Ryan's Take

Elizabeth Warren: It Gets Better

2012-01-26T17:23:00.000-05:00

Marisa DeFranco at 3:30pm on LeftAhead

2012-01-23T01:31:00.000-05:00

Mike and I are interviewing US Senate Candidate Marisa DeFranco at 3:30 today on LeftAhead. You can listen live at blogtalkradio.com/lefties starting at 3:30pm, or anytime after 4:30 at LeftAhead.com. There's also a mp3 player for the show on the right-hand column of this blog, and people can catch it at iTunes or some other podcast aggregators.

Why the GOP's going nuts of attacks on Bain

2012-01-12T10:01:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

SOPA, the death of the internet?

2012-01-03T16:30:00.000-05:00

Below is an excellent explanation on the vastness of the problem that SOPA, the "Stop Online Piracy Act," poses for the internet. SOPA is the music and movie industry's attempts to basically kill the internet.

It goes far beyond trying to protect copyrighted material, and descends into "let's kill websites that are competitors." Youtube.com could be shut down if Google were to not take down a single, solitary video that was flagged by the industry within 5 days. A blog could be taken down is a single, solitary commenters quoted too extensively in a single comment. In effect, the internet would become like Cable TV, with megacorporations back to controlling almost all content, from the media, to books, music and film.

Here's a great explanation of how vast this bill goes, not only allowing sites to be targeted, but advertisers, and allowing content owners to seize sites without going through normal court channels, essentially throwing due process out the window.

Here's the comment, plucked from a Techcrunch blog. It should appear as the first comment below the article.

Certainly, the implications could be seen as a turning off of just about any avenue of the internet. The real problem here (addressing questions above) is that DOJ won't be doing the primary enforcement. SOPA grants jurisdiction for aggrieved holders of protected content to bring suit in addition to the DOJ. That means the "creator of the content" -- Metallica, let's just say -- or an agent of the aggrieved -- Metallica's record company -- will have jurisdiction in federal courts in the U.S. to bring suit against those websites that either a) control the location upon which the actual infringer posts the protected content, or b) against advertisers who help those websites continue to operate.

The requirements are that both the website and the advertiser be provided adequate notice of the infringement before suit can commence. That means enough time for the website to take appropriate action (removing the content and blocking the user, most likely), and any advertisers or "enablers" as I like to call them to discontinue business with those offending websites.

The problem is bigger than just the ability to regulate granted to the DoJ. The true problem is that it is giving the media outlets direct means of redress to bring suit not only against websites, many of which are unaware anything wrong is going on, and seek either or both monetary and injunctive relief, but also those advertisers (see facebook, google, etc.) who won't discontinue business with websites which host the offending content. In this light, it is clear that the media companies will now have the ability to sanction any web outlet, or web outlet that serves advertising, without addressing the underlying problem of the user who is doing the "offending" if we can call it that. Huge monetary sanctions against Google for advertising -- the stretches of this power could kill google as we know it (which may have been the underlying intent all along, as fond as they are of Google).
Let's say a commenter posts a link on small blog A to content that infringes on X's copyright. X might not care or know about it. But X's agent, RIAA, does. Someone likes the comment on blog A, and links on Facebook. On an aside, blog A uses Google advertising. The link on Facebook makes it into the internet's mainstream, in whatever way it will. It catches the attention of X's agent RIAA.
At this point, SOPA gives DOJ or the offended party (or her agent) a right to judicial redress by imposing monetary sanctions or achieving injunctive relief (shutting down the page, site, domain). At this point, Blog A, Google, Facebook, and every other site that served as host to the offending content are potentially liable. RIAA can pursue the action by notifying DOJ or by pursuing it individually after notice. In fact, RIAA could, under some circumstances, even TAKE THE DOMAINS of the offending website (under in rem property provisions in the H.R.).

Extrapolate the single instance to what stretches the entire internet, and well...the problem truly is vastly larger than what the DoJ could manage to enforce. That was never the true purpose though, was it?

Elizabeth Warren's Fighting Back

2011-12-09T20:40:00.000-05:00

What no one's seemed to mention about Karl Rove's ad

2011-12-08T21:46:00.000-05:00

As most probably know, Karl Rove's issued a new ad through his political ~~action~~ hacktion group, American Crossroads, attacking Elizabeth Warren on being too cozy with the banks. Yes, you read that right: the nation's top watchdog of the banks, the very banks bankrolling Rove's ads against Warren, is too cozy with the banking industry. Ha!

It's silly and the polar opposite of Rove's first ad attacking Warren, linking her to the Occupy movement, but the thing that no one seems to be talking about is the fact that this is the exact tactic Karl Rove has always employed: attacking an opponent's strengths.

People have been scoffing at the new ad, laughing at it even, but it's no sillier than when Rove went after a war veteran in the Senate, Max Cleland, who lost both of his legs and one of his arms in battle, and tried to call him un-American, unpatriotic and not tough on defense. It was absurd, but because it was so absurd, few took it too seriously -- until Max Cleland, national hero, lost his reelection.

That's why it's so important for us to take the new tactic seriously and ensure people know Warren's record and how sleazy Rove and his group are in their manipulation. If there's any one thing people need to know about Warren, it's that she's going to go after the banks and try to make America work for its people, instead of just the lobbyists and CEOs. So, it's time to go forth and spread the message.

Of #OccupyBoston, Mooninites and #Sinkgate

2011-12-03T22:22:00.003-05:00

The Boston Police Department's theft of #OccupyBoston's kitchen sink (sigh... the jokes just write themselves) is really just the latest in police overreaction in a long series of Boston Police are-you-kidding-me? overreactions. My friend put it well when she wrote on Facebook,

"okay, the occupiers probably shouldnt have blocked the police van. but, in their defense, the police PROBABLY SHOULD BE SPENDING THEIR TIME ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN A SINK. jussssst sayin'."

And I'm not even so sure they were wrong to block the van for the limited amount of time that they did. After all, they're ~~living~~ indefinitely protesting there, and dishes need cleaning.

So, how bad are the cops? Be it trying to arm every Tom, Dick and Harry in the force with military grade semi-automatic weapons, under the guise of 'preventing terrorism,' or essentially shutting down Boston because of a cartoon movie viral media campaign, it's clear the old fogies of the Boston Police and the status quo's forces that be just don't get what motivates or entertains anyone ~~with a living pulse~~ who thinks life's worth living.

When you think of it, there really are a lot of similarities between what happened when the Mooninites rocketed our city -- by being hung up on a couple walls to market a movie -- and #OccupyTogether movement itself.

Whether it's people wanting to amuse themselves with entertaining adult cartoons, or creating a positive atmosphere of freedom to fight for our rights to have a slice of the American Dream, it's all about people carving out a place for themselves.

And seemingly every time it happens, the elites of the world miss the 'joke,' metaphorical or otherwise.

So, in that regard, the Boston Police stealing the kitchen sink is emblematic with what's wrong with the city, government and mainstream society at large. It's the silly and serious merging all at once, crossing the poli-pop streams, amounting to something that's laughably stupid and insulting all at the same time.

They call the protesters dirty hippies, but as the protesters gain steam, they strip away their ability to stay clean, hoping normal people watching this stuff on the local news won't know any better.

Meanwhile, the protesters are nonviolent, peaceful and fighting for the rights of every American who's ever known what it's like to worry about putting food on the table, paying rent, finding a job or having adequate (or any) health care. The police are getting spooked by ghosts that just aren't there.

These politicians, corporate powers and police officers doing their dirty work don't respect or understand younger people and those struggling to find their way in this life, and they aren't even trying.

If it doesn't fit in with what's gone on in the past, like having a one day march instead of a long-term assembly, having a job instead of desperately looking for one in the midst of a job crisis for those out of work, or using viral marketing instead of paying millions for expensive ads, the old world not only doesn't understand it, but sees it as a threat and attacks it.

This time, far from attacking some stupid viral marketing campaign, we are the Mooninites -- and we're working with a political, corporate and police establishment that has yet to realize life has past them by.

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

2011-11-30T20:11:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today's LeftAhead Podcast: Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz

2011-11-29T16:01:00.000-05:00

Mike has the full write-up at LeftAhead, but here's the general gist of today's jam-packed show.

The ever-intense MA Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz joined us today, centering on redistricting, transgender rights, and education. Not only is she a progressive leader in LGBT issues, she chairs the Joint Committee on education and is vice-chair of the Special Joint Committee on Redistricting.

I was impressed with the Senator's ability to squeeze in a lot of details in such a short amount of time, never mind switching between three unrelated topics at the drop of a hat. Her intellect and energy is why she's quickly become one of the most effective senators out there, never mind one of the leaders in the Commonwealth's small-d movement of progressive politics.

Today's show ended up being more timely than I would have suspected, with Congressman Frank's retirement, but we managed to talk about redistricting at both the local and congressional levels, as well as talk about some of the meta that goes behind it -- such as the goals of the committee and the process behind it. We also have some frank discussion on the Transgender Rights bill, both the importance of getting this done and the fact that there's still a little unfinished business surrounding it, since public accommodation was left outside of the bill. On education, mainly focused on her bill tackling the state's drop out problem, in which 8,000 kids in Massachusetts are dropping out every year.

For people who want to skip to the parts of the show they're most interested in, redistricting was the first topic and then we got to the transgender rights bill at about 14:20. At 24:50, we finally got to education. We didn't have as much time as I would have liked to take on this issue, but even just the five minutes we had was enough to tackle some key aspects of her bill on how she thinks we could be better at getting kids to stay in school.

Well, Gov, you own this

2011-11-22T14:29:00.001-05:00

Patrick signs casino bill into law.

With two high ranking members of government, a senator and cabinet secretary, already caught with their hands in the cookie jar, buying stocks in casino companies before pushing through legislation legalizing it, we'll see how long it will be before politicians are going to jail over this stuff.

We'll see how much worse this deal makes our situation in this state when people go broke because of it and the goverment's forced to intervene, while hundreds of local businesses go under and promised revenue never materializes. Governor Patrick - this is your legacy now, good luck with that.

Warren's First Ad: "Who I Am"

2011-11-14T16:45:00.000-05:00

New Congressional Districts Look Solid

2011-11-07T19:51:00.002-05:00

Without delving too deeply into the proposed districts, you have to at least admit that they look solid. If there's a lot of gerrymandering going on here, it's not visible on the surface. In fact, most of the obvious gerrymandering in the past will be fixed with this new effort. Let's look at some of the surface positives.

The Cape and Islands have joined the South Coast to create a new district, a district that should have always existed, in a part of the state that's never had a proper district, at least serving those alive today, cohesively representing the community and culture there.
John Tierney's district -- who politically looks like the weakest heading into the reelection cycle and therefore there was rampant speculation his district would be carved with an axe -- will remain intact. While this is my own district, so I have an vested interest in seeing it remain cohesive, it's also one of the least gerrymandered districts in the state, essentially fitting the county lines, linking together very similar communities, many coastal and blue collar.
On the same lines, Tsongas's district remains intact. There's a few more changes to her district than Tierney's, but the core of Greater Lowell and Lawrence is still there and the new district will be just as cohesive as the one at present.
The absurdity of Barney Frank's district (it should be noted it was a district gerrymandered before he ever served in it) is cleaned up and will look totally different, along with McGovern's seat. The two swapped a lot of ground.
The two western mass districts now look a lot more like a Western Mass and Central Mass district, as they should.
To their credit, the politicians weren't afraid to rankle the congressmen serving in these districts. Frank lost very friendly territory in New Bedford and elsewhere, while Keating's house was redistricted right out of his district. Clearly, these districts weren't designed to "protect incumbents" and, in fact, go a long way toward creating cohesive, representative districts in this state. I'd go so far as saying that there's every possibility the changes made to these maps could cost a couple Democrats their seats in the coming election, as much as I hope that doesn't happen.
Then again, even when politicians aren't afraid to rankle some feathers, that doesn't mean even more politics won't smooth things over. While Lynch lost a lot of ground to Keating and Frank, and would have had to face off against Keating in a district with more of Keating's voters in it, Keating's already capitulated that fight and will set up shop in his Cape residence to avoid the skirmish. It looks like these two owe at least some thanks to Olver for this, even if he's from the other part of the state. Now at least the numbers add up, so voters won't have the chance to see the battle of two incumbents pitted against each other.

It's hard to come up with a perfect set of districts -- and a lot of people, in a lot of states, would settle for districts that aren't historically bad. So, with that in mind, I think we'll at least be able to call these districts good. In another 10 years, even more changes will be called for, but these can and probably will serve well for the 2010s.

The City Needs to Let #OccupyBoston Winterize

2011-10-29T18:16:00.001-04:00

Privately and among friends, my thoughts have turned toward winter at #OccupyBoston often. It's clearly a huge undertaking to camp out in winter for any stretch, but to do so indefinitely is much harder.

#OccupyBoston's been weighing the winter and its options for a while, too, but I think it's well past time for the city to step up and help make it possible for tent city to continue by easing up on some of the restrictions.

The requests for needs that have been going out point at some of the things the city could do.

Here's one of the more telling quotes from that piece:

We only need prepared foods. Our food preperation area has no electricity, no heat source, and no running water, so we cannot cool, prepare, cook, or re-heat complex dishes. Please only donate prepared foods!

Allowing the protesters to have a generator or two for electricity and an area in which to prepare foods, including a heat source, is eminently reasonable and can be done safely. It's a project that could help smooth over hurt feelings over the raid a few weeks back and is an opportunity for Mayor Menino to get over his gaffes about his intolerance for civil disobedience. The city could then listen to Occupy Boston and make sure the set-ups for generators and a heating source for food preparation are done safely.

