Questions for Mitt

I just had Martin Bashire on, who mentioned that 61% of the 47% figure Mitt mentioned pay payroll taxes and were the working poor, many working 2 or even 3 jobs to keep a roof over their heads. How would Mitt explain that they're not "taking personal responsibility of themselves?"

Or what about the 10%+ of the country who are seniors, on Medicare and SS, but don't earn enough to pay income taxes? What does he say to them, who have paid into the system their entire lives, some in nursing homes or otherwise sick or not as mobile as they used to be. Are they not "taking personal responsibility?"

How about people with disabilities? Or who've sent out a hundred resumes in a hundred days? Are they not taking personal responsibility?

Lynne talks about many of these same issues here, and asks what Scott Brown thinks about it. Every Republican should be asked the same question. Do they stand with Mitt? Are the working poor, disabled and seniors of the country 'moochers,' or people who deserve our respect?

Romney's Lies Have Finally Caught Up to Him

No matter how skilled the habitual liar, if they do it long enough, they're eventually going to get to the point where they can't come up with a new lie to cover the old ones.

As BMG makes clear, Romney's now there. Welcome, Mittens.

Let's look at this tangled web.

He claimed to be retired from Bain from 1999-2002 to the SEC/IRS, but Bain claimed he wasn't to the SEC, critically paying him a salary as chief executive. So, was Romney lying to the IRS, or was Bain lying to its investors and the SEC?

Now, Romney claims that his status as CEO of Bain from 1999-2002 was just technical jargon and wasn't his real position. In fact, he says he was totally removed from Bain and had no intention of coming back, despite the fact that he was still attending board meetings for companies Bain owned.

That's his answer to voters and his defense against what he listed on his SEC/IRS claims, but that's not what he was saying to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where he insisted his time in Utah was just a leave of absence and that he always intended to return to Bain -- as his basis for why he should remain eligible to be Governor of Massachusetts.

This latest claim of his undermines his previous claim, that he was never going to go back. It's all the more serious a lie because, without it, it's likely he wouldn't have ever been Governor of Massachusetts.

So, what are we supposed to believe? What Mitt told the SEC and IRS? What Bain told the SEC? What he said to explain away the divergence of what he said to the IRS and what Bain said to the SEC? Or what he told Massachusetts, in order to be eligible to run for Governor?

Each claim is slightly different than the next, and undermines the others more and more. All that's left is the facts: whatever he says, he was on salary to be the chief executive officer of Bain and, contrary to his insistence that he had nothing to do with the company, was regularly flying in to Massachusetts on Bain business, even while living in Utah.

The bottom line? Other people go to prison for the kind of lies Mitt Romney habitually makes.

Five Things to Remember this November

Every time I think of why people shouldn't vote for someone like Scott Brown, Mitt Romney or Richard Tisei, my mind immediately goes to great lengths to come up with things about complicated policy reasons people aren't going to remember. Sometimes, it's the simple things that count -- and will allude to the more complicated things anyway.

Here's five simple things that you should tell your friends, family and neighbors for this November. 

• If a candidate has a Swiss bank account, a Cayman Islands bank account and a bank account in Bermuda, one he kept secret while in office, you should probably vote for the other guy.
• For as much as Republicans politicians like to rail against government, it's amazing just how much they love it when it comes to extracting everything they from it for their Wall St. friends. Wars they can't pay for (or finish)? Check. Bailing out the banks and giving tax loopholes to Fortune 500 Companies? Check. Then, when all the money's gone, they'll try to use your Social Security funds to pay for it.
• If a candidate's entire campaign is based on how nice his family is, he doesn't have anything to to run on. If he does so while talking about how much time he spends with his family during the daytime as an office holder, that means he wasn't doing his job.
• If a candidate runs on being a moderate, but will vote for John Boehner or Mitch McConnell, he's lying.

Why the GOP's going nuts of attacks on Bain

The reason why the GOP is so terrified of Gingrich's attacks on Bain isn't because they're afraid it will stop Romney from winning the nomination (that's a certainty at this point), but rather that they're afraid of seeing Newt put Bain's way of doing business on the table for GOP base voters, in a way Democrats never could.

