I Just Saw Sicko

My mother, a nurse, had wanted to see the film since she heard about it. She's had good insurance and bad and knows what it's like to have to deal with the fact that she needs to get permission to get her patients the medication they need. She's personally dealt with insurance agencies using all sorts of measures to avoid paying for the drugs that were paramount to the prescribed treatment. There were points in the movie where she actually cried, like watching people who got sick when they helped right after 9/11 and the Government wouldn't treat their injuries sustained while trying to save lives at the twin towers.

I've known this for a while now, but America should be ashamed of its medical treatments. We have both the best health care in the world - and the worst. People who have great insurance get great treatment, people who don't have insurance or who have a lousy program are lucky to get any treatment at all. We could continue on this shameful path of maximum profitability at Harvard Pilgram and Blue Cross Blue Shield... or we could demand something better.

We could demand hospitals don't send away people who are in need of emergency care.

We could demand that medications that cost five cents in Cuba don't cost patients $125 here.

We could demand that every single human being in America have a generous baseline of quality care.

These aren't hard things. They'd cost less than the system we have now, while treating everyone. They'd remove these SiCKO insurance companies from the process of deciding who gets coverage and who doesn't - doctors should make those decisions, not people on the other end of the phone. A National Health Care system would make sure that America were a decent, moral country - one where we have the right kind of family values, making sure people don't have to decide between paying the mortgage and getting treatment for their cancer. Let's make America better. Let's get everyone insurance. That's one thing my mother understood by the time she left the theater.

On SCOTUS: What Now?

Brown v. the Board of Education isn't completely destroyed, but it's close to it. I don't see how programs that are completely race-based will survive, such as METCO. Segregation already exists throughout most of the country - heck, I don't think there was a single African American in my graduating class when I went to High School. I don't see how this country can get over things like racism if there isn't racial integration at a young age, just like it's impossible for many to get over homophobia without meeting someone who isn't heterosexual. It's in our interests for integration, but there's not much this country can do to protect it with the current President and Supreme Court. I guess we're going to have to be creative to use whatever wiggle room is left.

Not So Sure About Packing the Board of Ed

Deval Patrick's administration has expressed the desire to appoint four new members to the Board of Education. While I know it's frustrating to be dealing with Romney era educational hacks who'd rather eat the system than improve it, I'm not sure stacking the Board is a good idea. While I rarely engage in Slippery Slope arguments, certainly packing the board isn't a trend the Bay State will want continued into future administrations.

Furthermore, the Board has a particular balance to it. Disrupting that balance could have a negative impact on students. For example, every year a full-voting student is elected to the Board of Ed by his or her peers. When I was in high school, I served on the board that elected that student voice and vote - an important vote that even determined, at one point, the very Chancellor of Education we have now (Driscoll was appointed by a 1 vote margin, so effectively the student member made the difference).

The important thing here is that Deval Patrick has other options in dealing with some of Romney's most egregious picks, without resorting to packing it in. He could try the wait-and-see approach: maybe, now that Romney's gone and there's a different political discourse, Romney's hold outs won't be holding out so much. Maybe they'll go with the flow and allow a little real reform in the system, one where standardized testing is only a piece of the puzzle and not the Almighty.

If the wait-and-see approach fails (perhaps it already has), there's the FDR approach. When FDR was trying to pass his New Deal, an obnoxious Supreme Court kept repealing many of his most important reforms. It was the same Supreme Court that thought Child Labor Laws were a penalty on businesses and barred them. What did FDR do? He created a bill that would have 'packed the court' with so many new members that he'd easily get his way. While the bill failed, it scared the hell out of the Supreme Court - most of the old dudes left and sane government regulations were finally able to get by the courts.

Maybe, in the end, that's exactly what Deval Patrick is trying to do. It certainly seems like a better bet to try to enact change at the Board of Ed through tough leadership rather than setting the standard of packing it. Certainly, members of the Board of Education should give some defence to the sitting Governor's over-arching plans on education, at least if they're reasonable. If they view Patrick's ideas as outrageously unreasonable, they should resign in protest. Otherwise, the Board of Education becomes a Cowboy Western Movie, where there's an epic stand off... and nothing getting done.

How Republicans Communicate

This explains a lot.

Hold the Presses! Patrick Does Something Outside Mass

I will admit to giggling while reading this article.

In his first venture into the national political scene, Governor Deval Patrick has agreed to appear at a televised presidential debate tomorrow night to introduce the eight Democratic candidates.

Patrick, just six months in office, will take center stage at Howard University in Washington, D.C., to spend close to five minutes on prime time to give some brief remarks and then present each of the eight candidates.

Okay, we're good so far... this is news worthy, interesting... so, I wonder what the next sentence is going to be?

His prominent role is clearly a signal that he and his political advisers want to make an initial step into the bigger world of national politics, capitalizing on the attention he has already received as the nation's only African-American governor.

Alert, Alert, Alert... the Shark has officially been jumped. "Clearly?" Stepping into the bigger world?

Massachusetts... Just because we have a politician who actually does something outside our great Commonwealth, it doesn't mean he's jumping into the horse race. Deval Patrick is not running for President and won't be for a very long time (if ever). Personally, I hope he'll have great success in this state - something he's cementing with his actions and goals already - but we're talking at least 2012, and if we make it to that point, he's given his due.

We don't need to take Patrick on the national stage and turn that into something more than it already is. Patrick isn't exactly new to the rest of the 49 states, given his previous position in President Clinton's administration. He's just been rediscovered. He has an important progressive vision that should be pushed across the country. It's nice to see a Governor who actually has the courage to stand for his convictions; the three current Presidential Candidates have something to learn from him. Furthermore, given the environment the debate will be taking place in, it makes perfect sense for the nation's only African American governor to be able to talk - and hopefully inspire - people for a few minutes.

Podcasting with Jamie Eldridge

My cohosts Lynne, Mike and I had our weekly Podcast, LeftAhead, tonight - featuring Jamie Eldridge as our special guest. He comes in at 39 minutes and stays for the duration, which was plenty of time to get into specifics on all sorts of issues. Despite the fact that we've endorsed him, we ask him some pretty tough questions because we're pesky bloggers that want to put out good material.

We chat MA-05, figure out what exactly single-payer health care really is, marriage equality, Blogs of the Week, immigration and a whole boatload of issues. Mike says he'll edit the segment down into several issue-related spots, so go pester him on his website to make sure he does. Other than that, it was a great episode and I hope everyone will check it out!

Guns: Keeping American Families Safe

Like this one.

In a tragic turn for a violence-prone Boston family, 8-year-old Liquarry Jefferson was shot to death in his Roxbury apartment, and his relatives' initial account that armed intruders had gunned him down was a lie, police and city officials said last night.

Officials said a 7-year-old male cousin playing with a loaded gun accidentally shot Liquarry, a first-grader who loved basketball, pro wrestling, and pizza. His death early yesterday made him the city's youngest fatal shooting victim in five years.

Even if a gun is stored properly, it's far more likely that the gun will target a family member than a burglar. It's so sad that thousands of people have to die every year - and still, as a country, we haven't come to our senses yet. Hand guns have one purpose only: killing people, often deceptively. We don't need them; in fact, we're better off without them. Just as little Liquarry.

Global Warming in the Boston Globe

There were two interesting articles in the Globe recently that discussed issues surrounding Global Warming. First, there was an interesting Op Ed, from Brian Thurber and Berl Hartman, on the need for leadership on Global Warming in New England by one of the Governors.

With momentum building for meaningful climate protection across New England, there is an opportunity for our governors to reclaim leadership on this most critical issue. Starting tomorrow, we will see who steps up.

In the second article, a Peter Howe piece on Governor Patrick's efforts on conservation, I think we've found ourselves an answer.

But Patrick contends that the state can conserve at least that much more electricity every year and keep overall demand frozen indefinitely, for much less than the cost of building new power plants.

I don't know what the Governors of Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Maine are doing to combat Global Warming, but certainly some interesting ideas are being cooked up in Massachusetts. Freezing the growth of this state's energy use won't stop Global Warming, but doing so could create the sorts of ideas that will. Furthermore, having a Governor who is strongly pushing leadership on this issue can go a long way to bringing other states into the fold.

The best part of Governor Patrick's plan is that the timetable he sets to accomplish his goal, 2010, isn't some far-off date, one where he won't be around to be held accountable. If anyone is sick of politicians making goals for 2050, let's get together and start a chorus. What we need is to start with reasonable goals - one's we can accomplish in one or two terms. On an issue as important as the prevention of Global Warming, it's good to see the Governor of Massachusetts actually leading.

