anyway (part of me wishes it would! I hate those flying sea-rats). Massachusetts has a shining opportunity to create a renewable energy resource that would produce significant amounts of energy. Creating renewable energy is good for the environment and provides Massachusetts an opportunity to become a leader in an industry that is bound to grow across the country.

Personally, I think people's fear of this project is unfounded. It won't effect the beauty of the islands or the Cape. It should be far enough out to sea that people may as well bring binoculars with them if they want to get a good view.

If this proposal gets shot down, my big fear is where do they build the next big one? Companies will become too afraid of the legal and PR costs to design an ambitious project like Cape Wind. Furthermore, the whole strength of this resistance smacks of elitism. I have a real hard time believing that this project would be as bitterly resisted if it were built off the coast of Gloucester, instead of Ted Kennedy's backyard. But if it's shot down in Nantucket Sound and someone decides they want to build one off the coast of Lynn, Fall River or New Bedford, what are we going to do then? By rejecting it in Nantucket Sound, which by all accounts seems like a reasonable location (feel free to disagree in comments), a dangerous precedent is started.

Obviously, we need to make sure it's going to be built right. We need to make sure that there are long term plans so we don't have a rusty, out of use wind farm there fifty years from now. However, Massachusetts has the opportunity to send the entire country a message: renewable energy if feasible and can provide a serious amount of this country's electricity.

When we're talking about Cape Wind, we're not talking about Martha's Vineyard. We're not talking about Nantucket Sound. We're not talking about Cape Cod. This project is bigger than all of that. We're talking about the future. We're talking about Global Warming. We're talking about the environment our children will have to live in and potentially suffer with fifty and a hundred years down the road.

We're talking about, potentially, the willingness of investors to try to build something essential for America: a renewable resource. Cape Wind makes sense, but not if it faces tens of millions of dollars worth of hurdles. Why build an energy source that's less efficient than coal if it's also going to cost way more? Cape Wind is a project unique across America and should be emulated at every feasible location. When it comes to taking steps to end our dependence on foreign oil and leaving coal unearthed and buried, it can only be construed as a good thing. It's something Massachusetts should be proud of - and it won't even hurt the little birdies.

Website Disclaimer: I'm Now a Part of Deval's Campaign

Apparently, people read my website. Imagine that? Anyway, I was recently contacted by, I don't know, a bazillion Deval Patrick campaign people. I've been contacted by people from my campus, from Tufts, from Brandies... I don't even know where they all come from. Apparently, they know I'm a fan of Deval Patrick. Apparently, they think I can help him win. Apparently, that makes me qualified to be the Undergraduate Campus Coordinator for Deval Patrick's campaign.

I don't like the idea of being a part of a campaign and posting about that campaign on my blog, especially since I'm linked on leftyblogs and people actually read my site every now and then. However, how do I cross that bridge? How do I address this dilemma? It's in my nature to write and to blog, I may not be particularly good at it, but that's just something I'm going to do no matter what. If I didn't write here, I'd write about more meaningless stuff on Myspace that three or four people would read and would amount to nothing. Here, I can advocate and help advance ideas. Here, I can continue to debate. Here, I can actually write about politics (not even my friends will read about most of my political writings). So what do I do?

I could promise to not write about Deval Patrick anymore, but then what the heck am I going to post about? Deval Patrick got me excited about Massachusetts politics again and if the campaign isn't successful, this could be a limited time engagement - so I'm not going to miss my opportunity to analyze the politics of this race. I guess that leaves me here: writing this disclaimer.

Even though I'm technically a part of Deval Patrick's campaign, I'm not a personal friend of his. I'm not being paid. I've never even been to his Boston Office and I have no money to donate to his campaign (or to buy the Special Limited Edition DVD of Lady and the Tramp I'm dying to get).

Sure, I'm volunteering for him and I now have a fancy title, but I'm not really doing anything that I wasn't before. As the undergraduate campus coordinator, essentially the only thing I'm doing now that I wasn't doing a week ago is attending a weekly meeting to try to get more supporters and keeping track of a few more emails. I was already doing my other tasks, despite the fact that I wasn't a part of the campaign.

So, in short, what's going to change? I don't really know. Technically, nothing should change. I'm not going to censor myself or compromise my website. However, I'm still now a part of a campaign. I can pretend and rationalize that it won't or shouldn't make a difference, but the fact is to readers it does. Maybe even to me it will. So I'm going to be a responsible blogger and let you all know in advance: I'm technically a part of the campaign now.

Globe Watch: Best Op-Ed in a Long Time

Thanks, Boston Globe, for writing an extremely important Editorial today. Here are some key points:

The idea that a person can be working full time and still be living under the poverty line -- a reality for millions of Americans -- is a national shame. But for workers in wealthy Massachusetts to be earning sub-poverty wages is a sin. Today's minimum wage, which has not been adjusted since 2001, leaves a full-time worker $2,560 below the $16,600 annual poverty line for a family of three.

