Today's Globe: 6 *more* pages of Scott Brown fluff

After taking a whack at Elizabeth Warren for an entire month with near-daily headlines about manufactured racial bating stories, what would the Boston Globe have in store for Scott Brown, now that they've decided we're into electoral politic's hard hitting journo season?

Fear not, dear readers, the Globe had six entire pages dedicated to Scott Brown today, covering

• the scandal about how Senator Brown's dead set against health care reform, while his daughter benefits from it and even Chief Justice Roberts ruled for it 
• the Senator's reluctance to debate in New Bedford or Worcester to answer questions relevant to those communities, even while his opponent agreed to one of his radio debates 
• why Senator Brown's saying he's for keeping student loan rates affordable, when he's the principal guy behind blocking current efforts in the Senate

Oh, hell, what did it cover? 

For Brown, campaign an all-out family affair 

Senator's wife and daughters now helping to soften image of the man with the truck 

WRENTHAM — Scott Brown is at the stove, preparing bacon and cheese omelets, tossing eggshells into the sink with scarcely a glance, each one a perfect shot. Gail Huff is at the breakfast table, reminiscing about her early days as a TV reporter, talking up her husband’s cooking. But the star of the show is the fridge. 

A standard issue side-by-side ­model, nearly every inch of its face is plastered with snapshots and magnets, children’s drawings and certificates of achievement, ticket stubs and local press clippings. The collaged photos show daughters Ayla and ­Arianna through the years — Girl Scouts, Little League, prom night, college — but there are glimpses of Brown and Huff, too. 

One shows him a decade ago, a ­little-known state legislator in full Gene Simmons makeup and giant shoulder pads, one more anonymous KISS fan rocking with his tongue out. Another from 2010 shows how much their lives have changed: Huff hugs the real Gene Simmons, after he invited them backstage because he wanted to meet Brown, the man who wrested Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat from the Democrats.

That's just the first three paragraphs. Dear god, help us all.

On the off chance that there's anything important happening in Massachusetts or the country at large -- oh, I don't know, like a jobs crisis or hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts citizens being under water on their mortgages -- I sent a letter to the Globe's writer of this fluffenuttery goodness. Here were my last few words for him.

He's running an entire campaign dedicated on steering the campaign away from any kind of serious issue or problem facing Massachusetts or the country, constantly engaging in Straw Mans and issues that have no bearing on regular people. Why is the media enabling him? 

There are serious issues in this race and the voters of Massachusetts deserve a media that's going to hold our Senators' feet to the fire, especially during political campaigns. That is your responsibility as a journalist. Please live up to it.

Pretty please?

Meanwhile, it's time to resurrect the Fake News tag, because when there's critically important stuff going on in Massachusetts and around the world, stories like this are a steaming pile of crap.

According to Globe, Menino "supports" #OccupyBoston -- even as he tries to evict them

I don't know where to begin with this article.

Mayor Thomas Menino, who has previously expressed support for the Occupy movement, tells WCVB-TV (http://bit.ly/uwJs97) that he wants to have the legal tools to have dozens of tents in Dewey Square Park removed.

The fact that they suggest Menino's supported the movement is bizarre, in the extreme. Ordering police to mass-arrest protesters isn't "supporting" them.Telling protesters that Civil Disobedience has no place in Boston isn't "supporting" the protesters. About the only thing you can say about Menino's support is at least he hasn't allowed the BPD to give any Iraqi veterans brain injuries, like in Oakland, though even in that case, veterans in Boston were injured due to needless police brutality.

Menino's been somewhat constrained from lashing out at the Occupy movement in Dewey Square by popular opinion and the movement's strength, but let's not kid ourselves here, he's been wanting to get rid of them for quite a while now.

Want to see how much Menino "supports" the protesters and movement? Just watch this segment from WCVB's "On the Record," starting at about 2:50. It's a mutual sneer-fest. He (and they) hate the Occupy movement. Menino even goes on to compare Occupy Boston to the Tea Party -- and gives praise to the Tea Party!

So, Boston Globe, this online story is officially the ranks of Fake News.

Questions Media Didn't Ask at #OccupyBoston

Sometimes it's not just about what the media asks -- what they cover -- but what they don't cover and don't ask. Most of the issues over the coverage we saw, of what little coverage there was, would fit into this category.