GLBT Future in Massachusetts

I've already talked about where I think Massachusetts needs to go next on GLBT rights, but Chris Mason got me thinking. Like me, he thinks a transgendered civil rights bill needs to be the next priority. However, I can't help but think if we keep pushing one initiative at a time, eventually the legislature or the people will get tired of it and we'll lose our initiative.

So, I came to a conclusion: what the movement needs is one last big push for GLBT rights in Massachusetts. Over the course of this summer, we should examine just what's needed and then package a series of bills we could advertise as the last steps to full equality. It would be relatively easy to get the public on board and get the necessary publicity.

If we do things one at a time, maybe we'll get 1913 repealed. Maybe we'll get a transgendered basic civil rights bill. But what about a transgendered hate crimes bill? What about a dozen things I can't think of off the top of my head? What will happen is that eventually the last few important steps will be forgotten and left behind and the people in the GLBTQ community who need help the most won't get it.

I don't think we can stand for that. So, let's come up with a package of bills instead and push them as a whole. We should push them as hard as we pushed for marriage equality itself. Ultimately, we're talking about issues so important that we can't afford to leave anyone behind.

Vennochi's Column on Taxes - Good Stuff

When Joan Vennochi is right, boy can she be right.

WHO HAS the power on Beacon Hill? The people who are losing libraries, teachers, and sports programs to deep municipal budget cuts? Or, the business community, which is ducking its responsibility to help close the fiscal gap?

Here's what the current budget battle seems to be coming down to: Governor Deval Patrick v. House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi....

Patrick may be breakfasting with chief executives and accepting political donations from them. But at least he's also telling them what they don't want to hear: Massachusetts tax laws need to be changed to ensure tax fairness.

It gets better from there, folks.

I have to leave to get to a wedding in a few minutes, so I can't spend a lot of time on this, but I had to post something about it. Go and read it. Make your friends read it, too. For someone who doesn't know anything about the Municipal Partnership Act or just can't seem to get in the frame of mind to care, it's a compelling piece.

The Progressive Point of View

The comments in a diary Bob wrote over at BlueMassGroup inspired me to do something dangerous - it begins with an M and ends with an A. It doesn't quite rhyme with Beta, but by its spelling some people would probably think it does. You guessed it, let's talk some meta!

Every once in a while, I like to write either a blog or a comment about the differences between liberalism and progressivism, in the American sense. Many people just don't seem to get it - or disagree. They say there's no difference between a liberal and a progressive, except that liberal has become a "dirty" word and liberals are trying to latch onto the term progressive. Progressive obviously can mean many things, but today's progressive movement is something altogether unique and a rising force in American politics.

So, what does progressivism mean? For starters, there are people who have been scared away from the term liberal and want to be called progressive, but that doesn't mean they're a part of the progressive movement. Progressivism, as a movement, had its early rise with the likes of Woodrow Wilson and Theodoore Roosevelt. Some of their ideas were good, like the people of each state should be able to elect their Senators (the 17th Amendment, in 1913). Other initiatives they pushed were actually, oddly enough, initiatives - the entire initiative process. If people want to know my opinion on the initiative process, just ask the residents of California. I'm not going to delve into details, but let's just say I don't view the early progressives as altogether successful. Many of the things they pushed weren't right and some of the good things they wanted, they didn't ultimately achieve. Eventually, they lost steam, power and the entire movement went under - or underground.

It wasn't until recently that progressives, as a whole, began to become loud advocates again. Many had been relatively silent, at least for the past few decades. Never mind being the base of the Democratic Party, a lot of progressives were just so fed up with everything that they didn't even vote. Reaganism seemed to kill American politics and there wasn't a whole lot we could do about it, accept maybe complain on the internet. Complaining on the internet became organizing as blogging and the netroots took over. Organizations like Moveon and politicians themselves have been able to take advantage over all the progressives who were hooked online and a new movement emerged, or so many people think and I would agree.

What is that movement? I'd like to say that this new rise of progressivism could be summed up in one phrase: the reality-based community. To me, the old progressives of the Woodrow Wilson era seemed to be similar to today's right wing in many ways: a lot of what they supported, they supported because it sounded good and logically made sense. However, what sounds good and is seemingly logical isn't always practical. Saying teenagers shouldn't get pregnant, so let's stop abortion to punish them hasn't exactly proven a winning idea. Liberalism, as an ideology, can be guilty of the same thing - except, what sounds good to them has a different tone. You know, they want to help people. So, here's a nifty, dumbed down version of how each ideology thinks. Keep in mind, even I would admit I'm making this overly simplistic.

Interview Time!

Ryan: Welcome everyone to today's program. We're here, with this very exciting panel, to discuss some of the different points of view various ideologies share in America on certain topics. So, Mr. Conservative, Mr. Liberal and Mr. Progressive, what are your views on Iraq?

Mr. (Neo) Conservative: Errrr, yea. At the time, we all thought Eyeraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. We had to invade em because we couldn't trust Saddam Hussein. And, ah, look at what happened on 9/11! The world is a scary place and we need to be on our feet. Attack them there so they can't attack us here. Plus, ahhh, Democracy! We can give them Democracy and everything! We'll be greeted with flowers and as heroes. Yah! It'll spread throughout the entire Middle East and we really believe it, because we know our allies in Saudi Arabia are just dying for Democracy.

Ryan: Thanks, Mr. Conservative. Those are some interesting thoughts. What about you, Mr. Liberal?

Mr. Liberal: Why, first let me thank you, Ryan. It's really important to have an open and honest dialogue here, so we can talk about all of the ideas. Ideas are essential and there's nothing more important than talking about them. War is a terrible and tragic thing. We can't have war, unless directly provoked.

Ryan: Interesting commentary. Thanks. And you, Mr. Progressive?

Mr. Progressive: I do agree with my liberal counterpart, war is bad. We should only go to war when we're attacked or when our sovereignty is really threatened - as it was during World War Two, after Japan attacked us and all of our allies were losing the war in Europe. However, it goes beyond "war is bad." There were important facts that this administration ignored going into this war. For starters, we had inspectors in that country with unfettered access, looking for those weapons. We had no evidence to suggest they actually had any. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein was completely contained and no real threat to anyone in the region - and he had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were mortal enemies. Even more importantly, while Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, we didn't mind it when he was fighting a war against Iran. In fact, we helped him. We don't mind that the current President of Pakistan rules with an iron fist and got there through a military coup, he's our ally. We don't mind a lot of very bad regimes across the world, from China to Saudi Arabia. Why aren't the conservatives advocating regime change there?

What's more offensive than anything, however, is this notion that we could bring another country democracy - especially through war. No one in Iraq was asking for Jeffersonian Democracy, no one was pushing for it. A Democracy is the will of the people and it has to come from that very will. No one who studied the history of Iraq would have ever guessed that Iraq was poised for this new Democracy. If we were concerned with the people of Iraq, we would have tried to lessen their poverty - because, if we want a Democracy in Iraq, a starving, war-torn country in turmoil isn't going to produce it.

Ryan: Thanks for those thoughts, Mr. Progressive. What do you all think about illegal immigration? Three minutes guys.

Mr. Conservative: They broke the law! They're out of our country! Shut down the borders and stop the *cough*br*cough*own*cough* people from coming in, thank you very much.

Mr. Liberal: Obviously, the conditions in Mexico and in Latin America aren't very good. We need to let as many of them in as possible. Immigration is what our country was built on, we shouldn't be afraid of it. Diversity! It's America! See, I'm patriotic too!

Mr. Progressive: The simple fact of the matter is that there are about 12 million undocumented Americans in this country and no feasible way to get rid of them all, even if we wanted to. Sure, illegal immigration sounds bad and maybe they deserve to be sent home, but the simple matter is we need to create a policy that actually works. We're not going to be able to do that if we threaten deportation - and keep doing all these raids that are turning into human rights disasters. They'll go under, we'll never find them and meanwhile they're in danger of exploitation. The current situation is a mess and there are clear solutions to fixing it. Let's get to work.

Ryan: One last question, guys. Oranges or Apples? And why?

Mr. Conservative: Aww, what a sweet question. I love my farming. My Grand Pappy on the farm always used to say, "An Apple a Day Keeps the Dentist Away." Of course, he had dentures. Let me just say one more thing. Brush your teeth, kids and stay off drugs. Oh, and God loves America.

