“America is approaching a ‘tipping point’ beyond which the Nation will be unable to change course,” announces the dark, old-timey preamble to Paul Ryan’s “The Roadmap Plan,” a statement of fiscal principles that shaped the budget outline approved last spring by 98 percent of the House Republican caucus. Rick Santorum warns his audiences, “We are reaching a tipping point, folks, when those who pay are the minority and those who receive are the majority.” Even such a sober figure as Mitt Romney regularly says things like “We are only inches away from no longer being a free economy,” and that this election “could be our last chance.”

The Republican Party is in the grips of many fever dreams. But this is not one of them. To be sure, the apocalyptic ideological analysis—that “freedom” is incompatible with Clinton-era tax rates and Massachusetts-style health care—is pure crazy. But the panicked strategic analysis, and the sense of urgency it gives rise to, is actually quite sound. The modern GOP—the party of Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes—is staring down its own demographic extinction. Right-wing warnings of impending tyranny express, in hyperbolic form, well-grounded dread: that conservative America will soon come to be dominated, in a semi-permanent fashion, by an ascendant Democratic coalition hostile to its outlook and interests. And this impending doom has colored the party’s frantic, fearful response to the Obama presidency.

It’s a really excellent article that explains a lot of things well – basically through the lens of identity politics, i.e. psychology, not ideology or interests. The fulcrum point is essentially this: That due to long-term demographic change, the older, whiter GOP identity is threatened. President Obama is a perfect symbol of this. And rather than adapt to the new reality, the GOP has doubled down on defiance.

It didn’t have to be this way: The GOP could have helped pass George W. Bush and John McCain’s immigration reform, coalescing a willing Latino vote in the process; or worked with President Obama on economic recovery, health care, and climate, with ideas Republicans themselves had formerly espoused. The country would be better off, and the GOP would have shared in the credit. What could have been …

And as Chait points out, it’s a suicide mission with some interesting and psychologically apt precedents. Sometimes the pilot doesn’t pull out of the dive … simply because he doesn’t want to.

In the meantime, I look forward to a Rick Santorum candidacy.

All right, so I’m not a woman. But I do have a wife and three daughters. That’s three daughters, not eight. In an earlier time, I’d have more kids than I want. My wife would have had little control over her body. (Boys will be boys). It would have been worse for my friend’s wife. She was so sick during two of her pregnancies she would have died. As it was, she had to have an IV drip twenty-four hours a day to make up for the extreme vomiting she tolerated during pregnancy. Without birth control, she and her husband would had to choose between a Platonic relationship and death.

As Sara Robinson writes,

Until the condom, the diaphragm, the Pill, the IUD, and all the subsequent variants of hormonal fertility control came along, anatomy really was destiny — and all of the world’s societies were organized around that central fact. Women were born to bear children; they had no other life options. With a few rebellious or well-born exceptions (and a few outlier cultures that somehow found their way to a more equal footing), the vast majority of women who’ve ever lived on this planet were tied to home, dependent on men, and subject to all kinds of religious and cultural restrictions designed to guarantee that they bore the right kids to the right man at the right time — even if that meant effectively jailing them at home.

Birth control ended needless deaths, and it freed women from the roles social conservatives like Rick Santorum would re-impose on them, if given opportunity. With birth control, Robinson, says

came the possibility, for the first time, to make a vast range of other choices for ourselves that were simply never within reach before. We could choose to delay childbearing and limit the number of children we raise; and that, in turn, freed up time and energy to explore the world beyond the home. We could refuse to marry or have babies at all, and pursue our other passions instead. Contraception was the single necessary key that opened the door to the whole new universe of activities that had always been zealously monopolized by the men—education, the trades, the arts, government, travel, spiritual and cultural leadership, and even (eventually) war making.

Personally, I’m sick of treating the episcopacy of the Roman Catholic church with kid gloves. The pedophile scandals of the last 20 years was enough to deprive them of any moral authority they once claimed. But the stupidity, yeah, stupidity of the Catholic hierarchy deserves no quarter. The Council of American Bishops picked this birth control fight:

American bishops at first opposed having hospitals and schools connected with them pay employee health costs for contraceptives. But when the President backed off from that requirement, saying insurance companies can pay the costs, the bishops doubled down and said no one should have to pay for anything so evil as contraception.

Wills is one of the few well-known, liberal intellectuals who has written about about Catholicism. He left the seminary before entering the priesthood, but remained a staunch Catholic. In his blog at the New York Review of Books, he takes apart the current controversy.

The bishops’ opposition to contraception is not an argument for a “conscience exemption.” It is a way of imposing Catholic requirements on non-Catholics. This is religious dictatorship, not religious freedom… what matters here is that contraception is legal, ordinary, and accepted even by most Catholics. To say that others must accept what Catholics themselves do not is bad enough. To say that President Obama is “trying to destroy the Catholic Church” if he does not accept it is much, much worse.

Catholics who do not accept the phony argument over contraception are said to be “going against the teachings of their church.” That is nonsense. They are their church. The Second Vatican Council defines the church as “the people of God.” Thinking that the pope is the church is a relic of the days when a monarch was said to be his realm.

Requiring Catholic organizations to provide health insurance that covers free birth control, in other words, offends only a minority of the Roman Catholic Church, not the Church itself. It doesn’t go against Catholicism.

For the last 30 years, we’ve been on the defensive in the culture wars. It’s time we go on the offense.

I did it. One of the pleasures of being an un-enrolled voter in Massachusetts.

Now, legislation is complicated, so it’s impossible to say for sure without further study whether these provisions would have done exactly what our differently-winged friends say, and there are good arguments that it wouldn’t.  But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Team Desperation is right: that, in the 1990s, Democrats including George Mitchell, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Ted Kennedy, sponsored or backed legislation that included overly broad “conscience clauses” that allowed insurers and employers to refuse coverage for any health care services that ran contrary to their “religious beliefs” or “moral convictions.”

If they did, they were wrong.  Simple as that.  These provisions are so broad that you could drive a truck (containing AIDS treatment, for example) through them.  I’d love to know whether anyone actually debated these provisions when they were filed, and whether their defects were ever pointed out to their sponsors.  I’m guessing the answer is “no.”

In any event, Massachusetts, as usual, got it right where others got it wrong.  In 2002, you see, our legislature overwhelmingly approved a law (which is still on the books today) requiring health insurance to cover “contraceptive services” on the same terms as other outpatient services and prescription drugs.  There is a narrow exception for churches and for church-run elementary and secondary schools, but not for other religiously-affiliated institutions, nor for “moral convictions.”

The bill was controversial and was opposed by the Boston Archdiocese, and some social conservatives like then-Speaker Tom Finneran voted against it.  But not Scott Brown.  He, along with all but one of his fellow Republicans in the House (where he was at the time), voted in favor of the very mandate that he now finds so onerous.

I do wish someone would ask Scott why he changed his mind on this.

The personal religious positions of employers should not allow them to dictate what kind of health care treatments their employees receive.

Credit: 2005 Matt Wuerker, Politico.com.

The fact is, falsely invoking a deceased political icon is sleazy. Ted Kennedy never wavered on the right to contraception, and distorting his words to score cheap political points should be beneath a sitting US senator. Refusing to back down [after Ted Kennedy's son called him on it] – as though he is defending some issue of principle, which he isn’t – is even more reprehensible….

Kennedy would never have worked with Brown to restrict contraception; he would be firmly against him.

Brown has every right to disagree, but a senator worthy of his seat should be able to own his positions, without buttressing them with phony alliances and outright deceptions.

To be sure, Brown is not the first to invoke a “deceased political icon” – witness the video clips of Ronald Reagan that surfaced during the chatter about the “Buffett Rule.”  But at least in those cases, we had Reagan himself speaking on video.  Here, Brown is seriously distorting Kennedy’s position, as we’ve already discussed twice, and yet insisting that Kennedy would have agreed with him.  It’s disrespectful, and it’s dishonest.

It’s also, frankly, pathetic.  If Scott Brown believes the crazy Blunt Amendment is the right thing to do, he should just man up and say why, without trying to hide behind Senator Kennedy’s legacy.  It’s ironic indeed that Brown, who in almost every significant respect stands in opposition to what Ted Kennedy was trying to accomplish – including, not irrelevantly, universal health care – seems to think that his best chance at reelection is to persuade the voters that he’s the true heir to the Kennedy legacy.  Maybe it really is the “Kennedy Seat” after all.

I don’t know what’s more mind-boggling … the ideas espoused in this clip, or the fact that people are clapping and cheering.

You just have to wonder about human nature. How far will the politics of spite get you in 2012?

The caucus window has come to an end! This the third caucus post. Check out the other two posts here and here. I’d love to hear people’s stories and more importantly your thoughts.

Westborough held our caucus on Sunday at 6:00 PM.  It was the very last caucus in the window.  It was clear early on that everyone interested in attending the convention as either a delegate or alternate was committed to supporting Elizabeth Warren. There were many people interested in serving as either delegate or alternate.  Their main goal was electing Elizabeth Warren. In the end there were no contested seats. This was not due to a lack of interest, but was the result of a sense that we want to work together to get delegates to the Convention in support of Elizabeth Warren.

The caucus was very well attended with a number of guests and speakers. Under the Democratic Party rules, everyone in line as of 6:15 PM is eligible to register. We had a number of guests so we used that 15 minute grace period as an opportunity for people to speak.

State Senator Jamie Eldridge, State Representative Carolyn Dykema, Governor’s Councillor Marilyn Petitio Devaney and I all spoke. I am Kate Donaghue, seeking re-election to the Democratic State Committee. We all currently hold office and are all running again.

Candidates for office also had an opportunity to speak. James Coyne King talked about his race for U. S. Senate. Danielle Gregoire is running for State Representative. There are two precincts of Westborough in the district where she is running. Charlie Shapiro also spoke about a possible run for Governor’s Council.  Congressman Jim McGovern had a representative at the event, as did Marisa DeFranco, candidate for U. S. Senate.

Each candidate for delegate and alternate made a few brief remarks.  All were deemed elected under Rule 27. I love that new clause of Rule 27…. “except that candidates who are unopposed for a position may be deemed elected and no ballot is required.”

