Monday, June 30, 2008
Grats Gladys!
She's officially been blogging for a full year! If anyone hasn't been to her blog, you're really missing out. There isn't a better, funnier and more important blog on the efforts to stop casinos from coming to Massachusetts out there. She makes us laugh so we don't cry. And her videos... pure genius...
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Protect the Dogs
Lynne and I agree as usual.
Update: I put a poll on BlogLeftMass asking if we, as a group, should support the measure to ban greyhound racing. Please vote.
We should judge our own race by the way we treat those whose lives we control....As does Granby's Mark Bail.
I will vote for the ban in November, and encourage you to do the same. Unless you aren’t human, you can’t help but be moved by pictures like these. This is what a happy greyhound looks like. Let’s ensure that all greyhounds are bred for loving homes, not gambling profit.
Update: I put a poll on BlogLeftMass asking if we, as a group, should support the measure to ban greyhound racing. Please vote.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Racino's Legislative Death?
Is this the last nail in the coffin? It's sure looking like it:
Also, score one for Sue Tucker.
And in the House:
(Take that, Joan.)
Crossposted at BMG.
A bill that would have made it possible for the state's four racetracks, including Raynham Taunton Greyhound Park, to offer slot machines is dead for this year.If this is true, it'll seriously make my day.
David L. Flynn, D-Bridgewater, said the Senate has refused to allow action on the measure to legalize slots at the four race tracks.
Also, score one for Sue Tucker.
And in the House:
House Speaker Sal DiMasi gave little hope that the slots bill would advance before the July 31st deadline....Obviously, in Speaker DiMasi's House, it goes exactly where it should: no where.
“That’s actually in limbo,” DiMasi said.... “There’s a difference of opinion as to where it goes.”
(Take that, Joan.)
Crossposted at BMG.
Senator Kerry on N. Korea, Bush Admin
“Progress on ending North Korea’s nuclear weapons program is always tenuous and remains incomplete. But the regime’s nuclear declaration is the latest reminder that, despite President Bush’s once bellicose rhetoric, engaging our enemies can pay dividends. Historians will long wonder why this Administration did not directly engage North Korea before Pyongyang gathered enough material for several nuclear weapons, tested a nuclear device, and the missiles to deliver them. Now the President must not prematurely close the books on North Korea’s alleged uranium enrichment activities and nuclear exports. We must ensure there are credible verification and monitoring procedures to ensure North Korea is out of the nuclear business for the long term.”Indeed.
BMG Comments: the New Godwin's Law
Is Marriage Equality the new Godwin's Law on BMG?
If so, I'm claiming the namesake. Ryan's Law:
If so, I'm claiming the namesake. Ryan's Law:
As a Bluemassgroup discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving gay rights or same-sex marriage approaches one.
Supremely Disappointed in Obama
I'll tell you, I was starting to get excited about Obama, but I can't state how much of a disappointment this is for a stalwart Democrat.
There's an opportunity here to further brand the RNC as the party of fear mongering and political manipulation, which is all true, if Obama is willing to take it. All we need is a minimum of patience and some political courage to turn this into a conversation of "do you support the Constitution or not?" Apparently, Obama's too afraid of being called a Muslim, or something.
For the naysayers: anyone who says "AT&T deserves immunity, because the national government demanded it," is either a hack or an ignoramus (no offense to the latter). In no way whatsoever did the Federal Government vote to sanction our intelligence community to wiretap US phones without going through FISA and getting a warrant. The Bush administration is not the federal government; it's just one branch. As such, it had no authority to demand telecoms bypass FISA whatsoever.
All of these Telecoms have lawyers enough to populate entire communities, they knew Bush had no such authority, so that argument just doesn't fly. Point in case: not all of the Telecoms did Bush's bidding, some refused and demanded the BushCo. compel them, which the White House could never do... because it wouldn't be constitutional. No, there were other reasons why most of the Telecoms went along with it - a hint: it rhymes with squid bro fo.
The "Government" didn't force the telecoms to do anything; certain agencies, under the auspices of Dick and Bush, asked for that information, maybe even bullied for it, but nothing changes the fact that ultimately the Telecoms chose to give up the goods (your 4th amendment rights). None of them kicked and screamed and took the Government to court to protect you, their paying customers, from being spied on by the Government. Swallow that while considering the thousands a year we all pay these companies - the very same companies that are now asking for immunity, for protection against us.
No, these Telecoms deserve whatever punishments eventually come their way, criminal or otherwise, if we can somehow prevent them from cashing in early on some of those quid pro quos - in the form of the ultimate get-out-of-jail free card. With millions of people in this country's prison system, we're going to decide that the white collar executives at AT&T, who have teams of lawyers and never suffer from wont of anything, are the ones who deserve retroactive immunity? With all the lawyers they had on staff to give them sage legal advice, these are the people who deserve to be free from 'frivolous lawsuits?'
Does Senator Obama and Speaker Pelosi even know what accountability means? This is perhaps the biggest scandal in the history of modern America and not only are the Democrats content to do nothing about it, they're making sure they'll never have to do anything about it ever. With immunity, what's there to be done? Ask telecoms politely not to do it again? How will we ever know the full extent of what went on if Verizon gets to Pass Go & Collect $200? On FISA alone, I'll refuse to send Obama a dime or volunteer a single minute, unless he changes course pronto.
The good news: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid came around on the issue, as well as Senator Chuck Schumer from NY. If Senator Clinton follows suit, as she often does, who knows? At least, for true blue Democrats who bought into the mantra of "change," Hillary would have the last laugh if she could help lead the filibuster. Unless, of course, Obama quicklygrows a conscience realizes the Constitution trumps political ambitions any day of the week, especially when, in the long run, being courageous on FISA very likely will be to our advantage - as the party that fixes things.
Asked specifically why he's supporting the current FISA bill when he'd promised months ago to support a filibuster of an earlier version of the bill, Obama suggested flat out that "national security" overrides the question of telecom immunity.First of all, we've managed to pass FISA extensions for years now: it's not as if there's a choice between national security and the constitution. That's a Republican fallacy that, sadly, Obama seems all too happy to promote. Second of all, it can't be described how weak this is on Obama's part: it's something we may have expected out of a Democrat in 2002, not today.
There's an opportunity here to further brand the RNC as the party of fear mongering and political manipulation, which is all true, if Obama is willing to take it. All we need is a minimum of patience and some political courage to turn this into a conversation of "do you support the Constitution or not?" Apparently, Obama's too afraid of being called a Muslim, or something.
For the naysayers: anyone who says "AT&T deserves immunity, because the national government demanded it," is either a hack or an ignoramus (no offense to the latter). In no way whatsoever did the Federal Government vote to sanction our intelligence community to wiretap US phones without going through FISA and getting a warrant. The Bush administration is not the federal government; it's just one branch. As such, it had no authority to demand telecoms bypass FISA whatsoever.
All of these Telecoms have lawyers enough to populate entire communities, they knew Bush had no such authority, so that argument just doesn't fly. Point in case: not all of the Telecoms did Bush's bidding, some refused and demanded the BushCo. compel them, which the White House could never do... because it wouldn't be constitutional. No, there were other reasons why most of the Telecoms went along with it - a hint: it rhymes with squid bro fo.
The "Government" didn't force the telecoms to do anything; certain agencies, under the auspices of Dick and Bush, asked for that information, maybe even bullied for it, but nothing changes the fact that ultimately the Telecoms chose to give up the goods (your 4th amendment rights). None of them kicked and screamed and took the Government to court to protect you, their paying customers, from being spied on by the Government. Swallow that while considering the thousands a year we all pay these companies - the very same companies that are now asking for immunity, for protection against us.
No, these Telecoms deserve whatever punishments eventually come their way, criminal or otherwise, if we can somehow prevent them from cashing in early on some of those quid pro quos - in the form of the ultimate get-out-of-jail free card. With millions of people in this country's prison system, we're going to decide that the white collar executives at AT&T, who have teams of lawyers and never suffer from wont of anything, are the ones who deserve retroactive immunity? With all the lawyers they had on staff to give them sage legal advice, these are the people who deserve to be free from 'frivolous lawsuits?'
Does Senator Obama and Speaker Pelosi even know what accountability means? This is perhaps the biggest scandal in the history of modern America and not only are the Democrats content to do nothing about it, they're making sure they'll never have to do anything about it ever. With immunity, what's there to be done? Ask telecoms politely not to do it again? How will we ever know the full extent of what went on if Verizon gets to Pass Go & Collect $200? On FISA alone, I'll refuse to send Obama a dime or volunteer a single minute, unless he changes course pronto.
The good news: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid came around on the issue, as well as Senator Chuck Schumer from NY. If Senator Clinton follows suit, as she often does, who knows? At least, for true blue Democrats who bought into the mantra of "change," Hillary would have the last laugh if she could help lead the filibuster. Unless, of course, Obama quickly
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
HMOs: Amazing for What They Don't Cover
Who needs care for post traumatic syndrome, anyway? HMOs obviously think you don't. A bill that would extend coverage for PTS, eating disorders and drug addictions and other "maladies" is currently up for debate in the House; let's hope it passes. Of course, cries of outrage have been heard ringing out the sides of HMOs everywhere. If they're going to whine and complain at every little detail, let's see how they like it if we switch on over to single-payer.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Here We Go With the Jobs, Again
From today's State House News Service (sorry, SHNS doesn't allow links):
For the record, Rhode Island's singular Racino claims to be on the verge of bankruptcy. Why, exactly, would we expect Massachusetts's four race tracks to do any better? Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't more competition lead to less profits?