Mr. Liberal: Now, Ryan, how am I supposed to pick between those two lovely fruit? I love visiting the orchards in New England and in Florida. I just love them both.

Mr. Progressive: Um, okay. I wasn't exactly prepared for that question. Oranges, because they taste better. I'll eat an apple if it's fresh and in season.

Ryan: Thank you so much for participating today and pointing out some of the many differences in your points of view. It's important that every American have a basic understanding of what it means to be conservative, liberal and progressive in today's America.

How Many Strikes Does Jeff Jacoby Get?

When it comes to writing honest - and not plagiarized - stories, Jeff Jacoby was already batting the Mendoza line, having been suspended in the past.

he recycled, without attribution in his column, the work of others

Yet, it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. In today's case of "sounds familiar," BMG diarist Heck of a Liberal writes the dirty truth:

[The] Jacoby opinion piece, which slams liberals for not engaging in as much "enlightened" debate as conservatives, was to me almost the same piece that a writer from the Hoover Institute (Peter Berkowitz) wrote for the Wall Street Journal on May 29. Both writers are analytically challenged... but what disturbed me most is Jacoby essentially wrote the same article without attributing the original article. In college this would be considered plagiarism.

Well, Heck of a Liberal, I think you're on to something here. Jeff Jacoby has done - yet again - exactly what got him suspended before. He's "recycled, without attribution in his column, the work of others." Just read the articles and decide for yourself.

Which is which?

Author A:

On a variety of issues that currently divide the nation, those to the left of center seem to be converging, their ranks increasingly untroubled by debate or dissent, except on daily tactics and long-term strategy. Meanwhile, those to the right of center are engaged in an intense intra-party struggle to balance competing principles and goods.

Author B:

WHAT DO liberal Democrats think about the war in Iraq? That's easy: It was a blunder that has become a debacle, and it should be brought to an end as soon as possible.What do conservative Republicans think about the war? That's not
so easy.

The right has been fighting over the war since well before it began...

Author A:

He starts many of his paragraphs like this:

Consider Iraq.
And look at same-sex marriage.

Author B:

Take immigration.
Another example: abortion.
Or health insurance:

My favorite odd coincidence? The Lieberman factor (Emphasis mine):

Author A:

In contrast, Democrats today are nearly united in the belief that the invasion has been a fiasco and that we must withdraw promptly. Indeed, rare is the Democrat (Sen. Joe Lieberman was compelled to run as an Independent) who does not sound like a traditional realist denying both America's moral obligation to remain in Iraq and its capacity to bring order to the country.

Author B:

On one important issue after another, the right churns with serious disputes over policy and principle, while the left marches mostly in lockstep. Liberals sometimes disagree over tactics and details, but anyone taking a heterodox position on a major issue can find himself out in the cold. Just ask Senator Joseph Lieberman.

Don't readers just love how they both throw the same line in there. I bet it works both times.

At what point did plagiarism become acceptable in the mainstream media? Let's hope the Globe hasn't stooped quite that low. However, isn't the underlying subject of this discussion interesting? We have two articles criticizing Democrats for having a lack of ideas and being too unison in their mindsets. Isn't it at least a little bit ironic that two conservative writers writing for major newspapers in the media come up with the same exact opinions, without referencing each other? Isn't it at least a little unusual that they're singing a chorus in unison about how unique, diverging and great their Conservatism in America is? Isn't it odd that they're using the same quips, styles and formats to get the same, exact points across? Nope, it's not odd, it's plagiarism.

---Author A is Peter Berkowitz, writing for the Wall Street Journal. Author B is Jeff Jacoby, (hopefully formerly) employed by the Boston Globe.

The Globe's Crossing the Streams

Because I love sexy quotes and will write a blog when I think of a nice, witty line, I think Lynne's right - the Globe is really reaching with today's story, wondering whether Patrick has become too close to big business. As Lynne notes, their usual M-O, often expressed through Michael "I get to be quoted in the Boston Globe almost every day" Widmer, is that Patrick is going to destroy big business and make them flee from Massachusetts in terror by undoing some of the most flagrant Corporate Tax Loopholes. But wait, today we learn he's way too close to those Big Businesses. Well, which is it?

Today's Blogo-outrage is a reaction to the Globe's Crossing the Stream. Bad things happen when the Stream is Crossed. Today's bad thing? The Globe lost respectability. They lost respectability with readers, with bloggers, with readers of bloggers and - I'd imagine - with anyone who seriously values good journalism. Respectability at the Globe seems to be fleeing Massachusetts in terror by the paper constantly undoing whatever credibility the Paper of Record once had. They've simply crossed that stream too often before.

What I don't understand is this: Is Frank Phillips the Key Master or the Gate Keeper? And who are the trolls who actually buy this crap?

DiMasi's Here - For Now

The big buzz today seemed to be about Speaker DiMasi. Frank Phillips sort of left a bombshell at the end of his article on an alleged consultant scandal that suggested Speaker DiMasi could be on his way out. Here's the quote in question:

As speculation mounts over DiMasi's future, Rogers has been laying the groundwork for what many on Beacon Hill believe will be a succession fight . His major rival is Representative Ronald Mariano, a Quincy Democrat.

Rest assured, Speaker DiMasi's here for now. I sent an email to Phillips to follow up on that point and Phillips said there was "no evidence that DiMasi is actively looking to leave." What Phillips meant was that no one sticks in office forever and the struggle to be the next Speaker has already begun, regardless of when DiMasi leaves. Of course, he's right, although that sentence certainly made for some interesting speculation.

Patrick to "Take Over Review" of UMASS System

Governor Deval Patrick's educational task force will "take over the review" of the UMASS system, but recognizes President Jack Wilson and the Board of Trustees as the ultimate authority in making personnel changes.

Patrick's spokesman Kyle Sullivan said the Readiness Project is the "appropriate forum" for a review. "There is no need to duplicate efforts."He added, "nothing that we announce today or that we review over the next few months will take away from the authority of the president to make the personnel changes that he is empowered to make."

Sen. Stanley Rosenberg, an Amherst Democrat, said taking control of the review is "a big step forward." He said he and other Lombardi supporters lobbied Patrick to step in.

Ryan's Take? Great news.

A number of groups, people and organizations were looking for Governor Patrick to step into the UMASS debate, but it seemed as if he wanted to focus on his current battles - like passing the Municipal Partnership Act - rather than step his feet into even more boiling water. By taking over the review process, but seeding ultimate authority to President Wilson on "personnel," Patrick is jumping in with two feet on the ground - sure, he's getting wet a little, but the water's luke warm. Come on in! Now that the UMASS media circus is over, this is a way to get involved that isn't stepping on anyone's feet. Furthermore, for the people who were afraid Wilson was going to bring wrack and ruin to the system, they can set their minds to peace. Wilson won't subvert this entire process and ignore the committee's principal decisions, especially given the fact that doing so could bring a more direct response from the Governor.

Ultimately, by having Patrick's committee reexamine Wilson's plans and examine the UMASS system itself, it will bring more legitimacy to the process. The big criticism against Wilson's announcements were the tactics involved in coming up with the decision - the planning was all behind closed doors, no one knew anything that was going on and a lot of big decisions were made without any real input. Now, Patrick's committee is going to have until March to investigate all aspects of the UMASS system - as a part of this state's entire public education system. Just as with any Patrick committee, I'm sure there will be lots of chance to gather input from a wide variety of sources involved.

Many of Wilson's goals are ideal: of course, UMASS should be streamlined. Of course, the system should be made more efficient. However, many of his proposals - such as making the President of the entire system also be the Chancellor of UMASS Amherst - don't seem to accomplish that. The President of the system and Chancellor of UMASS look like two heavy loads - loads that shouldn't go in the same wash. Furthermore, while each campus at UMASS should act as a part of the greater system, all of them also have their own character and should not be subservient to Amherst.

The Amherst campus is called the "flagship" by many, but that should have more to do with its actual size than academics. Indeed, many of the UMASS Campuses have programs that stand out beyond Amherst's versions of them - such as Dartmouth's Engineering and Nursing degrees. Changes to the system shouldn't make any of the campuses feel threatened in that regard. None of the campuses should be satellites to UMASS Amherst.

It's important that reform be done in a way that none of the state's Universities feel threatened or targeted. It's important that a vast majority of the faculty be behind the reforms, which means they'll need to be given the chance to weigh in. Students and alumni, too, should have the opportunity to make recommendations. It's amazing what students and alumni get that administrations on campuses don't. Governor Patrick's intervention here can only help calm the storm, especially at the Amherst campus, as well as give UMASS more time to create new and legitimate reforms that everyone, from students and faculty to President Wilson, can get behind.

