Made my morning.

After careful thought about the situation, I can only come to one conclusion.  The only red herring in all of this is the notion that Brown will actually buy any “Catholic” votes with it.  He won’t.  Any Catholic voting for Brown was already going to vote for him.  Think of the folks at Mass Citizens for Life.  No, this is about money.  While Brown mocked Warren for hobnobbing with Hollywood, he was planning fundraisers among Marco Rubio’s uber-conservative friends.  Brown’s thinking he can simply buy his way out of this election with the money he can raise since the SuperPAC window is (for the moment) shut.  Either that or he’s hoarding money for some other race if he loses.

Now let’s remember that under any circumstances this election will be a hard fought battle royale.  Nobody should take anything for granted in this election and getting Elizabeth Warren elected will require every ounce of work Democrats and her supporters can muster.

Brown, by comparison, is relying on money.  He’s assuming he can use his vast spending advantage, bolstered by religious right contributions and simply overpower Warren through sheer force of money.  There is, however, one story Brown has forgotten if that is this strategy.

Linda McMahon!

Yes, the WWE executive, who still doesn’t get that Nutmegers do not want her as their senator spent more money per vote than any other candidate for any other office anywhere in the US in 2010 ($50 MILLION! overall) and still lost by almost 12 points could not buy the election.  Now there are some key differences.  Between the choice of the, um “reserved” AG Connecticut residents had for 20 years, Vietnam claims notwithstanding, and the wrestling lady, they chose the Blumenthal.  Blumenthal’s brand as AG is different from Warren’s populism (although by my estimate, they have remarkably similar issue profiles) and while McMahon’s and Brown’s bases are probably almost identical, nobody seemed to want to have a beer with McMahon.

Still Brown’s cynical calculation to choose money over what anybody else would call common sense politics in Massachusetts (and we don’t have to be as liberal as we are caricatured for Brown’s position to be untenable) gives him the potential to be Massachusetts’ own McMahon.  True, he is not self-funding as she did, but if he takes more positions like the Blunt Amendment, he loses his best card, the “moderate” label (which is more valuable than independent, which tells voters nothing).  That only leaves him with money, and when the gulf between you and voters widens, money may not be enough.  That chasm between Brown and voters may not be as wide as it was for McMahon and Nutmegers, but he would be a fool to rest on his monetary laurels alone.

Then again, maybe he is a fool.  See opening paragraph.

“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.

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.

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 disabled are often treated as second-class citizens, even in hospitals, says Dorothy O’Rourke.

O’Rourke is concerned that may have been the case with a resident of a state-operated group home in Chelmsford.  The 51-year-old man, whose name is being withheld, died earlier this month after having been taken twice in two days to Lowell General Hospital and sent away each time, apparently without any significant treatment. 

The man had been having difficulty breathing and was sweating profusely when he was taken to the hospital on both February 6 and 7.  He died, apparently en route to the hospital, after the group home staff called an ambulance for the third time on the afternoon of February 7.

The cause of death is listed on the death certificate on file in the City of Lowell as acute respiratory failure and aspiration pneumonia, which can indicate choking.  A death report form filed with the Disabled Persons Protection Commission, however, states that the man died after experiencing cardiac arrest.

Despite the possible discrepancy in the stated causes of death, the Chief Medical Examiner’s Office declined to do an autopsy, and the man’s remains were cremated.  He had lived in the same group home as O’Rourke’s son.

O’Rourke strongly defends the staff of the group home, which is managed by Northeast Residential Services, a division of the Department of Developmental Services.  “The staff there are wonderful,” she maintains. ”They did all they could for him, including performing CPR.  It’s the hospital that kept sending him home.  I thought they would have at least kept and monitored him. I don’t understand it.”

O’Rourke has no information about what actually happened in the hospital after the man was taken there on each occasion.  But she maintains that many hospitals are ill equipped to deal with intellectually disabled people, particularly those who are non-verbal, as this man was.  “I think hospitals tend to ignore the mentally disabled,” she said. “I think they may need a special unit to handle mentally disabled people.”

A spokeswoman for Lowell General said the hospital would have no comment on the case due to privacy issues.

According to sources, the man had been sent to his day program in Lowell on the morning of February 6, and the staff at the day program made the first call to 911 to take him to the hospital.  A Lowell Police Department official said a squad car was sent to the day program site at 8:30 a.m. in response to a call about a male having trouble breathing.  (A police car was dispatched in addition to an ambulance each time, and the man was accompanied by a staff member to the hospital each time.)

The hospital released the man shortly after his arrival, however, and sent him back home.  The following morning, the man reportedly looked exhausted and “out of sorts,” and the group home staff made a decision not to send him to his day program that day.  By about 8 a.m.,  the man was slumped over in his wheelchair and sweating heavily, a source said.  A group home staff member called 911 shortly afterward.  A Chelmsford Police official said a squad car was dispatched to the residence at 8:30 a.m. 

However, once again, the hospital made a decision to send the man back to his home.  The DPPC report form on the death states that the man had been observed at the hospital on the morning of February 7 to be sweating profusely, but his vital signs were good when he arrived.  According to the report form, the man was sent home with a prescription (the name of which was redacted).

By the time he was back at the group home, he was leaning over the side of his wheelchair and was “sweating terribly,”   a source said.   After the staff noticed the man’s lips turning blue, they immediately called 911 again.  A staff worker couldn’t find a pulse. 

