See You on the 2nd

I'm going into Boston on the second to raise a sign in the air and protest to protect my rights. I hope to meet some readers there! If anyone is going, send me an email; we can meet up.

Aww, How Cute... Mitt Romney Hearts Bloggers

Let's see if those friends at Red State will reciprocate?

I wonder if Mitt has even been on a blog in his life?

(My guess is no.)

Boston.com's Most Emailed Stories

...are all about marriage equality, in some form or another. You have to go to the more detailed page to find any non-gay related stories at all - and even then, the next most popular stories are hundreds of emails behind.

I don't get it. What is this fixation on all things gay marriage? I've written many blogs about gay marriage since this summer, especially after the primary election was over. But, the truth is I don't really like writing about it. It's never been my biggest issue. If it weren't under attack, I probably wouldn't blog about it at all. I'd much rather be writing (and reading) about health care, but ironically the health care people are all about gay marriage.

I turn on the TV and have to hear about how John Edwards isn't "quite there yet" on gay marriage - but don't worry, he knows it's an important issue and is giving it a lot of thought. /snore off

How pretentious! Because of this thing called "faith," people think they have the right to determine whether or not two consenting adults have the right to marry each other - whether or not it's a faith everyone shares (which it isn't). The miraculous thing about gay marriage is that - when it comes to the only state to have it - no one really gives a damn. Except for an increasingly-less-vocal and very small minority, no one else really cares.

And that's exactly as it should be.

So let's stop emailing stories about marriage equality on boston.com and start emailing the really important stories, like this one. Let's end this pointless, stupid and somewhat bitter debate on marriage equality - and focus on more important things. When it comes down to it, gay marriage shouldn't be any more important to American society than my cousin Amy and her husband Pete's wedding last August - which is to say, important to everyone who went, but not even on the register of anyone else.

Update:

Just to clarify - It's not that gay marriage is unimportant. It's that certain people have made it important, when it should be over and done with. I'd rather be spending my energy elsewhere, but we're all forced to defend our rights instead of expanding on them or other important issues going on in society.

And the Big Day Approaches

Here comes the Big Day. I'm not talking, of course, of New Year's. I'm talking about the first important day of the New Year - January Second. On the second day of January, the rights of tens of thousands of Massachusetts citizens are going to be chips on a table in a game of Texas Hold'em. The choice of whether two people who love each other should be able to marry - or not - is about to come to a vote, procedural or otherwise.

Steve LeBlanc has a great article that sums up everything that's happened over the past few weeks, but suffice it to say that on the last day of this Congressional Year - January 2nd - state legislators are having a Constitutional Convention. However, just recently there was a Supreme Court ruling on one of the amendments - to ban marriage equality. The court ruling risks the pro-equality strategy: according to the SJC, the state legislature should vote yea or nea on the amendment to ban gay marriage, but there's nothing the court can do to force them. With only 9 people who need to be swayed, will there be enough to employ procedural tactics to kill this hateful bill once more?

I'm at the point where, for once, I hope so. I'm sick and tired of having to defend basic human rights from those who would want them stripped, thinking rights are in fact privileges only afforded to the so-called worthy. They're going to keep on fighting no matter what happens, so I'm going to be right there with them to make sure the only thing they become successful at is becoming even more bitter. One way or another, equal rights will triumph. It always does. Hopefully, once and for all, that victory will happen on January Second.

Fixing Teen Driving by Stopping Teens from Driving

The new bill on creating higher standards for teen driving does almost nothing to accomplish its goal: reducing the high number of accidents by young drivers. There's almost no innovation - just higher penalties. There's no carrot, all stick.

Worse, it's an elitist piece of crap: already, tens of thousands of kids can't get their licenses because of the high cost of drivers ed. While it's important that teens get that extra training the new bill will require, there needs to be something to address the costs. The only thing that will happen to the people who can't afford drivers education is that they'll wait until they're 18 to get their licenses - and then get it with almost no training whatsoever. Feeling safe yet?

In fact, that's exactly what this bill does: make bad drivers have to wait far longer before they can drive again. The bill also includes a provision to take away anyone's license under the age of 18 if they speed, but what happens if they're going 5 or 10 miles above the speed limit? Who doesn't drive 5 or 10 miles above the speed limit? By all means, if someone's driving 20 or 30 miles above the speed limit - take their licenses away. But why only for people under the age of 18? I don't want anyone on the roads going 95 miles per hour. Period.

People don't suddenly become better drivers just because they happen to be 18. Everyone is going to be a bad driver for the first 6 months they drive. The trick is to make sure that most of the first 6 months of driving is with supervision. If lawmakers wanted to be truly innovative and make policies that attacked the problem - not the symptoms - then here's how their law would look today:

-People would need their permits for a full year. Let them get it at 15 and an half and get an extra 6 months behind the wheel, with their parents guiding them.

-Anyone who drives significantly over the speed limit (by at least 15-30mph) loses their licenses for 90 days, be they 16 or 55.

-Require more professional training, but make sure that everyone has access to it. Otherwise, we're just going to have a bunch of lousy 18 year old drivers instead of 16 year olds.

The Boston Globe predictably says the new Bill doesn't go anywhere near far enough. They'd like to see the drivers age be put off and have stiffer penalties, regardless of whether or not people can afford it (to some people, a $50 fine means nothing. To others, it's a fiscal disaster). Most importantly, the Globe claims that 16 year old drivers are bad drivers simply because they're 16 - that if they got their license at 17, suddenly they'd be better. To bolster their claim, they mention a study that supports it. However, they fail to consider that maybe 16 year olds are worse because they're just excited to get cars when their friends do. They're much less likely to drive like maniacs if they got it later. It doesn't matter what their age is - certainly 17 year olds will act the same if everyone got their car at 17, instead.

The bottom line is that teens need to drive more to become safer drivers, not less. More professional training is a good thing, but everyone needs that training - not just the wealthy few. Giving everyone their permits sooner would make far more sense

Catholics I Don't Mind

These Catholics sound like people I'd want to be friends with.

Sensing a wave of disaffection among Roman Catholics in Greater Boston, a tiny community of priests on Beacon Hill is waging an all-out campaign to win them back.

This week, the Paulist Center launched a three-year, $800,000 advertising and outreach campaign to attract Catholics who feel disenchanted with church teachings on gay marriage and other social issues, stressing that "everyone is truly welcome" at the center and that "questioning is encouraged."

They're spending $800,000 over three years. Hopefully some of that will be invested in putting a little sanity in Pope Benedict and Cardinal O'Malley. If more priests and members of the Catholic Hierarchy were so open and friendly, I somehow doubt there'd be attendance problems.

Short blog tonight - I'm really sick and it's now 40 minutes into Christmas Eve. I hope you all have a wonderful holiday season!

Peace,
Ryan

Mitt Romney's Eulogy

Dearly departed, we gather here today to celebrate what was our part-time Governor's political career. Almost four years ago, he came to Massachusetts a fresh face. He was a moderate, who was a bigger supporter of gay rights than Ted Kennedy. There was no difference between his stance on abortion and Shannon O'Brien's. He was for high environmental standards before he was against them. He saved the Olympics in Utah. He was a religious minority who won, as a Mormon, in a deeply Catholic state.

When he came to Massachusetts, it was with great fanfare. He was going to solve the impending fiscal crisis. He was going to go across the country and lure businesses here with the same sort of magnatism that attracted him to run for Governor in a state he didn't even live in. He was going to rebuild the Republican Party in Massachusetts so there would be a two party system again.

Sadly, he took a wrong turn. When Republicans realized he wasn't even a Republican in 1992, they realized their frustrations weren't ill founded. But it totally wasn't his fault. Republicans are never at fault. It's always someone else, making Mitt's downfall all the more tragic. He'll surely be missed.

Myspace Privacy - Oxymoron?

Some teenagers are stupid and post all sorts of incriminating pictures of themselves online, but should their stupidity be allowed to be used against them? Many schools across Massachusetts are saying yes.

High schools across Massachusetts are threatening to punish athletes if they are spotted drinking alcohol or using drugs in photos or videos posted on MySpace , YouTube , or other online sites.

What a lousy idea. First, if someone has a picture of a beer can online, does that mean they drank it? What about photoshop? What about friends who post pictures of their friends - without consent?

Plus, the concept of a Principal devouring the nets to stalk find all the "trouble children" and browse for evidence against them - without there being a crime committed yet - scares me. The fact is that there are vindictive asses in the classrooms of schools across the state andnot all of them are students.

School is school and Myspace is Myspace. The two should be as seperate as Church and State.

