Did MassResistance Break the Law?

MassResistance, a homophobic radio show and a rabid group of hate-mongerers, apparently have a peculiar hobby - one that's potentially illegal. Here's the alleged story,

Once again [MassResistance is] attending meetings of the Massachusetts Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. Now supposedly they are not gay or lesbian nor are they youth so why are they attending? I'd guess it's because of their gay and lesbian photo fetish, after all, they did bring their cameras.... For the life of me I still don't get how they think posting pictures of attractive, happy GLBT people is going to SHOCK their viewers.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I do know it's illegal for people to take pictures of minors and post them publicly - at least, a newspaper couldn't take a picture of a 13 year old boy and post it in the newspaper without parental consent. So, is what MassResistance is reportedly doing illegal? Enquiring minds want to know.

Update: Apparently, the authorities have already been alerted. Even MassResistance has admitted* that the Attorney General is looking into it, but if the AG attempts to shut them down, they recklessly said "go ahead, make our day." Please, Martha Coakley, feel free to make it. After all, they posted pictures of a transgenered teenage male - calling him a "female with sideburns" - and posted a picture with that person's name and description. This, when violence against transgendered people is a serious concern.

*Please don't follow the link to MassResistance, I don't want to give them the traffic. The only reason why I even linked it to begin with is because it's a serious matter and it's important to show where these allegations can be answered for those who want to know more. Accountability is something I understand, even if MassResistance doesn't. Hopefully the authorities will quickly make sure MassRestistance ceases and desists from posting pictures of minors - especially those who are particularly at risk to cruel violence, merely for being a little different.

Ditto on Cambridge's Energy Efforts

Cambridge has launched an ambitious effort to create energy savings, one that rivals anything else in Massachusetts (except, perhaps, Hull's soon-to-be gazillion wind turbines).

Seeking to become the greenest city in the country, Cambridge today will launch a sweeping $70 million energy efficiency program to conserve energy in virtually every building within city boundaries, reducing emissions that contribute to global warming.

Sounds good, right? Deval Patrick says ditto in an email I just received from him.

Governor Deval Patrick today announced a $2 million state revolving loan fund to cover the start-up costs of large-scale energy efficiency programs modeled on the Cambridge Energy Alliance, an innovative public-private partnership also unveiled today. The state fund, called MassEfficiency, will allow the City of Boston and four other Massachusetts cities to replicate the Cambridge effort, which promises $100 million in efficiency measures to be paid for largely out of the savings they generate.

At first, I was like "2 million dollar?" What the heck good would that do? However, the reason why Cambridge was able to do what they did was because they funded their efforts mainly through private funds. Deval's going to try to mimic the very same. Here's a little more about how the process works.

Approximately 80% of the financing will come from private sources. The remaining 20% will come from a number of electrical utility incentive programs that were established in part to promote energy efficiency. As a result, energy savings and clean energy installations will, in most cases, be paid for by the project financing and repaid from future energy savings of companies, municipal facilities, universities, hospitals, small businesses, and residents.

Replicating Cambridge's efforts in a cities like Boston, according to the Patrick Administration, would save $100 million dollars over five years, not to mention help stop Global Warming. It's important that Deval Patrick stay committed to his promise to help make Massachusetts a leader in renewable energy and conservation - it's good to see that, with Cambridge's help, he's making good on that pledge.

If You Were Staunchly Anti-War, Who Would You Support?

Apparently, if you're Congressman McGovern, the war-hawk candidate for President. Weird.

More on Infrastructure

Not only is Deval Patrick concerned about the revenue gap for maintaining our infrastructure, but I wake up to finding it as the Boston Globe's top story this morning. How refreshing: a relevant, fair story coming out of the Globe - and it's given proper respect on the front-page to boot.

Also, kudos to Governor Patrick for his new press releases to bloggers (as promised during his meeting with us in Boston last Saturday) - it's nice to actually be able to report on a story before the Globe! Woot, woot.

Enough of the glowing Patrick praise, he's going to earn his weight in gold if he can figure out the Bay State's way out of this mess. It's Sink or Swim, Governor... or should I say Sink and Swim, given the state of our state's bridges? Everyone knew our infrastructural needs were bad, but I don't think many had any idea they were this scary:

The projected $15 billion to $19 billion shortfall over the next 20 years, up from prior estimates of $9.5 billion to $15.7 billion, is a conservative calculation, commission members said.

The Department of Conservation and Recreation does not have the money or expertise to maintain and fix Storrow Drive, Soldiers Field Road, Longfellow Bridge, and its other roads and bridges.

Yikes. I don't know what's scarier: the fact that one of the best ways to get around Boston in a car is falling into major disrepair - or the fact that the Department of Conservation and Recreation is in charge of Storrow Drive? Of course they don't have the expertise (or the money). Let's put it in the hands of some organization that does - there must be some kind of organization in Massachusetts that's in charge of keeping track of the highways, with lots of experts and personnel. Oh, yes, that's right - the Massachusetts Highway Department. Who'd a thought?

Fixing the Bay State's infrastructure is a must: everything depends on it, from jobs to entertainment. Yet, the revenue has to come from somewhere. The Massachusetts state gas tax is fairly low compared to other states in the region, but even a modest gas-tax increase would be difficult to pass. Furthermore, I'm not so sure it's the best solution anyway: there are lots of pros and cons (it's not a very progressive tax, but we need revenue for our state's roads and curbing mileage has environmental benefits). So what do readers think? How to we bridge this gap?

Governor Patrick: Let's Refocus on Infrastructure

It's no secret, our Commonwealth's infrastructure is in a state of disrepair. Sadly, though, Massachusetts is not on track to right the course.

Here's the conclusions of a report coming from the Transportation Finance Commission:

The report released today found a $15-$19 billion shortfall in funding for transportation over the next 20 years. “The condition of our roads, bridges, and transit systems are all in broad decline,” the report says. “Our transportation agencies do not have the resources to do their jobs properly.”

“What this bi-partisan panel found, after more than two years of investigation, is that there is a significant gap between the financial resources we have and the resources we need, just to keep the system in good working condition,” Secretary Cohen said.

To his credit, Deval Patrick has actually been doing something about the situation,

Earlier this month, the Patrick Administration took a step to address the most immediate transportation needs, when the Governor filed a $1.47 billion bond bill that will re-start the pipeline of important bridge and highway projects that have been stalled for several years. The bill won swift approval by the Legislature.

People love to talk jobs, but what few will readily admit is that one of the things that attract businesses and help new ones grow and prosper is having a superb infrastructure. The Commonwealth's isn't perfect - and is in a state of decline - but if this state refocuses on it we can quickly leap back ahead of most of America. Let's not rest on our laurels, here, folks. The question is how do we pay for it. Yet, however we do it, it has to get done - the consequences of not seriously investing in our infrastructure could be disastrous.

Joel's Right, Frank Phillips is Wrong

Whoever would have guessed that? Joel Patterson, with a front-paged diary over at Blue Mass Group, is sick of the he-said-she-said stories. I say damn straight.

Frank Phillips, you can do better.

Mass Lib has more.

LeftAhead: the New Radio Show for the Mass Blogosphere!

Lynne, Mike and I have all joined together to start a new venture in the Massachusetts netroots: a radio show and podcast. Each week, we're going to come together for a live feed that people can catch on our new joint website, LeftAhead. Though the project is in its infancy, the first show went off spectacularly! This week's LeftAhead featured discussion on the MSM/blogger divide and the upcoming ConCon. Look for continued updates on these issues and others on future shows as well as the LeftAhead website. As the shows roll by, we'll bring on guests, take callers and do our best to foster this new tool that will hopefully expand a true progressive vision that will empower our movement even more so in this great Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Grand visions or delusions of grandeur? Tune in each week to see hear. It's been a longtime in the making...

Mitt's Gun Problem

John Aravosis loves Mitt more than I do. He caught some great lines from the Mittster.

We have a gun in one of our homes. It's not owned by me, it's owned by my son, but I've always considered it sort of mine.