Everything went so smoothly that we called the caucus to a close by about 6:40.  All the speakers were concise.  We elected a full slate of delegates and alternates. Although the caucus itself was quick people stayed for quite a while after the caucus officially closed. People talked and many nomination papers were signed. I’m a big believer in trying to make the program portion of events efficient while giving people an opportunity to socialize.

By about 7:30 we adjourned to a nearby restaurant and I relaxed and had a drink with a few of the others. It was a great end to “caucus season.” In the sixteen day window I attended sixteen caucuses.  Admittedly two of them were over by the time I walked in the door, and seven of them were ward caucuses in the same location but I am counting them anyway.  I also ran six canvasses in that time period.  I count it as “running” a canvass if it was publicized and at least one person joined me. In this period I also went door to door on my own five times. Did I mention that on Sunday I also ran a candidates forum for municipal candidates? Do you see why I was looking forward to having a drink at the end of the day?

I’ll take this opportunity to shamelessly plug my candidacy.  The district where I am running includes Acton, Ayer, Boxborough, Harvard, Hudson, Littleton, Marlborough, Maynard, Northborough (partial), Shirley, Southborough, Stow, Sudbury(partial), and Westborough.  If you are in the district please vote for me for DSC in primary on Tuesday, March 6. If you are not in the district, please spread the word. If you are on facebook, please “like” my page.

There are a few caucuses still to come that are being held outside the window because of special circumstances. If you caucused, tell us your story here.

Kate Donaghue

This is a public notice to let people know I changed my username. It was something I should have done a while ago.

To be honest, I used Ryepower12 as a username before I really got the idea that a username is the same thing as a name…. and not just something to be used in conjunction with a password to sign into something. I know, I know… I’m supposed to be the blog/netroots savvy guy. Well, I’ve been on BMG for a looooong time now. lol.

One down side: Unfortunately, some links may be broken. I didn’t realize that until after it was done. Oh, well.

That said, there’s a simple fix. Should you be following an old link to an old diary, just swap in the html where it says “ryepower12″ with “ryanstake” and it should be fine.

Other than that, I’ll enjoy being called Ryan again.

Lots of ideas

none of which are a complete solution.

1. The state should take the $1.6B in debt back, or at least agree to make those payments. It’s not all of the MBTA’s debt, but it is the portion from the Big Dig.

2. 2.5% fare increase each and every year, rounded to the nearest nickle. Prop two and a half, MBTA style. [Tom Birmingham, Mr. Index, would approve -- ed.]

3. Gas tax increase. Five cents. Three goes to local transit (MBTA or whatever regional is nearest to the city/town/county/whatev). One cent to local non-motorized transit — bike lanes and paths, multi use paths, better sidewalks with ADA access, etc. One cent to cities and towns for roads.

4. Move The Ride off of the MBTA books. The Ride isn’t mass transit — it’s paratransit. It’s important, and it’s a good service, and it should be kept, but it’s a specialized scheduled taxi service, which has very little to do with mass transit. Why should MBTA riders cross-subsidize it instead of all citizens of the Commonwealth? And on that note, it should be more carefully scrutinized, to ensure that those who need it have it but those who don’t [because their start, end, and intermediate stations are all ADA accessible, for example] should get regular service.

5. More revenue from convenience shops within MBTA property.

6. I don’t know what the current retirement package is, but make it reasonable for new hires. Don’t renege on current contracts, but make the retirement package for new hires appropriate, not like the 23 and out days of yore.

7. Get some capital improvement projects from state and feds to implement traffic signal prioritization (TSP). The idea is that a bus or street car shouldn’t get a red light so that 3 cars carrying 5 passengers between ‘em can turn left. How does this help with money? Two ways. By allowing buses and street cars which are behind schedule the opportunity to catch the green, they speed up and stay on schedule. That means less pay for overtime (lowering costs) and it means increased ridership because the T is more reliable (more revenue).

8. Let cities and towns bid on servicing MBTA stations — cleaning, trash removal, snow removal, that sort of thing. I think Dan Winslow suggested this, and it’s a great idea. Won’t save much, but could shave a little from the costs. Of course, oversight is just as important here as it is with a private contractor.

9. MBTA police. Use ‘em or lose ‘em. By use ‘em, I mean start driving around and writing tickets. Stopped halfway through an intersection on the Green Line? Ticket. Standing in a bus stop, even just to let your spouse out of the car? Ticket. Didn’t pay your fare? Ticket. Smoking on a platform? Ticket. Litter on MBTA property or on the train? Ticket. You bring in revenue, cut costs [like cleaning], and improve the quality of service for riders. That, or roll ‘em into the State Police and get them off the MBTA books.

10. Parking lots. Charge market rates, different for each lot. Charge enough so that there’s about a 5% vacancy rate, and feel free to charge different rates for different days, different times, etc. Maximize revenue and use of the lot.

11. Develop your land. For example, those parking lots — could they be office buildings? Perhaps a paved surface lot could become two floors of garage parking and an office building, so that there’s still parking for MBTA users and non-fare revenue coming in to help stabilize the T books.

12. Ask cities and towns for more. Not more money, per se. Tell ‘em which bus routes are marginal, and then tell the cities and towns what they could do to improve them. Move stops to the other side of the intersection, install a bench, whatever. Cities and towns have lots of influence over the small details on those bus routes, and those small details, when considered carefully, can shave minutes off of the length of the run or allow riders to wait more comfortably. Ask the cities and towns to take some ownership for making the experience better for their residents and guests.

13. Film Tax Credit, as per RyePower. A great idea.

14. The MBTA is the single largest electricity consumer in the Commonwealth. The MWRA has used federal grants to fund lots of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. Heck, the MWRA has solar photovoltaic, wind, hydro, and biogas renewable generation facilities. The MBTA needs to get the state and feds to fund renewable energy and energy efficiency projects for the T — help cut into that massively large electric bill.

There’s 14 items. None are perfect, none are easy, and no one of ‘em will solve the long term problems.

Blunt has voted pro-life in the House and has a conservative record on most other social issues. He has voted to ban partial-birth abortions and to restrict or criminalize transporting minors across state lines for the purpose of getting an abortion. He opposes federal funding for elective abortions in accordance with the Hyde Amendment. He also voted in favor of the unsuccessful Federal Marriage Amendment which sought to place a national ban on same-sex marriage, and has voted against gay adoption. He received 94 percent lifetime and 96 percent 2004 ratings from the American Conservative Union, a 14 percent rating from the American Civil Liberties Union, and a 92 percent rating from the conservative Christian Coalition.

Robert Rizzuto reports for The Republican: “Sen. Scott Brown grilled over contraception stance during campaign stop in Dracut.” MassLive has the story:

Here’s a photo of Scott Brown shaking hands at one of his rare, private meet-n-greets…in a room marked “NO GIRLS ALLOWED”:

On any other day, this might have seemed like a humorous coincidence. But the photo takes on a whole new meaning now that Brown has introduced legislation that many are calling a blatant attack on women’s health. Not so funny, after all.

Maybe I’ve lost my sense of humor, but I don’t find anything funny about the Republican Party’s efforts to deny women access to basic medical care, let alone their attempts to silence our voices when we speak out. This isn’t just my personal opinion — constituents and media outlets across the country criticized the GOP for barring women from testifying at a recent Congressional hearing on the very anti-women’s health proposals Brown and Company are pushing.  They might as well have plastered Brown’s “no girls allowed” sign on the door of the hearing room.

Fortunately, women back home refused to keep quiet, and dozens gathered with allies outside Brown’s Dracut, MA event to express their outrage at his attack on women’s health care.

Senator Brown says his legislation only lets the boss deny women coverage for birth control if his religious/moral views get in the way (as if that isn’t outrageous enough.) But in truth, Brown’s bill would allow employers to deny access to any service they object to — even mammograms, cancer screenings, and diabetes treatments.

No matter which way he spins it, Scott Brown’s legislation tells constituents across the commonwealth that our bosses should be the ones making health care decisions — not us or our doctors. Don’t wait for the punchline on that one; it doesn’t exist.

Franco Garcia was last seen Tuesday night at Mary Ann’s in Cleveland Circle. He made a phone call around 1:15 a.m., possibly on his way back to the BC campus, but he hasn’t been heard from since – and his car is still parked at the school.

If you’ve seen him since then, or know anything at all about what’s happened to him, contact Newton Police detectives at 617-796-2104.

 

Today, Occupy Boston held a rally and march against fare hikes and service cuts.  T riders came to Copley Square from all over the state – even as far as Worcester using the Commuter Rail.  The T Rider from Worcester stated that he depends on the commuter rail to keep his job – as do many of his friends who live in Worcester but work in Boston.  He also uses the Commuter Rail to attend sports events and concerts – all of which would evaporate and be lost to the Boston economy if the commuter rail is ended at 10 PM on weekdays, and totally eliminated on weekends.

Another speaker reminded everyone that the Big Dig debt was dumped on the MBTA and is the sole reason for the current deficit.  She suggested that Big Dig debt be bailed out or forgiven – or else given back to Beacon Hill where it came from!  She said that the whole maneuver that burdened the MBTA with the Big Dig’s debt was sleazy, sneaky and if not illegal bad policy, bad economics, and done in the shadows.  Like BMG’s Ryan she suggested that the bogus Film Tax Credit be ended immediately and those funds used to help the T.

Others informed those at the rally that the “real cost” of The Ride was $40.00 a ride, and because buses and the T give more independence, they save the Commonwealth and the Taxpayer from many uses of the Ride.  We were all warned by this speaker that the co-pay for “The Ride” was set to go up from $2.00 each way to $4.50 each way and that a friend would have to choose between eating and physical therapy as a result.

The wind was cold.  The “PA System” was the human MIC system – used to reinforce and support as it does so well.  Each person who spoke had a lot to share.

You, fellow BMGer have knowledge and experience too – how about sharing?  We all know that the Big Dig debt resulted from incompetence, cronyism, and cheating the taxpayer – putting that debt on the MBTA is like a wage cut to the whole working class.  And the so-called middle class stands on the back and shoulders of the working class.  Surely, there must be a better way to clean up the Big Dig and its messy debt?

Love to hear from you all!