Heck, two of the tracks in Massachusetts are within 2.4 miles of each other, or 3-4 subway stops. (Yes, Massachusetts has given both tracks their own Subway stop - talk about government propping up an industry!)
View Larger Map
Is that what we want Massachusetts to look like? Racinos within spitting distance of each other?
TRACKS MAKE LAST-DITCH SLOTS BIDWhere it belongs? I don't think so. If anyone believes Richard Dalton - that Racinos will create 4,000 new jobs and give the Commonwealth $1.5 billion a year, I have a bridge I'd like you to come take a look at.
Track owners facing long odds are making a closing plea to lawmakers to approve slot machines at the state’s four tracks, arguing that the Commonwealth would have an extra $1.5 billion and 4,000 union jobs on hand if they had joined the Senate in sanctioning the gambling machines two years ago.
“The legislation coming before you this month will put expanded gambling where it belongs: At the four Massachusetts racetracks that are zoned for gambling, are in communities that embrace the jobs and revenues from these businesses and are owned and operated locally,” wrote Richard Dalton of Wonderland Greyhound Park and Gary Piontkowski of Plainridge Racecourse in a letter to legislators.
For the record, Rhode Island's singular Racino claims to be on the verge of bankruptcy. Why, exactly, would we expect Massachusetts's four race tracks to do any better? Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't more competition lead to less profits?
Heck, two of the tracks in Massachusetts are within 2.4 miles of each other, or 3-4 subway stops. (Yes, Massachusetts has given both tracks their own Subway stop - talk about government propping up an industry!)
View Larger Map
Is that what we want Massachusetts to look like? Racinos within spitting distance of each other?
Monday, June 23, 2008
The Casino Job Mythos
One of the biggest reasons some people claim to support casinos is for the jobs. It's one of the age-old arguments - that casinos create jobs time infinity, all of which provide decent benefits. Of course, it's another age-old phenomenon that the pro-casino lobby usually lies, distorts and cheats it's way to their much ballyhooed numbers. Anyone remember those 25,000 construction jobs? Yeah, right.
Well, as the casino debate in Massachusetts shifts to Racinos this summer, it's important for everyone, including Beacon Hill, to note that the Racino Lobby is as gifted with their math as the Casino Lobby - 25,000 construction jobs being only the most laughable example. Need a refresher? Let's take a look at what George Carney, owner of the Raynham tracks, has said in the past:
Falsehood #1
"I'm sticking with 650 [jobs]."
George Carney continuously claims to employ 650 people at the Raynham Racetrack. Of course, according to the Census, the actual number is less than 250 - including part timers. Specifically, between 100 and 249. Oops.
How gross is that lie? Well, if you combine all the race tracks in this state - dog, horse, car, whatever - there's 707 employees, according to the Massachusetts Department of Labor. So, George Carney claims to employ almost as many racing-related jobs as the entire industry of Massachusetts. George, we know you're big, but not that big!
What tangled webs we weave. Let's pretend George is right - he has 650 employees. George also released documents that give definitive labor costs for the Raynham Track. Here's George's labor costs over a 9 month period in '06:
Now, if George really employs ~200 people, that number is a more reasonable $25,779. Sound about right?
Falsehood #2
"If the ban on dog racing wins approval... it could eliminate 6,000 to 8,000 jobs at the two tracks."
Right off the bat, we've deduced that Carney employs between 100 and 249 employees at Raynham. Let's be generous and round up to 250. If that's the case, the other park in question, Wonderland Racetrack, would have to employ between 5,750 to 7,750 jobs. Of course, according to Census numbers, that's laughable. Note to George: they couldn't fit that many cars in the Wonderland Parking Lot.
In 2002, Wonderland employed between 250 and 499 full time and part time employees. Of course, there's probably even less now, given recent trends at Race Tracks in Massachusetts and across the country. In fact, Wonderland even threatened that if it doesn't get its way with Racinos, it'll shut up shop and close for good. Good riddance. With hundreds of millions being invested just across the street on the beach, as well as a T station even closer, there's limitless possibilities for those acres to be used, which could bring more and better jobs for the area - industries that aren't so prone to lie, distort and cheat about their numbers.
Well, as the casino debate in Massachusetts shifts to Racinos this summer, it's important for everyone, including Beacon Hill, to note that the Racino Lobby is as gifted with their math as the Casino Lobby - 25,000 construction jobs being only the most laughable example. Need a refresher? Let's take a look at what George Carney, owner of the Raynham tracks, has said in the past:
Falsehood #1
"I'm sticking with 650 [jobs]."
George Carney continuously claims to employ 650 people at the Raynham Racetrack. Of course, according to the Census, the actual number is less than 250 - including part timers. Specifically, between 100 and 249. Oops.
How gross is that lie? Well, if you combine all the race tracks in this state - dog, horse, car, whatever - there's 707 employees, according to the Massachusetts Department of Labor. So, George Carney claims to employ almost as many racing-related jobs as the entire industry of Massachusetts. George, we know you're big, but not that big!
What tangled webs we weave. Let's pretend George is right - he has 650 employees. George also released documents that give definitive labor costs for the Raynham Track. Here's George's labor costs over a 9 month period in '06:
Taunton Dog Track, Inc. – “casual labor” $8,800
Taunton Dog Track, Inc. – “salaries and wages” $544,500
Massasoit Greyhound Association – “contract labor expense” $1,980,092
Massasoit Greyhound Association – “salaries and wages” $2,622,384
Total: $5,155,776
So, if George's claims are right and he truly employs 650 people, there's some very simple math to do. 650/5,155,776 = $7,931. Either George is paying his 650 minimum wage or less (and he claims his jobs are good jobs), or he's completely full of himself. Even George knows his math is as fuzzy as a pair of over-used tennis balls.
Now, if George really employs ~200 people, that number is a more reasonable $25,779. Sound about right?
Falsehood #2
"If the ban on dog racing wins approval... it could eliminate 6,000 to 8,000 jobs at the two tracks."
Right off the bat, we've deduced that Carney employs between 100 and 249 employees at Raynham. Let's be generous and round up to 250. If that's the case, the other park in question, Wonderland Racetrack, would have to employ between 5,750 to 7,750 jobs. Of course, according to Census numbers, that's laughable. Note to George: they couldn't fit that many cars in the Wonderland Parking Lot.
In 2002, Wonderland employed between 250 and 499 full time and part time employees. Of course, there's probably even less now, given recent trends at Race Tracks in Massachusetts and across the country. In fact, Wonderland even threatened that if it doesn't get its way with Racinos, it'll shut up shop and close for good. Good riddance. With hundreds of millions being invested just across the street on the beach, as well as a T station even closer, there's limitless possibilities for those acres to be used, which could bring more and better jobs for the area - industries that aren't so prone to lie, distort and cheat about their numbers.
Friday, June 20, 2008
The Globe's Good Journalism: Corrections
Corrections!
I noticed yesterday that Sen. Wilkerson had a very odd quote, only to find out today that the Globe misquoted her. I half expected it.
Here's what they said first.
Oh, and this whole thing boosts my statement in the comments just yesterday, after I made a update on the story of my own:
I noticed yesterday that Sen. Wilkerson had a very odd quote, only to find out today that the Globe misquoted her. I half expected it.
Here's what they said first.
Wilkerson, however, said: "I don't consider it courage at all. . . . It doesn't matter how many jobs [are created], if you do not have a car you will not be working at a casino."Here's what she really said:
"It doesn't matter how many jobs [are created], if you do not have a CORI [Criminal Offender Record Information] you will not be working at a casino."That's a little better.
Oh, and this whole thing boosts my statement in the comments just yesterday, after I made a update on the story of my own:
The good journalism practice came into play when I CORRECTED the story. We all make mistakes; none of us can know everything all of the time.There is nothing wrong in the media with getting something wrong, either because there weren't enough facts available or because a simple mistake was made. We all make mistakes and none of us are perfect. Kudos to the Globe for fixing the story; all too often, misquotes stay misquoted forever.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Sen Wilkerson's "3,000" Signatures & More
On the surface of this article, it looks like there's some good news for Senator Wilkerson: she's "not taking any chances," and has 10x the necessary signatures, over 3,000 that she turned in (more on that next paragraph). While that certainly sounds good, doesn't the Globe emphasizing it just remind voters she was so incompetent as to forget to get her signatures last time? It's not as if she turned in her signatures last cycle, thinking she had enough, only to fall just behind - like this candidate did. Note to the Wilkerson Campaign: Get better messaging people.
Sadly, it actually gets worse. Today's Globe article certainly played up the 3,000 number, making it seem like Wilkerson has incredible momentum. Yet, as David's reporting on BlueMassGroup, Wilkerson has her own new embarrassment this year. Boy, did she need those 3,000 signatures! (Emphasis mine.)
