Different Paths

Isn't it wonderful that we now have the first happy couple ever married in Iowa? Of course, they had to go through hoops to get there, before there was a stay granted until appeal, but it's great nonetheless. I wonder what Senator Larry Craig thinks - about the life he could have lead. He could have been out and proud, instead of working against GLBT people across the country. Then, maybe again, he's probably so angry, bitter, deluded and hateful that he really thinks he's "never been" in the GLBT camp. Perhaps there's a close familiarity with toe-tapping and stall walls that Craig won't ever be able to pass up.

Prez Candidates Must Deal With Equality

Today must have been a scary day for Jonathan Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, et al.

A Polk County judge on Thursday struck down Iowa's law banning gay marriage. The ruling by Judge Robert Hanson concluded that the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and he ordered Polk County Recorder Julie Haggerty to issue marriage licenses to several gay couples.

I'm curious to see how the campaigns - all opposed to same-sex marriage - will react. Obviously, since this happened in Iowa, it's going to be on the radar. Hopefully, we'll see the Big 3 praise the courts and encourage the further spread of equality. Consider this one of the campaign's first big tests: it's one thing to say you're for equality, it's another thing to support it.

Casino Madness

Today's Globe article on the Wampanoags and their quest for a casino has a few paragraphs that are a real doozey, but first the key information from the article:

• Despite the fact that there's a mounting effort to change tribal leadership, Hendricks supporters "tried to present" a unified front.
• There's lots of he said, she said going on - on who are actually the "real" Mashpee Wampanoags. Tests of patriotism abound.
• The application to build a casino is going to the federal government today, which is one important step in getting acceptance.
• That process can take upwards of 18 months.
• Governor Patrick is the other major road block, but he's not expected to decide on it now until the "next month."

One wonders if troubles with their former leader, Glenn Marshall, pushed back Patrick's decision beyond Labor Day, which was the Governor's target date earlier in the summer. Nothing will set back a decision like finding out the leader sending you the proposal had a record - including being a convicted rapist. Yikes.

But anyway, I promised a few good quotes - and I'll deliver. Anyone know the definition of hypocrisy?

Hendricks, speaking on the edge of a grassy field outside the tribe's headquarters in Mashpee, said the allegations are untrue and called the members making the complaints "a group that want money and want power."

He said the tribe will continue the effort to build a casino in Middleborough and honor other agreements and plans the tribe had made under Glenn Marshall, who resigned as chairman last week amid disclosure that he embellished his war record and was a convicted rapist.

So, Hendricks accuses the group that seeks to unseat him as wanting "money and... power." Isn't that exactly what Hendricks wants himself? And all the Wampanoags who favor the casino? They aren't exactly supporting the construction of a soup kitchen here, folks. Let's not mince words - the Womponoag proponents of unseating Hendricks still want to build the casino, but they propose to toss out the current deal with developers because they think it a bad deal. They want an open bidding process - doesn't that actually make sense? Does anyone really trust the current leadership, when they're the one's who were likely handpicked by Glenn Marshall, the convicted rapist? Not to mention all the uninvestigated Jack Abramoff connections - they're just the inspiration of confidence in this whole deal. Opening up everything for a little breath of fresh air, giving time to find out all the important facts, can't be a bad decision.

So let's sum up this whole nightmare; the current Middleboro casino deal is

• Bad for the Commonwealth
• Bad for people who want to know exactly what they're building beforehand
• And Bad for the Wampanoags.

Is anyone really all that surprised?

Update: Very definately not the "Last of the Mohegans." Here's some more food for thought for our Governor as he makes his casino decision.

The Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority signed an exclusivity agreement with a developer who owns a 150 acre parcel of land near the Massachusetts Turnpike. The intention is to build a retail complex on the site that can also accommodate a casino if the Commonwealth of Massachusetts legalizes gaming.

In Celebration of My Family

Maybe this has nothing to do with politics at all, or maybe it's a case study in why somethings are important, but today is - as my Step Mother just reminded me in an email - my little sister's "last first day" of middle school, as well as my little brother's first day ever. She's finishing up her first day of 8th Grade, while he's almost done with the premier of Grade 4. Sometimes it's important to remember the reasons for why we care, so let's take a closer examination of my own.

That was then:

This is now:

So if anyone asks why it's important to make sure Massachusetts is in good hands - that we have good schools, parks, health care and even infrastructure - just show them a picture of your favorite nieces and nephews, or little brothers and sisters and especially your sons and daughters. It's the best rationale we can give them.

Computer Troubles

I own two computers, a desktop and a laptop. My desktop is one of those beloved, five year old, completely outmoded machines just dying to, well, die. But, I love it and will keep it until that sad day comes - even if my sound card doesn't work anymore and the hard drive's days are numbered. It's been with me for so long that it's almost like a pet or a personal project, as I've updated it countless times and had many happy experiments of doing open heart surgery, just without all the blood and stitches.

The depressing thing is the fact that my desktop is now my "good" computer. My laptop is but two years old, but a real piece of crap Dell. It wasn't a cheap one, either - when I bought it, I bought it for when I was living in D.C. and got one that was a heavy mammoth of super powers and wasted cash (not to mention a pain in my back). Now, for some odd reason, when I plug it in Mr. Crappy Dell doesn't want to charge. I've looked up the problem and, given Dell's tendencies to overheat, I think that whatever allowed the electrical wires to connect to the battery has officially gone to the fritz. In all likelihood, it melted like a Popsicle left outside in the heavy August doldrums. Whatever happened to the days when Dells were considered reliable? Now, they're more likely to overheat and burn a house down than work for more than two years.

Given the fact that I don't even know if I want to fix my laptop, which will probably cost close to two hundred dollars (my friend's computer had the same exact problem - and we had the same model Inspirons, purchased within a month of each other), my ability to post is going to be slightly diminished. No more Panera posts, where I take it to the road. No more posts at my own leisure, wherever I am in the house. Furthermore, there's little sense of using Youtube videos if I can't hear them - which is why I haven't used many as of late. All of these problems sound like minor complaints, but people would be amazed at how the trivial things in life can put a dent into post-counts. (Anyone else notice the decline in blogs on Ryan's Take this summer? It isn't just because of a slow news period).

In a few months, I may go and get a Mac, but that'll mean I actually have to go and get a real job first. Ha! In the meantime, I'll try to make do with what I have and keep a robust website, filled with lots of content and reasons to visit. I do love my readers! If anyone's had similar problems with Dell Inspiron laptops and has any heartening news/advice, I'd love to hear it, but I think it's about to be laid to rest. If only there were battery chargers I could get that were external; the computer itself is fine, it's just not charging. Oh well. So consider this a notice to bloggers - don't buy crappy Dells, or you'll live to regret it.

Talk About a Local Budget Crisis

Dartmouth, Ma has had to resort to shutting off their street lights to save money.

Town officials are pulling the plug on many of Dartmouth's streetlights to save money on electricity costs following last month's defeat of an $8.46 million Proposition 2½ override.

Select Board member Joseph Michaud said Monday the town spends $114,000 annually on streetlights and anticipates saving $85,000 by shutting off many of them over the next two weeks. Michael J. Gagne, the town's executive administrator, said the town has 1,700 streetlights, and between 1,100 and 1,200 will be turned off.

Turning off the lights is the latest in a series of economy measures Dartmouth is taking to deal with its budget crisis. The town has already closed the Gidley and Cushman elementary schools and last week sent out bills for the fee-based trash collection system it is implementing.

So, closing down two elementary schools and implementing a fee-based trash collection system hasn't eliminated the red in Dartmouth's budget. What else do they have to cut? Maybe they can go without a police force for a few weeks? And who needs a fire department, anyway?

Dartmouth may be alone in shutting off their street lights, but they're not alone in closing down schools, libraries and gutting town services. When will the state step in and help solve this state-wide epidemic? Yet, still DiMasi and Friends scoff at such measures of support as the Municipal Partnership Act.