Anyone else snort smoothie out of their nose with that one? The orange-strawberry concoction burns sort of like the pains to which Mitt has gone to sound super-duper conservative for the super-duper redstate crowd. Seriously, I hope Republicans fall for that trap in the primary, because it's not going to happen in the general. The gun-totting, buy-beer-at-the-gas-station crowd isn't going to find his "[I joined the NRA] within the last year," but "I signed up for a lifelong membership" nonsense. Mitt being gun ho for guns is as credible as Dick Cheney's master weapon-wielding skillz. Would anyone feel safe hunting some doves with Mitt, either?

The Course of Ed Reform

The Globe has a story on the direction some are pushing for a new overhaul of the education system.

Massachusetts would prod high school students to take a set of rigorous classes to graduate, under a new proposal that is less aggressive than in other states that mandate college preparatory courses.

The proposed statewide curriculum, called MassCore, recommends four years of English; four years of math, including Algebra II; three years of lab science; three years of history; two years of the same foreign language; and electives.

The changes would be voluntary for now - and at first I thought it was a great idea. After all, most graduates who go to college are already taking 4 years of math and english and at least 3 years of a foreign language, why not strengthen requirements to bridge educational gaps? However, none of this proposed reform is truly earth-shattering. Should college-bound students be taking these classes? Yes, but what about students going to technical, agricultural or other specialty schools? I'm sure their curriculum could be strengthened too, but advanced stoichiometry isn't exactly going to fix a car.

Most importantly, the proposed reform doesn't do anything to address the fact that not all students learn in the same way. Real education reform can never happen unless we address how people learn - differently. To some, people strive when writing papers. Other people prefer oral presentations. Still, others get the most out of in class examinations. No method of grading or learning is better or worse than another: they all involve intense preparation and research. They all teach skills that students will take with them to "the real world."

Every human has a different head on their shoulders and it's time society address that fact. It's great that the state wants to push for a stronger curriculum - at least for students attending traditional high schools. However, let's have real reform that addresses how students learn. Forcing them to go to more and more specific classes is anything but a cure and does little to solve the actual problems of the system. Massachusetts doesn't need another Ed Reform movement, we already have the best educational system in the country - what we need is an educational revolution, one that the rest of the country could follow and would best serve the proposed goals of MassCore.

Most Important Front-Page Globe Story Ever

The implications are just historic!

I mean, sushi served in restaurants? Tour guides who speak different languages? Serious front-page material.

Oh No! The Media Didn't Get ALL the Attention!

David Bernstein, of the Phoenix, is just oh-so-frustrated that bloggers got 30 minutes of Deval Patrick's attention for the first time during his Governorship - as opposed to all MSM, all the time. Lynne has much more.

Here's my responce to Bernstein, a comment I left on his Talking Politics blog.

David,

First, how many press conferences has Governor Patrick had since he was elected? How many media interactions - interviews, press releases, etc.? Please, as a respected member of the fourth estate, please enlighten me. In the 2+ months Deval Patrick has been governor, bloggers have been given a little more than 30 minutes with the governor - basically, enough time for most - but not all - of the attending bloggers at Boston Latin to ask one question. Suddenly, he's going around the media? That's absurd.

Second, I find it downright offensive that you are suggesting he's wrong to spend time on his constituents. How dare he hold town meetings around the state! I mean, the nerve of him! Furthermore, it's even more offensive that you feel the need to dictate how much time he should or should not dedicate toward his wife. Isn't that a personal matter? Or, are you a psychiatrist close to the case?

Third, while your first point has some merit, it's nothing new or especially poignant. Furthermore, Charley is right when he says Sal DiMasi is partly responsible for this too - after all, he's the one trying to block the repeal of unfair corporate tax loopholes. The fact is Deval Patrick's entire campaign was littered with references to his outsider status and he continually railed against Beacon Hill politics. So, we should be shocked that he'd criticize Beacon Hill politics on Saturday?

Quite frankly, I expect more out of the Phoenix's political coverage. I could read this kind of stuff in a Frank Phillips article - and that's not exactly a good thing. Everywhere across the country people praise town meetings - politicians like Senator Feingold of Wisconsin have earned wide praise for actually caring enough about his constituents to hold town hall meetings. Why is it that in Massachusetts, suddenly Town Meetings are a bad thing? It's not about circumventing the media, it's about being accessible to the people. It's about respecting democracy. It's about doing his job.

Jon Keller's Arrogance: the People Don't Matter

That's essentially what he says. Deval Patrick can't possibly get his issues passed, because the legislature just doesn't care about people anymore.

I have news for the Patrick organization: if they think that rallies on the state house steps or global e-mail barrages are going to influence votes on Beacon Hill, they’re in for a nasty shock. The legislature has made it clear in recent years that they’re growing impervious to general public feedback.

Referendum questions approved by the voters are routinely ignored. Incumbents almost never lose. Why SHOULD they worry?

Keller's mad - just angry - that Deval Patrick's team won't be naming names on their website. While it may be helpful if his team did, it could just spark the kind of nasty battle that would be counterproductive. Patrick's supporters will know the names, rest assured Mr. Keller, they'll just get them from bloggers, friends and individual supporters on the website. After all, that's what the website is all about: the people. The people can easily name names. Right now, I'm naming Keller - a talking head who was very wrong yet again.

Update: David disagrees with much of my assessment - and he does have a point. Naming names could have a tremendous impact, but there is some risk. If Deval Patrick changes his mind, I'll run with it, though he risks further alienating people he is going to need to work with. It's a tough choice - that's why we put him in office. Ultimately, he's accountable for whatever he chooses. If Jon Keller were slightly less condescending toward democracy and focused more on that point, he may have convinced me.

Ask Ryan Anything

Since it's a Monday and I need some mental stimulation, if anyone feels like picking my political mind, feel free. Consider this an open thread to ask me anything!

Join the LeftyBlog Coalition on Deval's New Website

I've been testing around Deval Patrick's new website - having loads of fun. Seriously, it's FUN.

Anyway, I realized it makes perfect sense to have a coalition on the site with members who read, write and otherwise contribute to leftyblogs in Massachusetts. So, I started a group and ask that you all join! It takes about 20 seconds and can help us bring a new level of power to our messages to the Governor. I already know he cares about what we have to say, but this is just one way to make sure he's pushing our issues as hard as we expect him to do so.

Join up and help decide what exactly will be our issues!

If You Want Property Tax Relief

You have to get it. If you want more extra curricular activities at your town's schools, you have to get it. The onus is on you, Deval Patrick can only help in getting us there.

That was Governor Patrick's message for voters during today's town meeting at Boston Latin. To some, it may sound harsh. Yet, Deval's speaking truth to power: there are forces in this state whom will block more funding to schools and property tax relief - and why? Because of unfair corporate tax loopholes. Only a few people are blocking tax justice - and those people are on Beacon Hill. We, the constituents, need to be the change we want. We need to be the ones who tell them we put Deval Patrick in power for a reason - that we voted for change and demand the change we want.

However, Deval Patrick isn't leaving us in the lurch, either. He's built an impressive new tool - from his campaign website - to help people around the state organize. Better yet, they get to organize around the issues they care about. It's a totally different way of using the Internet. Use it to convince the legislature to do the right thing and close those the loopholes. Use it to promote important issues that may not necessarily be on everyone's mind. Remarkably, anyone can use it to promote any issue.

So, Deval Patrick's first official foray into changing government has really started. His budget and health care plans were only teasers. The real fun began at 2pm in Boston Latin. New changes are on the way - changes the Governor elaborated on during a discussion with citizen-bloggers from across the state today, after the event - with regular, ordinary people who are trying to make a difference. Today marks a new era in the Patrick Administration: it's the day where he really started being the Governor he talked about during the entire campaign. It's not an office he holds alone, he holds it with all of us - the people who put him in power and who made his massive people-powered army come to fruition. It's an army Speaker DiMasi is going to learn about real soon as he realizes the people come before Verizon.

We do come before Verizon, right? Well, call your state representatives and let them know!

A Deadline Has Been Set!

By the House, now the Senate just needs to pass it. Of course, President Bush will likely veto, but he will do so at his own peril.

