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.

Today's Greyhound News is Good News

The Committee to Protect Dogs sent a press release recently about the SJC decision to unanimously throw out George Carney's case to keep the Greyhound initiative off the ballot, so now there's absolutely no question that voters will have the ability to protect track dogs come November.

However, even bigger news is the subtle changes in the way the media is covering the story. After a lot of hard work, messaging and a mini media education campaign, the papers are finally realizing that it's important to stick to the facts on dog track numbers. Heck, I'll even go as far as to say most of the following reporters probably read my Race Track Jobs Mythos.

Without further ado, let's look how the papers are covering the tracks now, from good to bad to worse.

From the Taunton Gazette:

“People are going to vote their pocketbooks,” Carney said. “Jobs are very important.”
Between Wonderland and Raynham-Taunton Greyhound Park, Carney estimates between 800 and 1,000 full-time and part-time jobs would be lost if greyhound racing is banned. “It will have a serious effect on employment,” he said.

According to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development, there are approximately 700 people employed by racetracks in the state, including horse tracks and auto speedways.

Thankfully, the Gazette got the memo. Now that the facts are out there, it's going to be awfully tough for Carney to keep playing with the math. (Also, 800-1,000? That's a new one from him. Maybe even he's getting the memo?)

The Gazette gets an A+ in today's "Good Journalism" grade.

The Boston Globe

The Globe still reduces the numbers to a he-said-she-said thing (old habits die hard), but at least they're allowing Greyhound supporters the ability to rebut Carney's numbers. Oddly enough, Carney also reports vastly different job figures to the Globe as he did the Gazette. Anyway, here's the relevant quote:

Carney added that the ban, if approved, will result in a loss of jobs; the two tracks employ about 650 part-time and full-time workers....

Supporters of the ban said Carney's employment figures are greatly inflated. "That number is closer to 250, according to the census," [Brian] Adams said recently.

We'll give the Globe a B. It's working hard to get better.

The Patriot Ledger

The Patriot Ledger's article seems a bit behind the times, but is still an improvement over what it probably would have published two months ago.

Supporters of the dog-racing ban, who are organized in a group called the Committee to Protect Dogs, have been disputing Carney’s claims that a dog-racing ban would leave at least 650 full- and part-time workers connected with the Raynham track without jobs. The dog-racing critics point to state figures that show only about 700 people are employed in the racetrack industry statewide.

It's not a bad paragraph - even if it reduces the numbers to a he-said-she-said argument, instead of presenting the facts. (Would it pain the media to report the facts? Is it so hard to say: "According to the State Department of Labor, the entire race track industry employs approximately 700 people, including horse and amateur car tracks, which won't be affected by the ballot question?") Yet, none of that's really the problem - at least they're allowing some sort of rebuttal to Carney's numbers, which is an improvement over several years ago.

The serious problem with the paragraph is it's the first statement that rebuts what George Carney has to say - and it comes all the way at the end, the 9th paragraph out of 11. That's not OK, or fair, or good journalism. In fact, the entire article is about Carney's claims - not the state's actual numbers or even the fact that Carney's court case was just tossed out by a unanimous SJC decision. So, despite the decent paragraph, the whole article may as well have been published in a Raynham Race Track company newsletter.

The Ledger's clear Carney bias and only half-way decent paragraph of rebuttal, all the way at the end, merits the paper a C- in good journalism. It would have had an F if not for the quoted paragraph.

The Boston Herald

Of course, no surprise, the Herald's report is the weakest of them all, turning the story into a money battle and dedicating almost every written word about George Carney's willingness to spend more than the 2.5 million his lobby did in 2000, treating his declaration to spend whatever it takes to defeat the grassroots as if it were a good thing. Don't worry, though, they were sure to rebut Carney's 2.5 million with the $250,000 the Committee to Protect Dogs has in the bank. Really, isn't that the story - right after a major SJC decision - you'd want to read about?

I'll give the Herald a D, because despite the fact that it fell for Carney's messaging and didn't allow the Committee to Protect Dogs to rebut Carney's job numbers (or better yet, use the state's facts on the matter), the article was actually about how rich Carney is and how willing he is to spend money to protect his industry. It's a bad article, both in terms of what it chooses to cover as well as even how it chooses to cover it, but at least they're consistent, right?

Wrap Up

So, despite the Herald and the Patriot Ledger's weaker stories, it's clear that today's Race Track news is good news - and that Greyhounds truly won the day. Their question is on the ballot, the suit to keep the question off the ballot was thrown out by a unanimous decision and, finally, key members of the media are finally starting to pay attention to the fact that Carney keeps making up these numbers as he goes along, all the while the state has statistical facts on the matter. People deserve an honest hearing about Greyhound Racing in the media, so hopefully this trend will only continue in the future.

Us vs. Them Attitudes

Every single city and town in this state is working on a shoe-string budget. For some reason I'll never quite understand, most people tend to view things through an us-vs.-them lens: 'Marblehead receives more Chapter 70 funding per capita than Swampscott, so let's raise some hell!' tends to be the general view in my town. Of course, the fact that Marblehead receives more funding than Swampscott isn't Swampscott's problem - it's the slap in the face that makes the problem worse. Unfortunately, as countless books discuss (such as What's the Matter with Kansas), it's easy to distract people from the real problems by alerting them to the fact that not everyone shares those problems. Many people may not be riled up if everyone's just as screwed over as they are, but that kind of attitude certainly doesn't make for smart governmental policy.

Of course, the problem extends way beyond school funding: I'm damn-near ready to trademark the sentence - "Pension reform is the new third rail of Massachusetts politics." Anyone else sick and tired about reading how teachers have it so well? Let me be the first to say, as the son of a teacher, their wonderful salaries (/sarcasm off) and benefits aren't all that they're cracked up to be.