They should also allow the protesters to set up some areas for staying warm, the sort that any outdoor MBTA location will have equipped. Stricter rules for safety would be needed for those, but there's no reason why reasonable ones couldn't be come up with.

The protesters and protests aren't going away, even as the winter comes in. All the cities around the country have been talking a lot about the "safety" of the protesters. If cities like Boston really care about that, they'll let the Occupy movement winterize -- otherwise, all too many of the 99% are willing to risk frostbite to achieve results.

A Post Citizens United World: This week's podcast, with Jamie Eldridge

2011-10-27T03:21:00.001-04:00

State Senator Jamie Eldridge has long been one of our favorite guests on LeftAhead, but it's been a while since we've last had him on and were very excited when he quickly agreed to jump on the show and talk about what's really become ~~one of the~~ the most important issues facing us today: how do we live in a post-Citizens United world?

It's a difficult topic to address. There's the drastic implications of the Citizens United decision itself, as well as the conservative/corporate-loving bent of our courts to deal with -- courts in which things could get worse before they get better.

There's also the power of the special interests who have ample money and resources available to thwart even that which can still be done in a post-Citizens United world today.

The game seems rigged against us, yet the question becomes are we going to sit here and take it?

There's a reason why many in the progressive left of this state admire and respect Jamie Eldridge above and beyond many others -- and what he has to say on this podcast reflects so many of them. He knows how to mix progressive with pragmatic, having a political style that speaks to our aspirations while not letting perfection become the enemy of the good. He understands the really important issues that are going on and has an almost Elizabeth-Warren-like ability to talk about them in ways that anyone can understand and get behind. Most importantly, though, he's not afraid to get behind the really difficult issues, the issues that require real courage and leadership to tackle -- and anything meant to realistically challenge the implications of a post-Citizens United world today falls under that category.

Senator Eldridge really speaks to the fact that you can run as a proud democrat, one who's not scared of their own core convictions, and win in districts that have little in common with Cambridge, Brookline, Amherst or Somerville -- not in spite of your beliefs, but because of them.

I strongly recommend listening in on the podcast -- it was the sort of show that flew by so quickly, I wished our format allowed us more time. Alas.

As always, you can get the show on LeftAhead, BlogTalkRadio.com/lefties, iTunes, or on the BlogTalkRadio audio player to the right.

Finally, as an announcement, we're having a special Thursday morning edition of LeftAhead tomorrow, featuring special guest Ayanna Pressley. It's probably been an election cycle since we've last had her on and the Boston City Council city-wide seat is very competitive this year, so it should be a good show.

This is what a police state looks like

2011-10-26T16:43:00.001-04:00

US Politics | AMERICAblog News: Oakland police shoot Iraq vet OWS protester in head; has fractured skull, swollen brain

Make sure to watch the video over at the link, too. It's short and really manages to show how maliciously the police acted toward peaceful protesters. If police keep this up, it won't be long until they kill someone through excessive force.

Occupy Wall Street: the Commercial

2011-10-20T14:02:00.000-04:00

The more the rank and file citizen knows about the people showing up in the Occupy movement, the more they'll know it's people just like them. This is truly of and by the people, in order form a more perfect nation.

Flaherty At-Large Race Podcast

2011-10-18T21:31:00.000-04:00

Today's podcast:

Flaherty At-Large Race Podcast : Left Ahead

As always, you can catch it at the link above to LeftAhead, the player on the right or iTunes.

Fate Smiles from Above

2011-10-16T20:49:00.000-04:00

While some people have criticized the design of MLK Jr.'s monument in Washington, D.C., fate was clearly smiling on the date of its opening. It was opened yesterday, on the day of mass protests -- and arrests -- across the country and abroad, in the cause of economic and social justice, issues King cared about a great deal.

With the Occupy movement maturing into its next phase, it looks stronger than ever, becoming something that can't be ignored. Like King and the protesters during the civil rights movement, that means more people will be arrested, more people will be punished and more people will be oppressed, until the powers that be can no longer get away with it.

The overreaction by the powers that be -- their fear and fury of the plebeians asking for modest changes to society that enable the American Dream to be shared with circles beyond the extraordinary rich -- is only further empowering the movement, as people read about what happens and begin to understand the world we really live in, as people begin to understand the outrages and abuse regular people go through when they dare to stand up to the status quo. King understood that way back when, and people understand that now. That's why, like then, the protesters today will win. That's why I'm sure MLK would look back on the day his monument opened as perfectly fitting for the biggest protests yet for the Occupy Movement.

Elizabeth Warren Podcast

2011-10-14T16:52:00.002-04:00

Lynne, Mike and I had a fantastic podcast today -- with special guest and Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren!

The topics are some of what you'd expect and some of what you may not, giving her a chance to show that she's not just a one-trick pony. Indeed, her experience and expertise is wide and deep, covering the issues that effect the Middle Class's purse strings the most. She also has a keen understand of the systemic problems facing Wall Street -- and how so many of the issues are truly linked to the failures of the system to place a check on the powerful lobbying interests out there.

Here's the episode, below:

Listen to internet radio with massmarrier on Blog Talk Radio

More arrests, police harassment at #OccupyBoston

2011-10-13T20:15:00.005-04:00

Today continued the Boston Police Department's trend to escalate the situation on Dewey Square, despite the fact that Occupy Boston has continually remained and affirmed its peaceful intentions and actions. The police presence surrounding Dewey Square has expanded tremendously, up to and including the BPD bringing out the cameras to video tape protesters.

That wasn't all we saw today. The AFL-CIO joined Occupy Boston today in solidarity for another march, despite the bad weather. They were forced to march on the sidewalks. Well, one person in a march of many stepped over the side walk -- and got arrested for it.

Here's a picture from after the arrest.

The protesters at Occupy Boston are more than willing to go back to the days of peaceful action with the police; the decision to escalate things with them has been purely one of Mayor Menino and the Boston Police and is completely one sided -- the protesters have remained peaceful all throughout. The people of Boston and the greater community must communicate to the Mayor and BPD their express desires that the people be allowed to peacefully assemble.

-------

In other news, we see news of the city of Houston trying to evict their Occupy movement today, and Mayor Bloomberg himself -- days after promising he'd allow the protesters to stay indefinitely -- will be trying to evict them tomorrow morning. Bloomberg's eviction is under the guise that he's just going to come in and clean, then let people back in, but notice what he won't let those protesters come back with:

The city’s top cop said today that the Occupy Wall Street protesters who clear out of Zuccotti Park tomorrow so their filthy makeshift campsite can get a much-needed cleaning can come back when the job is finished -- but they can’t take their tents, coolers and other gear with them.

“People will have to remove all their belongings and leave the park,” Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said, “After it’s cleaned, they’ll be able to come back. But they won’t be able to bring back the gear, the sleeping bags, that sort of thing will not be able to be brought back into the park.”

Needless to say, they're trying to kill the Occupy Movement through stealth. Perhaps they figured the bad weather would do them in anyway, but discovered now that our unseasonably good weather is over that people are still sticking around and the movement is, in fact, still growing. Bloomberg will do anything to nip this thing in the bud, because he doesn't want to be paying the same tax rates as teachers and cleaning ladies on his billions of dollars. The question is will the world allow him to get away with it?

Crossposted at BlueMassGroup.com

Elizabeth Warren on Left Ahead Tomorrow!

2011-10-13T19:37:00.000-04:00

Mike has all the news over at his blog: Elizabeth Warren on Left Ahead 10/14

Needless to say, should be a great show!

#OccupyBoston Roundup

2011-10-12T21:41:00.001-04:00

Here's a list of some important resources, information and videos concerning Occupy Boston, so people can figure out what the heck is really going on and what this is all about. Feel free to add to the comments anything you think I may have missed.

UnaSpencer's diaries on Daily Kos, an insider perspective with in depth discussion

A primer on the General Assembly, so you know what to expect if you go.
Holding the line, a diary on what happened before the General Assembly's decision to approve the second camp and what happened directly after.
The Day After, on Occupy Boston's resolve to keep going and the movement's growing strength in the face of adversity.

News

Menino is no fan of civil disobedience.
Boston's trying to pin the second camp on anarchists and foreigners... like Mubarak did in Egypt.
70% support Occupy Wall St. movement
Garrett Quinn: "It was ugly and fast."
The Day 25 Mothership Roundup of the entire OWS movement, for those looking at how things are going outside of Boston.

Pictures

Woman choked by police officer
Activestills Occupy Boston gallery
Safesounds Occupy Boston arrest gallery
Gallery from Monday, both the 10k-strong march and second camp, before police raid.

Reactions

Open letter to Menino
What would Rose Kennedy have thought about protesters on her greenway?

Videos from raid, TV segments

Cop pushes someone off wall

The raid begins

Post-raid dozens marched to the jail in support of those arrested. No embed.

AP video of arrests

Global Revolution Live Channel -- a live feed on the Occupy movement and its global economic-justice cousins. There's programming 24/7, usually previously recorded videos from around the world, and it'll go live with commentary when big things are going on.

Here's a wonderful video showing our ~~fearless~~ leaders expressing how important the freedom of assembly is abroad, even as they crack down on it here.

Young Turks report on Occupy Boston raid

Keith Olbermann interview with OccupyBoston participant who was raided and an organizer of one of the people participating in the OccupyWallSt

More Keith:

First collective statement of OccupyWallSt
Tavis Smiley of PBS and Cornel West discuss Occupy movement.
Russ Feingold: "This is no time to hang back."

Occupy Boston Resources

Website
Twitter
Media twitter (news and requests)
Logistics twitter (find out what they need)
The Occupy Boston Globe -- the Occupy Boston newspaper
Occupy Boston Wiki
Occupy Boston live chat
Occupy Boston live feed

Questions Media Didn't Ask at #OccupyBoston

2011-10-11T19:59:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Occupy Boston: Veterans Bashed, but Hopes aren't Dashed

2011-10-11T15:22:00.000-04:00

The most discomforting thing about having stayed up late last night to stand witness to the events initiated by Mayor Menino was watching the Veterans for Peace, many of them seniors, stand in front of the rest of the crowd to shield them from the police -- and beaten for it. The whole night was peaceful, non-violent resistance, met by a far more aggressive approach by the police, who cowardly chose to attack in the middle of the night, after all the news programs cut off their live shows and before papers would have time to publish what really happened within the news cycle.

That's why any of the papers that managed to get anything to press had what amounted to fairly one-sided police accounts of what happened, with almost no mention of the fact that veterans were attacked and medics were arrested, along with some among the legal team who were there to stand witness. The cops cut the power to the media tent for the protesters, but luckily they anticipated that and booked a hotel that stood above the attacked encampment, where there was a live feed watched by upwards of 15,000 people.

I could go on about my assessment of what happened (and I do on today's podcast), but I think I'd rather point you to this story, posted on Daily Kos, by one of the facilitators of the movement. In addition to being a fantastic writer, he (or she) really put to pen everything that happened and how it happened from the perspective of someone from within the movement who had some level of ownership of it. Here's just a snippet of how they came to decide to set up the second camp.

The facilitation team quickly realized that with all that was going on we a) couldn't deal with proposals because the quorum was split and we would not get any true consensus, and b) people were going to be consumed with the rapidly unfolding and precarious situation. So, instead of a regular GA, we had urgent group announcements and a facilitated community discussion about what was going on.

The goal of the discussion was to minimize speculation and rumor-mongering. We could get everyone on the same page and equally informed.

Though there were some people who expressed dismay at the idea that the beta camp might be jeopardizing the alpha camp, the conversation went very well and we ended up with a strong sense of solidarity. The highlight of that was when the VeteransForPeace showed up. They strolled in with these white, very tall flags of their organization and a couple of US flags. As a facilitator I was facing the rest of the GA when a man asked to make an announcement, "We are here from the Veteran for Peace! We support Occupy Boston and we'll stand between you and the police!" There was a roar in the camp and I turned around to see a phalanx of veterans - men and women - standing tall with a wall of flags. I had been trying to remain calm and I'm not much of a flag waver. Still, I must admit that I was a bit verklempt. It was an impressive view and there really was something very reassuring and heartwarming about them showing up.

It was not an easy decision for them; they knew what was at risk. Yet, the movement has grown so incredibly quickly that Dewey Square alone is no longer large enough for it. They had no choice, and the city has no choice but to listen to them, at least if it wants to be known as a city that respects freedom and democracy and holds to our roots as the cradle of America.

Unfortunately, it seems as though Mayor Menino has some learning to do. His quotes today about the incident last night were some combination of dopey, misguided and frightening for the future of Democracy.

“Civil disobedience doesn’t work for Boston; it doesn’t work for anyone.”

“We will tolerate demonstrations, we will tolerate expressions of free speech but when it comes to civil disobedience we have a real issue with that, that is why we moved in last night.”

In a country and city with a past as colorful as ours, that's a very dangerous -- and faulty -- assessment. Yes, Mayor Menino, civil disobedience works. It works when nothing else will. When society's problems are systemic and government is a part of the problem, civil disobedience is all we have left. Like it or not, the Mayor will face more civil disobedience, not less. His actions last night assured it.

A Report from Occupy Boston

2011-10-10T07:46:00.007-04:00

Yesterday's events were fairly mellow, but the crowds were huge and the momentum is clearly building.

While the bulk of the people camping out were twenty somethings and college students, it's clear the movement itself is much larger than that.

People run the gamut in age, race and ideology, but are friendly and welcoming. I'd say upwards of half the total people there were seniors and young families, many with kids, so it's not just college students and twenty somethings, even if those are the biggest groups camping out.

There's also a wide variety of backgrounds, from Cornell graduates with degrees in engineering to the unemployed and everything in between.

It's a little crunchy granola, but you can't help but feel empowered and inspired by the people participating together in the movement. There's a real sense of community in "Tent City," not to mention the sense that everyone is a part of something much bigger.

