Turkey's getting ready to amp up their attacks against the Kurds, in Iraq.
We're twattling away in that country, just itching to invade Iran.
Meanwhile, we're losing our grip in the one country we had a reason to be in, Afghanistan. Seriously, how could this administration ever allow the Taliban to regain steam - and why isn't this nation camping on the lawn of Bush's Pennsylvania Avenue address, screaming for something to be done about it?
Why aren't the Democrats standing up to him?
What is going on with this country?
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
How Great People Can Have Bad Ideas
Before I hit the sack last night, I promised to hit on the subject of Arline Isaacson's public support of not continuing to support a robust, active MassEquality. Instead, she'd like the organization to become inactive - reduced to just a single person who can keep track of the important news, presumably keeping at the ready in case marriage equality is ever threatened in Massachusetts again.
Of course, that's short sighted. By the time that happens, perhaps in the form of a federal amendment, it could be too late. Waiting and doing nothing has never been a particularly great option in the history of battles for civil rights. Continuing to push the envelope and advance rights inch by inch has, interestingly enough, been a recipe for success. Who wants to wait for marriage equality to be threatened, when we could be spending that time protecting all glbt people - at least by giving them the same sort of basic protections and equalities every other American enjoys.
The sad thing here is Isaacson's recognized the key fact surrounding glbt rights in Massachusetts: we've now fought the biggest battle, the one that caused the bells to chime across the state and sent people like Marc Solomon riding horseback screaming "the bigots are coming." Just listen to Isaacson's own words.
There's a simple truth to life - it's easier to build off a foundation than from scratch. MassEquality's directions and mandates may need change after we successfully defended marriage equality in Massachusetts, but that doesn't mean its job is over. Now, we need to use MassEquality as a strong foundation to use for any number of other important issues, especially those that will require work done at Beacon Hill. Take away MassEquality and glbt people in Massachusetts will need another state-wide, glbt-rights organization, but this time it'll have to be built from scratch. This time, all those relationships now lost will have to be rebuilt. Yet, the new organization could never reproduce the same sort of energy, buzz and focus that existed since Goodridge - and thus, it would be much harder for it to ever become nearly as successful as MassEquality.
Thankfully, Arline Isaacson isn't the only talented woman with ideas on what MassEquality should do. Susan Ryan-Vollmer, editor of Bay Windows, luckily has a thing or two to say. Instead of allowing MassEquality to die, it should take on an expanded role in the GLBT community, fighting for more than just marriage equality. She brings up two great models for MassEquality: Empire Pride State Agenda (ESPA) and EqualityCalifornia. ESPA has used its legislative influence to help deliver millions of dollars to worthy, non-profit glbt organizations that clearly need it. They've shown that no smaller organization should fear the existence of a broad-based MassEquality, because such an organization could end up making all glbt organizations stronger and more successful.
EqualityCalifornia, on the other hand, has been very successful in getting dozens of laws and protections passed and signed by none other than Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. With things like 1913 still kicking around, along with a severe lack of protections in the Bay State for transgender people, MassEquality has a lot to learn from its Californian sister. Whatever MassEquality becomes, we'll all know soon: November 3rd is the date they'll decide. Let's hope they ignore Isaacson's suggestions and embrace everything Ryan-Vollmar has to say.
Of course, that's short sighted. By the time that happens, perhaps in the form of a federal amendment, it could be too late. Waiting and doing nothing has never been a particularly great option in the history of battles for civil rights. Continuing to push the envelope and advance rights inch by inch has, interestingly enough, been a recipe for success. Who wants to wait for marriage equality to be threatened, when we could be spending that time protecting all glbt people - at least by giving them the same sort of basic protections and equalities every other American enjoys.
The sad thing here is Isaacson's recognized the key fact surrounding glbt rights in Massachusetts: we've now fought the biggest battle, the one that caused the bells to chime across the state and sent people like Marc Solomon riding horseback screaming "the bigots are coming." Just listen to Isaacson's own words.
In an Oct. 22 State House News Service article, Isaacson called marriage a "white hot issue" that united the state’s LGBT organizations and said, "We will never, ever again rise to that level."Out of that storm, MassEquality grew and became the go-to organization for gay rights lobbying in the state. They grew trust and relationships with both legislators and constituents that, as Isaacson correctly noted, may never be formed again. And she wants to shut the organization down?
There's a simple truth to life - it's easier to build off a foundation than from scratch. MassEquality's directions and mandates may need change after we successfully defended marriage equality in Massachusetts, but that doesn't mean its job is over. Now, we need to use MassEquality as a strong foundation to use for any number of other important issues, especially those that will require work done at Beacon Hill. Take away MassEquality and glbt people in Massachusetts will need another state-wide, glbt-rights organization, but this time it'll have to be built from scratch. This time, all those relationships now lost will have to be rebuilt. Yet, the new organization could never reproduce the same sort of energy, buzz and focus that existed since Goodridge - and thus, it would be much harder for it to ever become nearly as successful as MassEquality.
Thankfully, Arline Isaacson isn't the only talented woman with ideas on what MassEquality should do. Susan Ryan-Vollmer, editor of Bay Windows, luckily has a thing or two to say. Instead of allowing MassEquality to die, it should take on an expanded role in the GLBT community, fighting for more than just marriage equality. She brings up two great models for MassEquality: Empire Pride State Agenda (ESPA) and EqualityCalifornia. ESPA has used its legislative influence to help deliver millions of dollars to worthy, non-profit glbt organizations that clearly need it. They've shown that no smaller organization should fear the existence of a broad-based MassEquality, because such an organization could end up making all glbt organizations stronger and more successful.
EqualityCalifornia, on the other hand, has been very successful in getting dozens of laws and protections passed and signed by none other than Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. With things like 1913 still kicking around, along with a severe lack of protections in the Bay State for transgender people, MassEquality has a lot to learn from its Californian sister. Whatever MassEquality becomes, we'll all know soon: November 3rd is the date they'll decide. Let's hope they ignore Isaacson's suggestions and embrace everything Ryan-Vollmar has to say.
MassEquality's Future: Beyond Rediculous
It's beyond rediculous that people even have to read about MassEquality's future. Isn't the answer obvious? Unless Massachusetts suddenly and quietly reached full equality over the past 24 hours and I missed it, paying too much attention to the World Series, this discussion should be over: glbt people need help, let's do what's necessary to help them. Yet, I was perusing boston.com before I went to bed - and what do I read? Globe staff-writer Lisa Wangsness's article about MassEquality's future in yesterday's paper.
There isn't much in it that I didn't explore in my LeftAhead chat weeks ago with MassEquality's Executive Director, Marc Solomon. However, there's one annoying hiccup that's putting MassEquality's future at stake (and, by extension, glbt people across Massachusetts). Apparently, some MassEquality board members who also represent other glbt organizations are afraid (jealous?) of MassEquality working on a broader scope of issues - you know, their pet issues. I could rant about that line of thought for ages, but I'll keep it short: it's petty, stupid and will prevent key members of the movement from gaining important rights. Brilliant!
If GLBT organizations in Massachusetts are worried about having more than one non-profit working on similar issues, fine. While I think that's beyond silly (ever hear of the expression, 'don't put all your eggs in one basket?'), I can live with it. However, we have a MassEquality brand name that's become incredibly credible within Beacon Hill politics. They're able to get people into every legislator's office with plenty of stories, putting a human face to issues that matter. MassEquality can raise the cash necessary to run expensive, state-wide campaigns. In short, MassEquality can do things that literally no other state-wide glbt organization can do - and there are board members that want to kill it? Talk about shooting your own feet.
Let's get rational. There are lots of other great glbt organizations out there that can do different things that MassEquality perhaps shouldn't get involved in, but no organization (perhaps even outside of glbt politics) is better at doing what MassEquality clearly excels at in the Bay State: lobbying for civil rights. Doesn't it make sense to keep MassEquality around to work on legislative issues - to be the unofficial go-to guys when we need to lobby on important glbt rights and bills? MassEquality built relationships that will last. They know who to talk to. People can't buy that kind of expertise; it takes time and energy that may never be reproduced on glbt issues again (what else will galvanize the community in Massachusetts like marriage equality did?). At the very least, MassEquality can help other organizations help themselves by showing them the legislative ropes and working with other organizations as allies.
Smaller organizations need not concern themselves about stepping on each other's feet. It almost sounds like they're worried about a wide stance. They should open up their bathroom stalls and realize that we need more organizations demanding all of the protections necessary to bring us to equality, not less or the same. In other states across the country, large, state-wide organizations excel at working together with smaller, sister and brother non-profits, helping them succeed in ways they otherwise wouldn't. Perhaps Massachusetts is different - more petty, divisive, uncooperative, afraid and jealous? That certainly sounds like Beacon Hill.
The status quo clearly isn't working beyond marriage equality. Trying to push aside the one organization that was more successful in changing our status than any other in this state would be a severe waste of time, counterproductive and unacceptable to the tens of thousands that are counting on equal rights and protections. MassEquality's role may be different in the future, but the glbt movement inside Massachusetts can't afford to live without them, at least on Beacon Hill.