Apparently, Keller Quoted Me in his Book

According to David, I'm one of the lucky winners who gets to be quoted in Jon Keller's upcoming novelization of Massachusetts politics. Hooray! One wonders what incredibly nefarious, communist, ebil left-wing thing I had to say to pull that off? People should have equal rights? Health care for all? So, will Keller's work of art be a complete and utter work of fiction? David seems to think so - and he was given an advance copy. Was Keller actually hoping for some favorable press?

Well, here's what a small portion of I-Don't-Think-So tastes like, courtesy of David Kravitz.

The book is an unwieldy amalgam of serious issues (e.g., waste and corruption on the Big Dig), Keller's personal pet peeves (is political correctness really responsible for crime in the cities?), and a smattering of right-wing talking points (remember the welfare queens?), all swirled together with little regard to what's a real problem and what just annoys Jon. Even more peculiar is Keller's willingness to ascribe just
about every one of these perceived problems to "liberals" -- even though, as I've already pointed out, many of the people Keller is complaining about are not, in fact, liberal. The tendency that I was concerned about by the time I got to page 11 -- conflating "Massachusetts Democrat" with "liberal" -- continues unabated throughout the book.

Peter Porcupine thinks I should read the book anyway - giving it the benefit of the doubt - but I say Keller's body of work is large enough as is to decide he's nothing but a pundit who'll say anything for attention and ratings. After all, he's an Important Man and what he says matters, just because he said it, dammit. But, I suppose now I'll be lured in with the prospect of catching just whatever he had to say about me and disproving it. But, hey, at least I know I'm past Ghandi's first stage - because I certainly wasn't ignored. But am I being laughed at - or is he using fighting words? I suppose I'll have to wait for the book, but in the end it doesn't matter - because we, as a progressive movement in Massachusetts, are already circling our prey for the win.

Some Food for Thought at Boston Restaurants

The Globe has a great article on safety violations at Boston restaurants. There's original, investigative reporting that provides a lot of food for thought.

A surprising number of Boston's high-end dining rooms -- including such noted venues as the Harvard Club on Commonwealth Avenue -- have been cited for serious health code violations of the sort that can cause food poisoning, according to a Globe review of city inspection reports for 2004, 2005, and 2006. Nearly half of the 50 restaurants whose records were examined had been flagged for major -- and sometimes chronic -- violations....

The inspectors demand that such practices cease immediately, and most of the time, compliance is swift. The city, however, keeps these findings out of the reach of consumers, despite a pledge seven years ago by Mayor Thomas M. Menino to make the information easily accessible. When the Globe asked for inspection reports on 47 restaurants, the Inspectional Services Department refused to fulfill the request unless the newspaper paid $2,039 in advance.

And my favorite part?

A Globe reporter signed up for the nationally accredited certification exam and passed it easily -- without attending a class or reviewing any of the reading material. The reporter, Jennifer Nelson, is deemed qualified to oversee food safety precautions in any restaurant. The credential would also allow her to become a municipal restaurant inspector.

There's a lot of information available, to be sure to check it out if you eat out in Boston.

PS: I think this blog calls for a new tag - real news. The Boston Globe should try it out more often.

Senator Kerry on Iraq

Senator Kerry's Position on Iraq

While it's important to be right on one of the biggest issues facing America today, sometimes having the right position isn't enough. I'm positively ecstatic to have a Senator I can vote for every six years who has stood up to get us home from a war we shouldn't have been in the first place - even if he didn't get that vote right the first time. Yet, the why behind Kerry's position isn't exactly inspiring. Basically, here's the gist of how he feels:

“The latest NIE on Iraq reinforces what we've known for a long time: Despite our troops’ sacrifice, Iraqi politicians are not taking the necessary steps to achieve national reconciliation, and only political progress can build a sustainable security in Iraq.”

I got this quote from a recent statement by his campaign sent to me in an email today, but it's a mantra he's been saying for months now: while our troops are fighting valiantly, the Iraqi people aren't doing their job. Their government isn't stepping up. Basically, Kerry's deduction is that it's Iraq's fault things are screwed up in that country, not America's, and they don't deserve our continued presence and sacrifice there.

Maybe Kerry is afraid of being smeared as blaming it on the troops, but he shouldn't worry so much: it certainly isn't our troops' fault; we lost this war well before they ever got there. No, the current status in Iraq is Neoconservative America's fault. It's the fault of everyone who voted for our current monster of a President. Most of all, we can lay the blame on an (a)pathetic media, Dick Cheney, President Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld, Joe Lieberman, Republican lapdogs in Congress, Democratic lapdogs in Congress, Karl Rove and every other Turd Blossom in and around the administration who helped bpush this thing. But not the Iraqi people.

Now, what Senator Kerry said is somewhat true: the Iraqi government isn't stepping up. They aren't doing their job. However, we've done everything in our power to set them up for failure. We:

• Dismantled the Baathists who were the only ones experienced in running Iraq.
• Sent home the Iraqi military after deposing Hussein, effectively firing a well armed and trained group of young, poor - and now angry - men.
• Bombed their infrastructure.
• Invited insurgents from across Iraq and the world to be there by invading an Arab country without just cause.
• Set up conditions where the population is fleeing, dying and starving.

What do we expect of a country that we just recently blew up to smithereens? Jeffersonian Democracy in six months? Hell, the U.S. Constitution wasn't signed until 1787 - 11 years after Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Furthermore, the founders didn't have guerrilla warfare to contend with; we were the insurgency. And our insurgency went home after major combat ended at Yorktown. Not to mention, our saviors - the dreaded French - left after they helped depose us from 1775's King George. Imagine what would have happened if the French "helped" and stayed for years? Our insurgency would have continued well past Yorktown. So, yes, it may be humanly possible for the Iraqi government to do more, but lots of things are possible that have yet to come true - even when bombs aren't getting in the way of the path toward accomplishment.

So, Senator Kerry is wrong: it isn't Iraq's fault. But, he's still right, right? He's still calling for us to get out of Iraq, after all. If only that were enough. Sometimes it may not matter how a politician comes to a position so long as he or she gets there, but Iraq isn't one of those occasions. Arguing to get out of Iraq alone isn't going to solve the problem, not when the Iraqi people are being vilified in the process. Saying it's Iraq's fault only continues to set that country up for failure, ignoring the actual problems Iraq faces.

Furthermore, even if the American people buy that message and leave Iraq for those reasons, we'll only serve to further hinder that country's reconstruction, after their civil war is over, through a new-found ignorance. If Iraqis are the evil terrorists Republicans paint them as and the incompetent, greedy and violent neanderthals Democratic leaders seem to be implying, Iraqis will never get the help they need from an American public that owes a great debt to that country. We can't help Iraqis militarily, that only serves to stir up the insurgency, but we can aid and support them in other ways (the ways their populace wants, like food) - but only if our politicians ultimately fail in painting them with villainous strokes. If Iraqis are the villains, Iraqi citizens will get about as much support as we're giving to innocent civilians in the Gaza strip right now.

Senator Kerry is sensible and understands that the process of leaving Iraq will take a long time. He says, during that time span, we need to be doing the diplomacy the Bush administration hasn't done. Certainly, Kerry is right all the way there. But, why do we need to send our troops home? Because the Iraqi government just won't do their jobs until they understand we're leaving, according to Kerry. Maybe he's right, but his opinion is far from conclusive. Even if the Iraqi parliament is petty and incompetent, surely they already understand America won't be there forever and that things can't continue in Iraq as they are now. Furthermore, the Iraqi parliament as a whole is not responsible - and cannot stop - the insurgency that targets America today. Primarily blaming the Iraqi government is insulting to the Iraqi people. Instead of blaming Iraq, here's what Senator Kerry should be arguing for instead:

• We need to start leaving now, because it takes months to safely pull out over 160,000 Americans.
• Iraq - and only Iraq - has the right and ability to decide the fate of their country.

If he does those two things, he'll show that he's not only right on Iraq, but he's a voice of clarity that is capable of truly leading on this issue. He'll be a voice that won't hurt Iraq - or America - down the road. He'll be a voice we desperately need in D.C. today.