Bain crushes unions, strips away benefits and ships jobs overseas, buying companies out with hundreds of millions or billions in loans. They then ditches that debt on those stripped-down companies, who can't afford it, leaving many of them out of business or shells of their former selves.

It's bad for America and the elites of the GOP don't want people to hear it, especially their base. Why? Because the elites of the GOP know it, too, but they just don't care.

Walking over the little people to make money is an easy decision for those elites, but not for most Americans. Democrats are already open to the idea that there should be some restrictions on the way companies can do business, but most base GOP voters aren't. If people, especially the GOP's base, understand exactly what companies like Bain does, they'd no more support it than they'd support drug cartels.

Enough with the fees already!

Good God, Governor Patrick, it's time for some real taxes. What problem does a fee hike at Logan solve? Whether or not this idea is a good one (a personal meh for me), this trend is a killer. Government by fees isn't honest, whether it's the $2-3k tuition at UMASS (15k in fees) or the RMV fees as opposed to covering those expenses with the gas tax. Didn't we elect Governor Patrick to get away from the policies of Mitt Romney (including the lame sloganeering - ie "carbon fee").

Moreover, by relying on fees, important things inevitably get cut, which end up costing more. Those fees can't cover the services, pure and simple, because the right amount of additional tax dollars never end up going to the agencies. Hence no one gets RMV reminders in the mail - which could end up costing some people hundreds (and/or worse) should they be pulled over days or weeks after their license expired. This is not good government.

Oh, and this is laughable:

[Aloisi] wants the parking fee - which requires approval from the Legislature - to be used for improvements to airport-related transit projects, including a proposal to build a new tunnel under South Boston to speed up the Logan-bound Silver Line bus service.... Based on Logan's most recent parking figures, the new fee would probably raise about $5.4 million per year.

So, this new $2 "carbon fee" is going to pay for a Silver Line bus tunnel to Logan? I'd be shocked if it would pay for a tunnel through snow for kids to play in when school's off.

MassEquality Bonus Points

Yes, yes, sign their online petition to help get the House to repeal 1913, but that's not what merits this blog.

At the end of their latest email, asking people to sign their online petition, which they'll send to your State Representative, they have a small fundraising pitch...

P.S. Please also consider supporting our efforts to repeal the 1913 law with a financial contribution! And, for anyone who contributes $191.30 or more this week, we'll send former Governor Romney a special MassEquality note card letting him know you made a donation toward repealing the 1913 law in his honor.

Wicked funny! If they were asking for $19.13 to send the note, they'd have it in a second. But, in any event, I don't think I've ever seen such a hilarious fundraising pitch. I'm glad the friendly folks at MassEquality haven't lost their touch - or sense of humor.

Scary Polling Data

There was some real scary polling data on MSNBC's Countdown last night. Keith Olbermann talked about a poll MSNBC commissioned, featuring the two top democrats versus McCain. Nationally, Obama vs. McCain was a 42-42 tie, while Hillary actually lost to McCain by about 2% (I think it was 44-46). As mentioned Wednesday, the two don't even fair well against McCain in Massachusetts! Hillary, in the Bay State SUSA poll, beat McCain by about 4% - Obama actually lost to McCain by a whopping 5% (a 9% swing in this state, compared to Hillary's number).

Now, polls are only a snapshot in time and there'd be plenty of moons for the two to shore up the Commonwealth, but if either candidate actually had to defend a state like Massachusetts from a Republican, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the country.

In fact, there's only two reasonable deductions to make from the MSNBC poll: we all need to hope John Edwards can actually make a race of this, as he's the only one who consistently defeats McCain in national polls. Secondly, let's all pray the Christian Right does the stupid right thing and helps the Grand Old Party nominate Willabee (either Willard or Huckabee, better yet - a ticket!). It'll be the Republican version of nominating McGovern - and they're actually stupid enough to be doing their best to make it happen (Romney's starting to take the lead in Florida). Otherwise, the prospects of McCain versus either Hillary or Obama is an utter nightmare few should dare to dream.

Romney Did Well in Last Night's Debate...

And who wouldn't, when you have someone to whisper you the answers?



Now, I'm not an expert on video technology, but if that's real, that's damning.