There's plenty more on this issue that I'll tackle later in the day, especially Arline Isaacson's role in all of this (sadly, her view doesn't jive with mine), as well as Susan Ryan-Vollmer's excellent open letter to the MassEquality Board, illustrating just how MassEquality and all of the state's glbt organizations could work together and achieve widespread results that would otherwise be improbable, at best. However, that'll have to wait until the morning.
There isn't much in it that I didn't explore in my LeftAhead chat weeks ago with MassEquality's Executive Director, Marc Solomon. However, there's one annoying hiccup that's putting MassEquality's future at stake (and, by extension, glbt people across Massachusetts). Apparently, some MassEquality board members who also represent other glbt organizations are afraid (jealous?) of MassEquality working on a broader scope of issues - you know, their pet issues. I could rant about that line of thought for ages, but I'll keep it short: it's petty, stupid and will prevent key members of the movement from gaining important rights. Brilliant!
If GLBT organizations in Massachusetts are worried about having more than one non-profit working on similar issues, fine. While I think that's beyond silly (ever hear of the expression, 'don't put all your eggs in one basket?'), I can live with it. However, we have a MassEquality brand name that's become incredibly credible within Beacon Hill politics. They're able to get people into every legislator's office with plenty of stories, putting a human face to issues that matter. MassEquality can raise the cash necessary to run expensive, state-wide campaigns. In short, MassEquality can do things that literally no other state-wide glbt organization can do - and there are board members that want to kill it? Talk about shooting your own feet.
Let's get rational. There are lots of other great glbt organizations out there that can do different things that MassEquality perhaps shouldn't get involved in, but no organization (perhaps even outside of glbt politics) is better at doing what MassEquality clearly excels at in the Bay State: lobbying for civil rights. Doesn't it make sense to keep MassEquality around to work on legislative issues - to be the unofficial go-to guys when we need to lobby on important glbt rights and bills? MassEquality built relationships that will last. They know who to talk to. People can't buy that kind of expertise; it takes time and energy that may never be reproduced on glbt issues again (what else will galvanize the community in Massachusetts like marriage equality did?). At the very least, MassEquality can help other organizations help themselves by showing them the legislative ropes and working with other organizations as allies.
Smaller organizations need not concern themselves about stepping on each other's feet. It almost sounds like they're worried about a wide stance. They should open up their bathroom stalls and realize that we need more organizations demanding all of the protections necessary to bring us to equality, not less or the same. In other states across the country, large, state-wide organizations excel at working together with smaller, sister and brother non-profits, helping them succeed in ways they otherwise wouldn't. Perhaps Massachusetts is different - more petty, divisive, uncooperative, afraid and jealous? That certainly sounds like Beacon Hill.
The status quo clearly isn't working beyond marriage equality. Trying to push aside the one organization that was more successful in changing our status than any other in this state would be a severe waste of time, counterproductive and unacceptable to the tens of thousands that are counting on equal rights and protections. MassEquality's role may be different in the future, but the glbt movement inside Massachusetts can't afford to live without them, at least on Beacon Hill.
There's plenty more on this issue that I'll tackle later in the day, especially Arline Isaacson's role in all of this (sadly, her view doesn't jive with mine), as well as Susan Ryan-Vollmer's excellent open letter to the MassEquality Board, illustrating just how MassEquality and all of the state's glbt organizations could work together and achieve widespread results that would otherwise be improbable, at best. However, that'll have to wait until the morning.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Deval's Open Spaces
I just got a press release from the Patrick Administration informing me of an 8 million dollar investment in 21 parks across Massachusetts, none of which were in Boston. Very, very cool. I particularly liked this part of the initiative, in Salem:
New public parks instead of brownfield sites - sounds like a pretty good exchange to me. Most of the projects seemed worthy additions to the Bay State which could even help spur economic activity. Furthermore, the fact that these aren't hidden items in a Representative's pockets is encouraging. It's not the type of big news I really want - like the passage of the Municipal Partnership Act - but at least the good people of this state know they have a Governor doing his job.
The current brownfield site will be cleaned up to make it appropriate for a park facility that will serve as an anchor park for the harbor walk.
New public parks instead of brownfield sites - sounds like a pretty good exchange to me. Most of the projects seemed worthy additions to the Bay State which could even help spur economic activity. Furthermore, the fact that these aren't hidden items in a Representative's pockets is encouraging. It's not the type of big news I really want - like the passage of the Municipal Partnership Act - but at least the good people of this state know they have a Governor doing his job.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Solar-Powered Homes You Want to Live In
Last night, News Hour had an excellent report on the Solar Decathlon, a yearly competition by colleges from around the Globe to build completely solar-powered homes on the National Mall in D.C. Suffice it to say, the homes were spectacular, innovative - and many can even be built at the same cost of a regular, highly-polluting house. Take, for example, the winner of the prize in Market Viability: the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's home. The construction costs are similar to the market rate, but they're also modular homes that can be built quickly and shipped around the country.
All that said, it was innovation that makes the Solar Decathlon worthwhile. The University of Illinois, for example, developed a brilliant way to heat and cool the house - ceiling panels that sort of work like a refrigerator. Ever notice how the back of a refrigerator is hot, while the front (inside) is cool? That's a principal they ran with.
All that said, my favorite design element came from the University of Maryland's "LeafHouse." Here's just some of the cool things UM did with their home:
My favorite, though, was their garden wall. Outside of the house, there's plenty of room for a handy garden - not only on the ground, but on the walls of the outside. The water comes from the rain; all the water that hits the roof is caught and directed to an irrigation system for the garden. How's that for simple, but brilliant, innovation?
All that said, it was innovation that makes the Solar Decathlon worthwhile. The University of Illinois, for example, developed a brilliant way to heat and cool the house - ceiling panels that sort of work like a refrigerator. Ever notice how the back of a refrigerator is hot, while the front (inside) is cool? That's a principal they ran with.
All that said, my favorite design element came from the University of Maryland's "LeafHouse." Here's just some of the cool things UM did with their home:
Team members are particularly proud of their smart—house system called SHAC (for Smart House Adaptive Control). Two undergraduate computer engineering majors built a sensor network to bring the comfort level of the home to the ideal. The network monitors humidity, temperature, light, and whether the doors are open or closed-it's a Web-enabled system that can even factor in weather forecasts.
The most innovative feature of the Maryland house may be the indoor waterfall—a liquid desiccant wall system that's used to control humidity. As far as the team knows, such a system has never been used for a home.
My favorite, though, was their garden wall. Outside of the house, there's plenty of room for a handy garden - not only on the ground, but on the walls of the outside. The water comes from the rain; all the water that hits the roof is caught and directed to an irrigation system for the garden. How's that for simple, but brilliant, innovation?
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Now I Know Where all the Racoons Went...
I haven't seen a single Racoon or Skunk all summer long. Suddenly, it's all starting to make sense. Invasion of the Wild Turkeys! (Seriously, I've seen them in both Swampscott and Lynnfield.)
Consider this an open thread. Alternatively, feel free to "Ask Ryan Anything." (I haven't done that in forever!)
Consider this an open thread. Alternatively, feel free to "Ask Ryan Anything." (I haven't done that in forever!)
NC's Senate Dem Candidate is Gay
This is very interesting. He's the only democratic candidate in the primary - and given Elizabeth Dole's unpopularity, North Carolina promised to be one of the top tier races. Should I be optimistic and think an openly gay candidate can win a Senate race in North Carolina, at least against a weak incumbent that no one truly likes? NC is certainly a state under rapid transition, so there is some hope.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Forgiveness
Sometimes, in life, I think people would be so much happier if they learned to forgive others for the mistakes of the past. No one is perfect and we all do things we aren't proud of more often than we'd like to admit. At some point, we're all broken people and we all do stupid things. In fact, at times, doing things that aren't the best long-term decision can be necessary. Or, there can be the inevitability of picking between two bad choices. The point is, when someone makes a mistake that hurts someone, you can either stay mad at the person forever - or, hopefully sooner rather than later - realize human beings are flawed creatures and forgive them. Sometimes the bravest thing people can do is to reach out. Don't return such gestures with a cold shoulder.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Governor Patrick's Frustrations
The Globe has an interesting article on Governor Patrick today, about how he's frustrated by the slow pace of the state legislature.
When things like the biotech bill aren't getting through, which enjoys widespread support, it's understandable to see the Governor frustrated. In part, his frustrations likely led to the casino proposal: he's doing whatever he can to raise funds for his initiatives. However, dealing with the legislature - and especially Speaker DiMasi - is a different sort of beast. Being creative and coming up with new proposals aren't going to make the Speaker budge.
The Governor is going to have to play Carrot and Stick. If Speaker DiMasi isn't going to pass meal tax local options, restrictions on corporate tax loopholes, a balanced budget that doesn't rely on rainy-day funds and some of the more important educational initiatives the Governor proposes, beat the Speaker with a stick. Publicly wield the veto pen, if only to give the Speaker a taste of his own medicine. Privately, let the Speaker know it'll all stop when two or three of the Governor's most important proposals pass, especially those that will bring the state to a place of fiscal sanity. Of course, the House can put their finger prints on the bill, too - compromise is fine - but things have to pass that will actually help the people of this Commonwealth.