Friday's Musings: Ma-05, Ma-05, Ma-05

Here's some food for thought:

• Today is August 24th, the MA-05 primary is on September 4th. That means activists only have ten days to convince voters before the actual primary that their candidate deserves to win. Then, they don't have one day to rest - because that's when it's time to get out the vote.
• There are a lot of good candidates in the MA-05 race, but only one great one: Jamie Eldridge. He's the only one who stood up and declared he wouldn't vote to fund the war in Iraq. He's the only one who will boldly support Health Care for All. He's running the exact kind of campaign we want candidates to run, pandering not to corporate interests, but the people.
• BMG saw the light and has endorsed Jamie Eldridge. Now, the progressive netroots have overwhelmingly called for Jamie's victory.
• The most important aspect of this race is we have a golden chance here to actually elect a progressive. Whoever wins this primary will almost certainly win the general election - and serve for years to come. If we get a progressive in office, especially one like Jamie, who's proven to have the cajones to stand up to tough leaders within our own party before (Tom Finneran), we'll have a loud voice demanding action on Iraq and health care for all at the national level - not someone who will turn mute or give in, but will actually make demands and show true leadership.
• Even though Donoghue, Finegold and Tsongas aren't "bad" candidates or people, they won't be the change we want. We can't lose this golden opportunity because of a special surname. This election represents a chance to affect change in the entire country, Fifth Congressional District voters ought to feel as though its their duty to elect the type of person that would advocate for that kind change that could actually make America better.

The Fake News Tag

Fake news, as a term perhaps unique to me (and a popular tag on this website), is perhaps ambiguous. To some, it may mean that a story is wholly untrue or dishonest. However, there exists a more powerful definition. In a day and age when "news" is considered the latest gossip on TomKat's relationship, whether or not they share a bedroom or conceived little Suri with a Turkey Baster, it's time to create some sort of label that correctly identifies these stories as what they are - not real news, but fake. Not even soft news - a term long used - can properly describe what's going on here when suddenly we're devoting editorial space on such subjects as the lives of faraway football players and whether or not they should remain employed. Heck, I even like soft news - but most of the stuff that's being reported today doesn't even qualify as that. More importantly, fake news extends way beyond the annals of the celebrity. It can also come to describe anything from the impolitic politics to even addressing what could be newsworthy, without any of the important caveats that turn it into something remotely like real news.

For more on what I mean by turning the noteworthy into news, let's take a look at two different animal rights pieces that have made their way onto the news scene as of late. The first is former Governor Romney's doggy day care and the second being Michael Vick's blatant case of animal torture. As most readers know by now, Mitt Romney went on a family trip to Canada carrying his dog on the top of his station wagon. While the Romneys claim the dog loved the kennel atop the car, the dog shat itself inside its kennel, which any dog lover would know dogs almost never do. Only under extreme duress will a dog relieve itself in a kennel. Then, after hosing down the victim and the kennel, the Romneys again put the dog atop the car and drove off at high speeds toward their destination. Vick, on the other hand, lead a dog-fighting ring and routinely tortured the underperforming canines, on top of the equally gross act of actually pitting dog against dog as a means of entertaining the masses.

While what Vick did is far worse, the Globe editorial itself is a far less worthy piece than most of the criticism Mitt Romney received. For starters, while Michael Vick is a private citizen playing the game of Football, Mitt Romney is running for President. Sure, as a professional athlete who's voluntarily posed for press and pushed his brand name as much as possible, Vick is entitled to be publicly ridiculed and is in fact somewhat newsworthy - but we're not talking about a soft news story here, we're talking about editorial content. Furthermore, the rhetoric on Romney typically permeated beyond the man and tackled larger questions surrounding the story: people in large were making the point that someone who could be so cruel to animals may not be the best person to be the leader of the free world. The Vick editorial, on the other hand, focused on the man himself and not any of the greater issues, such as animal rights or what Vick represented to sports and those who idolized him. Consider what Joe said in my blog that immediately preceded this one:

He's a cultural icon. Thousands of little kids look up to him, and are finding out that the guy they wanted to be is a dog torturer. The implications of this disgusting individual returning to Football is the equivalent to Mark Foley going back to Congress.

If the Globe had came to the story with that angle, it wouldn't be "fake news," as I tag it on this website. Instead, since the content doesn't extend to any larger issues, it isn't real news, at least in the context of what makes for appropriate editorial content. Just because something may actually be true - such as Vick being an animal torturer - doesn't mean that in and of itself is worthy of an editorial. As Joe eloquently describes in the quote above, Vick's case certainly could make for a good editorial - even beyond the cameras of ESPN - but those important issues aren't the ones the Globe tackled. Instead, it focused on an issue that isn't ever likely to actually be an issue (whether or not Vick should play again) and certainly won't be an issue that arises for years to come (he won't play for at least this year, as well as the time he's in prison and time after that) - an odd choice for the editorial section of a large newspaper, especially one that is so far removed from where Vick either lived or played.

As a society, if we want a strong willed and critical Forth Estate, we have to demand it. Calling something fake, even if there's a glimmer of truth in it, is a direct and highly critical attack which may just be enough to wake up the Lulled Estate. It immediately rejects the premises of these lazy articles and, hopefully (if enough people catch on), forces the powers that be to actually address the issue. Obviously, my definition of fake news extends way beyond the story I've written about today - and even beyond the mainstream media. Just like we need to reject fake news, demanding instead pieces that are both thoughtful and critical (even in our soft news), we need to object to the fake rationals of corrupt politicians, weak opposition and any other number of issues. However, to even think about doing any of that, we need to accept the pretense that what is real can also be fake if it serves no other purpose than to confuse, subjugate, perfectly placate or otherwise do no good for those who's attention such pieces reach.

A Look at the Editorial Page

No editorial page can ever be perfect, including the Boston Globe. In many ways the Globe has a decent set up: a few editorials and letters to the left, a few opinion pieces to the right. It works, like it does in most newspapers across the country. However, the content of the editorial page is obviously paramount. Today's Michael Vick piece doesn't belong there. Every editorial ought to be related either to a special need or a greater cause - neither of which a few hundred words on Michael Vick accomplishes.

Michael Vick's actions were heinous and he'll see at least some jail time for what he did. However, his case is more personal than anything else. As the Globe states in their very own editorial, "Vick's crime does not threaten the integrity of professional football, unlike the fixing of the 1919 World Series by eight Chicago White Sox players." Why spend precious newspaper inches on a particular person when his case only impacts him? Even if what Vick did speaks to a greater cause - animal rights, a lack of a respect for the law by professional athletes, etc. - the Globe didn't make that case. Instead, we get an editorial about how Michael Vick is a bad, bad person - but not bad enough to be banned from the NFL forever. Gee, maybe the Globe should have an editorial on the mistakes of everyone in life?

What the Globe should focus more on are the issues that actually matter. Here are some suggestions: there are specific bridges and tunnels in the Boston area that are in a terrible state. While the Globe's editorial staff have talked about some of them, we need to keep attention focused on fixing them. Why not a weekly editorial report on the status of a particular bridge or what's being done to fix them? Obviously, crime in Boston is getting out of control - how are Boston cops and leaders, whether elected or hired, doing in their jobs to route out that violence? Furthermore, there's a congressional race in Massachusetts that the Globe has barely spent time mentioning - why not try to educate the Globe's readers on the specifics of that race and not just succeed the race to the front runner, when people don't know all the facts?

These stories represent particular needs and often even systematic problems across Massachusetts. Until they're fixed, the Globe's editorial staff should sound like a broken record. Vick's case doesn't address any real problems - accept his own. He's not a politician; knowing about Vick won't educate voters. At the very least, there must be more important issues facing Greater Boston readers than Michael Vick.

Joan Vennochi: Democrats Worse Than Sox Fans

That's pretty much the thesis of today's Vennochi column.

Republicans think positive and go negative -- especially against Democrats.

Meanwhile, Democrats fret about electability. They should stop worrying about it, and make the real case for change that Bush is handing them, complete with footnotes and bibliography, from Iraq to Katrina, from Vice President Dick Cheney to Attorney General Gonzales. The GOP presidential candidates can't separate themselves from that sorry brief -- unless the Democrats let them.

And they just might.