Everything was very peaceful and people were greatful that the police have been accommodating thus far. There were certainly constant efforts to keep it that way, with lots of self policing and reminders from members of the community if you were doing something that could attract police attention, even mundane things like not leaving room to pass through the sidewalk.

There's also worries that the Mayor's recent antagonizing comments could change things in regards to the police. The protesters are prepared for that, but have made every effort to avoid it.

They've kept the camp contained to just the square, even though they're at capacity in "tent city" and would like to expand to more of the greenway. There's been little impacts on traffic and lots of effort has been made to keep things safe and sanitary - both of those issues have entire working groups dedicated to them.

Yet, there are also daily work shops for legal training so people know their rights and know what to do if the situation changes and there are arrests. Numbers are given out on who to call if legal help is needed and people are told to write it down on there persons, not just their phones (which can be confiscated), should they think there could be arrests.

Getting Involved

There's going to be a 3pm march today sponsored by several organizations, including labor. It will start with students at the band stand on the Commons at 2pm (gathering at 1:30) and from there, meet with the rest of Dewey Square and the unions for the big 3pm effort. There should be literally thousands of people there.

The General Assemblies are daily at 7pm and are a true experience in democracy to be witnessed. Specifics can be found at the Occupy Boston website beyond that.

These are great opportunities to come and be a part of it all - one of the 99% - as the normal go of things is a much quieter, more subdued affair, with some work group or presentation usually going on every hour or so, but otherwise just lots of people gathered in clusters, holding signs or doing other mundane things.

Those quieter moments are what you make of them. If you want to stay busy, you need to get involved and volunteer.

There's dedicated areas to get involved in their working groups, find out more information, a place to stay at night or grab something to eat.

If you come in to visit, consider bringing some donations, like food and water. At the General Assembly, the food services group specifically asked for vegan salad dressing and a large coffee maker. These are the things that keep people - and therefore the movement - going.

Occupy Wall St. Podcast

2011-10-08T19:50:00.000-04:00

Occupy Wall St. Podcast : Left Ahead

I forgot to post last week's podcast on Ryan's Take, so here it is. I'll be heading into town tomorrow to go to Occupy Boston. Will update then and there.

Keeping the 'Wall Street' in focus in the Occupy Wall Street protests

2011-10-08T17:18:00.000-04:00

Here's a great blog from Daily Kos, complete with graph.

Keeping the 'Wall Street' in focus in the Occupy Wall Street protests

Just keep reminding yourself: a mere three years after the financial industry nearly destroyed the planet, Wall Street is bigger and more profitable than ever while a tenth of the rest of us remain mired in unemployment. Even after nearly destroying the planet,virtually nothing has changed. That's the outrage, not a few folks with funny costumes or wacky slogans. Always keep in mind whose side you're on.

The Struggles of the People

2011-10-08T16:37:00.000-04:00

I've had my fair share of economic struggles during this Great Recession and national/international jobs crisis, but it's the stories of friends and neighbors that get to me the most. There are so many absolutely wonderful, intelligent people out there who simply can't find jobs, and it's just amazing that we've let this stuff go on.

I'm inspired by all movements across the country to take America back and rekindle the spirit of America where the onus of our country is to make it work for We, the People. Yet, the longer things go on, the worse the stories get. Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Boston are an inspiration, but I can only hope that the systemic changes that need to be made to society come fast -- and that, in the meantime, compassion and empathy win out the day.

You can't make this stuff up

2011-09-29T21:19:00.000-04:00

A great article on how the Koch Brothers begged an arch-libertarian think-tank type to come to America based off of our great Social Security and Medicare systems.... while both the Koch Bros. and the libertian ~~crackpot~~ think tank guy advocated against Social Security and Medicare. Read the whole thing, it's great IOKIYAR stuff.

Daily Kos: Charles Koch: Social Security for me, but not for thee

In the Zombie Lies Dept: "Voter Fraud"

2011-09-27T19:42:00.000-04:00

In the latest quest of Republicans to deny poor people and students the right to vote, Massachusetts Republicans have been pushing a number of "ID to vote" bills. Freshman Representative Donald Wong (R) is one of those leading the effort on the local front.

Either Representative Wong needs to be shamed and scorned for being ignorant, or for making ~~shit~~ things up. People like Wong suggest that there's scores of voter fraud, people who are showing up to vote and using identities of other people. They've even tried to paint this as an "illegal immigrant" problem, with undocumented residents voting improperly. It's simply not true.

There's been dozens of studies across the nation on the matter, and one after the other has simply said that this is not a problem. The latest example is Maine, which after two months of exhaustive study, found no students that improperly voted and only one undocumented resident -- a resident who had been caught and booted out of the country for it.

I suppose Donald Wong is a useful tool for the GOP on this issue. So much of what the GOP says on the matter has to do with bigotry. Historically, denying people the right to vote meant denying black people the right to vote. Now it's being used as just another stick for immigrant bashing, and who better to soften the blow than the state GOP's Representative Wong?

Wong should immediately walk this a step back. Voter fraud of the nature he's talking about simply isn't a problem in this country and we have ways of dealing with it already. Voter ID bills -- requiring people to show their IDs to vote -- are merely an attempt to prevent Democratic constituencies from getting out to the polls. Period. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and think maybe he was just ignorant on this issue and not intentionally trying to keep people from being able to vote, because I hear he is a very nice person.

But enough is enough. There's more than enough studies out there for the GOP to look at to see that this is not a problem; if they continue down this path as a party, we're going to have to call a spade a spade. This is bigotry; this is voter suppression -- and this is a dark chapter of our country's past that we cannot revisit.

When terrorists were Irish Catholics...

2011-09-25T23:43:00.000-04:00

Reading stories like this really pisses me off.

NEW YORK -- For several weeks, the Associated Press has reported extensively on the New York Police Department’s secret surveillance of Muslim neighborhoods, including a lengthy report Thursday about an initiative specifically targeting Moroccans where they eat, shop and pray.

New York’s top tabloids, however, aren't applauding the AP’s dogged reporting in the face of early denials from the police department. Instead, they've given support to the NYPD's just-revealed methods for monitoring Muslims.

“The Associated Press has added, unintentionally, to its flattering profile of the NYPD’s anti-terror squad with a report on how a first-rate intelligence unit does business,” the Daily News editorial board wrote Friday.

The editors argued that "to AP's intrepid, if not obsessed, reporters, these basic and benign measures are a scandal." However, the editors continued, “they just don't get it, and, with the exception of the most knee-jerk civil liberties activists, they are essentially alone in not getting that the NYPD is valuably scoping out the who, what and where of neighborhoods by observing little more than activities in public view.”

Let's consider what's going on here. The NYPD, in cahoots with the CIA, has begun investigating Muslims for the simple act of being Muslims. These aren't people who are suspected to be terrorists, these are people who show up to their houses of worship to pray. This is patently unconstitutional, f'ing insane, but because they're Muslims, not only is little being done about it, but all too many people in the country cheer this kind of crap with glee. Most others, including the mainstream media, just don't seem to care.

Let's set the record straight. When Irish Catholics were the best known terrorists in the West and there was legitimate fear in the streets of one of our nation's biggest and most important allies -- people that blew up and maimed god knows how many UK citizens, and killed at least one US citizen -- we obeyed our constitutional obligations, including due process, and didn't resort to something like allowing the NYPD to spy on US citizens who just so happened to be Irish Catholics, who went to mass at Irish Catholic churches in NYC. We even did this knowing that there were sympathizers and those who would directly aid the Irish Republican Army in the US, including someone who now sits in the US Congress. Why? Because we are a nation of laws!

Now that our country is most concerned about extremist terrorists who just so happen to be Muslims, everything's changed. Because they're Muslims -- because they're different from "us" in the view of most Americans -- apparently, it's somehow become okay to ignore constitutional rights obligations, to count them as something less than human.

Well, that sort of thinking disgusts me. Muslims in this country are entitled to ALL the same legal protections, including our constitutionally-guaranteed rights to due process. If we ignore these rights for Muslims, it won't be long before we ignore them for people who are friends with Muslims, and then it won't be long before we ignore them for everyone. As Benjamin Franklin is often attributed for saying, he who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither.

Elizabeth Warren's giving them hell

2011-09-21T23:01:00.001-04:00

This is just fantastic stuff. Scott Brown isn't going to know what hit him.

Transgender Rights Podcast : Left Ahead

2011-09-16T19:01:00.000-04:00

I was pumped this week that Mike scored not one, but two excellent guests this week. We've had Kara Suffredini, head of Mass Equality, on the show a couple times before and she always makes a fantastic guest. Her analysis is as sharp as it is thoughtful -- the word acerbic comes to mind.

But to finally get Gunner Scott on from the Mass Transgender Political Coalition? And have them both on the same show? That's some pretty heady stuff -- and they did not disappoint. Gunner Scott has done so much to push this issue and organize the coalition that has made this bill even be a possibility.

As a reminder, groups like the MTPC and Mass Equality, with all the hundreds or even thousands of volunteers they got involved, managed push through An Act Relative to Transgender Rights last year in both the House and Senate, but it never quite made it through reconciliation process primarily because of the short deadline at the time it came up.

Listen in as we talk the state of transgender rights in the Commonwealth, as well as transgender issues in general and why they're so important for everyone -- not just people who are transgender, but everyone. We get into some specifics on the new dynamics of the legislature this year and how that impacts the bill, as well as talking the timeline.

Here's a link to the article and podcast at LeftAhead.com:

Transgender Rights Podcast : Left Ahead

You can also catch the show on the sidebar to the left, as well as blogtalkradio.com/lefties, iTunes under "LeftAhead" or most any similar podcast aggregator app on your phones.

The Casino Bill's So Bad, even the Globe is Against it

2011-09-07T23:37:00.000-04:00

Bear in mind that the Globe's been in favor of casinos for several years now, so that they're bashing this bill speaks that much more. Even for a slots bill (!!), it's a crappy, special interest bill.

Don't Blame Me, I'm from USS-Mass

2011-09-03T22:07:00.001-04:00

That's my latest slogan. 10 years from now, casinos and slot barns will look like a very, very bad idea, if all goes according to the holy trinity's plan and the special interests finally win out. Renee Loth gets it and I hope people will read her column.

It's really not difficult to understand what casinos mean to Massachusetts, if we allow them to come here, if people have any kind of imagination or look at it in any detail at all.

Here's a nice mantra to repeat from Loth's piece:

Gambling is “a tax on people who are bad at math.’’

Casinos don’t so much create jobs as replace them, cannibalizing other local businesses to benefit some corporate giant in Vegas or Malaysia.

Gamblers losing their money in our new casinos will be mostly locals.

The surrender to casinos signals the limits to our exceptionalism. Apparently, when it comes to the lure of easy money, we’re just like all the rest.

Those are four fundamental truths to consider, if you know nothing else. Remember, we've never done a cost study on casinos, ever.

It's also important to realize just what's going into this bill. It's loaded with special interest giveaways, like 9% of all revenue going toward corporate welfare for special interest horse farms and racers. Some Beacon Hill pols who vote for this bill will directly benefit from it; while the bill includes language barring state workers from becoming lobbyists for the industry, state lawmakers are conveniently excluded from that language.

So, long after the Department of Justice starts throwing people in jail, and long after hundreds or thousands of local businesses go under or face dramatic cuts, costing the state hundreds of millions in revenue, and after this state has created numerous institutions, both private and public, to pocket their favorite pals with cushy jobs, all we'll be left with is a vampire industry that does nothing but suck, suck, suck from the local community.

The fat lady hasn't sung and all that, so it's time to call your state legislators and let them know they should at least have the human decency to clean up the bill and demand a cost analysis before we go through with it.

*USS-Mass stands for "United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts," a group of mostly middle and working class Bay Staters who've fought the good fight for many years now.

Know Your Enemy

2011-09-01T16:29:00.001-04:00

Progressives should know everything they can about Ayn Rand, including this:

The best way to get to the bottom of Ayn Rand's beliefs is to take a look at how she developed the superhero of her novel, Atlas Shrugged, John Galt. Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman. According to biographer Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market, Rand was so smitten with Hickman that she modeled her first literary creation -- Danny Renahan, the protagonist of her unfinished first novel, The Little Street -- on him.

What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"

This echoes almost word for word Rand's later description of her character Howard Roark, the hero of her novel The Fountainhead: "He was born without the ability to consider others." (The Fountainhead is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' favorite book -- he even requires his clerks to read it.)

Just who was this Hickman person she based her characters on?

Hickman and the girl's father exchanged letters over the next few days as they arranged the terms of the ransom, while Marion obediently followed her captor's demands. She never tried to escape the hotel where he kept her; Hickman even took her to a movie, and she never screamed for help. She remained quiet and still as told when Hickman tied her to the chair -- he didn't even bother gagging her because there was no need to, right up to the gruesome end.

Hickman's last ransom note to Marion's father is where this story reaches its disturbing end. Hickman fills the letter with hurt anger over her father's suggestion that Hickman might deceive him, and "ask you for your $1500 for a lifeless mass of flesh I am base and low but won't stoop to that depth." What Hickman didn't say was that as he wrote the letter, Marion had already been chopped up into several lifeless masses of flesh.

Remember that Ayn Rand's worldly, charity and compassion is evil and selfishness is good. The working poor and middle class are parasites to her, quite literally. Given her idolization of a murdering bastard serial killer, perhaps more people will come to understand exactly where she's coming from.

Everyone who considers themselves a progressive or liberal simply must read the full article linked above, and anyone curious about what's behind the republican ideology should. Ayn Rand is the driving force of their philosophy and it's important for people to know about her, the real her.