How is that even possible? I've been involved in a lot of campaigns; I've never seen that many signatures rejected, never mind the proportion (!!). Did someone just take a bunch of papers and write up 2,500 fake names on them, or something? What the heck happened?
And why was the Globe so lazy as to print their Wilkerson Roxers article the very same day that the South End News unearthed the horrendous 14% success rate? What say ye, the Paper of Record?
Also, a bit off topic, but there's a weird casino quote from Wilkerson in the Globe, from one or her debates with Chang-Diaz.
Kudos for both candidates engaging in this many debates. Both women are incredibly great on the issues, so this election really comes down to what people value more: Wilkerson's time accrued in office (and all the perks that come with it) versus Chang-Diaz's clean-government message.
Full disclosure: I'm not involved in this race and haven't endorsed any candidates. That said, Chang-Diaz has been a guest on LeftAhead, which I co host weekly. Senator Wilkerson is more than welcome to come on anytime.
Update: Apparently, cities and towns only need to certify up to 140% of the signatures necessary to get on a ballot. So it's very likely that Wilkerson really did have something close to 3,000 signatures, we'll just never know quite how many for sure. If anyone has any more information, please contact me.
Sadly, it actually gets worse. Today's Globe article certainly played up the 3,000 number, making it seem like Wilkerson has incredible momentum. Yet, as David's reporting on BlueMassGroup, Wilkerson has her own new embarrassment this year. Boy, did she need those 3,000 signatures! (Emphasis mine.)
And yet, the South End News now says that of those 3,000, only 428 were certified by the Secretary of State's office -- more than the required 300, but only a 14% success rate.
How is that even possible? I've been involved in a lot of campaigns; I've never seen that many signatures rejected, never mind the proportion (!!). Did someone just take a bunch of papers and write up 2,500 fake names on them, or something? What the heck happened?
And why was the Globe so lazy as to print their Wilkerson Roxers article the very same day that the South End News unearthed the horrendous 14% success rate? What say ye, the Paper of Record?
Also, a bit off topic, but there's a weird casino quote from Wilkerson in the Globe, from one or her debates with Chang-Diaz.
Wilkerson, however, said: "I don't consider it courage at all. . . . It doesn't matter how many jobs [are created], if you do not have a car you will not be working at a casino."I'll assume the Globe left something out, because it certainly sounds a bit strange, but I applaud the Senator nonetheless for being so vehemently against casinos (as I do Chang-Diaz, who's also against them).
Kudos for both candidates engaging in this many debates. Both women are incredibly great on the issues, so this election really comes down to what people value more: Wilkerson's time accrued in office (and all the perks that come with it) versus Chang-Diaz's clean-government message.
Full disclosure: I'm not involved in this race and haven't endorsed any candidates. That said, Chang-Diaz has been a guest on LeftAhead, which I co host weekly. Senator Wilkerson is more than welcome to come on anytime.
Update: Apparently, cities and towns only need to certify up to 140% of the signatures necessary to get on a ballot. So it's very likely that Wilkerson really did have something close to 3,000 signatures, we'll just never know quite how many for sure. If anyone has any more information, please contact me.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Saving the Dogs and Our Souls
According to The Committee to Protect Dogs, with over 45,000 signatures collected, it looks like Massachusetts voters will have the opportunity to save greyhounds from cruelty. The good thing about a measure such as this is it appeals to all people - that's why it was one of the closest ballot initiatives ever, last time it was on the ballot. Democrats and Republicans own dogs: no one who owns a dog wants to see them trapped in a cage so small that they can barely move, for more than 20 hours a day. What kind of life is that? It's no wonder that so many get hurt, killed and euthanized due to injuries that occur because of the cruelty with which they're treated.
The Globe attached a picture to their article about the ballot initiative, which I linked to above. It's of the dogs racing at a track, free from being trapped all day. It would be better to show pictures of all the dogs that are killed. I saw a documentary, years ago, of dog after dog being thrown into a giant trash receptacle, no doubt to be picked up before they started decaying. Or the Paper of Record could have shown a picture of the dogs with missing ears, limbs or scars so hideous that even people without a pet could grasp what's truly going on - and want to do something about it. We just don't want to see those pictures, because they make us sick. But that doesn't mean the Globe shouldn't show them.
Greyhounds in their kennel. They're kept in there almost all day long. I'll spare everyone from the far more gruesome pictures you can find using Google Image, searching for "greyhound cruelty."
Race Tracks aren't fun for dogs; they shouldn't be fun for people. People bet and dogs die. How entertaining. Imagine if the people who bet on dogs were the ones who had to take care of them. Suddenly, these people would realize it's less an industry as it is a legalized version of the movie Hostel, just this time for canines. Would people still get their kicks and thrills? I doubt it.
The good news is we can have our cake and eat it too. These Race Tracks are large lots of land. We need lose no jobs, because something more lucrative could be built with just a little ingenuity. Race tracks are already a dying enterprise, we're just making it happen a few years sooner, saving who knows how many dogs in the process. The good news is that whatever replaces the dog tracks will probably be better, both for profits and dogs. It's tough to think of a more horrendous way to make money than dog tracks, so lets decide as citizens of the Commonwealth to demand better.
The Globe attached a picture to their article about the ballot initiative, which I linked to above. It's of the dogs racing at a track, free from being trapped all day. It would be better to show pictures of all the dogs that are killed. I saw a documentary, years ago, of dog after dog being thrown into a giant trash receptacle, no doubt to be picked up before they started decaying. Or the Paper of Record could have shown a picture of the dogs with missing ears, limbs or scars so hideous that even people without a pet could grasp what's truly going on - and want to do something about it. We just don't want to see those pictures, because they make us sick. But that doesn't mean the Globe shouldn't show them.
Greyhounds in their kennel. They're kept in there almost all day long. I'll spare everyone from the far more gruesome pictures you can find using Google Image, searching for "greyhound cruelty." Race Tracks aren't fun for dogs; they shouldn't be fun for people. People bet and dogs die. How entertaining. Imagine if the people who bet on dogs were the ones who had to take care of them. Suddenly, these people would realize it's less an industry as it is a legalized version of the movie Hostel, just this time for canines. Would people still get their kicks and thrills? I doubt it.
The good news is we can have our cake and eat it too. These Race Tracks are large lots of land. We need lose no jobs, because something more lucrative could be built with just a little ingenuity. Race tracks are already a dying enterprise, we're just making it happen a few years sooner, saving who knows how many dogs in the process. The good news is that whatever replaces the dog tracks will probably be better, both for profits and dogs. It's tough to think of a more horrendous way to make money than dog tracks, so lets decide as citizens of the Commonwealth to demand better.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Today's LeftAhead Podcast: Obama, McCain & the Media
Today's LeftAhead features Mike, Lynne and I, as we zoom in on the role of the media in the General Election. So far, the media's been giving McCain as much leeway as we thought they would. While Obama's had to defend every word he's said, including the infamous "bitter" remark, McCain seemingly always gets a second chance to explain what he meant to say. It's political "Gotcha" journalism at it's worst - when it's only applied to Democrats. Part of 2008's election will be determined on whether or not Obama can hold McCain's feet to his fire, as we think a little heat will make McCain prime to implode in flames of glory - in other words, an Electoral Disaster waiting to happen.
Other topics during today's show:
Other topics during today's show:
- New Electoral Math
- Remembering Tim Russert the Right Way
- Is Age an Issue or an Ism?
- How Long will the Democratic Majority Last?
AP's Free Speech Problem
Someone at the AP's throwing a hissy fit.
Well, not so much.
Look, no bloggers should be completely ripping content off newspapers and newswires. That's unacceptable. However, newspapers can't suddenly expect bloggers to not use block quotes in their writing - which is pretty much the AP's intent. There's plenty room for give and take, as both sources help each other: newspapers helps bloggers with content, while bloggers help newspapers build readership and reputation. Newspapers must stop viewing blogs as competition and should start looking at us like the bacteria-sucking fish that are any shark's best friend. We'll make sure they don't get sick, as long as they don't eat us.
So, what should the standards for using newspaper content in blogs be? It would be nice to have a Old School/New School Media Convention, inviting all kinds of bloggers, journalists and editors to come together to the table, so we could hammer some of these things away. But I'm not that naive as to think newspapers would embrace it this soon. So, en lieu of that, why should the standards for using newspaper quotes in blogs be any different than using them in academic papers? At UMASS Dartmouth, using the national political science standard (which is fairly similar to other models), students could quote up to three paragraphs in aggregate from a newspaper. That's an eminently fair compromise, allowing bloggers to liberally quote from articles and make sure they get it right, while it isn't quoting so much that it's just stealing the article. That's the standard I've used on this blog since nearly the beginning; it would behoove the AP to adopt something like it, lest they just want their policy to be ignored.
The Associated Press, one of the nation’s largest news organizations, said that it will, for the first time, attempt to define clear standards as to how much of its articles and broadcasts bloggers and Web sites can excerpt without infringing on The A.P.’s copyright.Sounds reasonable, right?
Well, not so much.
Last week, The A.P. took an unusually strict position against quotation of its work, sending a letter to the Drudge Retort asking it to remove seven items that contained quotations from A.P. articles ranging from 39 to 79 words.Basically, there was so much negative feedback, that the AP later issued a statement backtracking, saying it was "heavy-handed" and that it was going to "rethink its policies toward bloggers." Except, well, it hasn't. They're still demanding Drudge Retort - which, correct me if I'm wrong - is all user-submitted content (in other words, very hard to control) - takes down the 39-79 word content. What BS!