I would just like to add one key point: While I don't know how many Democrats this sort of thing applies to, it applies the most to elite party leaders. They're the ones who are actually afraid of winning. Of course, "leader" is something that can be debated - are they really leaders, or did they just find themselves at the top? The answer matters because these so-called leaders, as Joan Vennochi points out, tend to have the leadership qualities of a gerbil or a rat.

Look at the difference in how each party's big shots go about their business.

Bob Shrum leaves the consulting business to write a book about Democrats he advised on the presidential campaign trail; in the process, he discloses confidential information that makes his fellow Democrats look as craven as possible. Karl Rove is essentially chased from his White House policy berth. On the way out, he lobs bombs, not at Republicans, but at exactly whom you would expect him to go after: Clinton. Rove called her "fatally flawed," but Democrats beat him to it.

Vennochi, today, makes a great point. Wouldn't it have been nice if Shrum, instead of writing a book trying implicate John Kerry, Al Gore, John Edwards and every other campaign he worked on and subsequently lost, tried to implicate Karl Rove and the Republicans who used dirty tricks to hoodwink a country? After all, there's a lot to talk about: illegal phone calls in New Hampshire, Presidents who wouldn't condemn hate groups like the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," and so many others. Instead, we have a guy who cashed in and would say anything to get elected sell some books - including trash talking some of our current candidates for President.

It's well past time for Americans to get over this question of "electability." Unless a candidate has a criminal past, it's almost impossible to decide which candidate in the primary can beat the other party's eventual - and unknown - nominee. Furthermore, we need to be the party that exudes confidence and says what we believe in. We need to return to being the party of the people, not worrying about what Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh will lob at us. We need to be the party that focuses on the rest of the American people. We need to be New Deal Democrats, not quasi-Republicans, running to the right and afraid of taking any position of strength and character. We need to be the party of vision and not the one who gives in to Mr. 26%.

The people will come to us if we show real leadership, knowing that we want to make America a better place for everyone. We can and we will win. Why? We believe something that goes against the Republican mantra: we are not a people who are all out for themselves. We're in this together and can create a country that is not only better for you and me, but better for everyone. Convince the American people of that and Republicans have no chance, regardless of who wins the nominations.

Sustaining the Blogosphere

The Road to Joy

As anyone who reads this blog probably knows by now, bloggers and those who read them are about as far removed from the description of D.C.'s pundits as P-Town is from San Diego. The closest connection between the set of two is the fact that Route Six links both places - and I am the rare exception of a video-game playing, twenty-something blogger living with his mother. The reality is I'm about ten years younger than the next youngest Bay State blogger that I know of - though you'd never know that by looking at her pretty complexion, completely devoid of the typical signs of aging that comes with one's 30s.

In fact, Lynne is the inspiring force of this particular blog about blogging. Despite her foray into the world of blogging, where she spends so much time, and the fact that the incentives for bloggers are paltry at best (an audience of some, civic pride?), she's in the process of putting on the finishing touches to a house she just bought with Mr. Lynne. The important point is the funds that went into buying that house certainly didn't come from LeftinLowell, despite its success as a local blog and the time Lynne puts into it daily, which is very indicative of the precarious nature of being a regular person in the blogosphere: it's accessible only to some and doesn't lend itself well to people who'd like to be committed to its success as a newly developing institution in America, imperative to our society today - yet have other, even more important, time constraints.

One of the reasons why most pundits are wrong and bloggers (and those who read them) tend to be in their 30s to 50s is the fact that it takes so much time and energy to participate that younger people - living on raman and college loans - can't join in the fun. Heck, as Jane Hamsher notes, that's one reason why less women engage in the blogosphere than men - after they get home from work, women often end up doing a majority of the house work and tending to the tykes. It's no different for twenty somethings: they're either poor-as-all-hell college students, trying to finish their papers, or they're even poorer, trying to pay off their college loans, credit card debts they were undoubtedly preyed into spending while desperately broke in college - and the thousands a year it costs to rent on a pay check that looks more like a stipend than respectable salary for a hard day's work. The things this society asks certain groups of people to do makes it almost impossible for them to be fully engaged citizens - participating in the netroots or otherwise.

For the netroots to ever become a sustainable institution, where people can work on issues long enough to develop the respect necessary to make an impact, blogs have to become a place where everyone is truly welcome. It has to become a place where people are beckoned by more than their own pride and desire to be active Americans, because if the blogs don't become that place eventually the economic realities of society will take over for almost every person - meaning we'll lose our most talented writers and thinkers and the trust they've accumulated. That could come in the form of a local Lowell blogger who may eventually find an expensive need for one of those empty rooms in her new house, or a 20 something blogger who just got a new job and doesn't have the same kind of time to invest on the important issues facing his home state. Both, for all we know, could happen sooner rather than later.

There are a lot of forms such beckoning could take. In fact, we've already seen a few either in blogging or similar areas: think tanks, more mainstream journalism, funds from advertisements or employment in the same sector of the actual blog (creating additional incentive to write daily). Time Magazine's hiring of Ms. Wonkette was an early signal of how a popular blogger could enter into the realm where she could actually continue to blog as a profession. Illustrative of how important her continued voice is, she was one of the key people to spread Mitt's dog story beyond the pages of the Boston Globe. Campaigns can become another source for bloggers to branch out; many have already hired bloggers in various roles - from consultants to organizers to actual campaign bloggers. There's employment opportunities to allow the blogosphere's best to stay in the community, but not nearly enough.

The hiring of Ms.-Wonkette-calibre bloggers is only going to become more common, but what about bloggers who, instead of writing about the inanity that goes on, are more focused on actual issues (and probably less frequently read)? To get more serious analysis and less Daily-Show-esque blogs, the netroots needs to develop institutions that are like think tanks. We're going to have to create nonprofits that raise funds through private contributors interested in developing important thought in those particular areas. There could be think tank blogs that focus on media criticism, or important state blogs focusing on issues that not even local papers tend to work on. The think tanks could extend beyond blogging, too, becoming a place to link what's written online with active community engagement - sort of like Moveon.org, but local.

This kind of effort would be crucial to society all over, but wouldn't be profitable enough for newspapers and magazines to take a leap of faith. Yet, the fact that certain issues aren't profitable doesn't mean they're any less imperative for society than the money-sucking public infrastructure we all gladly use every day (wait a minute, we're neglecting that, too). What bloggers unearth reverberates throughout society, changing the discourse on everything from the Bush administration's shenanigans to conventional wisdom. Subsequently, without institutions to provide funding for serious research and journalistic integrity that rarely exists at the New York Times today, the blogosphere will never reach its crescendo.

Sadly, knowing how to maintain the netroots hasn't brought us any closer to actually doing it. It's a matter of organizing and developing the will, something we're not experts at yet. It's also a matter of depending on activists that don't write every day; writing sucks away the time that's necessary to fundraise and creatively create. Yet, it's no small order to organize and still participate in some form, making that a full time job in and of itself. Certainly, the answer isn't in online advertising: despite the fact that tens of thousands of people have viewed Ryan's Take, Google Ads has generated $99.80 since I joined up late in 2006. It may just pay for all the gas I've spent covering events across the state, but not much else. Online ads fostered the biggest blogs, fully establishing our community, but it will never bring issue-oriented and local blogs to a place of sustainability (unless there's significant change that's unlikely to come from the likes of Google). Private institutions and campaigns help, but aren't the answer either. They filter out what makes the blogosphere unique: the abrasiveness that's engaged a nation and unearthed untold numbers of important stories isn't welcome in Conventional Wisdom Land.

Clearly, developing netroot think tanks is the only way to sustain research on specific topics, especially at state levels, and to push our goals from sea to shining sea. It's the only way to allow activists and bloggers alike to reach for the top and truly make the most of our potential, creating a better America from the ground up. All of these tools, especially additional organizations, can allow the netroots to grow and truly change the country. Otherwise, the constraints of real life will eventually force people to give up on the netroots - stunting a budding movement in its tracks.

It's Time to Take Out a Second Mortgage

If anyone read today's big story in the Boston Globe, it isn't one that inspires a whole lot of confidence in a project few had confidence in anyway. Let's take a look at the major problems a review of the Big Dig project has revealed:

• Warped plates (that hold the suspension cables in place) on the Zakim bridge. The state says it isn't a problem, the feds disagree. Anyone want a third opinion?
  