Then, there's the Carrot: according to at least one of Patrick's early legislative endorsers during the primary, the Governor isn't doing enough to reach out to house reps to gain support for his bills, or to help them with their priorities. The Governor needs to reach out to House and Senate members and nibble away at Murray and DiMasi's control over those bodies. We don't need an all-powerful Governor, but we can't afford to have an all-powerful Speaker DiMasi either.
"I'm frustrated by the pace; I don't make any secret of that," Patrick said in an interview yesterday. "I don't think it's simply because I'm from the private sector or, as they say in the South, 'not from around here.' It's because I got elected to make change. People are hungry for it, and I think a lot of people see the reasons for the delays as excuses for inaction. And sometimes I do, too."
The biotech package is one of a series of blockbuster proposals the Democratic governor has rolled out since taking office: ending corporate tax breaks, repealing the telecommunications tax, allowing local communities to raise modest rooms and meals taxes, and getting tougher on gun crime.
When things like the biotech bill aren't getting through, which enjoys widespread support, it's understandable to see the Governor frustrated. In part, his frustrations likely led to the casino proposal: he's doing whatever he can to raise funds for his initiatives. However, dealing with the legislature - and especially Speaker DiMasi - is a different sort of beast. Being creative and coming up with new proposals aren't going to make the Speaker budge.
The Governor is going to have to play Carrot and Stick. If Speaker DiMasi isn't going to pass meal tax local options, restrictions on corporate tax loopholes, a balanced budget that doesn't rely on rainy-day funds and some of the more important educational initiatives the Governor proposes, beat the Speaker with a stick. Publicly wield the veto pen, if only to give the Speaker a taste of his own medicine. Privately, let the Speaker know it'll all stop when two or three of the Governor's most important proposals pass, especially those that will bring the state to a place of fiscal sanity. Of course, the House can put their finger prints on the bill, too - compromise is fine - but things have to pass that will actually help the people of this Commonwealth.
Then, there's the Carrot: according to at least one of Patrick's early legislative endorsers during the primary, the Governor isn't doing enough to reach out to house reps to gain support for his bills, or to help them with their priorities. The Governor needs to reach out to House and Senate members and nibble away at Murray and DiMasi's control over those bodies. We don't need an all-powerful Governor, but we can't afford to have an all-powerful Speaker DiMasi either.
Friday, October 19, 2007
When Cape Cod Sinks...
You'd think the powers that be would be a little more interested in saving their beloved land, but they keep on trucking on that NIMBY front. Or, in Cape Wind's case, the NIMDLOS (distant line of sight) front. Let the Cape Cod Commission let us know in 30-50 years how that worked out for them, alright?
Thursday, October 18, 2007
More Casino Questions
A little redemption for Matt Viser? He and Andrea Estes pen a decent article in the Globe today on Patrick's casino plan, after his recent 6-page stink on Mayor Menino's casino position. All is not well for the pro-casino side in Boston, because Governor Patrick has run into a few roadblocks, according to the Globe. Namely,
- Speaker DiMasi's not impressed and promised to hold up the casino debate until at least 2009.
- He put off Treasurer Cahill by including the State's Treasurer as a member of the proposed oversight gaming commission without actually asking Cahill first. Sheesh, touchy.
- According to the Globe, Patrick's not widely promoting the plan. I'm not sure I see it the same way (apparently, radio gigs and mass emails aren't enough), but the Globe wonders why Patrick isn't visiting casinos in order to promote them.
- The Governor's rosy numbers and inconsistencies are being criticized by everyone, including casino supporters.
All of that equates to a weakened pro-casino side, that's fighting against each other instead of working together. Divide and conquer, folks. As I've said all along, there's nothing inevitable about casinos in Massachusetts. They can be blocked, we just have to work hard to make sure it happens.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Casino Proposal Leaves Gaping Holes
Finally, the Globe started to ask some serious questions about Governor Patrick's casino proposal. Chief among them was a discrepancy in the bill Patrick filed versus the promises he made in his initial announcement, though the Patrick Administration attributes the discrepancy to an error in filing. Yet, even then, plenty of questions remain. Here's the pertinent info from the Globe.
Treasurer Cahill's office says that the State Lottery will see an initial 4% decline in lottery revenue if casinos are built - which means there's going to be a serious dent in the money being sent to cities and towns. Much of the state's lottery funds go to municipalities, while casino taxes wouldn't. Readers will note I suggested Patrick's proposal will lead to less money going to cities and towns, not more, about a week ago. Given Cahill's words on the matter, knowing how entrenched he is in the pro-casino camp, anyone care to disagree?
At the end of the article, Representative Dan Bosely sums up the truth about casinos in Massachusetts.
The bill as it was introduced in the Legislature on Thursday, however, uses a drastically different formula. It directs that the trust funds would each get 2.5 percent of the casinos' "operating license payments" made to the state. Operating license payments to the state are expected to be 27 percent of the gross revenue. Using that formula, state officials would have only $13.5 million available for mitigation and $13.5 million for public health programs.
Even if the bill is corrected to funnel the full $100 million to the mitigation and public health funds, a debate is simmering as to whether that would be enough to cover all the promises the governor made, especially his pledge to ensure that cities and towns do not lose money when their share of state lottery revenue is diminished because of casino competition.
Treasurer Cahill's office says that the State Lottery will see an initial 4% decline in lottery revenue if casinos are built - which means there's going to be a serious dent in the money being sent to cities and towns. Much of the state's lottery funds go to municipalities, while casino taxes wouldn't. Readers will note I suggested Patrick's proposal will lead to less money going to cities and towns, not more, about a week ago. Given Cahill's words on the matter, knowing how entrenched he is in the pro-casino camp, anyone care to disagree?
At the end of the article, Representative Dan Bosely sums up the truth about casinos in Massachusetts.
Bosley said the state's take of gambling revenue will be inadequate to pay for most of the programs and services the governor says he wants to fund.
"They're short in all of the accounts," he said. "There is not anywhere near enough for the lottery. There isn't enough for public infrastructure, mitigation, or all sorts of social ills. The only thing they don't require in this bill is for the casinos to give away a puppy when people leave. It's pie in the sky, and they're not going to do this."
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Deval's Good Idea: Remove Tocco
Let's get the Romney stench out of the UMASS system - something Governor Patrick is trying to do. There are all sorts of good reasons to get rid of Tocco, but the best is because Tocco's the sleazeball that orchestrated the ouster of everyone who supported a UMASS Dartmouth law school. Governor Patrick supports the law school; certainly, thousands in the South Coast (including me, when I was there) spoke to him personally about that issue. It's very important for the region - and state - to have an affordable and one day high-quality institution for public law, which the proposed school UMASS would merge with happens to specialize in. It would take a few years to bring the school up to par, but with a tuition set at $19,000 a year, it would open the doors to law school to millions in this state that would otherwise be unable to afford it.
I know, just what this state needs - more Esquires, right? Well, when their specializations would be in public defense and prosecution, it sounds good to me.
I know, just what this state needs - more Esquires, right? Well, when their specializations would be in public defense and prosecution, it sounds good to me.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Who Needs Hard Casino News Anyway?
Wishful thinking.
In today's Globe, we get to hear all about the largest shareholder of Suffolk Downs (it's a 6 page story!), how bad the horse racing industry is doing and why it would be such a great location for a gigantic resort casino. I mean, come on, it's only making $141 million dollars a year! Instead of hearing about whether or not counting license plates in Connecticut - I'm sorry, "patron origin analysis" - is really an accurate way to measure the money Massachusetts is "losing" to its New England neighbor, we get to hear about Hot Dog stands and how the largest shareholder of Suffolk Downs used to be a pal with the Trump (but they had a falling out). Whew, I bet Matt Viser had to work really hard coming up with the facts for that story!
When the only investigative journalism surrounding this casino issue has come out of Boston's EDGE newspaper, a real alternative's alternative paper, it's disgrace for the supposed Paper of Record to publish anything that isn't a serious look at the issue at hand. Does the Paper of Record even know how to do journalism anymore, or is it going to print whatever is emailed their way in the form of a press release? The shocking lack of any serious journalism on this issue almost makes me believe either the Globe is afraid of hitting on serious journalism, wants to validate its editorial page or its reporters can't wait for the slots and an open bar. I think I'm getting woozy here.
Sadly, if anyone was willing to read between the lines, Viser's story wasn't completely useless fluff. There was a bit toward the end that could have made for an excellent story, had the Globe been worth its weight in ink.