The DPPC death report states that shortly after arriving back at the group home, the man began to vomit and then lost consciousness, and that the staff began mouth-to-mouth CPR until the paramedics arrived.  According to the Chelmsford Police Department, a squad car arrived at the house at 1:45 p.m.  The group home received a call from the hospital later that afternoon that the man had died.     

The man was formerly a resident of the Fernald Developmental Center.  His case is the third we have heard about in which a former developmental center resident in his 50s died suddenly at a state-operated group home managed by Northeast Residential Services.  In this case, however, there doesn’t seem to be any indication that the group home was in any way at fault.

“The staff did a tremendous job,” one source said, echoing O’Rourke’s assessment.  “They did exactly what they were trained to do.  “They jumped right in and did their best to save his life.”

“We hope the DPPC does a thorough investigation of this case,” said Colleen Lutkevich, Executive Director of COFAR, a statewide, family-supported nonprofit organization that advocates for persons with intellectual disabilities and their families and guardians.  “If indeed this hospital was at fault in failing to treat this man adequately, we need to find out why.  In particular, we need to know whether his disability played a role in the apparent lack of care he received.”

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?

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.

4) “Labor officials said they had found an e-mail in which Exel managers explicitly decided not to provide audio protection for workers in the noisy plant, even though they were aware of the problem. OSHA issued a letter on Tuesday to Exel saying that workers faced “ergonomic risk factors” from lifting and reaching for boxes, and urged a broad redesign of the packing process.”

So there you have it, the bottom line is simply this, and people don’t walk out en masse from a jobsite when they’re happy with their work, their pay and their personal safety. Moreover, few folks if any, particularly college educated people, are likely to fall for a union ruse and thereafter walk off of a job. This is particularly true when they’re guest workers who are here for a summer job and not permanent employees with a long term stake in the working conditions in a particular plant. And yes thePalmyraplant was run by a subcontractor and was staffed with foreign students via an outfit called SHS Staffing Solutions but so what? In the final analysis my conservative friends would have been better off just admitting the facts were in favor of the protestors and with that moving on to the next battle. To do otherwise has been proven to be a waste of time and effort which yielded nothing in the way of proving a point that couldn’t be proven in the first place.

S.J. Gulitti

2/26/12

Sources:

Hershey’s Packer Is Fined Over Its Safety Violations; http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/us/hersheys-packer-fined-by-labor-department-for-safety-violations.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
 
Oh the Bittersweet Taste of Exploitation; http://open.salon.com/blog/steven_j_gulitti/2011/08/20/oh_the_bittersweet_taste_of_exploitation
 
Bittersweet Taste of Exploitation: A Postscript; http://open.salon.com/blog/steven_j_gulitti/2011/08/28/bittersweet_taste_of_exploitation_a_postscript
 

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.

Up until a few years ago there was no government mandate that most employers provide health insurance for employees.

Since then the state and federal government have instituted laws requiring employers to be the hub for individuals to receive health insurance. Not through taxes, or capital markets, or socialist programs, or public education systems, or many other devices.

Instead our government has ordered the employers of America to act as the conduit for health providers and their clients.

Much different than a job perk which comes off the bottom line anyway. Now the government stands over the employer with a shotgun and threatens to close down their widget store unless they agree to let the government and society use them for an unrelated purpose.

So now some employers are forced to provide something to their employees that goes against their moral convictions.

Nothing to do with pay, working conditions, or equal employment opportunities. Rather a product/service (health insurance) and the many intricate parts of it (abortions) which are freely available to everyone regardless of employer. This includes supplemental insurance packages which can be easily gotten in an affordable and easy way which makes the employer/health care administrator happy.

The employee knows this when taking the job and is told how to go about the supplemental.

Now most of this is semantics and nomenclature because most religious organizations have worked around it.

However the health insurance law created an opportunity for government to attack and demonize religions and too many, including BMGers fell for it.

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:

Barack Hussein Obama II, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama, a.ka. Barack H. Obama has the race status of being a “mulatto.” Barack Obama’s father (Barack Hussein Obama I) was a full blood Negro being born Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya and raised in the Colony of Kenya. Barack Obama’s mother (Stanley Ann Dunham) was a white Caucasian woman being born in Wichita, Kansas on November 29, 1942 and raised in the state of Washington and in the state of Hawaii.

As stated above, for an Individual to be a candidate for the office of president of the United States, the candidate must meet the qualifications set forth in the United States Constitution and one of those qualifications is that the Candidate shall be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. As Barack Hussein Obama II is of the “mulatto” race, his status of citizenship is founded upon the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Before the [purported] ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the race of “Negro” or “mulatto” had no standing to be citizens of the United States under the United States Constitution.

As the fourteenth amendment is only a grant of “civil rights” and not a grant of “political rights” Barack Hussein Obama II does not have and “political rights” under any provision of the United States Constitution to hold any Public Office of the United States government.

Links in comment

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.

 

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!

Ms. Davis has deep roots working for the 99%.  Education, human services, the environment, labor, housing, minority and LGBT programs, the arts — if you support any of these programs, then she is your candidate.

Working for 40 years in the financial management of these of non-profits, she has taught groups how to be viable in a fiscally responsible way without sacrificing innovation.  In return, these organizations taught her the real need for their diverse mission statements and that the wonderful diversity of human beings enriches our communities and makes our state stronger.

Coupling her depth of resume with her MBA, she knows how to identify and solve problems.

In addition to this professional experience, Ms. Davis has been a resident of the district for almost 30 years.  She knows firsthand the struggles facing families as they raise their children and work to pay the bills.