Onion:

Handlers Constantly Reminding Gingrich To Stay On Uninspiring, Belittling Message

PHOENIX—As Newt Gingrich continues to cede ground to Rick Santorum, the former House speaker’s campaign team has responded by advising him to stay focused on the belligerent, mean-spirited message that has long been the hallmark of his presidential run, sources confirmed Monday. “Newt’s rhetoric can become abstract and idiosyncratic at times, and we have to gently remind him that he just needs to be himself, to be the Newt people are familiar with—the Newt devoid of any discernible scruple beyond his own insatiable instinct for self-promotion,” campaign director Michael Krull said Friday, explaining that whatever lies at Gingrich’s cold, depraved core is what will make or break him with voters. “Every time he veers off course and talks passionately about about outer space or how the United States has to stop spending beyond its means, I tell him, ‘Look, your greatest asset is being a remorseless asshole. Now get out there, fuck everyone over using every means at your disposal and let’s win this thing.’” Several handlers told reporters they live in fear of a gaffe in which Gingrich displays some vague semblance of humanity and completely loses his identity among voters.

Borowitz:

Santorum Makes Campaign Swing Through Seventeenth Century: Blasts Contraception, Electricity, Soap

THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY (The Borowitz Report) –  … The former Pennsylvania Senator served up red meat to his seventeenth-century supporters, telling them, “Since we all agree that contraception is a bad idea, it’s time to take a harder look at electricity and soap.”

Mr. Santorum, who said that in his first day in office he would repeal the Age of Enlightenment, stressed that he had home-schooled all seven of his children: “That means there are at least eight people in this country who don’t understand evolution.”

In a lighter moment, Sen. Santorum told his audience what he said was his favorite joke: “A Kenyan, a Muslim and a socialist walk into a bar. And then he makes everyone get an abortion.”

Elsewhere on the campaign trail, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich scored points with this comment on education: “We should leave no child behind, only wives.”

Daniel Kurtzman:

“It’s National Pancake Week. Of course Mitt Romney was in a debate tonight, so it’s also National Waffle Week.” –Jimmy Fallon

“Girl Scouts sell cookies. They don’t promote homosexuality. They promote obesity.” –Jimmy Kimmel

“This guy is really conservative. In fact, Rick Santorum is so conservative he won’t even go down on an escalator.” –Jay Leno

“Santorum says that if he’s elected, he’s going to leave the interns alone and just screw the American people directly.” –Jay Leno

“Here in New York City we celebrate Presidents Day by allowing people to park on both sides of the street.” –David Letterman

“He is so conservative he thinks male bankers should only screw over female customers. That’s how bad.” –Jay Leno

Federal Court Judge Mark Wolf is the smartest man in the history of jurisprudence.

Look at his record. Thank God he’s been here the past umty-nine years as an assistant U.S. attorney and a trial judge watching our ignorant backs as the benevolent arbitrator of justice.

Because of who he is I have no doubt there must be some primo legal and moral reasoning supporting his decision to use the power of the Federal Court to protect the identity of a human trafficker. It seems the person trafficked for sex (the prostitute) threatened to report the trafficker (well known rich guy from Newton) to whomever cared in exchange for money.

She, the hooker, was charged and convicted of blackmail and ordered not to identify the rich john. He was not charged with violation of any john statutes. (could have been referred to local prosecutors).

This stinks to high heaven. The man conspired with the woman to commit a crime and they followed through on it. Equally guilty.

Now one of the criminals threatens to expose the other criminal unless paid off.

Hmm, two choices. Pay her off and try to work something out. Or, report to authorities and tell them what?

“My partner in crime is blackmailing me?”

But if you’re a well know powerful rich guy you have a third choice. Have the Federal Court protect you.

Where is NOW on this? Where are the people taking the bows for the human trafficking bill?

This case goes to heart of human trafficking. Rich powerful men v. women (and girls) whose circumstances result in forced or willful prostitution.

The rich guy was not being blackmailed for exposing a legal act (like telling his mother he’s not keeping kosher).

No, this was the Genovese family ratting to the fed that the Gambino family is blackmailing them.

Hey rich guy, when you arranged to pay this hooker for sex you took all the chances that billions of men have taken since the oldest profession opened shop. You lost.

But you’re a spoiled rich powerful man. You’re special.  We understand how you think. It’s human nature. Not your fault.

But, Judge Mark Wolf an the U.S. Attorneys Office have a duty to the country not to treat you special.

Carmen Ortiz “person of the Year”? How about Carmen Ortiz “Tool of the Year”.

These federal judges do have a nightlife you know. One thing after another for being so good at what they do. Award dinners, lectures, and such stuff. I wonder if Mr. Newton rich guy travels in the same circles as some of the feds?

They came from all over the state. Including Lynn.

And, after months of prep work and meetings they got a splendid editorial in the Boston Globe (who described the young people as “earnest” a throwback to Tom Winship we think.)

MANY BOSTONIANS over the age of 40 can recall the ease of finding summer employment during their teenage years. But it’s not so for today’s teens, especially without the help of city officials who employ young people in city work crews or match them with corporate partners.

Today, scores of Boston teens from the Dorchester-based Youth Jobs Coalition are scheduled to demonstrate for summer jobs in the Financial District. They are targeting Fidelity Investments, which last year employed only a handful of teens through the city’s summer jobs program, according to city officials. Other financial-services firms, including State Street, Liberty Mutual, Bank of America, and John Hancock, hired more from the city program.

And then they did extensive outreach to various local media that included an official data packed Report YJC Report that documented the situation and suggested some specific solutions.

We have explained 6 reasons of the value of youth jobs and the consequences to youth, communities, and the economy when so many youth lack jobs. We have talked about companies that have stepped up to provide jobs. We have spotlighted that it is a major problem that when just looking at Boston employers, we find 86% of 590 larger employers are not hiring youth and we have named some of these companies. Some institutions in the health care sector must step up and hire youth too. We’ve shown that the state has done some funding to help and needs to do more, while the City of Boston has done a lot, and the federal government is now doing $0 in funding for youth jobs

Some of the media coverage included interviews with students in the Lynn Item and some great videos. First one called Youth Jobs Rally from the State House News, then see Univision, and Chanel 22 from Springfield. Fox news did one too, but only counted to 200 in the headline. Bad eyesight maybe? Thankfully a fact checker corrected the text.

And finally the Governor responded with his own press release that sounded a trifle defensive, but as long as he continues to “strongly support” youth jobs, he’s ok with us.

Governor Patrick continues to seek funding for such initiatives through 2013, which will afford employers the resources to increase the number of opportunities available to the youth of Massachusetts.

Meanwhile………….they work with their own legislative delegations. Can you spot Rep Liz Malia here?

cross posted on the Mass Policy and Organizing Leadership Academy

Anyway, on that general topic, you should check out three pieces in today’s Globe.  The first two, authored by Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown, set out diametrically opposed positions on the crazy Blunt Amendment that would, if passed (which of course it won’t be), allow any employer to deny coverage to his employers for anything, as long as he has a “moral conviction” against it.  I stand by that interpretation, and I haven’t seen anything from those who claim it’s wrong that is the least bit persuasive.  If you’re HIV-positive and your employer has a “moral conviction” against AIDS treatment, well, tough luck for you.

Among the most dishonest parts of Brown’s position is that it’s indistinguishable from Ted Kennedy’s.  Unfortunately, Ted Kennedy isn’t here to rebut him, but I’m 100% confident that Brown is wrong.  I discussed this in detail a couple of days ago, and I also discussed why the Catholic Bishops’ “kosher deli” parable actually emphasizes that, on this issue, Ted Kennedy≠Scott Brown.

I’m disappointed that, as of yet, nobody in the mainstream media has pressed Scott Brown on his dramatic flip-flop on this very issue.  As explained here, Brown voted in favor of a Massachusetts law whose mandate is actually more onerous (if that’s the right word) with respect to Catholic-affiliated institutions like universities and hospitals – and he did so over the strenuous objection of the Boston Archdiocese, who fought the mandate tooth and nail.  Maybe they’re holding it in reserve for the debates.  We’ll keep putting it out there.

The third Globe piece worth reading is Scot Lehigh’s takedown of Rick Santorum’s candidacy.  His bottom line:

the Republican primary campaign has revealed a candidate too governed by faith to lead a diverse country.

That’s not because he’s Catholic. Rather, it’s because his ultra-conservative religious beliefs so inform his life, his values, and his worldview that he couldn’t separate that perspective from public-policy questions, or decide an issue on the facts rather than faith, even if he wanted to. Not that he does, of course.

That’s only partially correct.  Because, as Juan Cole has convincingly outlined, Santorum in fact routinely departs from explicit teachings of the Catholic Church when it suits his extreme political views.  On the death penalty, on raising the minimum wage, on universal health care, on Iraq, on immigration, and on other topics, Santorum’s views are directly at odds with those of the church.

So Santorum is, in fact, the worst kind of hypocrite (if that’s the right word – maybe “narcissist” is better).  Lehigh is certainly correct that Santorum shouldn’t be president – but it’s not because he is governed by his faith, but rather because he puts himself above it while claiming the opposite.  Having a person like Santorum in the Senate was bad enough, and the people of Pennsylvania very sensibly put an end to that in convincing fashion a few years ago.  Putting such a person in the White House would be an invitation to real disaster.

The Phoenix posted an editorial today, entitled “Scott Brown, Crazy Person,” on Scott Brown co-sponsoring legislation that allows employers to restrict contraception coverage. Brown has also move from a moderate position within the Massachusetts legislature to a hard right position as the Obama compromise is in essence what we have been doing in Massachusetts.

When Massachusetts junior senator Scott Brown last week signed on to support a Republican initiative to nullify President Barack Obama’s birth-control compromise, Brown joined the vast and growing right-wing war on women.

Brown’s new archconservative position on birth control stands in contrast to the stance he took 10 years ago when, as a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, Brown favored legislation requiring all health-care providers to offer contraception coverage.

That law provided a narrow exclusion for churches or “church-controlled organizations,” but it was benign when compared to the pending Republican anti-birth-control legislation. In fact, since 2002, Massachusetts has been operating under what is essentially the Obama compromise.

The GOP scheme would allow any business, not just those allied with a religion, to opt out of providing insurance coverage for birth control if the business deemed contraception to conflict with its moral or religious beliefs.