Barack "Hussein" Obama

If anyone ever hears someone refer to Barack Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama," there's about a 99% chance you should just stop listening to everything they have to say. I just read an email that's the worst kind of whisper campaign, trying to suggest Barack Obama is essentially a radical Wahhabi Muslim who's partaking in a conspiracy to take over America from the inside. Paranoia much?

Think those kinds of emails are trivial? My poor aunt was utterly shocked when she read it. She couldn't believe what it had to say and had to send me the email to get my expert opinion (ha!). She even called my phone to get my email address. Barack Obama isn't trying to lead a Muslim revolution in America.

Ryan's Take isn't for people to actually vote for Barack Obama on February 5th, but that's because Obama's stump speech pisses me off, not because Obama was raised Muslim until his first or second year on this Earth. Nor does it have anything to do with the fact that, for the rest of his life, Obama's been a practicing Christian. As if any of that actually mattered.

Religion shouldn't come into play in this election. Even people who refer to Mitt Romney's religion as "crazy" often bother me. Sure, they have magic underwear, but is that any more different than a priest's stole? Mormonism is certainly different than most of Christianity, but it's not any weirder. Barack's no more trying to take over America for Muslims as Mitt Romney is for Mormons. What we, as voters, need to pay attention to is the policies and goals of all the candidates. In both cases, Romney and Obama aren't up to par - which is why neither ought to be our next President.

Note: I created a new tag for this post. "Dirty Politics." Whisper campaigns are the worst kind.

Beacon Hill's Worse, Not Better

When Deval Patrick came into office, he promised to bring change to Beacon Hill, but unfortunately that change has yet to come. All there is so far is more of the same, no matter what Adrian Walker thinks. Deval's very good ideas - the Municipal Partnership Act and cutting corporate tax loopholes - were never followed through on, while his terrible idea - casinos - is recieving the Governor's full support, complete with dirty tactics to succeed (so much for the Politics of Hope). Walker blames the legislature for Deval Patrick's problems - and, of course, that body deserves a lot of the blame. However, Patrick's decision to skip along to new ideas, when his good ideas were at first resisted by the legislature, represents more of the same, not the change the grassroots expected from Candidate Deval.

The grassroots is hard work - work that the Governor must become patient enough to engage in, lest his best speeches truly become "just words." Cozying up to the casino lobby may make things easier to pass, but it just doesn't represent the good governing we all are even still hoping for. When record numbers of people came out to vote for Governor Patrick, we truly expected something revolutionary. No matter how anyone looks at casinos, it represents absolutely none of the change Candidate Deval promised to bring to Beacon Hill - yet he's trying to bring it anyway and willing to engage in the kind of sleazy tactics to make it happen that he railed against as a candidate.

Why are Governor Patrick's casino tactics so sleazy? Well, let's count the ways.

1. Deval Patrick wants to include fiscal data without allowing for the proper vetting process. There hasn't even been an official hearing which could approve or reject the Governor's proposal yet. Despite what Walker thinks, a slow process or a lack of debate isn't an excuse this time - this process has been as fast as possible, with plenty of spirited debate.
   
2. At the (sham) hearing Governor Patrick went to speak at, held by a committee that isn't involved in the approval process of the bill, Patrick's aides said over and over again that licensing fees shouldn't be used in the general fund, because they're one time funds. According to Patrick's own administration, the funds should only be used for 1-time projects. Now Patrick wants to include the revenue in his budget proposal?
   
3. Let's get this straight: Governor Patrick is willing to ignore his own aides, screw the centuries-old legislative process and skip right to approval? This is something Patrick's supporters would expect from Mitt Romney, not the progressive champion Candidate Deval claimed to be.

Does the Governor think himself above the legislative process? Is he better than the Massachusetts Constitution, which established the way our government works? The legislative process, ingrained in that constitution, not only allows for vetting projects, it demands it. Will we ever get the man we were promised on election day? Many still hope Candidate Deval will reemerge from wherever he's been kept away, replacing this man behind the mask who could never have given hope to thousands with "just words." At the end of the day, Candidate Deval was about more than just words; he was about decency and conviction, the traits that gave him the ability to move mountains. Without the positive traits that drove the Patrick campaign, Governor Patrick is no different than anyone else who's occupied the Corner Office recently. Yet, the fact that Governor Patrick has so far failed to deliver on the promise of Candidate Patrick truly leaves a bad taste that didn't even exist when Romney was in charge.

Oh, Those Liberal Judicial Activists!

This made me laugh.

I hope everyone had a great Turkey day - and reunions for those who had them. (I just got back from my fifth right now - am I officially old or what?)

Deval's Good Idea: Remove Tocco

Let's get the Romney stench out of the UMASS system - something Governor Patrick is trying to do. There are all sorts of good reasons to get rid of Tocco, but the best is because Tocco's the sleazeball that orchestrated the ouster of everyone who supported a UMASS Dartmouth law school. Governor Patrick supports the law school; certainly, thousands in the South Coast (including me, when I was there) spoke to him personally about that issue. It's very important for the region - and state - to have an affordable and one day high-quality institution for public law, which the proposed school UMASS would merge with happens to specialize in. It would take a few years to bring the school up to par, but with a tuition set at $19,000 a year, it would open the doors to law school to millions in this state that would otherwise be unable to afford it.

I know, just what this state needs - more Esquires, right? Well, when their specializations would be in public defense and prosecution, it sounds good to me.

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.

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.

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.

It's Raining Casinos and Slot Machines

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

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

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

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

Big Tent or Bad Tent?

The Boston Globe had an interesting editorial today on the latest Republican Presidential debate and I can't help myself but to comment. The Globe was just thrilled that the Republican Party was offering the population actual choice.

On Iraq war strategy, immigration, abortion rights, health care, trade, and English as the official US language, the ideological diversity on stage in Manchester last night was far broader than what the Democrats displayed two nights earlier.

Of course, toward the end, there was a different note to the editorial.

But the candidates also used that question, and another one later, to do some soul searching about why the Republican Party took such a beating in the 2006 elections. They lost credibility, they all said, by becoming more like the Democrats -- big spending, interventionist, corrupt. It was a mea culpa to the Republican Party's base, but strikingly, did not mention Iraq, and in that way missed the most important message of 2006.

And in between was a John McCain love fest, because we all know how much of a maverick he is. He's such a great candidate because he addresses real people and everything. Okay, that's blatant BS, but the media is having a huge problem kicking this absurd McCain obsession. Rumor has it, it's worse than a coke addiction.

So what does it all mean, beside the fact that the media [hearts] McCain? Is the Republican Party really a "big tent" party? Are their candidates more interesting and diverse? Hardly. Sure, there are differences between the Republican candidates - but different shades of what... burn-in-hell red? Wrong-for-America Maroon? You have McCain, the opportunist. Then there's Giuliani, the opportunist... and Romney, the ultimate opportunist. McCain's constituency seems to be the media, Giuliani's the past (don't you all remember 9/11? Clearly, you need to vote for him!) and Romney's base seems to be rich, wealthy, corporate donors - because it sure is hell ain't anyone in Massachusetts.

Who exactly do these "big tent" Republicans pull together? That's what being "big tent" is all about - not about a diversity of opinion, but bringing all sorts of people together. Democrats were traditionally the "big tent party" because they brought together unions, liberals, minorities, progressives, the southern democratic bloc and all sorts of other people - be they FDR's converts and Democrats-for-Life or people in the academic world.

The Republican Party? They have their religious fundamentalist base and corporate funders - that's pretty much it. The whole Karl Rove strategy - one the entire party embraced for years now - is one of winning by the smallest margin possible, using hot-button issues to drive just enough support on election day to get 51% of the vote (or even 49% and a fixed Florida election). You can't have an actual majority, just a lot of extra pissed off people on election day, willing to vote against their interests. Otherwise, how could the Republican Party be so fracked up and get away with it?

Well, the people driven by the same-old hot button issues are wisening up. Better yet, most of those people pulled the Democratic lever last time; because, while our Presidential candidates and elective leaders may not have the larger diversity of ideas according to the Globe (though, I vehemently disagree with that), we have the right ones. We're the guys who care about issues ordinary people are facing every day, whether it's public education, health care, social security, or the war in Iraq. We're the "big tent party," drawing all sorts of people together.

The unison at the last Democratic Presidential Debate had more to do with conventional wisdom moving toward the right direction (ending the war, supporting civil rights, etc.) and almost nothing to do with a lack of ideas. Don't get me wrong, a lot of the Democrats can certainly be improved and the fact that they're shared by some makes it a whole lot easier for them to be shared by all. Yet, the day Republicans become the Big Tent Party is the day they actually care about everyone, throughout their entire lives - not just fetuses and wealthy corporate donors. It's a day I look forward to and know will come, but not by any of these neanderthals currently trying to carry the Elephant-in-the-room Flag.

Interview With Commission on GLBT Youth's Chair

Recently, I was contacted by Jason A. Smith, Chair of the Massachusetts Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. He read my story on Massresistance's use of GLBT photographs, complete with full identification of the individuals and homophobic insults written as 'descriptions.' Smith offerred to take questions on any topic related to the Commission. Since it's an important organization that empowers gay and lesbian youth - a disenfranchised group if there is any - I was glad to oblige. Here's what he had to say:

1. For starters, just because I don't think a lot of people know exactly what the Commission does - including people who know about it - can you write a bit about what you guys actually do? What happens at a typical meeting or event? etc.

The Commission as it exists now was created in June 2006 by the Legislature. There had been a Governor's Commission in existence since 1992, but the move to create the Commission as an independent agency of the Commonwealth in 2006 gives us a stability that wasn't there before.

At a minimum, the Commission is tasked with ensuring that there are school and community-based programs for suicide prevention, violence prevention, and promoting zero-tolerance policies regarding harassment and discrimination against GLBT youth. Beyond this minimum, the Commission is expected to investigate resources used to provide resources for GLBT youth and to make recommendations on policies to the government.

Our typical meetings are actually rather formal. There is a set agenda that we move through discussing each item. Because the Commission is starting anew, our meetings have had to be very focused to get through the enormous amount of material that we have to work with. I expect that we will have more interactive meetings and hearings starting in July once the Commission begins to meet around the state and move outside of Boston. The meetings in July and following should be a lot more interactive as we hope to hear from youth, service providers, and other members of the community.

2. How does the commission help deal with problems facing GLBT youth today? What are some of those problems? Are they the same today as they were 10 years ago, 20? Etc. What kinds of things does the commission do in schools across Massachusetts?

The Commission provides a voice for GLBT youth within state government at a level that can have significant impact on services for GLBT youth. The Commission doesn’t provide services for youth directly but works hard to ensure that those services are there and that GLBT youth have an advocate for them in the government.

GLBT youth can be at greater risk for suicide, violence, and substance abuse. Many of the problems GLBT youth face today are similar to ones faced in the past. Some are different. The key thing to understand about the health of queer youth is that often the problems they face are a result of an environment of GLBT oppression rather than some individual or family risk. If you fix that environment, you are on the way to solving some of the problems.

3. Your organization "has a mandate" to offer suggestions on issues surrounding glbt youth - presumably to the legislature. What kind of suggestions is your organization giving? How often and to what extent do they take your organization's input and advice?

We are required to report to the Legislature and to the Governor formally every year by June 2nd. We also provide information informally on a regular basis to the Legislature and various agencies that request it. We are working on our Annual Report for this year, and it is still in its draft stages so I can’t discuss its details. I do want to emphasize though that the Commission is in a unique position to talk about GLBT youth and their needs at all levels of society. I think you will see that in the upcoming Annual Report.

GLBT youth are often at risk because of the environment: from their families and schools to local organizations and communities and government. Queer youth need a voice and an advocate at all levels of society to ensure that each level of our society is supportive of queer youth and of GLBT experience. We have said that the health of GLBT youth is rooted in GLBT culture. This is what me mean. You can’t lift GLBT youth out of the whole GLBT experience and community. You really have to think ecologically about it and build an environment that supports our youth and gives them the skills they need to be healthy and to succeed.

4. I was reading an interesting article from the advocate the other day about how GLBT youth - and their allies (be it friends or the sons and daughters of gay parents) have made tremendously effective lobbyists to state legislatures across the country - helping get bans on bullying, violence and targeting of glbt students across the country. What kind of impact have the young made here?