The Casino Bill as Discussed on LeftAhead

2011-08-30T19:09:00.000-04:00

Mike and I tackled the casino bill today on LeftAhead. We went through the bill, what it does and some of the particularly egregious things in it.

Believe me when I say this, we could have gone on -- but the new format keeps us a little shorter and sweeter. It was a good show.

As always, you can listen on the blog talk radio player on the column to your right, at LeftAhead.com, BlogTalkRadio.com/lefties, itunes or the new-fangled aggregator apps for your phones, like Pocket Casts (which I highly recommend for you podcast-listening types out there).

She Knows What She's Talking About

2011-08-26T17:52:00.000-04:00

I offer without comment.

A Question for the Speaker, Re: Casinos and Suffolk Downs

2011-08-24T20:59:00.000-04:00

The three licensed casinos in your proposal would require any bidder to agree to spend at least $500 million dollars on the facility to win the bid, which is the exact same amount that Suffolk Downs said it would like to invest in its proposed facility.

If Suffolk's proposed plan was to invest $400 or $450 million, instead of $500 million, would we the bill have a different minimum agreement for investment in the bid?

9% of Gambling Revenue to go to Horses

2011-08-24T06:46:00.001-04:00

You know, instead of the kids.

The problem with government today isn't that these kinds of bills could conceivably pass, but that they are seriously considered in the first place.

So, about that BMG comment rating system

2011-08-19T23:02:00.000-04:00

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

Land of the Free, Home of the Poor

2011-08-18T17:44:00.000-04:00

From PBS comes this segment on our country's cognitive dissonance about our massive income inequality.

Dear Fellow Firebaggers,

2011-08-18T17:19:00.000-04:00

Not that it's a surprise to anyone with half a brain still left on their head, but if you're a fellow movement progressive and netroots activist, the President and his peeps probably don't like you very much. In fact, that's putting it mildly. After all, Rahm Emmanual, the President's BFF, thinks you're "fucking retarded." The President's former Press Secretary called you the professional left. We are flies in their way to be swatted, not supported, and they are not done disparaging, demeaning and bemoaning us.

Look no further than one Mr. Ray Sandoval, Obama's top guy in New Mexico. He sent out an official ~~Obama~~ Organize for America campaign email to supporters in that state calling the activist base "firebaggers" and the "ideologue Left." The message tried to tear down pretty much anyone who is worried about the direction Obama has sent our party and country toward, because Obama's right and they're wrong. Opposing Obama policies would be an "economic 9/11."

The President's people didn't appear all that upset about it. They called the official email unofficial, but couldn't be bothered enough to apologize for it. Sandoval hasn't received any sort of penalty or rebuke for his comments and doesn't seem overly apologetic. There is nothing to indicate here that the President's people don't very, very much agree with everything Sandoval said -- perhaps they even see this as another opportunity to burnish the President's "Independent" cred. That's all they seem to care about, these days.

Sadly, this is just more of the same from what we've come to expect. The President's close team has long made political sport of progressives, turning us into the opposition, instead of... you know... the Republican Party. The people running OFA do not buy into the progressive movement -- now considered an opposition movement to Obama zealotry -- and see any kind of dissent as disloyalty, instead of disagreement. As I said earlier today, the purpose of the OFA is "to create an alternate DNC that can mobilize the grassroots from the top down, while minimizing erratic bottom-up feedback."

What we end up with is an OFA with a mixed bag of talent, not a ton of organic or competent volunteer support, and a remaining culture of "If the President says it, it's right, and if anyone else says it, it's wrong." To borrow from George Orwell, the OFA is becoming a "nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting," except instead of being 300 million strong, as they are in Oceania, the OFA is going to be increasingly reliant on an ever-shrinking pool of the hangers-on left from over the 2008 campaign who haven't felt betrayed yet, without the same kind of buzz or excitement that existed then to appeal to the newest young crowd.

What we 'Firebaggers' and 'ideologue Leftists' need to remember is that the OFA is out for the President first and foremost, local party politics and candidates are almost an afterthought. They don't care about the long-term brand or building up the Democratic Party from the bottom up -- that's all stuff that has to happen with a focus beyond just Barack Obama, 2012, and they don't like us bottom-feeders, anyway. If we don't get in line, we're treated like the enemy.

That's a far cry from Dean's Democratic Party, which was out for the Democratic Party and the people of this country, not for any one individual or thing. It's a sad state of affairs, but worse than that, it's hurting the Democratic Party and it's hurting America. Still worse, it may be too late for the President to do anything about this, should he ever decide that he actually wants support from his base again. I have the sneaking suspicion he'll realize that yes, he does want it, as the election in 2012 closes and he can't find anyone to knock on doors and make phone calls for him. By then, it will all be too late -- and it will be Martha Coakley redux, this time on a national scale, unless corporate largess in the campaign war chest (and a incompetent Republican opponent) is enough to save the day. Anything's possible, I suppose.

The bottom line, though, is the President is not on our side. If he doesn't want our money and our support, it's not as if there aren't other people who need it. With the President's turn to the right -- and his continuation of the Bush agenda, some of it on steroids -- it's becoming more important than ever to stand up for what's right. We still have good people in the House and the Senate, or who should be there, who are going to need our help and support. My advice is to skip the OFA and go straight to the source, lest you give anyone in the OFA your Firebagger cooties. It's become beyond clear that they don't want our help, anyway.

OFA, defined

2011-08-18T10:02:00.001-04:00

The purpose of the OFA was to create an alternate DNC that can mobilize the grassroots from the top down, while minimizing erratic bottom-up feedback.

The Pay for 2 Get 1 Deal

2011-08-17T23:41:00.000-04:00

I've heard of Buy 1, Get 1 Free. I've even heard of Buy 2, Get 1 Free. But would anyone ever seriously consider paying for 2, and only getting half of what you paid for? That's what any prospective slots deal in Massachusetts is looking to become.

For the Mashantuckets, the effect will be higher rates for any further borrowings, he said, probably crimping Foxwoods' ability to expand anytime in the near future.

"We probably won't see them in our lifetimes return to the status where they'd be considered any kind of prime asset," Lanza said.

For Mohegan Sun, which also has been looking to refinance some of its $1.6 billion in debt, there may be an opposite effect, he said, as the Mohegans point to the low rates given to the Mashantuckets in an attempt to gain favorable financing terms.

And for the proposed expansion of casino gambling in other states, the effect of the restructuring may be to scare investors away, he said, thereby eliminating some of the potential competition that both Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods might otherwise have expected.

"The pots are getting smaller in the poker game, and it's costing more for a seat at the table," Lanza said.

First we were going to get "world class" resort casinos, now? Not so much. Remember when Mohegan Sun bought land in Palmer, saying they were going to build a mega resort casino, the Mohegan of the West(ern Mass)? Well, that nice 5,000 seat theater just got swapped out for a 39x39 multipurpose room in the most recent plans, perfect for your next high school reunion. WINNING!

The Governor said he'd agree with the Speaker on a single, competitively bid racino or slot parlor to get a "deal" done, but it's looking more and more likely the slot barn variety of gambling is all he has left. Trying to field three "resort" casinos in this economy, with this much saturation of the market and with the enemic condition of the actual resorts in Connecticut would be a big joke, were it not for the fact that the joke would be on us.

Slot parlors are the only thing with a low enough cost margin to be viable here -- with little to no investment, economic multiplier or net job growth for the region, and that stay in business purely by preying off the poor. It's not clear that any bigger casino effort could even get the financing to build here. In fact, given what's going on in nearby Connecticut, it's pretty clear that it couldn't.

Even the well-funded lobbyist machine up at Suffolk Downs are only looking to build a glorified slot barn for their race track, geared toward shuttling in the easy prey all along the Blue Line. With a no-frills facility, they'll make money -- at the cost of our small business community, college students who are at greater risk of falling prey and what little the working poor in the area have left -- and Massachusetts will get less than half of what we were promised, and not nearly enough to cover all the costs associated problem gambling, traffic or what our local small businesses will lose out in the net-sum game that is our wallets.

With the Speaker trying to reward his district friends at Suffolk and Wonderland, he's not going to listen to that kind of sanity. So, what we get is all or nothing. If a deal is passed, we'll be sold a bill of goods and get half of what we paid for. Maybe enough people on Beacon Hill have realized that, and that's why I'm not hearing as much about it anymore?

------

Anyway, for a bloggy bonus, here's a great clip from the wonderful movie Contact that this 2:1 "deal" reminded me about.

Not ready for the rough and tumble?

2011-08-17T17:54:00.010-04:00

When it comes to the criticism of Elizabeth Warren, that's always the first one I hear. She's a Harvard elite, she's an intellectual, she's "cloistered."

These are the criticisms being launched against her -- the person who Time called one of "The New Sheriffs of Wall Street." You know, the one who took on the most powerful industry in America -- the banks -- and won, pushing through the Consumer Protection Agency, something few ever thought could be done.

The idea that Elizabeth Warren is just too dainty for Congress is absurd. If fire and passion is the measure, she's got that in spades.

Yes, she's never been a candidate before. Yes, it remains to be seen if she'll be a good one. Yes, I'm still waiting to learn more before I fully commit to the race, including her official announcement.

But the fact that she teaches at Harvard is not going to stop her from talking about the issues pressing our families. The fact that she's a woman doesn't mean she won't bring the toughness and passion to her campaign necessary to defeat Scott Brown.

Yes, I went there, because gender is really what the "rough and tumble" is all about, isn't it? It's a dog-whistle politics of a different kind and should be called out as such.

There are certainly still questions about her ability to campaign that any new candidate would face, as well as the sorts of policies she'll support outside of the financial sector, but being ready for the rough and tumble of Congress or political campaigns ain't it. If that's your critique, it's time to pick something else.

I know who Rachel Maddow will vote for

2011-08-16T00:12:00.000-04:00

Not that she'll say it out loud, but she may as well.

The Massachusetts Miracle?

2011-08-15T17:47:00.000-04:00

I'm not quite comfortable talking about what's going on in Massachusetts -- treading water -- as a "miracle," but it's a helluva lot closer to that than what Texas has done.

So, Obama's strategy for winning reelection is to hoodwink America?

2011-08-12T18:23:00.000-04:00

That's what Robert Reich is saying.

Even though the President’s two former top economic advisors (Larry Summers and Christy Roemer) have called for a major fiscal boost to the economy, the President has remained mum. Why?

I’m told White House political operatives are against a bold jobs plan. They believe the only jobs plan that could get through Congress would be so watered down as to have almost no impact by Election Day. They also worry the public wouldn’t understand how more government spending in the near term can be consistent with long-term deficit reduction. And they fear Republicans would use any such initiative to further bash Obama as a big spender.

So rather than fight for a bold jobs plan, the White House has apparently decided it’s politically wiser to continue fighting about the deficit. The idea is to keep the public focused on the deficit drama – to convince them their current economic woes have something to do with it, decry Washington’s paralysis over fixing it, and then claim victory over whatever outcome emerges from the process recently negotiated to fix it. They hope all this will distract the public’s attention from the President’s failure to do anything about continuing high unemployment and economic anemia.

Doug Rubin "ran" Governor Patrick's "two" campaigns for Governor?

2011-08-12T18:12:00.000-04:00

From the NYT, in what is surely news to John Walsh and Sydney Asbury, we learn Doug Rubin was Governor Patrick's campaign manager. Both times.Way to go, Doug!

(Oh, wait, Doug didn't run Governor Patrick's two campaigns? Well, who can blame the Times for getting it wrong. It's not like the New York Times owns a major daily or two in Massachusetts.)

Kerry's done

2011-08-12T08:14:00.002-04:00

With reports coming in of Senator Kerry's traiterous turn on Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, officially joining the ranks of Senator Scott Brown in lunacy land, we can safely say Kerry won't be running for office again. A pity: Anyone who backstabs the New Deal deserves to lose in disgrace.

Ted Kennedy must be rolling in his grave.

Elizabeth Warren Wants You

2011-08-11T22:16:00.000-04:00

To tell her to run for US Senate.

Because it worked so good for New Jersey

2011-08-10T16:47:00.002-04:00

Five Indian casinos and nine racinos isn't enough for New York's Governor Cuomo. The race to the bottom moves on apace.

This blog has been brought to you by "Oooo, Shiny" Policies, Inc.

First Ad Against Scott Brown, 2012

2011-08-09T15:45:00.006-04:00

"Priorities"

Voice actor, over sad music, images of struggling seniors: "Right now, seniors are barely breaking even, facing higher and higher medical bills, costs that keep going up, all on tapped-out fixed incomes. Who's on their side?"

Cut to an image of Scott Brown looking at his most aloof and out of touch. Cue 'serious' music.'

Voice Actor: "Not Scott Brown. At one meeting, he warned seniors that their benefits would be cut in the deficit-reduction bill, a bill he voted for."

Cut to image of a white-haired grandma, angry but resolute, sitting on her front porch, with her grand kids on her lap.

Grandma: "I can't afford any benefit cuts."

Then she'll read John Walsh's line:

“I never thought I’d see the day when a senator from Massachusetts would talk about slashing Social Security and Medicare benefits before holding billionaire hedge fund managers accountable,” John Walsh, the chairman of the state Democratic Party, said in a statement today.

Grandma: "We can't afford six more years of Senator Brown. We need someone who will protect Medicare and Social Security, not vote to cut it. That's why I'm supporting [Insert Democratic candidate here]."

Cut to Democratic Candidate, knocking on a senior's door or at a senior center, etc.: "I'm running to protect Social Security and Medicare, our families and our seniors, and to make this country work for its people again, not just Wall Street and the Bankers. That's why I approve this message, and that's why I ask for you vote on election day. Thank you."

Talk, Talk, Talk

2011-08-09T15:30:00.000-04:00

Mike and I did our podcast on the economic state of things. Will American cities be burning like London, too?