It’s time for her to take her skills and experience to the legislature to help the district and the state.

More information about Ms. Davis can be found on her website davis4senate.com and contributions can be made through ActBlue.

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.

Appearance:  Hispanic Male, 6’0, 200lbs. Wearing a blue and white striped button-down shirt, jeans, black North Face jacket, and glasses.

If you have seen Franco at any point since Tuesday at midnight, or heard anything at all about him, we need your help.

You can contact the Newton Police at 617-796-2104 or his family at 617-678-4124.

Coverage:

http://newton.patch.com/articles/police-seek-help-in-finding-missing-newton-man

http://www.universalhub.com/2012/bc-student-missing

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/30539337/detail.html

You say that government has a role in regulation and labeling of product and I agree. But it doesn’t mandate the provision of free orange juice.

Insurance companies agree that contraception is cheaper than pregnancy. It may even be in their best interests to facilitate that cost savings by providing free product – but what about the precedent being set of the Executive being allowed to dictate to private industry that it must provide free product? Can/will that extend to other industries?

You say that the insurance companies would be able to compensate by charging higher premium – show me where that is in the compromise. In fact, the Executive has explicitly shifted the cost burden FROM the faith based employer AND the employee ONTO the private business. The whole point of the compromise is that the employer would NOT have to pay as it violates their conscience, and the employee would not have to pay as it violates the Sparkly Free Ethos of the new giveaway. And except for individual life/health politices, companies CANNOT charge more for a member of a health census that smokes, drives race cars, etc., and the carrier by law cannot disclose these behaviors. I was once pressured by a supermarket chain to reveal which of their employees had a heart condition that prevented them from purchasing a low cost plan – I explained that while the company could ask the questions to assess the risk/reward during underwriting, they could not tell the employer due to privacy laws but had to accept or reject the entire group and this person’s condition made it likely that there would be no profit on the plan.

As far as the argument goes about the Administration being able to require this because the cost of health insurance is deductible and therefore they provide a ‘subsidy’ – will they also be able to decide if you can remodel your kitchen because of the home mortgage deduction?  Or announce that you cannot have more children because you are abusing the tax credit?

The whole ‘half the electorate’ thing?  How many of those females are fertile, of child-bearing age, and active heterosexuals?  You lose about half of all females when you look at it like that, let alone those who choose not to use contraception for health and religious reasons.  BTW – those polls about ’98%’ using?  That’s 98% of Catholics, not the female population overall.  As far as cost goes – up until 10 years ago, MOST women paid 100% out of pocket in Democrat-controlled Mass., for the entirety of their reproductive lives.  That was why Planned Parenthood came into being, lack of health insurance coverage.  Progressive men are a little late to the game with their support.

IMO, the Administration deliberately chose a divisive issue with red-herring dead ends about conscience and faith in order to make this power grab. And I will ask you what I always ask when progressives go on about the end justifying the means – how will you feel when President Cheney gets to make these mandates?

========================================

From KB – ‘The FDA does what exactly?’  It regulates drugs for content and safety, just like Tom’s Ag Dept. regulates the orange juice.  How does that translate into free product?

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

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

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?

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.

–Elizabeth Warren

I’m proud to say I support Elizabeth Warren. Everyday I think about it, I’m proud to say, I support Elizabeth Warren. She doesn’t mince words. When she speaks on an issue, she says what she thinks and why she thinks it. Unlike her opponent, she’s a leader who is not afraid to tackle a controversial issue.

It comes as no surprise that she is against the Blunt Amendment–not because she’s against compromise, she supported Obama’s compromise for religious conscience–but because she recognizes the Blunt Amendment as the trojan horse it is, an attack on the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s landmark healthcare legislation and a threat to health insurance as we know it.

Greg Sargent spoke with Warren and wrote about her view of the Blunt Amendment:

Warren separated herself from other prominent Democrats, who have approached the politics of birth control with a caution bordering on skittishness.

“I am shocked that Senator Brown jumped in to support such an extreme measure,” Warren told me by phone just now. “This is an all new attack on health care. Any insurance company could leave anyone without health care, just when they need it most.”

The measure — sponsored by Senators Roy Blunt and Marco Rubio — would “ensure that health care stakeholders retain the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions” in the Affordable Care Act. Warren said the measure would “open the door to discrimination.”

“This is an extreme attack on every one of us,” Warren said. “It opens the door to outright discrimination. It would let insurance companies and corporations cut off pregnant women, overweight guys, older Americans, or anyone — because some executive claims it’s part of his moral code. Maybe that wouldn’t happen, but I don’t want to take the chance.”

The political calculation of the Brown campaign seems to be that this is a wedge issue for Catholic voters, but Warren doesn’t think much of the politics.

“I don’t think this will go over well in Massachusetts,” she said. “I think the people of Massachusetts will want to hear about it.”

Much of the commentary on this issue has focused on the political vulnerability of Obama and Dems, given the crucial role Catholic swing voters play in national elections, with few noting that the politics of it are also potentially bad for Republicans. But Warren’s unapologetic and aggressive use of it in perhaps the most closely watched Senate race in the country could begin to shift that storyline.

Warren sees the amendment as a gift to insurance companies:

“This election is about whose side you stand on,” she said. “Here’s an example of giving power to insurance companies and corporations to undercut basic health care coverage. I’m going to fight for families to keep that coverage. The economics around health care are huge for families.”