• The Ted Williams Tunnel's ceiling is still held up by epoxy, which can melt from extreme heat. The current national standard for tunnels is to withstand a fire coming from a truck, but not two trucks. Big Dig officials complain that a stricter standard should apply nationally, not just in Massachusetts. They're right, of course, but that won't help if two trucks collide and burn, heading for the airport.
  


• Mitt Romney's "stem-to-stern" review was rushed and can't be trusted. Gee, who'd a thought?
  


• Though this isn't exactly a part of the Big Dig, the ceilings in the Sumner tunnel is "decaying." Yikes.
  

So, add this list to the crumbling Longfellow Bridge and Storrow Drive tunnels as well as dozens of other disasters-waiting-to-happen across Massachusetts's aging ancient infrastructure... and I don't see what choice we have other than to take a big gulp and spend the billions it takes to fix all this stuff. Sure, even my kids that won't exist for years may be paying for some of it, but I'm sure they'd rather a little debt than the scary alternatives.

Verizon's Woes

My gosh, even though they're taxed at a rate that would leave a deeply impoverished family jealous, Verizon just isn't raking in enough dough.

Verizon Communications Inc. is trying to shed requirements that the telecom giant give its competitors network access at reduced rates in Greater Boston and other markets on the Eastern Seaboard.... "The effect of granting these positions would be to usurp congressionally enacted statutes in a sweeping manner," US Representative Edward Markey said at an FCC oversight hearing last month. "I have great concerns about the effect on competition and consumers that these petitions pose."

So, let's tally this up. Even though cable companies have to pay property taxes on the lines they co-own, along with Verizon, the giant phone company doesn't. That would invade too steeply into their profit margin, so we can't let towns collect some fair property taxes - even though towns across the state are closing schools down and struggling to meet the bottom line. It's time to just say no to these huge corporations - they have too many breaks, while the rest of society struggles to get by. Enough is enough.

Jon Keller's Answer

Jon Keller posted a blog today on the similarities between Senator Obama and Governor Patrick.

What are the chances that two late-wave baby-boomer liberals – both trailblazing a kind of new-age political spin that markets vague policy nostrums by casting themselves as calming antidotes to boom-era strife – would use the very same term to dismiss effective criticism of their wobbly performances? We knew these two were friends and allies. Could it be they talk more than we know?

The answer? Who cares. Every politician has friends and allies - does anyone really care if they take advice, especially when the advice isn't coming from a paid lobbyist? Is it objectionable that Patrick and Obama would talk about certain common problems they have faced thus far? Heck, at the very least we know that's one less paid D.C. consultant giving Obama bad advice.

Finally, I hate to even ask this question, but if we were talking about two different politicians, especially from the other party, would we even be having this discussion right now? Heck, if Hillary gets Bill - no questions asked - at least Obama should be able to have Governor Patrick, if Patrick ends up choosing to back him.

Lunch is On Mitt

It's funny how Mitt was the one complaining loudest about John Edwards's $400 haircut, because Mitt Romney could afford a lot of those. I seem to remember an article in the Globe from a while back, reporting the Romney net worth at about 26 million. People were a little surprised at how small that was - but no worries, everyone, it's really closer to 260 million. So, no 'man of the people' moments for Mr. Romney, please, he has a few $300 make-up consultations he needs to attend. Hopefully Willard won't buy the cheap stuff - if he wears it every day, it'll do a number on his face - which seems to be the second most important asset he has, next to his $250 million.

Candidates for president were supposed to report their holdings by May 15, but Romney requested 90 days of extra time, the maximum permissible extension.

The poor guy Romneys must have needed the 90 extra days just to figure out what all of their assets were - it's not as if there aren't enough of them, especially directed in foreign companies.

Tuesday's LeftAhead: Civil Rights, Tom Lang and the Future

This Tuesday, on LeftAhead, Mike, Lynne and I have invited Tom Lang - of Knowthyneighbor.org - on to discuss where we're at on civil rights within Massachusetts and elsewhere. We'll also hit up on last week's LOGO/HRC debate, what candidates are more or less likely to gut or get rid of DOMA and what other changes need to be made federally before gay citizens can be tier 1 citizens. Tom certainly knows a lot of the ins and outs on Beacon Hill and elsewhere, so expect a lively show for the duration. Tune in starting Tuesday, where you can catch us live at 2:30 or listen in at any point after.

MassEquality Can't Be Done

I'm a little late in getting to this, but sadly 1913 wasn't included in Bay Window's July 25th article on where MassEquality is going. In fact, it almost sounds as if Marc Solomon thinks we're done here:

“MassEquality is such a huge effort that the only way to really capture what it can be, what it should be and whether it should be, is to have a serious process,” said Solomon.

In that vein, Solomon's hired a consultant to study where MassEquality should go or even if the organization should still exist. They didn't need to hire anyone, I could have told them what to do for free. As MassEquality claims to be an organization that's looking out for the interest of all equality in Massachusetts, one would think there's still a lot of work to do yet. So far, it seems like MassEquality's only focused on bringing its methods to other states and helping those who switched their votes at the ConCon - both worthy efforts. However, as was noted in the article, Massachusetts has a long way to go on transgendered rights - and we need a visible and loud campaign to help get their protections passed now. Furthermore, how can MassEquality not even be talking about 1913 in such an article? We need to raise hell; marriage equality doesn't exist until 1913 is wiped off the books.

Marc Solomon, MassEquality and everyone who participated in protecting marriage equality did a tremendous job this summer. We cannot and will not forget all of their efforts. Furthermore, we cannot and will not blame them for being tired of fighting the good fight; it's been a long journey. However, equal rights is a battle of attrition: we will lose if we don't keep going. With our detractors on the run, we are so close to obtaining all of the equalities we've realized, as a society, are needed in this day and age. However, without some key institutional support, such as that of MassEquality, realizing true equality will take much longer than necessary. If the leaders of MassEquality are unwilling to keep up the fight - or unwilling to focus on the dire changes Massachusetts must make - other people are ready to take over. Just hand over the keys.

Beat the Press or Hug the Press?

Continuing on my beating of the drums on Beat the Press, I wrote a BMG Diary to better bash the banal Emily Rooney. Burrowed back in the Greater Boston press, she barely takes on her best buddies in the Boston media. The self love Rooney and the media have for each other is self evident, just watch the show each Friday. Mutual masturbation is how I put it, but it's also unrelentingly vapid - it's hard to watch the dimly lit stage with the dimly lit panel, a metaphor for the actual content of the show. There's no light shining on any of the important issues of the day on WGBH every Friday.

Perhaps this wouldn't bother me, except for the fact that we have few real, profession media critics in this town with any kind of a sizable platform. WGHB/PBS provides the perfect place for a city-wide ombudsman. Free from the tarnish of worrying about corporate sponsors, a show like Beat the Press could have free range to focus on the truly important issues instead of the quickly-swirling blades of tv helicopters and doplar radar. Talking about the use of sources at Boston papers or the lack of important, good coverage in state campaigns isn't something you're going to get at Beat the Press. Maybe that's an exclusive service of LeftAhead, which will Beat the Press Beating any day of the week (we choose Tuesdays).

Emily Rooney's Beating of the Press

For your own protection.

The self-love evident on Emily Rooney's Beat the Press tonight was really one for the ages - it was as if she and her panel were mutually masturbating basking in the glory of her media, cameras and unwarranted, yet dim, spotlight. The show's first segment focused on all the Democratic Presidential debates as of late, especially the HRC/LOGO presidential forum. Frantically stroking her ego, she went up and down the panel complaining there weren't any mainstream media institutions involved (apparently, a national cable station isn't mainstream enough), so the media wouldn't cover it. Apparently, in true blame-the-victim fashion, it's Logo's fault the media will ignore the gay network. Then, before the climax, she complains that a lack of a connection to a paper like the Globe and Herald hurt it. Honey, no one cares about either of our paper's in LA, D.C. or Houston. Heck, I don't know if anyone cares outside the WGBH Greater Boston studio. Oh, and pooh-pooh on HRC for letting someone outside the media ask questions, even if Melissa Ethridge asked the only one that made it to the mainstream press (leading to Bill Richardson's meltdown).