News organizations like WCVB have covered the fact that the police asked protesters to leave, but didn't ask why they wanted to stay. That seems kind of important, doesn't it?

Several media outlets, like the Boston Herald, covered the fact that Boston's police commissioner blamed the raid on "anarchists" who had 'taken over' over the past 24 hours, but didn't bother to see just who those 'anarchists' were. If they followed up, they would have found a lot of veterans for piece, college students from neighboring campuses and the working poor, but I'm not so sure about "anarchists."

Plenty of news sources, like NECN, covered the fact that Mayor Menino despises civil disobedience and won't tolerate it in Boston, but could no news organization think to ask him how he can reconcile that with the fact that Boston practically invented civil disobedience in this country, in the form of hordes of Bostonians throwing tons of tea into the harbor.

There was the media coverage of the shrubs -- oh, dear, the shrubs! -- including ABC News, except no one bothered to ask Occupy Boston about it. If they did, they'd know Occupy Boston had approval from the Rose Kennedy group to be there, so long as they'd help care for the shrubs.

If the media asked, they would have learned how Occupy Boston already took care of shrubs and flowers at the Dewey Square camp and had a recycling program that would be the envy of many municipalities across the state.

Almost no main stream media organizations made note of the Veterans for Peace who were attacked, even while they trended worldwide on twitter. Wouldn't it have made sense to ask why it was necessary for the Boston Police to come down hard on people who've served this country with honor and distinction?

What about the medics and legal observers who were arrested? Or the medical supplies and other resources that were immediately thrown away -- things that could have provided evidence of police brutality, like cell phones and computers that may have been in the camp? Were these not worthy questions to ask about?

Among the questions that the media didn't ask was if the Patrick Administration approved the State Police being used as tools to bash protesters, or why Mayor Menino didn't have the police use non-violent means of breaking up the crowd -- without having to make mass arrests -- like using tear gas. There were plenty of questions asked of the Boston Police, but very little coverage of the protesters.

The entire Dewey Square camp was free and clear, with hundreds of people right there who would have been willing to answer questions. These are people who just want to have their voices heard -- that's why they're there in the first place. Would it have been so hard to hear their stories? To hear why they're there? To hear why they're willing to put themselves at risk for a greater cause? Those are worthy questions the rest of America deserves to have answered and covered.

Mostly, though, I'd like to know why most of the media didn't seem to think this was a big story. Well over a hundred people, in a city the fraction the size of New York, stood up for their rights in front of police brutality and courageously didn't back down, even when it meant arrest -- while the world went nuts over it on Twitter -- and it received barely a peep on the Mainstream Media. That's the biggest travesty of all.

A "strike marked by several violent incidents"

First, let's all give a round of applause to the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 791, the Shaw's distribution workers who just successfully ended their 17 week strike by negotiating a favorable contract. It's important these workers are well compensated for their hard and important work, as we wouldn't eat or drink without them (at least when it comes to perishable goods, like meat and milk). Most people don't think about all the effort it takes to get our food to the grocery store; it doesn't just magically appear there.

However, the article covering their impressive victory was horrendously prejudiced and misleading, making it sound as if the strikers were violent criminals. Don't take my word for it; here's the first sentence of the article.

A four-month strike marked by several violent incidents and arrests ended peacefully yesterday when workers at the Shaw's distribution center ratified a new contract.

Unfortunately, the Eagle Tribune doesn't follow up on the "violent incidents" written in that lead until the end of the article, with two of its final three paragraphs on the strike:

Methuen police maintained a 24-hour detail to keep the peace at the picket line outside the warehouse. The officers directed traffic for delivery trucks and workers who crossed the picket line.

Police arrested a truck driver who waved his middle finger at yelling strikers and then drove his truck at a police sergeant on March 30. A month later, police arrested another trucker who spat at a striker.

Why is it that the mainstream media, even the local variety, almost always portrays activists engaging in non-violent civil disobedience as violent criminals, if it covers them at all?

Given that almost no one reads until the end of a newspaper article, the lead in this story was completely irresponsible. If the Eagle Tribune wasn't going to clarify exactly what it meant by a strike "marked by several violent incidents" right at the beginning of its article, it shouldn't have included that sensationalist introduction at all.