This isn’t an just amendment to the ACA legislation; it would affect all health insurance. The National Women’s Law Center explains,

The Blunt Amendment allows employers and insurance companies to refuse coverage of any health care service required under the new health care law based on undefined “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” This creates a huge loophole in the new health care law’s coverage requirements. For example, any corporation whose CEO opposes contraception based on his “moral convictions” could deny all coverage of contraception or any other service to the company’s employees. Even more disturbing, a CEO’s view of “morality” could potentially include concern for the cost of a particular benefit. Such broad, undefined refusals (without any protections for the insured) would result in millions of individuals losing vital health service coverage.

“Come join us as we repent from the sins of greed, corruption, and apathy,” said Occupy Boston member Joshua Eaton. “Come join us as we wait for the world where every chain is loosed and every yoke is broken. Come join us as we Occupy Lent.”

The group plans to recite prayers of repentance, sing hymns, and read passages from scripture that relate to economic justice. Their event announcement quotes Isaiah 58, verse 6: “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?”

WHO: Members of Occupy Boston and the Protest Chaplains

WHAT:  A gathering each Friday in Lent—the season of repentance—to publicly ask forgiveness for our society’s economic sins and for our complicity with them

WHEN: Friday, February 24 from 8 AM to 8:30 AM and every Friday in Lent (through April 6)

WHERE:First National Bank Building (home to Bank of America) at 100 Federal Street in Boston’s Financial District. Once the Federal Street Church, it was an incubator for liberal religion and the site where Massachusetts ratified the US Constitution. Now, as home to Bank of America,  it stands as a temple to unfettered financial capital.

The Protest Chaplains are a group of lay people and seminarians based in Boston who happened to fall in love with God through the traditions of Christianity. American Christians have been far too polite, too quiet, and too accommodating of leaders who regularly invoke the name of Christ as they wage war, stomp on the poor, and chip away at the freedoms once guaranteed to everyone by the Constitution. The Protest Chaplains seek to join with all those who, like them, know in the deepest places of their souls that another world is indeed possible. For more information, please visit http://ProtestChaplains.blogspot.com.

Occupy Boston has been directly inspired by our sisters and brothers at Occupy Wall St. in New York, and we stand in solidarity with them. The Occupy Boston encampment was started on September 30, 2011 in Dewey Square until December 10, 2011. Occupy Boston invites the 99% to speak out for economic and political systems that work for all people, not just a few. Occupy Boston is just one of more than 125 separate US Occupy movement sites and Occupy Together is the unofficial hub. While these different occupations share many goals and attitudes, they each operate independently, and there is no national organization that can speak for all occupations.  For more information about Occupy Boston visit http://www.OccupyBoston.org.

OK, that sets the stage. Now, should this pill be legal? Remember it has side effects that make people more paternalistic and sexist, so it isn’t just something you can let other people take. When other people take it, it marginalizes those who believe people should be more liberal about sex and homosexuality. So there will be some radical feminists and gays who think the pill shouldn’t even be legal. But most people will think we should let people control their own body, so it should be legal. Now the analogy comes, should those people be forced to pay for it, so that those who want to be straight and very paternalistic get it for free? What if it was only about $10 or $20 a month, and there were already lots of places that helped poor people afford their straight pills? Doesn’t that make it even more offensive to force feminists and gays to pay for a pill which goes against everything they believe? Shouldn’t they be allowed to at least opt-out of having to pay for a pill which offends them and that they think is bad for society?

The same folks who argue Muslim’s are backwards, religious extremist, mysoginists are now defending Humane Vitae which compels women to reproduce to fulfill God’s will.

But it gets even better. As each right wing extremeist tries to out crazy the others, grabbing the spot light is becoming difficult. Republican Representative Bob Morris seems to have a natural talent for crazy, extending the War on Women to the War on the Girl Scouts. In a letter to his fellow legislators he claims:

“abundant evidence proves that the agenda of Planned Parenthood includes sexualizing young girls through the Girl Scouts, which is quickly becoming a tactical arm of Planned Parenthood.”  Bob continues claiming Girl Scouts promotes homosexual lifestyles, noting this “radicalized organization’s” role models:

“only three have a briefly-mentioned religious background – all the rest are feminists, lesbians, or Communists.”

Whoa, did Bob just accuse the role models for young girls to be feminists, who believe in equal opportunity and equal political, economic, social rights for women? If girls get these dangerous ideas, they may demand to be seated at the table during Congressional Hearings on contraception. Perhaps this is Satan at work as Rick Santorum warned.

Or perhaps Karl Rove, master Republican strategist has been replaced by that guy that used to shout near the entrance of the subway station, (Repent, Satan is coming),  and the one who writes those Nigerian emails, (God Bless, God Bless, trust me with your finances and I will make you a millionaire).

 

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.

US Senator Scott Brown is in Florida today raising money for his campaign with fellow freshman US Senator Marco Rubio, the Cuban-American Republican and Tea Party darling who was elected the same year as Brown.

But Brown’s campaign wasn’t exactly eager to broadcast his whereabouts.

Asked yesterday about the senator’s schedule for this week, a spokesman said he was unsure about Brown’s plans. In a separate interview today, he said he did not have details about the Florida trip.

Turns out, Brown has been on a two-day fundraising swing in Florida. Last night, he attended an “evening reception” at a private home in Bal Harbour, according to a list of the senator’s out-of-state fundraisers obtained by the Globe.