Look, no bloggers should be completely ripping content off newspapers and newswires. That's unacceptable. However, newspapers can't suddenly expect bloggers to not use block quotes in their writing - which is pretty much the AP's intent. There's plenty room for give and take, as both sources help each other: newspapers helps bloggers with content, while bloggers help newspapers build readership and reputation. Newspapers must stop viewing blogs as competition and should start looking at us like the bacteria-sucking fish that are any shark's best friend. We'll make sure they don't get sick, as long as they don't eat us.
So, what should the standards for using newspaper content in blogs be? It would be nice to have a Old School/New School Media Convention, inviting all kinds of bloggers, journalists and editors to come together to the table, so we could hammer some of these things away. But I'm not that naive as to think newspapers would embrace it this soon. So, en lieu of that, why should the standards for using newspaper quotes in blogs be any different than using them in academic papers? At UMASS Dartmouth, using the national political science standard (which is fairly similar to other models), students could quote up to three paragraphs in aggregate from a newspaper. That's an eminently fair compromise, allowing bloggers to liberally quote from articles and make sure they get it right, while it isn't quoting so much that it's just stealing the article. That's the standard I've used on this blog since nearly the beginning; it would behoove the AP to adopt something like it, lest they just want their policy to be ignored.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Remembering Russert the Right Way
Let's remember the man for what he really was - a good person, not a particularly good journalist. His efforts got us into the war in Iraq and his actions in Plame-gate were inexcusable. Those two deeply extended moments alone were horrifyingly disastrous for this country, perhaps resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, including more than 4,000 of our own.
This fear of remembering people for who they really are is something I'll never get - it doesn't take away a single thing from the people who've moved on. None of us are saints and all of us are humans; remembering only one side is to ignore the complete person. Commemorating people for their humanity isn't being disrespectful; it's a way to make sure each generation truly succeeds one another.
Remembering the full picture is an overwhelmingly good and positive thing to do. If we don't remember the complete person, how are we ever going to truly learn from one another? How are we going to make society better? There are lessons to learn from the good and bad. So, let's remember Tim Russert as a guy who worked tirelessly, but perhaps without the right efficacy. Let's remember him as someone who could often ask the right questions, but not the right people. Let's remember that he could bring a country together every Sunday, but not act to save it from a disastrous war. Let's remember him for being someone who was almost the opposite of Edward R. Murrow: not as someone who could stand up to a Bush or a Nixon, but as someone who earned the kind of ratings that will forever make Meet the Press his own. Most important of all, let's remember him as he truly was, not as a saint, but as a human.
This fear of remembering people for who they really are is something I'll never get - it doesn't take away a single thing from the people who've moved on. None of us are saints and all of us are humans; remembering only one side is to ignore the complete person. Commemorating people for their humanity isn't being disrespectful; it's a way to make sure each generation truly succeeds one another.
Remembering the full picture is an overwhelmingly good and positive thing to do. If we don't remember the complete person, how are we ever going to truly learn from one another? How are we going to make society better? There are lessons to learn from the good and bad. So, let's remember Tim Russert as a guy who worked tirelessly, but perhaps without the right efficacy. Let's remember him as someone who could often ask the right questions, but not the right people. Let's remember that he could bring a country together every Sunday, but not act to save it from a disastrous war. Let's remember him for being someone who was almost the opposite of Edward R. Murrow: not as someone who could stand up to a Bush or a Nixon, but as someone who earned the kind of ratings that will forever make Meet the Press his own. Most important of all, let's remember him as he truly was, not as a saint, but as a human.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Ouch: Building Their Own Casino Stumbling Blocks
Apparently, there's a building history of violent leadership from the Wampanoags trying to secure a casino in Middleboro. A long history. Will the third chief be the charm? It seems like the House needs to get its house in order before it can even think of building a Massachusetts casino.
Seriously, if they can't manage to have a leader who isn't a convicted rapist or an alleged wife beater, what makes people think they can run a casino? There are people going to jail and pleading guilty to casino-related crimes all across the country from the allures getting lots of cash surrounding a small number of people - what have the Wampanaogs done, so far, to inspire confidence that their leaders aren't going to follow in the same suit pursuing casino dollars? It's not as if they're being wholly honest now, even to critical members of their own tribe. Heck, the FBI's been involved. This is not a good track record, to say the least.
Seriously, if they can't manage to have a leader who isn't a convicted rapist or an alleged wife beater, what makes people think they can run a casino? There are people going to jail and pleading guilty to casino-related crimes all across the country from the allures getting lots of cash surrounding a small number of people - what have the Wampanaogs done, so far, to inspire confidence that their leaders aren't going to follow in the same suit pursuing casino dollars? It's not as if they're being wholly honest now, even to critical members of their own tribe. Heck, the FBI's been involved. This is not a good track record, to say the least.
Friday, June 13, 2008
The Hollow Insides of Casinos
Ask Clyde Barrow and he'll talk about how Casinos will make this state billions of dollars. The
Deval Patrick's casino plan with numbers like that is certain to make billions, right? It certainly looks like a shaky bet. Why would casinos do any better here than there? Even Las Vegas is hitting rough times.PROVIDENCE — The owners of Twin River are offering the state upward of $500 million up front in return for slicing by more than half the percentage of money the state gets from the slot parlor.
The offer is part of Twin River’s plan to solve its own “dire” financial crisis. Twin River has missed loan payments to its bank and is in danger of falling into bankruptcy. “The situation is dire. We are standing on the edge of a precipice,” Twin River spokeswoman Patti Doyle said yesterday.
The fact is there's already too many casinos in New England. They each compete with each other for smaller and smaller pieces of the pie. Furthermore, casinos are not stable forms of revenue generation: when the economy goes bad, so too do casinos. They will not help Massachusetts; they very well could hurt it, given the fact that casinos suck up money from the rest of the economy (since our wallets are ultimately net-sum games).
That isn't to say Twin Rivers is quite as broke as it claims. The House always wins - it's just in Rhode Island, their share of the winnings isn't nearly as high as shareholders would like.
In the casino business, it's always good to know how to bluff. Twin Rivers has laid a big, juicy one on the table.
Meeting with House Speaker William J. Murphy earlier this week, the Twin River delegation offered the $500 million if the state would reduce its cut of the slot revenue from 61.45 percent to 25 percent.Twin Rivers is in such dire straights that they have $500 million to give, the magic number and solution to all of Rhode Island's woes this year? Yeah, right. It's a cheap ploy to reduce casino taxes: the 61.45% made $240 million for Rhode Island last year. It doesn't take a card-counter to realize this deal wouldn't cut Rhode Island's way over the long - or medium - haul.
Rhode Island called the bluff - this time - but that doesn't mean the allure of the game hasn't caught Rhode Island off guard before, or that it won't again. How often is there a 'magic solution' like a 500 million offer that the state can't refuse? Casinos offer them every day, so long as in the fine print they work out in the casino's interests. Rhode Island's already given into 24-hour weekends and holidays, so they know the game and drill - they're probably just waiting for Twin Rivers to up the anti.
If Massachusetts builds any casinos, expect to hear about the "dire straights" within years - as they ask for more forms of gambling, smaller tax rates and less restrictions. Magic money will be freely offered, with consequences that are never inherently obvious. And, like Rhode Island, Connecticut and anywhere that's built casinos, if we allow them in the first place, we've already lost the big pot. Rhode Island's only staying in the game, playing from behind, because they think they can play catchup. If only they knew the most important thing about playing against the House: there's is no playing catchup. The only way to win is to not play.
Tomorrow's Pride Parade
As many know, tomorrow is Boston's Pride Parade; it's Pride Week's biggest event. Read more about it here. Suffice it to say, it starts at 12 noon, on Tremont St and follows this route:
It's great fun, so I hope all will come. After the parade wraps up, the party moves to Government Center. I'll be manning a booth for the Bay State Stonewall Dems from 1-2pm. There's live music, food, booths to learn about all sorts of issues and organization - and, of course, the chance to meet any number of the 300,000+ people who will be there (2007's total).
It's great fun, so I hope all will come. After the parade wraps up, the party moves to Government Center. I'll be manning a booth for the Bay State Stonewall Dems from 1-2pm. There's live music, food, booths to learn about all sorts of issues and organization - and, of course, the chance to meet any number of the 300,000+ people who will be there (2007's total).
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Congrats to K. Patrick!
Katherine Patrick, Deval's Daughter, came out.
Here's one of the cooler parts.
Read the whole article here at Bay Windows.
Here's one of the cooler parts.