Ra, Ra, Ra! Shish, Koom, Bah! Let's Go Casinos!

Well, the Globe's casino cheer leading again, this time featuring Representative Brian Dempsey. Nothing like a nice Dempsey press release to get the story moving -- and nudge the Commonwealth a little further to casinos, a fantastic potential ad revenue source for enterprising Globe sales reps. Whee!

I'm not even going to block quote any of the story. Suffice it to say, there's some interesting competing stories going on. The Globe and Dempsey suggest that "jobs" are leading some reps to rethink their position, while the Boston Phoenix and Herald make other allusions.

From the second Herald story:

With a proposal to expand gambling expected to hit the House floor within weeks, nearly two dozen casino developers, slot machine makers and gaming proponents spent a staggering $2.2 million to pay lobbyists and related expenses in 2009.

The Phoenix also notes that Suffolk, that lovely little horsey track sitting in Speaker Deleo's district (that wants slots way more than horseys), paid out over $780,000 in lobbying this past year -- second most of any organization in the state. No wonder DeLeo took in $5,000 in lobbyist cash from "about" two dozen industry peeps this past year (his Committee for a Democratic House took in another 10k). Murray - and her Committee for a Democratic Senate - actually matches those numbers. Oh, yeah, it's just about the jobs. And I just spotted a winged-pig in my backyard.

If politicians in this state want to be taken credibly, it's well past time that they joined with the Governor in supporting a comprehensive study to analyze all the pros and cons of casinos in this state -- what jobs they'll create, what jobs they'll destroy, what revenue they'll generate and what revenue they'll force us to spend and, perhaps most importantly of all, how they'd impact our communities near and far from potential casinos. If the Speaker and Senate President, not to mention Representative Dempsey, are so confident casinos will lead to a net increase of jobs, why won't they agree to this full-scale, comprehensive, non-partisan study?

Maybe, it's because they're not so confident in their job predictions -- given that history suggests casinos and slot parlors lead to a net loss of regional jobs.

The fact that state constitutional provisions were utilized to make it as difficult as possible for future generations to legalize gambling activities (and thereby experiment once again with a classic "boom and bust" economic cycle) lends substantial credence to arguments that both historically and currently, the legalization of gambling activities eventually causes: (1) increased taxes, (2) a loss of jobs from the overall region, (3) economic disruption of other businesses, (4) increased crime and (5) large social-welfare costs for society in general and government agencies in particular. For example, two studies of the riverboat casinos in Illinois concluded that for every one job created by the riverboats, most of the surrounding communities probably lost one or more jobs from pre-existing businesses (Grinols 1994; Grinols and Omorov 1995).

In recent economic history, legalized gambling activities have been directly and indirectly subsidized by the taxpayers. The field research throughout the nation indicates that for every dollar the legalized gambling interests indicate is being contributed in taxes, it usually costs the taxpayers at least 3 dollars-- and higher numbers have been calculated.

So, will Speaker Deleo, Senator Murray and Representative Dempsey put their money where their mouth is and have the state fund the study to see if they're right about something that would so drastically change this state -- or will they continue to allow voters of this state to question the honesty and integrity of its elected leadership?

Politico's Political BS

Politico reports that Martha Coakley only made 19 campaign stops to Scott Brown's 66 in this story, but they don't give a single, solitary source. Where the hell is that source -- because that statistic is just absurd. It's unfathomable that they'd even report something like that without using a single, solitary source. Don't get me wrong, Coakley's led a very quiet campaign up until the last week or so, but she has certainly made more than 19 campaign stops. As John Walsh said on MSNBC Live, responding to that wacky story, she probably made 19 stops yesterday, for heaven's sake. Unless Politico backs up their source, I'm calling political BS.

Stay Classy, Lynn Item

The Lynn Item decided to run an online poll on who (internet) readers would prefer for their Senator -- which isn't odd. Many newspapers have done that. Scott Brown happened to win the online poll, for whatever that matters (not much).

However, not many newspapers have then used those online -- unscientific -- polls to thus exclaim about a candidate "Greater Lynn Voters Prefers Scott Brown by Wide Margin," like the Lynn Item did... in today's above-the-fold, headline article. Furthermore, they did so without mentioning the fact that their poll was not a scientific poll and failing to include "internet poll" in the headline.

The Lynn Item has never been the kind of paper that's had a lot of journalistic integrity, at least as long as I can remember. However, this really takes the cake. Reporting this "poll" as if it had a shred of credibility, then using it for a headline article on the Monday before the election to make it appear as if Scott Brown enjoys any kind of real advantage in the greater region is asinine.

The frustrating thing is this would have been a fantastically interesting poll to take -- if the Lynn Item wanted to do it the journalistic way and conduct a real poll. I'd have enjoyed reading that article. But the fact remains that this poll was utterly meaningless and the article was therefore horseshit. Way to stay classy, Lynn Item. With utter crap like this, maybe the demise of the local, daily paper isn't such a bad thing?

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.

Boston Herald Goes off the Deep End

In what should be a shocker to no one, today's Herald editorial jumped off the deep end, coming out strong against a UMASS Dartmouth Law School, with the kind of hyperbole rarely out seen outside of tabloid "journalism." Saying the "skids are greased," they launch an attack at Chancellor of UMASS Dartmouth, Jean McCormick, the UMASS Board of Trustees, Romney-appointed UMASS Prez Jack Wilson and Governor Patrick. Notably missing is almost any reason why they think a UMASS Law School, focusing on public law at reasonable in-state tuition, would be such a bad idea.

A lot of the editorial doesn't even make sense. For example:

But when there are agendas at work - and make no mistake there are - you just can’t keep a bad idea down.

Please, Boston Herald, pray tell, what "agendas" are there at work? UMASS Dartmouth wanting to become a more prestigious public school? The UMASS system wanting a law school? The agendas here seem to be of the noble variety.

The Herald goes on to bash this idea as a bad one, because it failed in 2005. Of course, the only reason why the law school failed to earn the votes last time is because BU, Northeastern, Suffolk and several other high-priced law schools screamed bloody murder. Seems they think a neighbor on the block that costs half as much (literally) may just put a dent into their profits. That was the real hidden "agenda" last time -- the agenda to stop a public law school, led by the private ones.

It only gets more absurd from there.

And the only thing that has changed since 2005 is the state of the Massachusetts economy. In case President Wilson hasn’t read the papers lately, the economy has tanked and it’s not getting any better very soon.

And that's a reason to oppose an accessible, affordable law school?

From there, the Herald goes on to distort the truth. They say the law school "basically wants to give itself away to UMASS." However, that's misleading at best. The law school wants to become part of a major university system so it has the increased resources to become academically competitive. UMASS wants a law school so it can be a more competitive major university system in this country. Herald Board: That's why they call this thing a "merger," jackasses.

The Herald then decides swim deeper, saying the state can't afford this.

Wilson is singing the same old song about what a wonderful asset this will be and how it will eventually make money for the system. That, of course, is predicated on it enrolling nearly twice as many students as the school now serves and that wouldn’t happen unless it got American Bar Association accreditation.

Which the University says it would do in a matter of years.

What Wilson and his enabler UMass/Dartmouth Chancellor Jean MacCormack don’t like to talk about is the millions of dollars it will cost to get ABA accreditation by upgrading the school’s facilities, library and its faculty.

Really? They don't like talking about it? Have ya asked them? The fact of the matter is that while this would cost the school some money, it would cost the state diddley squat. The university has the access to the cash to make this happen. They've had that cash for a long time. Making it happen will make the University a more prestigious public school across the entire country, which in turn would make more people want to go to it.

There are a lot of people in this state, many of them who probably buy ads in the Boston Herald, who are terrified of the UMASS system becoming the type of University system that you find in North Carolina, California and elsewhere: elite, public colleges that are affordable and accessible to in-state students. UMASS has already made many leaps and bounds, getting a law school and making relatively small investments in it would go a long way toward reaching the finish line. The real agenda here is keeping UMASS down. Unfortunately, the same forces that have been successful in that quest for so long are losing the public fight, which is probably why this Herald article tries so hard in its own deranged way at grasping for straws.

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.

The Globe's Horrific Drivel on Cyclists

Will someone please explain to me why this vapid, POS anti-cycling article made the print on the Globe's Op-Ed page today? Taking the entire piece to actually say anything concrete about what we should do differently about cycling in this state, here's what it comes up with:

You know that deep happiness when the car that swerved in front of you on Route 128 gets a ticket a mile later? That’s the secret. That’s how you make a driver Be Kind and Share the Road. No billboards, no campaigns are necessary. Just tickets. Beautiful, green, made-from-100-percent-consumer-waste tickets.

First, what's the point? Cyclists can be annoying at times, but they're really just a scape goat. More cyclists reduce traffic, they don't make traffic worse. More cars make traffic worse.

Why is the Globe printing this drivel? Was there some kind of shortage of submitted opinion pieces? Shouldn't the Globe be using this space to print articles that feature, oh, say, some facts? That's perhaps the most frustrating thing about this utterly meaningless article -- it doesn't look at the issue in anyway that offers analysis, insight or anything tangible. It may as well be a 600 word essay titled "I hate cyclists," featuring only the words "Cyclists suck," repeated over and over again.

If anyone wants any insight from this article, it's trying to wrap your head around why the author, Monique Doyle Spencer, is so prejudiced. Is it, perhaps, because she's in her dinosaur-juice vehicle stuck in traffic, while bikes actually move somewhere during rush hour? And if that's frustrating to her, why not take the T? Or, heaven forbid, ride a bike? Something tells me the endorphins she'd get from the exercise may just calm her inane histrionics down.

Meanwhile, why does the Globe feel so compelled to pit commuters against each other? Why is the reporting on cycling as a commuter option so prejudiced? Don't people have better things to do with their time, other than griping about the very same issues with non-car-riding commuters that people are perfectly willing to ignore when it comes to driving -- traffic, accidents and annoying drivers? We give a free pass for everything that's wrong with commuting in an automobile, from maintenance costs to deaths, while fixating on only the bad stuff when it comes to anything but driving. It's insanity and it needs to stop.

Curious Choice by Globe

The President had a prime-time speech on health care, perhaps the most important issue facing this country, and that gets second billing to the President's relatively brief comments at the presser about the Gates situation in Cambridge. If you just looked at the Globe's front-page briefly today, you'd think the press conference was about "Gatesgate" (and they can't even manage to get that story right, making the same mistake Maddow did the night before).

Question for the Globe: Were these three minutes and thirty three seconds really more important than the rest of the entire press conference or the issue of health care? No doubt, there's a local interest to the Gates story. However, contrary to whatever the gatekeeper editors at the Globe think, there's an even bigger local interest in health care.

What kind of a local interest? We're getting new windows put in my house today. The window guy just lost his home recently, one that he built himself. Why? He got sick. It put him out of work for a while. There were also fewer jobs. Deductibles and co-pays added up. He had health insurance and still went bankrupt. Now he's better -- and lost his home. There's literally hundreds or thousands of people like him in Massachusetts today, just in the past few years, due to our country's sorry state in health care and economy. The Globe chose not to cover that kind of local interest.

David, along with others, almost blames Obama for this hiccup. Obama chose to answer the Gates question. He could have - and probably should have - skipped the question, since it didn't reinforce the night's health care message. However, the Globe (and other media outlets) have decided to play race over health care. They've decided to ignore the more important story over the sensational one -- that will no doubt be well handled by Gates and Harvard Law. It was the media's choice to pounce on that 3 minutes and 33 seconds, not Obama's.

If and when the Globe goes under, it's going to go because it became a newspaper of the high-end condos and retailers - and not of the middle-class workers who struggle every day. While the Globe publishes stories that belittle second-hand stores in JP, they ignore the thousands of people who are crying out for major reforms in health care -- and the President who's actually working on their behalf. Sadly, the Globe's forgotten who their readers are -- which, in the newspaper biz, is worse than being obsolete. The dead trees could live on if what was printed on them actually interested readers.

Going Global

• Fake News Alert: Globe can't get past Gov's finances in article about Governor House Hunting. Shocker. The guy hasn't considered his Milton home home since he built the Richmond estate. Swapping the Milton digs for a comfortable condo within walking distance of the State House is a no brainer -- and not a real money-saving move. Luxury condos in Boston by the Commons don't go cheap.
• How does Globe come by the following sentence in Menino charter school article?
  