Tomorrow's Agenda for Meeting w/Gov Patrick:

I've been thinking a lot about issues I want to see discussed with the Governor and here are a few ideas:

-What can we do, beyond what we're already doing, to make sure the corporate tax loopholes are closed?

-We have a ConCon coming up - what's the strategy going in? What's being done now? We need to walk into that ConCon with momentum, hopefully coming in the form of legislative success, which would come strongest by repealing the archaic law that prevents out-of-state marriage equality. Anyone should be able to come to Massachusetts and get married, not just straight people. We want momentum going in there and that kind of success would matter.

-Strategies for fair press - and how the blogosphere can help. One way to avoid stories on Caddies, drapes and secretaries is to have a lot more press come out of the administration - constantly give stories about what's going on inside the administration, what policies they're enacting, etc. Toss out at least basic weekly reports and email them to supporters, especially bloggers, and if they're remotely interesting we'll probably cover it. If we cover it, the MSM just may too.

So, those are three solid things that should be discussed. Since there are going to be other people there, I'm not going to hog all the time, I just want to make sure each point is made. The best part about this meeting is that there will be a real diversity of people there, discussing issues I probably haven't thought of before. Well, that's not the best thing, the real best thing is the fact that Deval Patrick recognizes there's a whole new branch to the media - actual people - and they matter just as much as print.

Blue Mass Group

Let me preface this with the fact that I never wanted to write a blog about this. David, Charley and Bob have created a great website that has been an asset for a very long time now. It isn't a big blog in Massachusetts; it's the blog in Massachusetts. Sadly, that isn't a good thing. It's been the epicenter of a lot of new traffic that old users aren't exactly thrilled about - and not everyone is so good at ignoring those voices as I am (if anyone could call me good at doing that). A lot of people have been complaining about it to me lately - almost imploring me to do or say something about it. I guess it's time that I do - so here's Ryan's Take:

I recently read that two of my favorite commenters over at BMG have left - apparently forever. Some have applauded their decision; some understand, while others disagree profusely. Here's Bob's take, an Editor of Blue Mass Group:

People shouldn't be so tender they can't bear to listen to opposing arguments.

In a way, he's actually right. People should be a little more thick-skinned in life. It's so very easy to offend anyone and everyone that suddenly we have to be careful about what we say, for example, calling someone an ass (even if they are). However, even though we don't want people to be too tender, calling someone an "ass" is not okay. Swearing is wrong. The very next line of Bob's reply:

They also shouldn't resort to swearing and name-calling.

Is name calling childish and sophomoric? Sure, but sometimes that's the best way to greet certain trollish posts - after all, trolls only troll to get people to waste their time and piss 'em off. That's the nature of a troll. So, if two of my favorite commenters occasionally dabbled in flinging an ass across the table (and let's not forget, they're both probably registered Democrats), is it really all that bad?

Certainly, BMG has been seeing a few trolls around these days - often under the guise of serious thinkers (/sarcasm off). Sometimes, they're a bit more obvious. A troll here and there wouldn't be a problem - but suddenly, these trolls are having their dairies on the recommended list and a third or more of replies of some posts are far more offensive to many people than name-calling. After all, what's worse - being called an ass or being told you're a fornicating homo who shouldn't be allowed to have children - and should be subject to citizen's arrest if and when marriage equality is repealed.

Which leads me to my next point: the intentions of the website. David, Charley and Bob never intended Blue Mass Group to be a "progressive website." In other words, they've always sought out the thoughts and opinions of people of all stripes. Finally, after a lot of hard work, their efforts have paid off: Republican Rock Radio Machine has 129 comments since the beginning of February. Sadly, that's not necessarily a bad thing. How can the editors of BMG avoid the Rock Radios, when they say they want people of all stripes? Certainly, there's room in the blogosphere for "reality-based commentary" that has fantastical replies and isn't always progressive in nature - which gets me to my final point, the last snippet of that Bob reply reads thusly,

How seriously can one take someone who won't engage in debate and spikes their comments with invective? Not very.

True enough, but like I say, some people have confused the purpose of Blue Mass Group, in a way that doesn't line up with the editors' intentions. Many progressive, liberal and moderate readers coming to Blue Mass Group have come with the intentions of developing progressive ideas and strategies - BMG has benefited tremendously from their presence, especially when these people were the bulk of who comprised Blue Mass Group from the beginning through recent days.

However, a certain frustration has brewed under the pretenses that BMG is a progressive website when it clearly is not. Even well-intentioned conservative commenters (who I personally like), such as Peter Porcupine, piss off those people - especially when their dairies are being promoted and the editors routinely praise their contributions.

Finally, a lot of people have had it - and we've seen that in several ways. People have stopped commenting at BMG. People have come to Ryan's Take to frequently complain about BMG, even when the specific blog isn't about anything related to BMG at all. Still, I know of two efforts to create unified websites that would - in some way - serve as an alternative to Blue Mass Group.

It's at this time I'm reminded that "preaching to the choir is wrong." I'm reminded of an acquaintance of mine, a fellow UMASS Dartmouth student who also writes at BMG, JoeTS. He wrote an important dairy about why he writes at Blue Mass Group - when he's an active College Republican and conservative in nature. Essentially, if all he did was go to Hub Politics - scary red territory if there was any - then he'd be doing himself a disservice. He wouldn't be pushing his ideas on the most hostile minds, who would poke every conceivable hole. He wouldn't be listening to people with alternative viewpoints. Truly, he's one of the good-guy conservatives I typically get along with.

However, there are many reasons to write at a particular website. We all have different purposes. Sometimes, an insulated environment can be a bonus - fully develop your idea before a million people come to try to rip it to shreds. Alternately, it can be about organizing and building a movement locally. Or, seeking out the opinions of progressives who may not necessarily agree with an idea - when people like Sens. Jon Tester and Jim Webb are considered part of the movement, clearly we don't all think alike. A progressive website, geared toward the progressive movement, may well be better served by catering to a progressive audience. It's not being soft-skinned, unwilling to debate or even preaching to the choir; it's developing your ideas and building your movement.

BMG isn't that website and isn't that movement. It's editors may be a part of that movement, but their website is all-encompassing and different. Ultimately, there's room for more active websites in Massachusetts like Blue Mass Group, but obviously different in its intentions. Clearly, Blue Mass Group - as it's become more and more successful - is becoming the general Massachusetts blog. Progressive people have come to find out that it isn't a progressive website - a fact I learned at least as early as this past summer, when David told me that directly. It's not a bad thing, it's just different than what some people have come to expect. Other websites - communities - will emerge and the Massachusetts section of the blogosphere will become a more diverse, better place. Until then, I leave my Final Take: I understand - and share - in the frustrations of certain readers and commenters, but sadly Blue Mass Group has become the place its editors always wanted it to be.

The Globe's State of Affairs: Not Good.

As angry as I've been with the Globe for certain stories, I can't help but think that news like this is contributing - more than anything - to the shaky articles that have been printed as of late. From Massachusetts Liberal:

The Boston Globe is about to undergo another round of buy-outs that will be devastating to what was once a great newspaper -- before The New York Times came to town.Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Eileen McNamara is bolting for academia. That moves follows a similar one in the last round from investigative reporter extraordinaire Walter Robinson. Also rumored to be looking to the door are veteran reporters and editors such as Steve Kurkjian, Charles Radin, Bob Turner and Peter Howe.

The NY Times is killing the Boston Globe, that much is for certain. They're turning it into a regional paper at best - and not a very good one at that. Mass Lib is right: these cuts are a self-fulfilling prophecy - by creating these cuts, the paper has a smaller depth in the news it covers, therefore less people will read it, necessitating even more cuts.

I can't remember where I read it - which is truly a shame - but there was an interesting article I read within the past year on a new trend in businesses: leaving publicly traded status to return to private hands. Why? Because when you're a publicly traded company, not only is there a responsibility to bring profits, but rather large ones at that. Newspapers are still profitable across the country, but not to the tune that makes investors happy. A 5-10% profit just isn't going to move the stocks up - and in fact could very well go way, way down. However, a private owner may be more than happy with 5-10% profits, especially when that 5-10% could be millions of dollars. An insulated environment would allow those companies to grow, in both profitability and what they deliver to costumers - and you just can't get that when you're pressured to axe jobs and cut expenses.