Part 1 of Connecting the Dots that the Globe missed:
If Fields is the engine behind Suffolk Downs, O'Donnell has provided the roadmap for navigating Boston's clubby political culture. O'Donnell, who has been one of the top shareholders at Suffolk Downs for 18 years, now is the second-largest shareholder behind Fields. He is also one of Menino's closest friends and advisers, particularly on development deals. "Joe O'Donnell is probably the most well-respected guy in the state," said state Representative Brian Wallace, a South Boston Democrat who is helping lead the effort in the House to legalize casinos. "Having him at Suffolk Downs helps them a whole bunch."Part 2:
He met with state senators, city officials, and the chief of staff for House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran. But all the meetings scheduled with Menino were canceled. The mayor says now that he doesn't remember even hearing Fields's name. "I'm not going to spend time on casinos for the city of Boston," Menino told the Globe at the time.But now that Menino's Best Bud is connected with Fields, it's a rush to the slots. There's a story there, the Globe just decided not to pursue it.
Here's another interesting blurb from the paper, one that could have been a story too. Menino's newest Casino spin is exactly like Barrow's spinmeistering.
"Look at what they're doing down in Connecticut, and how many of those cars are Massachusetts cars," Menino said in an interview last week. "Why can't we do something at Suffolk Downs?"EDGE has been the only paper to have yet called the license-plate "methodology" of counting how much money Massachusetts residents are spending in Connecticut into question. So far, that's the only way people have come up with a number, any kind of a number. There hasn't been a single story on that in the Globe yet, analyzing whether its accurate or if there are even other ways to come up with numbers. They haven't investigated Barrow or anyone who's influential surrounding this subject.
But why bother investigating such trivial matters? Casinos are obviously cash cows that save states and make it so no one ever has to pay taxes again. That's why Las Vegas, Reno and Atlanta are so well known for being safe cities, with no real problems and great public school systems. Clearly, casinos will single-handidly save Massachusetts (quite possibly by drying up even more revenue for cities and towns). Wishful thinking, again - but this time on the front page of the Boston Globe. If anyone's still getting the Globe's dead trees, it's time to cancel the subscription.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Netting Access
Here's an interesting post from Senator Kerry on increasing access to broadband internet. Clearly, Senator Kerry "gets it" on net neutrality and other issues. However, his post expanded way beyond net neutrality and into looking at the net in the 21st Century - and how we can make sure every American has access. There's one analogy the Senator made that I found quite compelling.
I can't think of a better place to start the dialogue. In this next millennium, access to broadband internet is going to be like access to water and electricity. It will literally be America's source of information, cable, phones and who knows what else. Furthermore, the civic potentials are endless. Can we afford to treat access to Broadband differently? Sadly, right now we're treating it more like an HMO - scary stuff.
One important thing, though, is affordability - not just access. Currently, broadband in America is far more expensive than it is in Europe - mainly because of competition, shocker of all shockers. In France, people can bundle their cable, internet, land line phone and other services together for about $30 a month - all because that country created the type of bold strategy Senator Kerry is calling for now. How did France do it? They did something America is apparently unwilling to do: create a system where companies actually have to compete, driving prices down, instead of protecting a few companies from keeping their oligarchy over the 'net. America should strive for that type of universal access and affordability, borrowing the same ideas that made it possible elsewhere.
One suggestion I saw throughout was the call to treat the Internet like any other essential utility, and I couldn’t agree with you more. We don’t let profits dictate who has running water and whose lights are on in America. The same must hold true for Internet access. All Americans, all schools and all businesses should have access to high-speed Internet connections just like these other basic services.
I can't think of a better place to start the dialogue. In this next millennium, access to broadband internet is going to be like access to water and electricity. It will literally be America's source of information, cable, phones and who knows what else. Furthermore, the civic potentials are endless. Can we afford to treat access to Broadband differently? Sadly, right now we're treating it more like an HMO - scary stuff.
One important thing, though, is affordability - not just access. Currently, broadband in America is far more expensive than it is in Europe - mainly because of competition, shocker of all shockers. In France, people can bundle their cable, internet, land line phone and other services together for about $30 a month - all because that country created the type of bold strategy Senator Kerry is calling for now. How did France do it? They did something America is apparently unwilling to do: create a system where companies actually have to compete, driving prices down, instead of protecting a few companies from keeping their oligarchy over the 'net. America should strive for that type of universal access and affordability, borrowing the same ideas that made it possible elsewhere.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
These Comments are Exactly What I'm Talking About
I just wanted to thank everyone that's commented on the ENDA/GLBT issue lately. I know it's passionate. I know people are angry. I know it feels like sometimes we're making no progress. But, in the end, these conversations are exactly what we need to actually create one singular movement instead of several different movements loosely tied together. We don't have to agree all the time, but we do need to have reasonable discussions. We do need to respect differences of opinions, even if we at the same time urge people to change their mind. I feel like, over the past day or two, there's some hope of keeping this big tent well oiled.
So, let's get angry; let's get passionate... and direct that anger and passion to the real enemies. In the meantime, if Barney Frank isn't going to keep an inclusive bill, we have hundreds of other congresspeople to appeal to in order to keep it together, at least in a year where no ENDA will pass anyway. But we can't stop there; Frank says there are enough people in the house that an inclusive ENDA would be subject to manipulation. We need to target the people who would do that, convince them that they're wrong or unseat them if they prove incapable of learning or being decent human beings. That's where our anger and passion is best spent. That's how we work as one movement.
So, let's get angry; let's get passionate... and direct that anger and passion to the real enemies. In the meantime, if Barney Frank isn't going to keep an inclusive bill, we have hundreds of other congresspeople to appeal to in order to keep it together, at least in a year where no ENDA will pass anyway. But we can't stop there; Frank says there are enough people in the house that an inclusive ENDA would be subject to manipulation. We need to target the people who would do that, convince them that they're wrong or unseat them if they prove incapable of learning or being decent human beings. That's where our anger and passion is best spent. That's how we work as one movement.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Barney Frank "Hates" Trans People?
Who Needs Enemies?
I'm going to keep hitting this subject until it sticks. The way to move forward on ENDA and the GLBT movement as a whole isn't with misdirected anger toward our very own allies, even if we don't always agree with them. I hate to single out the people at QueerToday, but they've done it yet again. According to QueerToday, not only is Frank wrong to split ENDA - something I agree with - but, in fact, he "hates" trans people. That's right, Barney Frank is a "fucking douche bag." No, wait, that wasn't enough, he's a "HUGE fucking douche bag."
But, folks, we can't stop there... QueerToday provided the masses with a nice portrait of Barney Frank on their site. Pay special attention to the burning red eyes; that's right, Barney Frank is evil to the core. He's the devil! The Horror of Horrors - he wanted to actually expand rights and was willing to compromise to do it.
Here I thought the Republicans and DINOs were our enemies. The sad fact is this is how we treat some of the people who have been working the hardest on our behalf. Surely, readers know the saying, "with friends like these..."
PS : we probably wouldn't be talking about ENDA right now if it weren't for Barney Frank.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Am I Watching the GLBT Community Implode Over ENDA?
As my co-host on LeftAhead, Mike, mentions, Barney Frank won't unite GENDA and ENDA. According to Frank, two bills offers glb people a real chance at legislative victory that would provide protections from discrimination at the work place. Bay Windows has more on the vote counts, but if Frank is to be believed, ENDA alone would pass by 15-20 votes, while an inclusive ENDA/GENDA wouldn't pass at all - in fact, it would be "vulnerable to anti-trans amendments from Republicans." Of course, this was the major topic on our most recent LeftAhead internet radio show. Mike, Lynne and Laurel thought Frank was making a mistake, as do most glbt organizations and usually even myself. Sometimes, though, I think Frank truly understands how politics - especially civil rights - works: incrementally. ENDA is obviously a very complicated and touchy issue. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think everyone's right and everyone's wrong. As I've said over and over again, Blogger.com just doesn't come with a crystal ball button to predict the future (maybe in the next beta?).
However, here's what I do know: it's wrong to belittle or attack people in the community for speaking out as John Avarosis has done. The fact that Avarosis is saying what he's saying - and that his points are reverberating throughout the glbt community - is telling. There's a divide among the glb population: some people are completely behind the trans community, willing to forsake their own chance to pass ENDA, while others think more pragmatically. They sympathize with transgendered and transsexual people, but think any progress, even incremental progress, is important. Obviously, people who identify as the latter have questions about whether or not "glbt" is actually one community, or two, or something else.
On one point, Avarosis is as right as a 90 degree angle: if people speak against a completely inclusive ENDA or about how transgendered people fit in the glbt movement, they're immediately labeled by some as transphobic or George Bush Republicans. Heck, Mike's latest blog on the matter was primarily meant to point people out to this response to Avarosis, written by Susan Stryker, an academic on glbt and trans issues. Mike loved the essay, I think it's exactly what's wrong with the GLBT community. For someone who purports to be an academic, I've never seen such a hit piece on someone who would otherwise be an ally (after all, Avarosis says he's for trans rights, he just supports a different way of getting there). Instead of sticking to why Avarosis is wrong, Stryker writes pages to cast Avarosis as either dumb or a charter member of Team 'Ophobia.