Another interesting point is that Scott Brown left the usual group of moderates in the Republican caucus behind, both Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins will not support Blunt/Brown, even when hedging support on the compromise.

Brown’s fellow Republican senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine, may not have found Obama’s birth-control compromise perfect, but they have said, in effect, that it is perfectly workable.

In case anyone, Republican, Democrat or Independent believes that Brown is taking a moderate position, he’s not, centrist Republicans have abandoned him.

I’m Kate Donaghue and I am running for re-election to the Democratic State Committee. I am not unopposed and I need votes on Tuesday, March 6.  The district where I am running, ably represented by Senator Jamie Eldridge,  includes  Acton, Ayer, Boxborough, Harvard, Hudson, Littleton, Marlborough, Maynard, Northborough (partial), Shirley, Southborough, Stow, Sudbury (partial), and Westborough.

Long time readers of BMG may know me. I’ve blogged on BMG since the early days and I’m proud of having user number 134! A few years ago, Sue Kennedy wrote, “Kate plays an important role here on BMG, always available to answer questions about arcane Democratic Party processes.”

As a DSC member, I take my role very seriously, working with the town and ward committees that I was elected to represent. I spend most of my free time volunteering for the Democratic Party, our candidates, issues and organizations.

Usually when I am here I am asking for help for other candidates. This time I am asking for help for me.

1) If you live in the district, please vote for me on Tuesday, March 6 on the presidential primary ballot. Please bring a friend. If you are not in the district, please ask a friend to vote for me.

2) If you are on facebook, please “like” my re-election page. Share the link with friends.

3) If you want to volunteer, please contact me at 508-404-8531 or KateDonaghue AT aol DOT com.  I can use help, especially on Tuesday, March 6.

4) If you are so inclined, please send a donation. There are expenses associated with this campaign and with my work as a DSC member. Checks payable to Kate Donaghue Committee, 17 Gary Circle, Westborough, MA 01581.

Many thanks to all who are interested in supporting my candidacy.

Last week Scott Brown proudly announced he would lead the charge for an extreme measure being considered in the U.S. Senate that would allow employers and insurance companies to deny medical coverage.

The “Blunt amendment” that Brown is pushing goes so far beyond religious institutions and birth control that a Boston Globe columnist wondered if Brown had wandered off in to “crazyland” and a columnist for the Boston Herald said he had “sided with the nuts.”

And for good reason.

Under Brown’s plan, employers and insurance companies can refuse to cover ANY treatment for ANY person.

This measure is a threat to women…and everyone else.

Spread the word by sharing this image in your Facebook timeline.

Imagine CEOs in board rooms looming over doctors offices, deciding which medical care they will let you have – it sounds like something out of a dystopian novel, but the bill Scott Brown has endorsed could make this your reality.

President Obama’s health care reform does not require any religious institution to cover contraception. This is yet another issue where the Republicans have created controversy out of thin air to change the subject from their anti-middle class agenda.

We can only stop Scott Brown if we make sure the truth gets out – that’s why we need your help.

Let your friends know by visiting our Facebook page and clicking “share” underneath the image.

If you don’t have a Facebook account, you can also help by emailing this to 5 friends. I know you can come up with five people in your life that would be affected by this legislation because everyone could be affected by it. Send this along to make sure they have the facts.

Clare Kelly

Executive Director

Massachusetts Democratic Party

If SNL is any indication of the conventional wisdom … it’s gonna be a blowout this year.

Eugene Robinson wrote today in The Washington Post that Rick Santorum could take Republicans down with him. These days, any place that you can find left-leaning commentary has something rightfully slagging Santorum and his extremist ideologies.  There is a treasure trove of low-hanging Santorum fruit that we tee up and rip apart, and I don’t like it one bit.

If Santorum is indeed the Francesco Schettino of the 2012 GOP, then let’s sit back, grab some pop corn, and enjoy watching the good captain run this capsizing ship into the beach. Save the heavy ammunition in case he makes it to the general election, for when after the GOP chooses a candidate more difficult to elect than Romney. Don’t do any heavy lifting for Mitt.

MA Dem Party Chair John Walsh is always funny, always fun and scary smart. He joined us today at Left Ahead to talk strategy and prospects for the 2012 elections, but he won’t ever forget early 2010.

He led the commonwealth Dems to sweeping victory in November 2012 while the rest of the nation was awash in GOP fervor. In no small part, that was because he learned from the special-election loss at the start of the year that saw Republican Scott Brown edge Dem Martha Coakley for the US Senate seat. He continues to build on the lessons he learned after that, including conversations with Dem activists and pols.

Chief among those are:

• start early
• put resources in the hands of the locals and listen to their judgment

For the first, he knows that it would be disastrous for some party official in Boston to show up five weeks before the election with a new, improved plan for campaigning. Instead, the found that it is at the precinct and ward level where the organizers understand the patterns and trends locally. Communication needs to be both ways bottom to top and top to bottom.

I started with my own recurring atonement as illustrated with the attached organizer pad for the 2010 campaign to re-elect Gov. Deval Partrick and Lt. Gov. Tim Murray. When Walsh made it plain that the party strategy centered on activists playing the role of organizers for people they knew, I had no doubt that was a losing plan. As I freely admit, it was instead a winning plan, one that was the foundation for Walsh’s current strategy. While the nation wallowed in red, MA was astonishingly blue, losing only a couple of state representative seats in the reactionary tide. I keep this pad handy to remind me of my pundit fallibility.

Click below to hear John speak of the refined version of keeping and improving on his party’s position. Dems are spreading the word through training and data on possible non-voting party members and party leaners who have not voted in the past two or three Presidentials. Through these vote-builder accounts, local activists can ID those and get them to the polls.

Walsh noted that the difference in that painful special-election defeat was about 50 votes per precinct (”It seemed like much worse,” he told us). Depending on the election (POTUS or not), there can be between 300,000 and 600,000 Dems or leaning Dems among non-voters. For many of those, voting is on their list, but not as high as “brushing teeth and pushing amrs in sweaters” in the case of those with kids. Some are young voters not in the habit yet and others are older voters recently infirm. He sees some of these are candidates for absentee voting.

Others don’t understand the big and small issues in the current contests. In these latter cases, Walsh notes, “When we have voters who don’t get it, it’s our fault.” That’s where he concentrates his work — getting out the vote and making sure Dems know the importance of the issues.

Walsh added that “as much as it pains me to say it,” about 1.1 million MA residents voted for Sarah Palin, largely GOP and unenrolled ones. While 1.9 million smeared the ovals for Joe Biden, the difference per election for Dems is getting them to the polls. Listen in as he describes how the party uses the online voter lists and has gotten 300 town committees trained so far in face-to-face work with those who have not been voting.

For this November, he is well aware that following the Citizens United decision, a disheartening amount of winger ads and other expenditures will target both President Obama and the MA Dem candidate for US Senate. He’s a firm believer that “the only thing that can beat big money” is face-to-face contact, real citizens v. Citizens United. He said that money only “simulates the relationships.”

Beyond the election, he indulged us on the questions at least one US Senate candidate, Marisa DeFranco, raised earlier this month about the process of getting on the ballot. Listen in as he agrees that it can seem arduous to get 10,000 signatures, the 15% of party delegates (around 750) at the June convention to get on the primary ballot. He has the luxury of inheriting the state law and party rules, but added that he’s open to refinements.

This go in November, Walsh is working toward getting an additional 20% to 30% more Dems and leaning Dems to the polls.

~Mike

Cross-post note: This will appear also at Left Ahead.

There’s an old saying: “Anybody who calls themselves a realist is steeling themselves to do something of which they are secretly ashamed…”

On Scott Browns Campaign Website there are to be seen many iterations of the words “independent” and “moderate”. There are even some allusions to “opponents” clearly of the Democratic stripe. But startlingly few allusions to Scott Brown as a member of the REPUBLICAN party. Is he ashamed? Why would there be so very little mention of the political party Scott Brown has long been affiliated with… Not even his “Bio” pages refers to the party that supported him as a state senator and then, later, as a Senate candidate. (note bene: it was in just this Senate Candidacy when Scott Brown was heard to say “it’s not the Kennedy’s seat, and it’s not the Democrat’s seat, it’s the people’s seat.” Even then, it appears, he had trouble admitting to a party affiliation.)

But the entire website reads like a denaturated mime (it will act it out, but it won’t say it) of Karl Roves id: a congerie of Republican talking points, anti-democratic venom, faux-populist sloganeering, vividly vague pronouncements about “Obamacare” and “border protection”, braggadocia about never having voted for a tax increase, and gripes about ‘partisan bickering’ where only one partisan does any bickering.

One is left to wonder exactly whom it is that Scott Brown and his supposedly brilliant tactical staff thinks they are fooling? Who is that they think will swallow this notion of lopsided independence without question?

Republicans? One can imagine a few Republicans who are mercenary enough to overlook subtle attempts at subterfuge like the occasional reference to “independents” and “moderate” Any Republican, however, worth his/her salt can’t be too comfortable with this level of head-in-the-sand: after all, if it’s a superior orthodoxy it can’t possibly hurt to trumpet the good news far and wide…Right? Don’t hide your light under a bushel, right? I can’t imagine it can be all that easy for his campaign staff, many of whom are, sheepish grin, admitted Republicans. And will hard-core Republican donors pony up the cash for somebody who’s, at least publicly, a little squishy about where they might stand? How does That conversation go…?

Independents? It’s hard to square the notion of ‘independents’ and ‘moderation’ with a relentless trumpet of ‘democratic opposition’ and denuded Republican talking points. Does the Brown brain trust think that true independents are that easily fooled? I’ve often thought that many independents are those most sensitive to the notion that the parties are manipulative and are declaring ‘independence’ from just this sort of manipulation. It that’s the case then Scott Browns naked manipulation, in concert with his denial of his own Republicanism, probably won’t sit to will with those independents. And even those independents willing to give the benefit of the doubt… how will they know to trust him when he does, or doesn’t, act independently? Is there a base posture from which deviations can be measured? Is he merely a political sand-dune, washed to and fro? Is he really just mealy-mouthed and wishy-washy? Where does he truly stand, if he can’t self-identify with a party? What if he does, quite clearly, self-identify with the Republican party… but doesn’t trust the independents with that information? What about him is truly ‘independent’ rather than simply entropic?