The S&P Eated the Stock Market

2011-08-08T10:08:00.000-04:00

Arbitrary Letters with a plus or minus attached have laid siege this morning to stock markets around the world. Little school children from one side of the globe to the other have asked parents, "Who the hell came up with such a stupid way of grading as AAA?" Parents couldn't say.

"Tea Party Downgrade"

2011-08-07T23:24:00.002-04:00

What Charley and Senator Kerry said.

Capitulation Podcast: Left Ahead

2011-08-02T16:08:00.000-04:00

Capitulation Podcast: Left Ahead

Today's podcast on LeftAhead is none too happy, but instead talks about both the process going forward and our disappointment in the outcome.

Listen at the link, on the BlogTalkRadio player to the left of this blog, at itunes or any number of other podcast sites.

The Speaker's Slots Hypocrisy?

2011-07-15T18:58:00.000-04:00

In the Speaker's anger over cyber cafes, that have used what seem to be loopholes to allow gambling in their establishments in Massachusetts, he said something mighty interesting.

“Owners of these establishments are taking advantage of their patrons and scamming them out of money,” DeLeo said in a statement. “This is unacceptable and I look forward to seeing this legislation passed into law.”

Apparently, offering games that employ gambling on computers at cyber cafes is somehow different than offering games that employ gambling on computers at slot parlors. In fact, the former is "scamming" people, while the latter is "job creation."

Mr. Speaker, your logic is flawed. You are right about the cyber cafes being a scam, wrong about wanting to let your friends at Suffolk Downs own a proposed super cyber cafe.

The truth about adoption services post marriage equality

2011-07-04T18:31:00.000-04:00

One of the talking points emanating from Team Homophobia that's been circulating ever since NY passed marriage equality is that religious-based groups that serve the public would be "forced" to shut down if it doesn't recognize marriage equality. That couldn't be further from the truth. These people point to Massachusetts and the fact that the Boston Archdiocese forced the shut down of Catholic Charities adoption services as "proof" of this ridiculous claim, though that's not in fact what happened. Here's what did:

Catholic Charities had, for decades, allowed gay couples to adopt children, predating marriage. The Boston Archdiocese either didn't care about it or didn't know, though given that it went on for twenty years, the latter would be saying a lot.

Meanwhile, while Catholic Charities was a religious charity, it received a tremendous amount of public aid, including from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to process those adoptions. It is true that it would be illegal for any groups that took public funds to discriminate against same-sex marriages post Goodridge decision, but it's equally true it would have been illegal to discriminate against gays or lesbians beforehand -- and two decades of history of Catholic Charities allowing gays and lesbians to adopt shows they never had much of a problem with it before.

As the decision on what to do about marriage equality was cycling through the then-Finneran dominated legislature, the fact that Catholic Charities was already allowing same-sex couples to adopt became a story, embarrassing the Catholic Church and its claims that somehow allowing same-sex couples to raise children would be damaging to those children, so the bishops across Massachusetts forced the board of Catholic Charities to put the kibosh on all their adoptions, despite some pretty vehement resistance from that board.

The Catholic Church then tried to use that decision as a vehicle in the press to curry favor with the public, insisting it was marriage equality's fault that they had to stop the adoptions, but they were, of course, the ones who stopped those adoptions. They were the ones who decided, after allowing gays and lesbians to adopt using Catholic Charities for two decades, they suddenly had to stop.

Furthermore, the Catholic Church still could have banned same-sex couples from adopting children within their Catholic Charities service had it decided to merely stop taking public funds. It would have been difficult for them to make that decision -- Massachusetts practically bankrolled those adoptions to begin with -- but there's no reason for any state to provide public funds to a charity which wants to discriminate against some of those it caters toward.

Far from creating a public rallying cry, the Boston Archdiocese only further embarrassed itself, and alienated the people of this Commonwealth, providing ample evidence to the public that they'd go so far as to put difficult-to-place children at risk for political calculations and/or spite, but it stuck to its guns. It would be a shame today to allow that story to be recycled and reshaped in true Orwellian fashion to fit their meme, now that what happened has been forgotten by most of the public.

If the Catholic Church's charities that use public funds wish to discriminate against same-sex couples (even to this day, most don't), then they have a very simple solution available to them: stop taking public funds. Shutting down shop, trying to score political points, is a very heavy price to pay for the thousands of children across the country who need to find good homes.

---
PS. I wanted to include some links, so I did a little googling and found this blog from GLAD, with this story from the Boston Globe, that confirms most of the facts from above, although there's still some of what was floating around in my head from the way-back machine, coming from a period that predate (most) blogs and links.

MA-Sen: Marisa DeFranco on Today's LeftAhead

2011-06-28T15:12:00.000-04:00

Democratic candidate for US Senate, Marisa DeFranco, joined us on today's LeftAhead podcast, talking about jobs, immigration, her background and why she has the chops to beat Scott Brown.

She's an immigration attorney and has been so for well more than a decade. She's also been very involved in women's rights issues, like equal pay for equal work. She unabashedly wears a progressive hat and seeks to build a grassroots campaign.

Listen to the show or download it at LeftAhead, the BlogTalkRadio player on the right, iTunes or any number of other podcast aggregators, like PocketCast for Android.

FWD: News Flash: Republicans Don't Care About Weiner's Morals

2011-06-16T23:19:00.001-04:00

Daily Kos: News Flash: Republicans Don't Care About Weiner's Morals

Truer words were never spoken. Posted a reply to David on BMG for my thoughts on the matter, specifically about how our party reacted to it. Suffice it to say, in this high-stakes game (our lives), Republicans play for keeps... while Democrats continue to play in circular firing squads.

This episode of leadership forcing Weiner out has been brought to you by Charlie Sheen's idea of WINNING! Apparently, like Sheen, Obama, Pelosi, et al, think winning is a state of mind -- electoral politics, and the policy it drives, need not apply.

MBTA Thinks the Truth is too Confrontational: Denies Factual Ad on Scott Brown's Big Money Interests

2011-06-16T00:00:00.005-04:00

From Daily Kos:

You’ll note it’s not particularly rude—it shows a perfectly nice picture of his handsome face, and just recites the facts: he took money from polluters, and he voted for their interests.

The good news?

We’ve heard from lawyers today saying that’s almost certainly unconstitutional, and I imagine we’ll find out in some courtroom soon.

Let's hope the anti-free speech BS stops, because that ad is the best kind of good: the cold, hard truth. Nothing hurts worse than that.

Scott Brown is not on our side, and if this goes to show anything, it shows that no matter what, the activist base of this state won't let another election go by without the voters knowing the truth.

Pigs are flying: GM CEO wants $1 added to gas tax

2011-06-12T22:04:00.000-04:00

Posting this using Chrome's new Blogger publisher extension, which is pretty nifty. You click a button, and it automatically creates a post, title and link to the story. Here's the link to the story:

GM CEO Calls for $1 Gas Tax Increase in the United States | Inhabitat

The article itself is well worth the read. GM's CEO calling for an additional $1 in gas taxes is a huge sea change in the Detroit modus operandi. He knows the days of Venti Super SUVs with extra cream and sugar are no longer acceptable to most Americans, and to their credit they're adapting. An extra $1 gas tax would force that adaptation to be much, much quicker.

GM's CEO says it's the best way to push fuel-efficient cars into America -- and if history tells us anything, he's probably right. Much higher gas taxes is one of the biggest reasons why cars in Europe are much more gas friendly. Gas in this country is still low compared to most European countries, and our slate of nice, fuel efficient cars in this country is still much more paltry.

Plus, the extra $1 could do a load of wonders for our quickly-eroding infrastructure -- one of the most pressing, long-term problems this country faces in our battle to stay competitive in the world at large. We are badly falling behind, which means we're less competitive, which means fewer jobs.

Now, no one could deny making this transition would be painful. I know that more than most, both for having commutes that have been as long as an hour and a half, and for being the prototypical, under-water-from-college-loans 20 something, where higher gas prices means fewer occasions to go out and do something. But forcing myself to be more conscious about my driving habits would be a small price to pay for an extra $1 per gallon going into this country's infrastructure, and all the benefits that would come with it.

If We're Sane and Rational, Western Mass has 1 Congressperson

2011-06-12T18:53:00.001-04:00

Western Mass is a beautiful, historic part of this state -- which just so happens to have a small population. The population of Berkshire, Franklin, Hampshire and Hampden counties is 815,000 people, which in the new political map of our state (in which Congressional Districts must house roughly 770,000 people) is barely enough people to contain one congressional district, never mind two.

A few towns closest to Central Mass could easily be tucked in with a Worcester County-based district that makes far more sense than the maps do today, never mind how they'd looked in a warped future in which we protect two congresscritters over the people of this state -- who deserve districts that make geographic and demographic sense.

While all of the district lines across the state are going to have to change by more than 10% of their population, one of the districts is going to have to disappear. Turning Western Mass into one, strong congressional district will ensure its population has strong, Western-Mass focused leadership, while also allowing the rest of the state's congressional district borders to shift around a little bit and relieve some of the stress. It's not unfair to Western Mass, and it's the right thing to do for everyone.

"Let Detroit Go Bankrupt?"

2011-05-25T21:52:00.000-04:00

Is there a better example of the difference between Republicans and Democrats? One party wanted to snuff out an entire American industry, and over a million jobs with it, while the other saved that industry and ensured it would come out leaner, meaner and better than its been in a generation.

My friend from Joplin, Missouri

2011-05-23T00:34:00.000-04:00

Just on Friday, I got a letter from my friend, who lives in Joplin, Missouri. I haven't seen her in years, and knowing how much she loves "snail mail," we've started swapping letters back and forth over the past couple months. In the latest letter, she was talking a lot about where she lives nowadays and how much she likes it. Regarding Joplin itself, she had this to say:

I live in Joplin, Missouri. Lots of business, shops and restaurants. I don't think I'll ever move back to MA.

I literally read this yesterday, the day before today's terrible tornado struck down. According to CNN and the local paper, the scale of the damage is massive. Potentially more than half the town was destroyed or severely damaged, including its hospital, high school and middle school and huge areas of its business district.

Thankfully, my friend and her family is okay, but I know many others there won't be. I guess we should all feel a little lucky today, and a little sad.

'I was for it before I was against it'

2011-05-19T17:18:00.000-04:00

In record time, no less.

WASHINGTON — Senator Scott Brown will not disclose whether he supports a GOP budget plan that includes sweeping changes to Medicare, despite saying to a business group last week that he will vote for the measure when it comes up in the US Senate.

Perhaps Senator Brown's never heard the expression, "you can't put the genie back into the bottle." I don't care what his poll numbers are today, the only chance in hell Brown has in winning reelection is for the electorate to remain completely ignorant as to the job that he's doing.

Some US Senate Predictions

2011-05-10T19:03:00.001-04:00

Just for kicks and giggles, here's some predictions I'm willing to make for the MA-US Senate race.

Listening to the "Newton issue" is absolutely hilarious. Setti Warren wins Newton 2-1, not that it really matters.
Scott Brown's popularity is just about cut in half by September before the next election.
Someone wins a majority of the Democratic primary vote.
The Tea Party fails in its promises to challenge Brown in the GOP Primary.
Bob Massie's in-state name recognition will be well above 50% by midway through the summer before the election, no matter how hard Emily Rooney tried to ignore him in the above-link.
A gazillionaire will jump in the race, but do so late, and sloppy, and lose.
Scott Brown will not be our next US Senator.
Republicans will inevitable somehow declare fraud or cheating, no matter what the margin of defeat ends up being.

In other news, Mike and I talked this race and the Boston City Council election on today's Left Ahead, with a brief editorial comment that I made on collective bargaining at the end of the show.

They may be obscure, but gotta love the primary choices

2011-05-09T20:25:00.001-04:00

Thus far, we've had Bob Massie and Alan Khazei in the race to replace Senator Scott Brown. Now we can officially add Newton Mayor Setti Warren to the list. All three of these candidates are known as progressives and each have diverse backgrounds and compelling stories, so the differences will have more to do with style and priorities than a checklist of where they stand on the issues. Now we just have to find out more about them, both as candidates and how they'd act as legislators.

There's another question, too. All the heavily rumored candidates are either in or, in the case of Salem Mayor Kim Driscoll, out. Since what we have in the race thus far are three candidates of little fame or fortune, does that mean someone very different will be compelled to risk entrance into the race?

Be it a Congressperson who's looking at the improving odds, or a wealthy hedge-fund type, it shouldn't shock anyone -- though it's probably just as likely that what we see is what we get, which would suit me just fine. After all, despite however little known they may all be in public, if you're a lover of good government and reality-based policy, it's hard to complain about any of these fine Democratic candidates.

Lenk's SJC Appointment and the Governor's Council

2011-05-06T18:30:00.001-04:00

Let's all congratulate Justice Barbara Lenk for her freshly appointed status on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. With two decades of judicial experience, and this having been her third time through the confirmation process, it's clear she's eminently qualified for the position.

Yet, in being confirmed by a 5-3 vote on the Governor's Council, the 3 votes against her confirmation -- votes no doubt motivated by prejudice, for Lenk is now the first known lesbian to have served on the SJC -- is a frustrating reminder of just how far we have to go in this state. Let's take a look at the three Governor's Council members who voted against Lenk.

Mary-Ellen Manning, arch hack, perhaps the most nominal Democrat in the country and unfortunately my own Governor's Councilor, focused her attacks on Lenk around icky sex questions, doing all she could to link the topics of incest and homosexuality together, with cries of The Children thrown in for extra fun.

It's unfortunately the common tactic by bigots on anything to do with preventing gay candidates from winning or glbt civil rights issues from passing. No wonder why she couldn't wait to get on the Howie Carr show to complain about it. Those are her peeps.