A bill to raise the minimum wage by $1.50 an hour over two years has been stalled in the Legislature, where discredited old arguments about negative effects on job growth are heard.

There is no evidence that the last four increases in the minimum wage led to large job losses. Unemployment has gone up recently in Massachusetts, but the economic sectors most affected by the minimum wage -- hospitality, leisure, and health services -- are growing, and few economists project a reversal due to wage increases.

Contrary to the claims of opponents, the minimum wage is not confined to teenagers with after-school jobs. According to the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank, 154,000 people in the state are earning less than the proposed $8.25 right now. Another 329,000 would also benefit from an increase because of ripple effects. Many of them are the sole breadwinners in their families, and 59 percent are women.

A minimum wage increase is one of the most important things this country can do right now, a central tenets of progressives. The current minimum wage disproportionately affects women and children. The Globe didn't put this in their editorial, but half the children in this country living in poverty (and there are more than 10 million of them) have at least one parent working full time.

If people work, they deserve to make a living, a no-brainer if I've ever seen one. It doesn't cost jobs, it won't put businesses out of business and Wal-Mart won't have to start selling ten dollar candy bars. Instead, families will start to be able to get by and people will be able to spend more money, directly helping the economy. Study after study has shown that increasing the minimum wage in small increments makes sense.

Spring Break, NYC and Boston

I just wanted to apologize for not posting over the past few days. It's Spring Break and, well... I'm enjoying the vacation.

Anyway, I decided to go to New York City for the weekend. I've traveled all around the world; I've been to Melbourne and Christchurch. I've been to the Dominican Republic and Tennessee. I've seen NASA's Control Center and had dinner on the top of Cinderella's Castle. Yet, I've never been to the Big Apple. So, when my friend asked me to come and visit another friend who goes to school there, how could I resist?

I assure you all, there is a point here. So many people love New York City. People all over the world dream about moving there. Clearly, none of those people have been to Boston. I told you I had a point: Boston rocks! Visiting New York only made me fully appreciate Bean Town. New York may have a huge population and the Statue of Liberty, but it pales in comparison when it comes to the feel of the city. Manhattan seemed so manufactured, so processed and so homogenized. It makes me think about American cheese... sure, it tastes okay and is good in a sandwich, but it's just not good cheese. It works, but there's nothing special about it.

Maybe I just didn't spend enough time there. However, I didn't feel that way about Sidney or Auckland. Heck, I didn't even feel that way about Houston. Every major city I've been to has always had some sort of feel to it that makes it unique and great in its own way. I can't explain it. However, NYC lacked that feel. I didn't go there and just get what it was all about. Maybe I feel that way because I'm too biased coming from Boston. Maybe NYC is too international; maybe there are so many people from so many different parts of the world that it can't have it's own unique identity. Maybe that's a good thing and I shouldn't be complaining.

The friend I stayed with lives on Stanton Island and I actually have to say I really liked it there. Stanton Island definitely had a feel to it. Maybe NYC has too many parts to feel unique as a whole and I should be looking at each part of NYC separately. Boston's a compact city, there aren't as many parts to the city as there is New York, so the real problem could be that NYC is just too big to feel as if it has a unique feel or identity.

I don't know. I don't understand it. All I know is that visiting New York made me appreciate just how great Boston is. We need to make sure Boston stays that way. Too many important jobs have been lost to mergers. Politicians play with our bread and butter as they allow other countries and states to get the head start with important research like stem cells.

Massachusetts is probably the greatest state in this country; we're the best educated, well off and are ahead of the curve on civil rights and even family values (just look at our divorce rates: lowest in the country). However, Massachusetts would be nothing without its heart and sole: Boston. People are leaving the state in droves, we're the only state in the country that has a shrinking population. While some would argue a shrinking population is a good thing, the fact of the matter is that something is causing people to leave, which illustrates a problem.

It means public colleges aren't as accessible as they should be (80% or more UMASS students stay in Massachusetts). It means better job opportunities are being created elsewhere. It means housing is too expensive. These are all problems that must be dealt with. However, I won't be coming up with any answers until Monday, when I'm back at school.

LNG Update: It's Dead

Part of me is glad that the plan is dead. The Boston Harbor islands are truly beautiful and it would be a shame to lose even one of them. However, I do think the proposal was worth studying if only for the possibility of getting rid of the Everett facility. Yet, it didn't seem like that would happen anyway.

I'm curious as to what other people think about this issue. I'm no expert on LNG facilities, but there seemed to be some upside to the Outer Brewster proposal, at least in comparison to Fall River. I didn't necessarily support the Outer Brewster proposal, but I thought it was worthy of further scrutiny.

Kerry Supports Feingold!

According to Mass for Feingold, Senator Kerry has agreed to support Feingold's proposal to censure President Bush. It's time America hold President Bush accountable. Even if democrats lose a vote to censure, at least they'll stand up and force the issue and win American hearts and minds. At least people will know that there's an opposition party, another group of people to vote for.