And if he is truly independent, why doesn’t he just run against Elizabeth Warren (or whomever) in the Democratic primary? If he really is not a Republican, then what does it matter?

Is he trying to soften up Democrats? Well, in the only thing close to an admission of party affiliation, Brown brags several times of “reaching across the aisle” (why don’t you start by describing which particular side of the aisle from which you are reaching, hmm, Senator…?) in an effort, the only real effort, to entice Democrats. It’s a small ray of hope in an otherwise dismally partisan, in act if not in speech, website: a well polished turd trying to sell itself as a ‘gem quality’ stone.

Scott Brown won’t even say who he is. He won’t even say “this is what I believe and where I stand. All my choices will reflect this somehow” Instead he opts for a process independence withal spreading a caricature of a Democratic bogey-man and passive-aggressively trumpeting all but the most blatantly Right-Wing talking points… without ever feeling the need to say “I am a Republican”. It’s patently obvious to all but the meanest intelligence. Maybe he is just ashamed.

He ought to be, in any case…

Santorum & the right to privacy.

Student loans – the next bubble of derivatives to burst?  Up to one trillion – and as for newly minted attorneys – only 68% can find jobs in law, at an average salary of $63,000 for those with jobs.  How will they pay back loans of $150,000 – $200,000?  Only the top 10% earn what folks think attorneys earn.

Oh – and this one sums up my view of today’s Republican Party.  That may explain why, as unhappy as I am with much about the Democratic Party, I stay involved in the fight for it’s political “soul”.

I know – its not Friday so the normal joke and cartoon list was a few days ago, but these were too poignant not to share.

Frankly, I don’t trust any poll

. . . because I know I am the underdog in this race.

Every poll that comes out, they use it to raise money from their national supporters. So will you answer my call for help? Your generous online support of $10 – $50 will get us there. Every seat in Congress is “the People’s Seat,” so don’t let the ultra-liberal special interests buy this one.

Matched up against Professor Elizabeth Warren, we know these five things:

The race will be close
She’ll have money to burn
I’m the underdog
We’re going to win because
We’ve got the best supporters

…

But we must run harder and work longer to win this race because that’s what underdogs must do. Your online contribution of $10 – $50 will help us beat the odds.

Reality check here, folks.  Scott Brown closed 2011 with almost $13 million in the bank – the second-highest tally of any candidate for Senate in the entire United States.  And, as of that time, Brown had better than a 2-1 advantage over Elizabeth Warren in terms of cash-on-hand (for the record, Warren’s total ranked 10th in the country among Senate candidates – not bad).  Combine that with the obvious fact that he’s the incumbent, and it’s awfully hard to see him as the “underdog” – no matter how many times he repeats that word in his fundraising emails (three, in this case).

I do love the extent to which Brown’s consultants are enamored of the “Professor” moniker.  They seem absolutely certain that every time they remind voters that Warren is, well, smart, they flip a voter into the Brown column.  I don’t believe it.

Yes you.  The Massachusetts House Rules concentrate power in the hands of a few key players who determine which legislation makes it to the floor and which will die in committee.  For over 10 years, for example, the updated bottle bill (which PIRG claims is supported by a majority of the members of the House) never has made it to the floor for debate and a vote.  The amount of debate has diminished considerably compared to 20 and 30 years ago.  Transparency has suffered as amendments are “consolidated” behind closed doors and a majority of the House meets in private before every important formal session to determine the outcome of legislation before debate.  (And yes, Amberpaw, I support application of the OML and public records law to the legislative process).

This is where you come in.  Please contact your Representative and urge him or her to join the Rule 28 Coalition.  You can see who has joined to date here:  http://www.rule28.com.  The leadership’s talking points warn rank and file Democrats not to join because the Coalition is an “election year Republican ploy” to increase debate, transparency and accountability.  If that’s the ploy, perhaps more Democrats should be part of it.  The proposal has received support from the Metrowest Daily News, http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/editorials/x1085184647/Editorial-Letting-the-state-reps-vote, and The Boston Globe, http://rule28.com/news/globe-for-livelier-debate-over-ideas-house-must-get-bills-on-floor/1241/, two publications not known for their complicity in Republican plots.

Your Representatives need to hear from you and not just the warning shot that was sent over their bows by the Democratic leadership.  All the Rule 28 Coalition requires is a vote to discharge legislation from committee to the floor for debate.  Members are not required to support any bill on the floor and are free to argue and vote for or against any legislation.  But there’d be a debate, a vote and the ability for voters to see whether their Representative represents their interests.  The danger (as we sadly have seen in the recent past) is that a top-down system allows one lobbyist or interest group to convince a handful of leaders to shut down the progress of any particular bill.  That’s not healthy and it’s certainly not democratic.

Please post your Representative’s responses here.  Or better yet, let’s have some Representatives join the discussion.  At least we’re free to debate on BMG.

The state’s full congressional delegation, with the exception of Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, has written to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services backing a Massachusetts Fishing Partnership application for a three-year, $4 million grant for a project aimed at helping fishermen find their best fit for health insurance….

Brown declined due to the program’s funding source — “Obamacare,” Brown’s press secretary, John Donnelly, told the Times on Thursday…. According to Fishing Partnership statistics, the community outreach-based model and collective prevention efforts — whose “navigators” include Angela Sanfilippo of the Gloucester Fishermen’s Wives Association — has helped reduce the rate of uninsured fishermen from 43 percent to 13 percent.

Yeah, it sure would be terrible to get Obamacare-tainted money to find health insurance for fishermen.  Because God knows those guys are living high on the hog these days without a care in the world.  Thank goodness we’ve got Scott Brown to stand on principle on things like this.

Onion:

New Breeding Program Aimed At Keeping Moderate Republicans From Going Extinct

WASHINGTON—Saying the now critically endangered species of politician is at high risk for complete extinction within the next 10 years, Beltway-area conservationists announced plans Monday for a new captive breeding program designed to save moderate Republicans.

According to members of the Initiative to Protect the Political Middle (IPPM), centrist Republicans, who once freely roamed the nation calling for both economic deregulation and a return to Reagan-era tax rates on the wealthy, are in dire need of protection, having lost large portions of their natural terrain to the highly territorial Evangelical and Tea Party breeds.

“Our new program is designed to isolate the few remaining specimens of moderate Republicans, mate them in captivity, and then safely release these rare and precious creatures back into the electorate,” said IPPM’s Cynthia Rollins, who traces the decline of the species to changes in the political climate and rampant, predatory fanaticism. “Within our safe, enclosed habitats, these middle-of-the-road Republican Party members can freely support increased funding for public education and even gay rights without being threatened by the far-right subgenus.” …

“Last week we shot Gov. Mitch Daniels with a tranquilizer dart from a blind we’d set up near the Indiana Capitol, and we plan on mating him very soon with a senator we trapped up in Maine,” said IPPM reproductive expert Gabriel Burke, adding that forced breeding of centrist Republicans in captivity is a humane, carefully regulated procedure designed to simulate mating in the wild. “While captive specimens tend to be wary around each other at first, once they sense they’re both opponents of labor unions yet also willing to make tough compromises on collective bargaining rights, the sexual ritual begins almost instantly.”

Borowitz:

Fact That No One Likes Him May Be Hurting Romney

DENVER (The Borowitz Report) – Exit polls from last night’s Republican contests reveal that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney’s key obstacle to gaining the GOP nomination is the fact that voters cannot stand him. …

Exit polls taken last night bear out that theory, with a majority of voters agreeing with the statement, “I think Mitt Romney is so odious, I would rather vote for a random doofus I’ve never heard of who goes around in sweater vests.”

The beneficiary of that sentiment last night was former Sen. Rick Santorum, who told supporters at a victory rally in Missouri, “I support the rights of the unborn child until it’s born and wants a gay marriage.”

Speaking to supporters in Denver, Mr. Romney uttered what some political experts are calling a possible gaffe: “I don’t care about all the people who didn’t vote for me. They just envy my massive wealth. And poor people? They can curl up and die, and I won’t lose a wink of sleep. I bet you a million crisp dollars from my vault in Geneva.”

Kurtzman:

“They announced the winner of the Westminster Dog Show, and tomorrow the winning dog gets to ride on the roof of Mitt Romney’s car.” –David Letterman

“Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are both against gay marriage. Really, against gay marriage? I tell you, the problem with this is they’d make such a cute couple.” –David letterman

“The vice president of China showed up at the White House today. That’s what happens when you get behind on the rent. The landlord shows up, starts looking around.” –Jay Leno

“Congratulations to Mitt Romney. He got an honorary Grammy for best spoken word for being able to speak out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.” –Jay Leno

Obama believes in a “phony ideology — not a theology based on the Bible,” Santorum said, according to Steve Peoples of the Associated Press.

That would seem to be in tension, to say the least, with one of the most important parts of the Constitution of the United States:

no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

“No religious test.”  ”Ever.”  Pretty strong words – if there was one thing we can be pretty sure that the Founders agreed on, that would seem to be it.

Combine that with this one, spoken by Santorum in 2008 and just unearthed by Think Progress, and it adds up to what we always thought Rick Santorum was anyway: an intolerant radical who cloaks his extreme views in sweater vests.

of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.

My goodness.  So apparently the millions and millions of mainline Protestants in this country aren’t actually Christians – at least, not Christians as defined in the Gospel According To Rick.  That’ll come as a surprise to them.

Can I just say again how much I desperately hope this guy ends up being the Republican nominee for president?  The blowout will rival Reagan’s.

Recently my family participated in Credo Mobile’s campaign “Tell Congress: Fight to pass the Respect for Marriage Act and repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act”.

In response, we received the following letter from Senator Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts). Sen. Brown clearly supports the discriminatory federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but tries to change the subject instead of directly admitting it.

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). As always, I value your input on all issues, and appreciate hearing from you.I believe in the right of every citizen to live in the manner he or she chooses. People should be entitled to basic civil rights, protection from violence and the freedom to pursue their dreams.

DOMA was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996 and defines marriage in federal law as a legal union between one man and one woman. As enacted, DOMA contains protections for the rights of states that do not want to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Some states, including Massachusetts, have moved in a different direction by recognizing marriages between individuals of the same sex. Although it is my personal belief that marriage is a sacred bond between one man and one woman, I support the ability of each state to make its own laws in this area. It is important that these laws reflect the will of the people, either directly or through their representatives. Likewise, I recognize that civil unions provide a mechanism for a legal partnership and help preserve equality.

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Should legislation regarding marriage be debated by the Senate during the 112th Congress, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind. If you have any additional comments or concerns, please feel free to contact me or visit my website at www.scottbrown.senate.gov.

These are weasel words because the issue with DOMA isn’t whether states should have a right to make their own marriage laws — the U.S. Constitution already guarantees that they do — but whether the federal government has unconstitutionally used DOMA to disrespect those state laws by refusing to confer on same-sex couples married under state law the 1138 federal rights, responsibilities and benefits that only come with marriage.

Sen. Brown is trying to deflect the conversation into one of states’ rights so that he doesn’t have to answer the real question: Since each state has the Constitutional right to make their own marriage laws, does Sen. Brown approve of the federal government’s usurpation of those rights through laws like DOMA?

Although Sen. Brown has a reputation for avoiding meaningful dialog on LGBT legislative issues, he did have a position statement on marriage posted on this website as recently as December, 2011. It said:

Marriage
I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. States should be free to make their own laws in this area, so long as they reflect the people’s will as expressed through them directly, or as expressed through their elected representatives.

Sometime in January, 2012, however, Sen. Brown removed even that from his website. It exists now only in old cached versions.

Interestingly, Sen. Brown’s Issues page now has a subsection called “Independent Voice”, where he prides himself on being “an independent voter and thinker”. Yet in the links provided to illustrate the senator’s independence, there is no mention of his vote in 2010 to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. As one of only four Senate Republicans voting for repeal, and considering how contentious that vote was at the time but how uncontroversial it is now, you’d think he would trumpet it as an example of “an independent voter and thinker” in action.

It’s as if Sen. Brown is afraid to let his constituents know his mind or voting record on any legislative issue related to LGBT people. Why is that?

Elizabeth Warren, the leading Democrat vying for Brown’s Senate seat, has made clear and unequivocal statements to the press of her support for LGBT equality and addresses LGBT equality in the Civil Rights and Equality section of her Issues page. She’s even made an “It Gets Better” video.

In the face of Elizabeth Warren’s forthrightness and transparency on LGBT legislative issues, is Brown trying to hide his DADT repeal vote from conservative voters, or is he trying to hide his lingering anti-LGBT bias from independent and fair-minded voters? The only thing that seems certain is that he is hiding.

Cross-posted at Pam’s House Blend.

Via dkos, there appears to be some serious questions about the recent Suffolk poll showing Brown in a 9-point lead – questioned even by the polling outfit employed by Brown himself:

One possible explanation for the divergent results comes from the questions asked just before the vote preference question. Both the Suffolk and MassINC polls begin by asking voters whether they have favorable or unfavorable impressions of each of the candidates. The MassINC poll then immediately asks about vote preference, while the Suffolk poll also asks the following:

Q9. Does Senator Scott Brown deserve to be re-elected or is it time to give someone else a chance?Q10. What is the first word or phrase that comes to your mind when you hear the name Scott Brown?

Q11. What is the first word or phrase that comes to your mind when you hear the name Elizabeth Warren?

Q12. Does Elizabeth Warren have the experience to be a United States Senator?

Q13. Is Scott Brown a leader in the United States Senate, or a follower?

Q14. If the General Election for United States Senate were held today and the candidates were Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Elizabeth Warren for whom would you vote or towards whom would you lean at this time?

The two open-ended questions (Q10 and Q11) are not troublesome, but the order of the other items is. While each uses neutral wording, they may have the collective side-effect of reminding respondents, three times, that Scott Brown is an incumbent senator. They may also raise doubts about Elizabeth Warren’s experience while planting the suggestion that Brown has been a leader in the Senate, not a “follower.”

And it’s not just liberals questioning it, it’s poll outfits like the one Romney and Brown employ:

The issue on the Suffolk survey is similar to a criticism leveled earlier this month by Mitt Romney campaign pollster Neil Newhouse about a recent ABC News/Washington Post survey. Newhouse argued that just before measuring the Barack Obama-Romney sentiment, the pollsters asked a series of questions that “introduced specific negative information about Governor Romney.” These included a set of questions about three candidates — Romney, Newt Gingrich and President Obama — as well as several more specific items about Romney. These included a question about whether, given his “work as a corporate investor … Mitt Romney did more to create jobs or more to cut jobs,” and a question asking whether Romney “is or is not paying his fair share of taxes” having “paid about a 14% federal tax rate on income of about 22 million dollars last year.”

Asked to comment by the The Huffington Post, Newhouse — who is also the pollster for Scott Brown — said that the criticisms he leveled against the ABC/Washington Post poll would “absolutely” apply to the Suffolk poll, “though not to the same degree” as the ABC/Post poll.

Suffolk, of course, is pointing to the “but look how accurate we were in the special election!” argument to back their poll up. But in polling, past performance is not always indicative of future accuracy. When your poll is already an outlier, you should expect to have your methods examined with a fine tooth comb. Especially from other pollsters who have everything to gain from your loss of credibility, even if it hurts a candidate they are working for.

David Nir also argues that Suffolk isn’t one of the stronger poll outfits, to begin with.

Senator James Eldridge introduced S. 772;  Lynne Lupien was has provided the wording in her post, as her state senator Eileen Donoghue has signed on as a co-sponsor:  http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/02/sen-donoghue-cosponsors-resolution-against-citizens-united/

The organization Free Speech for People has organized a lobby day in support of S. 772, which if passed will make Massachusetts just the 3rd state in the country to formally call for a constitutional Amendment that will restore democracy in the United States of America to “We the people” by limiting the ability of corporations to pour money into politics to buy elections.  After all, 95% of the time, whoever spends more wins.  Do we want them to win by being able to continue to pour money into PACs and buy elections:

The same “corporate people” who sold fraudulent

securities?  Paid themselves billions in bonuses as record numbers of homes went into foreclosures due to reckless lending and bogus documentation?

Here is what YOU can do:

Come to the State House before 11:30 AM on February 28, 2012.  Attend the “Free Speech is for People” training in Room 167 at 11:30 AM that day.

Come to the hearing on S. 772, and quietly listen, perhaps testify as to why you support this legislation.  Visit your own senators and representatives afterwards, using the materials provided by Free Speech for People.

I am not employed as a lobbyist or strategist, nor am I employed by Free Speech for People.  This is a non-partisan event, I will be attending in an unpaid capacity, as a citizen activist concerned about the corrupting influence of money on politics, whether from the top 1% of the top 1%, or corporations.  I hope to see you there!

The Massachusetts 2012 Senate race is shaping up to be an expensive contest, and although I think money is corrupting our political system, it plays a huge factor in our elections. Fortunately, Open Secrets (a project of the Center for Responsive Politics) that analyzes campaign contributions has finally posted its breakdown of our senate race. Most remarkable is the fact that Elizabeth Warren took in slightly more money than Scott Brown, who still has slightly more than a 2 to 1 advantage.

As it stands, Scott Brown has a 2 to 1 advantage in cash on hand with $12,892,256. One third of this sizable chunk of change ($3-4 million) came from his previous race against the ill-fated, ill-equipped candidacy of Martha Coakley. Elizabeth Warren has evidently paid some bills; of the $8.9 million raised, she has $6.8 million on hand. Not surprisingly, the Globe’s article touting the amount of money Warren raised from out-of-staters is both stupid and misleading.

Individual Contributions. It would be nice to say that the decline in the percentage of individual contributions to the Brown campaign reflects him being co-opted by larger interests. But this decline could be attributed to the fact that he is the incumbent in the race. In 2010 individual donations made up 93% of his campaign funds; this time around, they account for 79%. Of the $8.9 million dollars the Warren campaign has raised thus far, individual donations accounted for 98% of the total. I have to wonder whether this percentage will decrease as more money is collected.

Out of State Donations. Elizabeth Warren received more a greater percentage out-of-state donations than Scott Brown did. In 2012, she received 60% of her money ($562,810) from out-of-state and 40% ($375,159) from in state; Brown raised 45% of his funds raised ($1,483,865) from out-of-state.  The percentages are different, but in dollars, Brown accepted more than three times as much as Warren. Interestingly, Warren’s percentages are the exactly the same as Scott Brown’s in 2010 when 60% of his campaign contributions from out-of-state donations.

Sectors & Industry. Scott Brown received more donations from every sector, except labor. There’s no question who’s raking in the bucks from the financial sector. For every dollar Elizabeth Warren ($44,200) received in donations, Scott Brown raked in about $32 for a total of $1,574,250.

Labor. Money from labor is not much of a factor at this point. Although Warren ($44,000) has received 4 times as much from labor as Brown ($11,400), the numbers are a small fraction of a percent of the total amount of money Warren raised. Business has contributed far, far more than labor.

I’d like to take a moment to pause from the politics and acknowledge the end of what I think can be fairly called a great career with the Red Sox. As you’ve probably heard, Tim Wakefield will announce his retirement today after 17 seasons with the Sox. Chad Finn has a very good retrospective over at the Boston Globe.

From his first year with the team in 1995 when he went 16-8 with a 2.95 ERA, to playing a subtle but important role in helping the Sox win their first World Series in 86 years, to today’s announcement ending a generation-long career almost all (save his first couple seasons) with the same team, Wakefield was the paragon of a class act. Wake might not have had a Hall of Fame-caliber career, but there are few Red Sox that will leave such a positive impression on so many Sox fans. As his teammates came and went (from Mike Greenwell to Nomar to Mo to Youk to Adrian Gonzalez), Wake had his ups (his 200 career wins, including several shutouts and near no-hitters) and downs (Aaron Boone) on the field, but throughout everything he remained a consummate professional and a true Red Sock.

Thanks, Wake, for a tremendous Red Sox career!

Don’t you love it when this happens? Someone thinks he’s being super-clever by coming up with an analogy designed to show just how ridiculous the other side’s position is … and what it actually shows is that his own position is wrong.