Youth have made a tremendous impact in the Commonwealth. Youth were instrumental in getting the first Governor’s Commission established in 1992 and have been instrumental in moving Massachusetts forward in protecting GLBT youth. The Commission would not be able to do its work without the participation of queer youth.

It should also be noted that some youth who were involved in the Commission as teenagers are now working in the GLBT community in Massachusetts and are becoming leaders in our community.

5. Now, as I understand it, the Commission used to be a part of the Governor's office - and obviously, Mitt Romney wasn't the biggest fan. Can you elaborate on what went on there?

The Commission was a Governor’s Commission until 2006. The story is pretty simple: We have seen state and national leaders play politics and use the GLBT community for political advantage. This happens on all sides of the political spectrum, and happened here. To protect GLBT youth, committed legislators acted to make the Commission an agency in 2006. This reorganization of the Commission is good for GLBT youth in the long-term, but in the short-term we have spent a lot of time and energy rebuilding our administrative structure. In the end, there will be a stronger and more vibrant Commission for GLBT youth.

6. You read my blog on MassResistance's insistence on taking photos of teenagers in the commission - and releasing their names, with all sorts of blatantly homophobic descriptions on their website. Subsequently, I've heard that the Attorney General's office is looking into it. Has that gone anywhere? Do you know much about the laws concerning taking pictures of minors at places like the Commission hearing? What kind of dangers/problems does MassResistance's tactics cause? What is the reaction of the members - esp. the glbt youth - of the commission?

This is obviously a problem. The Commission is a public agency and as such functions in public. I understand and am committed to the need to have open and transparent public meetings. That being said, the Commission will do everything it can to protect GLBT youth and help to build an environment where they are supported and valued. Personally, I find taking pictures of GLBT youth without their permission, or by misrepresenting your intent, and then posting those
pictures with homophobic commentary to be abusive and predatory. Frankly, I simply don’t understand it, don’t believe that it rises to the level of protected speech, and believe that it can be a real threat to the health of GLBT youth.

I do not know if the Attorney General’s office is looking into this or not. The Commission has expressed its concern to the Attorney General and has sought technical clarification of minor points. Beyond that, I do not know what action, if any, she has or has not taken.

Ultimately, it is important to be clear about what has happened. The Commission has expressed its concern to the Attorney General and has sought clarification of minor aspects of the law. There’s not much beyond that. Any impression that there is more to it is merely a drive for publicity.

7. Finally, is there anything you wanted to talk about, discuss or reiterate? Are there any important projects going on? Consider this an opportunity to throw in a final word on anything that's important that I may not have addressed.

There are couple of important things that I would mention. First, it is important that the GLBT community be there and be part of supporting GLBT youth. The GLBT community is more than the fight for equal marriage, and youth really need the support of the community. I would urge the community to express your concern and support for the needs of GLBT youth to your legislators, to your school boards, to community organizations, and to your friends and families.
Second, the Commission really works best when youth are involved. In the coming months, the Commission will be looking to add more youth voices, and I want to invite anyone with an interest in the Commission to contact us. Our website is at: http://www.mass.gov/cgly/ and our next meeting is May 21st.

Romney Would Still Do Imus's Show

Now I understand how "LOL" became internet lingo for laughing out loud - because Romney's statement on this matter is hi-fracking-larious.

Mitt didn't just come out and say he wouldn't do Imus's show. Anything for free publicity, right? That $21 million first quarter wasn't enough to justify being more selective in free press... I suppose he'd just love to do Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity and any other crazy out there.

Oh, don't worry though, Willard promised to give Mr. Imus a good, stern talking to...

Nice catch, David. That's quite the revealing story.

I was just dying to write about this as soon as I - for the first time in months - caught NBC news with Brian Williams and heard the spokesperson come on to discuss the matter. Now, with Mr. Romney's admission, I have an excuse to give my take: what an awesome precedent NBC Universal has initiated. It's well past time the crazies are thrown off the air for hate speech. First, DePetro, now hopefully CBS will follow NBC's tv-suit and throw Imus off the air for good.

Mitt's Gun Problem

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

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

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