MA-05 Breaking News!! And Today's Show

This just in!

Barry Finegold knows all the words to Beauty in the Beast, the Disney Movie, and Jamie Eldridge is 6'5."

I Swear To God!

And, did you know, Niki Tsongas has a dog named after an Emperor her husband met, while serving in the Peace Corps? No way? WAY!

But, it gets better, Meceli plays Golf, like, all the time - but really isn't good at it... and Donoghue? She freaking LOVES the Food Network.

---And the media wonders why people turn to the blogosphere? H/T to Sco.

Tonight's LeftAhead starts at an irregular time - 8pm. Expect stuff on the ConCon, MA-05 and whatever we can think of at 8. Lynne's probably going to join us at around 8:30, with news from tonight's MA-05 debate.

Next week, on June 26th, we have Fifth Congressional Candidate Jamie Eldridge on.

Senator Kerry Pushing For Better Energy Bill

Needless to say, there's a lot to be disappointed in with the new energy bill making its way through Washington halls and, sadly, K-Street. However, Senator Kerry has made a few amendments accepted by the Financing Committee that could at least help.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the Senate Finance Committee accepted several key provisions introduced by Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) to the energy tax package. Kerry’s plan rolls back tax breaks for big oil companies, saving taxpayers $9.5 billion during the next 10 years. His proposals for tax credits for energy efficient homes and buildings, plug in hybrids cars, and renewable fuel production were also agreed to by the Finance Committee.

Plug-in hybrid cars are very, very cool - and the tax incentive would be meaningful, $2,500. Toyota and Honda would probably offer that as either standard features or at least an option, with that kind of tax incentive. Basically, people charge up their batteries overnight and get 50 miles of driving before the car starts to use gas. I can't remember the exact percentages, but I've blogged about them before. Not that many people drive more than 5o miles a day on a regular basis.

Obviously, rolling back tax credits to ExxonMobile is a dead giveaway - they're more profitable than ever; they don't need our charity. So, those are some good measures by Kerry.

The Senator also made some revisions to the coal-to-liquid plans, which are pretty much the worst idea out of a whole lot of bad ideas that the Federal Government has come up with.

“Coal to liquids hurts our efforts to adopt clean, new, renewable sources of energy that are good for our environment and our future,” Kerry added. “My amendment will help curb greenhouse gas emissions from liquid coal facilities. We can burn coal in a clean way, while keeping jobs in our country and adding new ones. This legislation is a good place to start.”

Using liquid coal creates 2.5 times more green house gasses for the environment, so the key word is "start." Hopefully, the Senator will decide against giving any incentives for coal-to-oil legislation. Democrats need to unite and stand up against liquid coal and Senator Kerry should be leading that charge. There may be a whole lot of coal to burn in America, but it's killing this atmosphere even quicker than just burning oil. Sure, we need independence from Mid East oil, but that independence has to come from renewable sources, as well as possibly ethanol and especially hydrogen.

Lastly, let's hope the US Government can do better than a 35 mile per gallon effort in 2020. By then, the ice caps could be melted and Manhattan (and Cape Cod) under water. It's time our elected leaders face up to that potential future and do what we can to make sure it stays science fiction.

Casinos: A Real Winning Idea

Of course, it's a winning idea if you want to sack a trio of Selectmen.

MIDDLEBOROUGH -- An effort to recall three Middleborough selectmen has taken off in recent days, fueled by outrage over plans to bring a casino to town and over other financial controversies.Jessie Powell, the organizer of the recall drive, said she has collected more than 1,200 voter signatures to force a recall election in September aimed at three selectmen -- Chairwoman Marsha Brunelle, and Selectmen Wayne Perkins and Steven Spataro.

The stated reason for the recall is "fiscal mismanagement," but Powell says voter anxiety over a casino proposed in the town by the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian tribe has increased support for her signature drive. A draft agreement between the town and the tribe calling for a $1 billion casino stunned many here when it became public this month. It would be the first casino in the state.

1,200 signatures in a town of less than 20,000! There have probably been elections in Middleborough with less voters. Let's hope politicians around the state take notice, too - that's a lot of angry constituents. Maybe all these casinos aren't quite the panacea they were cracked up to be, after all?

Here's the bottom line: If Massachusetts either accepts the Middleborough plan or allows Cahill's plan, we're in for a boat load of fun - and I'm not talking about Lynn's Horizon's Edge (trust me, you want to click on that link - and turn the volume up). So, if these things pass, be sure to have fun at the corny casino near you. Best of all, you won't have to drive very far.

Remember All Those Harmless Signing Statements

Well, they clearly mattered. President Bush thinks he can sign law, then go on to make a little statement and proceed to ignore what he signed. It's one of the reasons why he's almost never vetoed anything (except stem cells and Iraq time tables, of course). Now, we have government agencies ignoring laws.

Federal officials have disobeyed at least six new laws that President Bush challenged in his signing statements, a government study disclosed yesterday. The report provides the first evidence that the government may have acted on claims by Bush that he can set aside laws under his executive powers.

So, what do we do about it?

A Brief Summary of History

How's this sound to people? It's interesting, anyway.

Massachusetts Poised for Single-Payer System

I look at this poll and that's my deduction.

1. Are you aware that Massachusetts has a law requiring all state residents
to have health insurance?
Yes — 92%
No — 8%

2. Do you believe people should be compelled to buy health insurance even if they don’t want it?
Yes — 42%
No — 49% (18-35 year olds are most supportive at 50%; 56 and older are least
supportive at 37%.)

3. Do you believe all people will purchase the health insurance they are required to buy?
Yes — 19%
No — 73%

4. Do you believe everyone has a right to healthcare?
Yes — 92%
No — 7%

If 92% of people think everyone has a right to health care, yet a 49% plurality of people don't think anyone should be compelled to buy it, a true Universal, single-payer system would likely be an even more popular choice than the status quo. Let's hope politicians can keep up with the public on this issue, especially here at home in Massachusetts. The status quo has already proven to be a massive failure and our politicians need to be proactive instead of reactive in addressing it, before anyone actually dies from this new bill's policies.

The State should look into single-payer and other, similar systems (perhaps akin to Germany's) and make plans to change our current failure within the next twelve months. Hopefully, our politicians will have to stop being so risk-averse and come out with another plan that will make Massachusetts a leader all over again - true universal coverage, where no one is left behind with either no coverage or bad coverage. If these politicians want to be remembered for sparking a true revolution, right from Beacon Hill, they should vote for real reform on health care and not our current system, which amounts to corporate welfare and false promises of "universal coverage." We've already done it with marriage equality, let's now solve society's great problem: health care.

Senator Kerry Iraq Forum: Leadership

If I could pick one theme from the Natick Town Meeting I attended yesterday, it would be Leadership - or a lack thereof. Senator Kerry laid out, in fairly clear terms, the need for Leadership in the:

• Executive Branch
• Legislative Branch
• Iraqi Government

However, we aren't getting that leadership today. President Bush has shown a complete unwillingness to do any of the steps necessary to ensure peace, a transition or a stable government in Iraq. Bush has run so rampant in that region, he "threatens the legitimacy of our country in almost every single regard," the Senator said.

Kerry wasn't there to mince words - and the people in attendance weren't there to hear anything except exactly what they wanted to hear: get out of Iraq, now. It's no joke, the people are frustrated. Some of those people took it out on the Senator, some of them were just Larouch types and were annoying for the sake of being annoying. However, that doesn't change the fact that the Senator gave a concrete, important exchange on exactly what needs to take place to change course in Iraq.

The verdict? Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy. This country needs to start the dialogue between all the players in the region. Kerry said he's talked with all of those leaders and that a willingness exists, it's just that a certain President is too stubborn to try it out. That President was too stubborn to talk to Iran and to groups in Palestinian territory - and look how things have turned out because Bush's inaction.

Furthermore, until the day we go into those negotiations and set a time line for Iraq, the Iraqis are never going to be able to govern themselves. Right now, America is a "scape goat" for some of the factions in Iraq. I probably won't be able to put this as clearly as the Senator, but he made a very strong case: essentially, as long as we're there, we're providing cover for certain forces within Iraq to expect us to solve their problems for them... while they allow their militias to do whatever it is that they want them to do, instead of what needs to be done. If we left, the Senator explained, they'd start the job of actually Leading in Iraq.