It's well past time for the NY Times to sell its subsidiaries - at least the ones that were once great papers, like the Boston Globe. The Times has forced the Globe to cut all of its international bureaus, national desk and much, much more. They've cut great columnists like Thomas Oliphant - and now people like Eileen McNamara. When does it end? When will the Times just sell the company, hopefully to someone from Boston - who cares about Boston having an established, at least national newspaper. The people of Boston - and the investors of NY Times, who clearly aren't getting their money's worth - deserve no less.

Vennochi: End the War. Now!

It's time for the Democrats in Congress to actually lead on this issue, she says. She does ignore two teensy problems facing Democrats, though: a Senate filibuster and a Presidential veto. Even so, she's right. Democrats need to continue to step up and demand out of Iraq - ASAP. At the very least, the House's current proposed August 2008 pullout is a price too steep.

Vennochi's words:

Lawmakers are galvanized by the firing of eight federal prosecutors who worked under Gonzales. They are demanding public testimony from White House aides, including Karl Rove. The White House is resisting, setting up a showdown over executive privilege.The political sideshow proceeds with gusto, with all parties committed to their usual roles.

When it comes to ending a war that has taken 3,223 American lives since it began four years ago, Congress is paralyzed, not galvanized, even with Democrats in control.

In other words, it's time to get tough on the toughest issue facing America: the war in Iraq.

DiMasi Likes Big Business More Than You

Lynne has all the details, but suffice it say the Speaker of the House just picked a fight with the entire Progressive Movement. Who's going to win?

Here's how readers can help. Click on that link and do everything possible. Make sure Sal knows that citizens of this Commonwealth care more about the people who live in this state than milking Fidelity's profits. We care more about our roads and welfare than companies like Staples - companies that will leave on a whim anyway. We care more about public education than Harvard Pilgrim's massive success. Tell our congressmen that corporations in Massachusetts already enjoy some of the lowest taxes in the country - we just want them to pay their fair share, especially since Massachusetts citizens across the state face school closings and millions of dollars in deficits.

No one is asking corporations to pay recklessly high taxes here - just their fair share. Everyone else pays their fair share, it's time the largest corporations in Massachusetts do too.

Awwww, Trav's Heartfelt Goodbye

I only wish I cared. The old guard is almost gone. That's a good thing.

MassEquality seems to be in a cheery mood too.

This afternoon the Senate elected pro-equality Senator Therese Murray (D Plymouth and Barnstable) as its next leader. This follows the resignation of Senate President Robert Travaglini.

This is terrific news. Senator Murray is a long-time friend of the gay community and a strong supporter of equality. With her at the helm, we are one step closer to defeating this discriminatory effort to take away marriage rights from gay and lesbian couples.

Isn't it mildly humorous though that Travaglini cared so little for his own personal agenda, that he'd pre-select a pro-equality senator to succeed him? Don't get me wrong, I thank Travaglini for recognizing his outmoded ways, but if he cared so little for his position he should have at least voted against advancing the ConCon in January. Well, that would assume he counted glbt persons as fully equal citizens and worthy of his support. The Health Care lobby can have him.

English MCAS Tips

Funny how Google works, no? Four people were directed to my website for looking up "English MCAS tips," let's pity their souls. While I actually did take the MCAS (before it counted) and scored as high as you could get on English, sadly I don't have time to tutor anyone literally the day before they take the test. Try me a few months in advance, next time.

And let's all pause for a minute, here, because they started their exams today. My little brother nervously awaited waking up this morning for one of his first flings with the MCAS. He literally has English exams all week, from English composition (seriously, he's in the forth grade people, does he really need to know how to write a persuasive 5 paragraph essay?) to all sorts of other tests.

Unlike many progressive people, I'm not opposed to a test that's part of a graduation requirement. However, when there's a whole week of English tests - not to mention math, science and history - then we have a problem here. No wonder teachers are teaching to the test - how could students get over the pressure of weeks of examination? Even the brightest find the prospect daunting.

Well, most of them. When I was a Sophomore in High School, I took it as a way to have the entire mornings off. Maybe that's why I did so well? I took double the allotted time to take it (I really milked it out for all it was worth). Or, maybe because I was lucky enough to come from a strong middle-class background, in a town with a top-notch public education system... and with parents who always taught me to value education and supported me in whatever way I needed. Somehow, that seems like as strong a recipe for success as any - which is one reason why this breed of MCAS can never work as intended. Too many people in Massachusetts grow up without those natural advantages.

Ten Years After Matthew Shepard

Americablog has some weighty posts on Matthew Shepard, gay rights and the federal government today, now that it's almost been 10 years since Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered merely for being gay.

Some key points:

Regardless of your position on "hate crimes" laws, there already is a federal law, and it covers race, religion and national origin. If we're going to have a federal law, shouldn't it cover everyone? ....

This is one of the two big civil rights goals of the year for the gay community, to finally get the hate crime law amended. The second big goal is to get ENDA passed so that it will no longer be legal to fire someone simply because they're gay (and yes, it's legal at the federal level and in the majority of states to do just that).

Can anyone imagine that? It's still legal to fire people because they're gay? In retrospect, perhaps we should. After all, gay people can get thrown out of the military and can't even march on St. Patty's Day. Discrimination is alive and well.

What Talking Points? Did I Miss My Easy Button?

Damn, I should have called Staples. Apparently, during the campaign, a select few got talking points. Imagine how much easier it would have been for me to tap the easy button, instead of - well - pay attention. Perhaps, if those talking points went out to every volunteer, we would have walloped Kerry Healey even harder. Why? Because, when I phone banked, not a single person had a copy of the talking points. You'd think Phone Bankers would be the first to receive such handy information, right?

Nope. But, shh, don't tell Andrea Estes, because boy did she have the plot to report today. Of course, this important bit was totally inaccurate for at least most Deval Patrick volunteers, but since when have the facts been important to the news?

The committee has also developed a set of talking points aimed at helping loyalists steer attention away from the political stumbles that have dominated the early weeks of Patrick’s administration.

Damn, that would have been a good idea. If only the phone bankers got the memo. Charley has more and so does Mass Lib. Seriously, though, where's my copy of these fabled Talking Points. Andrea, I'm assuming in your reporting you got your hands on at least one copy, right? Can you email me some... I'm feeling left out!

Pride of the Irish

Today, for the first time ever, I was going to go into Southie and parade with my fellow Irish-Americans. After all, how could I not celebrate St. Patrick's Day - the year's second best very green holiday. Needless to say, my friends are always up for the traditional festivities of St. Patrick's Day, so it was a plan. Well, it was a plan until I read the latest Bay Windows editorial - where I learned something startling, to say the least. Gays and lesbians aren't allowed to march; St. Patrick's Day is a straight-only celebration; glbt people need not attend.

With all the hoopla and attention on New York City, who'd have thought liberal Massachusetts and its Southie neighborhood, with scores of gays and lesbians, would see such discrimination. A lot of people tend to try to think that kind of discrimination doesn't exist here in Massachusetts anymore, but clearly they're wrong. Discrimination is alive and kicking.

So, I didn't go to the St. Patrick's Day Parade. That section of Boston didn't get the cash I had in my pocket. Those parade planners didn't get to see me cheering them on - or the three friends who were going to go with me. I have way too much Irish Pride to celebrate my suppression. The people who openly discriminate against me are not my kind of Irish brothers and sisters - the kind of people who understand exactly what discrimination feels like, having gone through centuries of it. St. Patrick's Day doesn't belong to anyone - the fact that some people think they have the right to exclude others from joining in such public festivities is beyond outrageous. St. Patrick's parade planners should be ashamed.

Meeting Mr. Patrick

Governor Patrick's having a little blogger conference this coming Saturday and he's encouraged invited bloggers to bring questions from our readers. I haven't thought of exactly what I want to talk about, so reader input is appreciated.

Questions you won't hear coming out of my mouth include, but are not limited to,

"What's your favorite kind of Cadillac?"

"I need a reference, could you make a phone call?"