Enough About the Process

I'll be the first to admit that how things get done in government are almost as important - and sometimes even more important - than what things get done. However, nothing in life is black and white and there's always a little room for gray. As January 2nd inches ever closer and Massachusetts quickly nears its newest Constitutional Convention, gay marriage is again the heated topic - to everyone's detriment. Never mind the fact that there are far more important - and undecided - issues facing this state, somehow gay marriage has driven a steak through the progressive movement's heart. A large health care lobby and most gay rights supporters just so happen to be on the opposite sides of a bleeding heart.

So, what the heck has gone on here? There are four sides to this story:

1. Team Homophobia - the Vote on Marriage types. They've continually lost ground since Goodridge, but keep on trucking because desperate mice may actually attack the cat. (And lose miserably, becoming a tasty treat.)
2. The Health Care Lobby - for some strange reason, they've bought the idea that the reason their amendment is going to fail has something to do with marriage equality - they even sent an amicus brief in support of Team Homophobia's case. They've forgotten the fact that their bill really died long before marriage equality came up for a vote.
3. The Process People - people who may or may not support gay rights, but think that the most important thing about our government is the "process." Bad laws are okay to pass, so long as they're done in a good way. So it's okay to throw Nana under the bus, just so long as a majority of voters think that should be legal.
4. Gay Rights Activists - be they gay, straight or something in between, gay activists have worked damn hard to gain equal rights in Massachusetts. Most of them don't want to see their rights on the ballot, even if that means their elected representatives need to play hard ball.

Here's what happened: the gay rights activists pushed a petition to ban gay marriage, apparently getting enough signatures to move the process forward. The Health Care folks couldn't have cared less about marriage equality and it wasn't on their radar - until, that is, their amendment was pushed behind marriage. Suddenly, the Health Care folks have jumped aboard Team Homophobia for their own selfish purposes. Which, ultimately, leads to a lot of very angry gay rights activists rabidly doing what they can to protect their rights.

So, who's right? To be clear, if the letter of the law was followed, the State Legislature should have an up or down vote. The constitution implies it.

However, is this issue black and white? Or is there gray? There's no mistaking it; the amendment crafted by Vote on Marriage was authored by a bunch of homophobes and would result in massive discrimination. Furthermore, the Health Care folks clearly just care about one thing: themselves. That's why they've asked to push both the gay-ban and health care amendments forward to their next logical conclusions, despite the fact that there's precedent indicating the Supreme Judicial Court has no power or right to do that. So, their remedy to the legislature potentially breaking the Constitution (it hasn't happened yet) is to ask the Supreme Judicial Court to throw it in a shredder. Worst yet, this deplorable amendment only needs 1 in 4 state reps and senators to vote "yes" for hate to gain ground.

Clearly, both Vote on Marriage and the Health Care peeps are morally wrong. Yet, they're following the process. So which wins out? Is this a case where the ends do justify the means? Or is this a situation where Team Homophia & Friends need to be put down - even when hunting's out of season? Where to draw the line?

How about hypocrisy? It would be one thing if what the State Legislature is about to do on January 2nd had never occurred. If Massachusetts ConCons had always followed the rules - and suddenly tried to break them this year - then there'd be major reason to cry process. However, Constitutional Convention after Constitutional Convention, no one has followed the rules. Some may even doubt if most elected officials even knew all the rules. There has almost certainly been a constitutional amendment that didn't receive an "up or down" vote in just about every year there have been ConCons. Sometimes, maybe Beacon Hill just didn't get to finish them because of time constraints. Other years, there's probably a little more malice.

This past year, there was no malice. Parliamentary procedure was used to protect civil rights. The State Leg dodged an "up or down" vote - as they've done hundreds of times before - because they wanted this issue to die. They've decided, over and over again, to protect civil rights now and aren't interested in putting that hard work up to a vote that only requires 25% support to pass.

But is there hypocrisy? Yes. Despite the fact that myriad amendments died before they ever got a vote, it's gay rights being attacked. While many of the people attacking it aren't openly homophobic, it stands to reason that at the very least, being biased, they just don't see gay marriage as an important issue. After all, it doesn't effect them.

I ask: Where were these people when former Mayor of Boston, Ray Flynn, supported the legislature employing parliamentary procedures to block a vote on a constitutional amendment? Now that people are trying to block discrimination against glbt people, Ray Flynn has seen the light and - wait for this - thinks the "process" needs to be protected. Hypocrisy, much? Can't people see it? If this were Clean Elections, sure there would have been a fuss, but it would have gone away pretty soon. After all, Kerry Healey wasn't screaming for Clean Elections even though the legislature tampered with that ballot initiative. She barely mentioned it. Yet, she was very vocal when it came to the Vote on Marriage folks.

Still, some say,

• "We need to vote on this to hear the end."
• "You'll be doing this year after year, Ryan."
• "This will never go away."

You know what? You're right. But I'll be doing this year after year no matter what happens on January Second. If we beat them playing tough, they'll try to come back. If we beat them within the parameter of the rules, they'll come back anyway. As long as there are homophobic people out there, we'll never hear the end of them. As long as people can be hired to collect signatures, we'll be facing homophobic ballot initiatives. The only thing rational people can do is make them lose in a bad way - giving them no hope in the future. At least, that way, only the craziest of crazies will still pursue discrimination.

They probably still won't give up. Just look at them work around the country! In Massachusetts, people are complaining the courts decided marriage equality. In California, when their State House passed gay marriage, Arnold vetoes it because 'the court or voters (by initiative)' should decide. Which is it? You can't win with Team Homophobia, they're like little kids who keep on making up rules until they finally "win." According to Arnold, it's okay for the court to decide who can marry, but not in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, despite the fact that the legislature votes on almost all issues, it's wrong for a majority of our elected officials to say "enough is enough" when it comes to gay marriage. Hypocrisy is a term the homophobic sadly haven't grasped yet.

So who is right?

To Team Homophobia & Company - whoever says they win.

To people who care about what's right? Our state's courageous politicians, who are willing to take serious heat and take a bold step in ending discrimination. Here is one case where playing tough is worth it, even at the cost of an already deeply flawed process.

Mitt's Mad Mayhem

The guy can't even bother to participate in the inaugural proceedings.

As part of the planning, the departing governor, Mitt Romney, will leave the State House in the centuries-old "lone walk" the night before the inauguration, which officials say is the first time in history, to avoid an awkward public departure in front of thousands of Patrick supporters.

Damn that Mitt, he's special. He can't fess up to the fact that a rising political force came up to meet him... and was just waiting, in glee, to see his long, lone-ly walk. The good news is, for the first time in recent memory, Mitt'll be in Massachusetts sans major disaster of epic proportions.

The Healthcare Lobby Should be Ashamed

Health care has always been my biggest issue. As a college student who will graduate soon, I've been exceedingly worried about obtaining quality, affordable health care. Over the summer, during the ConCon, I called both my state rep and state senator and urged them to vote for a constitutional amendment to gaurantee healthcare in Massachusetts. That was the primary purpose of my call - and I think both of them listened, as they both voted against burying the amendment.

Sadly, the amendment died anyway. That's right, it died. As in, it's gone. Poof. It shan't be passed. But, what's worse than that, the health care lobby has somehow tried to blame the defeat of their bill on the gay rights movement. Because gay marriage won't come up to a vote, neither will the health care bill, they say. They're so furious that they've sided with the homophobes.

The folks backing the proposed constitutional amendment on health care have filed an amicus brief in the lawsuit, filed by Mitt Romney and others, to force the anti-marriage amendment onto the ballot.

So they've picked their sides. They'd rather stand with Mitt Romney and Team Homophobia than people like me who have fought long and hard for health care - longer and harder than I've fought for gay rights.

I warned them to divide the progressive movement at their own peril. It makes all of us weaker. We won through unity, now the healthcare folks idiots only put marriage equality at risk. If enough health care dolts lobby our state reps and senators to vote on marriage equality, this whole thing could be dragged on. Yet, mark my words, health care will fail anyway.

It already failed. In June. And it had nothing to do with marriage equality. Heck, the health care bill came up before marriage equality at that point. And it still failed. Like I said, the thing is d.e.a.d. DEAD d.e.a.d.

The saddest thing of all is that the amicus sent to the SJC by the health care lobby asks the SJC to do something that is just as unconstitutional as what they think the legislature is doing. They're asking the SJC to push the amendment to ban gay marriage forward, "their argument is that the failure of the legislature to vote should be deemed the equivalent of 25% of the legislature voting in favor of an amendment," says David. The SJC has no right to do that, something even David has readily admitted in the past. There's plenty of recent precedent on the matter.

So what does this all mean? The people behind the health care lobby are selfish assholes. I don't use that vulgarity lightly. They don't care about gay people. They don't care about unity. They made their decision to stand with Mitt Romney instead of Deval Patrick, with openly homophobic people instead of the rest of the progressive movement. As far as I'm concerned, I'm now looking forward to see the health care amendment fail. The ends don't justify the means, not when they seek to trample on the rights of tens of thousands of Massachusetts citizens. People who belong to any of those health care organizations should immediately leave and start new ones - ones that seek to be uniters, not dividers.