Some of the frustration among the people there really came from what I think was anger toward the party for folding, not anything the Senator has done himself. One person, someone who was a "Veteran for Peace," attacked the Senator for standing up and saying the right things when he was younger... then running from them every day since. Kerry said he stands by all those statements today, as he did then, and made a strong defense: he's stood by a time line to get out of Iraq whether he had 5 people voting his way, 14, 48 or 51. Even when it wasn't conventional wisdom, he put his neck on the line and tried to do the right thing. He helped build that coalition to get to 51 - through his actions in the Senate as well as campaigning to get people like Jim Webb elected. He's right.

Obviously, like anyone, the Senator isn't perfect. Maybe during the Presidential election, he took the wrong direction on Iraq. He obviously regretted losing, because of how bad things have really turned out. At one point, when talking about a soldier's funeral he had recently attended, he was visibly upset. However, since losing, he's really been on the front lines arguing for sanity in that country: he, along with people like Senator Kennedy and Finegold, have been the ones pushing for a time line for years now.

So, I was a little taken aback when a few people in the crowd took his 'we need to leave the country in a responsible way' for meaning we need to keep troops in Iraq. The Senator was slightly ambiguous on that one point, but it had more to do with style than content. He should have just simply said, "We have more than 160,000 troops in Iraq. You can't just withdraw them at the snap of a finger, you need some kind of plan."

I'd imagine the people at this forum are just like the people attending these forums across the country, be they at Walnut Hill School or some random town in Kentucky with a population of 200. People want out of Iraq, Republicans and Democrats, and they want out soon - so soon that no words of "responsibility" or "negotiations" will coax them into slowing down.

What the Senator must do is find a way to target this anger into something useful: passion. Like Governor Patrick says, 'if you want something, come and get it.' The people want to leave Iraq - bad - and will work for it, if we have a leader. There are more than 40 Republican Senators who need to be convinced to leave Iraq and hundreds of millions of Americans who should be spearheading that effort. Senator Kerry has helped channel the efforts of an anti-war movement before, when he was a twenty something returning veteran. Now, a powerful Senator with a lifetime of experience, he needs to be that person again. No one is as positioned to be the leader in this country to get us out of Iraq, in a responsible way, than Senator Kerry. I call on him, as my Senator, to be that Leader once again.

More Fun With Jeff Jacoby

I was struggling to come up with a thesis for his latest column and the closest I could come to is this: Lawyers are bad, even though I'm one of them.

It's Raining Casinos and Slot Machines

It doesn't rain, it pours. As soon as there's one legal slot machine in the state of Massachusetts, there will be at least two full-scale casinos, one of them in Martha's Vineyard! Sheesh, if they were so worried about a few wind mills poking out of the ocean, miles and miles away... I wonder what they'll think about a massively massive resort? The Vineyard would never be the same.

(Here's some food for thought: where do you house the thousands of employees that casino would have in the summer? Where would all the tourists spend their money? At casino restaurants, or Vineyard restaurants?)

If our State Treasurer has his way, there will be even more - you know, we need to beat those Indian tribes to the punch! Casinos galore. What will Boston's strip be? That's one way to revitalize Downtown Crossing.

If Mitt were more prescient, he would have been against casino gambling, because it appears as if Massachusetts is about to become the Las Vegas of casino gambling. Yikes. Let's not win this jack pot.

Wanted: Decent Presidential Candidate

Reward: My political support (for whatever that counts).

Over and over again, all I keep hearing from everyone is how the Republicans have such a "weak field" and how the Democrats are so inherently stronger. Rubbish. The Republicans have a very bad war, but their candidates are not inherently weaker than our's - because our candidates have been greatly overrated. Name me the one candidate who's truly anti-war, pro-equality and doesn't mince words? Not a single candidate supports marriage equality and our current front-runner, Hillary Clinton, who is leading by wide margins in today's polls (which are as meaningful as my political support at this point), was as much of a war hawk as anyone in the Senate. She wants to leave Iraq as much as Senator Lieberman did; let's not make the same mistake as the people of Connecticut and think her pandering is any different than Holy Joe's. Hillary's plan calls to leave troops in Iraq, to 'train' and 'counteract terrorism.' That, my friends, would amount to over a hundred thousand of them in Iraq, permanently.

So, who do we turn to? Sadly, there just doesn't seem to be that much else. Looking for a candidate seems to be reminiscent of those commercials from that Christian charity organization, showing the family searching the garbage heaps for some hidden treasure - when the far greater likelihood is they will be met with useless stink. For a while, the Obama buzz was really buzzing. Now, it seems more like the buzzing noise are flies surrounding a political carcass. The man never won a tough election - and it shows.

However, I could deal with inept campaign moves - heck, sometimes they can be endearing. When John Edwards has screwed up, he kinda looks cute. 'Whoops, sorry guys, you caught me building a real, big house.' It sort of reminded me when my Governor, the very progressive and awesome Deval Patrick, was lambasted by his campaign opponent for building a nice house. That campaign opponent got big media excitement for calling it the "Taj Deval," while he was firmly whooped in the actual primary. Edwards's house may have gotten bad press, but anyone can relate to someone who grew up poor wanting a very, very nice house... so those words fall on deaf ears, especially when every man (and woman) running for President owns a very, very nice house.

The real problem here isn't stupid moves. Like I said, I could deal with a few stupid Obama mistakes. However, it's these kinds of mistakes that really get me. Here's a gist of what Americablog had to say,

I never thought I'd have to be calling out Barack Obama for race-baiting, but herewe are. And he's not race-baiting whites, or Asians, or even Latinos. No, the African-American Senator from Illinois is race-baiting dark-skinned people. (A bit like me race-baiting Mediterraneans.)

And sure enough, the Obama memo talks a good deal about outsourcing, though in ways that do seem to skirt the line of racism or at least xenophobia (calling her "HILLARY CLINTON (D-PUNJAB)") and noting that "Hillary Clinton Accepted Almost $60,000 In Contributions From Employees Of Cisco Systems, Which Laid Off American Workers to Hire Indian 'Techies.'" (I was a bit uncomfortable with the use of the word "Indian" over and over and over again in the memo.) But I still wasn't sure that we had moved from outsourcing to racism until we hit the paragraph about all the money and support that Hillary has received from "Indian Americans." Sure, the rest of the memo deals with how one of Hillary's top Indian-American supporters is allegedly a bit shady, and that's fair game, but the memo is about more than that. The memo is clearly trying to make the point that Hillary gets lots and lots of support from Indian-Americans, and apparently there's some kind of problem with that. I guess because their kin back home are stealing all of our good white jobs. (No word on whether they're sleeping with our women too.)

This is more than a stupid mistake. This is, well, revealing. I'm not even going to pin this on Obama himself, but even if this came from his campaign people it's disturbing. First, these are the guys he is hiring - that does not inspire confidence. Second, it truly invokes the win-at-all-cost-now attitude that Obama has created for himself during this entire campaign. He didn't want to create a large Senate record - so he's running now. He's afraid of, well, standing on the issues - and it shows. Not to mention the fact that he's convienantly the "anti-war" candidate without ever making so much as a peep before he decided to run for President. Just as bad, as a minority who's likely had to deal with racism at some point in his life, he refused to truly support glbt-equality by not standing up for gay marriage.

Clearly, Barack Obama doesn't want my support. However, John Edwards - a man who is bleeding his support in the polls - has little in the way of credentials and while solidly anti-war, just 'isn't there yet' on marriage equality. The real weird thing here is he supports the repeal of DOMA - the Defense of Marriage Act - which would effectively create marriage equality by mandating every state honor marriages from Massachusetts. Is it some sort of code that Edwards is using? I'll be honest, I don't want a President who speaks in tongues. If you fully support equality, don't shy away from it - embrace it.

Governor Bill Richardson's poll numbers are improving - and, in many ways, they should be. Out of all the candidates in this race, his credentials are by far the most impeccable. He's been the Ambassador to the United Nations - clearly someone who would make a great President-Diplomat and could do a lot to restore the leadership of this country around the world. In just the last few years, he's made deals in both Darfur and North Korea. The day Richardson would be elected, Iraq would be all but over. He's the popular Governor of New Mexico - and helped make a good deal of progress in that state. He was Bill Clinton's Secretary of Energy and has a decent track record on green issues.

