Why We Need to Take the Environment Seriously (with pictures!)

I told you all about my trip through the west coast and how it inspired me, but didn't have time to post pictures right then (seeing as how I was on vacation and all). So here's my evidence: the environment is worth protecting.

The first picture is one I took at Yosemite; the rest are from Saquoia National Park.

Taking the Environment Seriously

So, I'm in California right now. Yesterday, I was in Saquoia National Park. Um.. it's beautiful. Tomorrow? Yosemite. Then a quick long-ass drive through Death Valley and off to a different kind of jungle, the urban kind (Las Vegas).

Anyway, I drove from Las Angelas to where I'm staying at tonight - just east of Yosemite - and have gazed at nature in its most prestine and glorious. In just my short drive, I've been through deserts, mountain-deserts, woodland forests, farm country... all sorts of different landscapes and all of them are impressive. Or, as they say back home, wicked impressive.

However, what's more impressive is the fact that California has locked up all this land - adding up all the square miles of California's massive state and national parks and forests would surely amount to way more space than Massachusetts combined. There are parks in California bigger than Rhode Island alone (or at least I remember hearing that - and the two hour drive through Saquoia National Park and Monument does little to disprove it, especially considering only a small fraction of the park is available to drive through).

Not only that, but California has damn tough emission regulations. Maybe that's why the air seems so clean (outside of LA)? It's not like Massachusetts could emulate what California has done with open space and national treasures (park systems, etc.), since we're such a small and densely populated state (seeing all the open space I've driven through, I really wonder just how so many people live in California, really!). However, we can try to emulate their emission regulations and try to create even tougher environmental standards. We can power 2/3rds of Cape Cod through the power of wind. There are things we can do that California can't - we each have our own assets. I hope to see Massachusetts be a trend setter.

And I'll have to tour our states parks and forests, because if they're half as nice as what I've seen in California, it's well worth the visit.

Thanks Rep. Petersen and Sen. McGee

I just read the roll calls (in the comments) on the health care amendment and just want to thank both my State Senator and State Representative for voting against "studying it" further. We know enough about it, we don't need legislative death.

If liberals are going to say voting is a right, we need to back it up. Let's make it a right.

The fact the ConCon tucked it aside is disgraceful and leaves me in total doubt leaves serious doubt in my mind that the health care bill we passed will be anywhere near sufficient or actually last. The people who pushed this aside should be ashamed.

I called both Petersen and McGee's office this morning. Petersen was very open about the fact that he supported the amendment. Thanks, Representative Petersen. When you're running again, give me a buzz. I'll be the first to volunteer.

Senator McGee's aide refused to give a clear position, but suggested he supported health care. Well, today's decision by him showed that. I hope my phone call helped him make his decision, a phone call in which I explained that I feared, as a voter, what would happen to me after I graduated from college (in this lousy job market) a year from now.

I'd also be willing to help McGee in his next reelection if McGee continues to make progressive, good decisions like he did today.

So, while the amendment was essentially killed, I must thank my elected officials for both being on the right side of it - and for listening to their concerned constituents.

Today in Boston: Pride Rally and Senator Kennedy

Today's schedual:

8:30 AM - wake up.

9 AM - out of the house.

9:15 - went to Panera for some emergency fast-speed internet time since my Mom was on the phone, needed to read the news of the morning for today's big events *and* get my state rep and senator's phone number.

9:45 - breakfast finished (a muffin), heading to Wonderland to catch the Blue Line.

10:50 - in Boston. I wanted to go to the State House, but I had a brain fart and left at State... State Street. Whoops. So instead of paying another 1.25, I decided to walk it, which took about 20 minutes only because I went the wrong way at first LOL.

11:20 - Got to the rally, bumped into a friend I know, snapped some photos and had a good - though brief - time.

11:45 - Walked to the JFK Federal Interview, met up with some of my fellow netroot activists, and went through the security.

12 pm - Time for the day's purpose: a meeting with one of Senator Kennedy's top staffers. There were 5 or 6 of us there - a PhD, minister, lawyer, energy consultant... and little old me. I try to mentally keep up with those smarty pants and think I do alright, considering. BTW - folks - these are the bloggers of the world, not merely a bunch of angry, lefty whackos, huh?

At the meeting, we talked about a whole lot of issues. Generally, we like Senator Kennedy. The only reason he isn't on my "strongly supported" list is because of his Cape Wind position - and if he shifts just a tad more on it, I'll give him that distinction.

I'll post more on the meeting later because some of it was real top secret stuff (seriously, I'm not even kidding - and I'm not even talking about stuff from Kennedy's office) and I have to respect the anonymity of my peers in the activist networks.

But, I can safely say we talked about who we are; why we we're there; how we're (frequently) talking with the Kerry office; how we want to help Kennedy with his projects we support (and how could we do that better?). I think it's also okay to mention we discussed Fiengold's censure resolution and hoped that Kennedy would change his position on it, especially now that Hamden (the Supreme Court case on Gitmo) has come out.

Of course, I want to hold Kennedy accountable on Cape Wind, but there was a lot to talk about and - as a goal - we want to have a good repor with Kennedy before we really start pushing him because it will ultimately be more effective. Plus, I'm really the only one of the bunch that knows a lot about Cape Wind and need to work on updating everyone else.

The meeting lasted about an hour or so and I found it a pleasant experience. I think the aide (and his intern) seemed not only nice, but geniune, and I can generally sniff the phonies out in a heart beat. However, future meetings and dialogue will determine just how genuine the office is. However, they are paying attention. The aides and interns are reading the blogs and keeping up to date on the progressive revolution.

Though we weren't there for the marriage amendment, the aide was keen to discuss it (I think he knew some of us had just come from the protests there) and was generally interested in that conversation - so that really made me feel good about Senator Kennedy in his choice of staff... it's good to know he was so interested in marriage equality and that bodes well for Kennedy.