Update: Give them a piece of your mind.

Building on a Swamp is a Bad Idea

Classical's 6-year-old slab is sinking into the former solid waste landfill underneath the school, creating crumbling walls, two-inch gaps where one part of the building has pulled away from another, buckled ceiling tiles, cracked and lifted floor tiles, shattered trophy case glass, misaligned doors, and jagged floor-to-ceiling cracks in the walls.

If by solid landful, they mean liquidy liquid liquid, they could just be right. But what's a little 20-30 million dollar repair bill? Why pay for one school when the City of Lynn can pay for two? It's the kind of economy the right wing - and inept political leadership - just loves.

The ironic thing is that just down the street from the "solid waste landful" Lynn chose to build a high school on was acres of city-owned property - property the city recently sold for about a million dollars. Good planning.

The sad thing is people can't just say hindsight is 20-20. All sorts of people knew building Classical where they built it was a terrible idea. The fact that part of the school is now sinking, just six years later, should shock no one. Except the politicians who chose that site - because they were clearly idiots.

Lynn's trying to sue the architects. Surely, there's plenty of blame to go around. But, I'm of the opinion that this is mostly Lynn's fault. Lynn should have known better; it's a little late to expect someone else to pick up the entire 20+ million dollar tab this new project is going to cost. But, then again, this is Lynn leadership we're talking about. It's always someone else's fault.

Lynn's in a period of recovery now. There's all sorts of development planned on the waterfront and even the downtown area has made some modest improvements. People are actually moving into lofts and nice apartments just on the outskirts of Downtown - and there are some new shops, gallaries, college classes and restaurants moving in the area. However, to have to essentially pay for a second entire high school isn't going to speed up Lynn's resurgence. Will the repairs really fix the problems, or will there just be more crack in Classical's foundation in another six years?

(Just to note... the above picture isn't Lynn Classical lol.)

It's Official: Larry Cirignano is Crazy

As if this story couldn't get any more bizarre. Apparently, no one told Larry Cirignano to avoid emailing crazy rants - it has a way of getting back at you. Via knowthyneighbor, we learn someone sent an email to Larry to say that he is wrong on gay marraige and that everyone deserves equal rights. It was a typical protest email and wasn't inflamatory in anyway.

Here was Larry's response:

10 out of 10 proctologists say: DON’T Do it!

In case anyone doesn't know what proctologist means, it's a doctor of the rectum, colon, etc. So... he allegedly goes on the attack Saturday - and follows up with equally homophobic email responses today. What's next?

The good news is that Sarah Loy, the woman Larry attacked, is pressing charges.

Hey, Cardinal O'Malley

Hey, Your Eminence, what's up? How's it hanging, Cardinal O'Malley? I imagine, as you wake up today, you're going to hear a bit of news coming out of Worcester. You see, a woman was allegedly assaulted by the man in the picture standing to your right, Larry Cirignano. She was a fan of marriage equality and Larry Cirignano wasn't. Unfortunately for you, Cardinal, good 'ol Larry is head of Catholic Citizens Group, an organization that you've happily encouraged to hold rallies across the state. And Larry allegedly physically assaulted a woman just moments after he finished speaking at one of those rallies on Saturday, in Worcester.

I'd imagine, deep down somewhere in your heart, you're probably a little disappointed. After all, you did write on your blog about the need to welcome gays and lesbians into the Catholic Church (even as you discriminate against them). And I actually believe you mean it. Now, I know you aren't the Bishop of Worcester, but your Archdiocese still holds sway over Worcester nonetheless. So, whatcha think about last weekend's breakdown by Larry Cirignano?

Are you going to come out against the nice old chap who helped organize all those rallies for you? Violence against gay people isn't something you have supported in the past, so are you going to prove your love for all things gay (except the sex, relationships, romantic love and every other important aspect of being gay) by publicly rebuking what Larry did - and asking him to step down?

You've previously tried to be welcoming (in your own way) to gay people in the past. I'm curious, will your actions meet your rhetoric? Because, sadly, so far your actions have fell short of your words. The sheep, on Saturday, were dressed up in wolves clothing and people were feeling a little uncomfortable in taking part of the democratic process. And with good reason; someone could have been hurt. I thought this was all supposed to be about Democracy - you know, "let the people vote?" Isn't violence anathema to the democratic process (and Catholicism, for that matter)?

While we're on the topic, the man on the left to you in that photo happens to be the former Mayor of Boston and Ambassador to the Vatican, Ray Flynn. He's been taking part in these rallies too. I think you and he may just be friends nowadays and that's kind of sweet. I'm touched. Since these rallies are all about Democracy - and not about marriage equality at all - I thought I'd ask you a quick question. You see, Mayor Flynn once supported the very thing he protests against now - subverting the alleged right of people to have an "up or down vote" in a Constitutional Convention. Isn't that kind of hypocritical? As Cardinal of America's largest Archdiocese, I think you would be somewhat of an expert on the subject, so I'm interested on your thoughts.

Also, isn't it kind of weird that he tried to subvert those rights back then in order to block citizens from voting on an amendment to ban abortion? I mean, you're not a big fan of abortion either. Heck, isn't that even worse to you than a little man 2 man action? Probably not, because gay sex is just sick! I mean anal penetration!? Eww. To you, it's sicker than soon-to-be babies being sucked out of tubes, right? It's way worse than a wet vag, but then again you probably haven't had any experience with either. At least I hope not, cheating on your celibacy with God is a definite no-no and, after all, you are a Cardinal.

So watcha think about Saturday? A lot went down. Ray, friend to the Vatican and ally in your cause to surpress the rights of minorities in Massachusetts, was a hypocrite. And one of your own lay leaders in your quest to end the rights of a minority, who helped organize all these mini-rallies across the state, knocked an innocent (straight!) girl to the ground. She hit her head on the pavement! Ouch! If you wanted my advice (and I really recommend it, as someone who's still sympathetic to Catholics in Massachusetts), I suggest you apologize for the event and - at the very least - privately ask Larry to step down. Then you should write a nice little op-ed or do a short interview with Nat Jacobsin on how it's important for the forces of evil your allies in defeating marriage equality to play nice at rallies. It'd be a nice gesture, even if it's still a wrong position. People shouldn't have to worry about Catholics beating up other protesters; I'm sure we can all agree on that. Thanks for the time, Em. (Can I call you Em?)

Sincerely,

Ryan

Let the People Vote... Or Else

That seems to be the Catholic Citizenship Group's stance, as its leader - Larry Cirignano - allegedly assaulted a pro-marriage equality protester during Worcester's Team Homophobia December Meetup 2006 event. Sure, I blogged about it earlier here, but since then I've developed a few additional questions. Mainly, the credibility of the entire "let the people vote" camp is even more questionable than it already was.

Wait a minute, do they even have any credibility left? After all, the same people who claim 'we just want to vote' were blatantly homophobic just a few years ago. Now they're beating up unarmed, peaceful women. Are people really going to pay any attention to an organization that claims to only want to give people a vote, when its leadership is using physical attacks, fear tactics, semantically-charged repackaged rhetoric and the suppression of free speech as its main tools to defeat marriage equality? Not likely.

Certainly, they won't get any support from BMG diarist Rollbiz, a witness who helped get the woman Cirignano attacked to safety.

I was 10 feet away, and I saw it. I had to go and pick her up off the pavement, comfort her, and get her the hell out of there.... Cirignano took her by the shoulders, with both hands, and shoved her to the ground. I saw it, and I don't think there was any misinterpreting his intent. He meant to hurt her.

Hopefully, Larry's hateful, drastic action symbolized a tipping point in Massachusetts. Only desperate people resort to fear tactics - people who know they're wrong, know they're losing and are damn angry about it. It often comes from people who are bitterly trying to reject their own personal feelings - after all, homophobic people are quite frequently gay themselves, often just projecting their own fears and homophobia onto others who have embraced their self, instead of allowing it to fester and destroy them. Instead of allowing it to foster within them until they decide to bring down every openly gay person in this state, gay people in Massachusetts finally can choose to "celebrate" instead of remain "celebrate," as Larry put it.

Marriage is a direct threat to people like Larry not because it threatens to bring families down or cause "God" to smite Boston, but because it means that suddenly it's becoming acceptable to become openly gay. That's anathema to people who spent their entire lives in the closet because they couldn't accept themselves for who they really are. It means people can come out of the closet - and people like Larry just don't think anyone has any business doing that. People who refused to admit that part of themselves exist are so afraid of that, they'll use physical violence to make sure no one can enjoy the rights they didn't allow themselves to have because they succombed to society's peer pressure. Too bad for them.