Today, Brown attended a Palm Beach luncheon whose hosts were listed as Pepe Fanjul and Darlene and Jerry Jordan, along with Rubio.

Tonight, Brown will attend a dinner hosted by Rubio and Ned Siegel, the former ambassador to the Bahamas.

Interesting timing there Scott.

If you were anywhere near Copley at lunchtime today, you might have heard the somber notes of “Taps” from a funeral service outside the John Hancock Tower. That’s because dozens of unemployed workers, faith and community leaders gathered to mark the untimely death of thousands of family-supporting jobs at the hands of Bain Capital, LLC.

The Funeral for American Jobs came as Bain’s founder and former CEO, Mitt Romney, struggles to regain front-runner status in the Republican presidential primary.

“This is a sad day – not only for the unemployed in Massachusetts, but for the entire American economy,” said Pastor William Dickerson of Dorchester, who officiated the funeral service. “It is with heavy hearts that we gather to memorialize the senseless death of so many American jobs at the hands of a cold, heartless entity.”

A short list of Bain/Romney victims:

• DDI CORPORATION: Bankrupted in 2003, laying off more than 2,100 workers. Bain Capital made $36 million in the process.
• AMERICAN PAD & PAPER: Bankrupted in 2000 after shuttering two plants. Bain pulled in $100 million in dividends.
• DADE BEHRING: Bankrupted in 2002, firing 1,900 employees. Bain still took in $421 million.
• ARMCO/GST STEEL: Bankrupted in 2001 following 1,800 layoffs. Bain earned $65 million in dividends.

Following a brief sermon, Dickerson led several dozen mourners in prayer for the jobs lost and families affected by the actions of the Romney-led private equity firm. Additional eulogies were presented by unemployed Boston-area workers – each holding the tombstone of a company bankrupted by Bain. One by one, somber mourners called out the names of the companies that have fallen at Bain’s hand, documenting the plant closures and mass layoffs that crippled communities as Romney’s firm walked away with millions.

“Mitt Romney and Bain Capital are killing jobs for profit, plain and simple,” said Olivé Hendricks, an unemployed Roslindale resident. “There’s nothing wrong with capitalism, but companies like Bain have rigged the system – they’re getting rich while the rest of us suffer because of their actions.”

Romney has used his experience as founder and CEO of Bain to claim the “job creator” mantle in his campaign for president. But media reports of his 15-year tenure paint an entirely different picture – showing a record of plant closures, bankruptcies and mass layoffs.

“Thousands of families have lost their jobs, their homes, and their life savings because of Romney and Bain’s unchecked greed,” said Paulette Robinson-Morrison, who came from Dorchester to mourn the passing of middle-class jobs. “The futures of our kids and grandkids have been destroyed because of companies like Bain, and people deserve to know the truth about Romney’s record there.”

President Obama does not “accept responsibility” for high gas prices, his spokesman indicated today, arguing that Obama has done everything he could to bring down the price of oil and blaming the high gas prices on oil price increases caused by global factors.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-doesnt-accept-responsibility-gas-prices/388946

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.

The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period.

Senior sources said that the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate. The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad.

For that matter shouldn’t individual states or communities be able to stop a pipeline from coming through?   I didn’t see anything in the 10th Amendment about oil sands, either.

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.

Steven Bright makes clear that the explosive growth in the number of incarcerated Americans is the result of over worked public defenders with impossible case loads, under funded courts, and innocent people behind bars.

1 in 100 United States Adults are behind bars.  1 in 36 Hispanic adults are behind bars.  1 in 15 black men are behind bars.  You don’t have to take my word for it.   According to Steven Bright this awful social blight results from a failure to follow the mandate of the 6th Amendment and Gideon v. Wainwright.

Now, the goal was not window dressing.  By window dressing, I mean the appearance of an attorney, but without the resources in terms of time and support staff to do the job.  A defense attorney has to meet with and interview the client, investigate sometimes using a private investigator, hunt down witnesses and evidence.  Unlike prosecutors, there is not an army of police and detectives at the ready.

At one time, this state was known for having zealous defense by experienced private attorneys appointed to defend individuals, who could say know when their caseloads got too high, as could public defenders.  Sadly, Governor Deval Patrick is intent on dismantling this system, and requiring 200 or more cases per public defender.

Broken lives,  Broken dreams – and a cost of $43,000.00 per incarcerated adult per year to the taxpayer, with limited re-entry and far too many of these individuals were pled out – and under our Governor’s plan, this will only get worse.

The measure of a democracy is, in part, its commitment to the rule of law.  This must include a commitment to “innocent until proven guilty.”  For “innocent until proven guilty” to be a reality,  funding for the judicial branch must be realistic and adequate, and so much funding for indigent defense.

Equating indigent defense to what prosecutors do is, in fact, dead wrong.  Listen to Steven Bright a second time.  Maybe Deval Patrick will listen.  Maybe Secretary of Administration and Finance Gonzalez will listen to Steven Bright.  They sure have not listened to Massachususetts Lawyers Weekly, the Massachusetts Bar Association (MBA) or me.

2 20 12 MLW Editorial Opposing Govs plan

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.

Since social media, and the internet in general, can provide us with information overload from time to time, we should make sure that strong progressive voices make it through the noise of the crowd. To that end, ProgressMass would like to recommend ten such strong progressive voices to “Like” on Facebook and follow on Twitter. This list is by no means exhaustive. In the comments, please offer your recommendations for progressive voices we should keep track of via social media.