"Do you recommend Ethan Allen as a furniture company?"

In fact, I'm not asking anything about any of these manufactured stories... I'm much more interested in his intentions for the new people-powered campaign to fix Massachusetts. I'm much more interested in his plans to bring the Bay State into the 21st Century. There's some exciting things going on in the Patrick Administration and, after this Saturday, I hope I can tell readers about a few of them.

The Quickest Way to Lose a Million Dollars

I have it on good authority that, over this coming week (spring break), the entire UMASS Dartmouth campus will have new locks installed in every dormitory on campus. My source says someone at the housing office lost the master key that can literally open any residential door on campus, thus necessitating the replacements. The total costs of those replacements amounts to upwards of a million dollars or more, though the school could very well be insured.

My question: why even have a single key that can open any door on campus? Every building has a Master Key and floor keys. The housing office could keep a key to each building too (and likely does). Anyone can lose a key, so having one worth a million dollars seems a bit risky was clearly a terrible idea.

How Do You Reward One of the Top 10 Schools in Massachusetts?

In the town of Swampscott, you shut it down. Can't have the kids "on the other side of the tracks" siphoning off resources getting a top-notch education (sixth best in the state, by far the best in the town), especially with an inept Superintendent who doesn't think class sizes are important and a School Committee that continually forgets to tell its residents about upcoming budget shortfalls when the town could be in a position to actually do something about it. This is nearly the same School Committee that thought it a good idea to offer two override proposals a few years ago: one that would still force the town to make cuts and another that would actually add positions during a recession. Of course, residents chose option one... but they would have picked "level fund it" in a heartbeat, if given such a rational choice. No one should be shocked by any of this, because it was the school committee that decided to destroy the only real park in the town (conveniently also located "on the other side of the tracks") to build a high school that could have been built on the woods that merely abutted one of the most elite country clubs in Massachusetts. Couldn't piss off the old, rich, white men in their golf carts though... after all, most of them are lawyers. And selectmen.

I have so much more on this subject that I'm not even anywhere near done.

Hey Deval

I think it's time for some good press - so here's an idea. The next Con Con on gay marriage is probably going to happen sooner rather than later; I'd love to go into that fiasco with some momentum. One good way to do that is to get some good legislation passed on gay rights issues. With that in mind, let's push a repeal to that nasty, archaic 1913 law that stops out of state couples from wedding here. You're against it. Presumably, so are a lot of the legislators of this state. It's time to push and lead on this issue. With your leadership, I'm convinced we can get it repealed fast. Thanks!

Sincerely,

Ryan

Mitt Romney on CNN

Can I just say ugh?

Is he capable of saying something honest? Of not obfuscating? He's just so sleazy. I don't understand how anyone can believe a word that comes out of his mouth. If people fall for his crap, it'll be just as bad as when voters fell for President Bush's "compassionate conservative" nonsense or "we gotta fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" bs.

The Globe Should Read the AP

They missed some key information. They paint a he-said-she-said story, but the facts are clear to some reporters...

Federal immigration agents notified state officials months in advance of its plans for a massive illegal immigration raid in New Bedford. But they prohibited them from alerting the Department of Social Services -- the agency charged with caring for the workers' children -- until just days before. Kurt Schwartz with the state's Executive Office of Public Safety says D-S-S Commissioner Harry Spence wasn't told until four days before the raid.

At that time, Schwartz couldn't tell Spence the exact location, only that it would be in southeast Massachusetts.

And Spence was banned from telling any employees until after the raid began.

More on McNamara

Charley destroys McNamara's arguments over at BMG. McNamara's column had a lot of holes in it, but good 'ol Mr. Blandy made them seem like the Grand Canyon.

Turns out, according the the AP, Deval Patrick was right: DSS really was given last minute notice.

BOSTON (AP) - Federal immigration agents notified state officials months in advance of its plans for a massive illegal immigration raid in New Bedford. But they prohibited them from alerting the Department of Social Services -- the agency charged with caring for the workers' children -- until just days before.

Kurt Schwartz with the state's Executive Office of Public Safety says D-S-S Commissioner Harry Spence wasn't told until four days before the raid.

At that time, Schwartz couldn't tell Spence the exact location, only that it would be in southeast Massachusetts.

And Spence was banned from telling any employees until after the raid began.

Charles lands the obvious critique:

There damn well was a problem. There damn well was a failure to coordinate. They were getting phone calls about it from the Governor and the Congressional delegation. It plainly didn't work the way it was supposed to work. And McNamara blithely takes their word for it?

McNamara would do well to learn not to be so trusting of people who tell you what you want to hear. I wonder if we'll see any mea culpa in the next McNamara column? Otherwise, if she can't admit when she makes mistakes, she's right: it's going to be a long four years.

McNamara's Column on the N. Bedford Raid

McNamara came out with another column today and we have another blame-everything-on-Deval piece. Charley has a post with lots of discussion going on, along with various blogs out there on the mass left. However, I do have one point to make: whether or not Patrick knew about the raid beforehand doesn't matter. In fact, he did know; we knew that since the news broke out - fact that changes nothing.

The relevant question is what was Deval supposed to do? He couldn't stop the feds from raiding New Bedford, he just simply doesn't have that kind of power. Furthermore, it's not like he could have gone on the 11 o'clock news and told everyone the state was going to be raided weeks in advance - if he did, it may have been illegal and probably would have created a kind of mass panic that would have been worse than what actually happened (consider the fact that the raid - while a human rights nightmare - only affected the families of 300, instead of the 10,000s of undocumented Americans living in this state).

McNamara's column suggests that the ICE and DSS were planning this raid for months. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. She says there were conference calls and discussions over those months - but that doesn't really mean it was well planned - by either org. A phone call here and a phone call there doth not equal well planned - and it's pretty hard to know what went on during the planning process. Personally, I don't trust a word either organization says.

However, let's give McNamara the benefit of the doubt. After the failure that occurred in New Bedford, one wonders how that reflects on the Patrick administration? McNamara has an answer in the form of a question.

Patrick did not hesitate to appeal directly to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to allow DSS social workers access to the detainees after the raid. Why, then, did he not call Chertoff before the raid to insist that the necessary precautions to protect children be in place?

Yet, her question fails again. Simply put, even if Patrick knew about what was going on as far in advance as he did, it still wasn't his job to organize this raid. It was the federal government's job, a job they were quite happy to drop onto DSS's hands - it was an unfunded mandate of the worst kind (playing with the lives of children). Furthermore, it wasn't Patrick's job to organize the raid. DSS was the organization that should have been in contact with Chertoff. The media has recently criticized Patrick for micromanaging everything, they're their criticizing him for not micromanaging a federal raid. The media needs to pick one or the other, they can't keep having it both ways.

Even if this state government failed in any capacity, the fault lays with DSS, not the Patrick administration. Deval Patrick has had neither the time nor the resources to fix that organization, but it's becoming quite apparent it should become a new priority for him. The fact that Patrick was able to fully step in and use his role as Governor to fix things after the fact speaks well on his part: even though DSS apparently failed at first, at least someone was at the helm to fix the ship's course afterwards.

Ultimately, McNamara's column ignores a key fact: a raid targeting 300 families is a very tall task for any organization, never mind one as discombobulated and underpowered as DSS. It was the ICE that decided to ship families across the country, within a very short period of time and without due process before being removed from the state. They could have just as easily slapped bracelets on the immigrants, giving them some time to figure out what was going to happen to their children while waiting for due process. Furthermore, it's doubtful that the ICE had names and addresses for every undocumented worker in that factory - DSS isn't the FBI, they don't have the capability to find out that kind of information, especially when there are so many people involved and they're all undocumented Americans. There was no way an organization like DSS could cope with that kind of pressure and deal with it in a way we could all be proud of, even if we had a perfect Department of Social Services. Clearly, DSS is far from perfect - we knew that before this raid. McNamara would do well to continue to criticize it. However, she went too far in blaming that organization - and especially the Patrick administration - for the federal government's mistakes in New Bedford.