One interesting and touching bit: the article recounts Katherine watching her father, Speaker DiMasi, and Senate President Murray celebrate the defeat of the anti-marriage amendment:
That's one of the reasons why, even to this day, I support the Governor. He's been wrong on casinos all along, stubbornly so, and I'm not thrilled with the charter-school aspect of the Readiness Project - but he gets equality, and that's half the battle. Kudos to him for raising his kids with enough courage to come out as the daughter of a major politician. Luckily, we live in this wonderful state, so I hope everyone will be quick to accept and support her."Because, of course, he didn't know that I was gay then," the 18-year-old recalls. "So, for someone so publicly to fight for something that doesn't even affect him was just like, 'That's my dad,' you know?" she says with a laugh. "That's all I could think. I was very, very proud to be part of this family, and this state in general." "It was great. I'm very glad," she adds, looking at her father. "Don't cry, Dad." Patrick's eyes are brimming with tears, prompting some good-natured teasing from his daughter. "He's done some good things," she says with a laugh, patting his arm. "I appreciate it. Want a tissue? Oh, God. He's a crier."
Read the whole article here at Bay Windows.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
"Readiness" School Gimmick
Massachusetts doesn't need a third type of charter school; it needs longer school days, free tutoring and more options for students, so they're interested in what they're learning. Massachusetts doesn't need a new shiny wrapper ("readiness schools") or even a complete overhaul of its educational system; we need to address the nuts and bolts of the problems laying behind why students in some districts aren't performing up to par.
One of the clearest factors in student performance is socioeconomics; that only became even more obvious post MCAS. Simply put, some students have college-educated parents who know how to foster an environment where their children learn what they need to know by the time they enter college. They're parents who can afford tutors, or at least have the extra time (and skill) to tutor their children personally.
Obviously, we can't change all the advantages some students have in particular homes - but there are ways to work around it. Longer school days, with directed study time, would close the gap. Schools with longer hours have shown that time and time again. Part of the problem with Charter Schools - of which "readiness schools" would be a completely new kind - is that while many of them address these problems, they rob the resources of surrounding communities from being able to have any chance of solving these problems. So, again, we don't need the shiny new wrapper of a "readiness school" - we need nuts and bolts fixes for every school in this state. We don't need some good public schools and some bad, we need a universal quality of high caliber education across the board.
The only reason why many inner-city charter schools sometimes do better, in fact, is because they have an abundance of extra resources for their students - personal tutors volunteering their time, longer school days, etc. Give those resources to all of our public schools and the results will be contagious. Teachers know how to teach; what happens in the school isn't the problem. Longer school days with more personal attention for every student would finally close the gap.
So why deviate so far from what we really need? How do "readiness schools" really help the system? Aren't they really just going to further divide the haves and have nots? Why do we need some big, new, shiny wrapper for these new, cool schools? Schools that create imbalances in the system and focus attention away from the schools that need help? This isn't smart governing, it's ego. Massachusetts doesn't need an education revolution, we just need to find a way to effectively get at every student in the state. In fact, we're doing a fantastic job teaching, our failures come in preventing what gets in the way of education. The solutions to our education problems don't rely in some grand new scheme, but in making sure learning happens in school, where we can get at every student - and not at home, where we often lose them.
One of the clearest factors in student performance is socioeconomics; that only became even more obvious post MCAS. Simply put, some students have college-educated parents who know how to foster an environment where their children learn what they need to know by the time they enter college. They're parents who can afford tutors, or at least have the extra time (and skill) to tutor their children personally.
Obviously, we can't change all the advantages some students have in particular homes - but there are ways to work around it. Longer school days, with directed study time, would close the gap. Schools with longer hours have shown that time and time again. Part of the problem with Charter Schools - of which "readiness schools" would be a completely new kind - is that while many of them address these problems, they rob the resources of surrounding communities from being able to have any chance of solving these problems. So, again, we don't need the shiny new wrapper of a "readiness school" - we need nuts and bolts fixes for every school in this state. We don't need some good public schools and some bad, we need a universal quality of high caliber education across the board.
The only reason why many inner-city charter schools sometimes do better, in fact, is because they have an abundance of extra resources for their students - personal tutors volunteering their time, longer school days, etc. Give those resources to all of our public schools and the results will be contagious. Teachers know how to teach; what happens in the school isn't the problem. Longer school days with more personal attention for every student would finally close the gap.
So why deviate so far from what we really need? How do "readiness schools" really help the system? Aren't they really just going to further divide the haves and have nots? Why do we need some big, new, shiny wrapper for these new, cool schools? Schools that create imbalances in the system and focus attention away from the schools that need help? This isn't smart governing, it's ego. Massachusetts doesn't need an education revolution, we just need to find a way to effectively get at every student in the state. In fact, we're doing a fantastic job teaching, our failures come in preventing what gets in the way of education. The solutions to our education problems don't rely in some grand new scheme, but in making sure learning happens in school, where we can get at every student - and not at home, where we often lose them.
I'm a McCainiac!
Clearly, we must be missing the revolution.
Watch the whole thing... it gets funnier every step of the way.
Watch the whole thing... it gets funnier every step of the way.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Patrick's Casino Damage Control
A story was just posted on the State House News Service wire that suggests Patrick's thankfully backtracked a bit on his decision to enter into a compact with the Wampanoags.
"I'll be prepared when I have to be, but we don't have to be yet." Patrick said the tribe will "really drive" the negotiation timetable. "It doesn't start until they say it starts. And there's not a lot of point in starting until the land-in-trust process is finished. Now, we're in regular touch with them, not me directly, but members of my team are, certainly, and they have expressed an interest in working with us when the time comes. But, no, there's no negotiation happening yet."Unfortunately, because it's SHNS, I can't link to the story, because it's a private news service. But I left readers with the important quote.
When You Say You're Done with Casinos
You're done with casinos.
I've been told - directly - by the Governor that the casino issue was decided. He had lost. It was a grand speech given to dozens of people in Lynn who were waiting to hear his promise - that we were going to get onto other things in the administration.
Days later, he said he was going to still fund the Spectrum casino study - which is a big waste of money going to a casino research group that is completely biased towards casinos.
Obviously, the Governor still wanted casinos. He even went far enough to say that he had wished the House would have compromised, adding casinos to the Racino bill, despite the fact that the Governor had previously said he'd veto any Racino bill, because they're mind-numbingly stupid ideas.
Neither of those deceptions are as big as today's bombshell: Governor Patrick is negotiating to enter into a compact with the Wampanoags. This, after the fact that the Governor said he wouldn't sidestep the legislature from the very beginning of his casino proposal. He always said he wanted the legislature to vote on it.
So, what? Now that the legislature voted against it, he's going to pass it anyway? I don't like being lied to - especially when I worked countless hours on behalf of his campaign. I don't like childish behavior, such as throwing a tantrum when you don't get your way, bypassing the will of the legislature - elected by the people every 2 years.
Governor Patrick - you lost on casinos. Get over it! Cheating to win is only a good idea if you want a permanent way to lose the support of the people of Massachusetts - and your base chief among them. Not even Mitt Romney would have pulled a stunt like this!
I've been told - directly - by the Governor that the casino issue was decided. He had lost. It was a grand speech given to dozens of people in Lynn who were waiting to hear his promise - that we were going to get onto other things in the administration.
Days later, he said he was going to still fund the Spectrum casino study - which is a big waste of money going to a casino research group that is completely biased towards casinos.
Obviously, the Governor still wanted casinos. He even went far enough to say that he had wished the House would have compromised, adding casinos to the Racino bill, despite the fact that the Governor had previously said he'd veto any Racino bill, because they're mind-numbingly stupid ideas.
Neither of those deceptions are as big as today's bombshell: Governor Patrick is negotiating to enter into a compact with the Wampanoags. This, after the fact that the Governor said he wouldn't sidestep the legislature from the very beginning of his casino proposal. He always said he wanted the legislature to vote on it.
So, what? Now that the legislature voted against it, he's going to pass it anyway? I don't like being lied to - especially when I worked countless hours on behalf of his campaign. I don't like childish behavior, such as throwing a tantrum when you don't get your way, bypassing the will of the legislature - elected by the people every 2 years.
Governor Patrick - you lost on casinos. Get over it! Cheating to win is only a good idea if you want a permanent way to lose the support of the people of Massachusetts - and your base chief among them. Not even Mitt Romney would have pulled a stunt like this!
Monday, June 09, 2008
Sunday, June 08, 2008
DSC Convention & the Blogger Workshop Presentation
I went to yesterday's convention from beginning to end, arriving over an hour early to make final arrangements for the Blogger Workshop track, which I headed up along with Kate Donoghue, Lowell's own Lynne and several others.
But first, to the day. The Tsongas arena wasn't the perfect place for a DSC Convention, but I thought it was a damn near good place. First off, Downtown Lowell is a stunningly beautiful city, with lots to do. I wish I had more time to have taken advantage of it. The parking was cheap and plentiful, the Tsongas Arena big, beautiful with lots of room for tables and booths. It had plenty of AC to cool us all off on a hot day. The only thing it was lacking was a solid plan for handicap access, as that second link points out.
The speeches were mostly an afterthought. People were too busy meeting other Democrats at first to worry about speeches. Governor Patrick gave a decent speech, with some lines memorable enough to get everyone's attention for bits and pieces, but eventually even he lost the audience. It wasn't until the day's main event came up , the speeches of Senator Kerry and challenger O'Reilly and their supporters, that people really started to pay attention. O'Reilly's speech was fiery, but not polished. He clearly gets the frustrations many in this state have for Kerry, but not the answer. Kerry's speech was the best of the evening, but he also went twice the allotted time, due to an 'oversight.' (I'll give John Walsh the benefit of the doubt - that it was an accident - but even my suspicions were raised. Walsh did offer O'Reilly 12 more minutes, to match Kerry's 24 minute speech, but O'Reilly - thankfully - declined).