So what's going to happen to Catholic Citizens, Vote on Marriage and all the other homophobic organizations that Larry was either a part of or embraced by? Will Larry be removed as head of Catholic Citizens? Will members of the organizations continue to associate with an organization who's leaders physically attack opponents? What will Cardinal O'Malley's reaction be, as the prince of all things Catholic in the Boston Archdiocese and one of this country's Catholic leaders? Will he condemn the violence? Will he say that it's not the Catholic way? As Captain of the Catholics, he bears some responsibility for the action of its lay-leadership. After all, he was a big supporter of these rallies and still supports the amendment to ban marriage equality.

The credibility of the entire Catholic Church rests on the actions taken by its leadership. People don't want to be a part of an organization that sponsors or tolerates hate and physical assault. Cardinal O'Mally must immediately distance himself from Larry Cirignano and the entire Catholic Citizenship Group's actions in Worcester and elsewhere. They have no credibility and are just repackaging semantics in an attempt to ban equal rights in Massachusetts. No one can say it's 'just about the vote,' anymore - not when an innocent woman is attacked.

Update: Tom Lang, of Knowthyneighbor.org, had this to say as a witness to the event:

What was so unusual and calculated about Larry Cirignano's assault on Sarah Loy was that he left the podium area right after he gave his speech and pushed Sarah to the ground, then he returned back to the podium to stand next to Evelyn Reilly and Kris Mineau as they waited for Ambassador Flynn. This was not your average "heated moment." This was a premeditated, aggressive and uncalled-for assault by the President of the Catholic Citizenship on a young lady who was exercising her right to assemble, protest and voice her free speech...the key components to our American Democracy. And wasn't THAT supposed to be what this rally was organized for? Or maybe Larry Cirignano was not aware of this.

Also, Mike - as always - offers great commentary. Especially poignant is watching rightwingnutopia squirm as it tries to justify what happened (after all, it's her fault Cirignano charged 30 feet from his podium to attack a protester anyway and all planned of course).

Why Winning in November Matters Already

No more Chairman Inhofe. It's good to see we have Global Warming leaders in Massachusetts. We can do more than our part to save the Globe, gaining momentum with a new majority in the US House and Senate and here at home with Deval Patrick at the helm. It's time to harness our best renewable-energy and conservation technology. It's time to literally turn back the tide on Global Warming before all the polar ice caps melt and Cape Cod is under water. We can do this, now that the Republicans are out of office.

Come 2008, let's go for the clean sweep.

Is Assault a Part of God's Plan?

No? Someone should tell that to Catholic Citizenship; their leader definitely never learned to "turn the other cheek."

Sarah Loy, 27, of Worcester was holding a sign in defense of same-sex marriage amid a sea of green "Let the People Vote" signs when Larry Cirignano of Canton, who heads the Catholic Citizenship group, ran into the crowd, grabbed her by both shoulders and told her, "You need to get out. You need to get out of here right now." Mr. Cirignano then pushed her to the ground, her head slamming against the concrete sidewalk.

John of Live, Love, Learn emailed me about this when he got back from the rally. He was stunned. However, should anyone be surprised that the leadership of an organization that's so hateful would - in fact - be hateful? They definitely aren't your standard-bearing "judge not, lest you be judged" Catholics - those kinds of Catholics wouldn't care about Civil Marriage, because it has nothing to do with what the official Catholic Church considers marriage (the only kind that counts to them is performed by priests - and that's their right).

So the leader of Catholic Citizens, one of the organizers of all these mini-rallies that were held across the state - including New Bedford - thought it okay to assault a woman at a rally (who isn't even gay). What are the consequences facing him? Is Cardinal O'Malley going to publicly say "that's not acceptable" and apologize? Will Cirignano be removed from his position? He can't very well claim to represent the values of Jesus in the New Testament and then assault an innocent woman.

Update: It looks like Cirignano had a few choice words for LGBT blogger Chris Mason via emails. Here are a few of the funnier, laugh-so-you-don't-cry ones:

"Chris we pray for your recovery from same sex attraction everyday."

"I pray that they do not find a "gay Gene" or most gay people will be aborted."

"You might have a homosexual inclination or be bi-sexual BUT you choose to be gay and celebrate your sexuality. Its not okay and never will be."

"Black people are born that way and Gay people to choose to act that way."

"What about celibate instead of celebrate?"

I certainly find it humorous that he implies African Americans aren't as worthy - after all, according to him, they're "born that way" while gay people choose to "act that way." While I'd normally correct people by saying gay people typically know they were gay from as early as they remember, I get the distinct impression that Cirignano knows exactly what it's like to have a "homosexual inclination." Come on, Cirignano, learn to celebrate!

The Problem With the MCAS

A Boston charter school is about to go the way of the Dodo, but I don't really care about that. (I'm not a fan of charter schools). However, reading the story triggered an even bigger concern. Just read this:

Driscoll recommended closing Uphams Corner based on the school's record during the past five years. Though a state inspection team found improvements over the past year in student behavior and classroom instruction, MCAS scores remain low. For the first four years, many classes lacked rigor, and teachers didn't teach a curriculum that was aligned with the state's academic standards.

Because teachers didn't teach to the test, somehow they didn't meet this state's "academic standars." I have a new proposal for the State's Board of Education. Why don't we just hire out Kaplan to teach all our students to pass the MCAS. It'll probably be close to a 100% graduation rate. Sure, we'll be pushing forward dumb shits and be far worse for it, but they'll pass the MCAS! Yay!

The MCAS, at this moment, is a measure of one thing for 80-90% of students: socio-economic levels. People from stable, upper-middle class backgrounds will tend to do well on the exam. Students from poor, broken families probably won't. Is the MCAS a measure of their intelligence? No, it's a measure of their stability. It's a measure of how strongly their parents distilled a need in their children for academic achievement - or even merely intellectual curiousity. It's a measure of how much crap's going on at home.

The thing about schools in Massachusetts is that you could take all the best teachers from Lynnfield, MASCO, Swampscott, Marblehead... and stick them in Lynn English and the kids from English won't do much better. Why? It isn't that the teachers in Lynnfield and Swampscott are so out-of-this-world fantastic, or that the teachers from Lynn are craptastic, it's that the people learning in Lynn either don't have the same familial expectations or are going through very difficult domestic situations and aren't getting the same kind of support. If people have a single parent, in and out of work and addicted to drugs - the achievement isn't passing the MCAS, the achievement is going to school 5 days a week.

All that said, I'm not against a test people must pass to graduate. However, the test needs to be completely different. The current exam doesn't really ask people to show what they learned; it's a test geared toward people who have learned how to 'beat' it - just like the SAT or any other mainly multiple-choice standardized test. Exams should make people show what they learned - be it either a portfolio project to be presented at the end of the year to a school's administration or an open-ended MCAS that doesn't have random question #2234o8343 on it, but a test that asks basic questions and looks for coherent answers using knowledge people have learned from their class.

At the very least, if the state wants to have the MCAS as it's currently formatted, it needs to invest the kind of money in the kind of places that will give everyone the support they need to pass. The kind of help necessary extends far beyond dollars invested in the educational system and includes things like health insurance, day care (for parents that would otherwise make their own children watch their kids), drug rehabilitation, etc. The problems that the MCAS reveals aren't usually indicative of what's going on at school and much more likely to be what's going on at home. Until those problems are addressed, we can throw tens of billions of dollars more into k-12 and it won't make a difference.

Score One for Deval

Travs is backpedalling faster than a clown with some egg on his face. If only he were wearing some white face paint and a goofy, red nose - because this whole ordeal has been very comical. Oh, wait, allow me...

Senator Travaglini was so off base, attacks almost instantly came in with fiendish glee. Subconsciously, I think most progressives in this state were waiting for this trav-incident. When the old clashes with the new, and the old loses big, it's tough not to exact some fun. Travs, at this point, is so far out of his league when attacking Deval Patrick that it's like a moth to a flame. He wants the power, chases after the power and just got burnt. To a crisp.

I misspoke yesterday and I want to acknowledge that publicly to you...'' Travaglini told reporters this afternoon. "The position of the senate continues to be standing ready to partner with the new administration in its efforts to demonstrate that we can conduct the people's business in their absence in a positive way and that's the reason for the visit here this afternoon.

Whoops. If only someone had a Youtube.

The Herald's Star Magazine

I'm so glad I checked the Herald's website today, so I could keep up to date on all the front-paged gossip. So, Tom Brady and his gal pal Bridget Moynahan have been having "relationship problems," according to a Brady-spy, and ah, like, that's why we were crushed playing Miami last week. Like, for real!

It’s been well reported here that Brady and his lady’s coupling has had its ups and downs - but mostly ups - since they hooked up in late 2003. And fans of the couple, including the Track, have been eagerly awaiting the Big Announcement.