See what I mean? We can't listen to Avaroris, because he used to be a Republican! Never mind the fact that he operates one of the largest progressive blogs on the internet and is in fact gay, there was a point in time where a R used to appear beside his name. Sacrilege! Apparently, being a life-long Democrat is a new litmus test for the greater progressive movement. Let's all go fire Kos from DailyKos, because he used to be a Republican too.
I keep saying this and I don't think people understand what I mean by it - we need to have some serious discussions inside the glbt movement. I should be able to create a post on this subject without having to worry about QueerToday frantically writing posts saying "how dare I" even talk about this sort of issue. How dare I? Well, it's important! If they wanted to be productive, instead of vindictive, they'd be the ones hosting these discussions to help inform and persuade the masses (which I attempted to do on my last LeftAhead podcast, to the praise of at least one person who identifies as transgender).
People need to be able to talk about these issues rationally, free from fear of being publicly tarred and feathered, if we want to count on them being there with us when it really matters (like when a Democrat is elected President). A sizable number of gays, lesbians and bisexual people don't understand what's going on or how we got to be here. We're supposed to tell them to shut up? Or, even worse, ridicule them when they speak their mind?
While I reject Trevor from QueerToday's description of me, even if he were right in saying I have a "chillingly unconcerned white gay male middle to upper class stance on this issue," would that make my view any less important? Do certain gay people in the glbt community not count? (By the way, Trevor, thanks for the lack of curiosity and rush to judgements, but I'm far from being upper class - I come from a single parent home, with a nurse for a mother.) For a movement that demands inclusiveness, we're certainly willing to write off a large number of people for being white, male or middle-to-upper class - millions upon millions, in fact.
Unless we have this dialogue now, the entire movement is screwed. These sorts of attacks, be they QueerToday or Susan Stryker, are the worst kind of obstruction. It's funny, but sometimes I think the glbt population is its own worst enemy: there are those who question why certain things are the way they are, while others scream and yell and attack any of them who raise their voices to ask. Which is worse? Maybe Frank should just totally shelve both ENDAs because, quite frankly, not only are they highly unlikely to pass, I don't know if we actually deserve it.
However, here's what I do know: it's wrong to belittle or attack people in the community for speaking out as John Avarosis has done. The fact that Avarosis is saying what he's saying - and that his points are reverberating throughout the glbt community - is telling. There's a divide among the glb population: some people are completely behind the trans community, willing to forsake their own chance to pass ENDA, while others think more pragmatically. They sympathize with transgendered and transsexual people, but think any progress, even incremental progress, is important. Obviously, people who identify as the latter have questions about whether or not "glbt" is actually one community, or two, or something else.
On one point, Avarosis is as right as a 90 degree angle: if people speak against a completely inclusive ENDA or about how transgendered people fit in the glbt movement, they're immediately labeled by some as transphobic or George Bush Republicans. Heck, Mike's latest blog on the matter was primarily meant to point people out to this response to Avarosis, written by Susan Stryker, an academic on glbt and trans issues. Mike loved the essay, I think it's exactly what's wrong with the GLBT community. For someone who purports to be an academic, I've never seen such a hit piece on someone who would otherwise be an ally (after all, Avarosis says he's for trans rights, he just supports a different way of getting there). Instead of sticking to why Avarosis is wrong, Stryker writes pages to cast Avarosis as either dumb or a charter member of Team 'Ophobia.
This coming from an ex-Republican, former congressional aide, Georgetown-educated, inside-the-Beltway lawyer who studied under Secretary of State Madeleine Albright...
See what I mean? We can't listen to Avaroris, because he used to be a Republican! Never mind the fact that he operates one of the largest progressive blogs on the internet and is in fact gay, there was a point in time where a R used to appear beside his name. Sacrilege! Apparently, being a life-long Democrat is a new litmus test for the greater progressive movement. Let's all go fire Kos from DailyKos, because he used to be a Republican too.
I keep saying this and I don't think people understand what I mean by it - we need to have some serious discussions inside the glbt movement. I should be able to create a post on this subject without having to worry about QueerToday frantically writing posts saying "how dare I" even talk about this sort of issue. How dare I? Well, it's important! If they wanted to be productive, instead of vindictive, they'd be the ones hosting these discussions to help inform and persuade the masses (which I attempted to do on my last LeftAhead podcast, to the praise of at least one person who identifies as transgender).
People need to be able to talk about these issues rationally, free from fear of being publicly tarred and feathered, if we want to count on them being there with us when it really matters (like when a Democrat is elected President). A sizable number of gays, lesbians and bisexual people don't understand what's going on or how we got to be here. We're supposed to tell them to shut up? Or, even worse, ridicule them when they speak their mind?
While I reject Trevor from QueerToday's description of me, even if he were right in saying I have a "chillingly unconcerned white gay male middle to upper class stance on this issue," would that make my view any less important? Do certain gay people in the glbt community not count? (By the way, Trevor, thanks for the lack of curiosity and rush to judgements, but I'm far from being upper class - I come from a single parent home, with a nurse for a mother.) For a movement that demands inclusiveness, we're certainly willing to write off a large number of people for being white, male or middle-to-upper class - millions upon millions, in fact.
Unless we have this dialogue now, the entire movement is screwed. These sorts of attacks, be they QueerToday or Susan Stryker, are the worst kind of obstruction. It's funny, but sometimes I think the glbt population is its own worst enemy: there are those who question why certain things are the way they are, while others scream and yell and attack any of them who raise their voices to ask. Which is worse? Maybe Frank should just totally shelve both ENDAs because, quite frankly, not only are they highly unlikely to pass, I don't know if we actually deserve it.
Herald (!?!) Endorses Tsongas
I just got an email from Team Tsongas; the Boston Herald endorsed her campaign. This, on top of the Lowell Sun's endorsement, is pretty stunning. Even the conservative rags don't see Oganowski fit for congress. Ouch.
The Metrowest Daily also endorsed her campaign today, though I don't know much about that paper's leanings. Add that to the list. Given the endorsements, debates, SCHIP fallout and a few other factors, it's looking like I don't need to be worried about a Tsongas victory after all. Barring some unforeseen disaster, it's in the bank - thanks to the fact that Oganowski rivals Kerry Healey in being the Worst Candidate Ever.
The Metrowest Daily also endorsed her campaign today, though I don't know much about that paper's leanings. Add that to the list. Given the endorsements, debates, SCHIP fallout and a few other factors, it's looking like I don't need to be worried about a Tsongas victory after all. Barring some unforeseen disaster, it's in the bank - thanks to the fact that Oganowski rivals Kerry Healey in being the Worst Candidate Ever.
Would Casinos Lead to Less Money for Towns?
In today's lead editorial, the Globe correctly notes that Patrick's casino plan doesn't meet his campaign promise of cutting "the property tax by reinvesting in cities and towns." While half of the money casinos would bring the state would go to property tax relief, that doesn't help cities and towns address rising costs, even while they forsake many demands. Countless cities and towns are closing schools, laying off employees and diminishing services: they have no choice.
Unfortunately, casinos are guaranteed to do two things that are a direct threat to the coffers of cities and towns. First, everyone and their mother admits the state lottery system will take a hit with the introduction of casinos. The only question is how big it'll be. What people may be forgetting is that a huge portion of state lottery money goes directly to cities and towns - isn't that why we have the state lottery to begin with? So, right off the bat, we're talking about cities and towns potentially losing tens of thousands a year in income they've relied on.
Secondly - and this is a bit more tricky - we know that between 30-70% of casino revenue isn't new revenue at all, it's just revenue redistributed from other sectors of the economy. It's no surprise that wallets are a net sum game - that fifty someone blew on the casino last night was fifty they won't be spending on their family at the local restaurant. Revenue that would be taxed and sent to the general fund is instead going to go into the casino fund, which won't go back to cities and towns. That's tens of thousands more that cities and towns are likely to lose.
Furthermore, no one knows just how much business casinos will kill with their shops, all-inclusive services, open bars, massive and cheap hotels, with gambling and entertainment to lure people in. However, as I've said a few times, Atlanta went from having over 200 restaurants, bars and clubs to having a little over 50 after they legalized casinos. A lot of businesses, especially in the vicinity of a casino, are going to get hit hard. That means people are going to lose jobs and businesses will go under. Again, the only question isn't whether or not it'll happen, but how many jobs and businesses are we talking about? Combined with lost tax revenue, lost jobs and businesses could be a devastation visited upon cities and towns across Massachusetts.
So, the question is "will casinos lead to less money for cities and towns?" It's an important question because there's no bigger problem Massachusetts is facing than their cities and towns, struggling to keep up decent services, even while constantly raising taxes. Sadly, no matter how anyone looks at it - especially given Governor Patrick's plan - the answer seems to be a resounding yes.
Unfortunately, casinos are guaranteed to do two things that are a direct threat to the coffers of cities and towns. First, everyone and their mother admits the state lottery system will take a hit with the introduction of casinos. The only question is how big it'll be. What people may be forgetting is that a huge portion of state lottery money goes directly to cities and towns - isn't that why we have the state lottery to begin with? So, right off the bat, we're talking about cities and towns potentially losing tens of thousands a year in income they've relied on.
