So, about that BMG comment rating system

Short of making it so people can't rate anonymously, can't we just get rid of it?

Who's really winning?

The Globe  had an article yesterday about the "ebbing clout" of labor, all the while business interests become increasingly more powerful. This is certainly a dangerous trend, particularly when labor was never as strong in this state (at least over the past few years) as the Globe likes to make out. While certainly labor is an interest, the only time it's really been able to flex its muscles in a 'special' kind of way is when its interests have lined up with Big Business. It's always been that way, and until We the People are working together to run things, it always will work that way.

The trend lines are certainly dangerous, but ever the more potent because business interests have become exceptionally talented in getting like-minded people to feud against themselves, instead of allowing those people to be focusing on Big Biz's creeping power base. When we have local progressive stalwarts like Charley-on-the-MTA sounding like the a Fox News liberal, then we know we've got a problem here.

Maybe the real problem here is that progressives just aren't the same kinds of people as members of the labor movement, and have no understanding for the struggles that movement has had to make to get where it is today. That much has always been obvious, but there was a lot of hope in the strategic alliances that formed between the progressive goo-goo types and labor in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Then again, maybe those alliances were only possible because there was a common enemy -- the GOP -- and now liberal interest groups are back to our usual bickering amongst each other. I hope not.

It's well past time anyone with even a single vertebrae of liberal-apologist spine take a calcium pill. This fight isn't for the weak and timid. We cannot sacrifice our friends in the labor movement because it's now suddenly convenient, and we cannot be so disrespectful and ignorant as to decide amongst our goo-goo liberal selves that, really, collective bargaining on health care rights isn't a big deal anyway, or worse, attempt to lash out at labor because they have something we don't. It's absurd and it's getting us no where -- and we don't have enough friends in this political fight for our lives as it is already.

How Obama Could Stand to Change

Over at BMG, I said that President Obama isn't nearly as different from the legitimate Republican opponents he may face in 2012 as we'd like him to be (and, no, Sarah Palin doesn't count -- because she has no chance at winning POTUS). A few other people scoffed at that, to which I said... let me count the ways.

A Force for Good

I love people who don't swallow the Republican talking points that private is always better -- and recognize that there are some things that Government just does better. In that vein, Dave from Hvad posted an excellent blog about the often-criticized Pacheco rule, which forces many privatization attempts in Massachusetts to prove that they'll deliver the same quality at a lower cost. This is a basic premise that should be met for any effort to privatize services that serve the public interest.

Future Media Models

David posted on the Globe's growing subscription troubles, which I saw as a good opportunity to discuss one of my old, favorite topics: the media. Ryan's Take hasn't focused on the local media as much as it used to, but it's still an issue that's important to me. Basically, I think there's only a few ways forward.

• Go digital, go lean -- focus the staff on news, not distribution. If they don't outright nix all distribution, these papers should put their offline content on an even footing with their online content and stop making people pay for it. Given that the profits from the sold papers really come from the ads anyway, this isn't as big a deal as it sounds, but it only works if the papers become leaner and greener -- by cutting down the sections and focusing on the content hard to find elsewhere (local and regional).
• Go subscription. Since distribution is so expensive, offering free content online not only cannibalizes readers, but it doesn't really save a full-scale daily any money... because the trucks still have to go out and those printing factories still need to churn, daily. If there's a strong online presence, it would have to be for-pay, but even if it's for pay -- it's still probably a sink to the company, since the company is still having to pay for all those trucks even though it would have fewer papers to deliver. One way to make a website available to subscribers, without causing that sink, would be to only give access to the articles on the web to those who are subscribing anyway, or at least make online subscribers pay more than print.
• Go nonprofit. For local and community papers, this probably makes the most sense. If it's really just about keeping a local news presence, a nonprofit starts to make a lot of sense, because eliminating the need for these companies to make a major profit would be liberating for them.

There may be others ways, but if they don't involve focusing on a way of delivering the news and the type of news they're going to deliver (and then making sure that news is good), the subscription decline will only hasten.

The Local MSM's Prejudice

This blog used to cover the local MSM quite a bit. I enjoyed writing the stories and got a lot of readers and links from it. However, at a certain point I became too cynical to read the local MSM every day, so this site has focused much less on being a local media critic. Stories like this are why.

Two polls were released on the Senate race at pretty much the same time. They both had the same sample size. They were both done by well-established firms. However, they both showed widely different results. The Suffolk poll showed Scott Brown up by around 4, while the BMG/Research 2000 poll showed Coakley up by 8. Either of the polls could be right -- in fact, they both were probably right in polling who they thought would show up, it's just that they both disagreed on the specific demographics of their likely voters. Guess which poll the local MSM covered?