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.

Photo courtesy of the Rachel Maddow Blog

Apparently, Virginia has passed laws making chanting or carrying signs illegal on the grounds of its capitol building.  How constitutional is that one wonders.  The organizers of yesterday’s February 20, 2012 protest drew inspiration from Occupy UC’s silent protest of their chancellor.  Their occupy-inspired silent protest drew Virginians to stand silently for hours.  Enough Virginians, mostly women, but some children and men attended to completely ring their capitol building, and stare silently at the Virginia legislators who were supposedly going to vote that medically unnecessary probes would be inserted into women seeking abortions – See Lynne Lupien’s post from a few days ago:  http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/02/hey-virginia-state-house-stick-it-up-your-own/

The vote did not happen yesterday – and of course, that silent cordon cannot be there every day.  The only way we will reclaim democracy, in this state, in the USA, or anywhere else including Virginia is to stand up and fight back – and if that means being the first person to say “The Emperor has no clothes” despite a public rush towards a popular injustice like the state-sanctioned rape by wand in Virginia, or a hyped up, immoral war based on lies like Iraq or the current bogus run up on Iran, so be it .   My shoes are made for marching – how about yours?

Links to the MSN blog post by Maddow and also the facebook page used to organize the protest are here:  http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/20/10459213-silent-protest-outside-virginia-house-puts-off-ultrasound-vote

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…

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.

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.

After investigating illegal campaign practice’s in the Criminal Clerks office the Office of campaign and political Finance is allowing certain people who testified under oath to re testify, so they may tell the truth this time and white wash the clerks practices using Clerk employees and her office to do her campaign business. I guess if no one knows it never happened.

      I have received the petition appealing the response of the City of Boston (City) to the request for public records. G. L. c. 66 s 10(b);
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleX/Chapter66/Section10

see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)
http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/source/mass/cmr/950cmr.html
Specifically requested that an electronic copy of the output created by the stenographer for the Boston City Council (Council) be provided via e-mail.

      The Public Records Law
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/preidx.htm
strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G L. c. 66, s 10(c); 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any town of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, s 7(26).
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleI/Chapter4

      It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, s 10(c); see also District Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption).
http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/419/419mass507.html

      It has recently come to the attention of this office that the Council’s stenographer has acquired a new [ Diamante
http://stenograph.com ]
stenographic machine that creates an electronic output file. Subsequent to Council meetings, the file is downloaded onto a computer operated by the stenographer who works for the Council as a contract employee. The City has not claimed any exemption to permit or require the withholding of the electronic record generated by the stenographic machine.

Ms. Ann Hess Braga, Esq.
Page Two
February 16, 2012

SPR11/366

      In a meeting in the Council Chamber between you, the stenographer and me, the stenographer indicated that the file is not easily read by the average computer user. Please note that a custodian of records is not obligated to create a record in response to a request, nor is one required to convert a record into a readable format. The request was made for the file itself, and the file in its native form is a public record, absent any redactions; it need not be converted into a more accessible form.

      The stenographer has indicated that each stenographer possesses a particular style and language in stenographic notation that is unique. The responsive file may be indecipherable by the average reader. Again, the City has no obligation to translate or otherwise convert the file into a more accessible form. The Public Records Law relates to the status of records as they exist at the time of the request The responsive record, in whatever form it exists, must be provided to the requester. [Key may be requested for transcribing.]

      Finally, the stenographer has posed a question as to whether the output file is the property of the City. It has long been the position of this office that records created by third party contractors for governmental entities are public records, regardless of the physical location of the record. The legal custody lies with the governmental entity. The physical location of the record does not change its status as a public record.

      In order to withhold a record requested pursuant to the Public Records Law, the record custodian is charged with the duty of providing with specificity how a particular exemption applies to each individual record requested. See G. L. c. 66, s 10(c); see also District Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995). To date, the City has provided no explanation as to why an electronic copy of the stenographic output should not be provided.

      Accordingly, I find that the City has not met its burden and has not overcome the presumption that the responsive records are public records. You are hereby ordered to obtain a copy of the record from the stenographer, and provide a copy of the electronic record within ten (10) days.

      If the City is planning to charge for the cost of complying with the public records request, the requester must be provided with a written, good faith estimate. Once the City receives the estimate funds, the records must be provided. A custodian of records may assess a reasonable fee for complying with a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, s 10(a); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(2). Absent specific statutory authority to the contrary, the fees to be charged for complying with requests for public records are established by the Public Records Access Regulations (Regulations). See 950 C.M.R. 32.06. Under the Regulations, a custodian of records may assess a maximum fee of twenty cents ($.20) per page for a photocopy of a public record and fifty cents ($.50) per page for a computer print out of a public record. See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(1)(a). Please note that as the request is for an electronic record, no charge should be assessed for copies, as no paper copies have been requested.

Ms. Ann Hess Braga, Esq.
Page Three
February 16, 2012

SPR11/366

      Whereas it is the finding of this office that the responsive record is public, this administrative appeal is now closed.
Very truly yours,
Shawn A. Williams, Assistant Director
email
pre at sec.state.ma.us
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/arc/arcrmu/rmuidx.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Massachusetts.svg
ENSE PETIT PLACIDAM SVB LIBERTATE QVIETEM
She seeks with the sword a quiet peace under liberty

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth
Public Records Division
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/arc/arcrmu/rmuidx.htm

One Ashburton Place 17th Floor
Boston Massachusetts 02108
telephone 617 727-2832
fax 617 727-5914

cc:
Ms. Ann Hess Braga, Esq.
City of Boston
Boston City Hall 5th Floor
Boston Massachusetts 02201
telephone 617 635-3040
fax 617 635-4203
email
city.council at cityofboston.gov
http://cityofboston.gov/citycouncil

February 16, 2012
SPR11/366

http://www.charbase.com/267c-unicode-recycled-paper-symbol
50% Recycled Paper
30% Post-Consumer

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

A recent post here discussed  fernald, and a supplemental 10 million dollars to keep fernald program open for its residents.