I tried to make it through all the voting, but unfortunately I had to pack up at around 2:30 to leave. I only found out later that O'Reilly made it onto ballot with slightly more than 20% of the vote, with angry Clinton supporters likely making the difference - since Kerry endorsed Obama.
I had an ulta-cool press pass (why it's cool, I do not know, but I didn't have to wait in a line to get it and it was certainly a conversation starter), but didn't know where the press room was, so I didn't the truly awesome perks... such as lunch on the state party, according to Lynne. I did embrace my inner Team Unity by buying a button for Obama. I also got to visit around a dozen activists/peers/friends from around the state - from DSC members to campaign volunteers I've worked with. That's always one of the best parts of an event like the State Convention.
In other news: the Blogger Workshop presentations are online at BlogLeft Mass, in the file section. Around 50 people came to the workshop, which I thought was a big success, so definitely feel free to use the presentations. To get them, join the BlogLeft Mass Yahoo group to get access to the files. All you need is a (free) yahoo account.
But first, to the day. The Tsongas arena wasn't the perfect place for a DSC Convention, but I thought it was a damn near good place. First off, Downtown Lowell is a stunningly beautiful city, with lots to do. I wish I had more time to have taken advantage of it. The parking was cheap and plentiful, the Tsongas Arena big, beautiful with lots of room for tables and booths. It had plenty of AC to cool us all off on a hot day. The only thing it was lacking was a solid plan for handicap access, as that second link points out.
The speeches were mostly an afterthought. People were too busy meeting other Democrats at first to worry about speeches. Governor Patrick gave a decent speech, with some lines memorable enough to get everyone's attention for bits and pieces, but eventually even he lost the audience. It wasn't until the day's main event came up , the speeches of Senator Kerry and challenger O'Reilly and their supporters, that people really started to pay attention. O'Reilly's speech was fiery, but not polished. He clearly gets the frustrations many in this state have for Kerry, but not the answer. Kerry's speech was the best of the evening, but he also went twice the allotted time, due to an 'oversight.' (I'll give John Walsh the benefit of the doubt - that it was an accident - but even my suspicions were raised. Walsh did offer O'Reilly 12 more minutes, to match Kerry's 24 minute speech, but O'Reilly - thankfully - declined).
I tried to make it through all the voting, but unfortunately I had to pack up at around 2:30 to leave. I only found out later that O'Reilly made it onto ballot with slightly more than 20% of the vote, with angry Clinton supporters likely making the difference - since Kerry endorsed Obama.
I had an ulta-cool press pass (why it's cool, I do not know, but I didn't have to wait in a line to get it and it was certainly a conversation starter), but didn't know where the press room was, so I didn't the truly awesome perks... such as lunch on the state party, according to Lynne. I did embrace my inner Team Unity by buying a button for Obama. I also got to visit around a dozen activists/peers/friends from around the state - from DSC members to campaign volunteers I've worked with. That's always one of the best parts of an event like the State Convention.
In other news: the Blogger Workshop presentations are online at BlogLeft Mass, in the file section. Around 50 people came to the workshop, which I thought was a big success, so definitely feel free to use the presentations. To get them, join the BlogLeft Mass Yahoo group to get access to the files. All you need is a (free) yahoo account.
There's a general overview on blogging, as well as my "tech stuff" presentation - which includes detailed instructions on creating a free podcast, as well as various tools to make your blog even better. As time goes by, I'll improve the Tech Stuff presentation to include even more detailed instructions on how to do certain things, but for now if there's something on there anyone needs help with, just send me an email. Finally, we'll get the Netroots 101 presentation up there as well.
To get a yahoo account.
Go to yahoo.com
Press "sign in" on the right-hand side of the page.
It'll take you to the sign-in page. Below where it says sign it, it says "Don't have a Yahoo ID? Signing up is easy." Click the "Sign Up" button.
Fill out the page, then click "create account."
You'll get a confirmation email to your primary email account that you have to open up and press "Important. Click here to activate your new account."
Then, to sign up to BlogLeft Mass, just click on this link and press "Join this Group." Fill out that page, then press "Join."Saturday, June 07, 2008
Where Blogging Goes Astray
I'm sure all of us can remember back to a time when we defended a friend - who we knew to be in the wrong - simply because they were your friend. Maybe, in public, that's often a good thing - but it's always a disservice to our friend if, after the dispute, we don't take them aside and tell them to stop being an idiot. It's no different in the blogosphere: we don't always appreciate criticism directed toward us, but that doesn't mean the criticism always comes without merit. Every once in a while, the media or a politician will criticize 'the blogs' and usually have no idea what they're talking about, but that's not always the case. In the rare instances when our critics have a point, we can't allow our personal feelings to get in the way of constructive criticism.
Bloggers generally cringe when we're told that we live in our mothers' basements, or that we don't know what we're talking about, or that we're just a bunch of trash talkers with nothing positive to say and nothing to contribute. The progressive blogosphere is mostly middle-aged, middle-income and is comprised of experts writing about what they do and care about every day. In essence, the naysayers are almost always wrong. Yet, with so few people actually taking part in blogs - all the while hearing about them daily on TV or at work - there's a lot of confusion going on and we're doing nothing to prevent it. That could be our biggest sin to date.
While we're not a bunch of trash-talking kids, consumed with spreading baseless rumors and a festering anger - safely behind our masks of anonymity - it's certainly out there. It may not be the progressive blogosphere, but it is the progressive blogosphere's problem. The worst criticisms - being unaccountable, uneducated, mean spirited and counterproductive - isn't completely without merit when we're doing little prevent it. Anonymous posters, mostly at online newspapers and local Internet forums, are ruining the fun for everyone. The worst offender, locally, is WickedLocal - and, unfortunately, townies across the state think it's the 'blogs.'
Making matters worse is the fact that some bloggers are rushing to defend it. Now, of course, any time someone criticizes the blogosphere, bloggers and readers will be quick to react - often zealously. Diarist Sean Roche unfortunately missed the point, blowing aside sage advice, in a diary over at BlueMassGroup. Lincoln-Sudbury's Superintendent used part of his commencement speech at their school's graduation to courageously tackle the anonymous postings of adults in the community, imploring his students never to stoop to their level. Here's more of what he had to say.
It's easy to see where the confusion grows: most of the population's never been to a blog; people just think any online commentary is simply 'blogging.' It would be nice if we could chalk this up to one big confusion, but by allowing this misunderstanding to take place, the reputation of blogs as useful tools is being sullied, all the while the real culprits are free from actually fixing the problem.
Let's reiterate the point: if the problem is confused, the solution isn't going to be any clearer. Just like you can't cure the cold with antibiotics, we can't cure the problem of unaccountable commenters at newspapers if people think it's 'the blogs.' So, unfortunately, this big misunderstanding in labels is only exacerbating the problem: while people are calling for a fix in 'the blogs,' newspapers have no real incentive to fix it, because they aren't 'the blogs.' Many local editors and the people above their heads probably aren't sophisticated enough to realize they're the ones propagating this problem to begin with.
The few savvy enough to comprehend this certainly aren't going to be the ones quick to fix it; it's a misunderstanding they're only happy to reinforce. Quite inappropriately, the media views blogging as the competition. Many journalists view bloggers as 'bad.' All that, while the vast majority of the population doesn't even know what blogging is. The combination results in the majority of the public missing out on a real societal asset.
So, what the heck are we going to do about it? First, let's analyze the problems and possible solutions.
What are the problems?
If the vast majority of the population doesn't value the medium of blogging, it's only going to be that much harder to gain traction and sustain progress. Everyone needs to know the difference between a blog, an Internet forum and comments - whether people use them or not. That's the only way to make sure the media holds local papers accountable when their comment sections run amok. Newspapers make accountability in letters and opinions paramount; online comments shouldn't be any different. In both cases people are using the brand of a newspaper to give their opinions greater weight, so newspapers should have an interest in stake here. Most importantly, when it comes to being online, while being anonymous can be a good thing, being unaccountable is never acceptable. The progressive blogosphere is built around that premise, but we can't rest until it's a universal standard all across the Internet.
Bloggers generally cringe when we're told that we live in our mothers' basements, or that we don't know what we're talking about, or that we're just a bunch of trash talkers with nothing positive to say and nothing to contribute. The progressive blogosphere is mostly middle-aged, middle-income and is comprised of experts writing about what they do and care about every day. In essence, the naysayers are almost always wrong. Yet, with so few people actually taking part in blogs - all the while hearing about them daily on TV or at work - there's a lot of confusion going on and we're doing nothing to prevent it. That could be our biggest sin to date.
While we're not a bunch of trash-talking kids, consumed with spreading baseless rumors and a festering anger - safely behind our masks of anonymity - it's certainly out there. It may not be the progressive blogosphere, but it is the progressive blogosphere's problem. The worst criticisms - being unaccountable, uneducated, mean spirited and counterproductive - isn't completely without merit when we're doing little prevent it. Anonymous posters, mostly at online newspapers and local Internet forums, are ruining the fun for everyone. The worst offender, locally, is WickedLocal - and, unfortunately, townies across the state think it's the 'blogs.'