Google Asked for It; the Blogosphere is Paying for It

It had to happen sooner or later: Youtube is being hit for a billion dollars by Viacomm in a nasty lawsuit, money Viacomm is probably more than happy to pry from Google's hands. More importantly, it's the media's message to the internet: stop the copyright infringements or else. In some ways, it's just like what happened to Napster and other internet music (stealing) software, except for the fact that youtube - in large part - has an almost altruistic sense: catching a moment of truth on film. Obviously, the potential loss of youtube has serious implications for bloggers (and readers) everywhere. Expect a lot of deleted content, which sucks not only for blogging, but also the truth.

This battle isn't new. The blogosphere recently fought a huge campaign against C-SPAN - and largely won. C-SPAN was trying to claim that it owned the rights to congressional floor debates, despite the fact that government cameras were used to film the speeches. However, C-SPAN largely caved into the blogosphere (and Nancy Pelosi) because they had no legal leg to stand on, since the government truly owned the rights to those videos. The fight didn't really clear up any standard practices of acceptable internet video usage, so here we are with a much bigger challenge to online videos.

The question of standards is still there, practically omnipresent as almost every blogger has violated copyrights at some point or another (basically everyone that's posted a youtube, for starters). Obviously, something is wrong here and things need to change: the copyright policies of old just don't mix with internet reality. Since it's in the public's best interest to allow some content to be posted online, we may need to go back and take a look at copyright policies.

Do bloggers go too far? Certainly, many of them do. Way too many blogs print paragraphs and paragraphs from newspapers - or even the entire story. Posting 10 or 20 minute videos (since they truly aren't clips at that point) is equally offensive. However, more and more bloggers are realizing that hypocrisy and have changed suit. You don't see any gigantic postings from columns on Kos, BMG or any other respectable blogs nowadays (including mine).

There aren't any easy answers. A lot of what exists currently is solid. For example, blogs are allowed to quote up to three paragraphs from any newspaper story. Three paragraphs is a lot, but not so much that it infringes on the media's investment in creating the story. Blogs can now post unlimited amounts of videos from C-SPAN's coverage of Senate and House floor debates . However, that leaves a gaping hole in ability to use print photos and clips from the telly. Currently, the only legal usage of clips have to be eight seconds or less. At best, eight seconds would make us no better than a CNN or Fox News - companies that use tiny quotes that take things out of context and don't really tell the story. Yet, extremely long clips are unfair for the businesses that actually pay for these operations. Furthermore, is there any fair way to use pictures at all?

I only see two ways out of this mess for both bloggers and the media - none of which help Google. The first is possibility is to create a fair compromise position. Leaders in the blogosphere and media could come together and develop a fair new practices, or perhaps the government could get involved. Surely, both sides can come up with some kind of compromise position: for example, maybe posted video clips could be limited to 2 minutes of total time from a single episode. A new policy could help all sides: bloggers could be allowed to tell their story without worry, while the media would benefit from online viral buzz - essentially free advertisement.

The only other way for companies to stop the rampant copyright infringement is for each company to create a service that could not only compete with youtube, but be even better. If Viacomm or Turner Broadcasting doesn't want people posting videos of their content online, they're going to have to provide new services for people to embed content directly to their own websites. However, the companies would have to offer almost the entire episode on TV and do it in a way that people could pick and choose what clips - from the entire episode - they could post. Otherwise, if companies only offer a few minutes here and a few minutes there, peopel will look to independent videos anyway. If people could go to ComedyCentral.com and pick any 2 minute clip from last night's Daily Show and post it on their websites, they would. While this option has a lot of potential for bloggers and companies (the one's with the best websites would get the most viewers), it would also be prohibitively expensive to create that kind of a website.

Sadly, for youtube's case, none of these solutions could ever come in place in time to save it from Viacomm. Youtube seems doomed to lose its dominance as the place to go for bloggers. While Google has no ability to prevent people from posting copyright material, that was by design. It's what made the website so great. However, when Google bought the company and suddenly a mega-corporation owned it, it almost assuredly became a target. It's one thing for a couple of geeks to run a website with vagrant violations; it's another for a huge company. Based on the fact that Napster's defense failed years ago, Viacomm is likely going to win this round. Google will probably settle out of court.

Once that happens - and other companies realize they can sue too - Google will almost surely change how youtube works or at the very least quickly delete videos almost as soon as their posted. In other words, youtube as a means to post important viral clips online to influence the news and politics seems poised to die. It's actually been dying for a while. However, if some kind of compromise or new use of technology isn't advanced, companies will never be able to stop new youtubes from emerging - there are already several companies on the rise. It's in the media's best interest to work with the blogosphere in creating a fair compromise on posting content online, because not even a billion-dollar lawsuit is going to scare people from reporting the truth.

Marty Meehan's Left Overs

So, now that it looks like Marty Meehan is definitely gone, what does that mean for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?" As many readers probably know, Marty Meehan is spearheading the efforts to repeal one of the most vagrant violations of human equality left in the military - the right to serve regardless of sexual orientation. For the first time in a long time, it looked like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was on its way out. Yet, if this nation loses one of its most important leaders on the effort, I really have no idea what will happen. Anyone care to haphazard a guess?

Let's hope Marty Meehan leaves no left overs when he becomes the Chancellor of UMASS Lowell. As important as that University is - and as admirably I'm sure Meehan will serve there - Don't Ask, Don't Tell is almost as important as marriage rights in terms of glbt equality. Literally over a million gay people have served in the army, yet they were forced to remain in the closet in permanent fear of being dishonorably discharged (or worse). Marty Meehan needs to get the job done before he goes home.

Let's Leave Diane Patrick Alone, Please

I have no complaints with the story in the Globe today about Governor Patrick's visit to Fall River and how it related to his decision to scale back his weekend and evening hours. Everything in it seemed fair, articulate and without any of the loaded words I can't stand (albeit, asking if he'd resign was going a bit far - no, he won't). However, the media has reached an impasse on the "story." Deval Patrick wanted to be frank with the public - but that doesn't mean he wants to spill every little detail about his wife's condition. It's something personal and the media should have that respect, especially now that everyone knows all the key information. Maybe when the First Lady is feeling better, she'll be willing to discuss more about the situation as a means to relate the dangers of depression and exhaustion (because far too many people refuse to get treated for it), but until then let's leave her alone. She has enough on her plate, just getting better.

I'm So Sick of Anonymous Sources

It used to be that anonymous sources were used rarely and gave people the opportunity to reveal secret information about abuse, often government abuse, when they otherwise couldn't. Now? They're used to trick the public into wars and give politicians the opportunity to launch personal attacks without any worry about the consequences.

Today's Globe and Herald stories on Deval Patrick adjusting his position to give himself more personal time to help his wife both feature anonymous sources. Why? Seriously, what were these people talking about that was so earth-shattering that they couldn't go on the record? I wasn't going to bring this issue up after reading Lisa Wangsness's article because, on the whole, it was fair. Yet, to be honest, this part did bother me:

"The most important part of a new administration is the first six to nine months," said an aide to a former Massachusetts governor.

"You want people to develop a positive view of the administration," said the former aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Right now, they have a negative view."

The former aide said people would probably feel sympathy for Patrick, but even so, if Diane Patrick's condition is serious, "then it's going to be a distraction for him at a very bad time."

I'm sure that a former aide of a Republican administration was only too keen to provide Ms. Wangsness with a few quotes. However, I ask the following question: were those statements so crucial to the story that including them were more important than insisting on divulging the source? None of it was terribly poignant. Ms. Wangsness couldn't even get the aide to allow her to divulge either the aide's level within the administration or even what administration the source was in. Surely neither information would have revealed the former aide's identity, yet would have given readers more information to determine whether the quotes came from someone who had a personal agenda.

Again, the article wasn't bad and I wasn't going to bring it up - until I read the Herald's report. Does the Herald even bother asking people to get on record anymore? They bring up two "sources" to smear the Governor, one on a largely unrelated issue. Let's take a peak:

A source close to Patrick’s administration told the Herald his early missteps have been a nagging source of frustration for even die-hard supporters.... Like Republican Gov. Mitt Romney before him, the source said Patrick is fast learning the pitfalls of being a political outsider on Beacon Hill.... “These business people who think they can run government like a business, it just doesn’t work,” the source said. “The things you can get away with in a private business aren’t allowed in government and people are watching your every move.”