  Mayor Thomas M. Menino, who for years has expressed deep reservations about one of the most fundamental innovations in public education, abruptly shifted course yesterday and said he wants to turn the city's poorly performing schools into new charter schools.

  What makes Globe writer Michael Levenson or his editors experts in "innovations in public education?" Stick to the facts -- Menino's robbing Flaherty's chief education proposal.
  

• Times taking bids for Globe. I hereby offer my official bid of $.01. Any higher takers?
  

Wonderful State Senate Press Release

So glad the Globe's willing to print anything sent to them.

Just a summation: Some in the Senate, still throwing a temper tantrum over the Governor, decided to push a proposal that would limit contributions one can make to state parties, because (apparently) Patrick's done well with cross-fundraising.

The Globe tries to say this is all about some joint-fundraising effort called the Seventy-First Fund, but the Senate's proposal - as I understand it from the article - is far more wide sweeping than the fund itself. The 71st Fund is for people who max out both to the state party and Governor Patrick -- $500 for Patrick, $5000 for the state party. However, the Senate proposal limits all contributions to state parties in Massachusetts to $500.

Why would the Democratic Senators of Massachusetts want to do that? I suppose the fact that John Walsh, one of Patrick's closest allies, has nothing to do with it. He controls the state party and has brought quite a bit of change as a result - most for the good. He's also helped the Governor a great deal from within the State Party. Apparently, that means the State Party should be punished. That's a great idea, except for the fact that the state party's efforts are critical in electing democrats in the legislature too. It's nice to know Walsh isn't as petty as Senator Frederick Berry, the lead in pushing this proposal, because Walsh is actually out there trying to elect other Democrats - including in the legislature.

Loved John Walsh's quote, btw.

"If it applies to all parties, we support it, " said Democratic Party chairman John Walsh, who was Patrick's campaign manager.

Bluff called, Senator Berry?

--

Who wants to bet that this proposal goes no where? Makes for a great press release, but when legislators find out how many thousands it'll cost them in individual, competitive campaigns, bye-bye spiteful rule.

--

Finally, love the faux drama. This funding is controversial, dammit! Why? Because the Boston Globe said so! Question: if it's so dammed "controversial," why hasn't the paper been writing articles on it for years now? Current campaign limits are nothing new, after all. Instead, we get articles on pirates and how Craigslist is ebil. Peddling the current Beacon Hill fued - what a way for the Globe to try to prove its relevance!

Mooninites Admit to Causing Swine Flu

Claim to have brought pig back from homeworld

BOSTON - Ignignokt and Errr, the Mooninites responsible for the near-devastating non-attacks on Boston in 2007, held a press conference today at the base of their starship to claim responsibility for Swine Flu attacks. Parked in the middle of the Massachusetts Turnpike, they gathered press and angry commuters around their space vehicle early Thursday, at 8am, to explain the cause of H1N1 influenza, commonly referred to as the swine flu.

"We released the swine, knowing it would cause a worldwide panic of irrational proportions," Ignignokt said.

"Yeah, so worship us, bitches." Err followed.

The pig was a pale, fleshy color and weighed over a hundred pounds, according to the green and pink pixelated characters. They claim to have released the pig from their world, knowing it posed a potentially minor health risk, according to Ignignokt. "People will get sick and vomit and stay home from work for a few days. It will ruin everything," he said.

"Yeah, yeah, it'll kick them in the ass," his friend explained.

When asked about Egypt, which just went about killing all of their pigs erroneously fearing the swine meat caused swine flu, Ignignokt gave an eerily monotone, sinister laugh.

"The pigs taste good, delicious pork, and now all those Egyptians will have to live without it for a while. Our plot is working," explained Ignignokt.

"Yeah, sucks to be them!" Err added. "I took all that pork and ate it." He later admitted.

They explained just how they infected the pig and got it through the border below.

More Craigslist Moral Panic!!

The Globe's at it again. This time, according to the Globe's headline, Craigslist's CEO is in favor of illegal sex!! On the heels of yesterday's (two) front-page stories, there's two more front-page stories. In fact, there's five stories and an editorial. The two front-page stories are even covering the same angles as the front-page stories the day before: each day one story's covered the alleged criminal, the other the evils of Craigslist. Be afraid! This should come to the surprise of no one. Not that I'm in the habit of quoting myself, but when I'm right, I'm right.