Oh noes, the big announcment is that they're, like, breaking up! Fans are wondering what genius-coach Bill Bellichek, like, thinks. And Corey Dillon. And will, like, Robert Kraft be angry or anything like that?

Like, oh my god! Tom Brady's single!

Seriously, does this trash really sell newspapers? With massively declining readership, shouldn't the Boston Herald try something new - for example, real journalism? Who knows, maybe the antitode to declining readership is something a little bit more old-fashioned than Hollywood Access.

Oh, It's On!

Remember all those hilarious Republicans, screaming we needed a Republican Governor to balance out Beacon Hill - that Deval Patrick would be the next Michael Dukakis and wouldn't be able to stand up to Trav and DiMasi? That they'd all get along swell and we'd be building bridges to no where and spending money by the buckets on things we don't need?

Silly wabbit, twicks are for kids!

In remarks that shocked some in the audience, the Senate president said that he wants to work with the governor-elect, but he strong-ly suggested that if things don't go well, the Senate will block Patrick's legislative efforts.

According to the notes of one audience member, Travaglini said: "I told the governor-elect, if you're willing to share and you care and you prepare and are ready to deliver, then everything will work out. If not, I have senators across the state who share my vision and my approach and if forced to choose, I'm comfortable with whom they'll choose."

"Eyes were wide open all over the room," added a lawyer who attended the event, "People were shocked by the tone and the force with which he made his remarks."

So, what happens when a strong, progressive Democrat is elected to the Corner Office? Travaglini goes and has a panic attack. I'm more glad every day that Deval's keeping his field organization alive. He's going to need it when it comes to saving core, progressive ideas.

It appears as if Travaglini can't take a little criticism.

The audience members also reported that Travaglini said Patrick downplayed his promise to slash waste in the budget, though yesterday Patrick's office insisted he stood firmly by his vow to cut inefficient spending.

Travaglini said that in recent discussions with Patrick, he warned the governor-elect to stop making public promises to cut $1 billion in waste.

The Senate president said he told Patrick that the pledge insults the Legislature. If there is that much bloat in the budget, Travaglini said, then he hasn't been doing his job.

Wait, which is it - is he not willing to cut waste - or is he trying to cut too much? I wonder if Trav could ever think - maybe even for a second - that he wasn't doing his job? When you're a part of the system for years and years, it just may be impossible to differentiate between waste and wisdom. Like building a gazebo (that's waste) and fostering a better UMASS (that's wisdom, even if you cut its budget year after year).

Asked about the Senate president's remarks yesterday, Patrick issued a statement reiterating his position that there is waste in state government that must be eliminated.

"Governor-elect Patrick strongly believes that there are efficiencies in government that can and must be achieved, and he has tasked administration and finance secretary appointee Leslie Kirwan with performing a top-to-bottom review of the current budget to begin to identify them," said spokeswoman Cyndi Roy.

But she refused to comment on Travaglini's reported descriptions of his discussions with Patrick, saying: "Conversations between the Senate president and the governor-elect were private. We will continue to keep those private."

But wait, I thought private = bad? Weren't they drinking tea, discussing just how they could bankrupt the state by giving every welfare person a new version of food stamps to be used at the Capital Grille in Boston? Or was it that they were discussing how they'd close every charter school and punish the parents who sent their kids there by bussing them all to New Bedford's 40% drop out rate? No? It must have been that they were going to build a series of wind turbines on all the beaches of Massachusetts, from Westport to Salisbury. No?! All this time they were having spats behind closed doors? (This is why Governors and legislative leaders should be able to hold a few, closed-door meetings... we don't need that fighting aired out in public. However, meetings with lobbyists should be fully public.)

People like Travaglini are always going to be afraid of rocking the boat and trying out new, bold ideas - even if they're not perfect or have some sort of risk. The status quo isn't working and it's time for Massachusetts to Think Big. Travaglini will never do that. So if Travaglini thinks he can threat Deval Patrick, he ought not bring a knife to a gun fight - because he can be swept away by a people-powered army that currently supports our Governor-elect.

Keep On Trucking, Mitt.

I like his current strategy. Or should I call it strategery?

T-Shirts!

Mostly for my own entertainment, I turned some of the comics I've made for Ryan's Take into T-Shirts. Thinking some other people would want to ride the Mitt Romney Express, you can get them here. Just for disclosure, consider a T-Shirt a $3 donation to Ryan's Gas Fund. LOL

My Letter to the Editor on the New Bedford Rally

After the New Bedford rally, I quickly wrote a Letter to the Editor in the South Coast Standard Times. It was finally published today.

Our legislators have voted for equal rights

On Saturday, I held a sign in front of the New Bedford Public Library. It was fitting to be in front of such an important symbol of free thought and knowledge, because across the street - in front of City Hall - were people with minds closed and facts wrong. They disingenuously chanted "let the people vote," a semantically repackaged way of saying gay people don't deserve the right to marry. Furthermore, the people have voted - over and over and over again. Year in and year out, when it comes to marriage equality, the only people who have been voted out of office have been those who don't believe in equal rights for all. Our state representatives and senators have also voted, repeatedly, to prevent any further attacks on marriage equality - though it's a vote a select few in this state don't like and therefore ignore.

The sign I held on Saturday read, "This Christmas: Peace and Love on Earth for Everyone." I truly mean everyone. I wish peace and love on Earth to all the readers of this paper who don't think gay people deserve the right to a civil marriage. However, I ask them to consider all the people they hurt in their efforts to grant special rights to heterosexuals. Everyone deserves the chance to say "I do" to someone they love, even if that person just so happens to be the same gender.

RYAN
Dartmouth

Again, Deval Hasn't Been in Office for a Day

Joan, I love ya, but the guy hasn't been in office for a day yet. The inaugural plans po'd me too, but that doesn't mean I'm suddenly worried that the Governor-elect isn't doing his job. He can't do his job - yet. Measure his job performance after January 4th, please.

And, no offense, but let's not go too far with statements like these:

The same conflict between campaign pledge and transition process is apparent in the confidentiality agreements he is asking volunteers to sign.

I want him to have a little confidentiality, I've been saying that for a while now. He's thinking of some new, huge ideas - and wouldn't the Globe just love to run stories on all of Deval's crazy ideas before he even sits in office. Let's let Deval develop those ideas - and if he doesn't come up with good ones via the transition process, then raise a stink.

Sadly, this takes the cake:

I hope the next transition, from governor-elect to actual governor brings back an inspirational leader with an agenda for change.

Blame it on Deval Patrick. There I go, hoping again.

No Governor-elect in Massachusetts history has had as many committees that have taken as much advice. Confidentiality agreement or not, the committees were comprised of people from all over the ideological perspective and included civic leaders as well as active citizens who may not get daily recognition on Beacon Hill. Deval's made some mistakes during his transition process, but what we've seen so far has been inspiring the kind of hope he promised in the campaign: a people-powered movement to push forward real change and progress on Beacon Hill.

Tufts & Free Speech

I'm curious to know what people think about the hate speech going on at Tufts? (Note to readers: the website apparently requires people to sign in to read it. However, I'll copy and paste the original essay at the bottom.)

Personally, here's where my libertarian tendencies kick in. I'm a big fan of free speech. However, the Tufts organization is funded through the students - every student who goes to Tufts University. While I think "Primary Source" has the right to say pretty much whatever it wants, free speech is not without consequence. People at Tufts who are pissed at their blatantly racist speech shouldn't be forced to fund that organization.

I made two comments to an old friend who used to go to Tufts and was very politically active there - and even targeted by "Primary Source." As the link above will indicate, he's against any boycott of the organization. Here are the comments I made to him:

It's not that I'd want to defund them, I just think it would make some sense to make it optional for each student. Who knows, maybe lots of people would want to fully fund them? My only point is that their free speech is funded by students that speech targets. That would be akin to the KKK being partly funded through the SNCC during the Southern Freedom Movement.

He said optional funding would be too difficult for their Student Senate to figure out. (And took me to task for being hyperbolic, but I couldn't think of a college organization that was against everything the SNCC stood for). I countered:

It's not without precedent. There are organizations like MASSpirg which exist through optional funding - and it's one of the better funded organizations on my campus, with a full time organizer and work study students.

There isn't really any good solution to offer. However, there are angry people on Tuft's campus, many of whom probably wouldn't appreciate being forced to fund a student org that apparently enjoys spewing hate speech - hate speech against many students. While they have every right to say pretty much whatever they want, there's nothing written in the constitution about being forced to fund that speech. One great thing about free speech is that there is a certain level of accountability: speech is not without consequence. The consequences come from the people the speech is geared toward and is a powerful force... that powerful force could be in the form of students at Tufts changing the way student orgs are funded. Heck, changes could mean more money for most orgs.