Furthermore, he's wined and dined with the likes of the Human Rights Campaign, the highest-funded GLBT rights organization, but his record sadly doesn't match his rhetoric. When Richardson was a Congressman - did I mention he was a Congressman yet? - he voted for the most vile piece of homophobic legislation ever, DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA is the reason why people with a same-sex marriage or civil union can't, for example, receive federal benefits - like filing federal taxes together. It's why if one partner dies, when he or she worked for the Federal Government, the other won't receive that partner's pension, like any married couple would. It's why gay citizens can't bring their married immigrants to this country. The worst part of this whole thing is that Governor Richardson still sticks by that vote today.

So, who? Mike Gravel? Good on gay rights and Iraq, crazy as a bed-bug - he wants the freaking Flat Tax. He wants English as the Official Language. Don't even start about Kucinich: one of America's worst mayors ever, and while the fact that he believes weird mystical crap isn't really a problem, the fact that he'd turn that into a new Federal Department is a big one. Oh, and he was pro-life until the day he first ran for President - even a man with no chance panders.

There isn't a single candidate in this race that inspires me. There isn't a single candidate who's built a true netroot following, either. The candidates, this year, have divided everyone - none of the major blogs seem to be all that supportive of anyone. Barrack Obama could have so easily been that person, but his friendship with Joe Lieberman clearly made an impact - and not the good kind. If someone had a gun pointed to my head today, I'd vote for John Edwards. Let's just say, I'm proud to be in favor of gun control, because this race is really starting to scare me - hence, the Wanted Sign.

Cross posted at Progress Now

The Fight Is Not Done

Yes, let's all take a small breather. God knows, when I finally got home yesterday, I crashed for hours. I couldn't even pull together a legitimate post when I first got home from Boston. So, I took a breather. I slept in today, too, to continue that trend. Now, it's time to remind everyone that the job's not done yet. We've gone this far, now just a little further.

First, we need to finish the job in Massachusetts. As Chris Mason reminded us all recently, our state's hate crime laws do not include statutes for gender identity. Therefore, the people who allegedly committed a hate crime in Lowell earlier this month may not be charged with a hate crime: they were using anti-gay epithets, the victim self-identifies as a transgendered woman. The law is fuzzy for this non-lawyer, so a hate crime may still be applicable, but it will certainly complicate something that should be very simple.

At Beacon Hill, there are two other extremely important fixes this state must make to protect marriage equality. Both, coincidentally, have to do with 1913. Everyone from MassEquality to Susan Ryan-Vollmar at Bay Windows has told me 'we need to wait on reversing the 1913 law that bans out of state marriages, until after we get rid of the amendment.' I disagreed - I thought it would be the perfect vehicle to drive momentum on the issue after January's initial loss - but mostly bit my tongue.

Well, now we won. It's time to collect on 1913. More than 75% of legislators agree that marriage equality must be protected, yet it's still a separate-but-equal institution until the day any consenting adult can marry the person they love in Massachusetts, whether they're from here or not... and that's just not the case with 1913 around. Surely, 50%+1 of both houses would agree and can change it by the end of the summer? Heck, just think of the added tourism we could get from glbt visitors around the country wanting to tie the not?

1913 was a very, very bad year... not only do we have to sufffer the racist and homophobic 1913 law, but the constitution was amended in 1913 as well. What was the amendment? It added a new provision that allowed people to gather a certain set of signatures and push ballot amendments onto the legislature that only required 25% of legislative support over two consecutive years to reach voters for a final say in changing the constitution. If we don't repeal that amendment, 94 years too late, we'll be exactly where we were yesterday three years from now: fighting for our rights. I'd rather not see that, so it's time MassEquality and the like start arguing for constitutional changes that will actually protect rights instead of threaten them.

If we do those three things, Massachusetts will come a long way toward full equality. However, there's only so much progress we can make on Beacon Hill: the rest of the challenges we face comes from our federal government. First and foremost, DOMA, the law that prevents our marriages from being recognized in most other states and prevents gay partners from receiving federal benefits, has to go. There are two routes to take in destroying that vile piece of homophobic legislation - and I don't know which will be easier. For starters, because of the Full Faith and Credit clause in the US Constitution, DOMA is almost certainly unconstitutional. However, until 1913 is repealed, it will be hard to challenge DOMA in the court. Furthermore, with the judicial system swarmed by uber conservatives, it will be hard to get them to listen. The second method is just as difficult: repealing it in the legislative arena. Not only is it an uphill battle, but it faces an almost certain veto by President Bush or any Republican who wins the next election. Heck, if the Democratic landscape doesn't change and Hillary Clinton wins, can she be counted on signing a repeal to DOMA when her husband enacted the law to begin with - and she doesn't support marriage equality either?

DOMA must be stripped. It has to go. It's the only way to ever make marriage equality exist for everyone in this country. State Constitutions have stripped the rights to marry in 32 states, with another 17 banning it through basic law. To undo that damage, it would take decades of difficult, grassroots work. However, it may only take a few years to kill DOMA. Once DOMA is dead, at the very least people can get married in Massachusetts and have that marriage exist anywhere in this country - with all the rights and responsibilities that come along with it. Once the barrier is broken, too, surely more states will follow the Bay State's lead.

There are also many other national acts that must take place. Some of them will probably get done sooner rather than later, like protections against workplace discrimination and an expanded national hate crime law. However, now that Marty Meehan is soon-to-be gone, we need some champion of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I'd like to think Jamie Eldridge would become that guy if elected, but we need someone to be. Don't Ask Don't Tell is especially bad because there are already tens of thousands of gay people serving in the military; everyone says we need to honor the troops, yet those tens of thousands are told they have no honor if they come out with pride.

In Massachusetts, we need to do what we can here - because we can have a far greater say. Our efforts can have a direct, immediate impact to everyone who lives in the Commonwealth's borders. However, we also need to show how great marriage equality is - how the sky is not falling - because we have an entire country to convince on civil rights and we need as many allies as we can get. It will take a lot of hard work and many national coalitions to get DOMA and DADT removed. We have a part to play in that, but the best way we can help is to actively show how great equality is for everyone. We took a giant leap in that effort yesterday, by ensuring equality for years to come. Now, it's time to work toward finishing the job.

ConCon Pictures

So, yesterday's first liveblog was going to be "the early bird catches the worm," until I realized that I wasn't going to find any signal nearby. The following pictures, as I walked in to the rally in front of the State House at about 8:30, make it pretty easy to guess why I would have picked such a title.




Of course, there were a few people yesterday who deserve a lot of praise. Marc Solomon is one of them. This campaign was hard fought and, even if I've disagreed with them from time to time, the people at MassEquality were at the forefront.



And, of course, we all owe a great debt of gratitude to our Governor, Deval Patrick. I wonder what Joan Vennochi's next column will look like?

There were so many great signs I took photos of, I'll try to post more later. Needless to say, though, it was a fun day.

Hey, Jeff Jacoby: Neener Neener Neeener

I'm not above gloating. I've fought hard and getting to laugh at people like Jeff Jacoby almost makes all this hard work worth it.

Barring a new petition drive by supporters of traditional marriage, the battle over same-sex wedlock may be finished in Massachusetts. But today's vote on Beacon Hill is a political grenade waiting to detonate elsewhere. It is only a matter of time before a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts finds a federal judge prepared to rule that under the US Constitution, their marriage license must be granted ''full faith and credit'' by every other state. Same-sex marriage will be the law of the land.

Only a federal marriage amendment can keep that from happening. Today's vote may have settled the issue in Massachusetts. It has unsettled it everywhere else.

For once, Jeff Jacoby is right. It is inevitable. We are eventually going to have marriage equality throughout this entire country. When it happens, the sky won't fall - and Team Homophobia still won't have the votes for a federal marriage amendment. We're going to win, the writing is on the wall. We're going to win, whether Jeff Jacoby types like it or not. The future is a better America, where equality is an absolute reality.

At this point, I'm reminded of Governor Patrick's call to join with people on the other side... and let this issue be over. He told us to essentially mend fences, and he's right. That's why I'm only allowing myself to gloat for 12 more minutes (till midnight) before following his advice. After today, we have more work to do.

Today's Heros

Clearly, I can't list every hero we've had today - who knows what Representatives or citizen lobbyist pulled in those last two or three key votes - but we have to start with Deval Patrick, Sal DiMasi and even Therese Murray. Luckily, we never had to test out to what extent she'd be willing to go to in order to protect equality... because the three worked hard enough to beat it on the merits. Very cool.

However, I want to make special mention of these legislators, the people who changed their votes. It just goes to show, it's never too late to do the right thing. Marriage equality is protected - and it couldn't have been done without those nine votes. Thanks to the legislators who had the courage to do the right thing... and everyone else who helped them get there.

We Won!

Not that it's any big news by now, but we won.