Making matters worse is the fact that some bloggers are rushing to defend it. Now, of course, any time someone criticizes the blogosphere, bloggers and readers will be quick to react - often zealously. Diarist Sean Roche unfortunately missed the point, blowing aside sage advice, in a diary over at BlueMassGroup. Lincoln-Sudbury's Superintendent used part of his commencement speech at their school's graduation to courageously tackle the anonymous postings of adults in the community, imploring his students never to stoop to their level. Here's more of what he had to say.
Here's my advice: if you ever find yourself in a position where you are writing things for public consumption that have no intent other than to cause pain or cast aspersions on people, call people's character into question, question their ethics or honesty - and you're afraid to sign your name because if anyone ever knew it was you writing it, you'd be ashamed and embarrassed, you're on the wrong track.His only problem, in fact, was calling these postings a "blog," when it's really the anonymous comments over at his town's Wickedlocal online newspaper. His point is sound and we'd all do well to take it and repeat it to others. Yet, it's becoming all too common for people in towns to refer to the comment sections of online newspapers as "the blogs." It's a dangerous precedent that must be kept in check, immediately. Unfortunately people like me - who have vast experience in the medium - just haven't been quick enough to correct people.
It's easy to see where the confusion grows: most of the population's never been to a blog; people just think any online commentary is simply 'blogging.' It would be nice if we could chalk this up to one big confusion, but by allowing this misunderstanding to take place, the reputation of blogs as useful tools is being sullied, all the while the real culprits are free from actually fixing the problem.
Let's reiterate the point: if the problem is confused, the solution isn't going to be any clearer. Just like you can't cure the cold with antibiotics, we can't cure the problem of unaccountable commenters at newspapers if people think it's 'the blogs.' So, unfortunately, this big misunderstanding in labels is only exacerbating the problem: while people are calling for a fix in 'the blogs,' newspapers have no real incentive to fix it, because they aren't 'the blogs.' Many local editors and the people above their heads probably aren't sophisticated enough to realize they're the ones propagating this problem to begin with.
The few savvy enough to comprehend this certainly aren't going to be the ones quick to fix it; it's a misunderstanding they're only happy to reinforce. Quite inappropriately, the media views blogging as the competition. Many journalists view bloggers as 'bad.' All that, while the vast majority of the population doesn't even know what blogging is. The combination results in the majority of the public missing out on a real societal asset.
So, what the heck are we going to do about it? First, let's analyze the problems and possible solutions.
What are the problems?
- Anonymity.
- Unaccountability.
- A general ignorance about the web 2.0.
- Solving anonymity: the universal acceptance of 'signing in.'
- Solving the accountability gap: the universal promotion of online meritocracy; making newspapers buy into the importance of building user-name reputation.
- Solving Web ignorance: education. Everyone should know what a blog is versus a comment versus a forum.
If the vast majority of the population doesn't value the medium of blogging, it's only going to be that much harder to gain traction and sustain progress. Everyone needs to know the difference between a blog, an Internet forum and comments - whether people use them or not. That's the only way to make sure the media holds local papers accountable when their comment sections run amok. Newspapers make accountability in letters and opinions paramount; online comments shouldn't be any different. In both cases people are using the brand of a newspaper to give their opinions greater weight, so newspapers should have an interest in stake here. Most importantly, when it comes to being online, while being anonymous can be a good thing, being unaccountable is never acceptable. The progressive blogosphere is built around that premise, but we can't rest until it's a universal standard all across the Internet.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Harvard's New President: You Tell 'Em
I don't know much about Harvard President Drew Gilpan Faust, but clearly she has the courage of her convictions.
Harvard University president Drew Gilpin Faust took issue with the military's ban against openly gay and lesbian members in an ROTC commissioning ceremony in Harvard Yard yesterday.Occasionally, making people uncomfortable is the only way to get them to do the right thing. We need more people speaking up, talking with our newest troops and making a big stink of Don't Ask, Don't Tell if we're ever going to make it go away.
Join the BlogLeft Mass Yahoo Group
As BlogLeft Mass becomes more and more active, I realized we're going to need some sort of a more organized way to keep in touch and plan things. Thus, our very own page: BlogLeft Massachusetts. I hope everyone who reads this blog and participates in the Mass Netroots will join the new group.
Lefty Bloggers in Mass used to use the group "BayStateProgressiveBloggers," but that group is largely defunct. I'll be sending a message to that group asking them to join the new one. As the times have changed, so have our needs. BlogLeft is going to grow over the next few months, as we start to have regular events. Now we have another tool in our arsenal to be more effective. So, sign up!
Lefty Bloggers in Mass used to use the group "BayStateProgressiveBloggers," but that group is largely defunct. I'll be sending a message to that group asking them to join the new one. As the times have changed, so have our needs. BlogLeft is going to grow over the next few months, as we start to have regular events. Now we have another tool in our arsenal to be more effective. So, sign up!
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Change, change, change, change, change
Yes, I get it, we need change. But change doesn't mean completely forsaking what's worked in the past. This absurd notion that taking Hillary on would forsake Obama's message of change is ridiculous. The change that we need is change back to competent government, where we try to improve the lives of everyday Americans and run a society in ways that make sense.
Would I like change above and beyond the Clinton years - pushing rights and being a bolder party? Sure, that's a fantastic idea - just where is it going to come from? On the issues that matter - such as civil rights and universal health care - Obama's just not promising or promoting it. He's using nice, broad strokes - and letting voters see what they want in the picture. We may as well be looking at clouds instead of policy; the less clear Obama's change seems, the better for his campaign.
Where's the real change? Where's the boundaries Obama's really pushing? It's smoke and mirrors. It's rhetoric. He's got this blog's vote and support, but we're fresh out of Kool-Aid. It's times like this where I half think David Axelrod must get a real good kick out of himself.
Would I like change above and beyond the Clinton years - pushing rights and being a bolder party? Sure, that's a fantastic idea - just where is it going to come from? On the issues that matter - such as civil rights and universal health care - Obama's just not promising or promoting it. He's using nice, broad strokes - and letting voters see what they want in the picture. We may as well be looking at clouds instead of policy; the less clear Obama's change seems, the better for his campaign.
Where's the real change? Where's the boundaries Obama's really pushing? It's smoke and mirrors. It's rhetoric. He's got this blog's vote and support, but we're fresh out of Kool-Aid. It's times like this where I half think David Axelrod must get a real good kick out of himself.
Leaving the Important Things to Last
So, Governor Patrick's appointing cronies or something to state bonding positions, or something. Except, well, he's not. That's basically the gist of this much-ado-about-nothing article.
The Globe's saying they got their hands on an email showing that the Governor wants to replace Benson Caswell with Senator Marian Walsh as executive director of Massachusetts Health and Educational Facilities Authority. Apparently, she has zero qualifications for the job...
Throughout the article, the Globe makes it sound like Patrick is going back on a campaign promise - that lawmakers need not apply for administration positions - but he made no such promise. In fact, the Globe admitted as much buried deep in the article. (Emphasis mine.)
The Globe's saying they got their hands on an email showing that the Governor wants to replace Benson Caswell with Senator Marian Walsh as executive director of Massachusetts Health and Educational Facilities Authority. Apparently, she has zero qualifications for the job...
A former Suffolk County prosecutor and longtime legislator, Walsh has no detailed job experience in public bonds and nonprofit debt. The current executive director, Benson T. Caswell, has an extensive background in the field.At least, if the Globe's going to continue with their insinuations, you'd think they'd discuss what Senator Walsh could bring to the table right up top, right? No. You have to wait all the way to the second to last paragraph for it. Correct me if I'm wrong: this isn't a bad resume, right? (Emphasis mine.)
Walsh holds a theological degree from Harvard Divinity School and a law degree from Suffolk University. She has broad exposure to state finances and financial regulation. She served as Senate chairwoman of the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Joint Committee on Banks and Banking. She also led efforts in the Senate to force private, nonprofit organizations to open their books to the public.Instead, at the beginning of the article, they make it sound as if she has no experience and would be a terrible choice. Furthermore, they don't even discuss why the administration may be wanting to make a switch - there's just an assumption that the person currently holding the post is doing a swell job. Is he? We don't know; the Globe never goes there.
Throughout the article, the Globe makes it sound like Patrick is going back on a campaign promise - that lawmakers need not apply for administration positions - but he made no such promise. In fact, the Globe admitted as much buried deep in the article. (Emphasis mine.)
Within days of his landslide election, Patrick took a tough stand against patronage, warning legislators they would be wasting their time pressuring him to hire their cronies or supporters. He did say he would not exclude lawmakers or their supporters from taking jobs in his administration, but said he would seek only the most qualified for the jobs that he fills.Believe it or not, a state lawmaker of more than a decade has a ton of experience on many issues. They often know both policy and how things really work. They also know how best to advocate for their agency inside the statehouse, which can't be underrated. They're obviously not the only people qualified for administration positions, but clearly they're not the only people being hired for the job: Patrick's taken on three legislators to administration posts since being elected - he's not exactly Governor Patronick. Anyone else fail to see the problem - or story - here?