Arch conservative Charles Cipollini (R) voted against her because she's a lesbian; well, that's the only possible deduction I can come up with. The fact that she's a lesbian colors her opinion on marriage equality, says he, and apparently anyone who supports the Goodridge decision isn't fit for the SJC. Well, at least if they're a lesbian.

Never mind the fact that issue is dead and buried, long since decided and defended. Never mind the fact that by his logic, everyone would be effected -- gay or straight -- because everyone is effected by marriage. We simply can't allow gay people to serve, according to him.

Add Jen Caissie (R) to that territory. While Caissie and others on this list of names complained Lenk wouldn't support legal precedent, Caissie was upset over Lenk's support of one firmly-established legal precedent in this state: the Goodridge decision. Straight IOKIYAR hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, because of the obscurity of the Governor's Council, it's relatively easy for just about anyone to get on the council when a seat opens up -- and to stay there as long as they want, after. Because of that, we get lots of rabid right-wingers on the council, with the non-rabids, moderates and liberals likely to soon move onto bigger and better things. It's the one body in this state where the extreme right almost controls the majority, and some of the five councilors who's votes Lenk received are little saner than Caissie, Ciponni and Manning.

David Kravitz, over at Blue Mass Group, and someone who's worked for several justices on the Supreme Court of the United States, has long called for the end to the Governor's Council -- as has the Boston Globe. They're right.

Meanwhile, Marry-Ellen Manning said that everyone who was going to vote against Lenk was being portrayed as a bigot. Well, Marry-Ellen... if the shoe fits.

Who's really winning?

2011-05-02T16:28:00.002-04:00

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

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

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

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

Wisconsin, Here We Come? The Pledge, the Turn and the Prestige

2011-04-29T03:42:00.006-04:00

With the Washington Post and other papers starting to pick up on the story, the Speaker's bash-the-teachers bill is finally catching national attention. The bill attempts to mask something almost universally detested -- ending collective bargaining -- under the guise of moving everyone on over to the GIC. The two issues, collective bargaining and the GIC, are not the same, and it's important for people to note that distinction.

The Globe drew on that distinction in its front-page story when news of the House's passage first broke, but unfortunately it was buried deep within. Here's the real meat-and-bones of the House bill -- or should I say hack saw?

Under the legislation, mayors and other local officials would be given unfettered authority to set copayments and deductibles for their employees, after the 30-day discussion period with unions. Only the share of premiums paid by employees would remain on the health care bargaining table.

Under the House bill, if your city or town wanted to create a $10,000 health care deductible for families, it could. And all unions could do is stamp their feet and complain bitterly for a few days.

The key thing here is to ask why the Speaker & Co. want to move in this direction. It's not as if the unions aren't willing to do their part; they recognize the need for health care savings and have a proposal of their own, which would allow them to retain collective bargaining.

Unions proposed their own plan to cut health-care costs that did not hurt collective bargaining rights. “We’re willing to give the savings,” Haynes has said. “All we wanted was an arbitrator, some kind of neutral process that would determine what’s fair, and what was appropriate.”

Let's look at the details -- because it's good stuff, perhaps even better stuff than the House bill. It would save upwards of $120 million a year.

The union proposal would establish health care cost benchmarks that both municipalities and unions would have to meet at the end of the bargaining process. If an agreement can't be reached both sides would enter an expedited dispute-resolution process.

While there has been a push to force municipal workers into the state's Group Insurance Commission to help rein in health spending, the union proposal would let municipalities and workers bargain either to enter the commission or make changes to existing health plans to lower costs as long as they meet the benchmark.

Only allowing the GIC (as opposed to giving the unions choice between collaboratives, the GIC or other ways of saving money), as the Speaker is trying to do, is a clear mistake -- and the motives are pretty obvious. But first, let's answer the question of why it's a mistake: There are other regional GIC-like entities and collaboratives in the state that consistently outperform the GIC, and there are cities and towns in Massachusetts that, for myriad reasons, don't want to be a part of the GIC -- some with Republican Mayors.

Kennedy said she has been meeting with union leaders in the hopes of coming to an agreement on concessions that would put the brakes on a possible 8.5 percent increase and keep the city out of the state's healthcare program, the Group Insurance Commission. Kennedy said the unions do not want to join the GIC and neither does she.

"I'm in the minority of Massachusetts mayors," she said. "I'm trying to stay out of the program."

If there are other options to save money, why not let unions and municipalities come to the table and bargain about how best to do it? This drives straight at the Speaker's motives. On what level does this make sense? While stripping collective bargaining rights on deductibles and co-pays is pure travesty, the Speaker's forced march on GIC, not giving unions and municipalities time enough to at least look at other options is, more than anything, illuminating.

Perhaps there's a much more logical explanation to all this? Right now, while state employees are in the GIC, the vast majority of municipal employees aren't -- and there are far more of the latter than there are the former. Why's that important? Well, the GIC can be changed, without union or employee consent, at the whim of the state.

Get everyone on the state's program, and suddenly you can change everyone's health insurance right from within the doors of Beacon Hill (and those doors are usually the closed ones). The state needs to ax a billion this year? Suddenly, if everyone's all-in, there's a very easy and rather convenient place to do it. The Speaker's bill could ultimately serve to be one of the biggest power grabs we've ever seen in this state, and could have disastrous longterm consequences for cities and towns and their employees. Moreover, if this isn't the real explanation, then it's pure spite -- because the House bill is neither the best nor the fairest solution to the problem.

[Update: The other motive I forgot to mention is this plan will be able to lock in the maximum savings on health care away from the actual employees -- so the savings goes to the state and towns, and isn't shared with employees trying to pay for their health care.]

It's looking more and more likely that while money may be the motivation to do something about municpal health insurance, it's not the real motivation for this particular bill. At the end of the day, the budget shortfall is the bait, and all we have left to do is wait and see if the Senate will allow the House's switch to stand. Or, maybe we can all take a step back and ask ourselves what the hell we're doing here.

As a bonus, Christopher Nolan eloquently explained what's going on right now on Beacon Hilll years ago in The Prestige.

Every great magic trick consists of three parts or acts. The first part is called "The Pledge". The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man. He shows you this object. Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course... it probably isn't. The second act is called "The Turn". The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it, because of course you're not really looking. You don't really want to know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn't clap yet. Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back. That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call "The Prestige".

MA-Sen Campaign News: Alan Khazei and Bob Massie

2011-04-27T01:13:00.003-04:00

To the surprise of no one, Alan Khazei jumped in the race. For those of you who remember, last time around, when I knew Martha Coakley was going to walk away with the primary, I endorsed his candidacy.
In a race of unknowns, Khazei may be the least unknown, but he's starting out $190,000 in the red from his last effort to take the seat -- though much of that debt comes from his own personal loans, which he doesn't exactly have to pay back. That said, $200k doesn't grow on trees, so without more money coming in, there's only so much a candidate can self-fund, at least when we're not talking about Meg Whitman here.

At the end of the day, this isn't a whole lot of money for a US Senate race, but Khazei's going to have to prove he can raise the big bucks if he wants to win a wide-open primary and take on Senator Brown.
Another favorite candidate of mine, Bob Massie, just picked up a major national political player on his team in Joe Trippi. Trippi's claim to fame was Howard Dean's '04 campaign, but he also worked for Governor Brown's campaign in California (against previously-mentioned Meg Whitman). Ultimately, this may best serve to kick-start his campaign a little bit and show that Massie's not just in some quixotic quest -- in a race as wide open as this one looks to be, Massie's got a real shot.

Uncomfortable with budget

2011-04-13T12:54:00.000-04:00

Seems to me the cuts are too harsh. Don't understand why we can't balance this out with some reasonable new revenue generators.

Holy Jeebus, Brown Okay with Dismantling Medicare?

2011-04-06T17:35:00.001-04:00

More evidence that Scott Brown is out of touch with the Massachusetts voter.

House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's plan to end Medicare and Medicaid as we know them might be slow to accrue supporters within his own party, but Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), a key swing vote in the Senate, indicated to TPM on Tuesday he was at least open to the idea.

"Listen, everything is on the table right now and the people understand everything is on the table," he said when asked by TPM if he had concerns about privatizing and cutting Medicare. "People recognize that we're in a financial emergency and as a result of that to say that something is not on the table is really irresponsible and I'm thankful that we have people like Congressman Ryan working and coming up with a plan."

I'm sorry, Senator, but the destruction of Medicare should not be on the table. The most ironic thing about this statement is the fact that Congressman Ryan's plan is essentially "Obamacare" for seniors, hypocrisy extreme for both Brown, who railed against Obama's health care bill, and the entire Republican Party (aka "The Party of No.").

Salem's Mayor Kim Driscoll's Out of Senate Race

2011-04-05T22:03:00.000-04:00

Here's her official announcement. Reading the tea leaves, I think this means we get a candidate of at least the stature of a Congressperson in the race, otherwise I don't see Kim Driscoll pulling out. We'll see. Whoever's going to declare that hasn't already will do it soon.

Dragging the Democratic Party on Wisconsin, Kicking and Screaming

2011-02-25T20:27:00.000-05:00

The President and national Democratic Party clearly does not want to rise to the level of defending the Wisconsin workers. That became very clear today in Press Secretary Jay Carney's statement on whether or not public and private unions should have the same rights.

What we have said and what the President has said is that with regard to what’s happening in the states now, as the states address their fiscal situations, everybody needs to tighten their belts, everybody needs to sacrifice and work together to bring state budgets into balance, to bring stability to the fiscal situations in the states, much as we need to work together at the federal level. And that’s our position.

Unfortunately, that wasn't today's only scary sign of where national Democrats are at. Democratic Maryland Governor O'Malley, who's in the past come out strong for collective bargaining rights, wasn't so strong on it today, after coming out of a Governor's meeting at the White House.

After a White House meeting with President Obama, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley was asked if the on-going public employee union dispute was raised in their meeting. "No, not really," O'Malley replied bluntly. "We were focused today on the things that we can do together to create jobs."

"So, we didn't talk about whatever it is they're doing in Wisconsin today," O'Malley reiterated.

"I think most of us see that as distraction, really, from the most important work that we can do, which is creating jobs," he said. "All of us get things done. We're about getting things done. We're not primarily an ideological group of people."

President Obama, who, as a candidate, said he'd get up and picket with the protesters if collective bargaining was on the line, and national Democrats must get on board the Wisconsin workers. Union jobs are the jobs we need in this country most of all, so why the President and other prominent party leaders isn't sticking up for them is a very disturbing question. At the end of the day, the Democratic Party does not win without labor, not to any degree of the success that would deliver a majority -- but it looks like we're going to be dragging them kicking and screaming to this fight. The good news is it's a fight working people are winning, even if Democrats in Bizarro Land (Washington, D.C.) are too scared of the Republican Boogeyman to realize that yet.

The Bottom Line on Wisconsin

2011-02-19T06:30:00.002-05:00

The size of the Wisconsin Governor's tax cuts for Big Business and the rich? $140 million. The size of the cuts he's trying to make to public employees? $140 million.

Now factor in the fact that the unions will agree to the cuts if the Governor agrees not to go after collective bargaining, and where does that leave us? A Governor who manufactured a crisis in order to help his friends and take a bat to the one group of organizations left that can combat big national corporations and the wealthy elite: unions.

This is not about the money; this is about breaking the will of the American worker, and tearing apart the last big force left to confront the moneyed interests of the right-wing that would like to roll us all the way back to before the Enlightenment. They want a plutocracy, folks. Don't let them have it. We need to do what we can to help the hardworking people of Wisconsin.

Here's what you can do locally:

Call the Wisconsin State Democratic Party at (608) 255-5172 to find out how to participate in a virtual phone bank, or join a rally at the State House on Tuesday, from 4-6pm, to support the protests in Madison and elsewhere.

A Penny for Your Thoughts: Redistricting

2011-02-10T00:58:00.001-05:00

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?

President Obama, Where's the Beef?

2011-01-26T04:01:00.000-05:00

I'll never quite get why so many people jump to 'rate' the State of the Union. It's a given that such speeches will take at least half an hour, and usually more like 45 minutes. There's a lot of stuff going on there -- and how do you rate it, anyway? Generally, I think people rate it by how warm and fuzzy it makes them feel, instead of asking themselves, "where's the beef?" Well, that's what I want to know, right now.

For starters, I'm happy President Obama spoke at great length about the importance of education, but I was distressed at how little he offered in terms of how he expects us to afford it. There's little chance of states getting aid to avoid horrendous cuts in this coming year's budget, and there was distressingly little spoken during the speech about how students are to afford a college education in today's broken system. How does he honestly expect to improve education in this country, given those two facts?

Another disappointment was his specifics-free call for a neo-Sputnik; while the best and easiest answer to our jobs crisis is a serious investment in this country's infrastructure and research programs that's the size of the Apollo space program (or, better yet, the Manhattan project), how are we supposed to fund it, given his call for a five-year spending freeze? We're losing out to almost every developed country in the world -- because they're the ones funding their infrastructures and they're the ones funding new technologies like solar panels, while America continues to fall behind.

This goes doubly for his call for strengthening our country's education. If the vast majority of funding for public education is undertaken at the state level, and states are cutting absolutely massive portions of their budgets, how are we supposed to improve education for our kids? Unlike the federal government, states can't print money or go without a balanced budget. If President Obama wasn't pushing for a spending freeze, it would be entirely possible to pass addition state aid packages to keep his big promises, like education and infrastructure. And what is he supposed to realistically do to help people get a college education? Right now, all too many people can't afford it -- even amongst those who are attending. The jobs market is so bad, and there's such a high glut of college-educated people compared to the number of available jobs, that a college education alone is no guarantee to a good job. Furthermore, without a good, high-paying job, most college educations are almost impossible to afford, reasonably or otherwise. The President has not came up with any solutions to these problems yet, so right now his push for a better educational system is just words.