Btw, did I mention Kennedy has a sweet office - not just his office in general, but actually where his desk is... because that's where we were! It had an incredible view and all sorts of pictures a history buff like me would find fascinating (seeing as how Kennedy's a Kennedy and all). It was like stepping into a Museum.

1:30 ish - went out to lunch with my fellow netroot activists. We discussed the meeting, Iraq, corporations... and just about anything else. Anyone beside me find deep political discussions interesting? Again, I try to keep up with the mental heavy weights... it's a good thing bloggers aren't anything like Lieberman and Republicans like to paint us.

Then I decided to go back to the protests. I got lots of pictures, I'll post more later (running out of time). I was going to go into the chambers and watch the ConCon in person - and I probably should have (since there was lots of room for spectators at that point), but I had prior engagements and the ConCon was only on the 4th amendment proposal - which means it wasn't going to be voted on (in all likelihood) today. So I selfishly started heading home.

5ish - Stopped by Radio Shack to buy a new cord for my Digital Camera so I could upload some pictures for my readers (lost the old one). That was key, so give me some major thanks and praise for spending $20 on you all =p

Wrote Kos Journal on Dunkelbarger and Media: Important

More than anything, I'm bothered by the fact that the media is completely ignoring an important political race. Rep. Lynch is in favor of a lot of unpopular positions, even in the 9th Congressional District. He has an opponent who's intelligent, saner and it's not like Lynch should be automatically considered safe in the first place (he only won his primary with 39% of the vote and would have lost if the two candidates didn't split the progressive vote).

Well, this is a NATIONAL problem - and here's an example that is important to pay attention to at a large-scale level.

So, read it, comment and give a recommendation if you feel it's worthy. It'd mean a lot to me because I think this could be the most important Dkos journal I've ever written - and it's so hard to get people to read there when there's hundreds of journal submissions everyday.

Amendment's Voter Fraud Issues and Bonifaz

Bonifaz could have just earned a friend in me today, because he highlighted an essential point that I've been saying over and over again.

The anti-gay marriage amendment is surrounded by allegations of fraud and there's been nothing to convince me that a serious investigation has been done. Search through my archives on gay marriage and marriage equality and I have lots of links to stories about it, including a link to a video capturing the fraud in action. I'd post links to them right now, but a bad thunderstorm (with hail!) is going through and electricity is fading in and out (as well as my internet connection).

But here's some of what Bonifaz has to say - and it seems pretty reasonable to me.

John Bonifaz, Democratic candidate for Secretary of State, today issued this statement on the upcoming Constitutional Convention debate on the anti-gay marriage amendment:

“The proposed anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment remains under a cloud of fraud. Prior to holding any vote on the amendment, the legislature should fully investigate whether the amendment is, in fact, properly before it or whether it has arrived there via illegal conduct.

“Within days after the signature-gathering began for this ballot measure, allegations surfaced throughout the state that signature collectors were using bait-and-switch tactics to deceive people into signing the petitions. MassEquality, a coalition defending equal marriage rights for same sex couples in Massachusetts, fielded numerous complaints of signature collectors who asked people to sign a petition to allow the sale of beer and wine in grocery stores, and instead collected the actual signatures on the anti-gay marriage form. Others reported signing a petition to ban greyhound racing and then discovered their names appearing in support of the anti-gay marriage amendment.

“Article 48 of our state constitution does not guarantee that a proposed constitutional amendment may proceed to a vote before the legislature if the signatures were gathered for the measure in a fraudulent manner.

“Secretary of the Commonwealth William F. Galvin failed to conduct any comprehensive investigation of these fraud charges. To the contrary, he certified all of the signatures presented for the anti-gay ballot measure despite acknowledging that thousands of those signatures matched the signatures presented for the measure related to the sale of beer and wine.

Emphasis mine.

Since the recent SJC ruling, I've recently swung my stance on the issue in favor of voting now (and backing David's new blog, though I don't support calling the Phoenix's editorial disgraceful: pre-SJC decision, the Phoenix was in the right).

IF the Legislature decides to hold off on a vote on the amendment in order to fully investigate the fraud surrounding it, I would be supportive. If anything, I would hope even the people in favor of the amendment would want an investigation. After all, voter fraud *was* committed. The only question is just how bad was it - and voters deserve to know.

Dunkelbarger Needs a Make-Over

And by make-over, I'm not referring to any metaphorical suggestions. I don't think Dunkel should change any positions (that I know of). Nor do I think he should change his rhetoric (from the quotes I've read, I'm quite impressed).

(Picture from Dunkelbarger's blog.)

I actually think Dunkel needs a make-over. You know, some new clothes. Contacts. Maybe a facial? Am I asking too much here? While hiring an image consultant may be a tad bit expensive, he should at least go with watching"What not to Wear." He could try contacting Carson and the rest of the Fab Five from Queer Eye over for an emergency visit. Or perhaps he just needs a trip to the salon? Whatever he wants is fine with me, but let's get it done soon. There's only a few months in this race and we need a little buzz, like when John Kerry got caught with Spray-On tan running for President.

To the casual eye, someone who normally wouldn't pay attention to politics, Dunkel may come off as unprofessional. People expect a Congressman to look the part - and whether or not image should be important, it is.

With that said, here's a few things I urgently recommend be improved:

His hair. It reminds me of well... me. In that I don't style my hair. In that I rarely go to a hair dresser at all. Of course, it doesn't help that he has a slightly receding hairline, but then again so does 50-60% of every person with a penis over the age of 40. But it extends beyond that: he needs to wear his sleeves buttoned. Try to wear a jacket, even when parading during Independence Day. Look sharp, look professional, look like a United States Congressman.