If anyone picked "not BMG," they win a gold star. There are probably two reasons why the local media would cover Suffolk's poll, but not BMG's. The first is the Suffolk poll is certainly more politically sexy -- it was the first to really show Scott Brown up above the margin of error. The second reason is because BMG is a blog - and, I suppose, viewed by the media as competition. All that said, if the media is to be taken seriously, it should have covered both of the polls. They were done at the same time, using live questioners and the same sample sizes; they were each at least as worthy as the other. Even if the papers wanted to lead with the Suffolk poll, the BMG poll should have featured prominently, too. Otherwise, any notion of fair play or journalistic integrity can be thrown out of the window.

Does the local media really want to be that obvious? Are they really willing to lose the tens of thousands of their readers, who also read sites like BMG? At a certain point, papers like the Globe are going to have to learn that many of the readers they've lost have come at the hands of their increasing willingness to throw their credibility out the window, when it suits their purpose.

The BMG Surprise

I have to admit, the BMG endorsement of Alan Khazei surprised me. I thought David supported him, but I didn't actually think the three of them would be able to come together on it. Kudos, Team Editors, for joining me on the Khazei train.

Anyone else looking forward to a week from now?

Videos from the Casino Hearing

Cross-posted at BMG.

As promised in Thursday's rundown of the casino hearing, I put together a video diary of the event, featuring a lot of the videos I took throughout the day. Take a look at the videos, pick a few and get a sense of what's going on.

Fair weather warning: the acoustics in the Gardner are lousy, not all the microphones worked and my camera was set up behind the people speaking. Keep the volume up. Also, this was an incredible amount of work -- I did not add all the videos and, if there's any mistakes, let me know.

I was thinking of one video to post above the fold, summing up all my thoughts, showing the kind of dangerous greed -- and blindness -- the slot industry leads states into and it was Senator Tucker speaking with the Mohegan Sun rep about just how hard Mohegan tries to "help" problem gamblers, with their "exclusionary lists" and "trained employees."

She got Mohegan Sun to admit the lists to ban people from gambling were self exclusionary and that there was no recourse for family or friends who had fallen pray to addicts, save getting them to come in and sign the exclusionary forms after the fact.

Mohegan Sun would take the initiative to ban problem gamblers -- if they were rowdy or violent. In other words, the company policy is to exclude others when they start to become a problem to the bottom line. So long as they keep bringing in the dough, whoever's dough that is, those addicts are given all the free booze and extra perks to keep them there as long as possible. Mohegan sings a nice song and a dance, but it's all a farce. So long as people ruin their lives and the lives of others quietly, Mohegan has no problem with it.

As Senator Tucker says, if casinos had to pay for all their costs, including social costs, they wouldn't be profitable. There would be no business model.

Click here and go below the fold to watch all my videos from the hearing (or just the one's you're interested in).

Hey Joan, Your House is Glass

Here's what you said in today's op-ed, discussed at length at Blue Mass Group.

But the issue is also the Internet's ability to give cover to critics who don't have to do what Carr does - own their opinions. The blogosphere opened up the public conversation to new, thoughtful voices, but it should not provide a shield to hide biases and private agendas.

1) What about a newspaper's ability to give cover to critics who don't have to do what Carr does, either? How many stories are founded on the basis of anonymous sources who have their own, personal agendas. Let us not forget it was anonymous sources lying that got this country into a war that's killed thousands of Americans and who knows how many tens of thousands of Iraqis -- the chief media cheerleader being the Globe's parent company. Don't make me list the number of horrible articles, with no evidence but those anonymous sources (complete with agenda), which have been printed on the front page of your own Globe. Joan, your house is glass.

2) Are you really going to bring up media shield protections? Why on Earth should print media and TV get shield law protection and not the blogosphere? Joan's phrasing of this paragraph is really interesting, especially given how important an issue shield laws are right now with the Senate bill which would create shield law protections for tv and print news, but not the blogosphere.

Joan, we know you're reading this. These are two subjects you need to answer if you want to remain a credible opinion journalist. This isn't about "Ernie" and this isn't about Howie Carr -- this is about you sticking up for the status quo. Admit it.

My Concern with the Transgender Bill

What about the XX and XY electric field bathroom generators? Does it mandate turning them off, so XX can cross the streams? And vice versa?