Because i replied critically to the post i was, interestingly, accused of being a sock puppet for ADDP.  I’m not.  I’m not Gary Blumenthal either.  Never met him, don’t know him, although i think i did see him once. maybe. I think he introduced peter paul and mary at a rally i attended.

Wait…maybe it was just Peter, or Paul…Mary definitely was not there. No matter.

But they were introduced by some one who gave an speech in support of restoring budgets cuts that were effecting the states disabled.  Whomever he was, i agreed with what I heard. Might have been from Blumenthal. Wasn’t me, thats for sure.

So full disclosure. I post here as a parent of disabled adult. Period. Full stop. For those who care ( apparently this matters ) he receives services from a private not for profit agency which is funded, in part, by the state; as opposed to receiving state services directly. ( My apoligies, Dave ). I volunteer at that agency, as i have been involved in every place my son has ever been… whether it be local school, state programs or his current one. Although i certainly would work for a human services agency or the state- i don’t.

I’m a life long resident of the state. And i don’t plan any further discussion of sock puppets.

whew. got that out of the way.

According to DDS over 20,000 individuals whom are disabled live with their family. That includes children and adults. This extensive report talks about their needs…often in their words for instance::

“My wife and I have only been away from our son 2 nights in our 20 years of marriage. Divorce rates are high for parents of special needs individuals. We are continually running on empty. We don’t need a support group. We can never attend anything for our other children together. Taking care of our son is more than a full time job. “

All parents can relate to the need for a break…its only ratcheted up when your child is disabled…and the breaks, even if for just a hour or two are so important.

Yet here is an example of cuts: DDS Family and Respite Support.

For those of you not familiar, this funds programs that enable folks to stay with their families. It helps families. Caring for a disabled family member is difficult. But respite and familly support helps make it possible. Its apple pie, or should be.  And its been cut in the past and is proposed to be cut again.

$5.5 million cut for FY13.

But its been cut before as well, $10m cut in FY10. So over time this line item has seen $15 million in cuts.

The current proposed cut is estimated by the arc to cause 2,000 individuals to lose support. As its current funding it only can help about  half of the folks in need.

Cuts make it harder for families to stay together, harder to care for a loved one at home. For families that are trying to care for a disabled individual we should do everything we can to help them.

I support restoring the funding to FY10 levels…and oppose the proposed cuts.

I wonder what our former governor’s thoughts are about the current MBTA funding scheme. A little leadership from the executive branch would be refreshing.

I don’t think anyone is playing us like a violin to gain critical mass for a long-term solution. IMHO the institutional stakeholders are pulling in slightly different directions based on their various missions  and T riders are going to take it on the chin again when the heat dissipates. You have to love tone deaf MASSPORT though. 1 billion dollars for superLogan renovation. You need a ferry system.

Anecdotally, a friend  in Lynn said that over two hundred people showed up at a recent public meeting about the fare hike. She was agog because ” 200 people at any meeting in Lynn is unheard of.” Will all these people end up with a bad taste in their mouth because of  another round of can kicking?

My solution: A Damon/Affleck film with 1.4 million  extras portraying subway riders.  Would DeLeo acknowledge T riders then?

Matt Damon’s line from December still rings true “people are literally- without any focus or leadership- just wandering out into the streets to yell right now because they are so pissed off … Imagine if they had a leader.”

BTW  Speaking of institutional leaders, where the #**# is the Conservation Law Foundation?  You all are pretty quiet considering.  See:  http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/02/proposed-mbta-service-cutsfare-increase-passing-the-buck-for-mitigation/

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.

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.

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 candidates answered questions covering revenue, tax policy and the deficit; health care; the social safety net; jobs, economic development and banking regulation; choice, civil rights and immigration; energy and environment; education; and foreign policy. Click here to read the responses. This is a unique opportunity to compare the candidates’ stances on issues. We are committed to keeping progressive voters informed, and we hope you will take the time to visit our website and see where the U.S. Senate candidates stand on the issues you care about.

Progressive Mass is being built from the ground up by organizers and activists from across Massachusetts. We are committed to organization building, educating and training progressive activists, creating opportunities for ongoing engagement, working to elect more progressives to public office, and continually holding elected officials accountable for their positions on issues.

We hope you will join us as we work to build a progressive reality in Massachusetts. Visit our website and sign up for our email list, follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

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!

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.

This resolution under consideration by the state legislature, while symbolic, says in no uncertain terms that the state of Massachusetts wants the issue of the Citizen’s United ruling to be addressed by a constitutional amendment. It was introduced by Senator Eldridge, and is now also co-sponsored by our state Senator Eileen Donoghue. Thank you Senator Donoghue for doing it.