First, let me apologize by saying that technology wasn't being my friend today - that's why I didn't get to live blog. I was having internet withdrawal, wanting to know what was going on - who was blogging - what everyone was writing... but, not $10 an hour's worth with bad connection and a 10 minute walk (the sprint loc down the street).

However, I have tons of pictures, comments and praise to give - the highlight of the day, aside from WINNING, has to be the homeless guy scolding Tom Lang for talking too much. It was hilarious.

We outworked them, had the just cause and won. All was as it should have been.

What a great day.

More to come, including lots of pictures.

Liveblogging the ConCon

I'm going to be out in the trenches today, liveblogging the amendment at the State House. How I'll do it is every few hours, I'm going to blog any big news I hear. Complete with my stinky digital camera, old fashioned (read: analogue) recorder and almost no sleep last night - I'm going to remember the days when I was a suedo-journalist working for my college paper - and comeback with a good story. If I get good quotes, look for them on LeftAhead.

For now, read my big post for the day. Let's hope our state legislature can do us proud and make sure honor and hope remain in the Commonwealth's Constitution.

As for the big news of the day, the Boston Globe had a few articles. I'm skipping to page 2 of Frank Phillips's big piece for the fun quotes (read: crazy).

Reilly, of the Massachusetts Family Institute, acknowledged that her group is up against a formidable array of Beacon Hill power brokers seeking to kill the proposal, but said that the optimism of gay marriage advocates may be unfounded.

"Rumors are spreading all over the place. I don't think anybody knows for sure, but we are feeling confident," Reilly said when asked if the votes opposing same-sex marriage were holding in face of the pressure. "Remember, Goliath was slain."

Suddenly the very small minority (glbt people) have become "Goliath," while Team Homophobia - which has passed marriage amendments in most states throughout the country - are laughably the Davids. Only, this David has a 25% threshold to defeat... which is kind of like gloating after beating a 5'8" Goliath. Notice how Reilly wants to figuratively "slay" us. Interesting use of vocabulary and metaphor.

Alright, it's 7am. People are already gathering there. I best be going. Let's all hope today is a very good day. More posts to come.

We Fight for our Rights

"Injustice anywhere is a a threat to justice everywhere."
~Martin Luther King, Jr.

If he were still alive, I don't know what side Martin Luther King Jr. would have come down on in the gay marriage debate, but his equally heroic wife supported marriage equality. I'd like to think he would have too.

One of the things studying Dr. King will teach anyone is that the fact that the fight for Civil Rights isn't easy - and the people who lead that fight are amongst the most courageous people that exist. It isn't easy to be told you're going to hell for being the way you were born. Because of that hate, many gay people never admit to their homosexuality at all, or do so only after years of mistakes and misfortune. They live half-lives and never reach their full potential as American citizens. Freedom - the very equality under the law we each enjoy today - is ingrained in all of us; without it, no one can ever be truly happy.

Yet, hundreds of millions of out and proud Americans, be they gay or allies who are truly 'pro-freedom,' already know that. Our collective chorus will be heard at the Hub of the Universe tomorrow, at the very steps of the State House on Beacon Hill. What will we be chanting? Hopefully, "Enough is enough." The threat that justice faces today must be met with a righteous fury; it's time that the people who want to take away the rights of others be gone. We've gone this far, Constitutional Convention - Part 17, no further.

Sadly, we may have a way to go. I'd like to think there are enough decent human beings on Beacon Hill to kill this at present - over 150 of them - but one can never quite tell. The only way legislators will learn better is by hearing from us that enough is enough. They need to know that Massachusetts has woken up to reality: anyone who doesn't support the full equality and civil rights of every citizen in this state has no claim to decency at all. We, as citizens who think equality is something to cherish, must do everything in our power to protect those rights - protect them from the cowards who are too afraid of their own inner demons to allow equality to exist.

That's what all of this is about: inner demons and personal discomfort. Same-sex marriage hurts no one, but the idea of gay sex is discomforting to some. The idea that people are different makes people boil over. 'How could you be different?!' They think. Apparently, they didn't get the memo: all of us have different brains and thus think differently. Yet, in most states in this country - and quite possibly in Massachusetts - stripping away some people's rights to preserve the piece of mind for others has become a normalized trend. Until the day that quoting people from Focus on the Family becomes akin to quoting members of the KKK, that won't change.

Despite the fact that same-sex marriage doesn't effect heterosexual families, we're here today. Despite the fact that it doesn't effect children (except to enhance the lives of children who are or will be living with same-sex parents), we're here today. Despite the fact that there is no legitimate reason to be against marriage equality at all, we are here today - once again - defending marriage equality for all.

We are here today, for the 17th time, because some people are uncomfortable with the lives millions of Americans live. We are here today because some not only want to force people to live differently, they're actually willing to change the constitution in order to enforce it. They'd strip away rights against people merely because of the way they were born - not unlike American policy toward African Americans for most of this nation's history.

Like generations of people who have stood up for the rights of the people in the past, today we are going to make sure that justice, hope and honor remain a part of this Commonwealth's Constitution. Today, we're going to say "enough is enough." Best of all, no matter what happens at the Constitutional Convention, our voices will be heard. We will ultimately win because our cause is just.

---

As the day goes by, I'll be liveblogging from Beacon Hill to let everyone know what's going on. For starters, read Wayne Woodlief's piece about the tough lobbying opponents of freedom are facing for their cowardly positions. If these soon-to-be candidates can't support marriage equality out of their sense of morality, perhaps they'll do so out of an equally strong sense of self-preservation: 7-1 letters sent to our legislators are pro-equality. The writing is, quite literally, on the wall.

Not So Fast, Joan Vennochi: You're Wrong on Marriage Equality

Joan Vennochi seems to go on the attack against Patrick today, instead of - I don't know - speaking in favor of equal rights.

It's good politics for Patrick. The gay community supported his candidacy and he needs continued support from his base, especially after a politically rocky start. But rhetoric and symbolism only go so far. Now Patrick needs something tangible in return for his efforts: enough votes to block the amendment. Postponement of a vote will be viewed as weakness and a setback for those who support same-sex marriage.

Maybe MassEquality wants a vote, but I've given up on Mass Equality as an effective organization to argue on behalf of my rights. If there aren't the votes to kill this thing now, then postponing it is obviously a better option than allowing it on the ballot. If Patrick can help swing people to postpone, kudos to him. It isn't weak or a loss, it's fighting for what's right.

However, since I like to be constructive in my treatment of the media, here's where I can agree:

Patrick and other same-sex marriage backers are running up against a strong argument from those who support the ban on same-sex marriage -- that the people have the right to vote on this controversial issue.

Obviously, citizens have to be able to vote for change on the constitution. You can't create a system of laws that can never be changed. What you can do is create a system of laws that are difficult to change - unlike Massachusetts's constitution. MassEquality's big mistake in their line of reasoning was to argue "no one should be able to vote," even if it's on "civil rights." What they should have said is "the bar is set far too low." In what world is 25% of the legislators enough to push an amendment forward? If MassEquality picked that line of argument, we wouldn't be here today: even conservative constituents can get behind that.

If MassEquality took that position, we'd have the cover to bury this whole thing procedurally. Then, we'd have to political will to do the right thing and revamp the constitutional process so it works. If we had a process that worked, there would have been no need to have decades of using procedure to block amendments.

Get rid of the 25% provision and turn it into the standard 50% + 1 to advance the amendment. Then, because we're talking about the Constitution here - Higher Law - it should take a 2/3rds majority to make change on the final ballot, whatever that ballot looks like (hopefully not in the form of a plebescite). Constitutions aren't supposed to be easy to change, the vast majority of people understand why. If MassEquality fought to change the constitution, not challenged the ability of the people to vote, then these "let the people vote" chants would have fallen on deaf ears... and this amendment would have been dead - procedurally - a long time ago. If Joan Vennochi, as a columnist, wants someone to blame (nothing gets readership like a juicy attack piece) - look no further than Marc Solomon.

Consider This a Warning for ConCon Voters

In the past year or so, we've had homophobic attacks in Lowell, New Bedford, UMASS Amherst and Worcester (just off the top of my head). Luckily, no one has died at any of those locations (though, the guy from New Bedford went on a national, murderous rampage while fleeing).

Could this happen in Massachusetts?

Two young men in Jackson County Indiana said they were so freaked out when 'propositioned' by Aaron Hall on April 12th, that they proceeded to beat the 100 pound, 5'4 man for hours, using their fists, boots, dragging him down a staircase while his head slammed into each step, and then throwing him in a ditch and leaving. Aaron managed to crawl out of the ditch and out into a nearby field, where he died, alone and naked.