And if that should happen, will the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man appear and attack everyone in the bathroom? Or if the Gatekeepers cross the threshold of the Key Masters, will they turn into giant statues or hideous monsters? And vice versa? These all could certainly explain the dangers of this bill.

I think we better make sure the XX and XY electric field generators stay online and plugged in at a bathroom near you, otherwise we could have a sensational, nonsensical issue on our hands.

Not Sure I'm Buying David

David's questions yesterday were intended on finding out if Charlie Baker can win on being the anti-casino candidate. Here's what he added today, to explain himself.

CLARIFICATION: Apparently, I was less than clear about why I want to know the answer to these questions, as readers both here and elsewhere have misunderstood why I posed them. So let me be clear: I am not saying that these three issues are what is going to drive the election -- they're not. I am trying to figure out whether Charlie Baker can win. As sabutai has explained, the math is not easy for him as long as Tim Cahill stays in the race. But one possibility that occurs to me is for Baker to pick off some liberals who probably voted for Deval Patrick in the 2006 primary but who hate casinos. If Baker appears solid on hot-button social issues (liberals will not support someone suspect on those issues) but says he will oppose slot machines and casinos, all of a sudden he becomes the last best hope for the anti-casino crowd to keep casinos out of the state. That could let him cut into Deval's base, and that could change the math that sabutai correctly notes is difficult as long as Cahill is viable.

A few things -- "best, last hope?" Um, last time I checked, 3/4 of the house voted against casinos. Between the new, pro-slots speaker and the state's budget woes, that could change this time around. But, still, the pro-slots side has a long way to go.

Furthermore, the #1 reason why there probably isn't slots in this state is because there is no one slot lobby -- there are many, competing slot lobbies. There are people who want casinos, people who want racinos and people (like Cahill) who just want to give out the damn licenses to the lowest bidder. They have never been able to get on the same page. Can they now? Tough to tell.

But here's what you can take to the bank: Deval won't approve anything that doesn't include a full scale, resort casino. DeLeo won't approve anything that doesn't "save" Wonderland and Raynham Park. Senate President Murray probably won't approve anything in which the licenses aren't given out to the highest bidder -- which would mean, if Wonderland and Raynham Park were to get slots, they'd need to be the highest bidders. That's three state forces with three wildly different concepts of how this state should engage in slot machines. They may as well all be anti-slots, for all the good their differing policies will work for them. Short of legalizing everything all at once, which seems unlikely, what kind of room is there left for "compromise?"

So enough with the newest reincarnation of the inevitability argument, okay? It's not inevitable, no matter who's Governor or Speaker or Senate President. Now, let's move on to the crux of David's argument. David says that if Charlie Baker supports marriage equality and a woman's right to choose, assuming he wins the primary (a rather big assumption, IMO), he could then be free to pick up oodles of former Patrick supporters should Baker come out against casinos. Doubtfully.

People who tend to be anti-gambling are often so because of small business issues or social costs. How likely are people who are concerned about social issues to defect to the Republican HMO CEO? Not many. Moreover, I'm not so sure Patrick's going to go back to the casino well anytime soon -- it nearly killed his first term. Should a bill he like pass, he'd probably sign it, but would he ever go back to the mat for another casino bill? I doubt it -- which makes my support for him an easy decision. There's undoubtedly many more anti-slot voters who feel the same way.

If Baker's the only candidate that opposes slot machines in Massachusetts, David's probably right in that Charlie Baker will get some traction from it. However, it won't be enough traction to win the race. The only way Baker can win is if he makes a compelling argument that Deval Patrick helped cause or is incapable of fixing these economic woes (neither of which is true) -- at the same time he convinces a majority of the state that he's the only person capable of solving them. Given Baker's background with the Big Dig, good luck with that.

The MBTA's Problem is State-Forced Debt

Stomv kicks ass, as usual.

The question is: how do we get the MBTA's expenses under control? Answer:

Pay down the debt. The T is carrying huge debt loads, and it's not really because of MBTA managers mismanaging. The switch to forward funding meant that the lege made capital decisions for the T and then left them holding the bag. The Big Dig made commitments for the T in order to get better infrastructure for autos, and then left the T holding the bag. MBTA FY 2009 debt services total $368 million, $246 of which is interest payments.

That's right, the total deficit is about $100 million less than the T's interest payments, much of which is paid on loans that MBTA management didn't want to take on, but the legislature forced on them.