A second source said Patrick’s admission that he made a call on behalf of his controversial former employer, Ameriquest Mortgage, was the “zenith” of his freshman stumblings that have left many questioning just who he’s taking advice from - if anyone.

Now, why those attacks need to be featured in a story about Deval Patrick's wife needing his help and support, I don't know. It doesn't really have to do with the story, but the media thinks these kinds of things sell stories (despite evidence to the contrary: their declining numbers). I find it ironic that the media won't report on certain topics, when it was all too willing to call anonymous sources for quotes about an issue that was extremely personal. For example, the fact that former Congressman Mark Foley was gay wasn't a big secret in the media; they just protected his privacy until bloggers dug up the truth about both Foley and his unscrupulous practices. Imagine the media calling up anonymous sources before the bloggers broke the story? I can't.

The points that these anonymous sources brought up would have been more relevant if they weren't anonymous. None of the insider perspective the articles provided was so important that it warranted the protection of anonymity. Since it's rather likely these attacks are coming from Beacon Hill insiders, I ask the following question: do we really need to give politicians a soap box and a mask? I have no problem with them going out on the attack and making critical points, but by the gods of Kobol, if they don't have the gumption to do it publicly then just don't print it.

Anonymous sources and the journalists who protect them were complicit in getting this country to go into Iraq. They have contributed to the decline of journalism. It's become a norm to have anonymous sources - so much so that we see them in articles, like today's batch, that certainly don't require anonymity to report the story. While anonymous sources can be very important, newspapers need to learn how to use them sparingly - which will not only improve the journalistic integrity of a newspaper, but will end up in those anonymous sources actually meaning something when they're used.

Update: David beat me to the story and brings up the point that the NY Times - the Globe's parent company - changed its policy on granting anonymity after the Judy Miller fiasco. The Globe certainly didn't follow those new guidelines in this story.

Wishing Mrs. Patrick Well

She's no doubt gone through a lot over the past year - and especially past two months. Sadly, it appears as if all that stress has taken its toll. Deval Patrick's is being a stay-at-home Governor to help take care of his wife, who's suffering from exhaustion and depression. Let's all hope she gets well soon.

Are Columnists Supposed to be Biased?

My email exchange with Globe political columnist Joan Vennochi has had the desired effect: a lot of people in the MA blogosphere are thinking about the media in a different light than before. Of course, that doesn't mean bloggers haven't been critical - and that's a good thing too. The point of the piece was to get people to think about the issue - and I think it was a resounding success.

Interestingly, some of those thoughts have lead in a direction I didn't expect. A lot of people took umbrage to my comment that good columnists should be unbiased. Peter Porcupine took me to task in the comments at my cross posting on BMG - while Hub Politics also disagreed on that point.

I'll admit, perhaps I was being ambiguous or perhaps didn't make my point well. So, I just want to touch on this subject briefly; it's important to think about what we expect out of a good political columnist. Here's my take:

While any columnist may self identify as liberal, conservative or some other ideology, they'll treat each issue objectively. For example, Eileen McNamara of the Boston Globe would probably identify as "liberal," yet she's written some tough - yet fair - articles critiquing Deval Patrick. Furthermore, a good columnist uses key facts and news to create opinion - such as when Joan Vennochi unmasked the real story behind Killer Coke this past summer.

While ideology may influence what issues a particular columnist cares about - and therefore writes about - that same columnist is going to analyze that issue while keeping his or her objectivity intact, at least as much as possible. When I wrote my blog about the MSM/blogger divide (in a very short amount of time for such a long piece), that's what I meant when I said columnists shouldn't be biased. Columnists, of course, should be opinionated - but they need to justify it with sound reasoning. I hope that clears everything up.

Deval's Salary

Apparently, the Caddy would have been a bargain, but Deval Patrick paid for about half of it anyway. I'm just waiting for all those on the war path over our "tax-and-spend" Governor, who just so happens to make less than almost 60% of Logan Airport's cops, to admit that - just maybe - they went batshit crazy when they foamed over the mouth over drapes, cars and other such nonsense. Somehow, my gut instinct tells me most of those people won't even read that story. After all, Howie Carr isn't exactly going to highlight it for them.

How the Globe Reported Then and Now

Mass Liberal and Dedham Blog both analyzed stories in the Globe today - showing that, once again, there was some poor reporting about Governor Patrick. In trying to constructively criticize the Globe, I decided I'd take a look back into Mitt Romney's first foray as Governor in Massachusetts. Memory lane shows stories of a different kind about our estranged, former Governor during the infancy of his visit.

For example,

Legislative Leaders Say Details Lacking on Romney Budget

In a rebuke to Governor Mitt Romney, the House's top budget writer is accusing the administration of keeping "basic information" about his budget proposals from legislators, possibly forcing them to jettison his central plans because they can't properly analyze them.

House Ways and Means Chairman John H. Rogers sent a letter to Romney's budget chief yesterday saying that about 100 hours of testimony and thousands of pages of paperwork supplied by the administration have produced "more questions than answers." ....

House leaders will spend the next three weeks completing their own budget document, and Rogers's letter suggests that they may ignore many of Romney's main proposals and cut much more than the governor has proposed. Some in the Legislature may also push to raise taxes, though House leaders have said that is highly unlikely given Romney's promise to veto any tax hike.

Here we have an article with a headline that describes what the article is about, unlike today's story on Deval. Furthermore, there are no loaded words. For example, Lisa Wangsness's piece in the Globe about dissension in the blogosphere read, "With the latest headline, dissent erupted in the blogosphere." Erupted? Really?

I imagine, if we could roll back the clock 4 years, the article Wangsness's article would have read more like this:

With the latest headline, many liberal bloggers expressed disappointment in Governor Patrick. "The caddy didn't matter. The drapes don't matter. This matters," wrote Charley Blandy, a cofounder of Blue Mass. Group, the state's leading left-wing blog and a strong voice for Deval Patrick during last year's gubernatorial campaign.

What's even more revealing is the number of stories done on Mitt Romney. I used a journal locating service on my university's library website to do some digging. In searching the first 50 Globe headlines that include at least a mention of Mitt Romney, from the 15th of January (to avoid any coming-into-office stories) to the end of March in 2003, only six articles include Romney's name at the top. Deval Patrick has probably had six headlines featuring his name at the top in the last week. Furthermore, while Deval's headlines have at times focused on innuendo (especially this pension article), Mitt Romney's headlines featured such extoling words as "cheering the troops!"

Do any of us, for a single second, think Mitt Romney was the golden boy he made himself out to be at any point during his administration? The only difference between the real Mitt Romney and Deval Patrick's obvious gaffes is that Deval got caught and the media devoured it (to the tune of three front-page stories in three consecutive days about the same, singular gaffe). The media could have easily turned stories like Mitt's cuts on UMASS into "Mitt Puts Students' Education at Risk," but that would have been extremely prejudiced.

For some reason - and I really don't know why - there certainly are differences in the way the Globe's news staff writes today and how they did back then. There was less flowery language, which is more open to bias and prejudice, even if that's just a reader's interpretation. Furthermore, for whatever reason, the Globe is either finding or printing more stories about Deval than they did Mitt. Maybe Deval's really just made more gaffes, maybe the Globe didn't report or do enough digging about what went on during the Romney administration's early tenure.

In either case, what's important is that the Globe make a better effort to avoid any potentially loaded words, along with ditching the any mug-shot-esque pictures that relate to stories in no way whatsoever. Finally, Deval Patrick has a lot of proposals and has an aggressive agenda. Readers of the Globe deserve to know more about how Deval intends to pass his proposals. They deserve stories that just report the facts, in a fair and responsible way.

He (da) Man

The purpose of this blog is to point out that, despite a few gaffes, Deval is still "has the power" the most powerful Governor in the country.

He's been a strong advocate for the families torn apart in New Bedford.

He's found a way to balance the budget despite a 1 billion dollar deficit.

He's brokered a pretty good deal on the new state health care program.