Secondly - and this is a bit more tricky - we know that between 30-70% of casino revenue isn't new revenue at all, it's just revenue redistributed from other sectors of the economy. It's no surprise that wallets are a net sum game - that fifty someone blew on the casino last night was fifty they won't be spending on their family at the local restaurant. Revenue that would be taxed and sent to the general fund is instead going to go into the casino fund, which won't go back to cities and towns. That's tens of thousands more that cities and towns are likely to lose.
Furthermore, no one knows just how much business casinos will kill with their shops, all-inclusive services, open bars, massive and cheap hotels, with gambling and entertainment to lure people in. However, as I've said a few times, Atlanta went from having over 200 restaurants, bars and clubs to having a little over 50 after they legalized casinos. A lot of businesses, especially in the vicinity of a casino, are going to get hit hard. That means people are going to lose jobs and businesses will go under. Again, the only question isn't whether or not it'll happen, but how many jobs and businesses are we talking about? Combined with lost tax revenue, lost jobs and businesses could be a devastation visited upon cities and towns across Massachusetts.
So, the question is "will casinos lead to less money for cities and towns?" It's an important question because there's no bigger problem Massachusetts is facing than their cities and towns, struggling to keep up decent services, even while constantly raising taxes. Sadly, no matter how anyone looks at it - especially given Governor Patrick's plan - the answer seems to be a resounding yes.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
RIP Republican Party, 1854-2008
The Republican Party shall always be remembered for its greatest member, Abraham Lincoln. Things went downhill from there.We gather here today to celebrate - and learn from - our old friends of the government for the past 154 years, the Grand Old Party. Remembered most for helping elect Abraham Lincoln at the country's greatest time of need and standing up for civil rights when half the country was willing to die in order to deny them, it's a sad day indeed to see the party laid to rest. Yet, it's an important cautionary tale in order to learn what to avoid in order to stay relevant and true to the American people. Sadly, the party's own self-inflicted wounds forced the rest of the country to put it out of its misery, like a lame and beaten horse that could race no more. When the party's hate machine decided to smear a mere 12 year-old adolescent boy, the rest of the country had had enough. "This far, no further," it said, as it worked to permanently unseat those fuckers misguided fools from office for the last time...
The Spark that Unleashes the Fire
After reading about young Graeme Frost, currently being stalked and Swiftboated by the Republican sleaze machine, I've come to a sad-but-true conclusion: the only way to defeat the Republican Party is to crush Republicans. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is unwilling to do basic things like discuss policy. They won't think about pros and cons. They won't come to a table to actually sort things out. They won't compromise. And in the rare instances where Democrats are able to work with some Republicans, we can't trust the rest of their Party to not go nutzoid and destroy all the progress made in one fell swoop.
Why? The Republican Party has created a machine that, when backed into a corner, resorts to the only thing they seemingly know how to do: smear, belittle, bully and obfuscate. They can't be mature enough to avoid the perfect solution in favor of something that makes things better. See SCHIP and Immigration bills. When the going gets tough, the Republicans skip the actual debate and just gofor the jugular after the people involved, like Graeme Frost. After all, it's a whole lot easier to inflict wounds on a person than actually counter their arguments (especially when that person is 12). Well, it has to stop; I'm not willing to wait for Rush Limbaugh's attack on the toddler nearest him.
Why? The Republican Party has created a machine that, when backed into a corner, resorts to the only thing they seemingly know how to do: smear, belittle, bully and obfuscate. They can't be mature enough to avoid the perfect solution in favor of something that makes things better. See SCHIP and Immigration bills. When the going gets tough, the Republicans skip the actual debate and just go
So what do we do?
This coming election, we need to destroy the Republican Party, once and for all. We need the defeat to be so harsh that all of the damage they did over these Dark Days (King George II's Reign, 2000-2008) can be reversed by many years of Democrats in charge. Democrats have seemingly forever been the party elected to fix the Republican stink, all the way down to FDR's days, and today is no different. We need to convince the American people that Republicans can't be trusted with the big decisions - they can't even be trusted with the easy ones, like making sure children have access to medical treatment.
Sadly, the people already touched by President Bush - and in no means is that meant in a good way - can't be saved. The damage is already done, be it from his massive, unnecessary invasion, subsequent evil occupation, Katrina disaster or vetoing little children from getting basic health care. Jared Raymond and Jennifer Harris - two residents from my tiny hometown of Swampscott who died in Iraq - can never be brought back. Bush's sins will live on, but all is not lost.
After all, we'll never forget. We can remember all of the havoc the Bush Administration, Republican Party and Smear Machine wreaked on America, the American people and even the world. We can remember them by making sure it never happens again. We can remember them by making sure the party that's caused all these things to happen doesn't get the keys to Government until they learn to grow up, which means talking about things rationally instead of resorting to bullying, belittling and ignoring the key facts. It means that there's a body of people Democrats can trust if they want to work together, without worry of being undermined after months and years of hard work. We can remember by making sure the party that praises Rush Limbaugh never has that opportunity again. We can remember by making sure a party that's been horrendously corrupt since Nixon never returns to absolute power for the longevity of this generation.
We can remember them by defeating the Republican Party like a Meerkat dominant defeats an obnoxious member of its gang, forcing them into submission and rubbing their asses in the submissive's face. Scientists call it "scent-marking," I call it "making sure those twerps never do it again." After the lengths to which the Republican Party is not only willing, but eager to go to, nothing else will ever be enough.
We can't stop until individual Republicans are embarrassed and ashamed about actually being Republicans. We can't stop until the GOP dies an agonizing death and something new and better replaces it, populated by decent human beings, devoid of Michelle-Malkin type people. After all, no decent human adult would bully and stalk an adolescent boy. We can't stop until Abraham Lincoln's party is finally put out of its long misery, laid to rest, because it's been dead in the core for a very long time and sadly can't be saved - we've tried working with them for far too long, only to be Swiftboated and taken advantage of at every step of the way. After all, to them, our efforts at compromising is only a sign of weakness. After the dirty deed is done, we'll call it the Cirlce of Life, sing Kumbaya, build them a statue and be done with it. Running the American government isn't always pretty, but it's a necessary job.
Sadly, the people already touched by President Bush - and in no means is that meant in a good way - can't be saved. The damage is already done, be it from his massive, unnecessary invasion, subsequent evil occupation, Katrina disaster or vetoing little children from getting basic health care. Jared Raymond and Jennifer Harris - two residents from my tiny hometown of Swampscott who died in Iraq - can never be brought back. Bush's sins will live on, but all is not lost.
After all, we'll never forget. We can remember all of the havoc the Bush Administration, Republican Party and Smear Machine wreaked on America, the American people and even the world. We can remember them by making sure it never happens again. We can remember them by making sure the party that's caused all these things to happen doesn't get the keys to Government until they learn to grow up, which means talking about things rationally instead of resorting to bullying, belittling and ignoring the key facts. It means that there's a body of people Democrats can trust if they want to work together, without worry of being undermined after months and years of hard work. We can remember by making sure the party that praises Rush Limbaugh never has that opportunity again. We can remember by making sure a party that's been horrendously corrupt since Nixon never returns to absolute power for the longevity of this generation.
We can remember them by defeating the Republican Party like a Meerkat dominant defeats an obnoxious member of its gang, forcing them into submission and rubbing their asses in the submissive's face. Scientists call it "scent-marking," I call it "making sure those twerps never do it again." After the lengths to which the Republican Party is not only willing, but eager to go to, nothing else will ever be enough.
We can't stop until individual Republicans are embarrassed and ashamed about actually being Republicans. We can't stop until the GOP dies an agonizing death and something new and better replaces it, populated by decent human beings, devoid of Michelle-Malkin type people. After all, no decent human adult would bully and stalk an adolescent boy. We can't stop until Abraham Lincoln's party is finally put out of its long misery, laid to rest, because it's been dead in the core for a very long time and sadly can't be saved - we've tried working with them for far too long, only to be Swiftboated and taken advantage of at every step of the way. After all, to them, our efforts at compromising is only a sign of weakness. After the dirty deed is done, we'll call it the Cirlce of Life, sing Kumbaya, build them a statue and be done with it. Running the American government isn't always pretty, but it's a necessary job.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Glenn Beck's a Thinker, All Right
Anyone see that Glenn Beck commercial air on TV, about how he's "a thinker?" The people over at SNL wouldn't even have to change the words around - and the audience would be dying. "I'm not a military analyst," the commercial goes, "but I am a thinker." Oh, yeah. That's inspiring. If only I could have found a YouTube clip of it that wasn't satire. In any event, go read this, it's hilarious and pathetic all at the same time.
Here's a teaser:
Imagine, these are the people that get put on TV?
Here's a teaser:
"But how do we know the difference -- I mean, you're reasonable. How do we know the difference between you and those that are trying to kill us?"
--
CNN's Glenn Beck, to Muslim guest
Imagine, these are the people that get put on TV?