Not only that, but before and after Rooney went on her ignorant rampage against such pesky things as more access to candidates, she admitted she didn't even see the debate. You see, she flipped through, but could not find, Logo on her "800 channels." I guess logoonline.com was a bit tricky for her old, wiley ways.

Of course, none of this should be shocking to those who watch Beat the Press (just me?). The panel rarely, if ever, seems to actually criticize the media. Don't get me wrong, they chat about whether or not stations should use helicopters or if there are too many debates - but you'd think a local WGBH production would actually focus on the nuts-and-bolts of what's wrong with particular localized stories. No, we get the PBS version of Cable News: it may not be on Lindsey Lohan, but it really isn't any more informative. They'll look at the things you can figure out on your own and often focus on the issues that are already front and center (or ones that aren't even relevant), instead of attending to the show's purpose of analyzing Greater Boston's media (why else bring on local experts?). Given the fact that all of the panel members are a part of the Greater Boston social media network, I guess no one should be surprised - can't hurt any of our friends' feelings, you know.

Yesterday's show was a case in point. One of the panel members was talking about how he detested these forums because they're all 30 second blurbs. However, the HRC debate was anything but a back and forth blurb-fest: each candidate spoke for 15 minutes, separate from the other candidates. Logo's debate was unique and - in my opinion - rather refreshing for a Presidential forum. It gave a spotlight for rare nuance and the freedom to posit thoughts without fear of Hillary instantly putting words in your mouth before they could be properly explained. Instead of rewarding who can talk the loudest and lie the most, HRC's debate actually allowed for some of the candidates' real thoughts to peek out.

Except, no one on yesterday's Beat the Press mentioned just how HRC's debate was set up (in all likelihood, because none of them watched it), though that didn't stop them from criticizing it for its 30 second non-existent spats anyway. The panel didn't even discuss what happened during the debate, piecing the story together in their criticism, but were quick to make a few key - and unexplained - allusions. Anyone finding a problem with any of this? They just blasted all of these forums without even talking about the specifics of why they are so bad.

There's rarely anything analytical about Beat the Press at all: Rooney keys in on the big picture, but avoids the information necessary to view it with any sort of clarity - such as taking a deep and serious look at these debates and what value they give society. Beat the Press pretends to be a show about media criticism and one that is above the fray of what plagues cable news, but it basks in the same stained light that distorts the very news panelists pretend to discuss.

For the past two or three weeks, I've been tuning into Beat the Press late Friday nights. They come up on On Demand very quickly and I watch it before I hit the sack. Each week, I'm thoroughly disappointed by the severe lack of media criticism; it may as well be hosted by Judy Miller. It's more like a show to defend a soft and thoroughly beaten, destroyed and hoodwinked media than something meant to better inform the public. Yet, Rooney and her guests all love it. They all love their medium, so much so that Beat the Press is more pornographic than either critical or introspective. Lets see more shows on WGBH of a Bill Moyer caliber rather than the turd-like Beat the Press, perhaps even worse (which is hard to do) than the show it tries so hard to emulate at the local level, despite the anything-but ironic two-letter difference in name. Unless, of course, Rooney has a change of heart and saves wyanking our chains for the privacy of her bedroom at home.

Live Blogging GLBT Debate on LOGO

I got the right night, tonight.

First, let me just ask this question: why can't we have more of these kinds of forums on TV? It's far superior to the bickering when they're all together - giving each candidate 10-15 minutes to take questions alone is a great way to learn more about each candidate.

Obama did fairly well. He's better with these kinds of things than more of a debate-style, yell and bicker event. He talked about how civil rights has always been his biggest issue and it'll continue to be so if he's elected, regardless of whether it's because of race or glbt issues. I wasn't taking notes quite when Obama got on, because I was having trouble connecting, but he was perfectly good.

Edwards on health care - his health plan would be universal and he'd give equality toward everyone regardless of sexuality. Edwards said "that's just wrong," when Melissa Ethridge brought up the 'he said he's not comfortable around gay people' rumor from the worst political consultant ever's book (cough*Shrum*cough). Kids in public schools "need to understand" about gay issues. It's important that kids' peers understand what's going on (because kids are cruel). If you stand by discrimination and hate mongering, it "takes hold." Edwards then took Ann Coulter on and talked about his wife's confrontation with her, "you cannot let these people go on quietly" and continue with what they're doing. Finally, he backed off on faith as a reason for his not being there on marriage equality. If not faith (which is a lame excuse, and I'm glad he realized that) - then what?

Kucinich: essentially, all you need is love. He went all celestial, but is right on the marriage issue. Who cares if someone is gay? Everyone of us who is taking a stand has the potential to help any one of us evolve: the bully pulpit. He'd issue executive orders so that all branches of the government and all government contracts would include provisions for equality. Melissa Ethridge apparently has a man-crush on Kucinich and wants his babies him to run until he wins. And she wants to smoke up to celebrate, after. (They chatted on the drug issue, I'm just trying to be funny. Kucinich wants to look at drugs as a medical issue, not a criminal one.) Kucinich talked about medicare for all, which is very related to the glbt community - as it is all communities. But, when gay families can't share health benefits, suddenly it's even more important. Then on Iraq, etc.

Gravel: He's not easy to listen to (oratory skills minimal), but he supports marriage equality. He criticizes people for not supporting candidates who are really supporting equality, like Hillary, Edwards and Obama. Marriage is a commitment and if there's anything we need in this world it's more love. America needs to be brought forward to civil maturity through leadership. A leader stands up and actually stands up for something (a poke at the candidates not supporting marriage equality). Use you political capital, because that will earn you even more. You've got to assert your rights: 'gays, come out of the closet, please.'

Richardson: The nation is on the path to full inclusion, the President must lead that path. What is achievable is civil union with full rights. "What we also need to do," is revisit the past. If he's elected President, he'd get rid of DADT. He talks the specifics of why DADT passed. We need to bring people along and build public support. He talks about when he used an hispanic epithet that essentially means "fag" on the Imus show; he apologized for it and pointed to the things he's passed as an elected official. He dodged the question of whether or not he'd sign a bill, if given to him in N Mexico, that legalized gay marriage: he's "not there yet." We have to bring the country on (apparently, with people who don't support the issue??). He doesn't really answer whether people are born gay or not, he 'sees them as people.' He doesn't like to answer questions grounded in science or something he doesn't understand (that's a very close paraphrase there. EEK).

I'm stopping here with Richardson before he hurts himself more. This is getting bad, fast. He isn't confident anymore, so it looks like he knows this is going bad, bad, bad.

Hill: As a member of the Armed Service Committee, why haven't introduced legislation to get rid of DADT? She wants to do it as President because it will fail with the Republican Senate and President. Let's lay the ground work now, when I'm president we'll get it done.

What is the heart of your being against civil marriage? It's a personal decision. She's pro-civil unions. "For me, we have made it very clear in our country that we believe in equality. How we get to full equality is the debate we're having." Apparently, equality can be separate but equal, according to Hill. State rights, she says, just like the South did during the Civil Rights era. Oh - and do those states get a choice on Civil Unions, which she supports? Somehow I doubt she'd push for that. Repeal Section 3 of DOMA, which has to do with benefits, but not all DOMA. Joe Solomnese pushed on the Civil Rights metaphor - she "absolutely" understands it. Ugh, she frustrates me... the gay community is doing everything they should do.

"This has not been a long term struggle yet." WHAT?! My, my, my, my, my... A) apparently she doesn't know how far back the gay rights movement goes back. B) Should I have to wait until 2050 before I deserve to have equal rights? Does waiting a long ass time have to be a part of the process? Is it right, or is it right? She's trying to "change attitudes," but how can she do that when her attitude is where she's at?

That same criticism really applies to all the Big 3, Hillary isn't alone there, but she can certainly be the most frustrating about it at times.

PACs and Lobbyists Aided Obama's Rise and...