He's changing the very dynamics of state government, especially in town-state relationships.

He's more than kept his promise on property taxes (something even I thought he'd have trouble doing).

Charley is right. Deval Patrick hasn't lost a single drop of real political capital.

People say he got "political capital" from the election, but the fact is that he can get political capital any time he opens his mouth.

With the Masters of Progress behind him (his people powered army), we can get his bold initiatives passed. The foes of progress, like Senate President Travaglini, cannot stop us... that's why we scare the bejeezes out of him all of them. It's time to reassert ourselves and inform the Beacon Hill insiders that - yes - voters did demand change last November and it's well past time the Golden Dome get with the progressive program.

Mass Deportation and Mass Human Rights Nightmare

That's something I've always maintained. Undocumented immigration is the type of issue that sounds really easy to determine: people are here "illegally," they should be sent home. Easy as pie, right? Well, obviously there are some kinks in the system. When parents are flown to all sorts of detention centers around the country in the matter of a day or two - and families are left in the dust, including young children, something is wrong. Very, very wrong.

Simply put, for all those in favor of heavy regulation of immigration, more of what we saw in New Bedford will happen. States, at least states with Governors who give a damn (and luckily, we have one of those) will try desperately hard to keep up - and what does that mean? Suddenly, we're flying in a DSS team to Texas, just even trying to keep up with the basic human right of not being separated from one's family. This is the same DSS that's on scrambles as is, now having to find emergency homes for the children of 300 families. The same state with a billion dollar deficit has to find the funds to solve this crisis, which surely will cost us tens of thousands of dollars - maybe hundreds.

Immigration is an issue that demands compromise. We can't allow these kinds of raids; they're a disaster. Sadly, immigration is one of the few areas where President Bush is actually willing to compromise. The McCain-Kennedy Bill, in its original form, was an eminently fair bill - one that all sorts of people from all kinds of political perspectives got behind. Citizens from Massachusetts should ask our Senior Senator to resubmit that bill, especially given what happened in New Bedford and the change in direction of the Senate.

The MSM/Blogger Divide

Recently, Joan Vennochi and I have been trading emails. I thought her web column was unfair, she thought my "Laziest Article Yet" blog was, well, equally unfair. Of course, the constant barrage of articles that have hurt Deval slightly, at least in the mean time, haven't put me in a good place of mind - and whenever that happens, we tend to retreat to what we know best. A lot of what I had to say in terms of media critique was true and I stick behind it; however, when Vennochi emailed me this afternoon she said something poignant that was sort of a small epiphany.

I realized that it's very easy to sit here at my computer, read an article and find 20 holes in it - just like it's easy to sit in the backseat of a car and tell the driver he or she is speeding, or should have stopped sooner. Does that mean the person wasn't speeding or shouldn't have stopped sooner? Of course not. The media has made some mistakes in these stories and, in large part, I've pointed them out. It's important to do that.

However, I should have done that with the same understanding that Vennochi mentioned. It's not easy to get a story exactly right as a singular writer or even organization, as we all live within a bubble. Furthermore, even with an editor, the same editors are the ones reading from the same authors, every day. The environment that's created is still insulated and incapable of thinking about all the different facets of the story. That's not a knock on the media or the Globe because, as I've indicated quite clearly on this post, I'm obviously suspectible to it too.

Joan Vennochi was sparked to send me an email today based on a comment I made on BMG. First, I should applaud any Globe writer who's spending that kind of time actually reading the comments on blogs - because, as any frequent comment-reader can attest, that takes dedication. In the comment (and on an earlier blog today), I criticized Lisa Wangsness for not interviewing bloggers - and instead ripping their quotes off a website. Doing so eliminates any chance for bloggers to qualify statements in a thoughtful manner, so I found it somewhat annoying. Yet, the way I expressed my annoyance almost automatically assumed Lisa was doing it to sensationalize the story, but Vennochi disagreed.

Every day, bloggers comment on what journalists write, without ever calling the journalist in question to ask for additional perspective,explanation, etc.

Let's be honest, it would be nearly impossible to do that, be it because there are just so many bloggers, so few journalists or the fact that it's rare to see a full-time blogger - and they have to keep up their day jobs.

To further complicate the matter, while bloggers can write as much as they want and as frequently as they want, Vennochi made the equally poignant point in our emails that writers in the media have strict word limits in which to tell their stories. They can't get every viewpoint, factoid or side of the story in any article. It's as equally impossible as every blogger calling a particular journalist before they criticized their work.

So what do we all do? How do we bridge this MSM/Blogger Divide? For one thing, we need to develop better relationships. Vennochi obviously understands that; she's done quite a bit to reach out to bloggers in this situation. Furthermore, maybe when bloggers criticize the media - which is necessary - we need to focus more on being constructive and less on being snarky and personal. I'll readily admit: that's a hard sell. Half the reason people read blogs is to see what will slip by a blogger's fingers and for the giggles. Yet, it's a tight rope that must be crossed.

However, that's not where it should stop. Any blogger will admit this: bloggers need the media - and the media greatly benefits from bloggers. When I'm harsh on the Globe - or other media sources - it isn't because I hate the Globe or the media, it's because I love to hate it. In fact, I devour it like a vampire who loves humans. So it's important that the MSM and blogosphere develop a better relationship. Ultimately, most of us want the same thing.

Don't get me wrong; I don't think we should necessarily be "friends" - to see how bad that kind of relationship can be, ask Judy Miller. After all, she protected her "friends" even when they were lying to her about Iraq, without having to worry about any risks due to the anonymity Miller granted. No, we need a relationship that's more like a friendly rivalry - two groups of people who really like each other, yet always try to outdo one an other when it comes to the big game. They're the kind of people who are willing to work together in order to achieve success, even though they're on different teams and have different goals.

How do we get that to work? There are probably hundreds of things we should do, but today I'm going to offer one idea. Maybe what we need to do is further develop the concept of citizen-journalists. A lot of bloggers out there consider themselves citizen journalists: they're the type of people who write about stories that the media may not cover or cover well enough. Often, they break stories that the media covers later. They're the type of people who do a lot of good. In a day and age when one of the reasons why the media comes under more criticism than ever is, in great part, because they've had to cut back on real journalists due to a lack of resources, citizen journalists could be the cure.

With thousands of citizens out there who are already investigating, doing serious research and then blogging about it, it's time someone tap into their full potential. I don't think someone has to be a genius to figure out there's a mutual opportunity here: the media can both create, find, develop and publish important stories - with a cost-effective, outsider's perspective - and create a better, mutually beneficial relationship with the kinds of people who both blog and read blogs. Furthermore, writers and editors would be exposed to new people who would stop the stifling insulation. Bloggers, on the other hand, would benefit from creating relationships with real, professionally trained journalists. Both sides would work together and better understand each other, ultimately bridging the difficult gap Vennochi pointed out to me today, when I checked my email. Maybe then, stories in the media and bloggers would be better and finally settle into roles that befit this new generation of news.

Updates:

First, I probably should have mentioned one other thing Vennochi mentioned: the MSM has to deal with something that bloggers, largely, don't. Bloggers, including me, can be mean. Journalists and columnists are at a disadvantage - they're supposed to be unbiased (Howie Carr notwithstanding). From here on out, when it comes to dealing with the media, I'm going to try to be more constructive and less snarky. It pains me to say that, because I love the snark (and, indeed, the Globe has loved it too; when directed at politicians, I've been linked to Globe blogs multiple times when writing snarky posts about candidates), but the snark certainly will subvert any attempts at improving blogger-MSM relationships.

Second, the following only deals with the periphery of this post: My earlier subject title today, "Boston Globe: Laziest Article Ever" was, well, not accurate. If it would do any good to change it, I would, but the way blogger.com is set up makes changing titles almost useless - all it would serve to do is break links. Lisa Wangsness wasn't lazy and, in even bothering to read the blogosphere at all, showed at least curiosity that should be applauded. Her piece was still wrong in at least one key way: two bloggers from one site doth not equal the entire blogosphere, even if they are two of the most well-read bloggers. However, it was a mischaracterization to call that lazy. Poor word choice on my part.