Globe: It's Not He Said/She Said
No matter how a Batman episode was turning, be it Joker finding the Bat Cave or the Penguin up to his usual schemes, it would be resolved within the last five minutes - resoundingly so.The Globe endorsed Niki Tsongas in today's edition, mainly for Tsongas's support of SCHIP. No surprises there. However, this is the distressing part. The emphasis is mine.
Ogonowski has said he wants to expand the program, but opposes the bill on the grounds that, by eliminating a federal requirement for identification, it could provide insurance to the children of undocumented immigrants. Tsongas says the bill's wording clearly indicates it would not do this.
Sure, Tsongas "says" it, but it's also the cold, hard truth. Look, I get that newspapers want to seem impartial, but the fact of the matter is they're supposed to deliver the truth. The SCHIP bill clearly laid out that identification is required to participate. Is it too much to ask for a major regional paper to say, "Oganowski says the program could provide insurance to the children of undocumented immigrants, but is in fact wrong. The bill specifically states that participants must have proper identification."
The Globe doesn't have to call Idon'tknowski a liar; they just have to do their jobs and inform the public he's wrong. Why? Because he is, dammit. The public can determine whether or not Idon'tknowski is a lying liar or is merely inane. I'm going with both - and enjoying the fireworks as his campaign implodes like a house of cards hit with a brick of truth. Wham!
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Must Read on ENDA and Trans Issue
John Avarosis at Americablog has a really interesting post on the dynamics of ENDA. There's a lot there, talking about myriad issues surrounding the bill and the entire lgbt movement. Given the importance of the piece, everyone should check it out. Seriously, I can't stress how important it is to read the whole damn thing - and then think about it. Here's a particularly good snippet:
In many ways, he's right. Breaking up ENDA to make it easier to pass, which is the short-term pragmatic thing to do, would certainly be followed up on by the more hardcore people. However, many more glb people just aren't going to immerse themselves in a battle for GENDA, even if they sympathize with transgendered people.
We have to admit the facts: there are differences between "glb" and "t," and I'm not just talking about Hedwig and the Angry Inch. Certainly, those differences and misunderstandings prevent a lot of people who are glb from truly embracing the needs of transgendered and transsexual people. As I've stated a few times, the glbt movement has asked trans people to sacrifice before and didn't follow up on it. Part of that is because we haven't been as successful with glb rights as we'd like - and the movement's been busy. Yet, no one can really deny that trans rights have been slowed at times because of "glb" indifference, at least by some people and organizations.
Given all the transgendered people I've been close to in the past, I'd like to say I'm not 'some of those people,' but knowing everything I know I've still advocated for pragmatic solutions, at least during the Bush Administration. I may be willing to work hard for a GENDA too, but I know there's hundreds of thousands of gay and bisexual people that won't. I know that if ENDA would pass, it's very unlikely for GENDA to follow it for at least 2-3 years, if not a decade. So, given that, am I still urging for the pragmatic solution?
Maybe, maybe not. It's tough to say to millions of gay people that they should suffer too, all because the American people have an even more ignorant attitude toward transgendered people than they do gays and lesbians. Haven't gay people already suffered enough? Then again, if glb people don't embrace the transgendered community, who will?
I don't know what's the right solution in the long term battle. I don't know how successful current glbt advocates can be in the future on transgendered rights if we don't completely link our fates with the trans community now. It's just too damn hard to predict. Will continuous progress eventually mean continual transgendered progress, as I'd like to think? Unfortunately, blogger.com doesn't come equipped with a crystal ball. More importantly, the decision isn't up to me, bloggers, writers or even the major players at HRC and other organizations. As Avarosis illustrates, it'll come from whatever argument compels at least a majority of glb people.
However, I've been right all along in saying there's a schism in the glbt community; that people are looking out for their own interests - and, sadly, are quite willing to tear down our supposed allies in order to protect self interests. Should we expect anything more from human beings? Well, history says it's quite possible, but only under certain conditions. John Avarosis makes the great point that no revolution will be successful unless it's embraced by the people within it. Has the gay community - as a whole - truly accepted the transgendered community as a part of the same struggle? Not according to Avarosis.
If the GLBT movement is going to succeed as a wide-spread movement, instead of splintering apart, it's clear that GLB and T people need to have a meeting of the minds - before we can ever address the differences between when something's pragmatic and when it's downright selfish. Unfortunately, that's a very slow, grassroots process. In this current climate of tearing each other apart, do we have the patience to go through it?
----
As an aside, this is one of the most important issue facing the GLBT movement today - at least on par with marriage equality, DADT, ENDA and hate crimes. As such, I plan on tackling it on a near-future LeftAhead! podcast. I'll be looking for knowledgeable guests for the show; send me an email if you're interested in that discussion.
Furthermore, I actually think it would make for a compelling Blog Left Massachusetts event. I'd be willing to help organize it if I could get a few others involved too.
Send me emails. Let's do our part to have that "meeting of the minds" right where it matters most, the grassroots.
But when I speak to friends and colleagues privately, senior members of the gay political/journalistic establishment, and just plain old gay friends around the country (and our own readers), the message I hear is far different from what I'm hearing from the groups. I'm clearly hearing three things. Well, four:
1. I feel empathy for transgendered people, and support their struggle for civil rights.
2. I want ENDA to pass this year even if we can't include transgendered people.
3. I don't understand when transgendered people became part of the gay community?
And then there's always #4: Please don't tell anyone I told you this.
What I'm hearing is a message far different from what you hear from NGLTF and some of the louder activist claiming to speak for the enlightened masses. I think that a lot of gay people never truly accepted the transgender revolution that was thrust upon them. They simply sat back and shut up about their questions and concerns and doubts out of a sense of shame that it was somehow impolite to even question what was happening, and fear that if they did ask questions they'd be marked as bigots. And now, that paper-thin transgender revolution is coming home to roost.
In many ways, he's right. Breaking up ENDA to make it easier to pass, which is the short-term pragmatic thing to do, would certainly be followed up on by the more hardcore people. However, many more glb people just aren't going to immerse themselves in a battle for GENDA, even if they sympathize with transgendered people.
We have to admit the facts: there are differences between "glb" and "t," and I'm not just talking about Hedwig and the Angry Inch. Certainly, those differences and misunderstandings prevent a lot of people who are glb from truly embracing the needs of transgendered and transsexual people. As I've stated a few times, the glbt movement has asked trans people to sacrifice before and didn't follow up on it. Part of that is because we haven't been as successful with glb rights as we'd like - and the movement's been busy. Yet, no one can really deny that trans rights have been slowed at times because of "glb" indifference, at least by some people and organizations.
Given all the transgendered people I've been close to in the past, I'd like to say I'm not 'some of those people,' but knowing everything I know I've still advocated for pragmatic solutions, at least during the Bush Administration. I may be willing to work hard for a GENDA too, but I know there's hundreds of thousands of gay and bisexual people that won't. I know that if ENDA would pass, it's very unlikely for GENDA to follow it for at least 2-3 years, if not a decade. So, given that, am I still urging for the pragmatic solution?
Maybe, maybe not. It's tough to say to millions of gay people that they should suffer too, all because the American people have an even more ignorant attitude toward transgendered people than they do gays and lesbians. Haven't gay people already suffered enough? Then again, if glb people don't embrace the transgendered community, who will?
I don't know what's the right solution in the long term battle. I don't know how successful current glbt advocates can be in the future on transgendered rights if we don't completely link our fates with the trans community now. It's just too damn hard to predict. Will continuous progress eventually mean continual transgendered progress, as I'd like to think? Unfortunately, blogger.com doesn't come equipped with a crystal ball. More importantly, the decision isn't up to me, bloggers, writers or even the major players at HRC and other organizations. As Avarosis illustrates, it'll come from whatever argument compels at least a majority of glb people.
However, I've been right all along in saying there's a schism in the glbt community; that people are looking out for their own interests - and, sadly, are quite willing to tear down our supposed allies in order to protect self interests. Should we expect anything more from human beings? Well, history says it's quite possible, but only under certain conditions. John Avarosis makes the great point that no revolution will be successful unless it's embraced by the people within it. Has the gay community - as a whole - truly accepted the transgendered community as a part of the same struggle? Not according to Avarosis.
If the GLBT movement is going to succeed as a wide-spread movement, instead of splintering apart, it's clear that GLB and T people need to have a meeting of the minds - before we can ever address the differences between when something's pragmatic and when it's downright selfish. Unfortunately, that's a very slow, grassroots process. In this current climate of tearing each other apart, do we have the patience to go through it?
----
As an aside, this is one of the most important issue facing the GLBT movement today - at least on par with marriage equality, DADT, ENDA and hate crimes. As such, I plan on tackling it on a near-future LeftAhead! podcast. I'll be looking for knowledgeable guests for the show; send me an email if you're interested in that discussion.
Furthermore, I actually think it would make for a compelling Blog Left Massachusetts event. I'd be willing to help organize it if I could get a few others involved too.
Send me emails. Let's do our part to have that "meeting of the minds" right where it matters most, the grassroots.