My two biggest disappointments from the speech, by far, had to do with where President Obama thinks this country is going -- and something he said that almost amounts to a lie at this point. The latter is on his call to make the richest in this country pay more of their fair share. He had an opportunity to accomplish this just this past December, yet gave up on it at the merest hint of a fight. Meanwhile, this is an idea that may just be more popular than Ice Cream in this country. Has this just become an annual campaign pledge to the base meant to stir up votes that will, even though it'll probably never happen? I think so -- and it could be to our country's demise.

The biggest disappointment, though, was Obama's parroting of the idea that we're never going to have a strong industrial base in this country again. In a day and age when a country the size of Germany has outpaced us in exports -- and I'm not talking exports, but in the sheer dollars and cents of the exports -- this is just an unacceptable idea. We cannot have a strong country based on building weapons, paying too much for health care and relying on companies like Goldman Sachs that play with numbers, producing nothing. Equally, we cannot have a country where our major corporations are not only not discouraged from shipping jobs overseas, but encouraged to do so. Between "free," but not fair, trade agreements and actual tax credits to ship jobs overseas, our economy has shed literally millions of good, working-class jobs to foreign companies. Furthermore, it isn't a decision that's been made by many of these companies out of profit -- it's been made out of greed, the quest for even higher profits. There are companies that will shift their jobs overseas if it means they'll make 4 more cents, and we can't have that.

This is really about the future of our country. By all means, we may not be able to compete in each and every type of the labor market -- there are certain products that would probably be too expensive to make practically here, like textiles, but certainly we've proved in the past year or two that there are plenty of others that can do well if we invest in them. We can absolutely grow jobs in many manufacturing sectors, building products that are competitively priced and do a lot to help the working class. Just look at how well Detroit's doing these days; they're making great cars that are competitively priced and that people want to buy. We could have lost millions of jobs in the auto industry, but instead we've gained tens of thousands. We can add all sorts of tech and heavy industries to this list -- from components to computers to solar power, which is a particularly touchy subject for us Massachusetts voters right now, after we lost Evergreen Solar.

The point is, we need to believe in this stuff. The point is we can't just keep talking about how we need to do these sorts of things, we actually have to do them. That means we need money, which means we either have to pay for it now by raising taxes on the rich and by drastically cutting the size and scope of the military, or we need to subsist for a few more years on heavy deficit spending -- something we can do, but only if we have a real road-map to get to the point where we'll have a good jobs market within a few years. Unfortunately, I don't think President Obama has that plan right now, and no warm-and-fuzzy speech that boasts of American Exceptionalism, when we have little reason to feel exceptional these days, is going to change that.

Today's LeftAhead: US Senate Race w/Candidate Bob Massie

2011-01-25T16:51:00.000-05:00

Today on LeftAhead, we had Bob Massie on as our guest, the first announced candidate running for the Democratic Primary to face Senator Scott Brown in 2012. Massie has degrees from Princeton, Harvard and Yale and has a wide variety of experience, is a published author, and helped developed tools which enable corporations to become greener and save money at the same time.

You can listen to the podcast using the player below, or head to LeftAhead.com. You can also get the show at Blogtalkradio.com/lefties, or download and subscribe at iTunes.

Mike and I touched on a a broad range of issues, from jobs and the economy, to the environment, to health care. Massie laid out his vision for where he thinks this country needs to go to ensure it remains competitive in today's world, and so we can strengthen the middle and working class.

We also talked about the campaign itself and Bob gave us his pitch for the race. Bob is clearly in the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, and will be tapping the grassroots across the state to build momentum. I hope everyone will listen to the show and see what they think.

Bob Massie: Channeling '06 to Win in 2012?

2011-01-18T22:39:00.001-05:00

By now, many people who pay attention to the State Democratic Party and Massachusetts politics in general have heard that we've had our first announced challenger to Scott Brown -- Somerville's Bob Massie. Though most people probably don't know Bob very well (disclosure: I know him a little bit), he's not exactly a new hand to Massachusetts politics and is certainly fondly remembered by those who have been around since his 1994 campaign, where he beat out an insider to be nominated Lt. Governor on the Democratic ticket.

He's one of those rare few involved in politics who govern themselves by their convictions, and aren't afraid to take on the big challenges in order to help everyday people. We need more people like him in office. In many ways, he's the type of politician who's been sorely missing in this state for a long time -- but in other ways, his campaign reminds me a bit of the early days of Deval Patrick's 2006 winning effort. That's why I actually think he has a shot.

Consider this: One candidate was a political outsider with absolutely no name-recognition, but had an inspiring story and was willing to run hard based on his convictions alone. The other candidate is known only in activist circles, but has an inspiring story and is willing to run hard based on his convictions.

One of the candidates got out there ahead of the entire field, so he could build the sort of grassroots army among party activists that would enable him to defeat opponents who would start out with more money and name recognition. The other is doing the same thing.

One candidate was a political outsider who brandished an anti-establishment message, the other is a Beacon Hill outsider who's on occasion sparred with some of the establishment, at least when they forgot who they were working for.

In a race where I don't think many core members of the democratic establishment will even run -- never mind be our best shot at winning -- we need people like Bob Massie to breath a fresh breath of air into our politics. Someone else will jump into the race, someone with more money and with bigger name, but like Tom Reilly, I'm not so sure that person is going to win -- and I'm pretty confident that person won't be our best bet at beating Scott Brown.

The biggest difference between what Deval Patrick did in '06 and what Bob Massie is trying to do today is that Deval Patrick never won anything before, never mind a statewide primary. None of this is to suggest that what happened in 2006 will happen again today, but I've got hope that a candidate like Bob Massie can speak to our better angels and get a lot of people who checked out to check back in come 2012.

A Fox News Democrat

2011-01-13T22:29:00.002-05:00

Guy Glodis. No, seriously.

This Week's LeftAhead Podcast

2011-01-12T18:06:00.000-05:00

Mike and I discussed the tragedy in Arizona this week, as it's obviously weighed heavily on our minds.

Listen at the link or the Blog Talk Radio player to the right.

Dear Parents, Please Save Your Freaking Children From Massive Debt

2011-01-11T06:35:00.003-05:00

Here's a great NYT piece on the near-criminal enterprise that is today's Law School. They're puppy mills and, like almost all puppy mills, they don't care about the dogs. Law schools don't exist to train people to become lawyers; they exist to suck up all kinds of money for the school, and that's why they've rapidly expanded, even though the profession hasn't (quite the opposite, in fact).

The sad thing is you could easily apply this to most of academia, given the extent of degrees that aren't worth the paper they're printed on. We tell children, in what should be pure mythology, that college is the answer to everything. We've even convinced ourselves that it is as a society. I certainly bought it when I went off to school.

Meanwhile, there's untold millions of people graduating college today who have job prospects that are little better than if they hadn't gone to school at all, particularly for graduate programs and certain BAs. I can't count the number of friends who have graduated from college and can't find a meaningful job that makes use of their skills -- and these are all perfectly smart people, most finishing in the top 10-20% of their class. Some have been forced to take jobs that they certainly could've had right out of high school; others were forced to take jobs where they're lucky to be able to afford the rent. Finally, some have been forced to consider what should be the unthinkable: Grad school.

For the latter, they'd say at least they'd be doing something fun with their time -- less hopeful that the grad degree would provide them an edge for a job as they are hopeful a two year pause would provide enough time for the market to sort itself out. Yes, I've actually heard that argument -- from sane and rational people who are very desperate and know it's easier today to get into a decent grad program than it is to get a decent job. Of course, they'd be sorely mistaken, particularly given the millions of others who share the same thoughts -- and would be competing for the same jobs. The only group of people making out here is academia -- and the sad thing is, deep down inside, they probably know it.

But college graduates looking into grad school at least have some foresight and understanding of what all that debt will do. Teenagers graduating high school don't -- and they should be pitied most of all. We just throw students out there, with little time for them to understand what they even want to do or what their options will truly cost -- and without that kind of a plan ahead of time, four years can go by and a student can realize they just wasted all that time and money. Case in point: My college friend who learned he really wanted to study English after nearly getting enough credits for a degree in Biochemistry. Every teen thinks they know what they're doing and it's so hard to argue to them that they don't, but given the enormity of a possible mistake in this day and age, no responsible adult should let them before they have some idea of what the consequences would be -- and what those consequences would mean.

In Massachusetts, we're worse off than most states, because we suffer from HarvaBuMit-tus, where students are caught with the bug that makes them think it's somehow unseemly to go to public college, as if public schools were tainted or something. In a day and age when UMASS is ranked in the top 100 schools across the Globe, you'd think we could make some headway on this -- but alas. This, of course, goes doubly for community colleges -- which induced laughter amongst many of the snobbier types at my high school back in the day.

Those ignorant enough to choose private schools without the means to pay for their debt (aka those without wealthy parents) should be pitied, because they really have no idea and they won't want to be dissuaded -- until it's too late. Private schools will cost twice as much or more in almost all cases, but they certainly won't make you twice as likely to get a job or even get into grad school. No where close. Your experience and, most importantly of all, contacts, are far more likely to help in that department -- and your GPA and field-appropriate grad-school test scores are the tickets into that town, should you be foolish enough to choose it.

Thinking back on how stupid we all were at 17 and 18, picking where we'd go to school, I'm utterly shocked our society lets us do it as easily as we do. The NYT makes a great case that law school admissions, or at least rankings, need a great deal of reform -- but the truth of the matter is our entire system does. Far from empowering students to do what they want, our system of endless and easy college loans in this country is a system of neo-indentured service -- and the only people it empowers is colleges and universities to grossly inflate the cost of a college education. For students, those who graduate or not, they get giant loan payments that force them to sacrifice what they want to do for what they have to do -- killing entrepreneurship, creativity and even happiness.

As a simple matter of protecting students who don't understand what the real world is like and making sure we get as much bang for our buck in terms of government investments, any student who takes a government loan to go to college should first have to go to a two years at a community school before going onto a bachelor's program. Would it really hurt anyone doing that? For students, they'd still get all the same opportunities, as well as

Two more years to learn what they really want to do, so they can avoid disastrous mistakes (like my friend who spent 2+ years studying Biology before he realized his passion was English),
A greater likelihood of obtaining at least some kind of degree, rank or training in a specialized field requiring a two-year course,
Get the first two years of their education at a greatly reduced cost, saving millions from a crushing debt some may never truly be able to afford.

The government would also get the tangential benefit of being able to greatly increase the number of students able to receive loans and grants, which would empower far more Americans. Why haven't we done this yet?

When I was looking at schools at 17 or 18, I'm glad I had the sense (at the last minute) to avoid all the private schools I desperately wanted to go to -- but had someone told me what even UMASS would cost, I'd have run to North Shore Community College for two years first. Back then, I seriously thought my loans would be pocket change -- something like $50 or $100 a month -- instead I have a $500 monthly albatross, binding me to my childhood home.

Update: Great blog on a WSJ story about how wages are declining across the country and probably won't rise for a very long time; the blog ties it into the greater (failed) strategy of the past 20 years that very much relates to what I wrote above.

What are the broader implications of the US Senate and Filibuster?

2011-01-06T01:31:00.002-05:00

Note: This is a cross-post from Blue Mass Group, but I thought I should post it here. I'm considering taking this idea and actually doing some more specific research to illustrate my point. If people would be interested in that, let me know in the comments.

Bob's diary at BMG on the damage the US Senate does to our country -- with or without the filibuster -- is a great one. When 18% of the population controls a majority of the votes in a chamber where bills must pass to become law, it's impossible to pass good law that truly reflects the population. If people are interested in reflecting on those issues -- and are willing to put the childhood mythology of American Exceptionalism to bed for a moment while they truly consider if our system is the best means of passing good, timely policy and law that reflects our population -- I implore you to go read Bob's diary and its many comments.

What I want to do here is to address one of the more absurd points proponents of the Senate have been making -- that it somehow 'protects' us from the majority (here's an example of one of those comments). First of all, we have courts, a veto and, most importantly, public opinion to do that. However, I think it's really important to get under the skin on this issue and really take a look at this: Does the US Senate protect us from crazy Republican ideas... or, does it allow them to propagate?

The Republicans, for years, have run a strategy where they go after their base and try to motivate them to turnout in high numbers -- winning with small majorities, instead of trying to win with a broad spectrum of support. It's normally worked -- smart politics because it's easier to rile up angry and/or scared right-wing voters than it is to count on often ill-informed, apathetic voters who are hard to turn out in the squishy middle. They also benefit because many traditional Democratic voters are low-turnout voters -- there may be more of us, but not always more of us who turn out.

This sort of strategy has existed, at this point, for a very long time, decades, in fact -- and, yet, very little of the core issues for Republican "values" voters has ever passed. Far from such things being a failure on the part of Republicans, that's the genius of the strategy: Republicans know these issues are, in fact, nonstarters. They can't pass. They never have to worry about public backlash in making these major issues in office -- or heaven forbid, *actually pass these issues* -- because of the US Senate.

They get to run on these sorts of crazy issues, raise tens of millions of dollars on them, and get thousands of little, old ladies who go to church every Sunday to knock on hundreds of doors every major election cycle thinking they'll be able to do something on issues like abortion... without ever having to own up to the consequences of running on those issues.