So, if we paid down half the debt that we forced on the T because of the Big Dig, the MBTA would suddenly not only not be in trouble, but could even expand service. Imagine a subway that didn't shut down at midnight on a Saturday! Well, citizens of Massachusetts, that's how to do it.

$150-200 million is a lot of money, but perhaps only .1-2% of all of our state's income taxes. If the state legislature had the courage to raise that amount to be applied directly to the MBTA's debt service, I think the people of this state would be more than willing to pay it to protect the T. We could make sure that some of that money goes toward solving some debt issues with other public transportation systems in other parts of the state, too, just to be fair. This seems like a no brainer.

On Newspaper Online Advertising

I fundamentally disagree with David that boston.com can't at least provide a substantial profit to the Globe, one that could perhaps pay for an entire news staff (even if it's not quite as large as the present staff). Why? The LA Times does it - their online ads are enough to pay for 660 employees at the paper, making the paper sales and ads gravy.

David points to Kos and Perez Hilton as sites that get a lot more hits than the Globe and don't generate the type of revenue necessary to staff a newsroom. Well, true, but do those sites have entire trained staffs completely dedicated toward selling ads - seeking out those advertisers, making the case, using established contacts? Even if they do, how large, qualified and talented are those staffs? What sorts of numbers and figures from professional polling and marketing do they have to work with? This is just one of the many good points Stomv makes in David's thread - points that I think even Stomv underestimates in terms of how much more profitable online papers can be than websites where the writer draws cum on celebrity faces and you have to click on the website to find out how to advertise on it.

Again, I say there's too many questions regarding the NYT's claims about the Globe to take at face value. But whether or not the Globe's really projected to lose $85 million this year, it doesn't mean online ads can't sustain a news staff. For all we know, the NYT/Globe's losing that $85 million through distribution costs alone, or from not maximizing ad sales (online or otherwise), or some combination of the two. Unfortunately, no one really knows what the heck is going on at the NYT and its management of the Globe. However, whatever it is, it's nothing to inspire confidence -- so people shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions.

A Suffolk Poll is Worth [Expletive Deleted]

They've been consistently wrong on everything, especially all things Deval. Remember when they showed a close race just before the last gubernatorial primary? And then just before the general? They're worse than worthless. They give opponents hope when there is none!

BTW - if you want my semi-expert analysis (well, better than the guy at Suffolk), I dished it out to jconway.

I'm not so sure if

calling the Speaker a hack is a good idea. Don't get me wrong - I see the point. But there was a lot the progressive community gained from its relationship with DiMasi on BlueMassGroup. Even the MSM saw it. Of course, plenty of commenters called DiMasi a hack and other slurs, but not Bob and Charley. That's a horse of a different color.

If the new Speakah doesn't see BMG as a place he can go to on certain areas to gain support, he won't bother. Does that really help us in the long run?

None of this is to say that the Speaker shouldn't be roundly criticized for not standing up for stronger ethics (and probably pension) reform. Criticize away!

• It's a bad idea
• It's sending the wrong message
• It's a bad idea
• It's sending the wrong message
• We clearly need some policy fixes here
• It's sending the wrong message
• It's sending the wrong message
• It's sending the wrong message
  

These are things the Speaker needs to hear over and over again. Over at BMG, the editors and others have managed to roundly criticize the Governor without resorting to petty namecalling. The result? Pretty positive -- he's largely moved on the issues we've criticized him over. DeLeo? If we delcare him Hack Enemy Numero Uno - even if he sort of deserves it right now - he's not going to bother with the progressive/BMG crowd at all. We can get him to move on ethics and pensions and a host of other issues we hold dear to our hearts, but taking feel-good hacks at him won't get him to play ball. Far from it.

Casinos Don't Make Sense

Here's one of the most amazing posts on casino gambling I've ever read.

First, though gambling is taking place in other states and the lottery, this would be a massive expansion of the most addictive form which would put as many as 5% of the Massachusetts population at risk of new compulsive behaviors. That's as many as 300,000 people - if not you, then potentially your parents, your neighbors, and your kids. In any case, the argument that "two wrongs DO make a right" -- i.e. that if something bad is happening somewhere else we might as well encourage more of it here -- is morally and politically confused.

Second, if the the neurological studies don't convince you that there is a problem, maybe the terms that slot machine manufacturers and casino use will give you some insight. They both work tirelessly to increase a person's "time on device" in order to get a person to "play to extinction" (i.e. exhaust their bank accounts). Some otherwise healthy adults wear adult diapers so they don't have to leave a "hot" machine.