Friday, October 05, 2007
Friday's Important Things
Here's a list of all the things you need to know before you go home this evening:
- Don't vote for Jim "Idon'tknowski." David has two great posts on how the wannabe Rep won't be Repping the truth on children's health care, the S-CHIP program. Idon'tknowski says he wants children to have health care, just not undocumented immigrant children. Um, considering the program requires a valid ID, I fail to see how that's a problem. (Though, as David notes, the Globe's still confused.)
- Now Idon'tknowski says he just wants to rewrite the bill, which would effectively kill it (though you won't get that from him). The program would expire and hundreds of thousands of kids would lose access to health care. What a swell guy. Meanwhile, this was a completely bipartisan bill: no re-dos, Mr. Idon'tknowski.
- Why was this guy within 10% last poll? Expect that margin to increase, by a lot - and work for it too. Obviously, the kids can't afford
OganowksiIdon'tknowski in Congress (never mind the troops in Iraq). - Meanwhile, for all those who were just dying to tear me a new one for being pragmatic on ENDA, you never can tell what will happen.
Now, I wouldn't expect him to actually sign the bill, but as I've said all along: we could send the blandest, worst ENDA possible to his desk and it would only help us in the long run if he vetoed it. I doubt most rational human beings know that glbt people can be fired from their job, in most states, simply for being gay, bi, lesbian or transgendered. There's no better way to put that issue on the map than a Presidential, George-W.-Bush veto, especially when the media can go on and on about how bland the actual bill was. Unfortunately, though, it's a lost opportunity: it seems we'll have to wait for a Democratic President to even have a chance on issues like ENDA, all because certain (loud) folks don't know how to be pragmatic and won't stand for anything less than a Titanic bill."Although Bush said during his 2000 election campaign that he does not support ENDA, neither he nor the White House has said whether the president would veto that legislation."
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
This Year, Let's Skip the Violence
The UMASS Dartmouth police have released their 'official plan' to combat fun after any playoff victories under the guise of, I don't know, rowdy behavior. Of course, they say that the World Series year resulted in $100,000 extra dollars in damages and police costs. Yet, $30,000 of that was sent to the town of Dartmouth to reimburse their coffers for police overtime costs. How much more of that 100k was spent to bring on a gazillion State Cops? Probably at least another 50-60k, because there were upwards of a hundred of them - each night. My guess is that all that "rowdy behavior" last time around resulted in less than 20k in actual damages, which may or may not have occurred if the police weren't acting like such tight-fisted ass... never mind.
Meanwhile, the cops were employing the same 'less lethal' tactics that resulted in an innocent girl being killed in Boston, rubber bullets galore. I personally know of at least one person that ended up going to the hospital because of the actions of those cops that night. That night they literally shot the messenger - the college newspaper's reporter, who was covering the story, was the one who ended up with huge welts at the hospital.
Why is it that large crowds of police officers tend to end in needless police brutality more often than not? Do we need to send our troops to Europe to learn how to handle masses of gathering people? Considering our First Amendment gives people the right to peaceably assemble, it sounds like an important priority. And if there just so happens to be a few arses on any given night, it doesn't give cops the right to swarm in and harm everyone.
To make sure a Red Sox victory celebration doesn't get out of hand, UMASS (and Boston) just needs a few patient officers patrolling the crowd and handling individual circumstances as they come up. Just because a few jerks start tipping a van doesn't mean you spray rubbers into the crowd - that will only serve to really make things dangerous. Just ask Victoria Snelgrove.
Meanwhile, the cops were employing the same 'less lethal' tactics that resulted in an innocent girl being killed in Boston, rubber bullets galore. I personally know of at least one person that ended up going to the hospital because of the actions of those cops that night. That night they literally shot the messenger - the college newspaper's reporter, who was covering the story, was the one who ended up with huge welts at the hospital.
Why is it that large crowds of police officers tend to end in needless police brutality more often than not? Do we need to send our troops to Europe to learn how to handle masses of gathering people? Considering our First Amendment gives people the right to peaceably assemble, it sounds like an important priority. And if there just so happens to be a few arses on any given night, it doesn't give cops the right to swarm in and harm everyone.
To make sure a Red Sox victory celebration doesn't get out of hand, UMASS (and Boston) just needs a few patient officers patrolling the crowd and handling individual circumstances as they come up. Just because a few jerks start tipping a van doesn't mean you spray rubbers into the crowd - that will only serve to really make things dangerous. Just ask Victoria Snelgrove.
Employee Discrimination Madness
In terms of civil rights protection, nothing's more important than the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). At the minimum, people should be able to go to work without fear of being fired for being gay, something that's completely legal in more states than not. Recently, in a controversial move that would help the bill pass, Representative Barney Frank split ENDA into two: ENDA and GENDA, a bill that was the same, except it protected transgendered people. The reasoning was simple: when transgendered rights were included in ENDA, it wasn't going to get through the house. Makes sense, right?
Well, apparently not. Let's not forget that the gay rights movement is splintered and vicious toward its own. No one wants one subgroup to advance unless everyone else gets the same rights and privileges. That sounds nice in principal, but it's only served to be a weight that's dragging everyone down with it.
Would it have been fair to transgendered folks if they weren't included in the ENDA that had a chance to pass right now? Absolutely not, but it's even more unfair that transgendered advocates have forced a trans-free ENDA to be shelved for now, too. There are people losing their jobs for being gay every day and we had a chance to do something about that. Now that chance is gone, because ENDA didn't solve every problem in one fell swoop (as if that ever happens).
Unfortunately this country has a much longer way to go in terms of understanding "t" than they do "glb." Now, instead of reaching some kind of success so we can concentrate on giving that education and helping transgendered people reach the same achievements, a lot of people cried foul and the entire thing is essentially scratched - to many glbt-cheering audiences, as that link indicates. Are the cheer leaders noble and courageous, or just frogs in water slowly being brought to a boil, shaking their pompoms?
This infighting has got to stop. We need to start working for general progress, instead of tearing each other down. If we keep fighting the same fights over and over again, we're never going to get to even more difficult turf, such as transgendered rights. No one should expect perfect results, perfect laws or perfect proposals. It's just not going to happen and we need to get used to it. The sooner we do, the sooner we can start plugging away to turn the imperfect to better, then to where it should be, but that's not going to happen if people can't accept taking these steps one at a time, at least when we have no other choice.
Well, apparently not. Let's not forget that the gay rights movement is splintered and vicious toward its own. No one wants one subgroup to advance unless everyone else gets the same rights and privileges. That sounds nice in principal, but it's only served to be a weight that's dragging everyone down with it.
Would it have been fair to transgendered folks if they weren't included in the ENDA that had a chance to pass right now? Absolutely not, but it's even more unfair that transgendered advocates have forced a trans-free ENDA to be shelved for now, too. There are people losing their jobs for being gay every day and we had a chance to do something about that. Now that chance is gone, because ENDA didn't solve every problem in one fell swoop (as if that ever happens).
Unfortunately this country has a much longer way to go in terms of understanding "t" than they do "glb." Now, instead of reaching some kind of success so we can concentrate on giving that education and helping transgendered people reach the same achievements, a lot of people cried foul and the entire thing is essentially scratched - to many glbt-cheering audiences, as that link indicates. Are the cheer leaders noble and courageous, or just frogs in water slowly being brought to a boil, shaking their pompoms?
This infighting has got to stop. We need to start working for general progress, instead of tearing each other down. If we keep fighting the same fights over and over again, we're never going to get to even more difficult turf, such as transgendered rights. No one should expect perfect results, perfect laws or perfect proposals. It's just not going to happen and we need to get used to it. The sooner we do, the sooner we can start plugging away to turn the imperfect to better, then to where it should be, but that's not going to happen if people can't accept taking these steps one at a time, at least when we have no other choice.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
MA-05 Getting Close?
That's what Mike says. Apparently, the polls have tightened to around 10%. While that's not a landslide, I don't know if I'd be willing to say this thing is close quite yet. We'll see if it gets even closer, or not.
Still though, as Mike's diatribe points out rather well, it's certainly frustrating Niki is trying to be an outsider candidate of change instead of playing to her strengths. Republican-lite isn't the best strategy anywhere, because more people will just want the real deal. Here's hoping Tsongas stops hitting the snooze button, turns off the alarm and goes on the attack - no more miss nice gal when there are men and women dying in the thousands in Iraq. Mr. Oganowski would just keep them there longer and that's not going to be a popular decision anywhere in Massachusetts, even in the conservative-ish 5th.
Still though, as Mike's diatribe points out rather well, it's certainly frustrating Niki is trying to be an outsider candidate of change instead of playing to her strengths. Republican-lite isn't the best strategy anywhere, because more people will just want the real deal. Here's hoping Tsongas stops hitting the snooze button, turns off the alarm and goes on the attack - no more miss nice gal when there are men and women dying in the thousands in Iraq. Mr. Oganowski would just keep them there longer and that's not going to be a popular decision anywhere in Massachusetts, even in the conservative-ish 5th.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments