Wave Maker

FLORIDA FRONTIER!

2008-05-22T20:18:00.004-04:00

This cartoon by Jim Morin so perfectly captures the entire Democratic primary season that it is unfair to the citizens of Florida -- disenfranchized as they have been by the leadership of their own "Count Every Vote" party -- to be the final punch line.

Under the Bus

2008-04-30T07:37:00.005-04:00

Call me a skeptic, but I have trouble having confidence in a man who takes this long to realize he's got nuts for friends.

A Shot and a Beer

2008-04-23T17:52:00.000-04:00

The Democratic Primary -- guaranteed to drive you to drink. STRIKE!!!

Every Time You Think, You Weaken the Nation

2008-04-17T15:34:00.002-04:00

I could quarrel with the casting choices here.

Dirty Pictures

2008-04-15T13:55:00.008-04:00

This fellow Scott Wade is an artist in Texas. His home is located on a road made of "caliche" -- a blend of limestone dust, gravel and clay. When dry, it exudes a fine powder cloud that cakes his car windows on a daily basis. So he does what any self-respecting artist does -- he creates.

This is a small sample of his work. Click on the Title and peruse dozens more.

Cool, innit.

The Audacity of Hope

2008-03-28T23:03:00.001-04:00

StrawVoter Launch Will Give Real Time Public Opinion

2008-03-27T14:06:00.000-04:00

A very close friend of mine has recently launched the beta version of a new opinion tracking website that could revolutionize our ability to determine public opinion on any given issue. From the website (launched TODAY!):

StrawVoter is a non-partisan digital polling tool for people who can't wait to know how political opinion is aligning on a daily basis around the country. It's a grassroots experiment for making detailed polling data available to the average voter.

From the website's creator, Chatham denizen Matthew MacIver:

The creation of StrawVoter was driven by an admittedly self-serving idea and two untested assumptions.

The idea: create a tool that would let me see detailed, demographically rich poll data at key moments in this turbulent political season. A web-enabled polling tool that, in exchange for answers to a few simple demographic questions, would give every participant - every StrawVoter - a summary of all such data collected in each Congressional district, each State, across the nation.

Why? Because I can't easily and cheaply get this information elsewhere. Of, of course, we're all bombarded by poll results - but they're highly aggregated, rarely provided in consistent time-series form, focused primarily on the issue of the hour and absolutely opaque when it comes to methodology.

And they often become the news by virtue of the context in which they're presented. Private polling often turns political leadership into political followership and then is used to recursively reinforce public opinion. Public polls by Fox and CNN have to be interpreted with the appropriate spin-discount-rate (your mileage may vary) - thank goodness for a free press.

But I wanted more raw detail presented in a value-free wrapper. StrawVoter is the result. It's a non-partisan hobby site. I generate no revenue from it (although I may defray expenses with some Google ads.) I want good commentary to share with the StrawVoter community, but I won't post rants or candidate missives. I want to post special polling questions derived from good feedback based on the data that lands here.

Will it work? The idea will be proven or not based on two basic premises.

The first is that many, many Americans want this type of insight, too. I'm marketing this virally and pin great hopes on the exponential power of social networks. We'll see if that works out. I'll be posting volume figures as time goes on.

The second is that most Strawvoters won't want to game the system by registering multiple times or filing faulty demographics. No-one has satisfactorily solved digital polling authentication (or for that matter mail ballot authentication) and I personally doubt that anyone will anytime soon. So, no, we can't check you against your precinct roll.

But we did what we could. We've placed CAPTCHA devices (courtesy of Carnegie Mellon University) on registration and voting pages to slow down the people who have no lives and may want to laboriously register and vote again and again. And although virtually all alpha testers thusfar first wanted to make an avatar from their demographics, they also soon realized that the results they wanted to see would be jeopardized by their flights of fancy. And, finally, given a set of samples of even modest size, we have the Central Limit Theorem working to our advantage.
So that's the story. Vote often, but only as yourself. Give me some good polling fodder, too. I'll expand StrawVoter as results and comments come in.

Enjoy the site.

Mathew MacIver
StrawVoter.com

So, there's only one thing to do - go register, send the link to everyone in your contacts list, and post it on your own blog!

"No Pressure, no deals, nothing"

2008-03-20T06:42:00.002-04:00

This is Speaker Sal DiMasi in response to questions surrounding the odd and controversial vote by the legislature's Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies (who named this committee?) to recommend that Governor Patrick's casino bill "ought not to pass."

But DiMasi's claim is beyond incredible. It is hilarious. It is medacious.

After weeks of what can accurately be described as a full court press, with the Speaker himself calling individual members into his office to personally lobby against the bill -- members stating publicly to the state house press corps of the intense pressure -- the Committee, led by DiMasi's ardently anti-casino Rep. Dan Bosley, initially comes up with a 9-9 tie vote?

A tie? Incredible.

And why the tie, with an odd number of members?

Because one House member, Representative Robert L. Rice Jr. (D - Gardner) ABSTAINED FROM VOTING.
On the most controversial and far-reaching public policy issue to come before the legislature since gay marriage, one duly elected representative of the people couldn't pull the trigger. Unless Rep. Rice has a clear and obvious conflict of interest that would lawfully prevent him from voting, he should be taken into the public arena and flogged.
_________________________

With one profile in cowardice taken care of, the focus falls on Republican Rep. Richard Ross, whose district includes one of the states struggling race tracks. The Plainridge facility is not a typical thoroughbred racing facility. It is for trotters (or "standardbreds")-- a segment of the racing industry that is to thoroughbred racing what pentanque is to Major League Baseball.

Here's what Ross had to say:

Another member, Rep. Richard Ross, R-Wrentham, told The Associated Press he dropped his support for the bill after the owners of the Plainridge Racecourse, a 91-acre harness racing facility in his district, said they would rather take a shot at the House passing a separate bill to install slot machines at the state's four racetracks.

"I got a loud and clear message from my district ... that they really wanted me to vote for the adverse report," Ross said. "Really, until the eleventh hour, 59th minute, I was on the phone."

Similar slot machine bills have failed in past years, but Ross said DiMasi promised he would allow it to come to the House floor again.

DiMasi promised he would allow a racetrack slots bill to come to the floor again.

DiMasi's response to that question?

"That's a question for another day," DiMasi said when asked about the prospect of the slot machine bill coming up for a vote. ...

DiMasi denied putting undue pressure on lawmakers or making any promises to help ensure the committee vote against Patrick's bill.

"Not at all," DiMasi said, adding that he made "no deals, no bargains, nothing" to members of the committee.

But Ross indicated that he had met with DiMasi before casting his vote and had also been told by the Plainridge people that DiMasi "has promised them that we would have a dialogue in the next couple of weeks on ... the slots bill and that we would actually bring it before the membership alone and it would have nothing to do with the casinos."

That sounds like a deal to Ross. Don't bet on this man in a poker game, folks.

So, it appears, at least this chapter of the Great Casino Debate has come down to a rather typical phenomenon -- one representative with an important business constituent representing his "district" (on the basis of a promise from the Speaker that he claims he didn't make) and one other not representing anyone at all.

There is another element to this vote that should deeply trouble observers of democracy. Legislative Committee votes are to be taken in open sessions where the public and the press are able to observe the process. In this instance, however -- for reasons yet unexplained -- "two votes were taken by email and phone" and counted inside closed offices instead of committee rooms.

This is how Democracy works on major public policy matters in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Amen, Brother

2008-03-19T07:18:00.001-04:00

As a boy, I used to fall asleep in church, but I wouldn't have missed this show.

Reading Tea Leaves With McCain

2008-02-18T15:56:00.002-05:00

I am spending a portion of this unusually balmy Presidents Day catching up on some reading, and happily came across a very interesting piece written by Ryan Lizza for the New Yorker's Political Scene, entitled On the Bus - Can John McCain Reinvent Conservatism?

Aside from its entertaining look at McCain's unguarded persona as he regales the traveling press on his Straight Talk bus (which by itself make the article worth reading), Lizza's article includes an illumination of the perspectives of several Republicans regarding the present state and future prospects for the Republican Party.

There is this from Newt Gingrich:

The leader of the Republican takeover of the House in 1994, Gingrich now argues that the era of running against the government has ended. “The Republican Party cannot win over time as the permanently angry anti-government party because neither appeals to most voters,” he writes in his recent book, “Real Change.” Rather, he argues, Republicans must learn to be competent managers of the bureaucracy and “pro-good government.” Furthermore, he advises them to reject the Party’s guiding strategy of the past eight years: making increasingly urgent appeals to its most conservative supporters for maximum turnout. In what sounds like the advice that New Democrats gave liberals in the nineteen-eighties, Gingrich points out that “Republicans allow their campaigns to be dominated more and more by pandering to small, specific segments of the activist wing of the party”—a trend that he believes has contributed to the drop in Republican numbers on the two coasts. Gingrich’s advice amounts to a sharp rebuke of the dominant political and governing philosophy of the Bush years—in particular, the strategies formulated and advocated by Bush’s former political adviser Karl Rove—and he suggests that if McCain attempts a dramatic refashioning of his party he may find support in surprising places.

And there is this from Grover Norquist:

Norquist, a longtime conservative organizer, has a different view. In a forthcoming book, “Leave Us Alone,” he describes the Republican Party as little more than a collection of interest groups—such as anti-tax activists, gun-rights advocates, and homeschoolers—that, if they are carefully tended, will grow into a “supermajority.”

And there is this from David Frum, former White House speechwriter:

Frum, in his new book, “Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again,” warns conservatives about social trends that may overwhelm the Republican Party. He notes that Republicans have lost a generation of young voters during the Bush years. “The people who turned twenty between 1985 and 1990 were eight points more Republican than Democratic,” he told me. “People who turned twenty between 1970 and 1975 were eight points more Democratic than Republican. People who turned twenty between 2000 and 2005 are twelve points more Democratic.” He sees a country moving slightly to the left as Republicans are “left stranded on the right.” He told me, “If what you are is a pragmatic, business-oriented, moderate-minded person who wants things to work in a fairly competent and ethical way, and you’re under thirty—the kind of person who would have been an Eisenhower Republican and a Republican in the Nixon years and in the George H. W. Bush years—you are a Democrat today.” Frum added, “As the country becomes more single, more childless, more secular, more non-white, more immigrant, it becomes more Democratic. And all of those groups are growing.” Frum has ideas on how conservatives can reverse this trend, but his most radical thought is that, given the realities of the federal budget and the public’s unwillingness to curb entitlement spending, Republicans need to rethink their approach to tax cuts. He proposes making a deal with Democrats in which some of the Bush tax cuts become permanent in exchange for a carbon tax to deal with the global-warming crisis.

All three of these observations indicate what many conservatives are fretting about today -- the party that they have pretty much owned for the past twenty years is due for some adaptation to the times.

Clearly the Rush Limbaughs and Jay Severins of the world gag on the idea that we do anything other than shore up the platform and jettison all non-right thinking party folks to the reeducation camps for a good dose of whoop-ass. They surely have their adherents. But with or without them, the changes are going to come. They can either be a part of the discussion or they can take their ball and go home -- or, for a more dramatic metaphor, they can play the part of the desperado who holds a gun to his own head and threatens to shoot the hostage.

Chump Change

2008-02-18T15:31:00.002-05:00

With all the talk about "change" going on in this campaign, what makes anyone think things are going to be any different?

NEXT!!!!

2008-02-11T22:18:00.000-05:00

The Bro-man has once again pegged the situation in a picture better than anyone could in 1,000 words.

Romney's Timetable Comments Fair Game

2008-02-01T13:05:00.000-05:00

Immediately following John McCain's victory over Mirtt Romney in the Florida primary, some members of the rabid Nobody-But-Romney camp have focussed on the "lies" McCain unfairly leveled against Romney. As Romney himself alleged, McCain's assertion that Romnmey had expressed support for withdrawal "dishonest."
One particularly rabid Romney accolyte at Red Mass Group expresses his outrage in no uncertain terms:

McCain disgusts me (0.00 / 0

I can't believe I'm having to say this about someone whom I've regarded as a hero lo these many years. But his outright lie accusing Mitt of endorsing a timetable for surrender makes it impossible for me to vote for him in November.
John McCain can go to hell.

Outright lie? Go to hell?

(First of all, one might gain insight into the commenter's ourage by his accusation that Romeny had been accused of endorsing a "timetable to surrender." This was not, nor ever had been, the charge.)

To the contrary, McCain's charge seized upon remarks of ambiguity and equivocation made by Romney on national television:

QUESTION: Iraq. John McCain is there in Baghdad right now. You have also been very vocal in supporting the president and the troop surge. Yet, the American public has lost faith in this war. Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, there's no question but that -- the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police, and the leadership of the Iraqi government.

QUESTION: So, private. You wouldn't do it publicly? Because the president has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, of course. Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven't reached the Rhine by this date, why, we'll go home, or if we haven't gotten this accomplished we'll pull up and leave? You don't publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time. So, of course, you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don't do that with the opposition.

Do Romney's remarks constitute an unequivocal endorsement of troop withdrawal by a date certain? No, certainly not. But are they fairly read to reject any such suggestion? No, one cannot say that Romney's statements are a rejection of that either.

This is just another example of Mitt's over-coached approach to answering tough questions. Robin Roberts gave him an open invitation to give an unequivocal answer:"

"Do you believe there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?"

Correct answer (as McCain made clear enough): "No, I do not." Issue over. If he wishes then to go on and explain the widely accepted notion of benchmarks for progress, he should do so. But by rejecting the opportunity to answer a yes-no question, he invited the scrutiny that allowed McCain to fairly (yes, fairly) make the charge he did.

Further parsing of the exchange does not rescue Romney from this conclusion: He carefully draws the distinction between private and public pronouncement of timetables -- but fails to make clear enough whether he opposes any deadline for withdrawal. His rejection of a troop withdrawal deadline was couched solely in terms of public announcements - hence his assurance that he would veto and Congressional troop withdrawal resolution:

Well, of course. Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven't reached the Rhine by this date, why, we'll go home, or if we haven't gotten this accomplished we'll pull up and leave? You don't publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time.

Is it not a fair inference from Romney's response that he would not reject out-of-hand a private deadline? It is, because the basis for his twice-repeated response is the distinction between telegraphing one's plan and keeping it secret.

Romney's approach on this issue is in stark and dramatic contract to McCain, who, against all caution and circumspection as to how his marks could be (and were) twisted, had this exchange during a campaign stop prior to his victory in New Hamshire:

E.H.: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years --

McCain: Maybe a hundred. We've been in South Korea, we've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it's fine with me, I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

Say what you wish about the position. You can't quarrel with the frankness of his language.

It is the difference between one with a firmly held principle and one with a firmly held script.

I'll take the former, because it's less likely to blow away when the wind blows.

Crying a River

2008-01-09T18:32:00.000-05:00

Thirty years after Ed Muskie, crying is now in vogue.

Hope Springs Eternal!!

2008-01-07T17:33:00.000-05:00

Appears to be happening much sooner than I might have imagined. This image sure does remind one of the good ole days at 1600. And here's another beeautiful (if jaded) look at our favorite Agent of Change:

Genuineness

2008-01-04T11:47:00.000-05:00

The day after the Iowa Caucus is a marvelous day to read political commentary.

Up until the first contest is over, commentary on candidates is chiefly prognostic. It analyzes the current day events in terms of what they will bring the next day. Polls predict future election. Advertisements are scrutinized for their potential effect on voters.

Today, we are treated to the first wave of retrospection -- analysis on why Huckabee won or Romney lost.

Two such pieces this morning have affirmed what I have come to believe about Mitt Romney: he lacks the genuineness in his political persona that is so apparent in his business persona. And I think this is why Huckabee, McCain and Giuliani all represent a serious threat to his (remaining) viability.

Byron York writes this morning in National Reviewon the nature of Huckabee's win, and contrasts Huckabee's style to Romney's:

...On the day of the caucuses, I checked Romney’s schedule and noticed that he was set to appear at a Kum & Go — a popular convenience store — in West Des Moines. The convenience store backdrop seemed a bit Huckabee-esque, until I arrived to discover that the event was being held not at a Kum & Go, but at the corporate headquarters of Kum & Go, a company called Krause-Gentle, which also owns a variety of other businesses. The CEO of Krause-Gentle is a Romney fan and invited him to speak there....

...Fehrnstrom, like the rest of Romney’s team, was unfailingly professional. But his analysis pointed to a blind spot in the Romney campaign, a blind spot most likely shared by the candidate himself. For all his money, and all his energy, and all his organizational skills, Romney could not put to rest the doubts many Iowa Republicans felt about his genuineness, or lack of genuineness. As they paid more attention to politics in the days leading up to the caucuses, some of those voters came to believe that Huckabee had more of that indefinable something that they want in a candidate. In the end, the race wasn’t about infrastructure at all — something Romney never figured out but Huckabee knew all along.

This is the contrast between the candidate who has an instinct for connecting with people and one who has an instinct for analyzing the objective, devising a plan to achieve the objective, assembling a team of highly talented professionals, amassing the financing required to implement a plan, and executing on it. In short, it is the difference between a politician and a businessman.

John Ellis makes a similar point in Real Clear Politics.

It's one thing to lose as you are. What you lose is an election, but there's always another election and in the case of presidential primary politics, a new electorate that awaits you in the next state. It's another thing to lose as you aren't. Mitt Romney was never the 700 Club right-winger his campaign managers conceived. He was and is a man of business and a very capable one at that...

...Romney's only real choice was to run as a Republican Gary Hart, the candidate of "new ideas" for a party in desperate need of same. That would have at least given him the flexibility to play to his strengths; his intellectual prowess, his business acumen, his demonstrable executive skills and his admirable personal qualities. And it would have enabled him to attract a wide array of advisors and intellectuals to help him think through innovative policy positions on what appear to be intractable issues....

...Instead, his handlers framed Romney's candidacy in a fallacy. We were asked to believe that he was something that he was not. Iowa didn't buy it and neither will anyone else. What people are looking for is leadership. What the Romney campaign offered was obeisance.

Perhaps it is that the professional campaign business has become singularly compulsive about the dog-eared tactic of "packaging" the candidate. I certainly get that sense from Romney's campaign now, and in hindsight, it has always been that way with him. But Huckabee's victory in Iowa, and I think as well McCain's formidable resurgence in New Hampshire and elsewhere, suggest that voters are more adept at stripping off the packaging and examining not just the product, but the list of ingredients.

If that is so, it is a welcome change. How many more elections can our Democracy survive where the two party candidates frenetically cavort with those at the edges of their parties and then engage in the unseemly race to the middle, where they are greeted by ambivalent, nose-pinching skeptics?

On Hubris and Hyperbole

2007-12-21T12:24:00.000-05:00

Every cynical observer of politics knows the old saying, "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." These days, you don't have to be a cynic to believe it.

When Mitt Romney first arrived on the political landscape in 1994 to run against Ted Kennedy, I thought that a guy who didn't smoke, drink, swear or have impure thoughts would be just what we needed to excise the warts of cynicism growing on America. I was none too happy when, in his debate against Kennedy he said he did not vote for Ronald Reagan or when he professed to being firmly pro-choice. But at the time I believed that personal honor, humility and intellectual honesty were gold standards that required vigorous burnishing if people were going to genuinely trust our government, and I thought Mitt was the guy that could do that.

But I confess, I am more convinced in Lord Acton's observation now that ever, in large measure because if a man of Romney's character can be so demonstrably tainted, then who is immune?

What Lord Acton actually said was this:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

Great men are almost always bad men. This observation that a person’s sense of morality lessens as his or her power increases is a parable told a thousand times in literature and history. Now it seems to be touching even the once untouchable.

When Mitt Romney professed his pro-choice beliefs in the 1990's, I believed him -- because he so convincingly told us how he came by them, campaigning with his pro-choice mother in Michigan. Surely a man then in his 50's, avowing his long-held political beliefs, could not be so facile a liar!

Yet recently we are told that his once-held beliefs were uprooted by a chance visit to a stem cell laboratory, where his newfound understanding of human biology opened his eyes to the miracle of life (or some such drivel). Why, he was so convincing that even callous old neanderthals like my father -- the sharpest knife in any drawer -- were taken in by him. "I believe his conversion is sincere," he professed to me. It is the only time in my life I felt that my father was more gullible than I.

Now we are treated to the evolution of his memory on the subject of Martin Luther King.

But first: Mitt tells Tim Russert on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he "wept with relief" when the Mormon church announced a 1978 revelation that the priesthood would no longer be denied to persons of African descent:

"I can remember when I heard about the change being made. I was driving home from — I think it was law school, but I was driving home — going through the Fresh Pond rotary in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I heard it on the radio and I pulled over and literally wept. Even at this day it's emotional, and so it's very deep and fundamental in my, in my life and my most core beliefs that all people are children of God..”

Poignant story, for sure. Apparently he wasn't the only Mormon who heard the news while riding in his car. Here is what Marlin Jensen, the LDS church historian said in an interview in March of 2006:

Where were you when the revelation came about the black priesthood?

"Great question. I know right where I was. I was on 26th Street in Ogden, Utah, and I was in my car; I heard it on the car radio. ... I was absolutely thrilled, stunned, thrilled, elated, and have been equally elated with the way that has played out now in the intervening 20 or so years."

Quite a coincidence, isn't it?

Now we are presented with another instance that raises the eyebrows -- and curiously pertains to a similar subject - civil rights.

Romney is facing questions regarding statements he has made in the past regarding his family's involvement with Martin Luther King.

Mitt has apparently repeated numerous times that his father, Goerge Romney, then Governor of Michigan, "marched with King" at a civil rights march in Detroit. He has said publicly on several occasions that he "saw my father march" with Rev. King.

And according to the Globe story, Romney stated in an interview with the Boston herald in 1978, "My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit."

How does Mitt choose to explain this to us?

Romney said his father had told him he had marched with King and that he had been using the word "saw" in a "figurative sense."

"If you look at the literature, if you look at the dictionary, the term 'saw' includes being aware of in the sense I've described," Romney told reporters in Iowa. "It's a figure of speech and very familiar, and it's very common. And I saw my dad march with Martin Luther King. I did not see it with my own eyes, but I saw him in the sense of being aware of his participation in that great effort."

I suppose it is only fair to Romney that he did indeed point to sources that reported (incorrectly) that his father had marched with King in Grosse Pointe. And it is clear that Mitt's father was indeed a strong supporter of civil rights. And there is this generous observation given by Clayborne Carson, director of the King Project at Stanford:

He said he often jokes that if all the people who say they marched on the Edmund Pettus bridge in Selma in 1965 had actually been there, the bridge would have collapsed.

"I think it's partly the desire of everyone that supported the civil rights cause to say it was not just rhetorical support but an active support," Carson said. "To say you supported civil rights and to say you never marched is just not the way you want to remember your past. So, I think easily I could imagine where 'I supported the march' became 'I was actually at the march.' "

But in the business of choosing a President, "my father supported the civil rights movement" cannot become "I marched with Martin Luther King." The fact that he said that back in 1978 might have been a warning that "squeaky clean" does not prevent hyperbole, or to be less charitable, prevarication.

And his propensity is not confined to such heady issues as civil rights, as we have seen. How can Romney explain how a foray into the rabbit patch when he was 15 and an outing in a fenced game preserve in Georgia last year are the equivalent of being a hunter all his life?

Is this propensity for embellishment unique to those who are lured to politics? Is it impossible in politics today to avoid the hyperbole that turns fact into fiction, genuineness into fraudulence? Or is it the human nature in all of us to make more of our life experiences than exist in dull fact?

It is disappointing indeed, but I have come to my decision on who to support in this Presidential campaign based almost exclusively on who I think will be most straightforward and honest in his dialogue with us. Only time will tell if he turns out to be a storyteller as well.

Oh Rudi

2007-11-30T14:42:00.000-05:00

I don't agree with the commentary here, but you have to love the Rudy caricature.

A Doubly Nauseating Proposition

2007-11-28T16:06:00.001-05:00

Where Fiscal Discipline Is a Pipe Dream

2007-11-24T10:31:00.000-05:00

In a Boston Globe op-ed, Lovett C. Peters, the founding chairman of the Pioneer Institute (what the Boston Globe would refer to as "a conservative think tank"), offers up a clear-eyed assessment of the Commonwealth's fiscal health and what measures are necessary to restore it. In many other locations of this country his suggestions would be regarded seriously. Here in Massachusetts, however, Peters' recommendations will receive as much consideration as any other idea coming out of a "conservative think tank:" None. I herein examine his observations and offer my own more jaded view of the status quo.

First, Peters sets the table nicely by ticking off the baseline facts to support the imposition of fiscal discipline:

Anticipated FY '08 budget deficit of $1.3 billion.
Proposed $2 billion to "repair crumbling state colleges."
Proposed $1 billion for biotech industry.
Proposed $1.4 billion for commuter rail to New Bedford.
Uncosted universal early childhood education, longer school day and free community college for all Commonwealth residents (including illegals).

Getting vertigo yet?

(Can we just save some time and cross off the biotech and commuter rail numbers? Please? The hottest venture capital sector in the country hardly needs taxpayer support; and the MBTA is in no shape to be larding another $21 million to its annual operating deficit.)

Then, in what has to be one of the singularly greatest uses of irony ever to appear on the Boston Globe editorial page (which is saying a lot), Peters quotes Sal DiMasi saying to a business group, "I like to say, 'What about efficiencies and cutting costs?'"

That Sal, what a card. Funny, the only thing I've known him to say is "you're away." So let's just kill that baby in its crib right now. Sal DiMasi's appetite for "cutting costs" could be measured at 4:00 p.m. on Thanksgiving Day.

But let's humor ourselves a bit longer while we examine Mr. Peters's eminently sensible recommendations:

1. Get public employee benefits under control.

Excellent idea. Elsewhere the idea that a person can collect his pension before his retirement age is a quaint notion. Here it is firmly embedded in state collective bargaining agreements. Ridiculous. Elsewhere, public employees pay at least 25% of their health insurance costs. Here it's 15% (up from 10%!).

This idea has about as much chance of being taken seriously as Dennis Kucinich's UFO claims. In fact, I'll bet there are some people who read Mr. Peters'editorial this morning and asked themselves, "what planet is he from?"

The bottom line is inescapable and irremediable: the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a wholly owned subsidiary of the public employee unions. Without a hostile takeover, they'll be telling Sal DiMasi what to do before he gets to the second tee.

2. Eliminate mandatory union contracts in public construction.

See above. Peters tells us that only 20% of Massachusetts construction workers choose to join a union, even though 100% of public construction projects are done at the (euphemistically named) prevailing wage. The cost is about $120 million for every $1 billion spent. Wow, that adds up fast!

Where are the cities and towns who have to pay this tab? They're sitting over there in the corner with their hands in their pockets, waiting for more local aid. Where is Sal DiMasi? Putting out on two.

3. Eliminate Police traffic details.

Question: If such a vast majority of citizens in this state understand what a ridiculous waste of money this is, why does eliminating it never get past first base? See above. When you get that telephone call from the Police Benevolent Association, tell them you already gave, and gave, and gave.

Riddle: What do Mitt Romney and Deval Patrick have in common? They both publicly proposed eliminating police details and then ran and hid.

4. Privatize the Mass Pike.

This idea is far too cutting edge for us. Heck, Chicago only got $1.8 billion for its toll highway, that's not even real money. Besides, there isn't any way that Sal is going to give away all those "jobs." And given the insidious Pacheco Law (imagine how fatuous and vain you have to be to want your name attached to a law that squanders your constituents' money), a law that privatizes the second biggest public trough in the state would be tied up in court until the Segway becomes an accepted mode of urban transportation in Boston.

5. Privatize the Lottery.

The third biggest public trough? Next thing, you're going to want to take over the MBTA! Another Pacheco nightmare, too.

I admire and respect Mr. Lovett C. Peters, and I am thankful that the Pioneer Institute does the work that it does. That it has so few adherents in positions of power is lamentable -- in fact downright disgusting. But this is Massachusetts, after all, which stands before the nation as the paradigm of entrenched one-party rule.

Things Are That Bad

2007-11-19T15:06:00.000-05:00

I received another excellent tidbit of amusement in my in-box this morning. As best I can determine (based upon the exercise of reasonable diligence in seeking the source), this diagram was created by one Dick Costolo, Co-founder and CEO of a techie firm called Feedburner. Nice work Dick!!

I think this pretty much sums up the entire Universe.

When You Have to Wonder

2007-11-13T14:38:00.001-05:00

Sometimes you see something that makes you have to wonder.

Frank Zappa, Soldiers' Porn and Vilnius

2007-11-11T09:39:00.000-05:00

My friends at Wizbang recent posted a piece about the effort of one censorious individual to deny American soldiers their Penthouses. The post's author, Jay Tea, mischievously entitled the post "Insert Frank Zappa Song Title Here," and being a dedicated fan of the man that Andres Segovia called "the greatest composer of the 20th century," I immediately deduced that the correct answer to Jay's clever riddle was "Titties 'N' Beer," (from Baby Snakes, 1983). But I got carried away in my comment when I could not resist the temptation to comb the Zappa discography for other Zappa songs that aptly applied to contemporary matters.

My comment was followed by yet another riddle from one "epador," asking the location of the only city park dedicated to the man.

"Must be Palmdale," I reflexively thought. Palmdale, of course, is the Los Angeles exurb on the edge of the Mojave Desert where Zappa spent his teen years, during which the Doo-Wop music of the day infused his early musical genius. His affection for the community inspired the 1974 number Village of the Sun (Roxy & Elsewhere, 1974), a song that suggests his fondest memories of the city are the ubiquity of turkey farmers and the blistering sandstorms that "take the paint off your car and wreck your windshield too."

But I was wrong! Frank Zappa's hometown, in fact, pay no homage whasoever to the man. Feh.

Being the Zappophile that I am, my curiosity led me to the correct answer to epador's quiz.

There is, in fact, a bronze statue of Frank Zappa located in a private park in Vilnius, Lithuania. And its origin is a story demonstrably worthy of the man.

In 2002, Rolling Stone Magazine told the story:

It goes like this: In the early Nineties, a determined group of Zappa-admiring friends gathered regularly in a local cafe to swap records. Communist rule, which suppressed American culture, had recently collapsed, opening the doors for Lithuanian music lovers to get their hands on previously inaccessible Western albums.

Paukstys, thirty-seven, and his friends sought to spread their love of Zappa, who was all but unknown to Lithuania's 3 million citizens. But with no personal connection to the American legend, the club resorted to bluffing its way into the limelight by creating two bogus Zappa exhibits at a local art gallery. The first featured letters supposedly written by Zappa to his Lithuanian admirers. Widespread reaction in Vilnius inspired a second exhibit titled "Memorial Objects of Frank Zappa," featuring clocks, knives, pens and clothes claimed to have been owned by Zappa. But none of the items had traveled further than Paukstys' apartment.

The made-up exhibitions were a massive hit with the Lithuanian public, most of whom -- due to the political situation -- readily embraced anything American. When local journalists inquired about the exhibitions, Paukstys promptly fabricated his widely published story about his brush with Zappa.

"We just needed a story," says dry-humored, mild-mannered Paukstys. "We never saw Zappa, but nobody ever saw God, and they still go to church," says partner-in-crime Vytautas Kernagis, a respected Lithuania musician. "Lithuania is a nation of mythology, legends and fairy tales. Everything is mystified. People believe really quickly, and one of the myths is that independence is good for everyone, with no exceptions. That's why, in such an environment, the Zappa seeds were so successfully planted."

Paukstys tested the phenomenon's limits by proposing a Vilnius-based Zappa statue to the city council. He accumulated more than 300 signatures from bandwagon Zappa fans and offered to privately finance the project. The cash-strapped state deemed it absurd, but nonetheless approved the measure.

To many, the Zappa project symbolized a chance for Lithuania to distance itself from Russia while boasting its Western aspirations. Thanks to concerts and donated art works sold for cash, the Club raised nearly $3,000. Konstantinas Bogdanas, the most renowned Lithuanian sculptor who made his living casting portraits of Vladimir Lenin, donated his skills. The owner of a big business construction company installed the 4.2-meter high bronze bust in exchange for a bottle of liquor.

The only detour came when the original plan to plant the monument near a city art school incited outrage from school administrators, who feared a statue of Zappa, known for his anti-establishment lyrics, would corrupt its students. So Paukstys proposed a new site, and today a somber, pony-tailed Zappa rests in a peaceful park, just a thirty-second walk from one of the city's main drags. Thanks to a French art club, a Zappa portrait looks on the statue from an the adjacent wall.

Zappa surely would have appreciated the irony of the statue's opening ceremony, when a military orchestra played his tunes. The company that owns the rights to Zappa's songs in the country donated the entire oeuvre and heaps of books on the skilled guitarist to the fan club. All of this authentic paraphernalia was housed in an art gallery, but since some collectibles soon disappeared, Paukstys now stores the materials at home.

Today, the statue is mainly a tourist attraction and a site for radio stations to do remote broadcasts. "It was a bluff and it turned into an art," says Kernagis.

Thank you, epador, for providing me with this most edifying Sunday morning divergence.

The Monster We Have Created

2007-10-08T14:42:00.000-04:00

Back in 1989 when the leaders of the Cape's towns were gathering in support of the establishment of the Cape Cod Commission, one of the few reservations expressed was the fear that the Commission would expand its regulatory authority into individual town affairs, thereby invading their autonomy. This fear has come to pass.
A story in Friday’s Boston Globe begins as follows:

After listening to impassioned pleas from a handful of Truro residents and preservationists, the Cape Cod Commission took the unusual step last night of voting to examine a controversial plan to build a 6,500-square-foot mansion in the hills of South Truro.

That sentence alone is worth pausing over. When a “handful” of Truro residents plea impassionately, a regional land use agency votes to involve itself in the construction of one single family home.

How does this happen?

The house to be built is on a portion of what is known as “the Hopper landscape” – a swath of Truro’s seacoast that Hopper had the benefit of contemplating during the twilight of his career. Does this fact alone justify that it be treated differently than another 9 acre parcel of property (and we must pause here again – the proposal is for one single family home on a 9 acre parcel of land, 6 of which the owners have offered to put into conservation).

How does this regional planning commission assert jurisdiction over one single family house?

It’s called bureaucratic sprawl.

The commission, which rarely reviews proposals for developing single-family houses, voted seven to four to review Kline's proposed house, which they said could have "a development of regional impact" designation and deserves closer scrutiny.

How the commission could possibly have come to that conclusion requires several boundless leaps of – well, certainly not logic.

The enabling legislation from which the Commission derives its jurisdiction and powers provides that the Commission may regulate a “development of regional impact,” and defines that term as “a development which, because of its magnitude or the magnitude of its impact on the natural or built environment, is likely to present development issues significant to or affecting more than one municipality, and which conforms to the criteria established in the applicable standards and criteria for developments of regional impact pursuant to section twelve.” (emphasis added.) That is the principal factor involved – the development is likely to have an impact in more than one town. This was a very wise nod to municipal autonomy -- the commission would not become involved in issues that affected the interests of a single town.

Furthermore, the Commission’s own regulations provide that a municipality has no authority to make a “discretionary referral” of such a project to the Commission:

“One single-family dwelling shall not be considered to have significant impacts on the values and purposes protected by the Act outside the Municipality in which it is located and may not be referred to the Commission pursuant to Section 2(b)(i) above unless that dwelling has been determined by the Massachusetts Historical Commission to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. This provision shall apply to all new construction, repair, change, alteration or extension of a single-family dwelling or an accessory structure, septic system or water well relative thereto.” Enabling Regulations Governing Review of Developments of Regional Impact, Barnstable County Ordinance 90-12, Section 2(b)(ii).

Finally, there is nothing in the Commission’s own regulations which suggest that it has the discretionary authority to deem something a DRI on an ad hoc basis (when one considers the possibility, such a limitless grant of power approaches sheer lunacy).

So, if the municipality lacks the authority to make a “discretionary referral” to the Commission and the Commission lacks the jurisdiction to do so on its own, how does the Commission now vote to review the project?

It would appear possible that the Commission has determined that the “Hopper landscape” has some historical significance, in which case they would purport to shoehorn the notion of a “historical landscape” into the statutory language that applies to historical structures and districts (which is otherwise not relevant here). Lacking anything specific upon which to hang its hat, here is the explanation from the Commission’s staff person:

“Agency staff recommended that the commission review the Kline home as a development of regional impact because of the cultural, historic and natural significance of the area.”

One would hope that regulatory authority would be based upon something less ephemeral, like a regulation.

It is a breathtaking notion that, upon the recommendation of a staff member, any portion of the Cape’s landscape could be deemed an “historical landscape” and therefore subject to some new regulatory rubric where none currently exists. It is one thing for the Commission to have jurisdiction over alteration of dwellings within historical districts – this authority was written into the Act originally. But what exactly is an “historical landscape” or a “cultural landscape?” If one includes the landscapes described in vivid detail in hundreds of novels published during the past century (Joseph Lincoln’s forty novels come to mind), one surmises that virtually every corner of Cape Cod might qualify. Why would Edward Hopper’s personal choice be the limit?

If the commission desires to extend its jurisdiction to cover the building of one home under any circumstances, then it should draft amendments to the Barnstable County Ordinances and amend the Commission Act. In that fashion, the communities and their representatives can all become involved in the debate over what is, and isn’t, an appropriate exercise in regional planning.

Scrambling for Business

2007-09-26T18:02:00.000-04:00

Lamentations of a Horse with No Big Dog

For all the inventions that the Golf Gods have bestowed upon us mortals, one I could do without is the dreaded Scramble.

It is not so much the format (well, okay, it is). Although I try to avoid a scramble like HPV, the only time I can’t avoid one is when it’s business-related. Some very wealthy and civic-minded client is always inviting me to join his group. He’s paying a lot of money to some charity or another, and he feels as though he should at least have a fighting chance to bring home some booty. Since I am cursed with a handicap far below where it should be (more on that another day), he looks upon me as the proverbial “horse.” And he’ll make no bones about saddling up, either.

Last week it was the Herbie Cutler Memorial Super-Scramble to Benefit the Orphans of Afghani Sports Greats. So I am told, these athletes did not die from sports-related injuries, unless you count being shot for losing to Belgium in the World Cup.

The event was held at the ultra-prestigious Tremulous Albatross Club in Locust Valley (how could any prescient real estate developer name a wealthy suburb after a swarming insect? Doesn’t it say something about the neighbors?). It is one of the insidious tactics of scramble organizers to schedule their events at the most exclusive private clubs, so that what the tournament lacks in quality of play is more than made up by the lure and panache of the locale. At $10,000 a foursome, you’ve got to offer a pretty fancy product, you know.

Prestigious is a hard mantle to don when your first task on arrival is to run the gauntlet of the “check-in.” You pick up your bag tag and a little plastic bag with some tees, a sleeve of double –XL super-core balls built for durability and extra distance (I have a couple dozen in the trunk, still in the sleeves), and a poncho with some hideous logo on it. I have a closet at home dedicated to the apparel I collect at scrambles. I have thirteen umbrellas, four rain suits, eleven hats, six visors, two wind vests, an assortment of club covers and a box full of assorted gadgets and gizmos, including the largest collection of ball mark repair tools in New England.

Next there’s the lady with the mulligans. Now, I don’t do mulligans. I hate them – especially because my friends take them at will and usually forget them when the score is tallied. The thought of paying for them is anathema to me. But there you are. Standing in front of the tournament volunteers with their lovely smiles. Three for twenty. What the hell, the round is free, gimme three.

Next is the raffle ticket lady. She’s always got some deal that makes you spend more. Ten for twenty, twenty for thirty, or some shell game like that. I always want to ask her what the raffle prizes are, so I can see what I’m investing in. Bad idea, don’t do it. Gimme twenty, what the hell. Maybe I’ll win a visor. Or a gas grill.
So I’m already out forty bucks and I haven’t even checked out the “box lunch” yet. Forget the box lunch, is the bar open yet? Cash bar until after golf? Bummer. Gin & tonics, nine bucks? Gimme a double in a go-cup with lots of ice.

Now for some warm up. So I grab some clubs and head over to the range.

Do you think that a club should be allowed to charge a charity $300 a head for an outing and then close the grass part of the range? I think it should be a hanging offense. And what is a classy place like this doing with mats anyway? Monday outings, in all likelihood. There you have it. The range is overrun with a riot of bodies, all flailing away like they’re holding off a herd of rabid skunks. And there’s a row of people waiting behind them. So I go back to my cart and opt for the gin and tonic warm-up method.

Isn’t this fun?

After about a billion years, we’re all herded out in our carts. We look like grunion heading for the California Coast at full moon. Finally, it’s time to tee off. It’ll take me six holes to calm down and loosen up, under the best of circumstances. But my client host insists that, since I am the “low handicapper” in the group, I should hit last every time, so I can “really let the Big Dog out.” I insist that I don’t own a “Big Dog,” and I try to convince him that it actually works better for him and his other guests if I hit first, put the ball in the fairway, and let everybody else relax. But no. So I wait. And wait. And wait. Three balls, all in the crap. I don’t get paid to do this, you know.

In the middle of the first fairway we’re standing a mere 147 to the green. Chaz Boudreau, one of my client’s equipment vendors, takes out his pitching wedge, swings like a broken windmill and takes a divot so big you’d need a broker’s license to sell it. Three more like that and I could do the border of my front walk. The other two follow suit, one way left, one way right, and then: “It’s all up to you, pard!”

**Sigh**

I remember why I really hate the golf part of scrambles when I reach the first green. Again, I have to go last, and my team mates insist that I watch each putt carefully so that I know exactly what the putt is going to do. This might work if they were fair putters. One guy cuts his putt, another guy pulls his – and the speeds are all wrong. So I pretend to watch and then, if I make it, thank them all for their invaluable help. What a team effort!!

Okay, I’m being grumpy. The truth is I’d play golf with anyone, anyplace, anytime. And a business scramble is good, because I meet a few new guys, talk about some business, learn something new, have a few laughs, make a few friends. I might tend to get a little hinky if the pace is too slow, but that’s what the beer cart is for. Just relax and have a good time. So if you’re stuck for a fourth and the company’s buying, shoot me an email. That is, if you’re looking for a grumpy horse.

Cartoon Round-up

2007-09-20T20:33:00.001-04:00

A sample of bro's cartoons as he heads off on vacation to the Maine coast:

Buddy Can You Spare a Million?

2007-09-13T16:42:00.000-04:00

Joseph Zawinul

2007-09-12T07:50:00.000-04:00

Joseph Zawinul, the Austrian keyboard impressario and architect of jazz fusion, has died.

It might seem unusual that I would choose the death of Joe Zawinul as the subject of my first post in several months, but there is no other musician who has had a greater effect on the development of my musical tastes than he.

Somewhat by accident, in 1971 I visited a friend while home from boarding school for a long weekend. We did what a lot of irresponsible teenagers did in that era (smoked a lot of pot) and he put on Weather Report, the first album just released by the new group formed by Zawinul and saxophone genius Wayne Shorter. Within the first 30 seconds of "Milky Way," I felt quite clearly that my musical taste had been rocked. I was only sixteen years old, and I had thought the musical world began and ended with Jimi Hendrix. I mean, how could anything get more out-of-this-world than Electric Ladyland? By the time I had made it through "Morning Lake" and "Waterfall," I was a goner.

Shortly, I bought Miles Davis' seminal two-album set, Bitches Brew, and was hypnotized by Zawinul's Pharaoh's Dance. It was also my introduction to Davis himself, as well as clarinetist Benny Maupin, guitarist John McLaughlin, pianist Chick Corea and a host of others.

Soon I had bought every Cannonball Adderly record Zawinul appeared on and I was chasing Benny Maupin and Chick Corea around whenever they made an appearance at Paul's Mall.

For the next ten years, I don't think I thought about rock and roll. I followed, and bought, all of the music of those above -- Mahavishnu Orchestra, Herbie Hancock, Return to Forever (which introduced me to Gary Burton) -- but nothing excited me more than the release of another Weather Report album. Nothing. And as new musicians appeared on the latest record (e.g., Alphonso Johnson, Jaco Pastorius), their works, too, were purchased. I tell you, I have quite a vinyl collection of fusion!

Every album is, from beginning to end, crammed full of flawless, astonishingly free composition, redolent of soul, utterly original and so expressive that you can see in your mind's eye the images that inspired the Zawinul-Shorter duo. His philosophy about their music might best be explained by a comment he made (somewhat in anger) in response to an interviewer's remark about the music being "random and thoughtless":

"I don't talk to those idiots, man," snapped Zawinul. "We just play what we feel inside, and this is really the first chance any of us has had to do that. We are members of our own band, we do exactly as we want to and we're so much the better for that."

"Our music is especially relevant to young people because it is so young itself. It's always fresh," Zawinul added, "Young people feel more than they think, so they're not always going 'I don't understand it.' Who gives a fuck who understands it? I mean, people understand so much and they still can't live in peace. Everybody understands everything and don't feel nothing."

I do not believe there has ever been a more powerful collaboration of two musicians than Zawinul and Shorter, who first met in 1959 while playing for Maynard Ferguson. Shorter brought Zawinul into the Bitches Brew project, and they formed Weather Report in late 1970 after completing the recording of Davis' In a Silent Way. They composed and played together like Yin and Yang until their final album, This is This in 1986 (probably their weakest work, done under pressure from Columbia when they were beginning to do other things independently), which includes guitar work from Carlos Santana.

Here is an exhaustive and authoritative discography of everything Weather Report did. It includes thorough biographical and historical notes on the players and their history together. It's a great read, for jazz afficionados.

This man's truly remarkable life is told in a biography entitled In a Silent Way, by British jazz writer Brian Glasser.

Thank you, Joe Zawinul.

Mitt Violates Leash Law!

2007-07-11T13:24:00.000-04:00

In the wake of the grave controversy regarding Mitt Romney's alleged animal cruelty, the Boston Globe has now reported that Romney may also have been a habitual violator of his hometown's dog leash law. This latest disclosure threatens to end his once promising presidential ambitions prematurely.

Caught by surprise by the Globe's investigative reporter, Romney's sister Jane blurted out the corpus delecti:

She says he was such a social dog that he often left Mitt Romney's Belmont home to visit his "dog friends" around town. "He kept ending up at the pound," she says. "They were worried about him getting hit crossing the street." So a few years after Seamus's ride to Canada, Mitt sent Seamus to live for a time with Jane and her family in California. "We had more space, so he could roam more freely," she says.

Sources suggest that the sister may also have been in violation of similar leash laws in California.
_______________________________________________

Well that's how I'd anticipate reading about this nonsense on the prevailing leftie blogs.

Pfff, animal abuse. The whole thing is so petty, so intellectually dishonest, so sanctimonious and phoney, it makes me laugh.

There are plenty of issues on which Mitt Romney should be held accountable -- and is answering to every day. His treatment of the family dog isn't one of them.

Senate Filibuster Redux

2007-07-02T20:37:00.000-04:00

[Apologies for the excessively spare posting, folks. I have become engaged in an exhilarating project -- asisting my father with the writing of his memoirs, and it is consuming much of my creative energy.]

Over two years ago, the nation was engaged in a great political debate as the majority Republicans in the Senate openly contemplated revising their cloture rules to prevent the minority party from being able to filibuster federal judicial nominees. It was referred to ad nauseam back then as the "nuclear option," i.e., reducing the percentage of votes required to reach cloture from 60% to a majority.

In a somewhat iconoclastic post at the time I argued thus:

The majority party in Congress is certain to change (eventually), the White House will not be held by the current party forever, and all in all, things seem to work themselves out -- provided that members of Congress cooperate, and do their job.

If the Republicans exercise their "nuclear option," what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The Senate has a resilient institutional memory. "People remember." And if the body of federal case law precedent is so radically shifted to the right by these so-called radical right activist judges, then it will be the privilege of the controlling Democrats at the time to shove a bunch of radical liberals down the throats of their opponents.

Admittedly, the subject matter upon which this stalemate arose was the stalled appointment of Bush's nmominees to the federal bench -- and that alone. But it was (at least in significant part) due to the so-called "gang of fourteen" compromise that avoided the stalemate and eventually led to the appointment of John Roberts and Sam Alito to the Supreme Court.

Now, of course, the "sauce for the gander" that I warned about has come to the Democrats roost, and poor Nancy Pelosi is complaining to her home town paper about those "obstructionist Republicans" in the Senate using the cloture rules to hamstring the anti-war vote, the immigration bill and other important priorities of theirs.

The difference in 2005 was the compromise agreement of the 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats. A similar compromise was not achievable with the immigration reform bill.

That is no reason for Democrats to begin contemplating Frist's "nuclear option" again.

Court of Rock

2007-06-11T07:09:00.000-04:00

Courtesy of Lowering the Bar, I commend to you the sentencing memorandum of one Judge Gregory R. Todd of the Montana Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, which reads, in part:

Mr. McCormack, you pled guilty to the charge of Burglary. To aid me in sentencing, I review the pre-sentence investigation report. I read with interest the section containing Defendant's statement. To the question of "Give your recommendation as to what you think the Court should do in this case," you said, "Like the Beetles say, 'Let it Be.'"

While I will not explore the epistemological or ontological overtones of your response, or even the syntactic or symbolic keys of your allusion, I will say Hey Jude, Do You Want to Know a Secret? The greatest band in rock history spelled their name B-E-A-T-L-E-S.

Read the whole thing.

"How Could You Do This To Me!!!!!!!"

2007-06-11T06:54:00.000-04:00

...shrieked Martha Stewart at one of her assistants, after her chauffeur was arrested outside of "The View" studios on the Upper West Side:

"How could you do this to me? Don't you do background checks on people? He was Egyptian! What do I pay you people for?"

**GASP*** He was Egyptian!!

At least he spoke English.

Draining the Swamp

2007-06-01T17:49:00.000-04:00

The continued (aggressive and insatiable) pursuit of earmarking pork, in the face of such solemn Goo-Goo talk before the election, makes me sick.

No News Is Big News?

2007-05-26T17:23:00.000-04:00

The same day that the Boston Herald's gossip columnists were touting the new book slamming the anti-Cape Wind folks, Govenor Patrick was engaged in a wide ranging interview with the editorial board of the Cae Cod Times. During that interview, he made what I would have thought to be a significant statement. Leading the Cape Cod Times' May 26th story following the meeting was the following:

HYANNIS — Gov. Deval Patrick's administration is exploring sites for offshore wind turbines beyond Cape Wind's, a move the governor hopes will make Massachusetts a leader in renewable energy.

During a wide-ranging interview with the Cape Cod Times editorial board, Patrick said the state is one of the best places for deep-water wind turbines and his administration wants to exploit that advantage.

The state may locate and permit sites before a developer comes in with a plan, Patrick said. New Jersey, Rhode Island and Delaware are doing similar pre-permitting.

The CCT article was picked up by the AP, and the Boston Herald ran it on Friday as well.

The Boston Globe, however, ran nothing Friday and only a bit piece on it in the Saturday New England in Brief section.

There's a standard in the news making and reporting business. News makers release bad news on Fridays, preferably of a major holiday weekend. Media outlets that do not want stories read publish them on Saturdays.

It would seem to me that Patrick's statement is a significant public policy announcement that goes well beyond his previous remarks in general support of alternative energy including wind, and his support for the Cape Wind project specifically. Now he is saying that he would invite other private sector wind energy developers to build more windmills off the coast of Massachusetts.

Why would Patrick choose to make this statement to the Cape Cod Times on the Thursday before one of the biggest holidays of the year?

Why would the Boston Globe all but ignore the story entirely? It opposes Cape Wind, but was trumpeting a competing proposal intended for the treacherous waters of Buzzards Bay.

Windmills Versus Blowhards

2007-05-24T07:13:00.000-04:00

Jumping to the top of my summer reading list is Cape Wind: Money, Celebrity, Class, Politics and the Battle for Our Energy Future on Nantucket Sound, by Providence Journal editor Robert Whitcomb and Wendy Williams. Never heard about this book? That doesn't surprise me -- the Boston Globe fails to mention a word of its publication. In fact, I learned of the book just this morning courtesy of the Herald's gossip columnists, Gayle Fee and Laura Raposa.

According to one reviewer, this is a "book on politics that reads like a whodunit," and tells the story of the behind-the-scenes efforts of extraordinarily rich people to thwart the Cape Wind project.

The cabal of uber-privileged who live in the Wianno Avenue - Hyannisport - Nantucket axis really take it on the chin here, and who doesn't like to read about rich people being hypocrites.

Some special quotes, courtesy of Fee and Raposa:

The portrait of the opponents is not kind. Bunny Mellon calls one windmill supporter “a traitor to your class.” Jamie McCourt, co-owner of the L.A. Dodgers, tells a Cape Wind attorney, “I bleeping hate you.” “John Adams” author - and Vineyard resident - David McCullough rants and raves while ex-CBS newsman Walter Cronkite - who made an infomercial for the Alliance before reversing his opinion and deciding he no longer wanted to oppose the project - is portrayed as “a pitiful old man.” As for RFK Jr., Whitcomb calls him “a troubled person.”

“His reaction is so irrational and incoherent, there’s not much to say,” he said.

But I think this remark from Ted Kennedy sums up the opposition:

“The sight of them bothers me,” Sen. Kennedy is quoted as telling retired utility exec - and wind farm supporter - Jim Leidell.

When told that most of the time the turbines - which would generating enough energy to power Cape Cod during peak usage times - would be either invisible or barely visible from the Kennedy Compound, Ted reportedly replied, “But don’t you realize, that’s where I sail.”

That's where I sail.

Man, what can you say to people who adore this man as the savior of the downtrodden?

Immigration Lawyers' Dream

2007-05-22T09:38:00.000-04:00

This Immigration Bill is the perfect example of why people don't want to watch laws or sausage being made. I can read and write the English language as my own, I am a lawyer and former legislator, and I have no idea what it says.

"Compromise" legislation is always like this. Those that benefit the most are typically the lawyers who practice in the field.

Heating Up Global Warming Debate

2007-04-30T07:53:00.000-04:00

I made a mistake this morning, going to Glen Reynolds' blog for some news.

In his usual style, he slips us these brief comments and a link. Follow those links and sometimes you get more than you bargained for.

In this case, the link was to a site purporting to offer Free Carbon Offsets, but in actuality offering an avalanche of links on the global warming issue that will take a month to read.

But here is one little piece of information that truly struck me cold. The link is to an extensive and exhaustive document from the office of Senator James Imhoff, and contains references to much scientific testimony and evidence that refutes the alarmists. On page 21-22 of his statement, he says (in rference to the process by which the IPCC's final report was produced):

The flaws in the IPCC process began to manifest themselves in the first assessment, but did so in earnest
when the IPCC issued its second assessment report in . The most obvious was the altering of the
document on the central question of whether man is causing global warming.

Here is what Chapter 8 – the key chapter in the report – stated on this central question in the final
version accepted by reviewing scientists:

“No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to
anthropogenic causes.”

But when the final version was published, this and similar phrases in 15 sections of the chapter were
deleted or modified. Nearly all the changes removed hints of scientific doubts regarding the claim that
human activities are having a major impact on global warming.

In the Summary for Policy Makers – which is the only part of the report that reporters and policy makers
read – a single phrase was inserted. It reads:

“The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.”

The lead author for Chapter , Dr. Ben Santer, should not be held solely accountable. According to the
journal Nature, the changes to the report were made in the midst of high-level pressure from the Clinton
/ Gore State Department to do so. I understand that after the State Department sent a letter to Sir John
Houghton, co-Chairman of the IPCC, Houghton prevailed upon Santer to make the changes. The impact
was explosive, with media across the world, including heavyweights such as Peter Jennings, declaring
this as proof that man is responsible for global warming.

Agenda-driven science will be the end of us.

I Fart In Your General Direction,...

2007-04-28T23:05:00.001-04:00

goes one of the great insults hurled at Sir Arthur from above as he seeks entry to a French castle in his quest for the Holy Grail.

So to, it seems, are the "green industries" doing to Al Gore, Cheryl Crow, Laurie David and the rest of the Green Elite, according to this story in the London Financial Times:

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.

The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a “green gold rush”, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go “carbon neutral”, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.

The FT investigation found:

■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.

■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.

■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.

■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.

■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.

Francis Sullivan, environment adviser at HSBC, the UK’s biggest bank that went carbon-neutral in 2005, said he found “serious credibility concerns” in the offsetting market after evaluating it for several months.

“The police, the fraud squad and trading standards need to be looking into this. Otherwise people will lose faith in it,” he said.

Read it and laugh.

Lose faith indeed.

It is not that the concept of being responsible for one's "carbon footprint" is by itself beyond reason. It isn't, to a point.

But I see a "movement" that seeks to impose upon ordinary people living ordinary lives the onus of saving a planet that is not truly endangered by them, promoted by the folks who drink glasses of $100 chablis around the illegal 45' long barbecue pit of Larry and Laurie David.

So in which "general direction" does this fart travel?

Green Hypocrites

2007-04-27T15:35:00.000-04:00

I've been reflecting on the story linked in the previous post -- that every one of the Dem candidates took their own private jet to South Carolina. I recall all of the indignation of the left against the criticism of John Edwards for his enormous energy-gobbling house. And Al Gore's enormous energy-gobbling house. And Cheryl Crow's silly embarrassment about toilet paper. And her escapade with Laurie David harassing Karl Rove at the Washington correspondents dinner. (by the way, the Rove link is an excellent eye witness account which, when viewed next to the Crow-David account serves to make them look even more fatuous.)

And then Rhod reminded me with his comment about Laurie David's infamous barbecue pit brouhaha in Edgartown, which I tried to chase down. It was a link from Instapundit to this piece from something called HealthNewsDigest.com:

Even worse is David's chic but hypocritical environmentalism at her summer home in Martha's Vineyard. She was issued a "notice of apparent violations" for building a 26-foot-long barbecue station, stone-and-concrete bonfire pit, and outdoor theater on an environmentally sensitive patch of their 14-acre North Road property without the proper permits. They were also cited for tearing up protected vegetation to make way for a lush, sodded lawn, among other crimes against nature.

The commission has since ordered her to remove the offending structures and restore the area to its previous state. All these violations were allegedly done to prepare for a political fundraiser hosted by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (another faux Green). Alas, there's no such thing as cheap environmentalism on the Vineyard.

Laurie David has been labeled a "Gulfstream liberal" by Eric Alterman, himself a proud member of the Left and a regular columnist for the Nation. He recognizes that Ms. David's brand of environmentalism is nothing more than a facade, a distraction from the financially secure yet intellectually boring life of the fabulously wealthy. But this hobby has dire consequences for the rest of us. By transforming her politics into a religion, and by demonizing all who question her positions, including the author Michael Crichton, who actually is a Harvard trained scientist and physician, Laurie David makes the environmental movement seem bizarre and more than a bit ridiculous.

It seems terribly obvious to me that any person on the liberal side of the spectrum with a whisper of intellectual honesty would have to concede that these people are devoid of any moral authority to be lecturing anyone on global warming, or environmentalism generally, where they display such arrogant disregard for their own words.

Who the heck needs a 26 foot long barbecue pit, anyway? How many rib parties can you have in Edgartown during the course of a season anyway? I'd think those Beautiful People have their own code of social grace that limits each of them to only one Gaudily Extravagant Function per season.

Why Do They Get Away With This?

2007-04-27T11:50:00.000-04:00

2008 Candidates Rely on Private Jets
By JIM KUHNHENN
Associated Press Writer

April 26, 2007, 6:44 PM EDT

WASHINGTON -- A flock of small jets took flight from Washington Thursday, each carrying a Democratic presidential candidate to South Carolina for the first debate of the political season.

For Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, it was wheels up shortly after they voted in favor of legislation requiring that U.S. troops begin returning home from Iraq in the fall.

No one jet pooled, no one took commercial flights to save money, fuel or emissions.

All but Biden, who flew on a private jet, chartered their flights -- a campaign expense of between $7,500 and $9,000.

At the same time they are involved in the collective effort to make global warming the Big Scare of the next decade, while Cheryl Crow talks about toilet paper and harangues Karl Rove at a White House correspondents dinner, these fatuous phoneys don't have the presence of mind to consider the rank hypocrisy of this one poignant collective brain cramp.

If I were a salesman of carbon offsets, I'd be cold calling this morning. Oh wait. Al Gore's companies are already lined up.

Ireland Fires Back

2007-04-25T22:49:00.000-04:00

Just because I find Alec Baldwin to be a repugnant human being, and certainly not because I have any great affection for his self-indulgent ex-wife, I link you this hilarious piece of performance art, courtesy of Ace.

Santa Follows Imus

2007-04-25T10:44:00.000-04:00

This is somewhat trite, I concede, but it makes the point I have argued in comment threats (ad nauseam)well: a statement cannot be bigoted or racist without animus on the part of the speaker. Lenny Bruce's famed comic bit is more instructive today than it was three decades ago.

Lee Harvey Oswald & the Patsies

2007-04-19T11:35:00.000-04:00

When I saw this photo the first time (years ago), I laughed so hard I hurt myself. I neglected to save it, however. Last week in a comment thread at Wizbang, some moonbat was arguing about the conspiracy to assasinate JFK (in defense of his claim to a 9/11 conspiracy). I asked if anyone had the photo and Bullwinkle obliged.

I like the left-handed Strat, a la Hendrix.

UPDATE: I received a very interesting email from my buddy, Architect Mike. He pointed out that his mother once dated one of the men who witnessed the shooting of Oswald. Here are two of the original photos:

Furthermore, he suggested that I note the partially obscured grafitti on the wall behind Oswald, and forwarded me a photo showing the emblem for the 1980's band The Dead Kennedys.

Cool!

Extinction of the Turquoise Buffalo

2007-04-19T11:31:00.000-04:00

April Showers?

2007-04-17T09:31:00.000-04:00

This is April 17th, correct? My wife and duaghter were scheduled to travel to Syracuse for an "admitted students" program, but had to cancel the trip because we felt it unwise to have them driving through a SNOW STORM.

Here at home, the Nor'easter showed itself proud at the shore. (Photo courtesy of The Octogenarian.)

One Plucky Goose Thief

2007-04-14T10:04:00.000-04:00

More from Taylor's Winston Churchill: An Informal Study of Greatness:

A good many of Churchill's activities in the Boer War centered on fodder. He took some outrageous chances to dine luxuriously. He got a name for being a scrounger above and beyond the call of duty. There was the matter of the purloined goose. Traveling through a country cparse in produce. he scouted an unprotected flock of fat geese. He chose a spot downwind and crouched in the underbrush, waiting his chance. It was a fretful operation, since other units were coming up and there was a danger of losing the flock to attrition. At length Churchill spied a straggler, then pranced out and delivered a heroic kick, aimed to hoist the bird over a fence. Owing to a miscalculation, and a cross wind, it sailed into the highway and the lap of a martinet colonel, who hauled CHurchill up for a public rebuke. It is a matter of pride to Churchill's political allies that he has taken some of the fieriest tongue-lashings in history without turning a hair. His knowledge of his qualities has always been too secure to permit wilting from censure by mediocrities. He listened attentively to the colonel, returned a brisk salute, wheeled, snatched up the goose, which was lying in the road, and fled. Later, squatting in the bush, he cooked the bird himself, after which he shared it with some like-minded unregenerates.

EXCERPTS FROM A MASTERPIECE

2007-04-12T17:08:00.000-04:00

In keeping with the rather eclectic nature of this blog, today I would like to share with you portions of Winston Churchill, An Informal Study of Greatness, a biography written by Robert Lewis Taylor (Doubleday, 1952). Written while Churchill was enjoying his later years out of office, this biography reveals not only the utter genius, eccentricities and unquenchable energy of Churchill, but also the enormous wit of the author, whose company I assume Churchill enjoyed.

I must confess that before I opened this book (obtained from the library of my late father-in-law post mortem), I had little knowledge of this great man. I was only vaguely aware of his reputation as an entertaining orator and leader of Britain during WWII. Having been edified, I must now begin to tackle Churchill's own body of writing -- which I do with much zeal.

As I read this book (chiefly while on an eliptical machine at the health club or on a commuter boat racing across Boston Harbor), I was prompted to laugh out loud almost incessantly -- often enough that I was asked many times what in the world could be so funny. Sometimes it was humor, others it was simply the wit of how something was conveyed.

So I dog-eared a a few passages later in the book that I thought particularly noteworthy, so that I could share them with you, my loyal reader(s).
_________________________________________________

During the 1920's, Churchill composed a weighty tome of work entitled The World Crisis, in essence an exhaustive study of World War I.

Taylor described how the British journals received the work, and made the following observation of the difference between British and American criticism:

The critical tone of these remarks was candid, but the English as a whole are conspicuously frank in their reviews. "It was one of those books which, once you have set down, is almost impossible to pick back up," said a writer not long ago, dealing with the work of a cherished friend. The give-and-take spirit is genial, rather unlike that in America, where critics have been shot down like dogs for challenging a fugitive comma. But England belongs to an older civilization, in which all the known insults have been bandied about so persistently that they have lost their sting. Moreover, the dueling blade has disappeared, and its modern substitute, the naked subpoena, is not much of a deterrent to unvarnished speech.
__________________________________________________

Churchill developed an immediate fondness for oil painting while first sitting for his portrait, painted by Sir John Lavery, an Irish painter who, unwillingly, introduced Churchill to the art form by obligingly enduring Churchill's constant assessments of the work-in-progress. Churchill soon had purchased all of the necessary supplied and described his first foray into the process of creation:

Having bought the colors, an easel, and a canvas, the next step was to begin. But what step to take! The palette gleamed with beads of colour; fair and white rose the canvas; the empty brush hung poised, heavy with destiny, irresolute in the air. My hand seemed arrested by a silent veto. But after all the sky on this occasion was unquestionably blue, and a pale blue at that. There could be no doubt that blue paint mixed with white should be put on the top part of the canvas. One really does not to have an artist's training to see that. It is a starting point open to all. So very gingerly I mixed a little blue paint on the palette with a very small brush, and then with infinite precaution made a mark about as big as a bean upon the afronted snow-white shield. It ws a challenge, a deliberate challenge; but so subdued, so halting, indeed so cataleptic, that it deserved no response. At that moment the loud approaching sound of a motor-car was heard in the drive. From this chariot there stepped swiftly and lightly none other than the gifted wife of Sir John Lavery. "Painting! But what are you hesitating about? Let me have a brush - the big one." Splash into the turpentine, wallop into the blue and the white, frantic flourish on the palette - clean non longer - and then several large, fierce strokes and slashes of blue on the absolutely cowering canvas. Anyone could see that it could not hit back. No evil fate avenged the jaunty violence. The canvas grinned in helplessness before me. The spell was broken. The sickly inhibitions rolled away. I seized the laregest brush and fell upon my victim with berserk fury. I have never felt any awe of a canvas since.

Beautiful, isn't it?

Churchill went on to paint prolifically, and his works were displayed with prominence in galleries in France and England.

Historian, statesman, partisan, novelist, artist, orator extraordinaire. And consumer of scotch, champagne, brandy and cigars in copious quantities.

My kind of guy.

Plese let me know if this is the sort of thing you enjoy reading -- it would delight me to continue sharing.

Did You Say "Racist?"

2007-04-11T16:34:00.000-04:00

I would like to say a quite a few words about the Don Imus controversy, but Jim Morin's cartoon here conveys my thoughts precisely.

Romney Shoots Himself in the Foot

2007-04-05T06:40:00.000-04:00

Why do they do this?

"I purchased a gun when I was a young man," the AP quoted Romney as saying. "I've been a hunter pretty much all my life."

Now, Romney's campaign is acknowledging that, despite his assertion that he was a longtime hunter, Romney, 60, had in fact hunted one summer as a teenager and then just once when he was in his late 50s.

This is the type of thing that makes the average person distrust (if not downright despise) politicians.

The Little White Lies are what distinguishes a genuine candidate from a phoney. The Little White Lies are a large factor in the public's distrust of Hillary Clinton. The futures trade. The billing records. The used underwear. Joe Biden couldn't even get out of the gate because he borrowed a sentence from a Neil Kinnock speech -- and the sentence was true. But that was then.

When Mitt Romney entered politics, he was as clean as an MIT lab. The man couldn't lie. It was not in his vocabulary. But a few years in office and some well-paid "consultants" will do a lot to taint a man's character.

How does this happen?Strongly advised by his handlers that the gun owners were an essential constituency for him to capture, he offers up that he once owned a gun when he was a teenager. Prodded further by the handlers, he remembers doing a bit of rabbit hunting one summer in Idaho. Then, they suggest, he's "been a hunter all his life." The first time he sees a man with an NRA hat on, out it comes. Woops!

This is John Kerryism at its worst. It's even worse than "can I get me a huntin' license here?"

I was annoyed enough to be pelted with the recent Romney television ad which touts how he "turned around" a democratic state after rescuing the Olympics. I'll give him the Olympics claim. The only thing he turned around here was his back -- towards us.

But at least I've come to expect such puffery in a Presidential campaign. I'd prefer the unvarnished truth from everyone, but I'm not that gullible.

I'll accept that the Next President is telling me things now that are not going to become true. But if s/he isn't capable of the simple humility to tell the truth about seemingly insignificant details of his/her past, I wonder if he truly stands for anything. He ends up looking like nothing more than a mouthpiece for his consultants. Another unknown product in a glossy package.

The thing I liked about Mitt Romney when I first worked for his campaign in 1994 was that he was the squeaky clean Eagle Scout. This sort of dissembling does a disservice to the Boy Scout Oath:

TRUSTWORTHY
A Scout tells the truth. He keeps his promises. Honesty is part of his code of conduct. People can depend on him.

Read it again, Gov. Remember it.

The Best Ostrich Post Ever

2007-04-03T18:55:00.000-04:00

Copied and pasted directly from Lowering the Bar. No editing necessary. Warning: may cause hyperventilation.

Ostrich Murderer Walks Away With Five-Month Sentence

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on March 29 that a man who murdered an ostrich late last year had been released from jail after serving only a five-month sentence for animal abuse.

This despite the fact that it was a cold-blooded, premeditated murder carried out for revenge.

According to the report, Jonathon Porter and a friend, Timothy McKevitt, "got in trouble after they took some women to an ostrich ranch after a party last Halloween." As any drunken armed male ostrich farmer could tell you, women, ostriches, liquor and firearms just do not mix.

Porter's attorney described what happened. "Apparently the young ladies expressed an interest in seeing the ostriches," he said. Apparently there were no air quotes around "seeing the ostriches," and so they actually went to an ostrich farm and began to bother an ostrich. "That all sounded like a good idea," the attorney continued, "until the ostrich physically attacked [the two men], and apparently he got the better of them." According to the police report, both men were brutally kicked into submission by the ostrich, McKevitt actually being knocked to the ground by the savage bird, who, to make matters worse, is flightless, and who, to make matters even worse, is named "Gaylord." A district attorney took up the story, saying that "at that point, the crucial thing happened. Apparently the girls started laughing."

For Gaylord, the female laughter was a death sentence. "We knew what had to be done," Porter told police afterward. Yes, after being humiliated by an ostrich, there is only one thing a man can do. Porter and McKevitt took the women out of harm's way, and out of laughing distance, armed themselves with a rifle and shotgun, and returned to the farm. Gaylord then paid the price for his arrogance, dying in a hail of bullets.

Porter, who was already on probation, was taken into custody and effectively served five months in jail for the killing. McKevitt has pleaded not guilty to felony animal abuse and is scheduled for trial in July.

Predictably, the two attorneys each had a different take on the matter. Porter's attorney conceded that he would "hesitate to ascribe any sort of rational motive" to the ostrich revenge killing, which sort of sounds like there might possibly be a rational motive for an ostrich revenge killing, if only we looked into the matter more closely. "It was a cross between being really startled by the ostrich and the alcohol," he continued (which is the first time I've heard of someone being startled by alcohol), which "led to a really bad decision." But the district attorney had a different view. "This whole thing is about male pride," he said. "The ostrich knocked them both on their butts."

Thank you for that.

Another Example of Why We Love Golf

2007-03-29T12:21:00.000-04:00

A lot of people don't get pro golf -- especially watching it on television.

They don't know what they're missing.

Because not only are "these guys good," they're also good. Good people, that is. Most of 'em, anyway.

Here's a fine example:

Having completed his second round at the CA Championship, Paul Goydos was basking in the less-stressful atmosphere of a World Golf Championship, which he was experiencing for the first time.

Goydos was there thanks to his win at the Sony Open in Hawaii in January. It was his second career win on the PGA Tour, but talk soon rolled around to Doral's 18th hole and other finishing holes, such as the one at St. Andrews.

"I've never played St. Andrews," said Goydos.

Eyebrows were raised, and a reporter suggested that if Goydos's PGA Tour were secure by October, which it should be, then maybe he would entertain thoughts of playing at St. Andrews in the Dunhill Links Championship. He liked the thought of that. "It's their version of the Pebble Beach [Pro-Am]," said Goydos.

When told he could perhaps even get an appearance fee, Goydos shook his head.

"I'm not into that," he said. "If somebody's willing to pay me to have me in their field, then I've got to think there's something wrong with the tournament."

Goydos gets it. Not that I begrudge, say, John Daly for his gluttonous pursuit of appearance fees -- he's got so many alimony checks to write, he needs everything he can get, and his actual play isn't going to win him enough to cover the nut.

But here's a guy who is willing to go compete for a prize, straight up, no guarantees. Passing up the easy money.

Wow, I hope that attitude wins him a few more tournaments.

Patrick's Inexplicable Defense of Bump

2007-03-29T06:47:00.000-04:00

Governor Patrick has responded to yesterday's story about is labor chief's political interference with the labor relations commission with the following statement:

""I don't know all the details, and I haven't talked to her," Patrick said about Suzanne M. Bump's discussions with the Labor Relations Commission. "But it sure doesn't sound like it" was inappropriate.

This is an astonishing statement, coming from a seasoned attorney and former Justice Department official.

Two commissioners of the Labor Relations Commission are meeting with the individual in charge of making their budget request. They state to this agency head that they have a serious backlog of cases due to staff shortages and they need more funds to increase staff levels.

The agency head responds: "We're very interested in the outcome of this particular matter that is before you."

Is there really any question in a reasoned person's mind that such an exchange (which Bump admits occurred) should raise a question of propriety? Is there a plausible explanation that is innocent? Well, maybe plausible, but barely so. Normal people see this. Why doesn't Patrick? And if he does see it, why does he make such an astonishing statement (especially in light of the burgeoning series of blunders out from which he is attempting to crawl)?

Years ago, the current Speaker of the House, Sal DiMasi, was Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. His Committee (well, he, really) was principally in charge of constructing the budget for the entire branch of the judiciary. Literally, trial court judges' salaries depended on his support. During this period of time, his private civil and criminal litigation practice flourished as he was retained to appear before trial court judges all over eastern Massachusetts. Imagine a trial judge hearing a Motion to Dismiss a criminal charge (say, oh, a DUI) brought by the Chairman of the legislative committee before whom the judge's pay raise is pending. Does the Chairman have to say to the judge, "I'm watching you?" No, he doesn't, and he knew it. Why I can envision him describing the scenario: he walks into the courtroom, whereupon the judge's mere sight of him causes an embarrassing scatalogical mishap.

This is a no brainer. And that is both a literal truth and a double entendre.

Patrick Administration Blunders Worsen

2007-03-28T07:54:00.000-04:00

As the new administration of Deval Patrick lurched from one boneheaded blunder to the next, I once found myself thinking that, as dumb as each one was, they were all more or less "symbolic" and were the product of inexperience or amateurism.

That changed this morning with the revelation that Patrick's very experienced head of "workforce development" (formerly, and soon to be, "Secretary of Labor") Suzanne Bump admitted to accusations that she raised labor union political issues directly with commissioners of the independent Labor Relations Commission. Her actions represent an egregious breach of propriety and suggest that the public employee unions that supported Patrick in his campaign are enjoying a gaudy degree of influence.

Under state law, the Labor Relations Commission is an independent, quasi judicial panel that resolves labor disputes and enforces state labor laws. The commission falls within Bump's agency for budgetary reason, but under statute is "in no respect subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Two commissioners, Paul T. O'Neill and Hugh L. Reilly, alleged to the Boston Globe that Bump committed two inappropriate acts:

Bump made an irate phone call to commission chairman John F. Jesensky after the agency made its initial ruling that the Boston Teachers Union was violating the law with its threats to call a strike. They said she complained to him that she had not been given notice before the decision was made in the case.

About a week later, O'Neill and Reilly said, during a review of the commission's budget, Bump expressed strong support for a petition pending before the commission by Service Employees International Union, Local 1199, which spent more than $600,000 last year in support of Patrick's candidacy.

The former incident could be construed as Bump asserted -- she was angry that she had not been given the "courtesy" of being notified in advance of the decision's release to the media. But as the commissioners observed, they hadn't extended this "courtesy" to the Romney people preceding her. I think this is more a statement about Romney's people than it is about Bump. Assuming that a vote had already been taken and the written decision prepared and filed, providing courtesy notice to the managing head of the department does not raise any ethical issue. What does stand out, however, is that she would allegedly express "extreme displeasure" with the oversight. What would she have preferred? And why would she be so upset?

The second incident is far more serious, and should not be permitted to pass without further review.

Just over a week after the phone call about the Boston teachers decision, according to O'Neill and Reilly, Bump inappropriately raised a pending case when she met with them and Jesensky to discuss the agency's budget requests. During the meeting, she conveyed the administration's strong support for a petition by Service Employees International Union, Local 1199, to extend collective bargaining rights to personal care attendants for Medicaid clients.

"The message was received that this issue was of great importance to them," O'Neill said. He said Bump's comments were made as the commissioners were arguing for more funding for their beleaguered agency, which the two commissioners described as swamped with more than 600 cases a year.

For an agency department head to raise the subject of a pending union petition in the midst of a discussion about the jurisdictional agency's budget is indefensible -- especially for a seasoned attorney, lobbyist and legislator such as Bump.

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously wrote about pornography in his concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio , "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it."

In this instance, I think that intelligent people will know improper influence when they see it. A person of Bump's education and experience cannot credibly argue that she had no appreciation for the significance of her action. If she truly did not, she does not belong in the position. If she did appreciate it, she doesn't belong anywhere in an honest administration.

What They Said

2007-03-22T11:57:00.000-04:00

I confess to becoming a sloth in regards to posting material here -- it has something to do with the impositions of real life demands, coupled with a mild case of lassitude about the developments here in Massachusetts and in Washington.

The current manufactured "scandal" unfolding -- the President's replacement of 8 U. S. attorneys who he alone appoints and removes -- has me especially piqued, and yet, I still cannot muster the energy to bring my own complete thoughts to the battlefield.

Nonetheless, I have found two very lawyer-like posts that clearly and thoroughly analyze the issues at hand -- and since a few of my "loyal fans" have expressed genuine intellectual curiosity, I dutifully refer them.

First is an excellent piece by Marty Lederman at Balkinization that looks critically (among other things)on statements made by Michael Carvin, former deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel during the Reagan administration,in support of President Bush's claim of executive privilege. In recounting the News Hour discussion Carvin was quoted from, Lederman provides this pithy articulation of the issue from Stuart Taylor:

As Stuart Taylor remarked on the NewsHour: "You fire the U.S. attorney because you want him to do more death penalty cases, that's fine. You fire him because you want a Republican, that's fine. You fire him because you want to put a patronage appointee in the job, that's fine. You fire him because he's not prosecuting Democrats or because he is prosecuting Republicans, that's not fine.""

That is, of course, the "crux of the biscuit" (orig.: Frank Zappa, "Stink Foot," Apostrophe 1974) -- but does not address the question that Congress's claimed right to subpoena the WHO folks assumes: Can the subpoena power be used as a means to determining whether or not some firing activity has not been "fine?"

The answer to that question, I think, is "no," as artfully explained by Beldar in his rebuttal of Lederman.

At the risk of butchering Beldar's impressive intellectual rigor and bullet-proof analysis, his conclusion boils down to this:

In order for Congress's subpoena power to trump the President's executive privilege, Congress must have some existing (and independent) basis to demonstrate the likelihood that criminal activity has occurred. A "smoking gun," if you will. Otherwise, as Beldar suggests, if it is justified to subpoena WHO officials in order to investigate whether or not any criminal activity has occurred, the claim of executive privilege would be swallowed whole.

What I found most exhilarating in Beldar's post (probably because of its use of one bogeyman to defend another) was the citation to that most celebrated of SCOTUS precedents on the subject of executive privilege -- U. S. v. Nixon. That case reminds us that criminal activity was not only under investigation at the time Nixon's tapes were subpoena'ed, it was under trial; and furthermore, SCOTUS was so deferential to the concept of executive privlege even under those circumstances that it ordered the lower court to undertake a painstaking document-by-document review before any of the material was turned over.

In impressive flourish, Beldar says what I've thought --if not said -- from the outset:

Bring me a single Assistant U.S. Attorney who can give names, dates, places, and an explicit statutory reference to support the nebulous assertion that some crime was committed in connection with the firing of any of the U.S. Attorneys, and then I'll begin to take such arguments seriously. I find completely unbelievable, and frankly insulting to them, the notion that hundreds of career federal prosecutors would stand by and say nothing in the face of even one chargeable criminal offense affecting the integrity of our national law enforcement system. If any such crimes happened, they had to have happened literally right in front of their eyes.

What we have instead is a bunch of partisan assholes seeking to abuse their subpoena power to go fishing for evidence they can't obtain through their already quite extensive means (i.e., cooperation of the disgruntled dismissees, for a start) -- in other words, they have nothing, there is nothing.

It's time to make some new case law, then.

Lacking Confidence

2007-03-15T22:34:00.000-04:00

Alberto Gonzales may be the most brilliant Attorney General ever to serve a President.

But he sure doesn't make me think it.

A Scientific Postulate

2007-03-06T15:57:00.000-05:00

[ed. note: this is an email I received some time ago from one of my "sources" -- I don't know who the author is, but a (inferior) variant is contained at Inbox Humor]

Ahh, but to be in college again and have a brain like this......The following is supposedly an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well:

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic(absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave.

Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different Religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.

With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you, and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over.

The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct...leaving only Heaven thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."

According to lore, the student received (of course) an A+.

What A Difference a Speaker Makes

2007-03-02T13:40:00.000-05:00

If ever there were a poignant example of how the control of Congress matters, the House's March 1st passage of the euphemistically-titled "Employee Free Choice Act" is it.

Ignored by every MSM news outlet in the country, the passage of this bill (inexplicably sponsored by 215 representatives) offers an employee anything but "free choice."

The bill radically amends the National Labor Relations Act to dispense with the requirement of a secret ballot employee election before a union is certified by the NLRB. Instead, a union organizer is free to approach every worker face-to-face, put a petition in front of him, and ask for his signature. Does this suggest a "free choice" to you? What do you imagine happens when the worker says to the union organizer, "I'm sorry sir, but I am not comfortable making this decision in front of you. I would prefer to make my choice in the privacy of the ballot box."

This law would be great for the tire business.

Instad of the secret ballot election, "If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative...

There is no oversight of how those "authorizations" are requested or obtained.

Lest there is any confusion over who is pushing this gem of labor policy, my Google shows me who's paying attention:

AFL-CIO, who trumpets the "bipartisan coalition" of legislators sponsoring the bill -- 215 house members, seven of which are Republicans: two from the boroughs of New York City (Vito Fosella, Peter King) (no mystery there), one from upstate NY (John McHugh), one from the Cleveland-Akron OH district (Steve LaTourette), Chris Smith and Frank Lobiondo from New Jersey and the inestimable Chris Shays from Connecticut. Thanks, fellas.

"American Rights at Work", whose chairman is David Bonior, the former bomb-throwing radical from Michigan who left Congress in 2002 to run for Governor and was trounced in the Democratic primary, now the Chairman of John Edwards' presidential campaign.

While the news of this "workers progress" seems to have evaded MSM, it was quick to be picked up at those bastions of centrism, Democratic Underground, which called it "passed the most important labor law reform legislation in 70 years," (they could be right) and Daily Kos", whose poster avers that Republican efforts to kill this bill will go against "millions of non-union workers in this country who want to join unions."

No explanation of how the secret ballot provisions of the NLRA go against anyone, union or non-union.

What a horrible piece of legislation.

More on Lobster Welfare

2007-02-28T09:42:00.000-05:00

The Octogenarian offers this helpful hint on treating the lobster with humanity:

No where in this article do I see the most sensible way to "do in" a lobster. Whether it thinks, or not, has no bearing on the following method:

Buy some cheap wine. The type is not important except if you prefer a certain wine with your lobster dinner. If that is the case, you can save money by using the same wine you plan to drink with your Lobster dinner.

Pour some in a large pan (preferable a white enamelled pan as this will enable you to see when the lobster is "ready" for the cooking).

Tip the pan up so the small amount of wine will do for several lobsters. I mean how much can a lobster "drink" if, in fact, they do "drink?"

Now, after the lobster has been immersed up to his "mouth" (if in fact, he has a "mouth") you will notice it has has a glazed look in his eyes (if in fact that he has "eyes") and he also might stagger just a bit and be less interested in escaping the pan.

This will show that he is, if fact, inebriated. He has a "Devil-may-care" attitude and above all is relaxed! This is the most important part of my whole diatribe. He's plastered! He doesn't give a shit! When he goes in the hot water as he must, he's relaxed! He doesn't sieze up and make himself taste bad. He's dying (oops - pun intended) for you to gobble him up - as it were.

The key is: Relaxed.

Before I developed lobsteritis (or whatever the correct name is), my wife and I always relaxed our lobsters first.

Now I should point out that you could also try accupucture, but his shell is a bit tough and I'm not sure where his sensitive relaxation points are. Perhaps you could consult with a man of Chinese extraction for that information.

Some people say if you massage him first it will relax him. However, depending on his sexual orientation, he might become seriously offended.

Then again, my method would have the same problem if he was a teetotaler or a member the subterranean branch of AA.

All in all, however, try it - he'll taste a lot better. The wine helps you too.

The Octogenarian

[ed. note: I prefer beer with my lobster]

"The Early Sounds of Morning"

2007-02-26T12:27:00.000-05:00

The summer of 1968 was a very tumultuous time in America. All over America, people were rioting in the streets in opposition to the Vietnam War. Lyndon Johnson was under enormous pressure -- so much so that he announced that he would not run for re-election.

The Democratic Convention took place in Chicago that year. Party doves (Tip O'Neill among them) were desperate to insert a Vietnam War plank into the party platform calling for a halt in the bombing and a negotiated withdrawal, fearful that a failure to do so would doom the party's majorities in both the House and Senate. LBJ and the party stalwarts weren't budging.

Eugene McCarthy was the darling candidate of the anti-war movement. O'Neill sent his emissary, Robert Healy, to McCarthy's hotel suite to urge him to make an appearance on the convention floor and argue for the "peace plank."

The scene unfolded thus:

The insurgents vowed to take the issue to the convention floor. Johnson (for reasons of personal pride and foreign policy) and Humphrey (because he was firmly under Johnson's thumb) were not going to kow-tow to the peace forces in Chicago. The showdown began at Tuesday evening's session. Healy, still wearing two hats of activist and reporter, found McCarthy in the candidate's thwenty-third-floor suite with poet Robert Lowell and writer Shana Alexander.

"I said to him, 'It could really make a difference if you would go down to the convention and make the argument for the peace plank. I think it would only be fair for the kids who have busted their ass for you.' And Gene and Lowell look at each other and they start talking about early sounds of the morning," Healy recalled. "It was like a contest. Gene says, 'The drying out of a barn.' And Lowell says, 'The opening of a flower.' And Gene says, 'When a horse gets off the ground.' And they went on and on and on. Can you imagine that? Jeez, he was something else.***

(ed.: Healy does not report detecting any pungent aroma in the hotel suite.)

***Tip O'Neill and the Democratic Century, John Aloysius Farrell (2001).

War and the Lessons of History

2007-02-24T13:35:00.000-05:00

There is an old saw that goes something like: "Those who ignore the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them." No quotation book contains it, no wise man claims it.

American poet Howard Nemerov said: "Those who have tasted power and developed an addiction to it, studied of history, intend to repeat it. "

Geretrude Stein: "It is the soothing thing about history that it does repeat itself."

George Bernard Shaw: "Hegel was right when he said that we learn from history that man can never learn anything from history."

Napoleon Bonaparte: "History is a set of lies agreed upon."

Aldous Huxley: "The charm of history and its enigmatic lesson consist in the fact that, from age to age, nothing changes and yet everything is completely different. "

With those thoughts in mind, I have been reflecting on statements of opponents of the Iraq conflict who seek to draw upon the lessons of Vietnam to support their position.

In his 1961 inaugural address, John Kennedy said the following: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." At the time, the threat to America and a free world was Communism, and Kennedy was as anti-Communist as any politican in America.

"The enemy is the Communist system itself -- impacable, insatiable, unceasing in its drive for world domination. This is not a struggle for supremacy of arms alone. It is a struggle for supremacy between two conflicting ideologies: freedom under God versus ruthless, godless tyrrany," he said in a speech during the 1960 Presidential campaign.

Kennedy's words regarding Communism were true, and the committment made in his inaugural was shared by an adoring nation.

Now, forty-six years later, I think you could substitute "radical islam" for "communism" and the statement would be every bit as true. Radical islamists -- for whom Osama bin Laden is only the most notorious embodiment, certainly have made no secret of their agreement with it. I must doubt, however, that the contemporary Democratic Party would agree. And if they do, what they are willing to permit the President to do about it?

In Kennedy's day, the reigning Democrats in Congress, Tip O'Neill at the forefront among them, would follow the President's leadership against communism, which eventually led the country into an escalation of the Vietnam War.

By 1965, Kennedy was dead and Lyndon Johnson was becoming buried in the mire of war politics, with the generals in charge of the war admitting to President Johnson that their original plan had badly miscalculated:

"The successive political upheavals and the accompanying turmoil which have followed Diem's demise upset all our prior calculations. We know now what are the basic factors responsible for this turmoil -- chronic factionalism, civilian-military suspicions and distrust, absence of national spirit and motivation, lack of cohesion in the social structure, lack of experience in the conduct of government. These are historical factors growing out of national characteristics and traditions, susceptible to change only over the long run. We Americans are not going to change them in any fundamental way in any measurable time."

Vietnam would drag on for seven more years and a generation of younger Americans not familiar with Kennedy's words in 1960 would become a juggernaut, leading to the eventually withdrawal of troops from Vietnam and the fall of Saigon to the communists.

What the generals told Johnson in 1965 appears to be true in Iraq today -- substitute "Hussein" for Diem and see if you agree.

Does this suggest, then, that the "lesson" of Vietnam would compel us to withdraw our troops and leave the future of Iraq to the forces of chaos? I don't think so. As Huxley said, "from age to age, nothing changes and yet everything is completely different."

What we know now that is fundamentally different from 1965 is that our enemies are not content to challenge us on a conventional battlefield or to spread their insidious brand of tyranny by invading borders with army troops. They are willing to impose their tyranny in other cultures and countries in a most brutal and inhuman fashion (read about the Taliban's take-over in Afghanistan). And they are willing to murder innocent American citizens on our own soil -- and we are not prepared to defend our borders against that threat (indeed, our Constitution does not permit us to do so).

While the generals may have been correct in 1965, that "we Americans are not going to change them in any fundamental way in any measurable time," I do not believe that is true in Iraq today, for the simple reason that we don't need to change them in any fundamental way for them to understand the concept of liberty. The Iraqi citizenry, having suffered for decades under the brutal rule of Hussein, already knows what is at stake. There is a reservoir of understanding, and yearning, for what a free society will bring them.

It may take more time than the majority of Americans are willing to endorse, and the risks are certainly very high. But I am of the belief that we are at war around the globe with people who do not believe in treaties, compromise or political differences. They believe in worldwide hegemony and they will not stop at our borders.

How does the free world devise a "Marshall Plan" around that?

The Problem With Math

2007-02-15T11:56:00.000-05:00

I wasn't a great lover of mathematics. I did B work, but I never really got excited about it. I think my son inherited this from me, because he despises it.

As I recall, when I ran across a math problem that I found particularly vexing, I would still attempt to get as far as I could before giving up. Occasionally I would skip the problem entirely, if I felt that I would simply make an ass out of myself in the attempt (this might occur if, for instance, I had skipped a class that covered an area and was surprised by a pop quiz or something).

These kids, however, suffer no such indignity. Unconstrained by the mores of my day, they are compelled to make the best out of a desperate situation by providing (in most instances) a jolt of comic relief. Then there's the one fella who appears to take this math stuff far too personally. You have to love the restrained comment, though.

Dirty Pool

2007-02-11T14:13:00.000-05:00

Change the name and the animal, it doesn't matter.

A Lobster's Quality of Life

2007-02-09T10:31:00.000-05:00

A few years back, a Whole Foods Market opened up in this tony new shopping plaza in Hingham. "Derby Street Shoppes," the place is called, and it has the pre-eminent array of yuppie establishments: Williams-Sonoma, Barnes & Noble, Apple Store, Crate & Barrel, Talbot's, Smith & Hawken. It is an exceedingly popular place for the crunchy set, judging from the impossibility of finding a parking space. The place resembles a market the day before a blizzard is due. Parking lot chocked with Lincoln Navigators and Birkenstocked people cramming the aisles with baskets full of lentils, swiss chard and organic Chardonnay.

Whole Foods is known for its "animal compassionate" practices, and made big news last summer when it announced that it was banning the sale of live lobsters and crabs because they could not be certain that, from seabed to market, the creatures didn't "suffer along the way," and therefore could not ensure the creatures are "treated with respect and compassion."

At the time, PETA was elated. "The ways that lobsters are treated would warrant felony cruelty to animals charges if they were dogs or cats," was how spokesman Bruce Friedrich put it.

The basis for Whole Foods position was "a November report from the European Food Safety Authority Animal Health and Welfare panel that it said concluded all decapod crustaceans, including lobsters and crabs, appear to have some degree of awareness, feel pain and can learn." (If you care to read the report, it is here.)

This came as nonsense to scientists and seafood industry officials who noted that "lobsters have such primitive insect-like nervous systems they don't even have brains and can't experience pain the way animals and humans do." (Query how a creature without a brain "can learn.")

But the EFSA report was all Whole Foods needed to eschew live lobster, until it was convinced that there was a process that assured the creatures' wellbeing.

Well this compassion for the welfare of crustaceans presented a market opportunity for the Little Bay Lobster Company of New Hampshire, which has designed a process of delivering lobsters from the sea to the market "from boat to store with minimal contact with humans and other lobsters." That was the ticket for Whole Foods, who agreed to resume sale of live lobsters delivered in this manner.

And to spare them the "torture" of being boiled alive? "Workers will use a 'CrustaStun' device to instantaneously kill lobsters with 110 volts rather than steaming, which Whole Foods considers unethical because it can take several minutes for the hard-shelled animal to die." (I was taught that if you put the lobster in eyes-first, he dies instantly.)

Sort of a super-taser for lobsters.

But for those otherwise-gentle customers of Whole Foods who prefer the more barbarous approach, take heart. "Customers will still be able to purchase live lobsters and kill them at home."

I wonder. Can any Whole Food customer make it from the seafood counter to checkout with her live lobsters in hand without withering under the glares of all those Whole Food employees and customers who glory in the compassion of the crus-taser?

As one crusty Maine lobsterman put it,"A lobster electric chair? I wonder how that will sound for their public relations, that they're going to give the lobster the electric chair."

Personally, I'm glad I don't have to consider the cruelty that my lobster endures. I pick him up at the end of my street from guys still in their waders.

I haven't checked to see if they washed their hands first.

Debating Iraq, the National Pastime

2007-02-08T17:44:00.000-05:00

No reason why bro should be any less confused about Senate parliamentary procedure than any of the highly paid talking heads, but this cartoon is hilarious nonetheless.

"To be perfectly candid"

2007-02-08T11:12:00.000-05:00

...So Governor Patrick says, explaining that a review of the policy of requiring paid police details at every road project from P'town to Pittsfield is "not at the top of his list."

In fact, his remark is most certainly not "perfectly candid."

If he were "perfectly candid," he would have said, "this law provides for the payment of tens of millions of dollars to one of the most powerful public employee unions in the state -- do I look stupid??"

Or, he could have said, "I'm sorry, but I don't have the moral courage or intellectual honesty to argue that this policy is a complete rip-off of the taxpayers, so we'll just have to keep things as they are."

In his response to a reporter's inquiry, Patrick betrayed a notable lack of knowledge:

He said the cost of the details is more of a concern for private construction businesses, who must pay the officers a higher wage than civilian flaggers earn.

A Patrick spokesman said later that the governor was speaking mostly about local police details, which have less of an impact on state coffers than the State Police details.

Correction: the Governor was speaking with limited knowledge of the problem (it IS a problem).

Here is all one needs to understand about this boondoggle:

"Massachusetts is the only state that requires police officers on nearly all road work sites."

So when the head of the state's biggest public employee union blusters, "unions across the state will do whatever it takes to make our workforce more productive," and the detail policy "exists to ensure the safety of workers on dangerous job sites," you just have to ask him why "Massachusetts is the only state that requires police officers on nearly all road work sites."

And when the head of the state police union blusters "I know how construction people feel. They would much rather have a state trooper or local police officer standing at their detail with cruisers and lights and first-responder capabilities and radios," you have to ask him why "Massachusetts is the only state that requires police officers on nearly all road work sites."

And when you ask Patrick why "Massachusetts is the only state that requires police officers on nearly all road work sites," he can be perfectly candid and quote the Boston Globe:

Patrick was swept into office with strong support from unions, including the International Brotherhood of Police Officers.

In closing, though, I want to implore my many loyal readers to do a little something. When you are driivng around and you see a road construction project, observe the police officer(s). I think you are going to discover that the majority of them are not paying terribly close attention to what they're doing. In many cases, this will be because they are talking on their cell phones.

So if you happen to see a police officer on a road detail that is talking on his cell phone, slow down as you pass by, roll down your window and shout, "GET OFF THE DAMN PHONE!!!!"

Boston Blog Worth Reading

2007-02-06T13:04:00.000-05:00

I stumbled upon a blog called Mental Masspurgation,, written by a fella named Mike Mennonno. I don't know if he is an original Bostonian, but he sure talks like one (in print anyway). He has an interesting voice, and he speaks frankly and unapologetically about urban life. In addition to his style, I like him because he eschews political correctness.

Check out his take on riding the Red Line:

Of Dawgs and Bitches

This afternoon I got on the red-line at Park Street (I think they should just go ahead and rename it Purgatory, don't you?), and just as the doors of my train are closing, a big bunch of rowdy kids, all around thirteen, I'd say, burst in and commandeer our car. They held the door for a couple minutes shouting to a buddy of theirs they'd no doubt ditched earlier, who was struggling to catch up:

He a DAWG! Lookit DAWG! Yo! DAWG! You gonna miss the train, DAWG! Come on DAWG! Come on! Yo DAWG! DAWGIN the DAWG! DAWG! DAWG! DAWG!

Crikey, I thought, somebody needs to invent a dawg-whistle for these kids--one that's silent to adults. It's times like these I almost wish I had an ipod.

Dawg made it on, thank goodness. With Nikka in tow, apparently. Since every other word was either "dawg" or "nikka." They jostled about, shoving commuters aside, laughing, horsing around and cracking wise at top volume. The displaced commuters moved down the car, wanly, without complaint. Defeated after a day in the salt mines.

Once we were underway, and they had calmed down a bit, the two of them closest to me started discussing "bitches." Every third word was now either "dawg," "nikka," or "bitch."

There was to be a gathering of some sort at The Dorchester House on Friday, and apparently there would be bitches-a-plenty.

What kind of bitches, exactly, one of them wanted to know.

"Bitches to flirt wit," said one.

"Bitches is bitches," said another.

The dialogue, not to mention the behavior--from the moment they exploded onto the train--was offensive on many levels, but we tolerate it because, first of all, young people, regardless of race or creed, but particularly in packs, scare us, and rightly so. The nerve bundle in the brain responsible for the consciousness of one's own mortality does not seem to develop until almost middle age.

But if the youth in question happen to be African-American, we hesitate to criticize for an additional reason: we figure we're that much more likely to get our lily-white asses kicked. Or, if we're proper Cantabrigians (it is the red line to Cambridge, after all), we sublimate those thoughts of violence, and consider our complicity in their behavior instead.

(What may be difficult for Cantabrigians is their complicated hierarchy of political sympathies--should they ignore the misogynistic implications of calling all females of the species "bitches" for the sake of showing a silent solidarity with the oppressed minorities doing so? It is a cunundrum I can assure you will immobilize any Cantabrigian for at least five stops, which, as luck would have it, gets them to Harvard Square, where they all get off.)

I had my nose buried in a book, preoccupied with an email exchange earlier in the day, which I'll talk about a little later. But at intervals, when the "nikkas" and "bitches" and "dawgs" forced their way into my consciousness, I would silently curse my cowardice, and then muse about what would happen if I decided to hold these boys to a higher standard (a minimum of civility, say), and intervene, like so: "um, excuse me, Mr. Dawg, you just shoved that woman there halfway down the car. Don't you think you should apologize for that?" or "Hey! Do you nikkas mind not using such offensive language? There are bitches present, you know! Word!"

I think most Bostonians want to avoid a "racial incident," and somehow we all know that that's what any intervention like this is likely to become. But what we end up doing is turning bad behavior into an entitlement we grant to youth of a certain class, regardless of race.

I was on the other end of the red line a couple of weeks ago and watched as halfway down the car three fat little white boys around the same age as the ones I saw today were mercilessly taunting a middle aged Asian woman with two big bags of groceries.

Bless her heart, she was playing along with them, even laughing at times, but you could see she was getting uncomfortable when it just kept going on and on. One boy in particular, the closer we got to his stop, the crueler he became.

When they got off at JFK with her, I could see she was afraid to leave the platform. I barked, "move along!" at them, and after insulting her one last time, they walked away.

I felt emboldened partly because they were white. I'll admit it. I don't know if I would have been so bold if they'd been black. Doubt it.

But I don't like the idea of letting kids off the hook like that, regardless of their race. And certainly not because of it. It's true that any pack of boys that age would likely be horsing around, using foul language, and making a general ruckus. It is rare for anyone to say or do anything but wait for them to get off the train, and pray that all they do is make a little noise. And that's probably the wisest approach.

You choose your battles, and a confrontation on the train, taking on years of pop-culture brainwashing celebrating and reinforcing all manner of atrocious anti-social behavior as the only way to get street cred and some measure of self-esteem, is not a battle you're likely to win. This whole freakin culture is a cry for help that no one's willing to answer. Don't call us--we'll call you!

So instead of interrupting these boys today I found myself wondering how it came to be that they were referring to themselves and the girls they might fancy as animals. The boys were all dogs and the girls were all bitches. Does it matter? Somehow I think language like that works to both reflect and reinforce a sad, unhealthy self-image, in both boys and girls. Not to mention the boys hiding themselves in their ludicrously oversized coats, shoes, and the jeans with the crotches at their knees, so that there's little trace of their actual physical form, hiding inside their massive garments all puffed-up in a perpetual stance of defense against a world perceived as permanently hostile. I wish someone with some credibility among them would intervene, for their sake, and ours.

It takes a healthy dose of unself-consciousness and wisdom to speak the truth, and in such fine fashion, too.

High Priced Lawyers --- Only the Best for Tollpayers

2007-02-06T06:46:00.000-05:00

From this morning's Globe, we learn that the Mass Turnpike Authority paid almost $600,000 to a battery of legal and financial consultants to advise it whether or not it could eliminate the western tolls:

$145,744 to Mintz Levin to analyze whether the authority had the legal power to take down the tolls;

$156,004 to Choate Hall & Stewart to assessed whether the leases on the turnpike service plazas could be sold to help pay off the $199 million in debt on the western portion of the highway;

$106,000 to WilmerHale for unspecified work;

$63,124 to Foley Hoag for unspecified work.

Each of these firms is on "regular retainer" with the Authority -- meaning that (1) each has at least one "special relationship" that assures its ongoing access to the public trough, and (2) anyone who wants to sue the Authority has to find someone else to do it. But is the price worth it?

Board member Mary Connaughton, a Romney appointee who supports removing the tolls, said she found it "hard to believe" that the Turnpike spent so much money on consultants.

"I would want to go through those issues with a fine-tooth comb to make sure those are appropriate billings," she said. "I'm not convinced that is appropriate billing for the amount of service we got."

[query -- as Romney's hand-picked advocate for this plan, and an accountant and business professor, I would think she'd feel it prudent to keep an eye on this]

Mary's onto something. As a former general counsel to a public authority, I am all too familiar with the way large firms bill their public clients. As a general rule, in my opinion (two clauses that are designed to insulate me from any specious allegation of libel), some large firms (I am not saying any of these four, mind you) use opportunities like these to train their associates, sending them off to do hours and hours of legal research on issues about which the firm already has extensive knowledge and a ready research database.

Let's examine further.

I suspect that most or all of these firms represent the Authority on the basis of what is called a "blended rate." That is, rather than the senior partners charging their usual $650 per hour and billing their associates at $200, the firms will charge a blended hourly rate for all counsel of, say, $275 (I know one of the firms was charging me $225 in the mid-90's, so I'm being modest with rate inflation).

If Mintz Levin billed $145,000 to examine whether the Authority had the legal authority to remove the tolls, that would represent a combined total of over 525 hours of lawyers' time -- the majority of it being associates. I suspect that the bulk of the issue involves whether or not removing the tolls would violate any of the covenants contained in outstanding bonds that were previously sold in the public market. Mintz Levin has been bond counsel for Massachusetts public agencies since before I was born (that's more than 50 years, folks). They've written the book on bond covenants. Do you really believe it would take one of the foremost authorities on public bonds 525 hours of time to reach an answer to a question that has been in front of the Authority for more than ten years?

Choate Hall's $156,000 would represent 567 hours of time -- to assess whether the leases they have granted to service plaza lessees can be sold. It would shock me if there was the slightest doubt that, as a matter of real estate law, the Authority hasn't reserved in its leases the right to turn them into casinos if it wants -- that would be par for the course. So what are the big issues? Perhaps whether or not the revenue generated from the leases has been pledged to pay the bonds and therefore could be sold without violating bond covenants? Call Mintz. Or perhaps the lessees have given security for their development capital in the improvements they have made on the properties, and therefore mortgage covenants must be analyzed. Okay, arcane question, but 567 hours of time?

What troubles me most about this excess is that the toll removal plan was launched late in the game, when Romney was all but departed and Healey's chances of success were miniscule. The prospects for the plan's achievement were slim to none by then. What was gained by this expensive exercise?

Nothing.

You might be an optimist and say that at least now, the Authority will not have to research these issues if it determines sometime in the future to reconsider such a plan.

But by then, its counsel will advise that it would be "prudent" to "take a second look" to insure that laws and regulations haven't "altered the landscape" and that their advice is still sound.

All for another $600,000.

What Sets Us Apart

2007-02-05T13:37:00.000-05:00

I received an interesting book for Christmas, The Good Life by Charles W. Colson. (thanks to Google's extraordinary project, the link is to the actual text of the book!)

In the book, Colson examines through the stories of a number of people (from former Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski to Chinese dissident Nien Cheng) what truly make our lives worth living. In his examination, he explores what it is in the nature of human beings that sets us apart from other beings and, he asserts, demonstrates the presence of God in our lives. It is an easy and edifying read, one I recommend to those with an open mind.

But this post is not about Mr. Colson's lessons directly. In the book, he spends some time discussing the human being's innate sense of right and wrong. He suggests that we are "hard wired" to understand intuitively how we should react to moral questions we encounter (not that we would actually act appropriately, but that we do recognize what is right and what is wrong). Of course, I thought, this proposition must be one that skeptics and scientists would surely ridicule.

And this morning, I discovered that the subject is in fact one of scientific inquiry.

Harvard professor Marc Hauser, a psychologist, evolutionary biologist and anthropologist (that should qualify him) is at work on a study, the theory of which is that morality is hard wired in humans.

Morality, he argues, is influenced by cultural teachings but is also so deep and universal an aspect of human existence that it is effectively "hard-wired" into the brain, much like the instinct for language.

At work, he says, are principles as unconscious and yet powerful as the grammar rules we use when we speak -- and the challenge to scientists is to figure out what those built-in moral rules are and how they work.

To that end, Hauser and other researchers are experimenting with children, monkeys, on-line survey takers, brain-damaged patients, and even psychopaths and remote hunter-gatherers.

His theory that morality is based in biology has plunged Hauser into an intellectual fray that spans from the pages of The New York Times to the rows of students who take his evolution classes at Harvard.

A psychologist, evolutionary biologist, and anthropologist, Hauser has felt students grow restless as he talks about the underpinnings of morality. In one class, he said, a student complained, "I know where you're going: Because it's universal, it's biological, and therefore there's no role for religion."

Hauser recalls responding: "I'm not saying you shouldn't derive meaning from religion. I'm just telling you that at some level, the nature of the moral judgments that you make and I make are the same, even though I don't go to church and you do."
.....

Some critics also charge that Hauser's emphasis on biology negates the concept of free will and implies that all our moral choices are predetermined.

But he is not saying that at all, Hauser responds. A greater understanding of how moral minds work by no means translates into automatic prescriptions and decisions, he says.

Rather, Hauser and other morality researchers are working to tease apart "the system that allows us to intuitively, unconsciously make moral judgments about what's right or wrong," he said. "And that capacity is distinct from how we go about justifying what we do, or what we actually do." Such a system would be so fundamental that it would be present in all cultures.

Of course, Colson has no reservation in drawing the conclusion that (contrary to Hauser's caveat) this moral nature is evidence of God's existence. And he points to many other elements of our nature that are as well.

Colson is an extraordinarily brilliant and insightful man, and his life experience and lessons are deeply insightful and spiritual. If you are anything but the most hardened cynic, you will find his writing edifying and important.

Hand-some Art

2007-02-05T13:16:00.000-05:00

I was treated to an email this morning showing the unusual hand art of Italian artist Guido Daniele. See what you think.

Quite extraordinary, really. His website has much other work, including a series of tromp l'oeil paintings (I would quarrel with the nomenclature on those works) and some beautiful portraits of several stunning women. Go see.

The Price of Police Patronage

2007-02-03T14:05:00.000-05:00

A lawsuit against the Massachusetts Port Authority reveals how a stunning example of patronage in the high command of the Massport Police Department may have contributed to the brutal beating of an innocent woman.

During the Fourth of July fireworks on Boston Harbor, a lesbian couple and their child were attempting to enjoy the show from Piers Park, a property in East Boston owned by Massport. In the course of the evening, one of the women was set upon by a gang of lesbian-hating teenage thugs and beaten to within an inch of her life.

On this evening, with thousands expected to swarm the park for the fireworks, Massport police command determined that ONE POLICE OFFICER WAS SUFFICIENT to keep order.

The story is infuriating, but boils down to a few simple sentences:

1. A top Massport police captain was repeatedly asked to put additional officers on duty at Piers Park on July 4, when thousands of people gather. But the captain declined, leaving one officer assigned to patrol the 6.5-acre park. The captain, Michael Grady , who is in charge of scheduling, declined to pay overtime that evening, the records say. An additional officer would have cost $330.

2. Joe Lawless, Director of Maritime Security (a force of 38 officers), did not recall many details of police operations under his supervision, including the plan to reduce overtime, according to the documents. Lawless hired Grady as his chief deputy in 1996.

2. Grady's only prior law enforcement experience was a year spent as a Middlesex County correction officer.

Massport settled the case brought against it for $250,000, having spent more than $600,000 to defend it first.

It is certainly possible that ten officers on duty that evening might not have prevented this despicable attack -- but it is also indeniable that assigning one officer to patrol 6.5 acres of park packed with thousands of people on the Fourht of July is prima facie stoopid.

What da heck is Massport doing with its own "police force," anyway? The State Police patrol the airport already. The park was created for the community as a mitigation (read "bribery") measure in 1995, and is maintained by Massport. If they're going to insist on retaining ownership and management of the property, they've got a legal committment to insure the public's safety -- especially for occasions so obviously need security as the Fourth of July fireworks.

And I thought the Cab Corral was a stupid idea.

A Ghost Story

2007-02-02T15:41:00.000-05:00

Dear Wave Maker:

Yesterday my friend.........I can't use "cleaning lady" for a friend. OK, my friend, the "housekeeper," came for her monthly cleanup of the mess I make of my house.

She had gone upstairs while I did my monthly cleaning of my Brita water filter jar. It gets green mold in the bottom since it sits on a stainless steel sink counter and somehow the light refracts with the plastic to enhance mold growth.

ANYWAY, while working away at this jar with sponge, spatula, dish cloth, plenty of water, and rehearsing a song that got stuck in my brain, I happened to notice (out the corner of my eye) that Ann had come up behind me and was getting a paper towel or something off the counter behind me. She didn't say anything as I guess she didn't want to interrupt me, and I didn't want to interrupt her train of thought either.

When she came downstairs some minutes later, I said; "What did you come down for a few minutes ago?" She said; "I didn't come down a few minutes ago. I've been upstairs for 20 minutes."

!!!!!

I knew I saw someone! I remember what she was wearing, and come to think of it, it was not what Ann was wearing. The woman I saw was wearing a rust and white shirt (almost like a light jacket) and dark skirt or slacks. I did not see her face as she was facing the counter behind me, but she had dark hair.

She was taller than my late wife and moved faster than my mother-in-law. (My mother-in-law had died in this house.) So that was a possibility.

Who was this woman???

If any of my taller women friends has had a near-death experience, it could have been one of them, but outside of that, I don't have a clue.

I have had, in my doting years (so much better than saying "older" years), paranormal experiences as those of you who have read my book on ghosts will know. However, all of those had a relationship to a known event or person. For example, the coworker at the engineering firm, the Civil War soldier in Gettysburg, the woman at the church in Newton, etc.

I should also say, and this is a common thing, that I did not feel uncomfortable or threatened at the time. As I said, I thought it was, my housekeeper. It was only afterwards that I realized it was someone else (who had gone beyond or was close to going beyond).

As the kitchen is at the end of the house away from the wood stove it was quite cool and I did not notice any change in the temperature of the air. This often happens when a ghost appears, as I think the can only materialize by taking the heat (energy) from the surrounding air.

I often see one or another of my cats who have passed away, but usually only half of him or her. At my co-author's house one day, her dog who had passed away (the one before Fritz), rubbed against my leg. There was absolutely no other explanation. Her house also has unseen occupants and her stories are in our book.

Last night, before going to sleep, I said prayers for this unknown person. Perhaps she came for help.

Love, The Octogenarian

John Kerry's Remarkable Gut

2007-01-27T11:34:00.000-05:00

John Kerry says his "gut" told him that '08 wasn't the time to run for President again. What remarkable instincts. Feh.

The Intrinsic Value of a Neighbor

2007-01-19T09:52:00.000-05:00

Like most folks these day, I find that I pay too little attention to my neighbors. I pass their houses several times a day. I wave to (some of) them when they are in their yards or if I see them at the supermarket I will say hello. One or two of them I have a drink (or three) with on occasion. There used to be a Christmas party in the neighborhood a few years back, but those folks moved away, and now there are only the lights on the homes to unite us in our common holiday.

We have in common an extraordinarily beautiful environment -- one long country lane that dips and winds across a rough terrain of one huge granite ledge, a tidal river and marsh to one side. Many of us share views of that river (some have better views than others -- but that's between my next door neighbor and me).

Recently, though, I received an email from a most interesting neighbor, and he has permitted me to share it with you. He asks to be known as "The Octogenarian," and if I play my cards right, we'll be seeing more of him here.

So here is the message I received from The Octogenarian (edited only to change names):

Dear Anna and Friend:

Tonight I am so glad I live where I do. My wonderful neighbors Hank's and Mary's house is up there on the hill shielding me from that nasty Nor'west wind. Down here in my little nook it is calm and peaceful. Cold? Yes, but nothing like Shaw's parking lot. I had visions of my Cambell's soup being blown over to my house when I set them down to get my keys out.

The marsh will be a block of ice in the AM my kayaking pals. Do you have ice skates? One winter years ago we (my wife and I) went out in the canoe on the ice with ski poles instead of paddles. We went skittering around laughing our foolish heads off - I'm not sure if I was still in my drinking days. Lots of fun though. Another time my wife and I ice-skated almost down to Supper Island (what's that, about 2 miles?), But fortunately, my wife heard cracking sounds and we turned back in time.

The ice does unusual things to the marsh grass making it look almost like a moon scape. Especially with the low winter sun reflecting off the ice. When the tides are very high, ice is occasionally lifted in thick blocks up onto the top of the grass. Sometimes these are very large and are fun to skate on because you're not going to fall though into the water.

Years ago, men used to come with chain saws, cut a hole in the ice here and there and stab for eels. The eels were about 18" long and bought BIG bucks in Japan as they were flown over there from here. By stabbing, I mean they had a long pole with a multi-barbed forked tip. When you stabbed an eel, he'd wiggle like crazy (I guess I would too) and you'd know you'd gotten one. Ayah!

The geese now come to it looking for open water to land in. I don't think I've ever seen them land on ice. I don't think they can, but it might be a whale of a show. They'd look like a bunch of commuters on a stretch of black ice on Route 128. The ice-boaters will be out on Mushquashicut Pond any day now. Flittin' back and forth like barn swallows do in the summer.

I had a feeling we'd pay for all those nice early winter days. On one day in my canoe years and years ago I came upon the man (his name was Hunt, I think) and he was the founder of our Gulf River Association. I remarked about the nice day and he said; "Don't get too excited about it; we'll pay for it soon enough." He always paddled his canoe from a kneeling position and every time I saw him, he'd say; "You're not paddling right." I'd try to explain about the job the Navy did on my knees, but he'd paddle off in a huff.

Speaking of pumpkins, do they hibernate? If they don't, they'd better damn well learn.

Love, [The Octogenarian]

I received this message because he and I are united in a common concern (along with others): the proposed development of a property nearby into 48 condominiums. Only because of that did we initiate an email community that led to his sending me this poignant picture. He lives two houses away, down the hill hard by the marsh, yet I hadn't seen him since another neighbor had had a Christmas party some eight years ago. Eight years.

I think that after this condo project has been resolved, I will still be hearing from him, and he from me.

If indeed he hasn't become a regular right in this page.

Immigration_by_the_Numbers.mov

2007-01-17T14:36:00.000-05:00


This is a compelling articulation of what is at stake in the immigration debate. Roy Beck's demonstration of the population consequences of current U.S. immigration policies has entertained and shocked audiences across the country. This video is packed with the facts and analysis that make moral and practical sense of a complex and highly contentious issue.

Playing a Tune for the Hard of Hearing

2007-01-17T12:33:00.000-05:00

When the audience can't appreciate the complexity of your composition, play your heart out.

A Sign of Trouble

2007-01-10T07:43:00.000-05:00

This story tells us a lot about the fledgeling Patrick administration:

State Representative Daniel E. Bosley, appointed a few weeks ago to be Deval Patrick's new economic development adviser, has backed out in a dispute over the scope of his duties and his pay, according to two close colleagues.

Bosley, a Democrat from North Adams elected this fall to his 11th term in the House, had been promised a position overseeing all state agencies involved in economic development, but 10 days ago learned from Patrick that his role would be limited and his power diminished, the colleagues said.

Also, his pay had been adjusted from $150k to $130k, and his office had moved from the Governor's Suite to One Ashburton (that's like going from the Oval Office to the OEOB basement).

Ouch!

All of this happened while Patrick was on vacation in South Africa, so I suspect the "change of terms" was the impetus of Patrick's Chief of Staff, Joan Wallace Benjamin.

But the most striking piece of this story is this:

Patrick said he will take over the role of overseeing economic development agencies himself, revealing a hands-on style of governing that is a sharp departure from the way his Republican predecessors operated.

Republican predecessors? Is there any precedent anywhere, Republican, Democrat, Massachusetts -- the entire United States, where a newly elected Governor has opted to actually serves as an uber-cabinet secretary to himself? In the economic development role?

This move is strikingly odd. The economic affairs arena is vast, multi-faceted and highly dynamic. There are aspects that cause internal conflict and competition in any administration. It is critical to have someone with deep experience in the field who can prioritize, mediate and articulate a comprehensive and consistent vision. It is a full-time job in any administration. How is the Governor going to manage this task while running the rest of the state?

There is one more aspect to this that is going to cause problems for Patrick. An economic affairs secretariat is in the position of acting as a buffer between the Governor and business interests that are competing for attention or policy preferences. Somone asking the Governor for this or that can be told, "go see EOEA," and the mere fact of "getting a meeting" with the secretary is an effective tool for controlling expectations. Further, the secretariat is (or should be) staffed with policy experts who can cut through bullshit and play more effective hardball with those lobbying for a particular policy.

Patrick cannot play that role himself. It is politically reckless.

The same observation is true about competing policy preferences among the various economic affairs offices. How does the labor and workforce development office have its (union-influenced) positions on minimum wage and working conditions arbitraged against other offices advocating for more competitive market conditions? Is Patrick going to referee these policy conflicts himself?

With Patrick's broad thematic appeals during the campaign, he portrayed himself as a "Big Picture" guy. Already, he has had to back off of two of the broader themes, reducing property taxes, increasing police presence. I regard these as the usual garden variety broken campaign pledges (revealing to me thast Patrick isn't any different than the common campaigner), but of course, he wasn't paying attention to the details of his pledges when he made them -- they weren't made to actually be carried out.

Now, in this critical field of economic development, he needs someone with deep experience to be focussed on the details, or else he risks making further blunders on the policy front -- in addition to having already made his relationship with the key legislative leader in the field a little tougher.

Why Blog 101

2007-01-08T08:49:00.000-05:00

Every once in a while I come upon something truly special that impresses upon me why I spent the time I do blogging.

Oh yes, we all learn something new every day -- bits of news or commentary that we don't get from traditional media sources. We may engage in substantive and meaningful intellectual dialogue or simply some some deeply snarky tete-a-tete with moonbats, perhaps. But there are some exceedingly eloquent and clever participants in the give and take of comment threads.

I ran across this early today and am compelled to share it.

From the facile-tongued "Rhod," regular commenter at New England Republican, in reducing his regard for the Baker Commission's report to Shakespearean verse:

What ho! Good Woodchuck! One such as I dream of James Baker, and the ISG

Sounds and sweet airs, that give delight and hurt not.
Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments
Will hum about mine ears, and sometimes voices
That, if I then had waked after long sleep,
Will make me sleep again: and then in dreaming,
The clouds methought would open and show riches
Ready to drop upon me; that when I waked,
I cried to dream again.

Good work.

Fair Is Fair?

2007-01-06T14:47:00.000-05:00

Bro's take is fair enough at first blush. Tit for tat and all that. It does nothing to haul the current congressional malaise out of the sewer, which is what real statesmanship is about. I have no illusions that it will happen, but any improvement will be better than none.

Fleet Footed Democrats??

2007-01-04T11:50:00.000-05:00

In light of Pelosi's promise to ram through a bunch of "reform" stuff while dispensing with the formality of "hearings," here is bro's alternative take:

Master of Cliche

2007-01-03T13:47:00.000-05:00

The other day while engaging in an exchange with a commenter here,I found myself amused by the fellow's use of cliches to make his (rather obtuse) point. Did I "just fall off the turnip truck," he asked; and "there's a new Sheriff in town," he crowed, referring to Deval Patrick (although his use of this phrase might be considered untimely, since the Governor-elect had just advocated that the legislature engage in lawlessness).

It is with this person in mind that I offer the follow report:

Frank Lingua, president and CEO of Dissembling Associates, is the nation's leading purveyor of buzzwords, catch phrases and cliches for people too busy to speak in plain English. Business Finance contributing editor Dan Danbom interviewed Lingua in his New York City office.

Danbom: Is being a cliché expert a full-time job?

Lingua: Bottom line is I have a full plate 24/7.

D. Is it hard to keep up with the seemingly endless supply of clichés that spew from business?

L. Some days, I don't have the bandwidth. It's like drinking from a fire hydrant.

D. So it's difficult?

L. Harder than nailing Jell-O to the wall.

D. Where do most clichés come from?

L. Stakeholders push the envelope until it's outside the box.

D. How do you track them once they've been coined?

L. It's like herding cats.

D. Can you predict whether a phrase is going to become a cliché?

L. Yes. I skate to where the puck's going to be. Because if you aren't the lead dog, you're not providing a customer-centric proactive solution.

D. Give us a new buzzword that we'll be hearing ad nauseam.

L. "Enronitis" could be a next-generation player.

D. Do people understand your role as a cliché expert?

L. No, they can't get their arms around that. But they aren't incented to.

D. How do people know you're a cliché expert?

L. I walk the walk and talk the talk.

D. Did incomprehensibility come naturally to you?

L. I wasn't wired that way, but it became mission-critical as I strategically focused on my go-forward plan.

D. What did you do to develop this talent?

L. It's not rocket science. It's not brain surgery. When you drill down to the granular level, it's just basic blocking and tackling.

D. How do you know if you're successful in your work?

L. At the end of the day, it's all about robust, world-class language solutions.

D. How do you stay ahead of others in the buzzword industry?

L. Net-net, my value proposition is based on maximizing synergies and being first to market with a leveraged, value-added deliverable. That's the opportunity space on a level playing field.

D. Does everyone in business eventually devolve into the sort of mindless drivel you spout?

L. If you walk like a duck and talk like a duck, you're a duck. They all drink the Kool-Aid.

D. Do you read "Dilbert" in the newspaper?

L. My knowledge base is deselective of fiber media.

D. Does that mean "no"?

L. Negative.

D. DOES THAT MEAN "NO"?

L. Let's take your issues offline.

D. NO, WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE MY "ISSUES" OFFLINE.

L. You have a result-driven mind-set that isn't a strategic fit with my game plan.

D. I WANT TO PUSH YOUR FACE IN.

L. Your perspective on this topic is very important to me.

D. How can you live with yourself?

L. I eat my own dog food. My vision is to monetize scalable supply chains.

D. When are you going to quit this?

L. I may eventually exit the business to pursue other career opportunities.

D. I hate you.

L. Take it and run with it.

The Convenient Constitution

2007-01-02T13:44:00.000-05:00

Well now we've got something to be outraged about.

Deval Patrick hasn't even been sworn in yet, and he's advocating that the Constitutional Convention violate the law.

Gov.-elect Deval Patrick urged legislators today to end debate on a ballot initiative seeking to ban gay marriage by whatever means they deem appropriate, saying the matter involves a question of minority rights that should not be put to a popular vote.

“It is a terrible precedent for us to use the ballot initiative petition to insert discrimination into the Constitution,” Patrick told reporters after a private meeting with House Speaker Sal DiMasi, a leading opponent of the proposed ban....

Patrick said he does not believe lawmakers must vote on the question directly, even after a Supreme Judicial Court ruled last week that they have a constitutional obligation to do so.

“I think there is more than one constitutional question before us,” he said. “There is a constitutional issue of whether under the equal protection clause the court gets final word about the rights and the equality of a minority.”

Wow. That's some stunning logic coming from such a smart guy.

There is only one constitutional question. Whether the legislators have a constitutional duty to vote. The SJC unanimously said they did. That was their "final word."

And the Court's "final word" on gay marriage was interpreting the language of the original state constituion, which is, by its terms, subject to change by the citizens. The SJC did not rule on the ultimate Big "C" constitutionality of a gay marriage ban.

So here is our very first indication that Patrick is no centrist but a committed liberal ideologue to whom the means justify the end.

Shame on him.

UPDATE: Well will wonders never cease. The conscience-wracked legislature appears to have ignored the entreaty of the Governor-elect and actually done their duty. Hats off to them.

The Bloom Is Off This Ivy

2006-12-29T16:30:00.000-05:00

In the most recent instance of political correctness run amok on the campuses of America's finest universities, one Josie Harper, the Dartmouth College Athletic Director, has taken it upon herself to apologize to the Dartmouth College student body due to the upcoming men's hockey face-off between Dartmouth and the University of North Dakota's Fighting Sioux:

Josie Harper, Dartmouth's athletic director, wrote a letter to the student newspaper, The Dartmouth, last month about the game, saying: "I must offer a sincere apology to the Native American community and the Dartmouth community as a whole for an event that will understandably offend and hurt people within our community."

Dartmouth, in Hanover, N.H., has decided to set up a committee that will consider whether the school should refuse to compete against teams that use Native American nicknames and mascots....

...Harper called the University of North Dakota's use of a Native American symbol "offensive and wrong."

No word on whether or not Harper is, herself, a member of the Sioux Nation, but it doesn't seem to matter to her that the Fighting Sioux's emblem was designed by a Native American and that, at least in North Dakota, the Sioux don't have any problem with it. Does anyone else really have any say in the matter?

This incident follows the original controversy in which that ever-reliable bastion of diversity, the NCAA, instituted its policy against the "hostile or abusive" use of American Indian names, mascots and imagery:

"But as a national association, we believe that mascots, nicknames or images deemed hostile or abusive in terms of race, ethnicity or national origin should not be visible at the championship events that we control."

See the problem? Deemed by whom to be hostile or abusive? The non-Native American athletic director at Dartmouth? Any fan? Or does one have to be a member of the "abused" tribe to have standing to "deem" the emblem offensive?

I wonder if Ms. Harper sought the input of any members of the Sioux Nation before she sought to defend their sensibilities.

If I were a Dartmouth graduate, I'd be mortified by this nonsense.

As Good As It Can Get

2006-12-28T16:00:00.000-05:00

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has rendered an opinion which states that the legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is in violation of Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution if it recesses the current Constitutional Convention on January 2, 2007 without voting on the gay marriage amendment. Unfortunately, it holds as well that there is no defined remedy for the people of Massachusetts other than the ballot box, and that it does not have the constitutional authority to order another branch of government to do something (i.e., vote).

While there are undoubtedly others who (in abject ignorance) assert that the SJC's latest action is "hypocritical," the Court's opinion, rendered unanimously, goes as far as it can and is entirely consistent with all prior precedent on the issue (of which, incidentally, there is far more than ought to be the case -- see below). The question that one must ask himself is, how many times can the legislature spit in the electorate's face before they ascend on the State House with torches and rocks??

The Court's opinion regarding the obligation to vote on the merits of each initiative amendment could not be clearer"

The members of the joint session have a constitutional duty to vote, by the yeas and nays, on the merits of all pending initiative amendments before recessing on January 2, 2007.

No wiggle room in that declaration. And it is well-founded in the historical documents:

The Constitutional Convention of 1917-1918, at which the procedure for the adoption of a constitutional amendment by popular initiative was proposed, confirms the plain meaning and purpose of the above text. See 2 Debates in the Constitutional Convention 1917-1918, at 16, 39 (1918) (quoting two proponents as stating that purpose of art. 48 is to "provide[ ] the machinery by which the will of the voters of this Commonwealth may be made effective" and "enable the people to have some say ... with regard to constitutional amendments"). We have stated that the framers crafted art. 48 as a "people's process. It was intended to provide both a check on legislative action and a means of circumventing an unresponsive General Court.... It projected a means by which the people could move forward on measures which they deemed necessary without the danger of their will being thwarted by legislative action." Buckley v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 371 Mass. 195, 199 (1976). We have also stated that "art. 48 was adopted in the expectation that all officers concerned would perform the duties required of them at the proper times." Opinion of the Justices, 334 Mass. 745, 758-759 (1956).

It is not surprising, therefore, that the records of the drafters' debates indicate that they did not intend a simple majority of the joint session to have the power effectively to block progress of an initiative. See 2 Debates in the Constitutional Convention 1917-1918, supra at 629 (expressly rejecting such a proposal). [FN6] Specifically, words spoken during the debates by one Mr. Quincy of Boston, raised the prospect of what would happen "if the mandate of the Constitution is disregarded and somebody declines to carry it out?" Id. at 685. Mr. Quincy answered himself: "I do not believe we need to consider seriously that contingency or a defiance of the provisions of the amendment by either of these two branches of the General Court." Id. See LIMITS v. President of the Senate, 414 Mass. 31, 35 n. 6 (1992).

Mr. Quincy of Boston must be spinning in his grave. For what would not be "considered seriously" in 1917 -- that a body of elected representatives would blithely ignore their Constitutional obligation -- has become de rigeur with the contemporary body. And it is not just the Democrats, either. Both the former and future Senate Minority Leaders (Brian Lees and Richard Tisei) are in support of the current strategy of ducking the vote.

The legislature's recent history is appalling in this regard:

In 1976, the legislature attempted to subvert an initiative petition with regard to gun control by proposing an "alternative" that gutted the intent of the petitioned law. The Court stated:

In short, we cannot countenance the emasculation of the initiative petition by the attempt to substitute a measure with objectives at variance with those which the plaintiffs have proposed. To do so would be to fly in the face of the evident intent of the distinguished members of the Constitutional Convention who prepared the way for the passage of art. 48 by the people. To allow 1976 House Bill No. 5081 to go on the ballot with the initiative petition here in question would interfere with the ability of the people to declare their position on the basic question originally proposed.
[Buckley v. Sec. of State, 371 Mass. 175]

In 1992, the supporters of an amendment to institute term limits for legislators and constitutional officers were rebuffed in their attempt to force a vote. As is its modus operandi, the Constitutional Convention employed a series of parliamentary maneuvers to duck the issue:

The joint session considered the initiative amendment on Wednesday, May 13, 1992, and voted to place it at the end of its calendar. The joint session has reconvened and recessed on numerous occasions since May 13, 1992, without taking final action on the initiative amendment. Several attempts to bring the initiative amendment forward for further consideration have failed because, under the governing rules, an objection to such action has been successfully raised. The joint session met on December 16 (after the record in this action was prepared), took no final action on the initiative amendment, and recessed until December 21. On December 21 the joint session adjourned without taking final action on the initiative amendment.

Justice Wilkins clearly articulated the legal principles that prohibited the Court then from intervening -- the same principles that apply in this case:

There are more fundamental problems with the plaintiffs' requests for relief. The courts should be most hesitant in instructing the General Court when and how to perform its constitutional duties. Mandamus is not available against the Legislature. Lamson v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, supra. Cf. Rice v. The Governor, 207 Mass. 577, 578-580, 93 N.E. 821 (1911) (mandamus does not lie against the Governor). The reason for this rule rests on separation of powers principles expressed in art. 30 of the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution. Those principles call for the judiciary to refrain from intruding into the power and function of another branch of government, in this case, the joint session of the Legislature held under art. 48. See **1310 Babets v. Secretary of Human Servs., 403 Mass. 230, 233, 526 N.E.2d 1261 (1988). It follows that a judicial remedy is not available whenever a joint session fails to perform a duty that the Constitution assigns to it. Restraint is particularly appropriate here where art. 48 gives the Governor a role in seeing that a joint session carries out its constitutional obligations, but gives to the courts no enforcement role. When the purpose of art. 48 has been frustrated, the only remedy may come from the influence of public opinion, expressed ultimately at the ballot box.
[LIMITS v. President of The Senate, 414 Mass. 31]

There it is again, that pesky ballot box.

These are only the most obvious examples, because they are the instances where the proponents of a measure had sufficient organization and critical mass to afford taking the matter all the way to the Supreme Court.

In fact, it is typical that the Constitutional Convention doesn't actually convene at all -- except for the purpose of adjourning from time to time. During my six years in the legislature, I cannot think of more than a cople of times in which a vote on the merits was ever afforded the membership.

I recall witnessing my first "ConCon," which always takes place in the House Chamber. The center doors are opened (they are opened only for the ConCon and to admit the Governor), the Senate Sargeant at Arms announces the members of the Senate, they straggle in to the jocular hoopla of the House members. The Senate President ascend to the Speaker's Rostrum, authoritatively slams the gavel and instructs the body the "the Constitutional Convention will come to order!"

Half of the members, milling about, continue to engage in their casual conversation, joking and story telling.

Some time passes without incident.

The Senate President is heard once more:

"Motion is made that the Convention recess until November 17th at 2:00 p.m." The ayes have it. The Convention recesses, the Senators straggle out.

I think I voted on one amendment during six years. It was offered and championed by teh Senate President himself, William Bulger. His amendment made it to the ballot on each instance, and was soundly defeated by the voters (for the record, I was one of its staunchest allies).

So given the sordid history of this process, one must take comfort where it can be had, and in closing, I turn to the final paragraph of Justice Greaney's opinion:

We conclude with these observations. Some members of the General Court may have reasoned, in good faith, that a vote on the merits of the initiative amendment in accordance with the directives of the pertinent provisions of art. 48 was not required by the constitutional text and that their duty could be met by procedural (or other) votes short of a vote by the yeas and nays on the merits. Today's discussion and holding on the meaning of the duty lays any doubt to rest. The members of the General Court are the people's elected representatives, and each one of them has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the Commonwealth. Those members who now seek to avoid their lawful obligations, by a vote to recess without a roll call vote by yeas and nays on the merits of the initiative amendment (or by other procedural vote of similar consequence), ultimately will have to answer to the people who elected them.

Would that such a prospect brought about some concern in the hearts and minds of the Great and General Court.

The Real Thing?

2006-12-26T17:41:00.000-05:00

Sorry Baby, Wrong Number

2006-12-20T20:08:00.000-05:00

Well here's an item in today's paper that I am certain hit a nice tonal chord with most readers:

Michael W. Morrissey, the Senate chairman of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy, is putting forth legislation to impose new regulations on cellular phone companies to make them more responsive to consumers.

The bill, drafted by Morrissey, would force the companies to issue semiannual public reports detailing their signal strength, their dead zones, and gaps in coverage, along with the number of dropped calls.

In addition, the legislation would allow customers with poor service to terminate their contract with their cellphone company without having to pay hefty penalties.

What could be wrong with that, especially coming from the ever-reliable protectors of consumer rights, the Massachusetts legislature?

As usual, there's more to the problem of unreliable service than meets the average legislator's eye (and Morrissey is no average legislator).

As a general rule, by now most every cell service provider is offering pretty reliable service along every major arterial corridor east of Springfield. All of the interstate highways, the Mass Pike, Route 128, most of the major arterial routes through most of the suburbs. That is true in most every instance in which the local municipalities are reasonable in their land use permitting of wireless carriers.

But if you live in Weston, you're pushing your luck if you think you can hold a call along Route 20 (formerly the major route between Boston and New York). If you live in Wayland, you've got no service at all. NONE.

Lincoln (parts of Route 2 only), Concord (slowly improving, after two federal court losses), Carlisle? Good luck. Wellesley? As if. Even on Route 9, you're praying for service.

Senator Morrissey knows this.

This is why people have complaints about service. Some local zoning boards and politicians make it practically impossible to site new facilities to eliminate service problems. For instance, some communities prohibit a wireless installation within any residential zoning district, even if the entire town is zoned residential and the installation is a stealth installation inside of a church steeple. A carrier must therefore seek a series of zoning variances, face strident neighborhood opposition, be denied by the board and file a federal law suit, in which case the Court itself orders the issuance of all development permits necessary to permit the facility to be built.

Several years ago, when the wireless carrier Nextel Communications sought to have local zoning authorities cut out of the process by having wireless classified as a "public utility," it prevailed in department regulatory proceeedings. The response was swift and merciless. Legislators quickly filed legislation to undo DPU's ruling, leaving local zoning authorities free to toss roadblocks in the way, even though federal law was clear that they could not effective prohibit wireless services. Senator Morrissey was in the middle of that very legislative wrangling.

At the impetus of Mass Municipal Association and the wireless industry, a working group was formed to work out a compromise piece of legislation that preserved municipal zoning authority but further defined what local zoning boards could do with particular wireless proposals. For instance, recognizing that the primary opposition to wireless antennas was their unsightliness, the draft legislation required that such installations could proceed without the need for extraordinary zoning relief such as heigh or setback variances. Preference was placed on installations that utilized existing structures (churches, power stanchions, silos, rooftops), and the stringent regulation was left to new tower installations. The compromise legislation was agreed to by all sides; but when the MMA took the bill back to its members, they squealed like they were Ned Beatty in Deliverance, and the bill went nowhere. Since that time, MMA has not deemed the issue to warrant its attention.

In the meantime, the town of Wayland has been chastised by a federal court for its "fixed opposition" to wireless, been sued successfully a second time, and doesn't appear to have been chastened in the least. If you live in Sudbury and commute from Boston, either take the Pike to Natick or take Route 20 and listen to Howie Carr, because a phone call you will not make.

A few years back in Carlisle, one tower provider proposed a monopole structure in the back of a lot on which an auto salvage business was conducted (after the zoning board had expressed its opposition to one other site and encouraged the providers to go to the auto salvage site). Under pressure from a handful of rabid (and utterly mannerless) abutters, the zoning board denied the application, stating that the applicant had not adequately investigated the alternative site across the street -- a combined 75 acres of undeveloped farmland and meadow, abutting the Concord River and a national wildlife refuge, listed on the town's Open Space Master Plan as property that was very important to protect the town's scenic and natural beauty. After three more years of permitting and litigation rigamarole, the riverside cell tower will soon emerge on the landscape to the great dismay of one and all. Now that's progress!

This sort of recalcitrance is not atypical here in Masaschusetts and other New England states. The average cost of permitting a wireless facility, and the average time for permitting, are the worst in the country. As a result, service is worse and the iincremental costs of improving it means all customers pay more across the board.

What is diabolical about this proposal is that (and perhaps Senator Morrissey knows this) there is one provider out there that has a built-in advantage under a legislative scheme such as his. If it were to exploit it under the law he proposes, wireless competition in Massachusetts could be severely impaired, and the immediate result would be a catastrophe -- because no carriers have perfect service and they will not, until the recalcitrant towns get out of the way.

So if you are an environmentalist and you are canoeing on the Concord River when you come upon one of "those things," you'll have the town of Carlisle (and the legislature) to thank.

And if you live in any town where your cell service stinks, call your provider and ask them what they are doing to improve it. If they have plans to seek additional service, support them. Write a letter, or better yet, show up at the hearing and get into the fray. Lawd knows that the opponents of this technology are sure to be there, tin hats firmly atop their heads. And the boards are likely to be listening to them.

Not the Best Ambassador

2006-12-20T13:29:00.000-05:00

I have a daughter who is in the midst of applying to colleges. When we were discussing "safety" schools, I suggested that she look at U. Mass. Amherst. I would never have considered this twenty years ago (I shunned the place myself), but they've made a great deal of progress, their reputation among publics has risen, and they have a good Honors College program. This doesn't entirely erase my reluctance to have her exposed to the everpresent mass of humanity inhabiting the campus who will forever preserve for it the nickname ZOO MASS. But I could overlook it, perhaps.

I have to be circumspect, however.

In the wake of the well-publicized rioting of several hundred students following U. Mass's loss to Appalachian State in the Division 1-AA championship game, the university's vice chancellor, Michael Gargano gamely vows that the university will hunt down by any means all of the responsible students and deal with them harshly. They're talking expulsion and prosecution. Bully for them.

Then we have this. One "Mishy Leiblum," a student trustee and undoubtedly the apple of her father's eye, coming to the defense of the oppressed students in their sufferance of a near-police state:

Mishy Leiblum , a student trustee, said the more the university has clamped down on students, the worse students' behavior has become. "Who cares if you bash your windows if you feel like you live in barracks?" asked Leiblum, who noted that she does not condone the rioting. "Why would you have a vested interest in your building?"

Ms. Leiblum is apparently dissatisfied with the quality of her housing and thinks that it is appropriate to express one's dissatisfaction by destroying public property (although she draws the line at rioting). Maybe they should get bigger rooms or something.

Well she has apparently had a change of opinion, because she was higly critical of the recently completed dorms on North Campus, which featured exactly that:

According to Marisha Leiblum, the newly elected Student Trustee the housing space could have been doubled if it had been constructed in a fashion similar to the other housing on campus.

"Everybody knows that these dorms were built to attract a new, creamier crop of students to UMass. While originally the University was considering building new dorms that would house twice as many students as these new suites (for essentially the same cost), they opted for luxury for a few over affordability for many. Unfortunately, this represents the general administrative philosophy on campus today."

In another breath, she calls for providing free access to courses and lowering tuition -- that'll help with the dorm rooms, Mish.

Ms. Leiblum, a graduate student in Labor Studies, has a way with words. During a March, 2005 meeting of the Faculty Senate in which the subject was a draft action plan for increasing university diversity, Ms. Leiblum confronted Chancellor Lombardi thus:

Undergraduate Student Marisha Leiblum asked for a point of clarification. She asked the Chancellor if they were going to be talking to the wall or if there was going to be some kind of response to these questions at some point.

Chancellor Lombardi responded that the purpose of the exercise is to gather opinions, comments, and suggestions for
improvements to the draft. He is listening very carefully so that he can take advantage of people’s perception of what is right
and wrong about the draft and then incorporate it when they revise it.

Ms. Leiblum responded that that did not answer her question. She asked if the Chancellor was going to give any feedback.

Chancellor Lombardi responded no.

Ms. Leiblum then asked if that meant that for the whole meeting he was not going to speak back.

Chancellor Lombardi again responded no.

And then there's this little bit of Utopian thinking:

After their demonstrations failed to convince the trustees to reject student fee increases, she had this to say:
“We see this as a step towards starting a dialogue about the role of public higher education in Massachusetts,” said student Marisha Leiblum, who was one of the demonstrating students and a member of the Free Higher Education movement. “We plan to continue to lobby for more public money for UMass throughout the spring and beyond.” As for the scope of the fight for funding for UMass, she stated, “Ultimately we think higher ed is a right, and should be free to all.”

I hate to be a pessimist, but as long as radical fools like this are given titles like "trustee," U. Mass will never shake the ZOO monkier.

Paying for Parties

2006-12-15T18:31:00.000-05:00

Well now that I've picked a fight with my fellow bloggers over the subject of paying for inaugurals, perhaps we can back away from the conflagration and take a closer look at the whole issue of paying for parties.

The proposition has been made that it is hypocritical of Deval Patrick (and, as it were, Mitt Romney) to assert that he is an "outsider" while he solicits contributions to his inaugural committee, in significant chunks, from well-connected corporate and political interests.

I think we need to start on common ground with the supposition that every incoming Governor is entitled to define the breadth, extent, and therefore cost, of his own inaugural celebration. To the extent that (as is the case in a relatively few jurisdictions) public funds are available for some portion of an inaugural ceremony (e.g., a swearing-in), those funds cannot (and should not) confine the Governor-elect from establishing events outside of that on his own (would anyone argue that a Governor cannot have a ball? Would anyone argue that it should be paid for with taxpayers' money?)

So, if we agree that an inaugural celebration is a proper event for the raising of private funds, the next question is, how much, and from whom? Here's where the rubber meets the road.

Naturally, the extent of the plan defines the amount of money to be raised. To the extent that one eschews the raising of money from within the political establishment, one must then either confine one's plans to a modest event (how does one succeed in raisiing money from people with no connection to politics?) or raise the ticket price the events so that ticket income alone fully covers the cost of the event. This alternative virtually guarantees that popular events would be beyond the reach of the "common man" and thus subject to criticism, if not simply poor attendance.

Setting all of that aside for a moment, the criticism in this controversy, coming from both left (via Common Cause) and right (the Republican Party) is that, by soliciting funds from corporations and their lawyers, lobbyists, etc., the Governor-elect taints his reputation as an "outsider" by creating potential official obligations to the donors.

Both critics contend that it creates an "appearance" of hypocrisy, conflict or impropriety for those with a real, apparent or potential interest in the policies forthcoming from the Patrick administration to be funding his inaugural events. By doing so, critics suggest, the donors create a relationship of undue favor or influence over the incoming administration's future actions.

This argument is falacious, as it ignores the natural and embedded dynamic of how political pressures work.

First, any incoming Governor has a well-founded understanding of, and appreciation for, those most responsible for his victory. They are representatives of the issues and causes to which the Governor-elect was most solicitous and has the greatest affinity. For these individuals and interest groups, contributions to his inaugural events are already superfluous, as they have already "delivered" (to use a term unduly susceptible to abuse). Their participation in any inaugural festivities does nothing to influence the relationship between them and the new administration -- it already exists.

For those businesses or political interest groups that would otherwise be antithetical to the Governor-elect's perceived agenda (for instance, that the opponents of Cape Wind --heh heh), do we presume that their refusal to sponsor some portion of the festivities would place them in a less advantageous position than they may have been? Or that, despite the Governor's natural opposition to their cause, the giving of money to an inaugural committee will somehow soften that opposition? (for instance, it is interesting to note that the largest single contributor ($410,000) to Bill Clinton's second inaugural was Marriott International, whose founder, Willard Marriott (the genesis of Mitt Romney's first name) was a Mormon.)

Must we assume in these instances that there is nothing at work here but a "quid pro quo" environment where all key players are focussed solely on political gain? I cannot be that cynical.

One must recognize that, in politics, the value of money alone is not that high. Politics is very much a social exercise in governing. It requires the interaction of individuals and groups to persuade decisionmakers. Success depends on both the message and the manner of its delivery. These are the keys to policymaking, not money itself. To the extent that money does "open doors," it is money given to campaign causes, not to fund a party at a convention center.

And it is axiomatic and logical that the people who make contributions to politically-related causes are those who are most connected to the political community. I would argue that even the most prudent of political outsiders would (and should) hesitate to risk insulting a significant segment of the political establishment by not asking, or refusing to accept, their participation in such an event.

If Patrick comes out of the gate in his first year and starts raising campaign money by the truckload from unions and other PACS, then by all means, fire away.
_____________

It is apparent that the "controversy" (manufactured as it is) over raising funds for inaugural balls is not unique to Deval Patrick or Massachusetts. It is being played out in much the same fashion in other states as well.

Wisconsin Democrat Jim Doyle's inaugural has a maximum contribution of $50,000 -- but in Wisconsin, the inaugural is run by the Boys & Girls Club of Kenosha, which gets to keep unused funds. That's a clever way to insulate the Governor; but can you imagine the donnybrook in Boston among those elbowing to become the new inaugural sponsor?

In Connecticut, Governor-elect Jodi Rell is having a problem because of tough new laws passed in the wake of John Rowland's legal problems. Rowland paid for his previous inaugural celebrations in the same manner -- privately raised funds, principally coming from his political contributors.

The State of Texas provides for an inaugural committee by statute, and an inaugural fund to which anyone may contribute free of limitation. The financial reports are public information (unlike current private funds here). Excess funds are retained in an "endowment fund" and used for future events.

Here's an interesting look at the history of the California inaugural committee, alon g with a list of Aronold Schwartzenegger's inaugural sponsors. Apparently, Arnold's biggest controversy is the fact that he has named
Willie Brown as the emcee. Talk about insiders (is Arnold still an "outsider" or has he crossed over?)

Hypocrisy Among the Partisans

2006-12-14T14:11:00.000-05:00

Those who do not know me will certainly wonder if I've lost my mind, but lately I have become quite impatient with the partisan demagoguery coming from fellow Republicans here in Massachusetts.

In 2002 when Mitt Romney was elected Governor, his Inaugural Committee set about raising $1.3 million -- a record for inaugural spending until then -- much of it from Big Wig corporations (Reebok, Mass Mutual) and their chieftains (Bill Bain, Joe O'Donnell) and lawyers (Ropes & Gray), in $25,000 chunks. During his campaign, he portrayed himself (accurately) as an outsider and reformer, and pledged to "change state government" and not to be beholden to special interests. Surely, when he began collecting money for his three-day-long inaugural celebration, none of his Republican supporters would have failed to defend him against partisan accusations of "appearance of conflict of interest," since these same corporations and their chiefs were in a position to seek assistance from the Governor's office. Surely!

Romney's inaugural program also sought to present an all-inclusive, common man theme. From his campaign's website:

...Emphasizing the inaugural theme of inclusion and public service, Romney and Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey were greeted upon their arrival at the State House by a "Citizens Welcome" of Girl Scouts, City Year Corps members and Beverly High School Band students. In Nurses Hall, they autographed inaugural post cards for school children, then saluted veterans in the Hall of Flags and shook hands with members of the public at the foot of the Grand Staircase.

Faces of citizens were on display throughout the inaugural events, photographed by high school students across Massachusetts. Romney and Healey started the day by serving breakfast to homeless veterans in Boston and later participating in a basketball game with middle and high school students at the Colonel Daniel Marr Boys and Girls Club in Dorchester.

In a departure from the past, Romney and Healey held the traditional prayer service the previous evening at the New Covenant Christian Church in the predominantly minority neighborhood of Mattapan.

Tomorrow, they extend the festivities to western Massachusetts by visiting a Springfield elementary school.

To a man, we puffed out our chests and said "that's our man!! Way to go!!"

Well now the shoe is on the other foot. Deval Patrick, a man who grew up far, far from the cloistered neighborhood of Grosse Point in the slums of South Side Chicago, is pursuing plans for an inaugural that is much along the same lines as Romney's blueprint. Another record-setting private fundraising drive, targeting the A-list of Massachusetts business and society (along with a multitude of "little people"), and a five-day program that seeks to reach out to the geographical and cultural corners of the state. Bully for him.

But what do we hear from my fellow Republican bloggers?

Scorn. Ridicule. Contempt.

First, there's Matt and Aaron Margolis, publishers of Hub Politics, who slam Patrick's inaugural plans, positing that "all the reasons Deval Patrick gave for you to elect him are being refuted--by himself--all before his inauguration," and demonstrate that he is just an ordinary politician. (This is after a solid week of trashing Leslie Kirwan, the former Weld administration budget professional who was tapped as Secretary of A&F.)

Then Optimistic Patriot, my rhetorical foe at New England Republican, rolls out some of his best snark with this:

Ever notice how everything Governor-elect Patrick does is for the people? That’s the latest from Camp Patrick as more negative attention is focused on his special interest funded, budget busting inauguration. But he doesn’t want you to get the wrong idea by the $50,000 per special interests are plopping down to fund the bash because he’s making government more accessible to you through these parties. It’s your bash, Massachusetts.

But the idea that Patrick is making government more accessible to the people by charging them $50 a head for the privilege of attending his inaugural is laughable. But in a small nod to the populace’s distaste for his extravagance, Patrick is grabbing a fig leave by throwing some boots and shoes to poor children. This man gives till it hurts.

[Ed.: Can someone explain to me how an inauguration that hasn't happened yet can be "budget busting?" I know, I know -- hyperbole. See infra.]

Now I wasn't blogging back in December 2002 but I have to suspect that in December of 2002 there were plenty of lefty blog posts ridiculing Romney for being "for the people" and taking money from corporate fat cats. When they do, we bristle and smoulder and erupt in our best partisan snarking, and the debate (such as it is) immediately devolves into a Yo Mama contest between left and right. It's tawdry, juvenile and pointless.

So I ask my fellow Republican bloggers -- why is it okay for Mitt to put on a "people's inauguration" and raise money from corporate sources, but it is an act of sheer hypocrisy for Patrick to do the same?

I can hear O.P. already (actually, to quote him directly):

Deval Patrick set the bar very high. He promised a new direction and tone for state government. He positioned himself as the outsider. So the expectations are very high, but he set them, not me. And when you examine his actions so far, they don’t match his rhetoric. He’s meeting with Billy Bulger. He’s shuffling the same old people around. The same special interest groups running the state into the ground now funded his campaign and are throwing him the largest inauguration ever.

Hmmm. Change a few nouns, substitute a few names, maybe doesn't sound so different from Mitt.

And why is that a surprise. Isn't being "for the people" and "aganst special interests" what every (successful or unsuccessful) candidate is? Is the rhetoric so much different? Naah.

There used to be a tradition in the time and tide of electoral politics. It was called "The Honeymoon."

The opposition party would take a step into the background for a bit, allow the incoming victor the courtesy of a few months to select his team, execute his inaugural party, go through the transition process and submit his first budget. The Honeymoon might be long (Weld's) or short (Romney's), but it was granted. (Without doing any exhaustive research, my fuzzy memory says that even Mike Dukakis received a reprieve from his most avid opponents following his reprise primary victory over Ed King and subsequent trouncing of my dear friend, John Sears.)

But now it seems to be an all-out sprint to the front line at the inaugural parade route: the rabid participants, faces contorted despisingly, bullhorns perched lipward, tomato-pitching arms cocked at the ready, partisan minds convinced that their worst predictions are certain to be validated tomorrow.

So I suggest to those with a frothing cynicism (however born) of this particular aspect of Patrick's transition, CHILL OUT.

We Massachusetts Republicans have been advised by the vast majority not among us that our manner and method of communicating our ideas is nothing less than an abject failure. We cannot afford to wave our big swollen bruised egos around, lest they continue to strike unintended objects and cause further antipathy to those who otherwise might listen.

The man won an election with stunning ease. Pack your ammo and hold it for something that matters.

For the time being, remember what the value of magnanimity in defeat is to the spectator who might support your cause but objects to the message or the messenger. There are plenty of them out there.

P.C. Donnybrook!

2006-12-13T16:23:00.000-05:00

Bro's caricatures really can't be beat. Look at those TEETH!!

More Junk Science from Anti-Tobacco Crowd

2006-12-13T10:09:00.000-05:00

Just when I was beginning to hope (irrationally) that the anti-tobacco people would stop using junk science to support their precious political cause (i.e., turning smokers into social pariahs), Professor Robert Proctor seizes upon the tragic poisoning of Alexander V. Litvinenko to further the agenda.

In his NYT op-ed entitled "Puffing on Polonium," Proctor discloses that "the industry has been aware at least since the 1960s that cigarettes contain significant levels of polonium." Significant levels. **GASP** As if the tar and nicotine fears weren't enough, now smokers have to worry about losing their hair before dying a slow and painful death.

How much is "significant?" After some fast calculations, he concludes:

"London’s smokers (and those Londoners exposed to secondhand smoke), taken as a group, probably inhale more polonium 210 on any given day than the former spy ingested with his sushi." **GASP** It's in the air around us?!?!?!? (Cue the widespread panic)."

If this statement is ominous but not blunt enough, his conclusion is:

"I suspect that even some of our more enlightened smokers will be surprised to learn that cigarette smoke is radioactive, and that these odd fears spilling from a poisoned K.G.B. man may be molehills compared with our really big cancer mountains."

Wow. Cigarette smoke "is radioactive," and the polonium poison of Litvinenko is a molehill compared to the polonium poisoning of all of us by cigarette smoke. Wow.

What about Professor Proctor? According to his page on the Stanford University website, he is a Professor of the History of Science, and has been quite active in the anti-tobacco cause for years. No surprise there. If you care to review the nature of "where he is coming from," his report entitled A HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF TOBACCO AND HEALTH IN THE U.S., 1954-1994 , is a good place to start.

As to his findings on polonium and the threat that it's presence in cigarettes causes, Charles W. Magee, Jr., author of Lab Lemming Lounge, provides the following mathematics:

"For analogy lovers, here’s a more correct one that what Professor Proctor has dished out: Potassium, which is a vital nutrient, has a slightly radioactive minor isotope, 40K. With an isotopic abundance of .01% and a half-life of 1.25 billion years, a banana with 450 mg of K will kick out 14 decays every second. So a banana is over nine thousand times more radioactive than the polonium in a cigarette.

Now, how many cigarettes would it take to get a lethal dose? Well, the LD 50 for ingestion is around 8 million becquerels (decays/sec). So with 1.48x10-3 Bq per fag, you would need about 5.4 billion of them to accumulate a lethal dose of polonium. I reckon the nicotine would get you first.

Professor Proctor writes, “London’s smokers (and those Londoners exposed to secondhand smoke), taken as a group, probably inhale more polonium 210 on any given day than the former spy ingested with his sushi.” Can this be true? Well, with a lethal dose 5.4 billion times greater than that of a fag, and assuming that 5.4 million Londoners smoke, they’d have to suck down a thousand cigs a day (50 packs) in order for the figures to be correct. Muscovites may think a 50 pack day is cold turkey, but Londoners? I doubt it."

As Magee says in a comment to his own post, "here are plenty of sound reasons to discourage smoking; we don't need to discard them for sensationalized scare tactics."

Indeed.

UPDATE: Far surpassing Magee in both mathematical precision and eloquence is one Russell Seitz, who adds even more clarity and irony to the issue:

The human body excretes polonium 210 about three times faster than the isotope decays . Since the 0.04 picoCurie Proctor invokes works out to half a million atoms ingested by a pack -a-day smoker, the equivalent annual dosage is ~3 × 10^-8 J/kg day) times 365 = ~ 10 microsievert per year, or 1/240 of average background radiation of 2.4 millisievert. So a cigarette adds about one part in 1.7 million to a smoker's radiation exposure.

If counts count , reckoning polonium's place in the hierarchy of hazards is scarcely a two-pipe problem -- smoking a Camel scarely rivals hanging around Professor Proctor for an hour.

It's a great read.

(H/T Overlawyered)

Abject Disgust

2006-12-08T07:53:00.000-05:00

That's one way to describe the feeling I get reading this.

Walter Olsen at Overlawyered makes a point of tracking the legion of outrages that arise out of the disability law field, especially in California, where the odious Unruh Act turns "victim's rights" into a weapon of extortion.

But unlike some of the more ridiculous examples (such as this), this fella David Allen Gunther (sounds like a serial killer, dunnit?) has used the California's preposterous Unruh Act as his vehicle to amass a personal fortune.

Here's the teaser to the article linked above:

With all the deviants running around these days, you can only imagine what could happen in an Orange County public restroom. David Allen Gunther, a fellow who knows depravity well, said he was traumatized by his Nov. 11, 2003, experience at the Anaheim West Car Wash. Gunther, who is wheelchair-bound, found a bathroom mirror mounted a few inches too high for him to “preen” himself. In a legal complaint, he insisted the experience caused him “anguish, anxiety, humiliation, anger, frustration, distress, embarrassment, apprehension and disgust.” He demanded that the owner of the business pay him $4,000. Would you believe that Gunther has the law on his side?

He did indeed get his money (and his attorney got his too). He's collected more than $400,000 over three years.

I recommend the whole article -- but I warn you, it may cause a paroxysm of anger.

Oh those wacky people in the California legislature.

More Positive to Report on Wind Farms

2006-12-07T09:26:00.000-05:00

Tasty Politics reports that an eight-year long study of Denmark's two largest wind farms is good news for Cape Wind. The report concludes that:

Danish experience from the past 15 years shows that offshore wind farms, if placed right, can be engineered and operated without significant damage to the marine environment and vulnerable species.

The comprehensive environmental monitoring programmes of Horns Rev Offshore Wind Farm and Nysted Offshore Wind Farm confi rm that, under the right conditions, even big wind farms pose low risks to birds, mammals and fish, even though there will be changes in the living conditions of some species by an increase in habitat heterogeneity.

The monitoring also shows that appropriate siting of offshore wind farms is an essential precondition for ensuring limited impact on nature and the environment, and that careful spatial planning is necessary to avoid damaging cumulative impacts.

Due consideration to limiting the impacts on nature together with positive attitudes towards offshore wind farms in local communities and challenging energy policy objectives at national and international levels mean that pros-
pects look bright for future offshore expansion.

The report did not address the alleged deleterious effects on multi-million dollar summer homes in Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard and Hyannisport.

No word on whether members of the Alliance for the Preservation of Nantucket Sound are yet being treated for apoplexy.

A Good Start

2006-12-07T07:25:00.000-05:00

Deval Patrick made his first cabinet appointment yesterday, and it's a very good start (and a good sign as well).

Governor-elect Deval Patrick has named a seasoned state manager to fill one of his administration's most significant and powerful posts.

Leslie Kirwan, who has served in state government since the Weld administration, will become secretary of administration and finance, the state's top budget aide

Kirwan is now director of administration and finance and secretary-treasurer of the Massachusetts Port Authority, a position she has held since 1999. In that role, Kirwan leads an 80-person administration and finance team managing a $500 million budget.
Before joining Massport, Kirwan served as undersecretary and chief of staff at the Executive Office of Administration and Finance under Governor William Weld. She began her professional career at the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, becoming deputy commissioner for the Division of Local Services in 1991.

Kirwan holds a master's degree in public policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and received her undergraduate degree from Radcliffe College.

A&F Secretary is the toughest and most influential position in the cabinet. It will be especially so with Patrick having to balance a budget and deal with two legislative leaders who are used to calling the shots.

The fact that he turned to a seasoned Republican budget professional is an excellent sign.

Razing the Bar

2006-12-05T07:37:00.000-05:00

The Massachusetts School of Law in Andover was founded in 1988 in order to provide a law school education at an affordable cost to many who could not otherwise afford the education. Its design and curriculum were influenced by the medical school educational model -- scholars, lawyers, and judges working side-by-side in educating students how to become practicing lawyers. The tuition at MSL is less than half of typical law school tuition.

In 1990, the Massachusetts Board of Regents of Higher Education authorized MSL to grant the Juris Doctor degree. MSL subsequently applied for American Bar Association approval while simultaneously challenging some of the ABA's accreditation standards, arguing that those standards are of questionable educational value, may violate antitrust laws, and needlessly increase tuition costs. MSL refused to comply with these standards, and the ABA denied approval of the school's accreditation. The lack of the ABA imprimatur means graduates are unable to take the bar exam in numerous states, preventing them from practicing law in those places. MSL has been fighting with the ABA since.

Among those standards were several related to student-faculty ratio. Under its standards in effect at that time, the ABA refused to count most of MSL’s full-time professors who practiced law, or any of MSL's 85 expert lawyers and judges who comprised MSL’s adjunct faculty members in computing its student-faculty ratio.

...In 1995, the Department of Justice and ABA reached a consent agreement -- prompted in part by a Massachusetts School of Law lawsuit that accused the ABA of antitrust violations -- in which the association agreed to overhaul its accreditation process....

...Yesterday, in their continuing clash with the ABA, school officials appeared before a US Department of Education committee in Washington, D.C, to denounce the association's "monopolistic" accreditation policies, which they say hinder minority, immigrant, and working-class enrollment. They also asked that the ABA be stripped of its right to accredit the nation's law schools.

Well it is certainly the case that MSL has picked a fight with the schoolyard bully, but I am rooting for them.

I have been a lawyer now for a quarter-century, and there are very few absolutes that I can assert about lawyers in general, but this is one of them:

The best lawyers that I have encountered during my career are those who came from meager or modest means and graduated from middle-tier law schools. Many of them are still paying off their loans, and are involved in areas of practice that are essential to the well being of society -- they work in the district attorneys' offices, the legal aid services, the public sector. They put out shingles in small towns are write wills for their middle class neighbors. And many of them run for (and win) public office.

I graduated from one of those top tier law schools. I received a superb legal education -- but it was book learning. When I graduated, it took me at least five years to learn how to actually be a lawyer -- what the practical application of my knowledge was and how to use it.

If MSL has designed a method of incorporating the practical into theoretical, and do it at a fraction of the cost, I think it behooves the American Bar Association to begin to think of its role in a different way. It ought to be enabling schools like MSL to make a legal education more accessible to people of modest means.

Who knows, perhaps in another fifty years, the public might actually respect the profession.

Searching for Scandal in All the Wrong Places

2006-12-01T16:57:00.000-05:00

I'm a little late to the dance with this story in which the Boston Globe goes to enormous lengths to disclose that **GASP** Governor Romney's lanscape maintenance vendor **GASP** employed ***GASP** illegal aliens ENTIRELY WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE!!!!

Read the story end to end several times, and answer the following multiple choice question (opponents of MCAS are disqualified from participating):

QUESTION: WHAT IS THE MAIN POINT OF THIS STORY?

A. The owner of Community Lawn Services With a Heart doesn't check the immigration status of its employees; or

B. Mitt Romney's wife is kind to the lowliest of service workers; or

C. Illegal aliens are all around us (even ardent anti-immigrant politicians) without our knowledge; or

D. The Boston Globe does not want Mitt Romney to be President of the United States.

(answer below)
_______________

Here's what my perusal shows (all quotes directly from news article):

1. The Globe "received a tip in July alleging that Romney was using illegal immigrants to landscape his property."

2. Acting on this tip, the Globe assigned THREE reporters to investigate ("This story was reported by Jonathan Saltzman and Maria Cramer of the Globe staff and by Globe correspondent Connie Paige and was written by Saltzman").

3. Reporters staked out Romney's house and "observed the lawn service workers outside Romney's house more than a dozen times, sometimes as frequently as twice a week." (WOW, his grass grows so fast!!)

4. The Globe reporters "tracked down four current and former employees of the company at their homes in Chelsea and in Guatemala." All but one admitted they had been (or were) in the country illegally.

5. These workers said that although he had occasionally greeted them with a "buenos dias," Romney "had never expressed any curiosity about their status."

6. Two of Bill Clinton's nominees for attorney general were forced to withdraw when it was discovered that each had employed illegal aliens as nannies, and Michael Huffington lost his U. S. Senate race after making a similar admission.

7. "Ann Romney was friendly and brought [the workers] water on one particularly hot day."

8. Mitt Romney supports efforts to crack down on illegal aliens in this country.

9. When confronted at the Republican Governor's Association meeting in Florida (now why would they chose that venue to confront him??), Romney said "Aw jeez," and walked away.

I think the gist of this explosive blockbuster story is the following:

"The situation underscores the extent to which illegal immigrants permeate the US economy. Even as Romney travels the country, vowing to curb the flood of low-skilled illegal immigrants into the United States, some of those workers maintain his own yard, cutting grass, pruning shrubs, and mulching trees."

And there you have it. The Globe assigned three reporters to run down a tip iinvolving Romney. They spent weeks and weeks staking out Romney's home, tracking the arrival and departure of numerous hispanic-looking workers. They obtained these workers' identities, hunted them down in their homes -- even traveling to Guatemala to interview them. They assembled the "story" (such as it is) over a course of four months, and traveled to Florida to confront Romney at the Republican Governor's Association conference (his last as Chairman).

The previous post has to do with the subject of cynicism IN the media and cynicism OF the media.

It's an understatement that his story does nothing to abate the latter.

(Answer: C. If you are employed by the Boston Globe, the answwer is D.)

Pardon My Cynicism

2006-12-01T14:48:00.000-05:00

An interesting story in today's Globe says a good deal about both Deval Patrick and the people who publish and edit Massachusetts newspapers.

Addressing the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association, Patrick had the chutzpah to criticize unnamed reporters employed by them:

The former Clinton administration official also said some reporters "were openly contemptuous" of his campaign, and he suggested newsroom budget cuts have affected the quality of political reporting.

"Whether it was skepticism, distraction, or the cynicism so many of us try to pass off as sophistication, some of your reporters missed 'it,' " Patrick said. "And 'it' is a bedrock democratic principle: To make any difference in our common reality, people must see their stake again in their neighbors' dreams and struggles, as well as their own. Massachusetts government cannot move forward without Massachusetts people."

He then exhorted those who have raised cynicism to a Life Force:

"Put your cynicism down. Don't trivialize optimism and hope. It built this country. It built my life," Patrick told about 75 people attending the annual meeting of the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association.

"Don't glorify the naysayers when the yeasayers have been at the center of progress since the beginning of recorded time," he said.

So what was the response from the audience?

The remarks were greeted by silence and most of the follow-up questions -- asked after prodding by Patrick himself -- focused on his support for a media shield law, as well as his defense of closed-door meetings with legislative leaders after pledging to run an open administration.

Heh heh. Translation: "Don't you dare touch our cynicism, and who the f**k do you think you are?"

I find it quite interesting that Patrick would go into a meeting of newspaper bigwigs and criticize the quality of their reporting, expecially since most of the newspapers endorsed him. As cynical as I am inclined to be about may politicians and events, I like the guy for having the guts to do that.

That said, I can understand how the crowd would choose silence when asked to respond to the notion that they somehow become cheerleaders for his new administration. As much disdain as I have for some of them, I still prefer that the news media be as tough on the new administration as intellectual honesty permits. Of course that last clause is a zinger, there is no such thing in the news business. (But that would tag me as a cynic.)

I must also say that if I were in the room and an editor asked Patrick about his "defense of closed-door meetings with legislative leaders after pledging to run an open administration," I might have been compelled to give the man a good slap, just for my own sanity. Talk about the height of cynicism and intellectual dishonesty. And the question's juxtaposition to that inquiring into his support for a "media shield law" suggests that someone's timing is a bit off.

*********

This story reminds me of my one encounter with this esteemed group of powerful men (all men, at the time). When I was serving in the legislature, I had engaged in a bit of late-night budget hijinx.

At the time, the Boston Globe editors were rabid advocates for a budget amendment that imposed a tax on some sort of industrial waste in order to fund some Commission or other. It was a typical liberal goo-goo proposal that hadn't a chance in hell of being adopted, but the Globe was pushing, pushing, pushing for it and many members resented having to waste time on this amendment's debate in the middle of the night.

In order to inject some good humor into the debate, I scribbled out a proposed amendment to the amendment which deleted the entire text and substituted something else -- it proposed to REPEAL THE SALES TAX EXEMPTION ON NEWS PRINT AND INK (oh, you didn't know that newsprint and ink were not taxed?? How could that have happened!) and dedicated the sales tax revenue from those products to a new environmental fund to be known as The GLOBE Fund (GLOBE was an acronym for Greater Landfill Operations for a Better Environment).

I showed the amendment to Speaker Keverian, who was holding court at the Speaker's Rostrum. He read it, laughed out loud and said "gee, if I support this, I might I might get some bad press!"

The next day as the budget debate droned on further, I was visited by a fellow member who had teh day before attended the annual luncheon of the New England Newspaper Publishers Association. He was at a table at which the publisher of the Cape Cod Times (my district's paper of record) was also sitting. It seems that news of my proposed amendment had leaked out, and was being taken seriously.

Seriously, these fatheads thought the amendment was on the level. When someone at the table asked the Cape Cod Times publisher, "isn't he from your district," his response was "yeah, well don't worry, we'll take care of him."

With the member standing before me, I said "watch this," picked up a house phone and got the publisher on the line, so as simply to confirm that I had been given accurate information as to the facts, you see.

"Did you really say "we'll take care of him?" I asked.

It was the first time I had ever heard a newspaper man blubber, stutter and harrumph.

So you see how one can be cynical of those who are cynical of one who is not cynical.

I Guess I Am A Process Liberal, Too

2006-11-26T11:01:00.000-05:00

Wow, that headline looks weird to me.

It's a good thing Sam Allis's opinions are printed on page two of the Sunday Globe. I usually can't make it much past that. But in this case, he's written a sturdy piece on the legislature's trashing of our constitutional right to have a vote on the gay marriage amendment. Not that it requires a spectacular feat, but his logic is spot on:

Process liberals get tagged in torrid single-issue causes whose advocates like Isaacson conclude that the end justifies the means. That the goal is so important, they can ignore due process, in this case the state constitution.

"It's not a matter of following the constitution," says John Reinstein, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. "It's following the constitution down the drain."

Great line, but, of course, once you start choosing which parts of the constitution to obey, you're practicing cafeteria constitutionalism, which invites cynicism.

Say for the sake of argument that the ballot initiative would embed in the constitution the right of gays to marry and that the Legislature dodged a vote on it. Isaacson and Reinstein would, in righteous dudgeon, demand that legislators honor their oath of office to obey the state constitution.

They would demand that a Constitutional Convention follow Article 48 of the document, whose clear intent calls for a vote on an initiative before it. (If there are 50 votes in favor, the proposal goes on the ballot in the next statewide election.) The irony is that Article 48 was added to the constitution in 1918 to provide citizens a means to thwart an obstructionist legislature.
There was nothing pretty about the 109-to-87 vote to skate on the gay marriage initiative, which drew a record 170,000 signatures. No profiles in courage either. The leaders of both houses took a powder instead of defending the craven recess vote.

Way to go Sam.

The Intoxicating Property of Juniper Berries

2006-11-24T12:23:00.000-05:00

What looked to be a humdrum day has turned interesting, thanks to the presence of a vigorous juniper tree in my back yard.

My home has its share of windows to the rear, revealing a rather stunning view of a tidal river. Frequenting the many trees between the house and the river are birds of many species -- chickadees, titmice, sparrows (house, song, white throated, chipping), robins, bluejays, goldfinches, woodpeckers, waxwings, flickers -- you get the picture. I tend to several feeders between the house and the river. On routine occasion, I hear a "thump" against the window, the telltale sign that one of the little ones has failed to notice the glass. Sometimes the birds are just stunned, sometimes they meet an untimely demise.

A short time ago, we installed two six-foot sliding glass doors that exit to the deck which overlooks the river. Next to the deck is a hardy juniper tree. In the fall, the juniper's buds transform to hard, dull blue-gray berries. When this occurs, there is a week-long feeding frenzy in which certain birds (robins, flickers, woodpeckers, titmice, chickadees and waxwings) gorge themselves on these berries. I had always assumed simply that there was some natural attraction of tase or preference for the berry from these birds in particular, as most of the others showed no interest in them.

But the presence of the new sliders suggested something quite different.

This morning, as a flock of cedar waxwings gorged themselves in a frenzy, I detected a loud **THUMP**, and discovered a dead waxwing on the deck. Ouch! I went back to my chores. Another **THUMP**, another dead waxwing. I went to the window to observe.

This was no ordinary pre-migration food-storing operation here. This was a full-fledged orgy. And these birds were not acting normal. They were crazed with intoxication. They were manic. Frenetic. Out of their tiny little minds, which was apparent by the slowly growing pile of little corpses on my deck.

Might these juniper berries contain some sort of intoxicant, similar, perhaps to those used in some forms of GIN?? Some research was done.

My source informs us that "there is a considerable demand on the Continent for an aqueous extract of the berries called Roob, or Rob of Juniper, and the distilled oil is in this case a by-product, the berries being first crushed and macerated with water and then distilled with water and the residue in the still evaporated to a soft consistence. Much of the oil met with in commerce is obtained as a by-product in the manufacture of gin and similar products....

...In Sweden a beer is made that is regarded as a healthy drink. In hot countries the tree yields by incision a gum or varnish."

For humans, the berries are chiefly used as a "diuretic, stomachic, and carminative in indigestion, flatulence, and diseases of the kidney and bladder." Well, in this case, I'd rather be a bird -- for it is plain that the berries are inducing a euphoric state in their tiny little brains.

They're still at it now -- but I have placed a windmill-like object on the deck to deter wayward galivanting.

(In the picture above, how many waxwings can you count?)

Here's the Yellow-shafted Flicker enjoying his buzz.

Only a few minutes later, another group of waxwings eager to get their share of the elixir.

Makes me appreciate my Sapphire all the more, yes?

Potpourri of Petulance

2006-11-22T13:15:00.000-05:00

Several stories in the Boston Globe today cause me to reflect on the increasing petulance exhibited by the sanctimonious:

In Danvers, Massachusetts, the local YMCA's annual fundraiser included a "special guest," an impeccable impersonator of Tina Turner named Hollie Vest. By all accounts, she wowed the crowd, and many weren't entirely sure whether they were being honored with the presence of Tina herself. A good time was had by all. Well, almost all. At least one guest, Y board member Paul Sullivan, informed the Salem Evening News that he would be seeking a refund. "I wouldn't expect the Y to stoop to this type of behavior. I'm very surprised, and I'm disappointed."

But Ms. Vest saw things differently:

Vest said she was surprised and saddened to learn that anyone was upset with the YMCA of the North Shore, an organization that does so much to help children. Usually, she said, "common sense" kicks in before long and people realize that she's not the real thing.

Tina Turner, after all, is semi-retired and can fill stadiums, she said.

"Why would Tina Turner come to an event with 600 people? Doesn't she live in France? How could they afford this?" Vest said of the questions that typically run through people's minds. "It's kind of understood in those events that would not be the real Tina."

In 22 years working as an impersonator, Vest said, she had never heard of a single instance where people were upset because her real identity was not revealed.

Paging Paul Sullivan: please go to the Lost and Found to retrieve your perspective.

Meanwhile, on the campus of Boston University, undergraduate members of the school's College Republicans group announced their intention to promote a discussion about race-based scholarships and affirmative action by offering a $250 scholarship to white students. Provocative, to be sure. Here's how the dean of students saw it:

Kenneth Elmore, BU's dean of students, said in a statement that the scholarship goes against the university's goal of increasing diversity on campus. He agreed the issue of race-based programs is worthy of debate, but questioned the group's approach.

"It appears to me that they're trying to push a debate as it relates to affirmative action and American society," Elmore said. "I want students to know that I encourage debate and will help students foster creative debate around the university. I hope the College Republicans and other students will try to do the same."

Fair enough. But you'd think after the drubbing that the Republican Party in this state took last week, its current executive director might be a little more circumspect:

Brian Dodge, executive director of the Massachusetts Republican Party, said the state party did not endorse the scholarship. 'Their actions are misguided and offensive,' he said.

Reckless accusation from one who defended the Healey campaign's over-the-line attack on Deval Patrick's advocacy on behalf of Ben Laguer's case.

Finally, there is this gem involving the certain perpetually offendable members of the Massachusetts Bar Association:

She's a sensual brunette showing a flash of cleavage and lots of inner thigh. She's tugging at the necktie of a handsome executive, pulling him aggressively toward her. Eyes closed, mouth slightly open as they prepare to kiss, she's wearing a men's suit jacket and not much else.

It's a glossy, full-color advertising insert for a clothing company with this racy caption: "A custom-tailored suit is a natural aphrodisiac."

And it's triggered a blitz of indignant letters and calls to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, where it recently appeared for three weeks in a row.

"Highly insulting," wrote one reader. "Puerile, tasteless, and offensive," wrote another. "Wrong on so many levels," added a third. Another was even more blunt: "Stop publishing this ad."

About two dozen readers have contacted the paper to complain that the insert, for a New York company called Jiwani, objectifies females and undermines gender equality. It is especially inappropriate, many of them said, for a publication that targets the legal industry, where women struggle mightily to achieve the same respect and status as men.

Folks. It's a freakin' FASHION AD. Last time I checked, you were in favor of the First Amendment. "Stop publishing this ad"??

Since when did pride become so fragile? Did I miss something? Are we all so focussed on making sure that it is OUR message that gets the attention that we feel the necessity to quarrel with everyone else's methods of doing the same?

Since when did the First Amendment become such a malleable principle that it is used in defense of only some (modestly) offensive speech? Am I a freak to believe that none of these expressions of speech are offensive? Provocative, yes. Controversial, absolutely. But offensive? I sure hope not.