Sadly, yes.

If we vote this amendment forward and put it on the ballot, with months of negative TV ads directed at glbt people, we will see more - not less - violence.

Will it take a murderous hate crime against a gay person to convince enough of the few, remaining anti-gay votes in the State House to vote the right way?

I'm not asking any legislator to suddenly like the idea of two men or two women sharing a bed together and getting married. I'm just asking that you protect one's right to do that. If we don't - if we continue to condone hatred toward gay people (and that's exactly what this kind of homophobic amendment does, whether supporters like it or not) we will see even more violence in the coming months. It's inevitable.

Why Jamie Eldridge is Going to Win

It isn't any secret that I've become a fan of Jamie Eldridge - but I just don't like him, I also think he's going to win. I think I have a pretty good track record of picking races, too (Deval Patrick in March '06, for starters). Here's why Jamie Eldridge is going to win:

• He doesn't need tons of cash. If he can win on public financing, with an opponent, he can beat the well-funded Niki Tsongas & Company.
• Despite several good candidates, the blogosphere has largely recognized Jamie Eldridge as the best, progressive candidate. I've noticed that in races where the blogs are divided (i.e. John Bonifaz's campaign, up until the very end), we don't make much of a difference. However, when the blogs become a chorus of support, it's either useful for the campaign or is reflective of a larger political base of excitement that's seeped into the blogs. Either way, the blogs are singing the praise of Jamie Eldridge and it will make a difference.
• His race is exciting. At the health care forum, I truly witnessed it. Lynne told me it was the same at the Iraq forum. If the progressives and grassroots in the 5th district have lined up behind Eldridge, watch out.
• In a Democracy for America poll, Eldridge's campaign took 70% of the support from DFA's district members. That's 70% out of all five candidates. The great importance of that is he'll probably get their official endorsement and support, but it's definitely a good gauge of his support among progressives too.
• Even Tsongas supporters have conceded to me her support is soft. Just read this guy and wonder if she's going to be the next Tom Reilly (albeit a helluva lot more likable).
• With 5 candidates, if all the progressives in the district line up for Eldridge, he wins.
• Furthermore, while he isn't from one of the larger cities in the district, he's the only person from his entire area and the people in the large cities are going to divide their support (i.e. Donoghue and Tsongas in Lowell).
• Primaries have low turnout, especially those that take place in the summer. Special elections tend to be even lower turnout. I wonder how high the turnout is going to be the day after Labor Day? Because that's when this election is taking place. Who's going to show up at the ballots during a Labor Day Special Election Primary? The people genuinely excited about their candidate - or the people who would normally vote based on name recognition or even region?
• Eldridge may not be that far down in the polls today, with an entire summer to make up whatever the minute difference is. I've heard several rumors that in Tsongas's internals, he's pulling a close second.

So there we go. Jamie Eldridge is going to win this thing - in this blogger's eyes. However, I will remind all primary voters to vote your heart. Whoever wins this primary will win this race, even if it's someone scary like Meceli (pro-life and anti-gay). So, like in almost any other primary in Massachusetts, I'm giving my annual reminder: don't vote based on any preconceived electability that may or may not be true, vote for the person you think will best serve the 5th Congressional District, Massachusetts and - most importantly of all - America.

Lynne Posts MA-05 Iraq War Forum!

They're over on her website, but on the way to it go to MyDD.com and hit recommend so we can get these videos seen by thousands. The kind of work Lynne just did to get this forum online is exactly the reason why the blogosphere is so great. There was no serious media coverage of the Iraq War forum by any of the large Boston papers; thanks to Lynne's hard work hundreds or even thousands of people will get to shine a light on the candidates' opinions and plans on the Iraq war and military in general.

Thanks Lynne!

My Fifth Congressional Endorsement

I just finished this week's LeftAhead podcast with Mike and Lynne, where we officially endorsed Jamie Eldridge for the Fifth Congressional Race. I pre-wrote my own reasons, which I'll post below, but I do want to say ahead of time that I will still report all facets of this race. Since the MSM isn't going to be covering this as it should, someone needs to.

Anyway, here's what I wrote.

Just like at the start of the Lt. Governor's primary race, I came out in initial favor of the 'anti-progressive' candidate. I liked Deb Goldberg for a long time then - and I liked Niki Tsongas for a long time now, too. Yet, I've never met a flirt I've ever been compatible with - and Niki Tsongas isn't going to be the first. I really like her, as a person. She certainly has a bit of a charm about her, but "charm" isn't what this race is about. It's about what's best for the Fifth Congressional District and the entire United States of America.

Barry Finegold, Donoghue and Meceli aren't the right choices either. All of them lack the clear and cohesive vision, backed by powerful, fearless - and progressive - leadership on the most important issues facing America. Will the country ever, for example, enact a true Universal Health System if candidates like Donoghue were elected throughout the country? She's already conceded defeat on a universal system, Republicans and DINOs have no reason to make a compromise look anything like reasonable if we've conceded everything from the start.

Don't get me wrong, this endorsement isn't a deduction: I haven't looked at each candidate and found them incompatible. Eldridge has come to be the clear choice of his own volition, proving to me in person just why voters in the fifth district ought to have him as their Representative. In fact, you can just look at his contrast with Donoghue to understand why. While Donoghue is talking about how we'll never get a Universal System and how we need to give in to the special interests to bring more coverage, Jamie Eldridge fought for a better system already. The resulting Mass Health Care bill isn't something that has come close to meeting his approval, but leadership like his helped bring us one giant leap forward to actual Universal coverage. He didn't go in there with a glass-half-full attitude and was able to bring about some sort of compromise that no one - at the time - thought possible. It's progress, something Eldridge has consistently strived for.

Matt Stoller of mydd.com had a post asking people who they thought was the best, most progressive, candidate in the Fifth Congressional District. Stoller is right in saying that this seems to be a golden opportunity to elect one of the few actual progressives in Congress. Jamie Eldridge is that person. He was first elected under the Massachusetts Clean Elections law, the only candidate to take advantage of that bill before Tom Finneran destroyed it. He's been a clear and strong leader on gay rights - including saying he'll be the man to replace Marty Meehan as a national voice for ending the horrible, discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Most importantly, he believes in the progressive movement - as the vast majority of my readers do, as evident by his policies and actions. He'll never be the Democrat to toe the DLC line. He'll never be a DINO. He'll never be weak and back down, like so many Democrats across the country just did by re-authorizing Bush's blurnder in Iraq, without any time lines. If Jamie Eldridge can stand up to Tom Finneran, he can stand up to any member of the DLC. If Fifth Congressional voters are smart - and I suspect they are, as evident by the excitement generated by Eldridge's grassroots campaign - they'll vote for for the best choice, Jamie Eldridge.

Hey Globe: Patrick Fumbled Nothing

The real silly thing about today's first Globe editorial is that the Globe answers its own question in the very same piece.

The Globe is angry about Ruth Kaplan's selection to the Massachusetts Board of Education, because she's anti-MCAS. They're confused, they say, because he's selected pro-MCAS people to look at Massachusetts's entire educational system. Is he for the MCAS, as he's said all along, or against it?

If there is a cogent philosophy here, it's well disguised.

Really? Interesting that the Globe finds it so baffling, when they included this very sentence in the same piece:

He says he wants balanced views on the board in the interest of healthy debate.

The "cogent philosophy" isn't well disguised. In fact, the philosophy is pretty damn well obvious; the Boston Globe just happens to disagree with it. However, back when I served at the State Student Advisory Council to the Board of Education as a chair of one of the committees and an executive member, I got to learn about just who sat on the Board of Ed. They were all gung-ho on charter schools, many of them coming from the Pioneer Institute. It goes without saying that MCAS was just swell with the entire lot; there weren't all too many disagreements. Sure, placing Ruth Kaplan on the Board of Ed could lead to "clashes," but that's pretty much exactly what the BoE needed: someone to clash with those types.

Next time, when the Globe just doesn't approve of a Patrick decision, they ought to have the spine to just come out and say it - instead of suggesting they just don't "get it." He's appointed Republicans and Democrats to all sorts of different committees - it's his shtick. He's far nicer than I'd be in his situation, but then again he understands that conservatives can have a few good ideas too - just like someone who's ardently against the MCAS may just have a few ideas on how to improve our state's educational system. It makes sense, whether the Globe editorial team likes it or not.