Here’s the context.  The US Conference of Catholic Bishops, as you know, remains up in arms about some Catholic-affiliated institutions having to offer health insurance that covers services they don’t like – namely, birth control – even though, under the Obama compromise, the institutions now do not have to pay for it.  Yesterday, one Bishop Lori, on behalf of the Conference, testified before Congress as follows:

For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let’s call it, “The Parable of the Kosher Deli.”

Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves food must serve pork. There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls attached to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the mandate.

You can see where this is going.  Of course it’s ridiculous for the government to force a kosher deli to serve pork … but that’s exactly what ObamaCare is doing to us, right?

But if you think about it, you see that Bishop Lori is precisely wrong.  The “parable of the kosher deli” is an exact analogue to what Ted Kennedy was doing with his proposed conscience clause: he wanted to exempt doctors and hospitals from having to provide services to which they objected.  Government shouldn’t force an observant Catholic doctor to perform an abortion, nor should it force an observant Jew to sell pork in his deli.  (For purposes of this exercise, we will set aside the fact that that the deli probably doesn’t depend in large part on taxpayer dollars for its operating budget…)

But the Blunt amendment is not about protecting service providers.  It’s about health insurance.  So the real analogy would be this: under the “Blunt/kosher deli” amendment, the owners of the kosher deli would be allowed to pay their employees in special money that cannot be used to buy pork anywhere.  That’s not a problem for the employees who are observant Jews.  But what about those employees of the deli who aren’t Jewish (or who don’t keep kosher), and who would like to take their earnings to the grocery store after work and buy some pork for dinner?  Too bad for them – the money that their employer pays them cannot be used to buy pork in any store.

That, of course, would be absurd.  That’s not what Ted Kennedy wanted.  But that’s what Roy Blunt and Scott Brown want.  That’s the difference.  Thank you, Bishop Lori, for clearing it up.

Another day, another explanation by the Brown campaign.

Scott Brown is still trying to figure out a way to squirm out of responsibility for co-sponsoring the Blunt Amendment which allows employers to take away health coverage from employees. Yesterday, Scott Brown rolled out that he’s Ted Kennedy, given that Ted’s life work was to provide health care coverage for the nation and Scott’s desire is to repeal it, it’s not surprising that it went over with a big thud.

Round two.

This time the Brown campaign tries out this head scratcher. They are now saying that it doesn’t matter because the Obama’s compromise would still require employers to provide coverage even if the Blunt/Brown amendment passes.

Scott? If it doesn’t matter then why the F even have the amendment in the first place? You want us to believe that you co-sponsored an amendment, went on media outlets to fight for the amendment because it really doesn’t do anything? This is seriously the best your brain trust came up with?

Elizabeth Warren was on Braude yesterday and Jim asked her about Brown’s latest response:

“So excuse me, what I think he’s saying then is he’s advocating for an amendment that will leave the law exactly where it is right now with President Obama, oh come on! Then all he’s really saying is I’m just trying to stir up trouble and see what I can do here. Because if this doesn’t make any difference in the law then why are they trying to get this amendment passed. Why is he arguing so hard for it? That doesn’t make any sense.”

I would recommend watching the whole interview it was very good, after this Brown fiasco and word twisting, it good to hear basic commonsense from a candidate.

Adding video (hopefully it works):

In any event, the message is clear: this race has a long, long way to go, and nobody had better get comfortable.

Thanks for directing the discussion about the recurring MBTA funding crisis to the Big Pig — corporate welfare.  As I commented at that posting, we are losing far more than the $150 million in film tax credits to what Auditor Suzanne Bump called the two-billion-dollar “black box” of corporate subsidies when she testified to the committee hearing bills on disclosure of these give-aways (bills that are still languishing in committee!).

There should be another focus for this conversation, and that is on the tax rates paid by m/billionaires.  A recent report  found that almost 9,400 tax filers in Massachusetts make over a million dollars a year, with a total income of $28.4 billion. A 4% surtax would bring in $1,136,000,000.  And really, it should be a higher surtax on the 82 guys making $25 million to $100 million.  Many of those are in the financial industries, which brought down the house.  Two billion a year would take care of a lot of subway fares, school teachers, potholes and day care centers.

Come to think of it — last year, the state raked in $2 billion more in income tax than they expected. Yet, instead of spending it on the services the state had just slashed, the Gov tucked most of it into the rainy day fund.  And then gave us a sales tax holiday to boot.  So…maybe our elected officials just don’t want to give us our services, even if they have the money…

Now, let me say that I agree with those who point out that the T has been unfairly saddled with Big Dig debt (mostly dumped on the Turnpike Authority, which collapsed, and some of which the T is now trying to shift to Massport in ferry costs, as if musical debt will solve the problem).  And I agree that the T is inefficient and poorly managed and full of layabouts and negligent in fare collection and all those other Boston-Herald-commenter types of gripes — but then, most every department is similar, and most private companies too, for that matter.  I fully agree that we should audit and examine the agency’s operations to cut the very substantial waste, fraud and abuse. Agree, agree.

But we should also recover the big missing public money lost to massive corporate welfare, and to the uber-rich, most of whom are spawn of corporate welfare.

False.  HT hesterprynne.

Here’s why: the legislation that Ted Kennedy filed (section 1162, p. 84) would have created a broad “conscience” exemption for doctors and nurses, and for hospitals.  Under his bill, no “health professional,” and no “health facility,” could be required to offer or perform any item or service, “if the professional or facility objects to doing so on the basis of a religious belief or moral conviction.”

Yes, that’s the same broad “conscience” language in the Roy Blunt amendment.  But the context is completely different.  In Kennedy’s bill, the concern was forcing, say, a doctor who believed that abortion was murder to nonetheless perform an abortion.  Or to require that Catholic hospitals offer abortions.  But Ted Kennedy – who was famously pro-choice despite his Catholic faith – would no doubt have expected that a woman who wanted an abortion would simply go to a different doctor.

That, of course, is miles away from what we are talking about with the Blunt amendment.  Under Blunt/Brown, it doesn’t matter where the woman goes, because if her employer has a “moral conviction” that she shouldn’t get an abortion, or AIDS treatment, or a blood transfusion, then it doesn’t matter where she goes; her insurance won’t pay for it.  Kennedy’s concern was that doctors and hospitals not have to provide services that conflict with their faith.  But the Blunt amendment says that any employer (religious or not) can make it effectively impossible for his employees to receive health care services to which he objects (by exempting them from insurance coverage), even when the patient wants, and the doctor is willing to provide, those services.

Not the same thing.  At all.

So to review: in Massachusetts, under the law that Scott Brown voted for, religiously-affiliated employers like hospitals and universities must offer health care that covers prescription contraceptives on the same terms as other prescription drugs.  When President Obama tried to impose that rule nationally, the uproar was such that he backed off, engineering a clever compromise that prevents employers from having to pay for something to which they object – and major Catholic employers like Catholic Charities USA and the hospital-affiliated Catholic Health Association have said they are pleased with the compromise (though the bishops of course are not).  And yet, Scott Brown now claims that the Obama compromise isn’t good enough – even though he voted for a law that goes further.  ???

The Massachusetts law was not without controversy at the time it was passed.  The Globe reported (paywall) as follows:

The House vote, taken after nearly three hours of debate, would make Massachusetts the 18th state in the nation and the last in New England to require insurers to cover birth control and hormone replacement therapy for women to the same extent that their policies cover other prescription drugs….

The Catholic Conference of Massachusetts, the lobbying arm of the Archdiocese of Boston, have long fought the bill, and legislative opponents fought hard yesterday to include an amendment exempting organizations that are affiliated with the Catholic church or have a moral objection to contraception.

Federal law already excludes organizations directly controlled by the church from the requirement, but the proposed amendment would have allowed affiliated institutions such as hospitals, universities, and nursing homes to deny their employees coverage.

In a strong endorsement of the bill’s original language, the amendment failed, 106 to 49, paving the way for its landslide victory, 140 to 16.

Interestingly, among those 16 voting “no” was then-Speaker Thomas Finneran (well known for his socially conservative views) and 14 other Democrats.  Only one of the 22 Republicans, Rep. Poirier, voted “no.”  All the others, including Scott Brown, voted “yes” on final passage.

So what’s the story, Scott?  By voting “yes” in 2002, you must have “assumed the mantle of oppressor,” right?  Why weren’t you “dictating to Catholics and other people of faith that they must do as they are told when it comes to health care or face the consequences, regardless of their personal religious beliefs,” as you now claim the opponents of the Blunt amendment are doing?

Here’s hoping someone asks Scott Brown those questions.

Today, lots of commentary is rolling in, and it’s bad.  Perhaps the most telling is from Margery Eagan, the Herald columnist who is no wild-eyed lefty, but is rather a middle-of-the-roader who no doubt sometimes votes Republican and sometimes Democratic, and who is also (obviously) female.  I also assume, but don’t know for sure, that she’s Catholic.  She is, in short, exactly the kind of voter Scott Brown absolutely must have in his corner to win reelection.  Here’s her take:

U.S. Sen. Scott Brown has co-sponsored a bill that would allow health plans to deny coverage both for contraception and any service that violates the planners’ beliefs.

It was a huge mistake….

It’s 2012, not 1950, not the Middle Ages. Contraception in 2012 is the routine method prescribed by doctors and used by hundreds of millions to prevent pregnancies or the abortions so many find repugnant. And I thought everybody was onboard with this, except nuts like Rick Santorum and the out-of-touch, elderly and celibate Catholic bishops who call contraception an “intrinsic evil.”

Now Scott Brown, who has so skillfully managed a reasonable and across-the-aisle Senate dance, has sided with nuts and the “intrinsic evil” set.

Surely he’s not sided with Catholic lay people. Many, if not most of them, have ignored the bishops on contraception since 1968, when the church first weighed in against it. Ninety-eight percent of Catholic women have used contraception. Even Sister Carol Keehan, head of of the Catholic Hospital Association, supports President Obama’s Friday compromise (allowing insurance companies, not religious institutions, to pay for contraception)….

No matter how he explains this latest move, underneath it all there’s an unspoken message: There is something morally wrong with a loving husband and wife using contraception to prevent pregnancy.

That’s crazy.

That’s about as strongly-worded a column as I’ve ever seen from Eagan.

The Globe’s Yvonne Abraham is more reliably left-of-center, but her points strike me as awfully hard to argue with.

Blunt has brought us to Crazyland, a place far beyond the issue of contraception, not to mention common sense. What’s mystifying is that Brown has followed him there. During his short career in the Senate, Brown has avoided going out on limbs, refusing to take a position at all on some issues and siding with Democrats on enough of the others to avoid alienating the state’s moderate electorate. That strategy has paid off: In a recent WBUR poll, 48 percent of respondents said Brown has compromised “about the right amount” in Washington. A September poll found that, while voters believed that the GOP as a whole was too conservative, they saw Brown as “about right.”

But Brown is definitely on a high outer branch now. Adding to the peril: He really needs women voters to win this election. In 2010, he beat Martha Coakley by narrowing the gender gap to just three points. Right now, Democrat Elizabeth Warren outpolls him among women, 48 percent to 41 percent, according to the WBUR poll, conducted by the MassINC Polling Group. The Blunt amendment won’t endear him to many of them.

And here’s another review, from Herald commentator and daughter-of-Tim Makena Cahill:

He knows he’s running in MA right? Stupid move for Brown in general, but really stupid considering he needs female vote

Again, this is from someone not generally thought to be a super-lefty.  She adds in a subsequent tweet that Brown’s “personality is not going to carry him” this time around.

The only slightly positive commentary I’ve seen comes from David Bernstein at the Phoenix, who thinks that Brown may be playing smart politics with this issue.  Here’s his take:

Brown is well familiar with the type of Democratic-identifying crossover voters who he’s needed to win in Massachusetts, for state senate or US Senate. They are, in very large part, white, discontented, blue-collar, Irish-American Catholics.

This move checks off the Catholic box.

Maybe.  But Eagan says that Brown “[s]urely [has] not sided with Catholic lay people.”  And with all due respect to Bernstein, I put more stock in Eagan’s assessment of how the voters Bernstein is talking about are going to feel about Brown’s move, since Eagan herself is much closer to being one of them than Bernstein is.  Furthermore, let’s even assume that Bernstein is right that Brown’s move “checks off the Catholic box” for some conservative male Catholics.  It seems almost certain to have unchecked the “female voter” box – and if Brown can’t significantly narrow the gender gap, he can’t win.

The next big prize in the GOP primaries is Michigan, one of Mitt Romney’s five home states (along with MA, NH, UT, and CA).  He’s released an ad showing him driving around in a fancy Chrysler while he talks about how much he loves Michigan, and all.  Here’s the ad:

And here’s the problem: that Chrysler that he’s driving is a 300 model, and the 300 is made in Canada.

How do we know?  Here’s a screenshot from the ad (click for larger) – the key is the dashboard layout in the lower right hand corner.

Compare that interior layout to that of two Chrysler models – the 200, which is made in the U.S., and the 300, which is made in Canada (click the images for larger views):

Chrysler 200	Chrysler 300

The biggest giveaway is the air vents, which are tall and skinny in the 300, but are sort of square-shaped in the 200.  You can see that the 300 is an exact match for what Romney is driving; the 200 is not.

#FAIL

By the way, I don’t know nearly enough about cars to have caught this myself.  An alert reader named David Shorr spotted it and passed it along – thanks David!

Not quite sold on this quest to get Beacon Hill to stop wasting tax dollars on corporate welfare to Hollywood, when millions of lives are at stake with the MBTA?

Well, how’s this one?

Since the Film Tax Credit legally mandates the state to pay for 25% of the costs of filming in Massachusetts, we have to pay 25% of the millionaire salaries of A-List Hollywood.

With A-Listers making $20 million or more, that means all it takes is one Tom Cruise to cost this state $5 million bucks… or more.

Well, what else costs $5 million bucks? In the MBTA’s Plan 1, services would be cut on the commuter rail for all trains after 10pm and throughout all weekends, all to save a measely $5.7 million (pg 15).

That means we’re one Angelina Jolie or Adam Sandler away from being able to afford to keep weekend services on the commuter rail. 

Sign the petition to tell Beacon Hill this is wrong, that our public transportation, serving more than a million people every day, is more important than giving corporate welfare to Hollywood.

And, certainly, weekend trains, affecting millions of people a year, are more important than paying for a quarter of Johnny Depp’s salary, should he decide to do his next movie here.

—

There’s no money to hire a field staff, or create a commercial, or to start a PAC, so if you think we should keep the MBTA, consider yourself drafted.

You are the PR team. You are the field staff. You are the boss.

You are ultimately the people who will benefit if we can get this to be seriously considered on Beacon Hill, as well as your friends, neighbors and anyone you know who relies on or even cares about public transportation. That means you have to draft them, too.

Even if you’re from outside the Metro region, this is important, because if the MBTA dies, who thinks public transportation in other parts of the state will be able to survive it?

That means we need more BMG’ers to sign – and, most especially, to pass it forward to your friends, co-workers and people you know who ride the T.

What everyone should do now is get out a piece of paper and write the numbers 1 through 10 down, row-by-row.

Now, think of names to put in each of those slots: people who ride the T, people you know, people who serve on the same local board or committee, people who’ll just sign the darn thing for you because you asked.

If that list was hard to create, you’re done. If it was easy, write down 10 more numbers and keep writing 10 more until it gets hard.

Now, email each of those people directly and ask them to sign. If they don’t do it right away, send them a text or plop a link to the petition on their facebook wall and remind them.

Let them know if they still don’t do it, you’ll be calling them next, and if that doesn’t work, you’ll be knocking on their door.

Now, you won’t actually have to do any of those things… because signing becomes the much easier thing for them to do, so they’ll get off their butts and do it. This is just how to get them to act.

—-

Remember, no one thought that Bank of America would walk back on its monthly fee to use debit cards, or that Komen would so quickly be disgraced and forced to apologize, or that Obama would actually block the Keystone Pipeline.

None of that would have happened without a few crazy people stepping out there and getting the ball rolling.

But none of that can happen without that second group of slightly-less-crazy people who see that the idea isn’t half bad and get their friends and acquaintances on board. These are the most important people.

That means it’s up to you.

That’s what this is all about, after all… you. Your ability to get from Point A to Point B in a civilized society. Your ability to go to work and then back home again, or to go into the city some Saturday night and catch up with old friends.

Let’s make this happen.

Just when you thought Rick Santorum had Google problems all to himself, along come the people of SpreadingRomney.com to posit a new definition for “Romney”: “to defecate in terror,” as poor old Seamus the dog did while in a dog crate that was strapped to the roof of the Romney family car.

And it seems to be working.  Here’s a Google search for “Romney” (click for larger):

Politics ain’t beanbag.  HT Lynne.

There are now conflicting reports about what happened to Seamus the dog after his terrifying ride for 12 hours in a crate on top of Mitt Romney’s family station wagon.

Did he really live a “ripe old age” at the Romney estates as has been quoted by Ann Romney? Or did he run the hell away at the end of his harrowing journey to Canada?

If it’s the latter, I really hope he found a better home than that unsympathetic jerk could give him.

In other news, Seamus’ legacy lives on. The third result on a simple Google search for “Romney” is the new definition that has been created for the former dog torturer, “To defecate in terror.”

Ride on, Seamus, ride on.

(Cross posted because it was a good rant, very cathartic, so I thought I would spread the love.)

A bunch of dried up old male a$$h@les in Virginia are passing a law that mandates transvaginal ultrasounds for women before getting an abortion:

The ultrasound legislation would constitute an unprecedented government mandate to insert vaginal ultrasonic probes into women as part of a state-ordered effort to dissuade them from terminating pregnancies, legislative opponents noted.

“We’re talking about inside a woman’s body,” Del. Charnielle Herring, a Democrat, said in an emotional floor speech. “This is the first time, if we pass this bill, that we will be dictating a medical procedure to a physician.”

Tell you what, Virginia State House (and Senate and Governor if it passes and is signed): why don’t you take this probe, lube it up nice and good (this’ll be cold for a moment), and stick it up your own most intimate orifice?

So you literally want to tell a doctor what procedure they must use on a woman? And for what? “Informed consent” my ass. Of course, everyone knows that this is a lie and it’s about controlling women, but just to spell it out, do you think women are dumb? That they are not informed about what the end result of not terminating a pregnancy is? Oh, gee, it ends with having a baby. You really must think us wee widdle women are idiots.

Except we know one thing: the instant the government mandated you get a stick up your ass or else face lifelong, dire consequences (which bringing a child to term is, for better or worse), you’d be howling and screaming about the violation of your right to privacy and to make up your own mind on the advice of your doctor about what medical procedures are necessary or needed in your own personal case.

But probing a woman with an invasive ultrasound that isn’t even medically necessary in most cases where a woman chooses to have an abortion, hey that’s not a bridge too far for you. This bill makes no sense whatsoever on its supposed merits, unless of course you believe that the poor little woman with a medical probe sticking out of her vagina, upon seeing the fetus wiggling on the screen, will so fall in love with the little tiny heartbeat and fingernails that they suddenly change their minds and hey! you’ve saved a tiny human life that houses a soul (according to YOU) from some sort of gruesome murder.

Except that is not your choice to make, or influence. You’re not only hypocritical in passing this bill that you would not ever pass about male patients, you are tormentors. Bullies. You are misogynists of the most vile kind. I have worse names for you, but I think I have made my point.

Get out of my vagina, and the vaginae of the rest of America’s women. You are not fit to govern, nevermind tell me and my doctor what procedures are or are not necessary.

Marlborough City Council candidate pleads not guilty in voter fraud case; allegedly submitted absentee voter application for dead man 

A former candidate for Marlborough City Council was arraigned today on voter fraud charges for allegedly handing in an absentee ballot application at City Hall for a man who had died earlier in the year, Middlesex County prosecutors said today.

Mark Evangelous, 51, 0f Marlborough faces charges of forgery, uttering, and violating absentee voting laws, District Attorney Gerard T. Leone Jr.’s office said.

It doesn’t say so in the Globe article (I wonder why), but Evangelous is a prominent Republican in the town. Oddly, he doesn’t seem to have videotaped himself committing voter fraud. Also not known is whether he’s on the Marlborough Republican Town Committee.