Senator Kerry, not known for going out on a political limb (at least in his old age), has really risked some political capital here. Thank him so he knows he made the right decision and strongly backs Feingold's corner.

Mass for Feingold asked the big question: where is Senator Kennedy? Kennedy is one of more than twenty senators who voted to censure President Clinton. Surely illegally spying on Americans is at least as important as anything President Clinton did? The people of Massachusetts should demand better of Senator Kennedy - one would have expected him to be the first to go along with Feingold. Call him and make sure he does this issue justice.

One disclaimer: As of now, I'm supporting Russ Feingold for President. I know this post isn't necessarily about Feingold, but it is his issue, so I feel I should make sure people know where I stand.

My Continued Globe-Watch: Good Globe, Bad Globe

Today's Boston Globe included a great editorial and a terrible op-ed.

The Globe Editorial staff argues the merits of early childhood education. A proposed Massachusetts bill that would create a universal pre-k program would be a boon to the state. Other states should emulate it. The earlier children begin to learn, the better off they are. Study after study has concluded that. Furthermore, parents can get back to work knowing their children are safe, learning and having fun at school.

On the other hand, Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby spews his typical trash. Again, he deceives readers by confusing the issue. He'll try to tell you his column is about religious freedom, but it isn't. No matter the affiliation of a charity, it cannot discriminate.

America doesn't stand for charities that invest in terrorist organizations, why would we allow charities that discriminate based on race, sex or sexuality? Would Jacoby write the column if, based on supposed religious freedom, Catholic Charities decided to stop its adoption services because the state had an anti-discrimination policy that forced the non-profit to adopt to multi-racial families? I think not.

Do us all a favor, Jeff Jacoby: shut up!

Romney "Rebuffed," says Globe.

Apparently, $295 is asking too much of cheap-skate employers.

Democratic legislative leaders rejected a last-ditch effort yesterday by Governor Mitt Romney and his allies to water down a proposed business assessment that would help pay for a comprehensive healthcare bill.

Presidential-candidate (I won't call him Governor) Romney should be ashamed of himself. I seem to remember watching a State of the Commonwealth Address not too long ago where he stated that he would set aside extra money because getting health insurance for everyone in this state was too important to quibble over how it got done. I guess he just flopped from his flip again.

Mark my words: Romney will never be President. I pray he gets the nomination; he won't get any further. If I need to swallow these words hard two years from now, Massachusetts has a serious problem in state-to-state communication.

Romney's International House of Pancakes

Flip, Flop, Flip, Flop, Flip.

Folks, this Presidential candidate changes position in the space of a week (i.e. some of these links), but boy does he ever change over the course of a year. Last week, he was bitterly opposed to gay adoption - encouraging Catholic Charities to discriminate against gay parents - and now he's softened his tone?

The comments were softer in tone than those last week, when the governor said nothing about the legal basis for gay adoptions as he announced his plans to file the bill.

I guess he did a poll over the weekend.

The Boston Globe weighs in with an important editorial.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY'S moves to the right, as he explores a campaign for national office, have been well noted. But now, if he carries out his intention to file legislation exempting Catholic Charities from state discrimination laws, he will be taking a giant step backward -- 46 years backward.

Sadly, that's the whole goal of the cultural backlash. After the revolution in the 60s, when so much changed for the better, some people were angry. Progress continued, albeit at a slower pace. The whole time, a group of people longed for the so-called better days. Those people are now in power. They want to go back to the 40s and 50s, when women were at home and one salary often supported a family. It's an impossible goal, but they're trying their damned hardest.

If that were the end of it, it wouldn't be such a bad move. However, people forget about the horrors from that time period. Women were second class citizens, home alone all day cooking, cleaning and taking care of the kids. Well, those were the lucky women. Even back then, most women worked; they were just paid a lot less. Abortions weren't easily available and horror stories ensued (they'll say women were perfect angels back then, but they'd be lying through their teeth). Unfortunately, my generation just can't relate to these stories. African Americans in the South couldn't vote, never mind have equal status. On the back of the bus they went.

When viewed from afar, what conservatives want doesn't look so bad. However, as we can see, it's the wrong direction for this country. Most conservative political leaders know it. Mitt Romney even knows it, yet that doesn't change the fact that he'll say and do what it takes to be elected. How do we know that? He was pro-choice and favored Civil Unions at one point in Massachusetts. However, the Mitt Romneys of the world can't win election without the conservative base - so the lies continue.

But lies aren't the end of it. Republicans also fight dirty. The whole Catholic Charities mess is a prime example of just how far conservative politicians will go to win. The Boston Globe makes the point better than I could,

It was in 1960 that John F. Kennedy confronted anti-Catholic bias in a famous speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Alliance. ''I believe in an America . . . where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source," he said. ''I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the Church does not speak for me."

This ringing embrace of church-state separation, confirmed by Kennedy's election, settled the issue once and for all, one hoped. Now Romney is out to turn it on its head.

Nearly a half-century ago, John Kennedy challenged bias against the Catholic Church. Now, Romney is defending bias from the Catholic Church. Romney works for all the people of Massachusetts. It is a shame to see him doing exactly what Kennedy forswore nearly a half-century ago: accepting instructions on public policy from the pope.

If only this were some small Republican exception, but it isn't. This is what George Bush did to help him win in '04; Romney is just following suit. The state house must reject any Mitt Romney bill and the public must reject Mitt Romney for the fraud that he is.

How Quaint: A Columnist Who Responds to Emails

Well, here's something you don't see everyday. Yesterday, Adrian Walker of the Boston Globe wrote a column about Deval Patrick's rally and his campaign for governor. He said something in the column that demanded my attention, so I wrote a blog and sent him an email. In a classic when-pigs-fly moment, Walker actually responded to the email. His response deserves it's own blog.

Here was my email:

You didn't seem to have any knowledge of his specifics. Did you check his website? Here's his plan on educationa lone: http://www.devalpatrick.com/resources/pdf/policybook_web.pdf

As a polisci major whose read countless, pointless so-called plans, I have to say this one is remarkably complete - and, well, specific. His website has other plans too. You just have to look.

Now, I've written a number of emails to Globe columnists in the past - both to critique and compliment (okay, I'll admit it, mostly Dan Shaughnessy rants!) - but I've never had any answered. To say I was surprised when Adrian Walker responded would be saying it lightly. I think Walker deserves to have his side of the story on this website for all to read; here's his email:

I've read everything on [Deval Patrick's] website. By the way, most voters won'[t] read the position papers on his website. That's one of the reasons why people, well, campaign. And make speeches. And hold rallies. And those are also good places to talk about what one would do. Thanks for writing.

I'm glad he read the website. It wasn't a lot to ask for, but I'm glad he did it. I'm not sure I understand Walker's conclusion, that Deval Patrick isn't detailed enough, unless he was being ambiguous. Perhaps, Walker wished Patrick was more detailed during the speech? If so, he should have said so in the column.

If not, to conclude that Patrick wasn't specific enough - when you include his website - seems a little, well, wrong... just as wrong as he is to suggest that websites aren't part of today's campaign process. However, it's his right to conclude Patrick is unspecific and I won't challenge it. He just should have made that clear in his column.

While I'll let Walker go on his personal opinion about whether or not Patrick did his duty in informing the public, Walker must be challenged on his assertion about speeches and campaigns. Generally, politicians aren't extremely detailed when making speeches at rallies. Some people may be mad at this, but that's an unrealistic and illogical gripe: a rally is meant to excite people. Details can bore people. In a town meeting setting or at a lecture, details are far more important and people want to hear them there; campaigns offer plenty of opportunity for people to see candidates in all settings, so to complain about the way rallies work isn't rational.

Furthermore, I'm not sure Walker has a full appreciation for the role of the internet in politics. People may wonder how Howard Dean raised so much money during the primaries: the internet. People may wonder where most people get their political news now: blogs (Daily Kos has more readers than The Nation and the New Republic combined).

People "campaign" by speaking, of course, but Walker doesn't seem to get that campaign websites are now even more important than speeches. Websites offer a quick, easy way to get information on candidates faster than ever before: Deval Patrick emphasized his website at several points during the speech. It's a revolution that most of the old media just hasn't kept up with, hence Walker's complete rebuke of Patrick's "position papers" on the campaign website.

I don't know Walker's background. Does he do mostly political columns, or just columns from events around the city? (I'm not speaking rhetorically, I'd like more information from readers.) If he isn't extremely politically savvy, he may not understand today's new political reality. Hell, most of D.C. hasn't caught on.

Finally, I wrote back to Adrian Walker that I appreciated his candor and the fact that he responded to my email. He probably had hundreds today, dozens alone about the Deval Patrick rally. I'm sure there were a bunch of people who emailed him about the very same thing I did (which could explain the few typos I corrected for him from his email). Any writer who is willing to respond to his readers is by default worthy of respect. His column was actually very good - something I've already mentioned on my blog - and I told him so. However, the column called for corrections and his email further suggests that he lags behind many of today's voters in the changing dynamics of politics. Here's hoping this governor's race is an eye-opener.

Update: Apparently, people are reading (1, 2).

Assumptions of the Non-Politik Politik: Massachusetts Style

Often times political assumptions make a lot of sense. For example, people in labor unions tend to vote Democrat. If you go to Detroit and there's actually an automobile factory left, chances are if you meet anyone inside it, they vote Democrat. That's a fair assumption to make, if you know nothing else about a given union member.

Another assumption: the political stump speech. Do politicians actually mean what they say? If anyone listened to President Bush in 2000 or 2004, you'd know that rarely does rhetoric match policy.

Another assumption: politicians prefer to campaign on broad ideas rather than detailed policy, which is something Adrian Walker complained about today in the Boston Globe. Apparently, Deval Patrick isn't detailed enough for the Globe reporter. Equally apparent, a certain Globe reporter can't bother checking a website (www.devalpatrick.com) before he writes a story.

In one of those weird twists in life, there just happens to be a political candidate who invalidates a political assumption: Deval Patrick's policies are detailed and easy to find. While I would forgive a political lay-person for not bothering to check facts, I expect better from someone who works for the mighty Boston Globe. I expect better from someone who is supposed to be informing the public (you know, someone who is actually supposed to know about what he writes).

Maybe Walker did check the website and wasn't pleased with what he saw, but he should have disclosed that effort in his story. Otherwise, daily readers of the Boston Globe (such as myself) are left with the impression that Globe columnists can't manage to type the letters and symbols w w w . d e v a l p a t r i c k . c o m, because that would involve actual (minimal) research. Yo, Adrian, try google.

Update: Apparently, I'm not the only one in Massachusetts to blog about this. Greater Boston took notice. Blue Mass Group posted about it as well. There was another, but I can't find it anymore! Sorry!

Additional Update: I'm not criticizing Adrian Walker for diminishing Deval Patrick's chances. He actually seemed to have a positive spin on Patrick. However, I don't care one way or the other. I'm just annoyed at the lack of research in this story. Columnists sometimes think that just because they write columns, they don't need to do research. They're wrong.

Deval's Rally on Saturday and My Thoughts on the Race

I left UMASS Dartmouth late on Friday to get back home. I had plans to go to the Deval Patrick rally on Saturday with my mother, who is the type of person who has never been involved in politics before, but is excited at the prospect. With little sleep, I got up Saturday and tried to rush my slow-poke Mom out the door and we got a late start. The rally started at around noon, doors opened at 11:30... I reserved tickets for the event, but there seemed to be no limit to the amount of tickets printed, while the chambers inside Fanuel Hall aren't enormous. There were way more tickets - and people - than room to attend the indoor portion of the rally. Suffice it to say, I got in, but just barely. I was one of the last 15 people to walk through that door and an angry police officer seemed determined to keep us out!

Sadly, hundreds of people were turned away. I was lucky. Still, though, Deval Patrick was nice enough to give a speech outside first - as well as have huge television screens stationed outside for the crowd. The excitement for Deval Patrick is precisely why I think he can win. In the middle of winter, Deval Patrick convinced over a thousand people to come and hear him speak (he claimed 2,000; the Globe said hundreds... it's always something in between and my guess at the time - about 1,200-1,500 - seems as rational now as it did then). How many people can do that? Reilly may be leading in the polls, but would over a thousand people come out to see him right now? Would they have even known about the event (Deval is running a great grassroots campaign... which is why I found out about the event in the first place).

Reilly's support comes from his name recognition and money. He is one of the few Democrats elected to a statewide position - an important one at that. He has both name recognition from his position, as well as a political machine to help him win elections. Whether he is old Beacon Hill politics or not, that's the impression he gives. There's no excitement there. Reilly has no buzz. He has money and more name recognition, but if Deval Patrick's support is more enthusiastic, by the end of this primary race Deval will have the money and name recognition too.

Deval touched on this subject, briefly, during the rally. It may have been Reilly's turn to run, but it's Deval Patrick's time. Deval could have waited, he could have picked a lesser position to run for and counted the years until it was his turn to play Governor. He could have, but he didn't. Whether the state democratic party establishment was happy about it or not, Deval Patrick ran.

He's everything progressives in this state could possibly hope for. Most importantly, he can win. He creates excitement among democrats in this state that I've never seen before. Scott Harshberger didn't have it. Shannon O'Brien didn't have it. Reilly definately doesn't have it. Deval Patrick has a lot of things working against him, yet he still polls higher than Kerry Healey does at this point (according to today's Sunday Boston Globe). The gap between Reilly and Patrick, once large, is already small. Soon it will be nonexistent.

I'm the type of person who is pragmatic first. I want to do what's best for this country and state. Occasionally, that means supporting the lesser of two evils if that means that in doing so, you'll get a victory. However, in this case the people of Massachusetts have a great opportunity. For once, and I really believe this, picking the better of the two will present this state with the best chance to win. There are many reasons why Scott Harshberger and Shannon O'Brien lost their races, but here's what I think is the biggest: I challenge anyone to see how much Harshberger and O'Brien supporters really cared about Harshberger and O'Brien. It's one thing to support a candidate, it's quite another to really get behind them.

One of the speakers at the rally was U.S. Congressman Jim McGovern. When Deval went up to speak, he thanked Jim in particular. However, when he thanked McGovern, he didn't just thank him for the support. Deval thanked Jim for the early support. Deval Patrick is still in this race because of his ability to convince people that yes, he had a chance, when every poll months ago indicated otherwise. He created excitement then and has a real race now. If yesterday's rally and previous elections can teach us anything, it's that hollow support is not enough to beat Republicans in Massachusetts. Every vote needs a foundation - every campaign needs college students willing to drive home late at night to see a rally in Boston, needs mothers who have never been to a political rally before - if it's going to be victorious. Deval Patrick may have less money and less name recognition, but he has a lot of charisma behind his campaign and a great grassroots organization to employ it.

Boston Archdiocese: I'm Done

I was raised a Catholic. Though I've questioned my faith over the past few years, I've always believed in what I used to think were the central tenets of the church: Help the poor, give people free choice to do whatever they want in today's world and try to build what many like to call a "Christian" society. While I learned years ago that a Christian society is not synonymous with a good society, that doesn't mean that I didn't think the Catholic Church couldn't do its part in forming one. Living in the Boston Archdiocese for the past few years has taught me otherwise.

I renounced my faith, to my family, several months ago. Most didn't care; I don't belong to a particularly religious family. For one thing, my parents are divorced (and my dad remarried). According to the Catholic Church's view of the eyes of god, my two half siblings, who I love more than I could ever describe, are bastard children. Obviously, that doesn't sit well with me. Yet, I stayed with the church. It wasn't until the child molestation scandal in Boston that I began to truly question staying in the Church. I decided that I could no longer consciously attend mass, but I didn't renounce my faith at that point. I figured I'd give the Catholic Church the time it needed to clean itself up - while I silently protested as one of the many to stop filling the pews.

Then-Bishop O'Malley came to Boston with great fanfare. He was a PR-coup. The Catholic Church couldn't have picked a more suitable Bishop to govern the Boston Archdiocese in terms of appearance. The man isn't flashy. Cardinal Law lived a glamorous life: He had a palace to live in, limousines to take him to vacation homes, fine clothes and jewelry. Cardinal Law was a Pope in Boston; Bishop O'Malley was Friar Tuck.

O'Malley abandoned the palace and vacation homes and sold them for income to help pay for the child molestation settlements. After that, he quickly decided to move forward with a plan to close church after church. While church closings were inevitable with declining attendance in the Boston Archdiocese, O'Malley rushed them. Many of the churches O'Malley closed also had parochial schools: O'Malley left little time for parents to scramble to find new ones. My confidence in O'Malley, along with many in the Archdiocese, plummeted. O'Malley wasn't the savior he appeared to be.

Still, I didn't leave the Church. I remained a Catholic, if in name only. I was what many devout Catholics liked to rail against. However, there was more to it. I really felt that by remaining in the Church, but not staying active in it, the Church would eventually get it. I wasn't alone. I was probably one of thousands in the Boston Archdiocese silently boycotting pews (and withholding donations). However, nothing changed. Soon, O'Malley began to even bicker with a new wave of child molestation settlements. He was aloof and rarely was involved in Boston.

Then he began to play politics, along with the entire Catholic Church. The Presidential election was in full swing. President Bush wooed Catholics across the country and for the first time in decades, more Catholics voted for Republicans than Democrats. Though the gap between rich and poor was growing rapidly and society was quickly becoming a new gilded age, like the early 20th century, the President and Pope convinced America that hating gays and loving cells were more important than the 44+ million Americans without health insurance.

I still wouldn't have left the Church, but I began to think. Why was the Church getting involved in politics? Surely, being against abortion is a perfectly rational and acceptable position. While I'm strongly pro-choice, I personally wouldn't encourage anyone to get an abortion. But, it's just not my right to tell anyone else what to do with their body.

Similarly, the Catholic Church is well within its rights to preach to its followers to reject abortions, but not politically interfere. The Church is in a perfect position to help lower abortion rates without such political interference: it could have kept its morality intact as well as have done its percieved mission. It could reach out to its members who would consider abortion and offer up alternatives: the church is a wealthy organization and could surely find great homes for babies up for adoption. In fact, one of the few great organizations within the Catholic Church did exactly that: Catholic Charities.

However, in another appeal to the masses before the upcoming election, the Catholic Church renewed its hot-button issues to help Republicans. After all, Senate seats are at stake. In South Dakota, in a brazen act that ignores the Constitution, abortion is banned. Surely the church supports that effort, despite the fact that the foundation of this country was tossed out the window.

But it gets worse. It's one thing to support something that's happening, it's quite another to instigate it. Rather than find homes for those who have none, the Church has stopped Catholic Charities from organizing adoptions because they'd have to allow some gay parents to adopt under Massachusetts law. Never mind the fact that the organization has only allowed a handful of gay parents to adopt and in those few cases they were among the neediest and most handicapped, full-time Presidential candidate/part-time Governor Romney had meetings with the Catholic Church just as President Bush did with the Pope. Two non-Catholic politicians using the Catholic Church to do their bidding and the Catholic Church encourages the political-religious marriage. Well, in my eyes - like the Church's with my parents - there can be no divorce. The Catholic Church married politics in an attempt to advance hot-button issues instead of helping millions of Americans.

Millions of Americans. Millions of Americans. Millions of Americans. I just can't stop myself from thinking of that number. Like I said, I left the Church several months ago. I realized millions of Americans were being betrayed. I realized millions of Americans would lead a worse life. Tens of thousands will die this year because 44+ million Americans don't have health insurance. Millions more struggle to pay, living a slightly worse life. Somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 people have died in Iraq, sent there by a Republican government. Yet, what does the Catholic Church care about? Cells in a mother's womb and the few neediest kids who would have wicked (good) gay parents. I used to question my faith, but now I have all the answers: The Catholic Church, and the Boston Archdiocese in particular, doesn't deserve any support of the people they have abandoned: every American.

The Growing Rates of HIV in America

If anyone has been following HIV-related news over the past year or so, you'd know that HIV is growing rapidly in America among certain groups of people, especially African American women. There are a number of theories why, but today's Washington Post explored a promising theory: rising rates of African Americans in prison. Read the article in full, it's short and to the point - and very relevant to any state in this country.

I think the clear and quick answer to this rising epidemic is to try giving out free condoms to prisoners. I posted in detail on this subject over at Progress Now and I hope people will read my link to it. Free condoms could work, it could save this country millions and millions of dollars from preventing thousands of new HIV cases and, most importantly, it could save a lot of lives.

A lot of people will be against this policy because they view it as advocating gay sex (anything to stop The Gays!), but as the WashPo article pointed out - over half the prison population is doing it already. Bottom line: this isn't just about prisoners, this is about those they'll infect when they get out of prison. To save innocent lives, we need to stop HIV at the source. If progressives can properly advocate that position, we'll win over our conservative critics.

LNG Proposal for Boston Harbor

The Boston Globe had another article about the proposal to build an LNG facility in Boston Harbor, on one of the islands that's part of the national park. I posted a picture of an LNG import facility to give us all a better idea of what it would look like. To sum it up, they're damn ugly. Furthermore, the ships that carry the LNG won't become any new-wave art exhibit in town any time soon.




Still though, they are important to the region. People in the Greater Boston region need to decide if the pros are worth taking the cons in the construction of this project. The biggest concern is safety. Will this project be safe? Could an accident or bomb cause a massive explosion that would be seen and felt in Hull, just two miles away? Boston, at ten miles distance, seems to be safer.

According to Richard Clarke, the same Richard Clarke who President Bush ignored before 9/11, was hired by the LNG company, AES Corp, to study the safety of the project. That's the subject of today's Globe article. Richard Clark thinks it's safe.

Former White House counterterrorism official Richard A. Clarke, hired by AES Corp. to conduct a safety review of their proposed site on Outer Brewster Island for an LNG terminal, said terrorists would probably not target the island and even if a catastrophe occurred, it wouldn't reach populated areas.

Clarke, in his safety analysis, said Hull residents -- who are 2 miles from Outer Brewster -- would be more at risk if the town's wind turbine fell down than if an LNG tanker blew up. He also said two proposed LNG sites 10 miles off Gloucester would probably be safe, too.

Now, is Clarke right? While Clarke is certainly an expert on terrorism, does he know the full destructive capability of an LNG tank? More importantly, Clarke was hired by AES Corp - not by an independent source. While I believe it's more likely Clarke is being honest and frank, a second opinion is needed. However, it doesn't seem as if the AES Corp wants one.

State environmental chief Stephen Pritchard said unusual language in the bill excludes any environmental review until after the lease has been signed. Normally, a review is conducted before a project begins to move forward.

If Massachusetts wants to look seriously into this matter, it should conduct a full environmental review before any project can move forward. Richard Clarke's word is important, but it's an entirely different subject - safety - and doesn't replace a full environmental review.

Ultimately, I think John Kerry is right on this subject.

‘‘I do think the LNG proposal in Boston Harbor is worth looking at. It holds some promise and potential, and it’s worthy of being thoroughly explored.’’

The project should be further explored. Boston needs the gas (people sure felt it this winter) and the Everette facility is a risk to thousands of people.

[Clark] linked the closing of the Everett terminal -- a long-term goal of state officials deeply worried about a tanker catastrophe in Boston Harbor -- to the construction of Outer Brewster, saying ''you cannot close Everett without onshore storage of LNG."

If creating a new terminal in the Harbor, miles away from the population, means Everett could be shut down - this proposal becomes more attractive. Furthermore, the Boston Harbor National Recreational Area would stand to get $10 million a year from the AES Corp for allowing this project. A lot can be done with that kind of money, including making the national parks in Boston Harbor a more frequently visited tourist spot.

Still, some questions remain. The owners of the Everett LNG facility don't want to close. The land could perhaps be taken by eminent domain, but that will be a costly legal battle for the state. If this Outer Brewster project takes place, Everett's facilities should be closed. They are a danger to the population.