Just about every other elected state or national official across the country, except maybe a certain 5th Congressional Candidate that I'm very found of.

But the Globe has a story on Obama. To be honest, I'm not really inspired read it. As anyone who frequently reads my blog or listens to my podcast would know, none of the current Presidential candidates has really caught me. My support for Edwards is of the default variety, as if it's almost waiting to shift to Al Gore if he ever runs. However, while Obama certainly has a healthy variety of money coming in the form of big donations from sources that wouldn't thrill me, he does have far more small donors - regular people contributing to his campaign - than any of his competitors (and probably any Presidential candidate ever). So, I find a story on this subject that specifically relates to Obama a little disheartening; why not spend those Globe inches on a compare-and-contrast of the top 3 or 4 candidates running?

Well, I'm Pissed

Logo is supposed to have the presidential forum online, on their website. It's not.

I was really looking forward to watching this, now I can't. I've spent half an hour trying to find where the link was to this debate: Logo lost a great chance to catch new viewers, and POd a lot of people like me by saying they'd post it online. If it is online, it shouldn't be hard to find. What a friggin waste of time.

Wait a minute. Today's Wednesday, of course there's nothing online.

The forum's tomorrow. Whoops! Now, I'm not so pissed any more as I am red-cheeked and embarrassed.

Why Gay People Vote

I was just reading the comments in the Dkos thread about how more than 90% of gay people vote during Presidential elections. Anyway, I thought this was one bright reason on why gay people are more likely to vote,

The process of coming out is an inherently political one. It is an act of saying "I am who I am, and I'm not going to let anyone take that away from me." Once you make that leap, it should be no surprise that you'd get involved in countless other ways.

As for why I've always been so political, I don't know, but I doubt my sexuality has all that much to do with it. I've always been this way, at least for as long as I could ever remember. I guess I've always cared about the way things work and making things as inherently fair for everyone as possible. That, or I hate the idea of bowing down to authority figures who think of themselves as authority figures - and not just normal people with good ideas who won an election based on those ideas.

In any event, my point remains: the way gay people vote changes the outcomes of elections, so Presidential candidacy impertinence - saying you're for 'equal rights' but being against equal them - is a vote killer and will only serve to turn more than 10% of the Democratic Party's voting base off. If any one of the Big Three goes out on a limb and truly favors equal rights, they'll very well get the advantage they need in the early primary states, which will give them the bounce they need for the rest of the election. If anyone wants to beat Hill, it may just take the support of the gay population and its preponderance of importance during primary elections.

Yo, Dems on LOGO Tonight: Gays Vote!

At a 92.5% clip during Presidential elections.

Just put that in consideration tonight when you decide who to pander to - the uber conservatives who aren't going to vote for you anyway (and who won't vote in high numbers in 2008) or a 5-10% minority in this country that votes 90% of the time?

5% of this country's population, by the way, is 15 million people. Almost 60 million voters cast a ballot for John Kerry in the '06 election - meaning that probably more than 1 in 10 voters who cast a ballot for Kerry were glbt. Those kinds of numbers can win a primary - and push us forward in the general, as well. Coming out for gay marriage may just be the difference between winning a close primary in Iowa and New Hampshire (where civil unions are now legal) or losing it, because gay people vote. Keep putting us down at your own electoral risks.

Today's Musings: Cape Wind, Daily Show, Moving Mainstream?

• Cape Wind was on the Daily Show last night - and I must have had seriously good karma to catch it, because I just haven't been watching the Daily Show much lately. However, BMG has the clip, just be warned it'll be axed from YouTube in no time. Look for it at Comedy Central soon, though.
• Is the blogosphere moving mainstream? The quick answer is "of course." If the Ykos convention proves anything, it's that we're mainstream now. All the Presidential candidates coming for a debate we sponsored? Mainstream is a given. However, we have to be careful not to become a part of the Democratic establishment - as I talked about in my blog of the week, over at LeftAhead. It's one thing to move America to the left, it's another to watch the Blue Dogs give away our freedoms to Mr. 25%.
• Speaking of LeftAhead, catch catch this week's episode on warrantless wiretapping. We even had a pesky libertarian phone in to just talk about how angry he was with President Bush, then lecture us about why public schools are bad. Interesting conversation, it's just too bad Mike's the one with the 'end chat' button and isn't one to pull a Howe and toss people off the air.

UMASS Casino Study Neglects to Mention...

Professor Barrow, of UMASS Dartmouth, has come out with a study that suggests Massachusetts would be best served - in generating income revenue - by allowing three casinos in the state, two of which would be operated by native tribes. Huh? Maybe Professor Barrow should read my blog, where I've repeated the very basic and simple fact that Massachusetts has almost no control over the volume of casinos built in this state: either we allow no casinos with slot machines, or the federally-recognized tribes in this state will have no real restrictions against the number they'd build.

Furthermore, the study goes on to suggest that the best locations for casinos in Massachusetts would be Boston, New Bedford and Springfield, yet tribes have no reason to be compelled into building them in any one particular area. I'd find it hard not to believe that the tribe from Martha's Vineyard wouldn't want to take advantage of the summer tourism (and attract a wholly new clientele) by building a casino on the island, perhaps in addition to building one in the Springfield or Boston area.

I rarely agree with the pro-casino side, but here's one quote where I do:

Mr. Ferson didn't dispute Dr. Barrow's findings, saying, "New Bedford would have been great." But Dr. Barrow's conclusions are "theoretical and hypothetical," Mr. Ferson said. "The tribe has to deal with the reality of putting the land package together, and that didn't come together."

Thanks Professor Barrow for an interesting read: next time, add a few real-world facts to your studies of casinos in Massachusetts. The only control over them is whether they'll exist or not - and that's where the conversation has to begin. Where that conversation should end is whether or not increased revenue from casinos is worth it to begin with: that 200-600 million a year in state revenue may barely pay off the state's infrastructural costs in these projects' constructions.

New Law: *Anyone* Can be Wiretapped

Not just "suspected terrorists."

From Laurel:

Bush has said his original surveillance program was restricted to calls and e-mails involving a suspected terrorist, but the new law has no such limit. Instead, it allows executive-branch agencies to conduct oversight-free surveillance of all international calls and e-mails, including those with Americans on the line, with the sole requirement that the intelligence-gathering is "directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States." There is no requirement that either caller be a suspected terrorist, spy, or criminal.

She asks if anyone feels safer. I don't.

Sunday Musings: How to Spend Tax Dollars, FISA, WaPo and More

I have a few things on my mind...

• How to spend tax dollars: set some clear proposals, announce it to the public, vet it and improve badly needed sectors of our state infrastructure and educational system. In other words, don't keep funding secret, don't use it as political capital and don't use it to improve your home's property values. I think we have something here...
• Too many Democrats caved again: FISA has been trashed and the President's almost-certainly illegal wire-tapping program (without warrants) has been given the full congressional approval. Way to go, Blue Dogs DINOs.
• WaPo: Daily Kos readers are partisan hacks with no ideas. You know, because if you support Democrats, clearly you agree with all of them on everything... and clearly, elected democrats don't disagree on anything (well, okay, maybe that snark doesn't work as well with our Presidential candidates, who seem to agree on way too many things, but still!).
• Also, according to the same WaPo article, FireDogLake is a site about woman's issues. Huh? Have they ever, you know... read FDL?

Earmarks Still Secret

Lynne loves to chat earmarks on our podcast, so maybe I should send her a link to Bill Moyers's discussion of them at the national level. After the Democrats were elected in '06, they came with the promise of reform to the earmark system - where politicians can tack on federal dollars to private, pet projects - and not attach their name to it or debate the worthiness of those projects on the floor. Earmarks never get discussed in committee and the press rarely picks up on them, for reasons I'll get to below, so they've become remarkable tools to both reward loyal politicians (often willing to screw over the American people) and protect vulnerable incumbents by helping them send home some extra bacon.

Well, as Moyers gets to on his show, the Democrats in D.C. did reform the system - in some very important ways. First, now every earmark has to come with a request - both including the name of the Congressman who wants the earmark, as well as the reasons they feel its needed. However, out of the several important reforms the Democrats did make, they seemingly forgot (yeah, right) to make a big one: the access to this information is limited, at best.

You can flip through the letters and see what the-- what people asked for. But you can't remove a copy of that or have any other copy of that. You can't make any photocopies. But you can feel free to take notes." If you have any questions, I'll try to help. But y'know.... You go to the transportation committee, another committee that also does earmarking, the committee that brought the bridge to nowhere, they just have a file box there. And you can just flip through the file folders by congressional district and look at the letters. But again, they sit there and watch you while you're doing it. And you can take some notes, but that's it.

What? Anyone think Nancy Pelosi can do better? What this also means is that, to see any of the earmarks before they're actually passed, people have to actually be in the presence of the office in which is requesting it: that means they have to be in D.C. Notice how none of this information isn't what I'd call widely available online.

The saddest thing is that most of these earmarks aren't even ending up tangently helping the American people. A very large chunk of it is going directly toward the Pentagon: the well funded Pentagon isn't even asking for these earmarks, it's the defense industry that wants these extra billions. Furthermore, there have been recent projects that have been found to directly benefit a congress person's pocket book, yet found perfectly ethical according to the ethics committee.

BILL MOYERS: Sometimes they strike pay dirt. Ellis' colleague Erich Zimmermann helped the LOS ANGELES TIMES analyze the record of Representative Ken Calvert who was angling last year for a seat in the ear-marking factory known as the Appropriations Committee. Zimmermann spotted $5.6 million dollars earmarked for a transit center in Corona, California. When he looked closer, he found that the Congressman owns seven nearby commercial properties that stood to benefit.

ERICH ZIMMERMANN: Right here is where the Transit Center is gonna be built. And you can see some of these properties are actually very close to the Transit Center. The pins represent the properties that he owns. When we see a pattern where somebody's property so clearly surrounds a project it just raises questions. And we ask those questions of other people that may be interested in those questions as well and we try to get a sense is this abnormal? Is this normal? Is this increasing property values?

BILL MOYERS: Congressman Calvert appealed to the House Ethics Committee. The committee cleared him on the grounds that other nearby property owners stood to benefit too. In other words, the tortured ruling meant that if Calvert's neighbors gained from his earmark, so could he.

STEVE ELLIS: So, essentially, we would have to be having the taxpayer build a new bathroom in Representative Calvert's house for it to be determined to be actually an earmark that benefits him.

Here's a quick way to draw down the deficit: stop the dirty earmark system. The federal government is far too small to properly analyze the over 32,000 annual earmark requests (that's hundreds per congressman), yet we have government agencies that oversee where most of this money is going anyway: the Federal Highway Department, the Defense Department, etc. While Congress should certainly oversee these agencies to make sure they're doing a good job, they shouldn't pick and choose every minute project and pretend that they're experts enough to know when the Defense Department needs billions of dollars in planes they didn't ask for. What Congress should do is create a mission statement for them, then allow them to do their job. This system of political rewards - and bloating budgets - has got to go. Step one in doing that is making the process transparent.

High Stakes Town Meetings

As no doubt everyone knows by now, Middleboro passed two important measures last Saturday. The first was a 'yes' vote on the proposal for a Womponoag casino in Middleboro. The second was a 'no' vote on the ethereal casino, the concept of casinos in Middleboro. Why the inconsistency?

Someone could write a fifty page paper using Saturday's Middleboro Town Meeting as a case study in how people think and vote. For starters, the vote on whether or not town residents wanted a casino at all came second - a bit peculiar, but rational from a psychological point of view. If that vote came first, it would have been more likely many people would have voted no the second time around: a no vote on casinos would have already been established, rephrasing the question would have only served to piss voters off. However, reversing the order allowed voters to vote for the money, then complain about it in their very next vote.

Of course, there's more than the way our minds work at stake here. There are two other important things to remember here. The first is less important, but certainly more infuriating. It isn't every day that it seems as though everyone is conspiring against a town, but Saturday was one of those days for Middleboro. First, you have the speed at which this proposal was accepted: the actual deal the town voted on was posted online less than a week before the event. It was a 45 page document, written by lawyers no doubt. How were voters supposed to read and understand all 45 pages of the fine print? The answer? They weren't - as was later found out in the Globe, when a UMASS Dartmouth professor discovered the rhetoric didn't quite match the figures. The casino promised 11 million a year for the town, when in reality it'll be millions less.

But, who's going to let the truth get in the way? Of course, media-critic Dan Kennedy has more on that. Want to know what's probably the biggest reason why the town would vote against casinos in general, but for the Womponoag casino? Well, via Dan Kennedy, here's a theory:

No doubt some people voted "yes" on the agreement because they would genuinely like to see a casino come to Middleborough. But there were others, plenty of others, I suspect, who voted "yes" because they were told, repeatedly, that the casino was coming whether they wanted it or not, and that they might as well negotiate the best terms that they could.

Ah, yes, the rumors were certainly spreading around Middleboro that a casino was (in)coming - irregardless of how the people voted. May as well get something out of it, right? Not only does Dan Kennedy talk about that, but I'm pretty sure Joe Schlieff , a Middleboro resident and frequent Ryan's Take commenter, was talking about the very same rumor in a comment a while back. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth: there is nothing inevitable about a casino in Middleboro - even today.

In fact, that's the second and most important thing to come out of Middleboro's town meeting. Saturday's vote, as it stands, is just as symbolic as their vaporous "do we want casinos?"Of course, neither vote really means much in the grand scheme of things, which makes their spitting in the wind with their Question After the Fact all the more laughable. It's Beacon Hill that will decide whether or not a casino will be built in Middleboro (followed by one in Martha's Vineyard). Because of the way federal law works, states get to decide what kinds of gambling they'll allow. If any of a particular kind of gambling is allowed, in any way, shape or form, Native Americans can incorporate those games on their land within the state. However, Massachusetts does not allow slot machines in any way, shape or form - at least today. Therefore, the Womponoags can't have them - and a casino, without slots, certainly won't be turning any big profits. A casino in Middleboro isn't quite as inevitable as citizens of the town were lead to believe, which they probably would have realized if the town didn't jam the lies down their throat in the first place.

Alas, let's not be mistaken here. The #1 reason why Saturday's vote turned out the way it did was because the town elites within Middleboro arranged it. Yes, even in America, votes can be arranged. Let's go over the facts: a huge Town Meeting, where thousands were expected to come, was set up in a matter of a few weeks. Even Secretary of State Bill Galvin, who's usually inept, knew enough to question the validity of that. The result? Thousands in the town couldn't come: it was a hot, summer day - so none of the elderly, obviously, would be there. Of course, parents with young kids were less likely to show. Then, there's the people on vacation: they couldn't change it in the few weeks notice they had.

More importantly, has anyone questioned why the town's administration did nothing to correct 'the casino is inevitable' meme? Gee whiz, I wonder why? One reason: people who would buy it, but didn't want a casino, sure as hell won't waste their Saturday on a done deal. Here's another: the whole speed of the thing helped foster the idea that the casino was inevitable. The town admin propogated that rumor with the haste at which they organized the vote. By speeding the process up, people were less likely to learn all the facts. They were less likely to learn there was nothing inevitable about it at all. They were less likely to learn that the big part of the town agreement - 11 million dollars - was more myth than reality. They were less likely to force the town to actually study - and vet - the process. Towns vet whether or not to allow a Dunkin Donuts on a busy street, or whether Kennedy Avenue needs a stop sign: there's only one reason why Middleboro's administration wouldn't want to vet a casino.

All of the above becomes more obvious when you learn facts like the police union endorsed the deal. These are the same police officers who, as Dan Kennedy wrote, blatantly allowed Yes Voters to wear campaign literature, but stopped No Voters from having the same kind of rights. This is the same town who's selectmen had their spouses speak on behalf of the deal. Of course, no one would expect they did any fishy business to make sure it passed, behind the scenes, right? Well, the Powers that Be - the Good 'ol Boys, as Lynne likes to call them, did everything in their power to make sure the casino passed. Yet, in the end, thankfully, they aren't the ones who get to decide.