According to the Boston Globe, if you use Craigslist, you may get hacked up into little pieces, served baked, with fine wine. Or something like that. Anyone feel like the Globe should have included a disclaimer? Something akin to, "Note: Craigslist is one of the Globe's biggest competitors in actually making money. They took our lucrative business and put it online, for free. And now the Times is threatening us to close! We fucking hate Craigslist."

The Globe, in its editorial, hasn't quite called for federal hearings yet -- but you know that's coming soon. They've already demanded Craigslist get rid of its "erotic" section, you know, the same personals that are printed in hundreds of newspapers across the country. Don't worry, though, it doesn't stop there. The Globe's also made the demands that Craigslist hire more staff to watch out for future abuse. Never mind the fact that such abuse is rare. Never mind the fact that Craigslist has something that newspaper personals and classifieds have never had -- user flagging ability. Never mind the fact that the Globe doubtfully ever employed anyone to make sure no crime ever took place in their classified sections. Craigslist is simply a 'risky place' according to the Globe's editorial, short of any statistics or facts. It's risky because the Boston Globe says so.

But let's get back to the moral outrage.

Craigslist chief executive Jim Buckmaster denied yesterday that the website offered sex-related advertising, even as Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal called on the company to take stronger actions to combat pornography, prostitution, and child trafficking in its online classifieds....

He acknowledged that Craigslist offers an "erotic services" section that should not include more than "legitimate escort services, sensual massage, exotic dancers, etc.," but said that offers to exchange sexual favors for money are "strictly prohibited" and removed from the site.

That policy point is true. Craigslist does ban postings based on prostitution. Does that mean posts offering sex for money don't get through? Of course not. Thousands of people submit personal ads to Craigslist every day. Meanwhile, the company has 25 people who work for it, according to yesterday's Globe article. Considering the immense bandwidth the site uses, as well as the fact that the majority of the postings are for free (and the rest a pittance), who knows how many more employees Craigslist could take on. This is a point the Globe should well understand -- their particularly shoddy journalism of the past few years from a once-proud paper can be directly attributed to the slashes made to their budget, leading to the gutting of some of their most talented writers on staff. Maybe Craigslist should hire some more employees for community policing when the Globe hires a few more journalists capable of writing decent articles?

Honestly, I'd settle for a few facts. There aren't many out there, but there's this. Craigslist has been associated with three murders over the past year. Sounds like a lot, right? Well, there's over 40,000 murders in America every year. There's been no evidence in the media or elsewhere to suggest that Craigslist is anymore dangerous than using a public restroom at some highway stop late at night. At the very least, it's no more dangerous than anything else on the internet. Certainly, a lot of crime happens as a result of what we do online. However, compared to the volume of total online activity, does more crime happen as a result of someone being online than off it? Doubtful.

In the end, this is just another story for the media to get fixated on, selling fear to the masses. The media likes to make us afraid. It sells papers and ads. Moreover, now that Craigslist is involved, the media's just ecstatic to explore all the sordid details: with millions of personals posted every day, there's no end to the embarrassing and anonymous erotic messages the media can print. Of course, these are all things the Boston Phoenix prints every day in their personals (for profit) anyway, but that's easy to gloss over. The best part yet is the media gets to have a little payback at Craigslist, a site largely blamed for eating at the profits of papers around the country. 25% of a paper's biz used to come from classifieds. That's all but gone now.

Maybe, and this is the really disingenuous, is instead of looking forward to new business models, the dead tree business is hoping the old ones will come back. They can create all the moral panic and fear they want, but it only shows how out of touch they've become. And what do subscribers do when they think their papers are out of touch? They cancel their subscriptions. Perhaps, amidst the media Craigslist histrionics, that's what papers should really be scared about. The millions of people who've successfully used Craigslist aren't afraid, but the dying dead tree business may just become dead a little sooner.

The Inevitable Craigslist-is-Scary Story

According to the Boston Globe, if you use Craigslist, you may get hacked up into little pieces, served baked, with fine wine. Or something like that. Anyone feel like the Globe should have included a disclaimer? Something akin to, "Note: Craigslist is one of the Globe's biggest competitors in actually making money. They took our lucrative business and put it online, for free. And now the Times is threatening us to close! We fucking hate Craigslist." Am I right, or am I right? In fact, I'm sure newspapers and media across the country are only too happy to shine a light on Craigslist. Editorial pages will soon be demanding congressional hearings, no doubt.