Hillary/Obama Stand Off
It's pretty clear, to me, that tonight's Hillary speech was all about Hillary wanting to be VP and Obama saying "no." Why he's saying no, I don't get, because she's clearly as strong a candidate out there as any (and, according to MSNBC's count, really is leading in the popular vote as of earlier in the evening). Instead of increasing his likelihood of winning, he's doing everything in his power to keep this bitter to the end. A bitter end.
For months, the smart thing to do was to unite the ticket. This is absurd. I have no horses in this race; at this point, I can't stand any of them. I wish we could have a whole primary do-over, complete with new candidates, because these ones suck. They can't even be the 'bigger person' and unite the fracking ticket. Talk about a pair of egotistical, stubborn clowns. Thank goodness it's McSame we're running against - that guy can't talk his way out of a paper bag - otherwise, I'd be worried right now.
For months, the smart thing to do was to unite the ticket. This is absurd. I have no horses in this race; at this point, I can't stand any of them. I wish we could have a whole primary do-over, complete with new candidates, because these ones suck. They can't even be the 'bigger person' and unite the fracking ticket. Talk about a pair of egotistical, stubborn clowns. Thank goodness it's McSame we're running against - that guy can't talk his way out of a paper bag - otherwise, I'd be worried right now.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Grades for Online Newspapers
Here. The Boston Globe, sadly, gets a C.
The newspaper site, known as Boston.com, clearly has a large following in New England. It has an impressive ratio of online visitors to paid print subscribers. It is too bad the product does not deliver more. It is odd that NYTimes.com is such a good website and Boston.com has such a long way to go. Both are part of the same parent company.Clearly, they didn't get the memo. The NYT is killing the Boston Globe. It's almost like it's on purpose or something. (If not, why not just sell the Globe?)
Jail Goes with Casinos like Tuna and Rye
This is not an uncommon story:
Former Kenosha County Executive Allan Kehl said Friday that he twice accepted envelopes stuffed with $100 bills from American Indian casino-backer and former trucking magnate Dennis Troha. Once, Kehl found an envelope with $5,000 on the console of Troha's Bentley. The 63-year-old former sheriff pleaded guilty to conspiracy to take bribes totaling $15,000. Kehl, who resigned as county executive this year, faces up to five years in prison. Prosecutors are to recommend two years behind bars when he is sentenced Sept. 23
And the beat goes on...
Kehl has agreed to help the FBI investigate illegal campaign contributions related to the proposed casino in Kenosha, according to his plea agreement.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Cool - Wind Power Expansion in RI
What would you rather?
or
?
It appears Rhode Island will be building their own Cape Wind, likely off the coast of Block Island - which is a tourist destination as jam packed as any in Massachusetts. If Rhode Island wants to plow full steam ahead there, surely that's reason enough to tell the wealthy who vacation on the Cape and Islands to
Obviously, residents on Block Island, along with Rhode Island in general, get it.
The governor has said he wants proposals to include providing power to Block Island so that the 1,000 residents there can see some relief in electricity rates. They are currently paying about 40 cents per kilowatt-hour, more than four times the rate paid by mainland residents.Cape Cod would also directly benefit from Cape Wind, since the energy produced there would mainly go to the Cape - enough to power 2/3rds of the entire region.
Just the one wind turbine project in Rhode Island will meet the state's goals alone -
The sites could each contain 56 wind turbines and could generate a total of 220 megawatts of electricity –– enough to power 220,000 homes, the study said. That’s about 1½ times the power needed to reach the 15-percent goal.Unfortunately, while Cape Wind will produce as much energy, it won't meet the 15% goal for Massachusetts. However, there's a second, slightly smaller Wind Turbine project in the planning stages off the South Coast. Furthermore, towns across Massachusetts are adding wind turbines to their repertoire, getting this state closer to its goal every day. There's lots more work to be done, but Massachusetts will get there.
EaBo's Prophesizing Again
Hooray! There's a whole 47 Republicans on the ballot in Massachusetts - RedMassGroup was ecstatic. I couldn't stop laughing. It's not as funny as this, though...
2010 will be a watershed year. think long term people. - EaBo ClipperHow many will there be, EaBo? 50? Maybe by 3010, you'll have a whole 55! I'm just thinking long term...
Crossing My Fingers
I hope everything turns out well. Senator Kennedy has been one of this state's greatest assets for years. I hope he'll be able to continue in that role for years to come.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Why are Casinos like the Borg?
A) They just keep coming back.
B) They both think resistance is futile.
C) Their aims are so devious that they make you feel dirty inside.
D) All of the above.
The answer should be pretty obvious after anyone reads this report (pdf), from Common Cause. It's a detailed listing investigating the amount of money casino lobbyists have spent in this state, as well as the influence they wield because of it.
Obviously, given the casino battles of the last few months, this list would look very different if 2008 was factored in. What we do know is that 2007 set a record for casino-lobby spending, at $1.485 million. Surely, 2008 - with not one, but two major slot votes - will set a new record by the end of the year.
This is what the Bay State would look like under Governor Patrick's plan. The circles represent where the rate of problem gamblers would double and where crime will go up.
My friend and fellow anti-casino warrior and radio host Leo Malley has long said that "casino lobbyists only need to win once, while we need to win every time." Not only is he right, but he's not the only one who gets it. Here's a quote from former AG Scott Harshbarger from the report.
As the report suggests, since there are other, better proposals on the table than casinos, it's the public that's truly paying the price - we're the one's losing out on the good ideas, while the politicians and lobbyists hobble about bickering and wasting time over the bad ones. Massachusetts expects - and should demand - better. After all, this isn't some cheesy sci-fi flick at the cinema - it's the future of our state that we're talking about.
B) They both think resistance is futile.
C) Their aims are so devious that they make you feel dirty inside.
D) All of the above.
The answer should be pretty obvious after anyone reads this report (pdf), from Common Cause. It's a detailed listing investigating the amount of money casino lobbyists have spent in this state, as well as the influence they wield because of it.
Powerful interest hired top-tier lobbyists in 2007, expending a total of $1.5 million, combined with another $258,222 in campaign contributions from these lobbyists to our public officials, and another $63,000 in campaign contributions from gambling executives, for a total of $1.8 million spent to expand gambling in Massachusetts. The effort has so far failed, but with the deep pockets of the industry, they are sure to mount another campaign soon.From 2002-2007, Treasurer Cahill received the second largest sum of campaign contributions from the gambling industry. During that same time span, Attorney General Reilly received the largest sum - which shouldn't be surprising, given the fact he was the presumptive next-in-line for the Corner Office until Governor Patrick stormed in. The result? Cahill is pushing casinos with a gusto seen by few others in this state, while Reilly included expanding racetracks to allow slots as part of his platform to the Corner Office (no surprises here that he lost).
Obviously, given the casino battles of the last few months, this list would look very different if 2008 was factored in. What we do know is that 2007 set a record for casino-lobby spending, at $1.485 million. Surely, 2008 - with not one, but two major slot votes - will set a new record by the end of the year.
This is what the Bay State would look like under Governor Patrick's plan. The circles represent where the rate of problem gamblers would double and where crime will go up.My friend and fellow anti-casino warrior and radio host Leo Malley has long said that "casino lobbyists only need to win once, while we need to win every time." Not only is he right, but he's not the only one who gets it. Here's a quote from former AG Scott Harshbarger from the report.
I think the reason we don't have a casino today in Massachusetts is because, in fact, the people have decided... The only people that won't accept it are the people who want the casinos. Because they figure they can stay at this longer. The Legislature and the Governor move on to the other issues, but they never stop. They're constantly focused with highly paid lobbyists - the best in the state - whose job it is to stay focused on one central goal: to get that door open.So why, if we keep defeating casinos, are these battles such a big loser for all of Massachusetts? Not only could some form of slots slip through at some point, but all this fighting is a waste of our time, as this blog has been saying from the beginning. It's an argument the report makes, as well.
The state and local governments have spent considerable time and effort on numerous proposals to expand legalized gambling. There are, however, opportunity costs in politics, just as there are opportunity costs in business. Time and effort to consider casino and gaming legislation takes away from time available to spend on other issues. Professor Richard Hall of the University of Michigan, who has studied the role money plays in politics, has concluded that '[c]ampaign contributions and lobbyists do not buy politicians' opinions as much as they buy their priorities.' The problem, as Hall sees it, is 'that by focusing on some constituents, the politicians no longer have the time to focus on issues that help other constituents.It's a phenomenon that even happens in states with casinos - where lobbyists continue to argue for ever more expansion, especially in cases where the continuing expansion butts heads with other states. That's not a new argument, either: New Hampshire's already made it clear that if Massachusetts legalizes slots, so will NH. And then Maine will expand, as will RI. Connecticut is already expanding in anticipation. The pie-slices get ever smaller, so the gambling industry continually asks for more and more, just to try to keep up with the profits they enjoyed in previous years.
As the report suggests, since there are other, better proposals on the table than casinos, it's the public that's truly paying the price - we're the one's losing out on the good ideas, while the politicians and lobbyists hobble about bickering and wasting time over the bad ones. Massachusetts expects - and should demand - better. After all, this isn't some cheesy sci-fi flick at the cinema - it's the future of our state that we're talking about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments