A Penny for Your Thoughts: Redistricting

I got home a few hours ago from my Town Democratic Caucus tonight and one of the biggest subjects that came up was congressional redistricting. Swampscott is part of the 6th Congressional District, which is more or less the entire North Shore. The district's one of the most cohesive across the entire state, both in terms of geography and demographics, so of course it's one of the most likely to face outright contraction. At least, that's the speculation going on amongst the pundits -- and the chatter I keep hearing from people much closer to the process than I am. That got me to thinking about redistricting itself -- and what would make sense for the Commonwealth.

The problems of our current system of redistricting are really two-fold: First and foremost, we're held hostage by a reapportionment system dramatically redesigned in 1929 that no longer makes sense today. Back then, 435 Congresscritters decided to 'reform' the process, protecting their own jobs, but barring emerging immigrant communities in urban areas from gaining adequate representation. The result has been widespread corruption in the redistricting process, as well as drowning out voices among ever-larger congressional seats, which has led to vast increases in the power of corporations over regular people in our political process.

More pressing both in time and location is our state's flawed process of redistricting. Some states allow the judiciary to create the district lines, or a nonpartisan committee, but in most states -- including the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts -- it's done by the most powerful of politicians behind closed doors and has been the source of much corruption in this state and elsewhere.

In Massachusetts, where the Democratic Party is prominent, but wishy-washy, redistricting has generally been a tool to protect incumbents (even Republicans). In states like Florida and Texas, where party registration is traditionally a pretty equal mix, but one party has been much more successful in gaining electoral power, redistricting has been successfully used to hack at the minority in nearly every sense of the word. (So blatant was the corruption in Florida that its citizens actually just passed two constitutional amendments to rectify their problem, though their new Republican governor is trying to ignore it.)

This leaves us all with two fundamental problems: How do we deal with the immediate and local issues surrounding redistricting, and how do we address the long-term problem of the Reapportionment Act of 1929? Districts shouldn't be drawn as an incumbent protection racket here, or as a blunt-force weapon to attack minorities elsewhere. They should be drawn to make sense both in terms of geography and demographics, ensuring districts are representative of the people who live in them. And we shouldn't be beholden to the number 435 in a day and age when that number no longer makes any sense.

So, a penny for your thoughts: How do you think districts should be redrawn in Massachusetts, where we're going to lose a seat, and how do you think we should change our system of reappointment, both locally and nationally?

A Health Care Parting Thought

For practically decades, one of the biggest knocks on the Democratic Party has been that it doesn't live up to its principles, that it doesn't really care, and isn't willing to sacrifice seats to pass something the party believes in manifestly, but may not poll so well. Well, say that no more.

No matter how much mud the Republicans slung at us, no matter how ugly health care reform became -- and no matter how ineptly the Democratic leadership handled the debate from the summer until when Obama finally took the reigns of it in February, the Democratic Party stayed true to its form, stood up and passed a bill on the central issue Democrats manifestly believe in: the need for major health care reform.

It wasn't perfect, but no matter how often some elected national party members just wanted to kill the whole thing and move on, no matter how many stumbling blocks were in the way, the Democrats have got the job done. This sets a whole new trend for the Democratic Party and I only hope it can maintain this gumption going forward -- being willing to do what's necessary to pass our bills, to pass what we believe in.

This is what government should be all about -- parties living and dying by passing bills which they believe in, not gridlocked government, not government by the polls and not snappy soundbites and petty fighting. Let's make government a battle of ideas again, let's make parties strive for major goals and let's push to have a system where those parties live or die based on those ideas and ideals. That's what I want from my American government, how about you?

Revenue Week Working?

It's Virtual Rally Week for those sane enough to realize Massachusetts has to do something about the revenue situation -- well, the distinct lack of it. It looks like DeLeo got the message. Unfortunately, the income tax is off the table. It's the tax that's the fairest and probably most efficient in terms of raising revenue, but what can you do? If everything else is at least open for discussion, that's not so bad.

Would the Speaker like Ryan's Risk-Adverse Advice for Raising Good Revenue Streams? People are demanding answers to municipal budget collapses and the transportation system, so here goes.

• Solving the multi-faceted transportation mess: Pass a 20-25 cent gas tax, which would do enormous good and only cost the average car-driving taxpayer about $100 a year. Include money in that to get rid of most tolls (8-11 cents, with 10 or 11 cents getting rid of *all* of them) as well as public transportation (8 cents = $200 million). Make sure revenue from the gas tax is spread fairly throughout the state, whether it's closing tolls, paving roads or keeping the buses going.
• Helping cities and towns: 1. Close telecom corporate tax loopholes by allowing towns to tax Verizon for all its telephone polls, as they already do cable companies. 2. Get rid of most of the home-rule stuff, so towns aren't handcuffed. 3. Give munis the option to pass modest local sales taxes on hotels and restaurants (and maybe even more) at no more than 2%.
• Helping the State Budget: We can't just cut ourselves out of this current hole. We've made too many cuts already. At the very least, pass Patrick's candy and liquor tax proposals. Those seem like no brainers. They're also completely discretionary spending and thus a much fairer tax than a general sales tax. This is real low-hanging fruit stuff, but it would raise real revenue. Plus, why should cigarettes have a huge tax rate while alcohol isn't even hit with the state sales tax? Seems bizarre.
  
• Reasonable efficiencies to state government: Pass the Governor's harder-hitting pension reform proposals. Moreover, get major public-employee unions to the table with the Gov, Senate President and Speaker to talk fair ways to save money and jobs by switching to GIC or other regional plans in every single city and town where that makes sense. There's hundreds of millions to be saved there - and plenty of common ground to be had. Do it. It's the duty of our elected leaders to act like adults and get these unions to the table, so we can access these savings throughout the state.
  

Aside from perhaps the gas tax, Ryan's Risk-Adverse Advice for Raising Good Revenue Streams won't piss off any serious group of citizens. Carla Howell may blow a gasket, but her minions won't be on the march because suddenly Verizon has to pay property taxes on its property. Hence why this plan is so risk-adverse -- these taxes aren't going to be noticed. They're not large and most can't be blamed on the State House, as they'd now be local issues.
Even the gas tax, combined with pension reform at our state's transportation authorities, would be tolerated by the general public with even the smallest of public awareness campaigns. Plus, even a 20 or 25 cent gas tax won't be noticed or thought of at length after a few months. Phase it in over a year or two and maybe no one notices at all?

2 things on the aweful Obama plan

The shorter Obama plan on bank recovery: create middlemen government agencies to bypass congressional restrictions on executive pay for participating banks.

They're doing this for two reasons.

But officials at the Treasury and the Fed said they worry harsh pay limits will undermine critical bailout programs by discouraging financial firms from participating.

Good. If they don't want our money, it can be spent more wisely. I wish the Government was fighting so hard to give me money whilst I've been unemployed!

Second reason:

Although many of these companies could survive without government help, they might lack money to ramp up lending, which officials consider critical to turning the economy around.

If that's the real problem and threat to this country, I have an infinitely easier solution than handing out $700 billion to the banks with no real strings, courtesy of Summers, Geithner, et al.

Take the $700 billion (or more, if we have to) and offer it as loans straight to qualified American people and companies, competitive with private-market rates. We'll turn a profit, have no middlemen and not have to worry about companies that are not worthy of taxpayer investment. Let them go under if they're going to be dicks about getting *billions* of taxpayer dollars. There. Fixed.

No Ethics Reform Without Electoral Reform

Lots of talk on the Speakah's reform proposals. Lots of people applauded the Governor's reform proposals. I wasn't one of them, because it was mostly making already-illegal things more illegal. None of those ideas are bad, but if politicians aren't afraid to break rules now, what makes people think many pols still won't be afraid to break them in the future? People break rules all the time, regardless of the consequences. They don't think they'll be caught - or caught anytime soon. Simply put, you can't have ethics reform without reforming the electoral system and making government more transparent.

A formula for real reform, making government responsive to the people as well as more ethical:

• Stiffer penalties for laws already on the books which are commonly broken +
• Public financing option for elections +
• Other electoral reform including instant runoff & same-day registration +
  
• Lobbyist reform on dollars & time +
• More transparency including posting on the internet:
  
  1. When and who all lobbyists meet
  2. What bills each elected leader proposes, votes for and/or signs.
  3. Public video of all floor votes and/or committee hearings (watch presently empty committee hearings suddenly become full).

This is a comprehensive view on ethics reform, because it ensures that politicians are accountable to their constituents. Just looking at ethics through the lense of law-and-order is a recipe for failure, because it's so hard to catch politicians in the act. However, it's not so hard for constituents to tell if an elected official isn't adequately representing their community or is favoring special interests -- citizens just don't have the tools necessary to effectively mount challenges in all but the most extreme cases. It shouldn't take a federal indictment to get someone out of office. That's why ethics reform can't come without electoral reform.

On Religion and Off State Politics (for a post)

I attended a Bat Mitzvah over the weekend and had a blast. It was for the daughter of one of the candidates I've worked for in the past. Beyond having the extreme pleasure of seeing the Speaker of this state dancing shoulder-to-shoulder to Hava Nagila, it led me to think a lot about faith for the first time in a long time -- and how it truly can make a positive impact in someone's life.

When it comes to faith, I've ran the gamut: I started as a Catholic true-believer who was confirmed and did the whole shebang. I was on the executive council of my youth ministry and my first paid gig was as a rectory monitor at St. John's the Evangalist -- $14.50 a week for stuffing the occasional envelope and doing my homework for two hours! One of the Sisters actually tried to convince me to go to seminary school - and I considered it for more than a nanosecond before realizing that would have been a bad, bad idea.

After the abuse scandal and the way O'Malley handled the church closings, I became an extremely bitter ex-Catholic. That lasted for a period of several years, some of which were the early days of this blog. I'm no longer a bitter ex-Catholic, but I'm still an ex-Catholic. There are other issues far beyond belief that would prevent me from ever joining again. Moreover, no matter what my personal faith is as it applies to religious matters, I'm a humanist at heart: what happens in the here and now is, if not far more important than the thereafter, at least paramount in determining what actually happens when we're dead and buried (or burned or lost).

It took me a while, but at some point around a year or two ago, I realized I lined up exactly with Unitarian Universalists. I think everyone is as valuable and important whether they believe in Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha or the spiritual kami in the rocks. I don't care if you pray to God or the four corners of the watchtower. I only care if someone's personal faith interferes with another's civil rights, or when people cease regulating at the entryway of their sanctuaries and start trying to do it at the ballot box. As long as people aren't doing those things, I think we all end up in the same or similar happy places when all is said and done, whether that's reincarnation, heaven or simply the positive imprints in the people we leave behind.

I say all this despite the fact that I've only ever attended a Unitarian Universalist service once -- and that was before I actually considered myself in line with Unitarian Universalism. Going to the Bat Mitvah made me realize a few things. I wasn't truly anything because I was not a spiritual being. Faith and spirituality just didn't factor in - and that's not a good thing. It meant I was too wrapped up in the details of my causes, the numbers and figures, and not stepping back, thinking at a broader level - at the inherent value of us all. Our inherent value, my humanism, is the driving force in my life, but I wasn't thinking about it, not in a long time. Life was on automatic, and I was missing the reason behind it - and therefore some of the meaning and fun.

When I looked at what exactly someone had to do to achieve a Bat or Bah Mitzvah, I was astounded. I was back on manual, feeling the engine purr as I shifted gears. As one friend put it, 'they go to Hebrew school, learn a new language, as well as memorize and philosophize in depth on religious tomes.' That's in addition to a large service project they must complete before the ceremony, as well as a paper and accompanying public speech (some would call it a sermon) that examines some particular biblical passage -- with Saturday's being especially deep, despite the fact that the passage was essentially the instruction manual to build a golden menorah. Out of that, I learned that "history" does not exist in the Torah, only "remember." Wow.

Then consider what one must do on the day of the ceremony. A 13-year old (no less) must singularly stand up and lead the service with the Rabbi during the vast majority of the ceremony, in front of a room full of people, leading songs and prayers (in Hebrew), as well as the aforementioned sort-of sermon. That's followed by a large, well-deserved party in the honor of that person's success - the community's collective recognition and celebration of a job well done, as well as the carrot to the hard work's stick. You can boil all of that down to the fact that each and everyone who achieves a Bat or Bah Mitvah is forced to take an introspective look at their beliefs and how that applies to the world, then air it out in a very public and personal forum. All of that is not just a big confidence booster, it's building a better person.

Our spirituality - the source of why we want to be better people and what we think it means to be human - is something easily lost in us all with our hectic schedules, even when those schedules are often filled with the causes that directly apply to our beliefs. For me, it's one thing to know all people deserve good health care, a clean earth and access to high-quality public education. It was another thing to remember why I felt that way. We're all beautiful creatures set upon this earth, whether we think it by some supernatural being or a bloody and very human mess. If we each value the other and respect the consenting decisions others make as it applies to their own individualism, it only enhances this place we live on. There's the one thing I wish people of all faiths could come to live by.

Interesting Story/Ethical Dilemma

Does your mother know that you're out?

The story: Portland, Oregon just recently elected the nation's first gay mayor of a city with a population of its size or greater, Sam Adams. The mayor was an important city administrator and, by all accounts, did a superb job. However, turns out, during the campaign, the guy lied about an affair he had with a rather young Mr. Breedlove (seriously).

Some facts and details important to the story:

• The relationship was with an 18 year old intern, but the intern wasn't his or even an intern in the city of Portland. The fact that Breedlove is an intern is immaterial. He may as well have been an intern at Fidelity in Boston.
  
• Nothing illegal happened.
• The only reason anyone ever lied about the relationship to begin with is because a political opponent brought it up, trying to smear Adams, suggesting Breedlove was under age.
  
• That said, the fact that it came up during the campaign and was so easily discredited made it easy to spin as a homophobic attack. Adams ended up winning in a landslide.
  
• However, there's no question that there are inherently different standards for the way the public and media reacts to gays in particular when the issue of affairs comes up, as well as sex in general. It doesn't surprise me that someone who was gay would deny the allegation, rather than explain it.
  
• And here's why: the media loves gossip, but doesn't love context. Case in point: the way the media has painted the story makes it seem as if the kid was the Mayor's intern, when, in fact, they didn't even work in the same city, never mind building. Breedlove worked at the State House in Salem, Oregon. Furthermore, the media also leaves the allegation of Breedlove's status as an adult as something up in the air, when both Breedlove and Adams deny any relationship occurred before Breedlove turned 18.
  
• Isn't this all a little hypocritical? If Breedlove killed someone, we'd be rushing to treat him as an adult. Since he had sex, though, everyone wants to treat the same person as a kid, which is legally false. Apparently, when a young adult pulls a trigger, they're completely in control of themselves, but when they have sex, they're a slave to their emotions, unable to make decisions for themselves and must be coddled and protected. Not only is that hypocritical, it's puritanical and irrational.
  
• Breedlove, from what I've read, seemed to be the one who pushed the relationship, while the Mayor said no until Breedlove turned 18. That's not to say the Mayor didn't want it or did nothing wrong (he was politically stupid, at least), but nevertheless, this fact does separate him from the likes of Larry Craig, Mark Foley and Elliot Spitzer - all of whom broke the law in their affairs and committed acts with no moral grey.
  

So, where does the Mayor and society go from here? Some people, including from within the gay community, are ready to lynch the Mayor calling for Adams's resignation. Given that it was a legal relationship and Breedlove was never working for the Mayor to begin with, that seems harsh. Many of those same people only claim that they're asking for the resignation because of the lie, but given the fact that the relationship was legal to begin with, should the two have ever been forced to acknowledge it? Especially knowing the way the media and political opponents work?

Age and relationships are tricky issues for culture and society. People get evil and angry when a man has a relationship with a much younger person, but when Demi Moore does it, wow, she's hot and sexy and middle aged and the envy of society. Or, it's okay for celebrities, but not for politicians. The fact of the matter is many people are attracted to those who are much older. My friend, for example, thinks Hugh Jackman and Colin Firth are perfect and pursued relationships with people in their mid 30s and close to 40 while she was in her very early 20s. On the other hand, many others are attracted to youth, or, as some gay men would call it, 'twinks.' Is that necessarily wrong if the 'twinks' are old enough to know what they're doing? Old enough to die in war for this country?

What's the litmus test for acceptable sexual behavior? Legally, that's defined: 18. That number's always seemed reasonable: an 18 year old is capable of making his or her own decisions and mistakes. They may not sociably be ready to engage in a long term relationship with someone in their 30s or 40s (or at all), but who says everyone has to engage in a sexual relationship for the purposes of a long term one? This is all conjecture, of course, but at the very least Breedlove, given his public statement, seems to be having a tougher time with the current publicity than the actual relationship: he still defends the Mayor to this day.

So, we have an attractive, charismatic and well-off city administrator of the age of 40. There's a lot of young adults in the gay community, or any community, who would lust after that, including someone as particularly young and attractive as Breedlove. Should that doom a political career? Or even color it? Should Adams be judged based upon job performance, four years from now during his reelection campaign, so long as his relationships stay within the bounds of law? Or does the Mayor deserve all the current flack he's getting and should answer positively to the calls by some for his resignation? Something in between? I'm honestly interested to hear what people think in the comments below.

Today's Hopes and Dreams

I hope Barack Obama wins in an electoral landslide today.

I hope that landslide continues into the US House and Senate.

I hope that Proposition 8 fails in California.

I hope that local progressives, including and especially Sara Orozco, are victorious.

I hope that 100% of this country's progressives vote.

I hope that no one who wants to vote is denied their sacred right because of excessively long lines, broken machines, electoral shenanigans or any other reason or rational.

I hope voters acknowledge animals shouldn't be abused for profits and that this state cannot afford to lose its primary funding mechanism.

I hope, if everything else comes true - leading to more and better Democrats being elected, along with the affirmation of important and key policy - that Republicans will learn their lesson and adapt to America's will, instead of trying to thwart it, by becoming do-nothing obstructionists over the next two years. Change can't wait that long.

What are your hopes and dream for today?

The Hoops to Pass a Bill

Earlier today, I suggested that Democrats in the US Senate go nuclear and end the filibuster. Not only do I suggest it, but I'll go so far as saying that the death of the filibuster is inevitable, sooner or later. To better understand why, let's look at how hard it is to pass a bill through federal government. (I'm lifting most of this off a comment I made to the original post, but it's so important to stress that I'm making this its own post.)

Here's the current hoops bills have to go through to pass:

In the House:

The bill must be filed, with co-sponsors. It usually takes many co-sponsors to get a bill to pass.

The bill must get through committee; the vast majority of bills never do.

The bill then has to get through the entire House.

The Senate:

A bill must be filed; co-sponsored. It usually takes many co-sponsors to get a bill to gain steam.

The bill must get through committee; the vast majority of bills never do.

Then it must get a filibuster proof majority (with the exception of the budget).

Then it must pass.

But we're not done yet!

House and Senate:

Now the two similar bills must go through and pass conference committees. This in and of itself can be a very difficult process, because there's often very different versions of these bills, with people wanting very different results. Let's assume it passes conference committee.

Now the unified bill must be passed through the House and Senate again - and these bills are often radically different than the original bills passed, so again, this is no easy process.

Now, we're *still* not done. The bill must survive the veto pen. If it does not, to pass the bill there must be a veto-proof majority (2/3rds, I believe).

And we're STILL not done. Now that the bill is law, it must pass constitutional muster. If the bill is radically far out there, it very well may not.

I could go on.

So under normal and even no-where-near normal circumstances, it's very hard to pass bills. It's nearly impossible to pass bills that would be anethema to the American people.

Do we really need a filibuster, with all those other safety measures? NO!

So,

• If a party has all a firm majority in both houses of the legislature and
• If the same party has the presidency and
• If there's complete party unison to one ideological extreme and
• If all of that leads to bills that are against the will of the people,
• Then we're going to see one angry mob at election booths across the country within short order.

I am not worried.

The US Senate: Go Nuclear

Years ago, the Republicans threatened to undo the ancient filibuster rules in the Senate. Back then, less informed and more traditional, such a notion seemed absurd to this blogger. How could the US government exist without balance? Turns out, years later, the question should be reversed. How can the United States continue to exist with the filibuster?

People may be scared that dangerous bills could pass. I won't lie, a few of them could - but it's not as bad as it sounds. Currently, because of our twisted and "balanced" form of government, it's hard to pass anything. In order to get 'bipartisan' support, we get ham-handed measures that don't truly accomplish anything, or bad bills passed through pork - the spoon full of sugar to make the medicine (or, better yet, poison) go down. The filibuster kills ideas, innovation, responsiveness and change. We get what we don't want or need and almost never get what we want - and the American people rarely know who to blame.

In fact, that's the best reason to undo the filibuster and other aspects of our government meant to instill 'balance.' Increased, unobstructed partisanship will lead to accountability. In the UK or Canada, if a government coalition passes atrocious bills, it's going to face atrocious consequences. That's why the most popular measures - which would be things like Social Security and S-CHIP in the United States - are universally supported by all parties in other countries. With party control and party unity, people know who to blame and who to reward. America, on the other hand, makes the system less transparent, more confusing and more inside baseball. The confusion leads to special interests controlling the agenda, often at both sides of the table.

Furthermore, the filibuster is the biggest thing separating us from true reform. The American people want results; they want to see parties step up and do something. If parties don't do anything with their control, they'll lose power to the party that wants to continue to press for change. Once there's real results, those results can then be judged. If, for example, Washington passed national health care that provided universal access, better care and did so at a big cost savings, the American people will rejoice. They'll vote for that party for years to come, until it becomes politically unacceptable to undo medicare for all - until it became something universally supported. Say goodbye to special interests having overwhelming control, because politicians will be forced to be more responsive to the general public due to the increased accountability and demands on their singular leadership.

Undoing the filibuster handcuff may be the best bet, over the long run, to keep social security safe, combat global warming at a national level and improve this country's infrastructure. It may be the best bet to make sure our military is strong and our budget is balanced. It would also be the best measure to make sure no one party went too far or became too corrupt, because there'd be no where to hide. Becoming a more partisan country would be a dramatic political shift, but one that favors people and ideas. Going nuclear in the Senate, gutting the filibuster, is the first, easiest and best step this country should take if we're going to be serious about wanting change.

Where Blogging Goes Astray

I'm sure all of us can remember back to a time when we defended a friend - who we knew to be in the wrong - simply because they were your friend. Maybe, in public, that's often a good thing - but it's always a disservice to our friend if, after the dispute, we don't take them aside and tell them to stop being an idiot. It's no different in the blogosphere: we don't always appreciate criticism directed toward us, but that doesn't mean the criticism always comes without merit. Every once in a while, the media or a politician will criticize 'the blogs' and usually have no idea what they're talking about, but that's not always the case. In the rare instances when our critics have a point, we can't allow our personal feelings to get in the way of constructive criticism.

Bloggers generally cringe when we're told that we live in our mothers' basements, or that we don't know what we're talking about, or that we're just a bunch of trash talkers with nothing positive to say and nothing to contribute. The progressive blogosphere is mostly middle-aged, middle-income and is comprised of experts writing about what they do and care about every day. In essence, the naysayers are almost always wrong. Yet, with so few people actually taking part in blogs - all the while hearing about them daily on TV or at work - there's a lot of confusion going on and we're doing nothing to prevent it. That could be our biggest sin to date.

While we're not a bunch of trash-talking kids, consumed with spreading baseless rumors and a festering anger - safely behind our masks of anonymity - it's certainly out there. It may not be the progressive blogosphere, but it is the progressive blogosphere's problem. The worst criticisms - being unaccountable, uneducated, mean spirited and counterproductive - isn't completely without merit when we're doing little prevent it. Anonymous posters, mostly at online newspapers and local Internet forums, are ruining the fun for everyone. The worst offender, locally, is WickedLocal - and, unfortunately, townies across the state think it's the 'blogs.'

Making matters worse is the fact that some bloggers are rushing to defend it. Now, of course, any time someone criticizes the blogosphere, bloggers and readers will be quick to react - often zealously. Diarist Sean Roche unfortunately missed the point, blowing aside sage advice, in a diary over at BlueMassGroup. Lincoln-Sudbury's Superintendent used part of his commencement speech at their school's graduation to courageously tackle the anonymous postings of adults in the community, imploring his students never to stoop to their level. Here's more of what he had to say.

Here's my advice: if you ever find yourself in a position where you are writing things for public consumption that have no intent other than to cause pain or cast aspersions on people, call people's character into question, question their ethics or honesty - and you're afraid to sign your name because if anyone ever knew it was you writing it, you'd be ashamed and embarrassed, you're on the wrong track.

His only problem, in fact, was calling these postings a "blog," when it's really the anonymous comments over at his town's Wickedlocal online newspaper. His point is sound and we'd all do well to take it and repeat it to others. Yet, it's becoming all too common for people in towns to refer to the comment sections of online newspapers as "the blogs." It's a dangerous precedent that must be kept in check, immediately. Unfortunately people like me - who have vast experience in the medium - just haven't been quick enough to correct people.

It's easy to see where the confusion grows: most of the population's never been to a blog; people just think any online commentary is simply 'blogging.' It would be nice if we could chalk this up to one big confusion, but by allowing this misunderstanding to take place, the reputation of blogs as useful tools is being sullied, all the while the real culprits are free from actually fixing the problem.

Let's reiterate the point: if the problem is confused, the solution isn't going to be any clearer. Just like you can't cure the cold with antibiotics, we can't cure the problem of unaccountable commenters at newspapers if people think it's 'the blogs.' So, unfortunately, this big misunderstanding in labels is only exacerbating the problem: while people are calling for a fix in 'the blogs,' newspapers have no real incentive to fix it, because they aren't 'the blogs.' Many local editors and the people above their heads probably aren't sophisticated enough to realize they're the ones propagating this problem to begin with.

The few savvy enough to comprehend this certainly aren't going to be the ones quick to fix it; it's a misunderstanding they're only happy to reinforce. Quite inappropriately, the media views blogging as the competition. Many journalists view bloggers as 'bad.' All that, while the vast majority of the population doesn't even know what blogging is. The combination results in the majority of the public missing out on a real societal asset.

So, what the heck are we going to do about it? First, let's analyze the problems and possible solutions.

What are the problems?

• Anonymity.
• Unaccountability.
  
• A general ignorance about the web 2.0.
  

What are the solutions?

• Solving anonymity: the universal acceptance of 'signing in.'
  
• Solving the accountability gap: the universal promotion of online meritocracy; making newspapers buy into the importance of building user-name reputation.
  
• Solving Web ignorance: education. Everyone should know what a blog is versus a comment versus a forum.
  

Bloggers, commenters and internet-savvy people need to become involved; we need to recognize there's a real problem here - and take ownership of it. We can't be so naive as to think that anything on the Internet is a good thing, because the bad elements threaten to ruin the potential of what we can truly accomplish.

If the vast majority of the population doesn't value the medium of blogging, it's only going to be that much harder to gain traction and sustain progress. Everyone needs to know the difference between a blog, an Internet forum and comments - whether people use them or not. That's the only way to make sure the media holds local papers accountable when their comment sections run amok. Newspapers make accountability in letters and opinions paramount; online comments shouldn't be any different. In both cases people are using the brand of a newspaper to give their opinions greater weight, so newspapers should have an interest in stake here. Most importantly, when it comes to being online, while being anonymous can be a good thing, being unaccountable is never acceptable. The progressive blogosphere is built around that premise, but we can't rest until it's a universal standard all across the Internet.

What is a Political Movement?

In college, one of the more interesting classes I took was a political science seminar on civil rights and how movements advanced. As my final paper for the class, I wrote a 20 page thesis on the netroots and how it's the new frontier in expanding civil rights. In my paper, I talked about how the internet and technology helped fend off marriage equality foes in Massachusetts and how progressive politicians, who are now advocating for and advancing civil rights, have been elected across the country in no small part to netroots activism. Yet, recent events have made me think my paper could be unfinished: Some people think the netroots is an ever-expanding movement that will continue to grow and grow until we knock down the proverbial doors. However, recent trends suggest - at least in Ryan's Take - that perhaps the opposite is true: the netroots is at best a sleeping giant and at worst not sleeping at all, insofar as being a movement that will be an effective force for change.

It's an unfortunate side effect of being human that part of what interests us isn't exactly something that fosters progress at the aggregate level. We, as a species, are often more interested in the petty, small-minded stuff than the things that could actually impact all of our lives for the better. After all, we can't always be about progress and change, sometimes we have to be about baseball and hot chicks. Of course, that generally isn't a problem, except of course when the differences between baseball and politics begin to blur.

Is the end of the progressive/netroots movement in sight, at least as a force for change? Have we lost track of what's important? Were we just yesterday's big news and now just a part of the establishment? Are our 15 minutes up? All of these questions are important and valid criticisms, and things we must consider if we're to make the netroots into something that can be a part of the bigger picture.

The netroots, of course, started as a movement with lofty, noble goals - including the attempt to stand on higher ground than typical political discourse across the country. That isn't to say we weren't willing to get dirty - in fact, it's quite the opposite. The important part, though, is that our grass stains, bumps and bruises were supposed to be representative of success, or even a hard-fought failure, not becoming another branch of the status quo. And isn't that what the netroots has really become - the main stream on political steroids? The movement sought to be a new media that gave people alternatives to the failing status quo, but if anyone either turns on CNN or clicks a link to Dailykos, they're just as likely to see a Hillary hatchet job and a poll that doesn't really tell us anything. Where's the progress? Where's the effective and potent political force for change?

The pervasion of the horse race issues that so often kill candidacies and solutions to our common problems before they even have a chance, has festered for so long that it's spewing right onto the very homes of our progressive block - websites and institutions that progressives need to be successful if there's any chance for winning the ultimate battle - the battle of ideas - against our Republican and DINO foes. Who's winning and by what margin is of course interesting, and there's some place for that, but it can only be a small piece of the puzzle: the piece that tells us where our might must go. We need to solve that puzzle and finish this true whopper of a project that will make my 20 page paper seem like a few short phrases.

We, as a movement, need to finish my paper by creating a new movement that can truly foster change. Every day we wait and every day we allow ourselves to be distracted represents one day that we can never get back. Every day we can't get back represents thousands of people - people who are being suppressed, disenfranchised, left for sick and without help, and it represents days in which our society has ignored our melting icecaps and growing deficits. Can we afford to wait any longer?

Rethinking the Role of Government

Are We Asking the Right Questions?

It's usually a fool's errand to open up a debate on why government exists. It's a subject that will stir all sorts of passions - and not all of them well informed. "Why do we have governments and what purposes do they best serve?" is an inconvenient question to ask, but one that begs an answer. How the bulk of the people answer that question reflects the policies our government chooses to adopt. Of course, many would say, "Government exists to maintain stability in society," and many would still expand the answer to, "provide for protection." But, ultimately, both answers are so vague that they aren't very helpful at all. How does government provide for stability? What is it protecting us from? If people thought about those questions more often, perhaps many of our common problems would simply evaporate.

With those questions in mind, if Government's purpose is to prevent anarchy and be a stabilizing force, is our government actually doing it's job? Part of the answer involves considering how the human mind works. We, as a species, tend to make decisions that solely benefit us first, without thinking too heavily on how our decisions impact others - even if we're kindhearted souls that wouldn't hurt a fly. We buy the car that's most comfortable, if we can afford it, not the one that just gets us to where we need to go without leaving a huge carbon footprint. We vote for the candidates who will slash taxes, instead of voting for the candidate with nuanced positions that would ultimately be more beneficial to us as they better our educational system, support affordable, universal health care and grow the economy.

Ultimately, given how the human mind works, shouldn't part of what government does be in making sure our personal decisions - what's best for us at an individual level - also be decisions that benefit society as a whole? For example, all across the country, there's a movement to buy bigger and better houses further and further away from cities, instead of restoring what we have now and using smart growth to build more housing in better locations for everyone - still beautiful, yet efficient, near public transportation and within close distance to plenty of job opportunities and open space.

Since our country has almost no uniformed development strategy, almost all the development across the country is in the form of building Big on the outskirts of cities, stretching further and further out. Can anyone actually blame individuals who choose to get the biggest bang for their buck, only at the cost of a shortish commute (which is often no longer than using public transportation, anyway)? It's no surprise that we see more and more people commuting for ever-longer stretches with their gas-guzzling, but very comfortable SUVs. They're only too happy to own their brand-new 30,000 square foot McMansion with a dozen automatic sprinklers that turn on three times a day, with a yard and a stellar school system to boot.

Meanwhile, they get the added bonus of not having the burden to think of all the other people they've left behind, or how their decisions impact others. Hey, why should they? That huge McMansion is more house than people could buy in the city, after all - and as for all the kiddies stuck in the sucky schools that they no longer have to deal with, it's not their problem anymore. But, when everyone employs that sort of rational thought, there's a very large and very real toll to society - one that this current generation is only beginning to universally feel. We're creating two Americas, running out of oil and energy and polluting the world at an ever-increasing rate, all because we can't take a step back and think things through. All of these houses and cars, etc. are coming at a huge cost - and we haven't even paid the interest on it yet.

Instead of this nearly non-existent development strategy that's about as organized and well thought out as a Chimp with a crayon, our society could be meeting, discussing and figuring out how to make sure individual decisions are the best decisions at the aggregate level, too. We could be making sure our urban and already-built suburban neighborhoods offer top notch schools, great public transportation and conserve as much energy as possible while affording a comfortable lifestyle (we can have our comfort and eat it too). We could be making sure there's ample affordable housing being developed or redeveloped to keep our talented, young families and individuals in their home states, along with amazing opportunities in public higher ed and better resources to connect people with good jobs. We could be making sure we have more and better parks, with plenty of open space for people and children with an active lifestyle everywhere. We could be addressing the systemic problems that are causing budget gaps year after year, creating solutions that would solve those gaps and actually address the systemic problems we all face. We could be doing all those things, but we're not.

In terms of innovation and solving problems, our government is doing a whole lot of nothing - and few people are standing up and doing anything about it. It's as if the government inaction is so confusing that people have been bewildered and caught off guard for decades. It's perhaps the worst case of Deer-Caught-in-a-Headlight yet. Except, here we are - no solutions in hand, terrible leaders in charge and with few people clamoring for change. Maybe, if people were asking the right questions - contemplating how government can best serve us - we'd cease to be ordinary folk and become the active, engaged citizens who can actually solve these messes. It's a tall order for we, the people, who sadly seem to be comprised of more ordinary folk than the type of citizenry who wouldn't let problems slide. The more we have of active citizens, engaged in asking and answering our common questions, the more likely we'll be in addressing our common problems. There's no reason why the Government can't, and shouldn't, be creating incentives for individuals to make the right decisions not only for themselves, but everyone else too. The ultimate question is, do we have the citizen base who can make the demands and be the force for change to make it happen?

Forgiveness

Sometimes, in life, I think people would be so much happier if they learned to forgive others for the mistakes of the past. No one is perfect and we all do things we aren't proud of more often than we'd like to admit. At some point, we're all broken people and we all do stupid things. In fact, at times, doing things that aren't the best long-term decision can be necessary. Or, there can be the inevitability of picking between two bad choices. The point is, when someone makes a mistake that hurts someone, you can either stay mad at the person forever - or, hopefully sooner rather than later - realize human beings are flawed creatures and forgive them. Sometimes the bravest thing people can do is to reach out. Don't return such gestures with a cold shoulder.

High Stakes Town Meetings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Are Cities and Towns Struggling?

Much talk has been going on about the record rate voters are killing property tax overrides this year. David wrote about it at length today - and it's sparked some interesting comments. For some crazy reason, there are people who are blaming the voters. While I'd wish voters would see that most school budgets are trimmed to the bare bones already and vote yes, I understand exactly why so many people are voting no this year. The result is hundreds of layoffs throughout the state - and at least an half dozen school closings, with even more to follow next year. So, what's the big deal? Why are our cities and towns struggling so much? If we put it in perspective, maybe people will do something about it. While there are many reasons, there's one that's been more devastating than any: health insurance rates. It's the straw that's breaking Massachusetts's back.

If you pay attention, you'd know cities and towns struggle with dozens of expensive issues every year. The state isn't paying its fair share toward Special Education costs: when certain students require their own, private teacher it means less money and teachers for everyone else. Here's another problem: the state's formula. Suffice it to say, the Mystery Formula produces often arbitrary results. No one, outside of Beacon Hill halls, seems to know how it works - but the results are obvious. There are richer towns that receive more money per capita than poorer towns. My hometown, laying off more than 15 teachers and shutting down one of its elementary schools just to keep up, would probably be okay if it received the same aid, per capita, as Wellesley - who's median family income is tens of thousands more than where I live.

Still, though, doesn't everyone get the sense that all of these problems would be minor gripes we could work through - if it weren't for the fact that, on top of it all, cities and towns have to pay for their employees' health insurance costs? They have to pay those costs, which are rising upwards of 15% every year, despite the fact that they can't raise funds by more than 2.5%? Something's gotta give - and it isn't students who require special education funds, since that's an unfunded mandate towns have to provide.

There are lots of other problems too, but mostly the little kind that people can reasonably address. Heck, look at Dedham. They're so afraid of additional students entering their community because of affordable housing in the planning, they're considering giving a section of their town away to Boston. Maybe that's not the best solution, but it certainly shows that people can come up with creative ways to tackle local costs efficiently and effectively. Can't fund a teacher and an Althetic Director? Hire my Dad, a teacher and an AD at Lynnfield, who'll do both at about the same rate you'd find someone to do one or the other.

However, health insurance costs aren't a little problem that can be solved with a creative solution - at least at the local level. Certainly, cities and towns are trying. If all town employees got their insurance through the state, instead of the town, the rates would save municipalities thousands: subsequently, people are making efforts to do that. However, even if it were enough to save the Stonehams, Swampscotts and Dartmouths of the state this year, they'd be facing the same problems a year or two down the line. Cities and towns have to deal with rates rising 10-15% every year - which goes far beyond any creative solution. It goes far beyond trimming a few luxuries. Those kinds of expenses lead to a decline in the quality of education for everyone.

Everything comes down to the bottom line - the fact that, with the way we do health care in this country, we're at the mercy of private companies who are trying to maximize profits. They certainly don't care about public education costs - just look at how they treat their clients. It's all a profit to them. Consequently, we have the most expensive health care system in the world, yet dozens of other countries do a better job at actually giving care. Something seems amiss, yet nothing is being done about it. Maybe, if people can link their rising property taxes, health care expenses and declining quality of education their children receive, they'll actually stop trying to treat the symptoms of the problem and try to root out its cause.

We Fight for our Rights

"Injustice anywhere is a a threat to justice everywhere."
~Martin Luther King, Jr.

If he were still alive, I don't know what side Martin Luther King Jr. would have come down on in the gay marriage debate, but his equally heroic wife supported marriage equality. I'd like to think he would have too.

One of the things studying Dr. King will teach anyone is that the fact that the fight for Civil Rights isn't easy - and the people who lead that fight are amongst the most courageous people that exist. It isn't easy to be told you're going to hell for being the way you were born. Because of that hate, many gay people never admit to their homosexuality at all, or do so only after years of mistakes and misfortune. They live half-lives and never reach their full potential as American citizens. Freedom - the very equality under the law we each enjoy today - is ingrained in all of us; without it, no one can ever be truly happy.

Yet, hundreds of millions of out and proud Americans, be they gay or allies who are truly 'pro-freedom,' already know that. Our collective chorus will be heard at the Hub of the Universe tomorrow, at the very steps of the State House on Beacon Hill. What will we be chanting? Hopefully, "Enough is enough." The threat that justice faces today must be met with a righteous fury; it's time that the people who want to take away the rights of others be gone. We've gone this far, Constitutional Convention - Part 17, no further.

Sadly, we may have a way to go. I'd like to think there are enough decent human beings on Beacon Hill to kill this at present - over 150 of them - but one can never quite tell. The only way legislators will learn better is by hearing from us that enough is enough. They need to know that Massachusetts has woken up to reality: anyone who doesn't support the full equality and civil rights of every citizen in this state has no claim to decency at all. We, as citizens who think equality is something to cherish, must do everything in our power to protect those rights - protect them from the cowards who are too afraid of their own inner demons to allow equality to exist.

That's what all of this is about: inner demons and personal discomfort. Same-sex marriage hurts no one, but the idea of gay sex is discomforting to some. The idea that people are different makes people boil over. 'How could you be different?!' They think. Apparently, they didn't get the memo: all of us have different brains and thus think differently. Yet, in most states in this country - and quite possibly in Massachusetts - stripping away some people's rights to preserve the piece of mind for others has become a normalized trend. Until the day that quoting people from Focus on the Family becomes akin to quoting members of the KKK, that won't change.

Despite the fact that same-sex marriage doesn't effect heterosexual families, we're here today. Despite the fact that it doesn't effect children (except to enhance the lives of children who are or will be living with same-sex parents), we're here today. Despite the fact that there is no legitimate reason to be against marriage equality at all, we are here today - once again - defending marriage equality for all.

We are here today, for the 17th time, because some people are uncomfortable with the lives millions of Americans live. We are here today because some not only want to force people to live differently, they're actually willing to change the constitution in order to enforce it. They'd strip away rights against people merely because of the way they were born - not unlike American policy toward African Americans for most of this nation's history.

Like generations of people who have stood up for the rights of the people in the past, today we are going to make sure that justice, hope and honor remain a part of this Commonwealth's Constitution. Today, we're going to say "enough is enough." Best of all, no matter what happens at the Constitutional Convention, our voices will be heard. We will ultimately win because our cause is just.

---

As the day goes by, I'll be liveblogging from Beacon Hill to let everyone know what's going on. For starters, read Wayne Woodlief's piece about the tough lobbying opponents of freedom are facing for their cowardly positions. If these soon-to-be candidates can't support marriage equality out of their sense of morality, perhaps they'll do so out of an equally strong sense of self-preservation: 7-1 letters sent to our legislators are pro-equality. The writing is, quite literally, on the wall.

Pride Week: Show Pride, Not Division

Chris Mason blogged about the current "controversy" surrounding this year's Pride festival. Here's the gist:

To the right of the stage that hosted the Pride Committee, Marshals, and Boston City Counselors was a group representing the Ask. Tell. Act. Coalition. During the ceremony they held a sign that read "Radical Queers Resist".The President of the Boston Pride Board of Directors, Linda DeMarco, mentioned the controversy over this years pride theme. She welcomed the demonstrators, saying that they were being true to themselves and to their idea of Pride. While her message may have been sincere, it came off as patronizing.

Maybe - and maybe she should have been, too. It's counterproductive to the extreme: we're about to see a vote on our rights - one we could very well lose - and we can't unite behind a stupid theme for Pride Week? If this is the best the gay rights movement can do, no wonder marriage rights only exist in one state in this country. No wonder we may just lose those rights, if things go wrong on June 14th.

I get that Pride could have picked a better theme for this year's events. Heck, I think themes in general are pretty stupid and usually ignored. Is coming together in "Pride" no longer good enough for a theme? I always thought "pride" itself was the theme. However, it seems to me that "radical queers" are pretty much 'resisting' for the sake of resisting - because, you know, those big, bad, baddies are, well, deciding things and stuff. (Did those people think of weighing in on a Pride theme beforehand, when the decision was being made?)

And don't get me wrong - I don't think the conventional, 'non-radical' organizations representing gay rights are doing us a whole lot of favors. In fact, I wrote a column that was deeply critical of MassEquality that appeared in InNewsWeekly as early as March. I thought it was pretty scathing. I don't have much knowledge about the people in charge of Pride festivities, but clearly they have a lot of things to learn and ought to take more community input next year, but it's a little late to complain now.

It's especially late to complain when the theme itself isn't really all that bad.

Proud to Serve:
Our Community
Our Country
Our World

And the problem is?

Pride week is an opportunity to reach out to the rest of the world. For once, the world pays a little extra attention to us. With all the free publicity, it's important to showcase to everyone all the many positive aspects we add to the human collective. Just like any other part of humanity, society is nothing without its gay members. Non-GLBT people are a lot more likely to support us if they know we support them in our community, country and world. We are some of this country's best volunteers and community activists and have been for decades forever. As hardworking and equal participants in this world, we deserve equal treatment in whatever avenues we pursue.

Is the theme militaristic? It can certainly be interpreted that way - and, gee whiz, I wonder why? Maybe because this country is deeply discriminatory toward its military forces. Many people consider repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell almost as important as DOMA.

I'm one of those people. Gay members of the military already serve - and they ought to be able to be out and proud, not forced in the closet, living in fear. There are over one million gblt veterans. There are probably tens of thousands of glbt soldiers in Iraq today, fighting because they were ordered to - even if most of us don't like the war.

Part of the reason this "controversy" frustrates me is because people who are against it seem to be saying that because this war is bad, or because war is bad, we shouldn't have this theme. Well, the theme isn't about Iraq or war or anything of the sort. It's about service - and gay people already serve in the military. Shouldn't they be able to do so proudly?

I'm against this war and have been from the start. If we had the numbers, I'd advocate impeaching President Bush and Dick Cheney. I'd give Donald Rumsfeld over to Geneva, if they asked. Clearly, I have strong feelings about this, but that doesn't mean I'll join in the small chorus that's against this year's theme.

We have a military in this country. Gay people want to serve in it. Gay people are serving in it, in the tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands). Heck, I know a few of them. That said, every year hundreds of gay people are thrown out of the institution they've been so willing to serve: their dishonorable discharge allows the government to strip any benefits they should recieve as veterans after the discharge. It's demeaning, homophobic, stupid, sad and everything in between. I wouldn't be shocked if some career military people have had their entire lives ruined, losing everything (pensions, health benefits, housing, etc), because of a dishonorable discharge.

Obviously, Don't Ask Don't Tell is important. We've finally seen a lot of political will to get rid of it this year, at least before Marty Meehan announced he was going to retire. It's one of the last frontiers in the battle for full equality and we have a democratic House and Senate that ought to be removing the law. If Boston's Pride event wants to touch on that importance, kudos to them. With the press that Pride festivals will receive, perhaps it could remind people about the inequalities that still exist today. After the Goodridge decision, many people in Massachusetts have deluded themselves into thinking equality has been reached - and they need to be corrected.

What disturbs me most of all is the fact that the people who are making a big stink about this are being very hypocritical. They're the same people who have pointed out that groups like MassEquality have focused exclusively on marriage equality, to the detriment of dozens of other exceptionally important issues - and the people they effect. Obviously, to anyone who read my InNewsWeekly column, I wholeheartedly agree: MassEquality has a lot to learn, as does HRC, as do any number of prominent GLBT organizations. The dissenters are also the same people who routinely point out that many who claim to be a part of the GLBTQ movement are a little too worried about GL and not BTQ - something I also agree with.

Yet, now they're essentially saying that the military is bad and we shouldn't have this message - when there are thousands of people who fall under our "umbrella" that serve - and would like to serve openly, with Pride, but can't. Are we going to say that transgendered people deserve more respect, but not gay people serving in the military? Should we push harder for the quest to eliminate workplace discrimination - and not care at all that gay people are discriminated against in the military every day? We may not like the fact that many glbt people choose to serve, but they do - and we should support them, just as we would Log Cabin Republicans. It's what an inclusive movement would do.

The message certain people are sending by being so vehemently against this year's Pride Parade is far worse - and far more divisive - than anything Boston Pride did, even if they clearly aren't perfect. This is a time where we need to be fighting for everyone in the movement and not excluding anyone. Just days before the Constitutional Convention that will decide our most basic right to marriage equality as gay citizens of this state, this is a time to be united. Instead, we tear each other apart - days before our relationships may be at risk to being torn apart too. This is a time to work together. This is a time to show the world just why we deserve equal status in all realms of society, from marriage to the rights to serve our military with both honor and pride.

Go to the Pride events. Go there with whatever message you want. But, for the sake of all that's at risk, let's not attack one another days before June 14th for not having the "right" message. This isn't math class; contrary to popular belief, there's plenty of room for grey on a Pride Parade float. Let's not give the MassResistances out there that kind of unnecessary fodder. They'd want nothing more to see than infighting in the gay rights movement - that's how people like them win. Life is too short and way too important for us to be tearing each other apart. Ask, Tell, Act... Serve. Do whatever you want and can to make sure our community is working cohesively to both protect and expand our rights as basic human beings during one of the most important moments our movement has ever seen in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Treasurer Cahill, Casinos and Idiocy

Cahill wants to beat Native Americans to the punch on casinos in Massachusetts - apparently, the state will get ever so much more money with a casino they can fully tax, unlike a casino built by Native Americans.

Cahill has long expressed concern that an Indian-run casino would drain money from the state lottery, while providing the state only a limited amount of revenue, subject to negotiations with the tribe. By orchestrating its own deal to establish a casino in Massachusetts, Cahill will argue today, the state would gain far more from gambling than Connecticut has from its two Indian casinos.

What a great idea! /sarcasm off

Apparently, Cahill never investigated the potential to, oh, I don't know... fucking stop the construction of a mega casino. It's not as if the state has no leverage, either.

The Mashpee Wampanoags, who today are celebrating their official recognition by the federal government, have announced plans to open a casino by 2010, but must first go through the time-consuming process of putting land into federal trust. The tribe must also negotiate a compact with the state, which would allow the tribe to open a casino with a level of gambling not now permitted elsewhere in Massachusetts. In other states, tribes have often agreed to pay a certain percentage of revenues in lieu of taxes.

Woot! Three possible ways to block this.

1. We lobby the federal government to either not put the land in federal trust or make a deal on just what could be built on that land.

2. Say "no thanks" in any negotiations with the Mashpee tribe. If they want to build a gambling enterprise, they can build one of the sort we already allow on this state.

3. Alternatively, we can say "let's compromise" and allow them to build a casino - but one that actually works in Massachusetts.

To say the least, the ideas of casinos in Massachusetts doesn't thrill me. However, I'm not inherently opposed to building some sort of casino in Massachusetts, but it can't be of the type Cahill wants.

Under Cahill's plan, which would have to be approved and implemented by the Legislature and Governor Deval Patrick, the state would issue a request for proposals for one or more casinos that would offer such amenities as five-star hotels, gourmet restaurants, shopping, and event pavilions.

Great, let's build a huge fucking, massively massive structure - so one company gets all of the benefits and potential small business owners in the area get the shaft. Put one of those things near any brink city and whatever progress that's been made over the past 10 years will instantly go away. A casino won't help any economy if it gives no reason for people to participate in it.

If we want to allow casinos, we need to make them work for local economies. That means people who are coming from all around the state to go to these casinos should have a reason to leave those casinos for most of their entertainment, food and other needs. Imagine a casino in New Bedford - let's say we allow them a modestly sized hotel. That means others would want to build hotels in the area, too. That means lots of local restaurants would start up and thrive, catching a lot of the new tourists. It means that museums, galleries and theatres could pop up - and the ones already there could become even better. It means all sorts of shopping could be created to attract any costumer, from luxury stores to stores for different crowds. Such a project could really put a brink city on the map, giving people a reason to visit them. I use New Bedford as an example because there are already a lot of reasons to go there, it just needs the type of attraction to get people to realize that - it needs something to push people through the door.

With lots of things to do in Massachusetts's brink cities, even people who don't gamble would want to come and visit. Of course, we already know that happens - as is - in today's mega casinos. Just a few months ago my step mother, who never gambles, went to Connecticut for a weekend at Foxwoods. She went with an old friend to catch up, see a cool singer and do some shopping. Sadly, for Connecticut's small business owners and economy, all her money went to one casino - it wasn't spread out to everyone else. Do we want that in Massachusetts? I say no.

If people want casinos in Massachusetts, fine. However, instead of building mega-resorts, let's build something that won't kill local economies. Let's build something that will enhance what we already have and create far more. In other words, let's be smart about it. However, it's going to take political leadership on this issue that clearly Treasurer Cahill doesn't have. Let's hope a certain Governor does get it.

Gov Patrick: New Green Policies

I'm sure many of you will read about Governor Patrick's new plan on sustainable energy; hopefully, it will make as much sense to everyone else as it does me.

The best idea of the lot:

Other changes encourage the creation of “pedestrian-friendly” districts and neighborhoods that mix commercial, civic, cultural, educational, and recreational activities with parks and homes. In housing, the principles call for building homes “near jobs, transit, and where services, including water supply, are available.” In addition, the principles would “foster the development of housing, particularly multifamily and smaller single-family homes.”

Also included are the removal of affordable housing and land preservation grants that were actually having the opposite effect - go figure.

Governor Patrick determined that the Commonwealth Capital Scorecard did not properly apply to these grant programs, and could actually discourage some affordable housing projects and undercut attempts to protect the Commonwealth’s most valuable habitat land.

I'm a fan. There's nothing better this state could do than reexamine how we do housing - and try to create more housing in more efficient ways. There's no reason why we can't create better housing in this state that a) makes things more convenient, b) is less expensive, c) is an improvement over what they otherwise had available and d) is energy-efficient. It'll take serious investment in infrastructure, but we can do it. Best of all, the cities and areas that need help the most would probably get it.