_____________


Here's Matt Pohl's essay, a Tufts Alum and current student at Columbia.

I posted this on the new "Boycott the Tufts Primary Source" group discussion board:

According to the Primary Source, I was one of the loudest advocates of liberal causes on campus. Their 2005 Commencement issue dedicated a page-long diatribe to yours truly, loaded with ad hominem attacks and predictably published without a named author.

That being said, I feel that any suggestion to ban publication or restrict university sponsored funding for the Primary Source is an affront to academic freedom. At its very core, the Primary Source is a collection of ideas and expressions. Such is life. Such is the world.

Absurd, comical, offensive, racist, homophobic, and sexist ideas and expressions have their place at Tufts. Get over it. Work with it. Condemn it. Stand up to it. Censor it, and you lose. The university supports academic freedom – among that, freedom of speech in the press and in student publications. The administration must tread a fine line in upholding these values, yet also has an obligation to condemn expressions that demean and devalue the unique identities and contributions of anyone in the Tufts community. Condemnation, however, should never lead to silence.

Censoring the Primary Source sets a dangerous precedent by applying a standard to define “acceptable” ideas and expressions. Who would raise or lower the bar? The students? The administration? Suddenly your academic freedom could be questioned and redefined well into the future, and that could affect everyone.

The Primary Source, along with the disagreeable ideologies it espouses, is not going away. In fact, do yourself a favor: graduate. Tufts students are minorities due to the privilege of their education. Tufts students also have the luxury of adjusting their levels of engagement, making it easy to stay on campus and within Medford city limits. People say and do shitty things. Cruelty, dishonesty, and greed are far and above the common and valued traits outside the academic bubble. It ain’t going away.

Use the Primary Source as tool to reinforce your political leanings. You want accountability? Attend their meetings and challenge them face to face. Challenge their editors to publish the names of all writers associated with every column and essay, including those which malign members of the Tufts community. Make it difficult for the vermin to hide. Hold them personally accountable for personal attacks. But that isn’t the Tufts way. That’s just too damn confrontational. Hold a senate meeting on the subject, convene the bias response team, hold a “community forum,” and have President Bacow write a condemnation letter at the behest of angry alumni donors. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Perhaps its time to try a different strategy. The only question is, are you all truly capable?

A Little Schadenfruede and a Little Protest

Those "let the people vote" folks apparently have a lesson or two to learn about how the Democratic process. They love to to protest, but skipped out on the easy process of getting a permit in Springfield.

Funny how things work out...neither the Catholic Citizenship nor VoteOnMarriage had pulled a permit for the steps or their soundsystem. So they collected their signs, their banners, their speakers and their supporters and descended the City Hall steps to be banished by police to a tiny park across the street in front of a creche scene. They weren't even allowed to use their soundsystem. Not a happy crowd during this joyous holiday season...

Granted, I probably would have let it be known, but how could they have forgotten their permit when stumping in front of city hall? And using a PA system? It's not as if these vote-on-marriage folks haven't done a protest before - that was a real rookie mistake. As a practice, I probably would have let it go (I don't like the concept of "free speech zones" or "free speech permits"), but Springfield was within its rights and - for safety's sake - they should have got a permit.

Just a funny story.

Now, the folks at Knowthyneighbor are making their own protest for this coming Saturday at Worcester.

There still is one more rally to go. Saturday December 16th Worcester City Hall
1:30 PM.

It's always fun to rally, so people should hit it up and show their support. I'm sure, this time, permits will be had by all.

On Commenting

One thing I've always prided myself on this site is that I have completely open comments. I don't moderate them (never have) and don't intend to in the future. That said, I'd like to ask (not order or demand, just ask) that we try to not go on personal attacks and stick to passionate discussion of the issues. I've probably violated such a request myself; if not on my website, then surely on any number of other ones (I'm as passionate and PO'd as the next person). People are going to occasionally become passionate - and that's okay - I only ask that we try to make an effort. I like honest and frank discussions, even if it attracts people some of us may not like: it's my form of allowing people to openly contest "Ryan's Take."

One last thing... and this is just going out in general, for any website... generally aliases are there for a reason. Not everyone is willing to do what I've done on Ryan's Take - be completely open and honest about who I am, where I live, where I go to school, what my politics are and even post pictures. I'm loud, I'm proud and I'm going to speak my mind wherever and whenever I feel like it. However, there are consequences to that (future campaign fodder? lol) and it may not even be the best way to advocate for an issue online anyway, at least for some people. So, while I don't moderate my comments, I'd ask readers politely to give care when revealing aliases. If it's relevant to the comment, such as so-and-so wrote something under their real name that's important to the discussion they're weighing in on as an alias, that's one thing. However, revealing it just for the sake of revealing it seems kind of... well... meanspirited. After all, even if I disagree with that person, there are plenty of people I enjoy reading who are still anonymous - from Eeka to T-Rex. Anonymity on the internet has its plus and minuses, but it's sort of what makes the internet the internet.

I Love New Bedford, But...

Man, stay away from its bars and clubs.

A love-crazed gunman who executed two before killing himself early today at a New Bedford strip club was reportedly seeking revenge for a relationship gone bad.

This, about a year after the Puzzles incident, where a gay basher targeted gay men with a hatchet and handgun. Luckily, no one was killed in the incident, but two died a few days later when he was fleeing.

It reminds me of a discussion I had with some friends, just after the New Bedford demonstration I went to. People there didn't routinely venture into the downtown area, in part, because they didn't think it was all that safe. However, I love Downtown New Bedford and go there routinely - feeling completely safe and sound. I told them it's perfectly safe, just don't go wandering down any strange alleys and preferably stick to daytime activities or travel in packs at night.

Despite these crazy incidents, New Bedford can be safe. People just need to be intelligent about themselves. I don't know what to say about New Bedford's clubs and bars, other than there's been a shooting of some kind about once a year and so chances are remote anything would happen. There are probably some clubs safer than others (and strip clubs probably aren't the safest kind anywhere). However, clearly the city needs to look into ways of keeping clubs and bars safe - they're incredibly important to a city's culture and atmosphere, but people need to at least feel as if they aren't going to get shot at drinking a Long Island Ice Tea and dancing to Justin Timberlake's newest "music."

Improving Town and City Websites

Deval Patrick and Tim Murray's transition group on Technology and Community had an online transitional meeting where people offerred ideas via the website and the committee members were reading and answering in real time. Lots of great ideas came out of that thread: here was mine.

I suggested that the state offer help for towns to improve their websites - to both get more information on them, make them more accessible and interesting and be tools from which to help build the communities and a sense of community. In illustrating the usefulness of the real-time, online format, Cos expanded on my idea.

Forcing cities and towns into a particular service or web template may not be such a hot idea, but I didn't see that being suggested. The state could offer services to cities and towns that they could choose to use. For example:

• Mailing list service: Town chooses the names of the lists and basic list policy (such as, is it an announce-only list or one for open discussion, can anyone join or must subscriptions be approved, etc.). State provides list management software running on a state server with per-town domain names (so you could have snowemergencies@framingham.statedomain), public-accessible & searchable web archive.
• Credit card processing: A state web site wants to allow people to pay their parking tickets, excise tax bills, water bills, whatever, online. Easy to plug in state system can provide credit card processing they can use, with an API that makes it easy to tie in to a local web site and feed the money to the correct place.
• Web design: People whose main job is to work on the state web sites, but whose services are available to cities and towns who need web design work done for them and don't have someone. Many towns don't have enough need for this to justify a staffer of their own, which means they end up paying much
  higher contractor rates when they do need it; combining the effort statewide would save money overall, and would also make it easier for towns to get a good design that they otherwise couldn't afford.
• Oh, and add video hosting to the list! Once a city or town has made a video of some public meeting or event, give them a place to host it that the state will pay for and maintain indefinitely, so they can keep it available (and integrated into the city web site if they want).

Like I said, great ideas. In the quest to add some much needed improvements to the state website, let's make sure town and city websites are brought into the 21st century too.

I Confess

In light of all the blogging scandals, I thought I should confess that the reason I love Deval Patrick so much is because I'm actually his illegitimate child. I actually think he's wrong on every issue, but a son's got to stick up for his paps, right? Deval Patrick's illegitimate children are exactly why this state has so few moonbats, yet elected Paps anyway.

I should also confess that I've been paid vast sums of monopoly money and probably some food stamps for the services rendered to him, even though I'm allegedly his son and sons should work for their parents for free as slave labor - just like bloggers. I just wanted to get that out of the way and fully divulge my relationship to Deval so no one beats me to it.