Nor is eliminating public employee benefits and salaries the solution to our society's problems. First off, public employee pensions are fair. Massachusetts employees pay 11% of their salaries into pension funds and usually don't earn anywhere near as much as the private sector. Many public employees - the same ones who aren't anywhere near over payed - are also required to have more advanced degrees than private sector counterparts. Even the so-called worst offenders, the people who's pensions end up on the front page of the Boston Globe, have had to put in more than 20 years of service in the state to get them. If a few people are getting a sweet deal, that doesn't mean the pension system needs to be totally overhauled.

That's not to say the pension system is perfect and there isn't some room for reform, but the vitriol directed towards public employees is unsettling, and certainly the aims of many directing such vitriol goes way beyond what's fair and decent. I've yet to read a reasonable pension-reform post on BMG or article in the Boston Globe that proposes specific ideas on how to reform pensions so that there aren't the outliers that get more than they deserve, while also protecting the core middle and working class employees who have put 20+ years and 11%+ of their salaries into the system in return for those benefits. It's all about how some guy got such a sweet deal and it's so unfair and needs to stop, or it's about how public employees are hacks and don't deserve to be decently compensated. People clearly forget that public sector employees perform services that we all benefit from and thus deserve compensation on par with everyone else in society (lest we truly get what we pay for).

The bottom line is that lashing out against public sector employees may feel good, but it certainly isn't a solution to the problem: the erosion of the middle and working classes, or even our budget difficulties (pension reform would represent a fraction of a fraction of our budget deficit). Social Security alone isn't enough to cover the costs of living in today's society and most people aren't expert enough in planning for their future, or they simply don't have the funds necessary to make those plans. So, the problem is the lack of post-retirement security in the private sector, not Billy Bulger's cousins. The solution to the problem isn't tearing the middle and working class apart, it's actually addressing social security and the problems average citizens face when planning for their future. The solution, in essence, is in tackling the bigger issues.

Join the LeftyBlog Coalition on Deval's New Website

I've been testing around Deval Patrick's new website - having loads of fun. Seriously, it's FUN.

Anyway, I realized it makes perfect sense to have a coalition on the site with members who read, write and otherwise contribute to leftyblogs in Massachusetts. So, I started a group and ask that you all join! It takes about 20 seconds and can help us bring a new level of power to our messages to the Governor. I already know he cares about what we have to say, but this is just one way to make sure he's pushing our issues as hard as we expect him to do so.

Join up and help decide what exactly will be our issues!

If You Want Property Tax Relief

You have to get it. If you want more extra curricular activities at your town's schools, you have to get it. The onus is on you, Deval Patrick can only help in getting us there.

That was Governor Patrick's message for voters during today's town meeting at Boston Latin. To some, it may sound harsh. Yet, Deval's speaking truth to power: there are forces in this state whom will block more funding to schools and property tax relief - and why? Because of unfair corporate tax loopholes. Only a few people are blocking tax justice - and those people are on Beacon Hill. We, the constituents, need to be the change we want. We need to be the ones who tell them we put Deval Patrick in power for a reason - that we voted for change and demand the change we want.

However, Deval Patrick isn't leaving us in the lurch, either. He's built an impressive new tool - from his campaign website - to help people around the state organize. Better yet, they get to organize around the issues they care about. It's a totally different way of using the Internet. Use it to convince the legislature to do the right thing and close those the loopholes. Use it to promote important issues that may not necessarily be on everyone's mind. Remarkably, anyone can use it to promote any issue.

So, Deval Patrick's first official foray into changing government has really started. His budget and health care plans were only teasers. The real fun began at 2pm in Boston Latin. New changes are on the way - changes the Governor elaborated on during a discussion with citizen-bloggers from across the state today, after the event - with regular, ordinary people who are trying to make a difference. Today marks a new era in the Patrick Administration: it's the day where he really started being the Governor he talked about during the entire campaign. It's not an office he holds alone, he holds it with all of us - the people who put him in power and who made his massive people-powered army come to fruition. It's an army Speaker DiMasi is going to learn about real soon as he realizes the people come before Verizon.

We do come before Verizon, right? Well, call your state representatives and let them know!

Don't Just Support the Troops - Save the Troops

I read this today - and really loved it.

"Support our troops" is a once-meaningful phrase that has been hollowed out and stripped of all meaning. Like "freedom" and "democracy," like "victory" and "success," it's a flimsy phrase connoting not its original meaning, but the dog-whistle politics of its speaker.

Republicans have used the phrase to attack everything from non-binding resolutions to Representative Murtha's funding proposal to revoking the war authorization. Their goal is to put Democrats on the defensive, to goad them into a response which falsely suggests to the American people that "supporting the troops" is actually up for debate.

And Democrats, all too often, willingly walk into that trap. There is no such debate on the issue of supporting our troops. The debate we're about to have--the debate we need to have--is about much more than yellow ribbons on SUVs and red faced rants of treason on the Senate floor. It's not just about supporting our troops, whatever that phrase means at whatever politically opportune moment that hollow phrase is uttered.

It's about saving them.

Go and read the whole thing, I just touched on the surface of the post.

We all support the troops. I don't know one person who's placing the blame of Iraq's disastrous consequences on the troops - it's all about the people who planned and implemented this tragedy. However, to say that Democrats can't move to block funding of the army because it somehow isn't supporting the troops is intellectually dishonest at best. It's not about supporting the troops - it's about saving them.

Anyone who argues otherwise wants to keep the troops there longer, where more of them will be maimed and die in the thousands. The ones who survive will come home to hospitals that can't care for them and will be scorned if they try to receive the mental treatment they need.

How is that supporting the troops?