America is not alone in having government that's traditionally run by the 'right,' but we are alone in having a government that doesn't address the kinds of problems people think are important to them. We are alone, at least in 2 party systems, in having such a broken process that government completely grinds to a halt. France has had right-wing governments for most of its history in the current form of government it exists in today -- more often, even, than the US. The Labor Party in the UK was long in the minority before it arose again in the 90s, and may long be in the minority again. We are not alone in having a right-wing party that's enjoyed more dominance than its left-wing counterpart... yet we are alone in much of our policy.

Ideology is not the explanation. The American people have long wanted the same things our partners in the developed world have had -- good education, high-quality, affordable universal health care and a higher standard of living for our population. Those other countries have achieved those things, but we haven't. There may be many reasons why, but one of the biggest surely has to do with our system of government -- the gridlock that is inherent in our system, where 18% of the population controls a majority of the votes and our biggest state -- with an economy that's larger than all but a few countries in the entire world -- has 1/68th the Representation as the citizens of Wyoming.

Getting rid of the Senate may take a long time to come, and maybe reform may be the best option in the long run. I'm not saying there's no role for the US Senate to play, but it shouldn't be able to create a system where 18% of the population can subvert the will of the other 82% (or 10% subvert the will of 90% with the filibuster). Something's gotta give. Our country today is much different than it was in 1776; what made sense then may not make sense today. The big states are <i>much</i> bigger and people are far more likely to move to and fro, often never returning to where they're from. People should have an open mind and be willing to consider if having something so undemocratic as the current US Senate is going to be anywhere near as good as it is bad for our system. We must throw off the lessons we were taught as little children about how 'important' and 'balanced' the system is, because that wasn't an education... it was propaganda. The results of the world speak for themselves, and the way the Republican Party has been able to run itself -- without having to answer for their extremist positions to the American people because they never have the chance to act on them -- is just the way that it is.

Being able to hold political parties accountable is imperative for the system -- both for the bad, and for being able to do the good. In our current system, Republicans may never really be able to do their worst, but Democrats will *never* be able to do anything close to their best. It's a broken system, and it's quickly leading to our ruin.

Looks Like Beacon Hill's Getting a Pay Cut

2011-01-03T16:25:00.001-05:00

One of the unique quirks of the Massachusetts state constitution is that it mandates what the pay of the rank and file legislator is -- State Reps, for example, get paid the median income for Massachusetts workers. Well, according to a letter the Governor sent out today to the State Treasurer and cc'd to Senate President Murray and Speaker DeLeo, wages in Massachusetts went down .5% last legislative session. That means State Reps will make .5% less this session, which adds up to about half a week's pay. This is the sort of "performance bonus" I could really get behind, where if you do bad, you take a hair cut... too bad Goldman Sachs doesn't have to abide by the same kind of rules.

Mohegan's Net Income Down to $9.7 Million Annual

2011-01-02T19:41:00.000-05:00

Remember when people thought bringing casinos into Massachusetts was a good idea? Well, the company with well over a billion in debt is absolutely tanking... and this is the Connecticut 'model' of success, compared to Foxwoods.

The Mohegans listed declining revenue — net income dropped from $149 million in fiscal year 2008 to $9.7 million in fiscal year 2010 — and increasing competition from other gaming operations as key areas of concern.

Remember, this is net income, not net profits. If Mohegan's only bringing in $9.7 million annually, there's no where close to any profits.

Wrapping up 2010

2010-12-31T02:19:00.003-05:00

I think it's good to reflect on what's happened this year. I'm not going to be exhaustive, but here's the things I'll remember this year for:

BP's Gulf Disaster. This was so bad, we can't possibly know the half of it. We need to know everything about this mess, and make sure the American people know everything, too. Quite frankly, I'm a little disturbed that we've heard very little about what's being done to make sure something like this never happens again.
If you want to win, argue from strength.

The Democrats kept negotiating with themselves, before they ever negotiated with Republicans, and not only did we get less because of it, we constantly lost the messaging war.
The Democratic National Committee never had a cohesive message to campaign on (or even strategy) and we were scared to talk about the few accomplishments we did bring about. Contrast that with the lame-duck session, when we made clear, concise arguments and held things together, winning the hearts and minds of the American public. Do that over the next two years, and we'll win a helluva lot more than we lose... and may even win control of the government back.

Massachusetts is leading the way. We bucked the entire national trend of voting for the Party of No, crushing them when they did well nearly everywhere else. We're first in education, really one of the only states in the country that stacks up with the international leaders. We're pushing the envelope on combating climate change, not only making ambitious goals, but coming up with the tools to achieve them. We're getting out of the Great Recession quicker and stronger than the rest of the country, poised to take advantage of it. We're creating entire new industries in Green Tech, which may just position us to become the Silicon Valley of renewable energy.
We've learned transparency is the most important thing in government. The government is so scared of its lies being leaked, that it's gone far beyond the law in order to silence and discredit Wikileaks and its leader, Julian Assange. It's torturing a Bradley Manning, without charge, for months beyond the military's written standards to hold people. It's trying to make up any sort of charge to get at Julian Assange -- not prosecution, but persecution. It's colluding with businesses around the globe, ensuring they don't allow their costumers to donate or otherwise aid Wikileaks, despite the fact that they've brought no charges against them. This is an existential crisis for our democracy.
My favorite thing this year: Netflix Instant. Comcast tried to go after it, complaining its a bandwidth hog. The real reason for Comcast's pursuit of Netflix is more sinister than that: Netflix delivers a better product for less than a 1/10th of the price. For $9.99 a month, you get a huge swath of unlimited streaming movies online and a no-cost-to-ship DVD for the (increasingly-rare) new release that's not online yet, which ships fast and you can keep as long as you want. On Demand is as dead to me as Blockbuster, and if I can find a way to get Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow and not have cable, Comcast will be, too. In a world where cable is becoming crazy expensive, and renting movies costs upwards of $5 or 6 bucks apiece, Netflix could just become the next, great equalizer.
Finally, it sneaked up on us, but we had one helluva year for movies.

Like a real, good movie? The Social Network, Black Swan, and I'm even hearing The King's Speech belongs up here. I'm sure there's more. I've been too scared to see the anorexic version of Christian Bale to try out The Fighter.
How about animation? Toy Story 3, How to Train Your Dragon and Tangled were all great movies that work for just about all audiences.
Or how 'bout a back-to-the-basics, fun movie... that's actually good? The Town and Unstoppable were both awesome and proved you don't need special effects to create a thrill for the audiences, or wildly elaborate plots (and after last year's Taken, hopefully Hollywood will continue to deliver us more of these kinds of movies).
Big Blockbusters? Inception had the rare ability to be big and beautiful without taking its audience for granted, or skimping on the script or acting to make up for explosions. Heck, even Harry Potter 7 Part 1 was pretty damn good, with an intelligence and trust for the audience that all the other Harry Potters have lacked thus far.
How about crazy fun? Kick-Ass and Scott Pilgrim were both great, funny flicks that will be cult hits for a long time to come.
Into Indie films? 127 Hours is getting rave reviews, and The Kids Are Alright is almost a lock for a couple of Oscars.
You know the year has to be good when you get a great horror film and a great, remade foreign import -- and they were the same movie. Let Me In is really creepy and not at all about vampires, even if it's all about vampires.

As far as years go, I don't think 2010 was a particularly good one, but what should stand out to everyone is how bad it could have been -- and how much fun we've had along the way. The Second Great Depression was avoided and Massachusetts is leading the way. We, the people, aren't where we should be, but at least we have something to build on.

Wonderland's Doors Will Finally Shut

2010-12-27T06:55:00.002-05:00

In a move that should surprise no one, the state accepted Wonderland's request to transfer its license to simulcast dog races to Suffolk Downs. It should be noted that the group that owns Suffolk also owns Wonderland, which makes it likely that they're consolidating the operations at Suffolk Downs, so it would no longer make sense to keep Wonderland.

Given the fact that there's a major redevelopment effort being made just across the street -- both at the Wonderland T stop on the Blue Line and surrounding it -- it just makes sense for Suffolk Downs to sell the property now. Given a few years, the potential development that could be built on what's currently Wonderland, as well as what's going on across the street, Revere and the surrounding area could be poised for a real economic boon.

On the other hand, from a no-slots perspective, this cements Suffolk's position as the regional gambling powerhouse, helping their balance sheets by being able to divest in Wonderland, which helps them keep Suffolk open. I wouldn't care about any of that, save for the fact that it strengthens their ability to fight for slots. Suffolk is the #1 force behind the yearly quest for casinos and racinos in Massachusetts, so it would have been nice to see that fly finally swatted.

Season's Tidings

2010-12-25T13:00:00.000-05:00

A very happy holiday to all those who aren't on Santa's Naughty List.

(PS. Picnik is like my favorite thing in the world.)

The Radical Homosexual Agenda

2010-12-22T16:52:00.000-05:00

Barney Frank at his best.

DADT Repeal with Kara Suffredini from MassEquality

2010-12-22T16:01:00.000-05:00

Mike and I had Kara Suffredini, MassEquality's still-new (and very savvy) director, on our latest LeftAhead podcast to discuss Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal and the state of affairs of GLBT civil rights in New England and beyond. Lots of good, frank talk -- this show's not to be missed by anyone who cares about GLBT civil rights. Suffredini knows what she's talking about.

You can listen by clicking the link or using the Blog Talk Radio player to the right. Enjoy!

Filibernie Remix

2010-12-20T20:37:00.000-05:00

HT Aftertig

Health Care in Massachusetts

2010-12-17T13:04:00.004-05:00

If a tree falls in the woods, but nobody can hear it, does it make a sound? If people pay for health insurance, but they can't use it when they need it, are they really insured? That's the context we must look at Health Care Reform as a country and in Massachusetts, with our own 2006 effort.

The story about Massachusetts's 2006 Health Care Reform shouldn't be the 98% of our population that has health insurance. After all, health insurance is not health care and shouldn't be confused or treated as such. The story has to be how successful we are at truly expanding access to quality health care in this state -- how successful we've been at ensuring those of us who are in need of medical treatment can get good care at a rate they can reasonably afford.

On that end, we aren't nearly as successful -- 1 in 5 people in this state with insurance, as of 2009, didn't get treatment they thought they needed because they couldn't afford it. Outside of the population of kids and seniors, populations of this state that get extra federal help to afford coverage, that number jumps to a full 40% of the population.

When allowable deductibles in this state are $2000 or $4000 for families, and co-pays can be so high that they'll eat half a paycheck for some people, such a statistic becomes very understandable -- if not excusable. These are people who already pay a hefty price for the plastic card that says they have health insurance, but they can't use it. In many cases, the premiums may be so high that it's the reason why they can't use it. Is it insurance if, when we're sick, we can't cash it in? People used to make Matt-Damon movies about these kind of frauds.

Massachusetts does considerably better than most states in terms of the percent of the population who's insured, but there's little evidence we do much better in terms of making sure people can get care when they need it. We aren't the healthiest, we don't live longer and we don't have the lowest medical bankruptcy rates. While we may be better off with 2006's effort -- and the country may be better off with this past year's federal Health Care Reform -- we may not be as better off as we think. Health insurance reform that fails to make quality health care affordable to at least 20% of the population is less reform than it is a smokescreen. We have problems that no one seems to want to talk about, and meanwhile we're still patting ourselves on the back as if it's a job well done.

Today's Podcast: The Filibuster and National Snooze Button

2010-12-14T18:53:00.000-05:00

Good, informative stuff on today's filibuster. We talk about the rules and how it works, and why some of the things have gone the way they've gone. It serves equal parts filibuster 101 and advocacy for its reform of repeal. Both Mike and I would love to see the thing go, but even making people stand up and defend their stance for hours -- instead of the current means of allowing things to take place behind closed doors -- would be a big improvement.

Click here to listen, or use the blog talk radio widget to the right.

Obama's Tax Cut Deal Explained

2010-12-10T22:42:00.000-05:00

I can't help but feel like Obama's not just from Chicago, but the Queen of sorts, and by that, I mean Big Mama -- holding ward over America's nationwide Wall Street debtors prison. You want unemployment benefits in the nation's worst depression since the "Great" one? $700 billion for millionaires and billionaires.

Big Mama is certainly willing to "spice things up" for the people who live in her cell blocks, but at a cost that is so steep as to not be worth it -- at least if you weren't trapped in her ward.A deal that doesn't include any help the '99ers,' states that are in fiscal crisis or one that raises of the nation's debt sealing (so Republicans can't hold America hostage again in another few months, or force us to make grotesque cuts) is no deal at all. That Big Mama territory -- or maybe we should say Big Obama territory.

Scott Brown's Betrayal: I'm Not Surprised, Just Angry

2010-12-09T19:57:00.000-05:00

I got some flack for praising Brown when he came out in support for DADT repeal a few weeks back, because I thought it was important to recognize when someone does something right. It wasn't like I was going to vote for him, but we needed more of that sort of willingness to cross the isle.

I also wouldn't go so far as to say I trusted him, but I was pretty hopeful his support would have meant DADT's passage. Turns out, I should have been even more skeptical than I thought. He took that 'support' and stabbed everyone in the back. The good news, though, is it's going to backfire. He'd have been better off had he just stayed opposed to DADT repeal -- because by toying with people who cared about this issue, he made them far angrier than they would have otherwise been.

In 2012, Brown's race probably wouldn't have been a priority for me -- not because I didn't care about it, but because I'd inevitably be heavily involved in some race or races at the State House that kept me insanely busy. But not anymore. Come election time, any spare moment I have will be dedicated to making sure the only Brown we have in the US Senate is Sherrod.

The WikiLeaks Podcast

2010-12-08T19:17:00.002-05:00

Mike and I had a great podcast on LeftAhead about the whole WikiLeaks ordeal, focusing on the facts of the matter, as well as some of the actual revelations from the story.

You can listen to the show by clicking the link above, catching it on the Blog Talk Radio player to the right or downloading it on iTunes.