"Beat the Press" Ignores the Truth

Apparently, Greater Boston's so-called self-professed media watchdog "Beat the Press" needs a dose of their own medicine. Read David for the nuts and bolts of what happened. However, I want to take on three specific quotes from the show.

Not that [bloggers] had great credibility anyway.

Sure there is... it's called reputation. Bloggers that build a reputation will build readers, bloggers that don't will bleed them.

I don't expect them to take money for their opinions... and a lot of money too.

A lot of money? Let's compare that to Big Money in Politics: it's peanuts. And for every blogger who gets "a lot of money" there are thousands who make nothing - yet write just as much. Bloggers don't make a lot of money - stop confusing people. Even bloggers that keep ads generally don't make much for them - including fairly well-trafficked websites like Bluemassgroup.

"That's never going to happen" (bloggers stop writing about the campaign on their website)

Umm... That's exactly what the MyDD blogger, who Beat the Press complains about so strongly, did when he got hired by the campaigns... he not only stopped writing about those campaigns and people, but more or less stopped writing on the website completely.

Lynne has some good points for a course of action. She also writes about a new label spewed against bloggers, we're all egotistical and therefore, no one should read blogs.

So, read all that stuff... especially how "Beat the Press" took a blog that was a blatant joke as truth, without doing a shred of any research (including a mere google). Then, people who are as disgusted as I was should feel compelled to take 30 seconds and email Greater Boston to complain and ask them to make a correction and apology. If they want to have the accountability they claim bloggers don't, then they need to at least make that step. Then they need to ask themselves how they could be so duped: they're not in touch with new journalism and are too insulated to see things clearly.

Windy Ways Whistling Toward Fairhaven

Fairhaven is well on its way to wind power.

The proposal calls for two Vestas V82 turbines, each tower measuring 262 feet to the hub. Each rotor is 269 feet in diameter. The towers would produce electricity for the commercial grid and help power the water treatment plant. CCI has estimated the towers could save the town at least $50,000 per year. Powering the facility costs about $360,000 a year.

One point of concern:

CCI is proposing the smaller turbines because they are the only ones readily available and will enable the company to benefit from federal renewable energy tax credits that expire at the end of 2007, Mr. Sweeney said.

These tax credits must be extended, especially given the fact communities are starting to look into wind power as a viable option.

Howie Carr Thinks You're Stupid

Threatening the General Court [by keeping the field organization to lobby for issues] - how’d that work out for Mitt Romney? To enforce your will, Deval, you would have to be able to knock off a few of these bums, and that requires an electorate that’s bright enough to make rational decisions. Given that [the people] just elected you, how would you rate their ability to handle sharp objects safely, let alone vote their own enlightened self-interest?

Without explaining the subtle differences between "threatening" the legislature with a large army of people-power and threatening them via the force of Mitt Romney's angry voice to Howie, I'd like to point out that Howie just essentially called more than 50% of Massachusetts's voters stupid.

Why people who clearly disdain where they work and live continue to work and live there (when they have the funds to move and ability get good jobs elsewhere) is beyond me. It would be like if I decided to be a cook and make fish every day, when I absolutely detest 99% of things that come out of the sea. Howie Carr clearly dislikes most people in Massachusetts - yet continues to live with the "moonbats," who are starting to make up a plurality of the Bay State's population.

Howie Carr could be an entire class in Abnormal Psych - just what makes that guy tick could probably win a psychiatrist a big, moonbatty grant.

More on New Bedford's "Rally."

There's a great New Bedford Standard-Daily Times article on yesterday's rally. For once, it seems that coverage of a rally was given fair play for both sides (as opposed to about 1,000 prowar supporters getting more coverage than about 100,000 anti-war supporters in DC a few years ago).

NEW BEDFORD — About 100 people rallying at City Hall in support of efforts to place on the ballot a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage yesterday were confronted by double their number in opponents.

Imagine that, the truth? Sadly, it's all too rare in newspapers today.

Some other interesting information from the article:

• Bishop George Coleman thinks the nearly 10,000 gay marriages in this state are " a fiction created by the Supreme Court." Then again, he also thinks my my mother and father are still married, despite the fact that they were divorced more than 20 years ago, while my father's remarried with two more children...
• Catholics like Coleman are alienating more and more people every day with their hateful views, such as "Dolores and Arthur Vasconcellos, married 51 years, parents of six and practicing Catholics," who just so happen to have a gay son. I'm sure Mr. and Mrs. Vasconcellos would be much happier with the Church if it could stop focusing on destroying their son's happiness and actually spend the bulk of their PR efforts on core Catholic causes.
• No one should go to the Shawmut Diner in New Bedford, or any other Phil Paleophobogoat businesses. He was the final speaker at Team Homophobia's "rally" and the rudest, loudest, most obnoxious of all. He doesn't deserve the business of any fair-minded individuals; try places like Cafe Arpeggio, Riccardi's or No Problemo for good food at good prices without all the homophobia (no one will have to suffer Phil's company at those places).
• Rep. Stephen R. Canessa, William M. Strauss, Antonio F.D. Cabral and Sen. Mark C. W. Montigny need calls of thanks for supporting marriage equality. Thanking them will make sure they don't cave into any perceived pressure by Team Homophobia in the months and years to come.

Update: Click Here for some photos of the event taken by Sims.

A Few Homophobes in New Bedford "Rally"

I was going to go to a big Deval Patrick field meeting today, but was sadly running so late that 9:45 am was going to be the earliest I'd get there. The meeting started at 9 am. So, I went to Office Max to buy posters (locking myself out of my car for an hour) and rallied for equal rights instead.

The ever-disingenuous "let the people vote" crowd - you know, the same people who were openly homophobic 2 years ago, but realized that homophobia doesn't sell (so now they just want their "right to vote") - were at it again today. Soon-to-be former Representative Phil Paleophobogoat was all riled up, like usual, because dem gays are getting married he 'wants to vote' is an homophobic asshole. So, he keynoted a New Bedford "rally" (which was probably outnumbered by equal-right supporters counter-protesting) and did typical things one would expect from people filled with hatred: ranted, raved and made loud noises filled with sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Luckily, they learned to "repackage" their homophobia too late for it to matter: marriage equality isn't going anywhere in Massachusetts. Well-organized counter-protesters were there, today, to make sure of it. While polite, the heroes of the crowd made sure their voice was heard. Dozens - if not hundreds - of hand made posters were held high by the crowd fittingly in front of the New Bedford Public Library (mine said "This Christmas: Peace and Love on Earth for Everyone"). Simple chants of "equal rights" rose when Team Homophobia squealed their 'let the people vote' meme. When Paleophobogoat finally came up to speak, the friends of marriage equality turned their backs on him. Becoming a force of pure hatred, he didn't deserve any more attention. Luckily, he won't get any - his term's up and he shan't be going back for another.

After the rally, a bunch of fellow UMASS students hit the streets of New Bedford and ate at No Problemo - a favorite burrito joint and hangout of mine. There were straight guys, gay guys, lesbians and everything in between. But that had nothing to do with anything and wasn't on anyone's minds. People who find marriage equality an issue they just can't get past need to take a long, hard look in the mirror - because no one else really cares. Everyone's moved on; not one damn cloud has fallen from the sky because two guys occasionally kiss after saying "I do." Marriage equality is here to stay - it's time for the few who can't seem to grasp that to get used to it.

Correction: Phil Paneologos, quite thankfully, is not and has never been a State Rep. I somehow morphed him into not only the SoCo's A-Hole, but likely also Representative Phillip Travis, a retiring representative, with the same first name, who's one of the biggest opponents of marriage equality in the state. Brain farts happen to the best of us.

Barney Frank: Thinking Big

Say whatever about Barney Frank, but the man's got plans. Big plans. Bipartisan, compromising, help-the-poor, make-doing-business-easier kind of plans. The Globe's Robert Kuttner goes in detail describing those plans in today's Globe.

A summation of what Frank wants to do:

1. Increase the ability to organize workers into unions.
2. Adapt/change current trade policies to work in our favor, tying free trade to certain environmental and labor standards.
3. Get businesses to start supporting universal healthcare, because it helps them anyway.

To get businesses down with these proposals, Frank's using the carrot approach - instead of the stick.

How on earth does Frank propose to bring this about? He plans two years of hearings, on two tracks. One set will be an ongoing seminar on the widening inequality in America -- and the need for a new generation of strategies to broaden American prosperity -- including the role of unions, guaranteed health coverage, and other forms of social investment to protect living standards.

The other hearings will address financial regulation -- where it is excessive, like some provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley that are costly to small business; and where it is not sufficient, as in the case of predatory lending, credit card overcharges, home mortgage discrimination, and hedge fund abuses.

Frank's going to try to get businesses on board by reducing regulations that are burdensome, which is something a lot of people can get behind. Kuttner seems real excited about Frank's new proposals. How excited?