BMass goes on to tackle the 'inevitability' argument, quite convincingly. He also asks people to take up this issue at Democratic Party Platform meetings, which can be found here.

I added an addendum to the post in the form of a comment, one that I think is important enough to include here.

Senator Tucker made an eloquent point at last year's slot hearing. It was one of the most passionate, moving speeches I've ever seen given at a hearing of any kind before. Senator Tucker said that there are four basic tests that we need to consider before passing any sort of tax. Slot machines fail all four:

1. They're volatile. You never know what you'll get in a year, which means your budget is at the constant mercy of the casino lobby.
2. They're unfair. They prey on those who can least afford to pay it.
3. They're expensive to collect. We'd need to build a whole new bureaucratic gambling authority to oversee this mammoth new project. Folks, if you like the Turnpike Authority, you'll love the Gambling one. (Not to mention the huge cost and toll this will take on services within the state, from police to addiction counseling.)
4. It doesn't create new revenue. A slot parlor or casino is largely just a redistribution of the local economy. It's money going from local businesses to the Casino Borg. Instead of having local money have a ripple effect, it becomes money your local community will never see again. This isn't just a tax on users, but on the very local businesses that are the foundation of our cities and towns.

We need to seek stable streams of revenue that are efficient and fair to collect, that don't leech off of other industries that we tax within this state. There are mature and responsible ways of doing that -- but slot machines aren't one of them.

Third Rail Politicking

If it's not pensions, it's nonprofit sector salary. The thing with third-rail politics isn't that there's never a point to the argument - in fact, there often is. Surely, some state pensions need to be fixed and there are nonprofit CEOs and executives being overpaid, especially in this economy. The problem, of course, is that there's all too much focus on these issues which, in the grand scheme of things, are rather petty when compared to the size and scope of our problems today.

Moreover, often times the people making these third-rail arguments are hurting their own cause - such as AmberPaw today, over at BMG. Amber argues that MSPCA is overpaying its employees by a lot. The news will surely cost a lot of donations to MSPCA over the course of this year - perhaps millions. The result? Even more people will be laid off, more clinics could be shuttered and, most important of all, more dogs and cats will be homeless and without anyone to care for them or find them permanent families. This is what it means to shoot your own leg.

All for an organization that applies over 90% of its funds directly toward caring for the dogs and cats, not administrative costs. In nonprofits, 90% is the gold standard - heck, 80% is considered good. It doesn't get much better than 90%. So, for this cause that's so important and already underfunded, it's going to get hit even worse, all because supporters were supplying an irrational amount of anger at salaries which are in fact middling for the industry and could have been dealt with in a way that wouldn't have hurt the pets (such as a few big donors signing a letter asking the top-paid employees take a 10-20% pay cut in this economy, to spare a few jobs from being laid off).

Be Consistent

If you're going to argue against a 2% meals tax because it could hypothetically (but not really) hurt restaurants, you can't then argue in favor of casinos in Massachusetts - which would destroy a great deal of the restaurant industry within 50 miles of that casino, as they have over and over again across the country. That's just not a credible argument. Sorry.

Today's Top Stories

• More plumbers who aren't plumbers should become reporters who aren't reporters. Please!
  
• Obama's giving Gene Robinson, the first out-gay Episcopalian Bishop in America, the invocation to kick off the inaugural events at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on Sunday. Fantastic, but this doesn't 'make up' for Rick Warren, even if it shows that the glbt community's efforts to lobby Obama have largely succeeded. The lesson isn't learned until people (especially Democrats) realize that if it's not okay to legitimize racists like David Dukes, it's not okay to legitimize overt homophobic pastors like Rick Warren (who sponsors condom burnings in Africa, btw). Legitimize being the key word - no one's saying Obama can't work with Warren on like-minded issues, he just shouldn't be inviting Warren to do the invocation. I've worked with MFI on stopping casinos, but that doesn't mean I go inviting them over for the holidays.
  
• Bob shouldn't waste his time. Do people even read Hub Politics anymore?
  
• Soapblox is saved, cue the celebrations and sighs of relief at BMG and across the progressive net.
  
• Thank goodness we don't depend on Russia for our natural gas. It would be a cold, heartless winter otherwise.
  

No Thanks, Senator

(A BMG Challenge)

Master the McSame:
A Debater of renown,
except not right now.

He says he knows that
the economy teeters
the brink - in peril.

For twenty six years,
willfully locked in D.C.,
but he'll fix it now.

No thanks, Senator
your market expertise got
us there to start with.