Honestly, I didn't even read the whole story. I didn't need to. A crime took place. The alleged criminal used Craigslist. He could have used the phone book. He could have staked out random houses on a nice, suburban street -- picking whichever one had no one home, or had only a single woman. He could have went to the mall, picked the nice old lady walking to the nicest whale-boat caddy in the parking lot and mugged her. These are things that happen every day, we just don't read about how people should be wary of staying home or going to the mall.

Like all things in life, people should try to be aware. Meeting up with strangers for sex is always going to have a slightly dangerous element to it, to say the least. But, then again, so could going to the Post Office. It's always a good idea to meet people in public places, whether it's for sex or to meet some online friend for the first time. Unfortunately, life doesn't come with a safety guarantee, so it's important to be smart about things. However, people shouldn't buy into the culture of fear pushed on us by the media. It's simply a way to rope us in to buy more papers and sell more ads, not an actual representation of reality. So, don't be afraid to use craigslist, whether it's to sell your old couch or for dirtier deeds, just be smart about it. Crimes were being committed when these ads were printed in newspapers, $50 bucks for 3 lines, now it's just happening online, for free, with fewer code words -- and the old guard's still trying to make what it can off it.

Update: Reading further in. Coakley and Zollman's quotes remind me of Boston's history with Mooninite attacks. Lock your doors! Get your ducktape! Duck and cover!

Worst News Article Ever.

AOL's posted a front-page article on whether or not Michelle Obama should have another kid. Fuck them.

Some Questions for Matt Viser on Slots

Hey Matt, how's it hanging? After reading your Sunday slot parlor article, I have some questions for you.

First off, before you go ringing the praises of the Pennsylvania slot system, what sort of investigation have you done on the numbers? While I'll take your word for it that tax revenue from slot machines in Pennsylvania brought $900 million in for the state, did you consider the fact that the state is much, much larger than Massachusetts? When you looked at the rate in which Pennsylvania taxes slots (55%), did you consider whether or not the state could actually get the sort of up-front fees Cahill seemed to wish? If not, at a 27% rate, doesn't that mean a potential Massachusetts slot parlor industry would earn peanuts next to Pennsylvania? Furthermore, since all the experts, including the oft-quoted Clyde Barrow, derided Treasurer Cahill's profit-per-slot numbers and licensing fees as wildly optimistic, why keep repeating them? Isn't that blatantly dishonest? Did you consider if the amount of lobbying dollars Cahill recieves (most in the state) has anything to do with these seemingly low-ball numbers or why he continually pushes the slot machine business?

Secondly, did you at all consider the revenue that other taxable businesses lost in Pennsylvania? How much of that $900 million was the state already bringing in from local restaurants, bars, clubs and other businesses -- all of which have a large multiplier effect, because money spent locally tends to go from one business to the next? If most of that $900 million is old money, isn't that actually a drain on the economy, since its now out of local hands and no longer multiplies, as local businesses are forced to close? Did you consider the loss of revenue the state lottery would take and how cities and towns would be able to cope with it?

Thirdly, how many of these numbers and articles are coming from industry press releases and sources? How many articles have you written boasting the revenue casinos bring in, without spending considerable time answering the previous questions above, versus the number of articles you've written about how the slot machines are predatory in nature. How many articles have you written describing the lives of those who have been addicted to slot machines? Have you written any articles that attempt to explain why counties with any slots in this country have bankruptcy rates that are 18% higher than counties without slots? Or how about articles on businesses that went under around Ledyard in Connecticut, Atlantic City, Detroit or any other area that's introduced casinos or slot parlors?

In all my years reading the Boston Globe, I remember only one really good article on the predatory nature of slot machines -- that explained how and why they were addicting in detail. My final, most important question: Why didn't your article at least reference that excellent piece -- and will your future slot-related articles include that side of the story?

You Know You Can Stop Reading When...

A writer brings up the 'necessity' of fixing social security. Thus, the Globe decides to be irrelevant today.