If Frank's bargain seems improbable, it's also because too many Democrats have been content to advance token proposals that neither fire the public imagination nor transform economic possibility. This kind of leadership has been so rare lately that we've almost forgotten what it looks like.

Will Barney Frank's ideas be the be-all, end-all? Who knows, but probably not. However, it's radically different than the status quo and it's a great example of Thinking Big. For once, there's real leadership in the House of Representatives. For once, someone is trying to create new policies that will help make government and society run better - by creating ideas that offer a little something for everyone, while addressing key issues facing businesses, unions and society in general.

Civic Engagement Post-Analysis

Anyone feeling civically inclined? A little? Well, now's the chance to get in on the action. Caring about where we live - our communities, our state and our government - is back in style. That's the sense people got coming out of UMASS Dartmouth's hosting of the Civic Engagement Transitional Committee for Team Deval Patrick. Just before I left the meeting, David and I had a quick chat about the meetings in general. David, of Bluemassgroup, is one of the sitting members of the committee on civic engagement. I was curious how helpful they were: David seemed very enthused - and said there were a core group of common themes he was hearing from across the state, which makes it all the more likely those themes will be strongly considered.

Some of the key themes last night were community development, community service, and an extension of the sorts of transitional committees into permanent committees, giving people a chance to weigh in on the government process. Then, of course, there's what could be labeled "non-applicable," like when a Reverend from the community came to speak about the Iraq war and how angry he was not only about the fact that the US is there, but that those Muslim "extremists" in Iraq (the secular state!) were at fault for making US go there (pun intended). Yet, the crazy rants and random, unrelated pet-project promotion at Public Meetings are to be expected. At least people have a place to gripe and speak their mind, even if it's completely off topic. Democracy can be messy at times, but on the whole its good.

While there was no startlingly good idea presented last night (save, of course, my own), there were a few good points mentioned. Lots of people want a better state website, something that informs everyone what the heck's going on in detail. Same-day registration earned strong applause from the crowd. People were tired of gay-sniping and want the whole gay marriage issue put to rest (which really does effect civic engagement). One of my professors, Mark Santow, discussed a project he's working on - the "Clemente Course." It takes people from low income families, often young, single mothers and "puts their foot in the door" on a college education. They get to go to a free college course, complete with top-notch professors and for college credit. For only $200,000 a year, the program gets about 70 people annually, who would otherwise be just about hopeless, on track to graduate. Not so shockingly, it was gutted by Romney and Santow hopes for Deval Patrick to exert his weight to get the money restored as soon as Possible.

While there weren't any profound ideas presented last night, there was a personal revelation. While I always considered the Civic Engagement Committee to be the most important of all (because it effects everything else and will be the key to solving many other problems), I never realized just how right I was. I came from the perspective that civic engagement can help get bills passed, which it can. However, everything else effects civic engagement too.

Believe it or not, Peter Porcupine - who was at the meeting - produced that revelation. Coming from the Cape, Peter Porcupine complained about Public Transportation. Peter wasn't complaining from the perspective that she couldn't get to work on time or that it was inconvenient - but that Civic Engagement is impossible in more rural and remote areas without a good transportation infrastructure. No grassroots project can survive without public transportation, it just isn't feasible to expect everyone to drive or be able to drive. It extends beyond transportation in the traditional sense, as well, as one speaker complained about not having access to high-speed internet in Dartmouth, Massachusetts! He was ecstatic about Deval's hope to spread Wi-Fi across the entire state. I don't know how feasible state Wi-Fi would be in more rural areas, but every man, woman and child should have access to high speed internet. It's not a matter of convenient, it's a matter of civics.

Last night hopefully foreshadows a greater movement toward people-powered politics in Massachusetts, where regular people have a say in their government. It's regular people who best know what the real problems facing the state are: they're the ones who drive through the traffic; they're the ones who live in this state's struggling cities; they're the ones who work in the fields that can offer a new source of wealth and expertise on issues we need to work on. Our state has to get past just being satisfied with meeting day-to-day operations and become an active force of change that takes risks and creates bold, new strategies. It's people who are going to come up with those ideas and implement them through civic action.

Life in Public Office

I'm beginning to feel a little bad for Deval already - meetings with Boston-based businesses and renting space through a firm (yet paying for that space) are suddenly "ethical" questions for Deval Patrick. Yet, Republicans tried to complain when he met with legislative leadership! By saying "Spokesmen for the firms, and for Patrick, insist that the arrangements are ethical and do not indicate the governor-elect is backing away from his well crafted image as an outsider," the media has misconstrued what the progressive and many other voters want out of Deval Patrick.

Yes, we want someone who's independent, but that doesn't mean we suddenly want someone who shuns the state legislature - like Republicans for the past 16 years have done. That's what we rallied against. We neither want Deval to ignore the legislature nor the business community: his status as an "outsider" is true, because he was an outsider to the Massachusetts establishment, not because he wasn't in contact with businesses (in fact, he came from the business community!). In four years, he won't be an "outsider," but that has nothing to do with whether or not he'll be elected or successful. Whether or not he remains independent (and I suspect he will!) will likely determine his success and mass popularity.

Deval's going to have to deal with these kinds of stories for the next four years. Heck, even I poked him yesterday over his 1.6 million dollar inaugural ball bash. Sometimes the stories will be fair, even Deval admits he'll make mistakes. However, most of these stories are going to be digging up dirt that's not really there - such as creating ethical problems where none exist. Ryan's Take will continue to keep track of both the media and Deval Patrick in the years to come so neither the Globe nor our elected officials pull one on us. In the meantime, my sympathy to the Patricks!

My Letter to the Editor:

I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Swampscott Reporter. The Reporter wrote a recent editorial on Public Access TV, which questioned some of the merits to even having Public Access (they wanted it, with reservations). With Swampscott being one of the few towns in the state without Public Access TV, it's high time for us to get it. It's working fine elsewhere, it'll work great in Swampscott.

Joan Vennochi on the Baker Committee

Joan, hunny, I love your columns... but this one started on the wrong path and it never really got better. I hate to pick on Joan; she's written Pulitzer-worthy columns over the past year, but some things just need to be corrected.

Let's start with the first sentence.

THE IRAQ STUDY Group presented a middle ground out of Iraq.

The truth is Americans favor a pullout, not a wait-and-see approach, which is essentially what the Baker commission is, except now we're adding in some "diplomacy." As if the Bush administration were even capable of talking to Syria and Iran. After all, President Bush's idea of diplomacy is nominating a guy who detests the United Nations to the United Nations. So, no, we didn't reach any "middle ground" consensus.

And, quite frankly, should anyone be surprised? Joan Vennochi, with about every local news organization in the country, kept airing Lee Hamilton - the co-chair - as some sort of source of information. He's a "Democrat," but one who would make Joe Lieberman seem like a dove. Sometimes I wonder if people know who these people are before they attempt to use them as some sort of "bipartisan" measure. Lee Hamilton is a neo-con. I've seen him speak before. He was so outrageously outrageous - and clearly had disdain for people of the Muslim faith - that when he tried to say he didn't during a keynote speech I happened to see him in the room literally erupted with laughter. It was comedy gold, as far as we were all concerned. I was stunned, about a week later, to learn that crazy loon was a Democrat. The only difference between Lee Hamilton and crazy Zell Miller is that Lee never disgraced the Democratic Party in public (Lee went for the backdoor approach - by having awful positions and being a political hack).

The Baker Report was wholly out of touch with reality, politically neutered by the fear of upsetting a President who's challenging President Nixon for the title of Least Popular President Ever (while winning the title of Worst President Ever in a longshot!). The report won't even recognize a reality that news organization after news organization finally come to admit: Iraq is in a state of civil war. If the document can't even manage to be honest, why should anything in it be taken for granted - at least anything in it that went beyond the obvious.

Joan Vennochi's wrong that there's anything remotely "middle" about this report, unless it's "middle of the row" in actually being able to do anything to fix Iraq. There's nothing awe-inspiring about the report and the people behind it aren't exactly what I'd call experts on anything Iraq or Middle East related. One of the problems in Iraq is the fact that we went in there with thousands of misconceptions about the country: we simply didn't know enough about it to actually be able to go in and achieve anything other than causing instability. What makes people think Sandra Day O'Connor is going to do any better?

If Joan's looking for some "middle ground," she should look toward the American people: they get it. It's time to get the hell out. People voted for change and it's time for the federal government to deliver. Only Iraq can solve Iraq's problems, even if we're the cause of them in the first place. We just don't have the expertise to do anything but screw it up worse.

Joan ended her column thus:

Who's going to lead us to the common ground?

The American people already voted for change - the common ground just so happens to be between San Francisco and Portland, Maine. It's time for the government to listen to its people, while Iraqis figure things out for themselves.