So someone call up Carson. Make it a show! I wouldn't be shocked if they'd jump for the chance to give a make-over to an aspiring politician, especially one friendly to the gays in a competitive district. It could be just what the doctor ordered to get this campaign a-kick'n and Dunkel stories littering the pages of the Boston Globe. Just look at the buzz Johnny Damon and Kevin Millar got!

For more on the race, read Adam Reilly's fantastic story, one of the few media outlets to cover the race. After all, whether or not Dunkel takes my advice, he's worth a second and third look. On the issues that matter, it seems like he's far more representative of people who live in the 9th Congressional District of Massachusetts than the current schill Representative, Rep. Lynch.

A General Election Commercial

Republicans have closed your schools, they've cut your police and fire departments down, made you less safe, put your kids' futures in danger, created a "giant sucking sound" ... of jobs and residents fleeing from our state,

[and they]

created the pothole that popped your tire.

My name is Deval/Tom/Chris and I'll solve these problems. Vote for me and we can all take part in making Massachusetts an even better place for us all to live in.

Paid for by Chris/Tom/Deval for Governor.

The quotes come from Centralmaguy on this thread and I thought it was brilliantly strong-worded, yet poignant; it's the sort of ad which can deliver votes.

Use of language is paramount in an election. Not only do Democrats have to be clear, but messages must distinguish the systematic differences between Democrats and Republicans - which is one of the key components to victory. If Democrats want to win more often around the country, no point will help propel us to victory more than this: Republicans either create or ignore problems, Democrats solve them. Republicans think we're all on our own, to scavenge our bread and water; Democrats think we're all in this together.

From immigration (such as the McCain-Kennedy bill, if House Repubs didn't derail it) to pay-as-you-go, budget-surplus government (Clinton - not Bush, Bush or Reagan), the prognosis rings true everytime. Now let's help propel one of the three (and hopefully the current front-runner, Deval Patrick) to victory.

Who Wants My Vote?

For most of the races, I'm decidedly undecided. I don't know where I stand on the LG race - leaning towards Andrea and Deb. I don't know where I stand on the Sec. of State race.

However, if anyone wants my vote, here's a great way to get it: go talk to every member of the state legislature who is known to have voted against marriage equality... and ask them to reconsider. Do it personally, so they know it matters.

I don't mind photo ops, stunts or whatever because it would be a great deed. Does Tom Reilly want to convince me he really is in favor of marriage equality? Then go and lobby for marriage protection - take actual time out of your day to do it. Because, the way I see it, it's not enough to just say "I'm for gay marriage," you've got to put your money where your mouth is.

Deval Patrick has made it an important part of every speech I've seen him talk in. He doesn't just say "oh, I favor it," but actually, really talks about it. In other words, it's not the sort of issue he supports but is too afraid it may politically hurt him to talk about. It's not like Joe Biden's support of Angry Lieberman.

The bottom line is I've been a supporter of Deval Patrick since I knew what he was all about - for months now. However, I'm a person who expects service in the right direction from my elected officials. If Tom Reilly wasn't willing to do everything in his power to stop a ConCon motion, then fine. He says he would vote against it - well, tell that in person to everyone who is known to actually feel that way. The motion only needs 50 votes to move on. If Tom Reilly could convince 10-15 people who otherwise would vote yes to change votes, then he just may get a second look by me. Heck, even if I would vote against him during the primary, I would be that much more enthusiastic about supporting him if he won anyway - which, despite today's poll that shows his trending down - is still a very real possibility.

In fact, a bold move like I suggested could just be the press he needs to gain lots of new support.

Update: I don't agree with everything Brian Rainey said, but here's a blurb I thought especially poignant:

Let's face it. "The people" cannot vote on things that have a far greater impact on their real life than same-sex marriage ever could. For example, "the people" cannot decide whether or not to bring the troops back from Iraq. "The people" can't even decide whether or not they want a Wal-Mart in their community because corporations supposedly have "rights." No one on the Christian Right ever suggests that people should have more control over important political decisions, except when they want to whip up bigotry to deny people their civil liberties.

So before anyone suggests that I'm against democracy because I feel civil rights shouldn't be up to the whims of a majority, I suggest you take a critical look at yourselves and ask just why *this* debate is so stirring, when no one is suggesting we vote on Iraq or whether or not Wal-Marts should be able to be built in community at an individual level. It just seems to me that people are being a whole lot less supportive over this issue than they would otherwise be - and it just so happens to be about The Gays! I'm not saying there's a link, I'm just putting that idea forward. It makes one think.

In any event, I maintain my opinion: if you're really for marriage equality and running for office, then be at the State House tommorow and Wednesday and talk to everyone who would ban a certain segment of society from their basic civil rights merely because they happen to have a less common preference. I'll be there. How about Tom Reilly, Deval Patrick, Chris Gabrieli, Silbert, Goldberg, Murray, Galvin, Bonifaz and any other candidate who has said they support marriage equality?

David at BMG Couldn't Be More Wrong on the Anti-SSM Amendment

David either thinks it's his job to regulate the facts or only pretends to pay attention to Bay State politics and news, because his latest update to BMG couldn't be more offensive - or so strongly worded. I just wonder if he really is progressive or one of the increasingly less common stone-age democratic DINOs that don't really care about progressive issues, but are as blue in the face as Angry Joe Lieberman after he lost the Connecticut debate (to a real progressive).

Well, actually, I don't wonder. Because time after time, he's proven himself to be a progressive in sheep's clothing. He just loved Bush's immigration position, all 4-5 sentences of it, and thinks Massachusetts should bankrupt itself because voters, years and years ago, wanted to reduce state income tax (apparently, hindsight isn't 20-20). He's no progressive at all, merely a product of Massachusetts's outmoded machine democratic party. Left of center, maybe, but couldn't give a crap about the real people that are effected by matters of government policy.

I'm sorry if I'm being a little on the strong side, but he essentially skips all the inconvienant facts of this Phoenix editorial and proceeds to call them disgraceful.

Disgraceful? Really? Not just wrong, but disgraceful? Wow, those whackos at the Phoenix must have done something really bad to be called disgraceful... so what was it? Endorsed Mitt Romney for President in 2008? Suggested we establish permanent bases over in Iraq? Tell everyone to go watch a Tom Cruise movie? Eat children?

Oh, yea, they stuck up for the GLBT community. That earns them the label "disgraceful" from someone who pretends to represent an entire progressive community. Don't make me laugh.

Apparently, David was mad that the Phoenix thinks we should use parliamentary procedures to avoid voting on the Same-Sex Marriage ban. He says it's unconstitutional, but avoids mentioning the fact that the Same-Sex Marriage ban is unconstitional anyway: it was an amendment strictly created to overturn a court case, which in this state isn't allowed (but Tom Reilly, the so-called supporter of marriage equality, decided to skip matters of principle then... and here as well).

(Update: The SJC ruled on what I mentioned above and found it to be legal. I disagree with the opinion, but I'm not going to be too harsh on them, other than say that I think it was a little sheepish as the language in the state constitution seems quite clear to me.)

Would I be remiss to point out that a lawyer who served as clerk to not one, but two (TWO!!) SCOTUS Justices should have figured that out? Oh, wait, that's right... they weren't exactly the liberal ones on the court, were they? Fitting for BMG's Dino Flintstone of left-wing politics.

David not only calls the Phoenix d i s g r a c e f u l, but he propogates right-wing talking points Mitt Romney and Karl Rove just love to spout (like 'we just need to put it up to a vote!' 'let the people decide' 'up or down' blah blah blah... Isn't that what Lieberman said when he let Scalito get on the bench of the SCOTUS?) Parliamentary procedures be damned, let's put everything to a vote. Illegal wiretapping? Public opinion polls say yes! Free speech? Public opinion polls say no! No matter that democratic values brought forth parliamentary procedures to begin with (those pesky checks and balances), let's leave our civil rights to the whims of the masses.

Want the bottom line? Readers, we have a new Democracy in America - the rabid kind. And meet David de Toqueville over at BMG, I hear he has a bridge to sell ya.

David, you're wrong. So was the Boston Globe when it wrote the same invalid points you and Mitt Romney tried to make, but at least they didn't call people disgraceful for trying to defend Civil Rights. In all honesty, that's the only disgraceful thing that happened on your blog - vociferously attacking defenders of Civil Rights is never a good thing. I wouldn't be writing this if you merely said the Phoenix was wrong - but no, you had to go all hyperbole on your readers.

But this isn't about you, David. It's about me! Civil Rights should never be placed on any ballot, where demogogues charge the masses and strip the rights of people left and right. When you put Civil Rights on the ballot, they lose. State after state has banned marriage equality and let me just say I'm glad to call the Bay State home.

My advice to David at BMG? Stick to doing the Weekly Traffic Reports, leave the rest of the blogging to the real professionals progressives. Oh, and I hope the singing career is going well, because your vision of the law seems to be about as hazy as your hindsight. (Update: I'm striking that last sentence, even though I thought it was pretty funny - and I hope David didn't take it too seriously - because of the way the SJC ruled.)

Update: I added additional content in this blog because of today's SJC ruling; wherever that content was added, I put it in parenthesis with an "Update" in italics.

I'm not going to pretend to be disappointed in today's SJC ruling, especially since they ruled in favor of it 6-0.

The Court's decision:

The plaintiff's claim is that the proposed amendment, which seeks to overrule the rule of constitutional law announced in Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003) (due process and equal protection clauses of Massachusetts Constitution bar limiting marriage to heterosexual couples) constitutes the "reversal of a judicial decision" and therefore is excluded from the initiative process by art.

Well, saying there can be no "reversal of a judicial decision," seems pretty clear to me. But then the court goes on to essentially explain that what the Constitution really means is that the Legislature can't reverse a specific court case... but I guess reversing that case's decision is just fine and dandy. Whatever.

Like I blogged about in the blog just above this one - urging candidates who want to be elected to lobby to kill this amendment the old fashioned way, voting it down - is a way for them to really show they support marriage equality (and something I expect if they want my vote).

If Tom Reilly, Chris Gabrieli, the Lt. Gov candidates and any of the others say they really support marriage equality, then they should spend 5-10 hours over Tuesday and Wednesday seriously lobbying legislators who are known to favor this blatantly bigoted amendment. It's time for all the candidates to put their most important asset where their mouth is: time they'd normally use to campaign. Deval Patrick went to the Gay Pride parade, which I applaud, and I expect him to be calling on the State House to convince our elected representatives to truly support everyone and not be controlled by either our Catholic Prince, Cardinal O'Malley, or our Chief Executive Campaigner, Mitt Romney.

Everyone should call their state Reps and Senators and tell them to vote against this new Constitutional Amendment. Why? It isn't anyone's business if either two guys or two girls want to get married, so long as they're both consenting adults. But certain people find it morally reprehenisble that gay people even exist - and will keep them down at all costs. State after state has even banned partner benifits. Gay couples can't even be allowed to get health insurance together! It's rediculous and must be put at a stop here and now. If the amendment gets less than 50 votes on Wednesday, it will be.

If You Like Ryan's Take

You'll really like ProgNow. Why? Well, because I write it. And other people! Plus, it covers events that actually happen outside of Massachusetts... in a sharp and witty way. I like to think of it as sort of a Wonkette that actually cares about politics (and not just pokes fun), plus a little Americablog stuck in there for balance. So there's a good mix of short, witty updates and the occasional real opinion piece, or as I like to call them "Heavy Hitters."

Back in the day... like a few months ago, I actually was more dedicated towards that site and had more readers there (updating 3-4 times a day), but I felt the events in Massachusetts were too important to keep spending huge amounts of time on that website. So I thought I'd take a step back, reassess things, and when I was ready to write ProgNow again, bring new writers with me. And that's just what I did.

After all, I can't just write about Deval Patrick, Chris Gabrieli and Tom Reilly all the time. And Boston Politics, while important, isn't the only thing my genius political mind focuses on. So I hope to see some of you over there commenting, leaving suggestions and telling me just what you like and don't like. Oh, and writing of course, I need one or two more of those =p

Holding the Media Accountable: COVER THE RACES!

I thought I should follow up on my thirst for knowledge and read some Boston Globe coverage of the 9th Congressional primary race between Dunkelbarger and Rep. Lynch.

Except, there wasn't any coverage... since December of last year. So, in disgust, I wrote the Boston Globe a Letter to the Editor, we'll see if it gets published.

Here was the content:

As a daily subscriber to the Boston Globe, I expect high quality election coverage. However, according to a search of the online Globe archives, the Boston Globe has only written three articles about Phil Dunkelbarger, the Democratic challenger to US Rep. Steve Lynch - and none since December of 2005.

With the primary only weeks away and many questions to be asked, I certainly hope the Globe will pay close attention to this race. After all, Rep. Lynch supports the Iraq war, has a poor record on women's choice and voted for the Patriot Act. The people of the 9th District, which includes parts of Boston, deserve all the facts.

I suggest we all look up local newspapers in the 9th District and see if they've been covering the election. It deserves to be covered; the issues at stake are large. If we can't find any articles, we need to be good consumers and complain. Write LTTEs like I did.

I'll be on the lookout for articles on the 9th seat and keep you all posted. My biggest issue is actual media coverage - even in little old Swampscott, when 10 + year State House vet Rep. Doug Petersen faced a primary challenger last time around, the tiny, weekly Swampscott Reporter had some decent coverage, especially coming up to the actual primary.

Did I mention Petersen had at least 60% of the vote, if not significantly more? It wasn't a close race, but at least there was coverage and a primary challenger got to have his voice heard (a challenger I didn't support at all).

PS: While I think the media should at the very least *cover* actual races, Unhappycamper has a few policy questions for Rep. Lynch I hope you all will read (like why he voted for that crazy Iraq war pre-election Republican pandering House resolution).

I'm beginning to think Massachusetts can do better, but I keep reminding myself 'this is not my district.' But if the Boston Globe isn't going to lay down the facts, at least I can try to do that much for my close neighbors in the 9th.

Bay State Should Fund Special Ed First (Case Study: Swampscott)

The Swampscott Reporter has a pretty good editorial that I missed from a few weeks back. Click here to read the whole story, but the general gist is thus:

Special education costs every town and city huge amounts of money, to the degree that local towns and cities really can't be counted on being able to afford *and* being able to fund a quality school for everyone else. The way the system is set up now, everyone loses.

For the second year in a row, Swampscott's partner in crime rival neighbor, Marblehead, has recieved significantly more money from the state per pupil, despite the fact that Marblehead is probably a wealthier (and slightly larger) town. I even wrote a letter to the editor to the Reporter about this last year, criticizing Representative Doug Petersen, who I've always deeply admired.

Swampscott, on the other hand, is a relatively small town (14,500 people) that - despite being a wealthy town - struggles to pay for its school system. There's little to no commercial base, no major mall and about 5,000 fewer citizens than towns like Marblehead. Our town has a large base of seniors and people nearing that age. The phenominon is common, affecting other nearby towns like Lynnfield, but unlike many of those towns Swampscott students have sufferred some major cuts because of failed Prop 2 1/2 innitiatives.

Part of the problem arises because Swampscott has four elementary schools when a lot of towns its size would only have two, but statistics show that smaller elementary schools perform better. Swampscott's smallest elementary school (and the one I went to), Machon, finished in the top 10 of MCAS scores for the entire state. It routinely performs as well better than the Swampscott's school that serves the most prosperous neighborhoods (those Stanley School Snobs). But, the town's "master plan" is to shut it down (never mind the fact that Machon also serves the poorest students in Swamspcott too, the only true middle and working class neighborhood in the town). Why? To save money. But at what cost?

Ultimately, towns and cities would be better served by serving those who need it most, first: students with special needs. The state should pay every single necessary special education dollar before it doles out any other educational funds. Then give it to the districts that need it most.

Serious education reform is needed in this state - not necessarily to improve the educational system, because we have the best one in the country. However, we need to streamline it. The biggest problem that exists now is inequity, because of stupid formulas and the state's reliance on property taxes to fund school systems. If we could arrange a better way to fund schools in this state, truly no one would be left behind.

However, I don't know if this state has the sort of courageous leaders to enact that necessary change. The only person I've seen so far even talking about it is Deval Patrick (and all his local aid reform/property tax relief talk) - but he hasn't won the election yet.

PS: In case the link goes poof, as has been known to happen on the Swampscott Reporter Online, here's some pertinent quotes:

OK, we've been here before. Marblehead gets hundreds of dollars per pupil more from the commonwealth of Massachusetts than Swampscott does.
Why? Because politicians created a "formula" for distributing what they call "local aid" from the state to the cities and towns decades ago. It includes many factors, including income, the value of taxable property, local "effort" and a host of other factors, including how many kids in your local schools qualify for and get reduced price lunches.
It doesn't matter why Swampscott gets less in this matrix of numbers. What matters is that it hurts people, real people, the kids who are supposed to benefit.
That's why selectmen and the town administrator, together, hit the nail on the head Monday night after everyone had gone home and everybody turned off the television: Legislators should fix this and not just for Swampscott's benefit but for all
the right reasons.
Legislators are too timid to mess with the formula, despite more obvious inequities each year, because some of them represent communities that will lose money. That's the real world.
But, our selectmen said, the right thing to do is to fund special education, in rich towns and poor cities, right off the top of the pile of money the state plans to dole out each year. In other words, make sure the kids who need the money most, get the money first.
Seems pretty simple to us.
What happens now is that the state looks at the socio-economic numbers - it thinks everyone in Swampscott is rich - and determines that towns like ours, Lynnfield and a bunch of others really don't need the money, so they send less.
That leaves the towns in the lurch, struggling to be sure special education is funded properly, at the least amount possible, but also taking available budget money away from the other kids.
In other words, every kid gets a little less than he or she deserves and kids from not-so-rich families who need special education get short shrift. Real world stuff
here.
Not fair. The selectmen's idea is a good one and should be considered by legislators with guts. Who knows, Swampscott might even do worse financially; nobody ran the numbers Monday night.
But fair is fair. And legislators should like that.

A Transcript to the Lieberman-Lamont Debate, and News

Because I followed it so closely, I figure I should follow-up with the transcript and MSM article.

Should we Dunk Steve Lynch from Office?

Liveblogging the Liebermon-Lamont debate certainly pumped me up and gave me a little energy tonight and got me a-stirring. I'm sick of Democrats who don't care about democrats - and I believe that all our elected leaders must be held accountable to the constituents they're elected to serve.

If an elected official supports position after position that just doesn't make sense, it's high time to find someone better. During the debate, someone mentioned this BMG post, but I didn't pay it much thought. Now that I've had the time to go and read it for myself, I've reconsidered.

While I can't speak for the people of the 9th District, it seems to me like Steve Lynch leaves a lot to be desired. The little graphic makes it painfully obvious: Steve Lynch isn't looking out for the fiscal future of our country, isn't a big fan of privacy (be it woman's rights or the Patriot Act) and worst of all seems to think everything's all hunky and dory in Iraq, at least to the degree that he's given support to the war.

I highly doubt the 9th is in favor of the war and I equally doubt they support fiscal insanty by auctioning the future so we can have our fiscal cake and eat it too now. One of the BMG commenters made a good point: Steve Lynch is an incumbent, has a huge monetary advantage and likely a better get-out-the-vote (GOTV) machine... but does that mean we should just forget about the race?

No. Since there are no polls available (believe me, I've scowered), we don't really know just how safe Lynch's seat is. However, here is a golden opportunity to send Steve Lynch and DINOs everywhere a message. Every vote against Steve Lynch is a vote that will help him become accountable - or else. If Lynch loses, there's one less Iraqi war supporter. If he wins, but faces a primary challenger that forces him to spend money and campaign, he'll learn that he needs to rethink his political philosophy and actually listen to the people he serves.

It's time we make incumbents know that they are still held accountable for their actions. There are no free rides in American Politics.

I'd like to know a lot more about this race. If anyone can provide me any information on either of the candidates and the actual race, please let me know. I'd like to see more competition in Massachusetts races and will cover a plethora of them.

For more information, Dunkelbarger's campaign website and Lynch's website. Plus, Adam Reilly of the Boston Pheonix chimes in with a great (and fair) report. It's a must-read.

Liveblogging Lieberman's Debate at Rev Deb's

7:10 pm - "Senator Lieberman, you're the only
one in Connecticut whose been confused about my position on Iraq."

"This is not a single issue, Senator."

Lieberman thinks that by taking tough decisions, he should be given a blank check of support. Taking tough, principaled decisions can be a good thing, Senator Lieberman, but you still are accountable for that position.


7:12 pm - BTW Joe - Bosnia is not Iraq. For one thing, the Iraqis don't want us to be there. For another, we don't have 130,000 troops there and 2,500 people already killed fighting for a war not many people want.

7:13 pm - I just can't focus on the debate as much as I'd like. I keep asking myself just what is an "Independent Democrat?"

Joe, you're NOT for an open-ended committment? Then when should we leave?- Oh, wait. Stop that thought. Joe just brought up 9/11. How many more times should I expect that tonight?

Ned just said we should have had hearings over the illegal wiretapping. Good to know that someone in Connecticut who was in the Senate thinks so.

7:19 - I don't really like the North Korean question. I don't understand how it would help show the difference between either of the candidates. What are they supposed to do? Saythey aren't in favor of trying to end tensions between North Korea?

7:22 - Talking about the common good (not lobbyists) = key to winning again. I'm becoming a fan of Ned.

7:23 - Joe's securing the survival of liberty by running as a Democrat and Independent at the same time. Good to know.

BTW Joe, it's not a single issue campaign. You let Alito get on the bench, your women's rights record is blotted... Bankruptcy bill anyone? But even if it were a one-issue campaign (though it isn't), Iraq is such an important issue that it's perfectly valid: it's cost us hundreds of billions, 2,500 Americans and 50,000 Iraqis.

Joe, Ned would win. You're the one whose put Democratic majorities on the line.

7:28 - Potwholes or principals, Joe? Which is it? (Ned got a good line in).

BTW: RevDeb's house was ablaze with it. A bunch of middle aged women screaming at the TV makes my day! LOL

7:30 - It's a little difficult to be both far left and cozy with Republicans, yet Lieberman calls him both. Joe just got called on it tonight. These candidates are going for the jugular, folks. Ned's doing well though.

7:33 - "Who is Ned Lamont?" Well, Joe, he's right next to ya. Oh, and don't criticize him on money. You're campaign is drowning on it, not that it's helped you so far.

7:39 - "There you go again," says Joe Lieberman. Nice Reagan talking point. DINO to the core - or should I say "Independent Democrat."

7:49 - Joe is just wearing me out. He's not a nice guy. He's sneaky and conniving. I think the people of Connecticut are going to see it.

7:55 - My final thoughts: the Debate truly showed the difference between the two candidates. Joe's a snivelling, conniving, lying ass... and Ned seems like a solid Senator. Of course, I'd biased (and prejudiced)...

However, Ned really does seem like a nice, decent guy - and Lieberman really does seem like an expert politician. I think the choice is obvious.

Update: MSNBC's poll pretty much says what I said: 73% thought Ned won, 2.2% thought it was a tie. In other words, Lieberman is in a LOT of trouble.

So Much for Marriage Equality... in New York

I guess this just means there's one more reason Massachusetts is greater than NY. So far the score must be 41 to nothing.

Just look at it, we have guys like Jonathan Papelbon as our cultural icons:

Papelbon is young, fearless (just LOOK at his backpack!) and going to the All-Star game as the best closer in baseball so far this season.

NY? Try this on for size:

Not only is Randy Johnson the scarriest guy alive, but he kills birds - and probably all flying creatures too - with explosive, killer fastballs (which lately are erratic, explosive, killer fastballs). It wouldn't shock me if he eats children and finishes with a sub .500 record.

So baseball doesn't do it for any of you?

In Massachusetts, you get the best education in the world. Our state's children finished tops in the country in both English and Math on national exams. Our myriad colleges are among the best in the word, including Harvard and MIT, which are second to none. People call Boston the new Athens and it's not like we only have one big college town... and city (can anyone say Amherst and Worcester?)

New York? Okay, I'll give them Yale (because what is Connecticut if not a small burrough of NYC?)... but so what? That school is crazy and gives me little-boy, wake-up-in-the-middle-of-the-night, mommy-I-just-peed-my-pants nightmares. Hello, did any of you see that movie "Skull and Bones" or just witness a Presidential election where both of the candidates were members? Just thinking about all that Skull and Bones 'take-over-the-world' nonsense reality scares the bejeezes out of me.

Not convinced yet? Well, just take a look at the local medias. In Massachusetts, you get news like this:

Taking on Governor Mitt Romney and the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, 165 prominent business and civic leaders are publicly calling for the Legislature to reject a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

The group, which includes leading bankers, healthcare executives, lawyers, and leaders of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, has purchased an ad in The Boston Globe that says the amendment would ``take away rights." It urges lawmakers to ``move on to other important issues like strengthening the economy, improving our schools, and protecting our neighborhoods."

The signers include Patriots owner Robert Kraft and his wife, Myra; real estate developer Robert Beal; Mayor Thomas M. Menino; chamber president Paul Guzzi, and more than 20 members of the chamber's board of directors; architect Graham Gund; author Robert B. Parker; venture capitalist Richard M. Burnes Jr.; Boston Foundation president Paul S. Grogan; and Stacey Lucchino, who is married to Red Sox chief executive Larry Lucchino.

In New York? Um... try this on for size:

In New York, the Court of Appeals said in a 4-2 decision that the state's marriage law is constitutional and clearly limits marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

The New York decision said lawmakers have a legitimate interest in protecting children by limiting marriage to heterosexual couples and that the law does not deny homosexual couples any "fundamental right" since same-sex marriages are not "deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition."

File this under "ya gotta laugh to keep from crying" and remember that Massachusetts's hold on marriage equality is tenuous when its part of a Federal Government that tries to ban it every year. State by state, people are being kicked when they are down. With marriage laws on the books, mad evangelicals are demanding the end to their suffrage by having to watch gay people - hundreds of miles away in Massachusetts - getting married every now and then. Wow, I really feel bad for them! I mean, look at how we effect their lives and everything! Doom and gloom, doom and gloom...

In the end, those who seek to defend the indefensible and keep two consenting adults who love each other from becoming married aren't doing it for the children. If any of this was about the children, the NY Supreme Court would have allowed equality in marriage because thousands of children are forced to be bastards under state law. Gays and lesbians are already parents, they've helped raise over a million well-adjusted children in this country (literally!) Why not protect those children further by allowing them to have married parents?

No, the NY Supreme Court won't listen to reason. Instead, it seeks to view "fundamental rights" through the narrow "tradition"lens of this "nation's history." The same history that includes the most brutal form of slavery that ever existed and the repression of every single woman (up until very recently). You'd think we'd have learned our lesson about restricting rights?

Perhaps we should all just be pleased that only 5-10% of this country (and their 1-6 million children) are barred from enjoying the benefits of a civil marriage? I mean, isn't that a small sacrifice to pay for keeping up our nation's history and traditions?

I finally get why all those crazy nuts in the South love them their Confederate flags and General Lee magnates. They aren't doing it because they hate black people or even America - they're doing it because they're all such devout students of history. That's why they all believe in evolution!

I like to say this to myself everyday, but it bears repeating; thank goodness I live in Massachusetts.

People Are Getting it on Taxes

Promises to cut taxes just aren't winning votes anymore, because people have seen the evidence of what it means to gut the federal government: Fewer jobs, worse schools, budget deficits and a real fiscal crisis.

Here's hoping local politicians are getting it, too, because no where is this phenominon more true than here - in Massachusetts.

Town after town has voted to make property taxes skyrocket because of innapropriate tax cuts, wasteful spending and serious budget cuts. IF people just cared about tax cuts, why would they vote to raise property taxes by hundreds if not thousands of dollars - often on a regular basis?

People need to give this article to Kerry Healey, Christy Mihos, Tom Reilly and Chris Gabrielli ASAP. Are they listening? (Because voters are.)

Let's stop handicapping the poor and elderly by building the foundation of our educational system on a house of cards property taxes, where the richest towns get the best schools (and all the working classes, elderly and others scavenge up every last bit of resource to try to afford the homes they've lived in for decades). Heaven forbid people live in the cities and towns that have voted down Prop 2 1/2 overrides all these (Mitt Romney) years. I really feel for them - and for my mother, who's seeing her property taxes go up by about a thousand dollars even though she hasn't seen a raise above the rate of inflation in years.

Just Called the DSCC

I've had enough of this. Joe Lieberman does not get to run as a Democrat and independent - and get away with it. Chuck Schumer, head of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee (and the Sr. Senator from New York) said that he'd support Joe Lieberman no matter what - including if he ran as an Independent.

Outrageous. Everyone should call the DSCC and let them know we will NOT accept that.

202-224-2447

Tell them that as Democrats, we expect our elected officials to support DEMOCRATS, not independents. Ned Lamont, the guy whose challenging Joe Lieberman in the primary, has stated he'd support the primary winner... apparently, Joe Lieberman is a sore loser (and he hasn't even lost yet!).

I called, it took 20 seconds. Will you? Please do it. We CAN make our elected leaders be responsible, IF they know we're going to hold them accountable.

You Call this a Headline Article? Shame on the Boston Globe!

The issue of immigration has exploded in Massachusetts, animating the gubernatorial race, spurring legislators to attempt crackdowns, lighting up talk radio lines, and sending both sides of the debate to rallies and protests.

Oh, really? How interesting? Where are these rallies and protests? What percent of Massachusetts is "exploded." Has it really animated the gubernatorial race, or is it just something the media is focused on?

I'm truly interested in these questions, but none of them are answered in the article. However, we learn that John DePetro had lots of callers who apparently were overwhelmingly against illegal immigration. How many callers? I don't know, the Globe didn't say. Just lots and lots.

``The real live impacts of immigration are being felt beyond urban centers," said Michael Graham, a WTKK radio talk show host who focuses almost exclusively on the issue. In ``Springfield and Medford people are saying, `What do you mean, I have to learn another language to order a doughnut? I don't live in New York. That's not how it's supposed to work here.' "

Oh, really? So he's a.. ah.. expert? You sure he isn't a conservative expert, Yvonne Abraham and Scott Helman?

Despite my gut feelings, I decided to read on. We learn a Republican congressman has made bills on the subject (there are still Republicans elected in Massachusetts? Who'd have thunk't?) I also learned something pretty scary.

See, my mother has a hard time distinguishing between immigrants and illegal immigrants. She doesn't get that just because there are 20 immigrants refacing my grandmother's retirement apartment complex that they aren't also 20 Americans. She just assumes that most of them are illegal immigrants, therefore stealing American jobs. Folly, I say, it could be a safe assumption in Texas that half were illegals... but in Massachusetts? Chances are greater that 20 Americans have a job than 20 Americans just lost one.

Well, apparently the Globe has the same - how should I put it? - ill-guided philosophy on a front-age headline.

State Representative Stephen P. LeDuc represents Marlborough, a city where the number of immigrants doubled during the 1990s to about 16 percent, with many coming from Brazil, India, and Guatemala.

So what exactly does that have to do with illegal immigration? Why should this be a lightning post issue for the gubernatorial race?

But demographics have made the issue more immediate for more people, specialists said. At the 2000 Census, about 1 in 7 Massachusetts residents was foreign-born, and since then, immigration, already at a 50-year high, has continued to accelerate. Of the estimated 1 million foreign-born residents of Massachusetts,

Again, why? What does this have to do with illegal immigration? Oh, wait... I forgot... it takes 50 words in one paragraph to get to an actual phrase that has to do with the point of the article:

about 200,000 are undocumented.

While I hardly doubt that this issue is as truly big as the Boston Globe puts it (without a shred of statistical evidence, only anecdote after anecdote), the Globe needs some sort of big issue to sell newspapers. Apparently, the truly big issues in this campaign (Cape Wind, the Health Care bill, equality in marriage, property tax relief vs. income tax relief, take your pick) just aren't a-sell'n like they used to. Glad to see the Globe pandering to the right, or at least employing right-wing tactics to sell newspapers. Let's scare the public out of their wits, a little doom and gloom'll keep the subscriber base up. But, shouldn't Karl Rove get a byline? Or some stock options? I mean, come on, it's only fair!

The Suffolk Poll - Why I'm Excited (not what you all think).

Old news, but Deval seems to be winning this close race. You all know it. It's not even news at this point. While I'm sure many of you are expecting a crazy supporter going on and on about this newest poll and writing about how Deval's going to destroy all the competition because he's up by an amount above the margin of error (of more than 5%), in truth the race is still too early and too close for me to be making those exclamations. Any of the candidates can still win this thing.

However, there is a reason for me to be excited. It's not that Deval is winning, it's not the trends (Deval up, Reilly down) and it's not the fact that $3 million spent by Gabs in May *still* hasn't given Gabrieli the poll numbers he'd like...

It's that Deval Patrick is still unknown to 20% of the population. Huh? I'm happy he still has the lowest name recognition? Yes, I am. He's currently winning this race (albiet, potentially by a small margin)... and 1 in 5 people have never heard of the guy! He's the least known candidate and in very good condition to win the race now.

I've written the same thing a bunch of times, but I have to repeat myself: People who know of Deval Patrick tend to support Deval Patrick. As more and more people start to tune into this race, I'm confident they'll see exactly what I've been seeing for months. We need to get this guy in the Governor's Mansion Corner Office!

Then we need to build a modest Governor's house of some kind just in case someone from Great Barrington (in Western Mass) ever decides to run for Governor. After all, I have cousins there. Ya never know!