The Outer Brewster project faces an uphill battle at the state house - which is a very good thing. The state house is in a position to make sure the project is 100% safe, both from bombs and accidents as well as make sure it's environmentally sound. Any support for the LNG proposal in Boston Harbor should be very tentative.

PS: I'm looking forward to many comments on this subject, especially by people who may have a greater working knowledge on this issue or a completely different take. It should be interesting.

Mihos Says all the Right Things

Mihos wrote an Op-Ed today for the Boston Globe on "Why I'm Running as an Independent." Now, I'll summarize why in one phrase: political expediency. However, I thought I should pay homage to a wonderfully written (and terribly misleading) article.

Why is Mihos running as an Independent? George Washington convinced him!

WHEN GEORGE Washington announced his intent to depart the presidency, he left the American people with a stern warning regarding political parties: ''They are likely in the course of time and things to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government."

If only he could see things today.

Just like the rest of Miho's Op-Ed, it sure does sound good, at least to most people. However, let's not forget what's fueling his campaign: money from big business. I'm sure George Washington wouldn't be a big fan of that, either. Mihos is no different than any other candidate running for governor - except Deval Patrick, if we are to believe today's story - in that he has huge amounts of cash to fuel his campaign.

During the rest of Miho's Op-Ed, he sounded like a moderate. He wants political reform - stripping power away from lobbyists. He wants to fight for the little people "in a state where residents are leaving in droves." Most of all, he doesn't want to sound a thing like the current Republicans leading this state ("The politics of confrontation has replaced cooperation. How else to explain the stalled economic stimulus package or the travels and tribulations of Governor Romney?").

I have to say I'm stunned. Mihos is supposed to have a big mouth. However, his Op-Ed is exactly what the people will want to hear. His polling numbers will probably go up before they go down, which will hurt all the other candidates in this election.

However, the question remains, who will it hurt the most? Republicans or Democrats? If Mihos continues to sound like a man of the people - one never knows. Maybe I could be surprised, maybe his policies as governor would match his efforts in writing to invoke George Washington (who am I kidding?).

Slow News Day

In today's news, the Boston Globe investigates Deval Patrick's net assets.

He and his wife are now carrying mortgages worth a total of $5.9 million on their Milton home and a Berkshires vacation home. Based on the interest rates of the loans, which the Globe reviewed, the Patricks' mortgage payments are roughly $27,000 per month.

Is this news? Should I even be repeating this? Some people may think that I was going to write about Deval Patrick in this update; however, I'm much more concerned about the Boston Globe. Quite honestly, the Boston Globe may as well have made this headline for the story, "Candidate for Governor has Really Nice House."

I can't help but think the Globe likes to reveal financial news that calls into question the ability of people to afford to be governor. They absolutely destroyed Reilly's pick for Lt. Governor - and serves Reilly right for not digging at all. However, I can't help but be annoyed by articles like this because it just furthers the conception that one has to be wealthy to be in politics. Instead of investigating something useful, like the positive benefits of public funding for campaigns, we get to learn more about Patrick's vacation home in the Berkshires.

According to the article,

Patrick says that he and his wife can meet their loan obligations if he is elected governor, a post that pays $135,000 a year.

Does anything else matter? He's done nothing illegal or irregular - where's the story?

Still, the debt the couple is carrying raises a political question: If Patrick needs to draw on his own funds for his campaign, how much wealth does he have available to tap?

This is news? At the very end of the article, it finally mentions that Patrick's campaign has started to raise money at least on par with Reilly's campaign, but in the very same sentence it emphasizes that it doesn't really matter because he's so far behind.

Ever since Patrick announced he was going to run for Governor, he's faced endless news stories and Op-Eds on his lack of campaign resources. Yet, momentum has built in his campaign and he crushed Reilly in the caucuses. He's running a different kind of campaign, a grassroots campaign, that has had a lot of success despite his financial limitations. Now, that would be a great story for the Globe to write.

Reilly v. Deval Patrick

Deval has been repeatedly asking for a debate now. How can it be a bad thing? Let's give voters an early chance to see just what these candidates are about, so they aren't rushing to judgement quickly. Furthermore, if candidates are forced to take positions now, they'll be held accountable for any political gesturing and be much more likely to say what they actually believe in, before the race gets so tight that they feel the need to sacrifice their beliefs for political expediency.

Anyway, Deval got a taste of what he wanted when Jon Keller of Channel 4 cornered them: CBS 4, Boston.

And he wiped the floor of Reilly.

Reilly, Reilly Dumb

Please, Attorney General Tom Reilly, debate Deval Patrick. If you do, maybe you'll surprise yourself and do well?

In any event, it could be enough to stop the bleeding. Deval Patrick raising more money now than AG Tom Reilly? Wow. Talk about a massive turn-around.

Things aren't looking so good for Reilly. He never rebounded from his Lt. Gov. 1 day long nomination/debacle and with Patrick having crushed Reilly in the Caucuses, Reilly's campaign is starting to look bleak.