The text of the resolution:

1 WHEREAS, THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
2 WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS OF PEOPLE, NOT
3 CORPORATIONS;
4 WHEREAS, FOR THE PAST THREE DECADES, A DIVIDED UNITED STATES
5 SUPREME COURT HAS TRANSFORMED THE FIRST AMENDMENT INTO A
6 POWERFUL TOOL FOR CORPORATIONS SEEKING TO EVADE AND INVALIDATE
7 DEMOCRATICALLY-ENACTED REFORMS;
8 WHEREAS, THIS CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAS
9 REACHED ITS EXTREME CONCLUSION IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT’S
10 RECENT RULING IN CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC;
11 WHEREAS, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN CITIZENS
12 UNITED V. FEC OVERTURNED LONGSTANDING PRECEDENT PROHIBITING
13 CORPORATIONS FROM SPENDING THEIR GENERAL TREASURY FUNDS IN OUR
14 ELECTIONS;
15 WHEREAS, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN CITIZENS
16 UNITED V. FEC WILL NOW UNLEASH A TORRENT OF CORPORATE MONEY IN OUR
17 POLITICAL PROCESS UNMATCHED BY ANY CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE TOTALS IN
18 UNITED STATES HISTORY;
19 WHEREAS, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN CITIZENS
20 UNITED V. FEC PRESENTS A SERIOUS AND DIRECT THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY;
21 WHEREAS, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE PREVIOUSLY USED
22 THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCESS TO CORRECT THOSE
23 EGREGIOUSLY WRONG DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
24 THAT GO TO THE HEART OF OUR DEMOCRACY AND SELF-GOVERNMENT;
25 NOW BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
26 HEREBY CALLS UPON THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO PASS AND SEND TO
27 THE STATES FOR RATIFICATION A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO RESTORE
28 THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND FAIR ELECTIONS TO THE PEOPLE.

Ultimately, the only fix for Citizens United and the last few decades of rulings allowing the intrusion of big corporate money into our politics is a constitutional amendment. No laws that try to do anything substantial about this problem will pass muster with the current Supreme Court – they’ve made it clear that the speech of people with a lot of money is way more important than the speech of everyone else, and more important than a fair democracy free of corrupting influence.

A hearing is scheduled in the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, where the bill is still under review, on February 28.

What I like about this resolution, is that with it, we will know where our state legislators stand on this very crucial issue facing our country.

The Massachusetts human service vendors are at it again — blaming the families of Fernald Developmental Center residents for the state’s budget problems.

In an online email to members this week, Gary Blumenthal, president of the Association of Developmental Disabilities Providers, once again resorts to misleading statements about Fernald’s operating cost in order to stick it to family members and guardians of the 14 remaining residents there.

Here’s what Blumenthal says about the Fernald families in his message, which discusses a $10.2 million supplemental bill filed by the Patrick administration to keep Fernald operating:

While the state is still intent on closing Fernald and three other state institutions, the final closure date is uncertain as the last 14 families attempt to hold out, hoping against reality that they can force the state to reverse it’s closure decision.    

Despite the families being offered “equal to or better services” per federal Court Orders, the last Fernald families are using every available delay option available, urged on by anti-closure ideologues who still think they can force the state to leave Fernald open for the lifespan of the remaining 14 individuals. 

First of all, through their own volition, these families are exercising their legal right to prevent what they see as the unjust eviction of their loved ones from their long-time home.

Moreover, in at least three of the 14 cases, administrative judges in the Patrick administration itself have ruled that the guardians demonstrated that care would not be better in the new locations proposed by the Department of Developmental Services for those residents.

That’s why these cases have dragged on.  The administrative judicial decisions have been taken to state Superior court by both the administration and the 11 guardians who didn’t win their administrative appeals.  That is their legal right.  But Blumenthal and the ADDP have choosen to castigate the families and unidentified “anti-closure ideologues” for somehow bringing the state to its knees fiscally.

We suppose Blumenthal is referring to COFAR as an anti-closure ideologue.  It’s true that we oppose the administration’s planned closures of Fernald and three other state developmental centers, which we believe provide critically needed care to some of the state’s most severely and profoundly intellectually disabled residents.   But who are the real ideologues here?

We recognize the importance and need for community-based care for the majority of people with intellectual disabilities in Massachusetts.  What we have long argued is that the developmental centers are a necessary part of the continuum of care.  It is the ADDP and their state-funded vendor members who are the pro-closure ideologues.  They argue that the state should abdicate its responsibility of caring for its most vulnerable citizens and hand the entire business over to them.

In furtherance of this aim, Blumenthal has to bend himself into a pretzel logic-wise, and, as we said, make misleading statements about Fernald’s operating cost.  He implies in his message that if Fernald were closed immediately, the $10 million in supplemental funding would somehow be re-invested in the community system of care.

Yet, in the same message, Blumenthal admits what we’ve been saying for years – that the state has “reneged” (his word) on its longtime promise to re-invest funding  from the developmental centers into the community system.   Thus, Blumenthal knows full well that were Fernald to be closed tomorrow, that $10 million would not be invested in the community.  The money, or a good portion of it, would follow the residents themselves to their new locations, wherever they might be.  The community system as a whole would not benefit in any way.

Further, as they do every year at budget time, Blumenthal and the ADDP single out Fernald and discuss how the per-resident cost there has “skyrocketed.”   It’s true that cost has skyrocketed.  But what Blumenthal doesn’t say is that’s what happens when you drastically reduce the population of a care facility.  The fixed costs get spread out over a smaller and smaller base of residents. 

Despite the photo of an abandoned building at Fernald rising out of the weeds that runs atop his message, Blumenthal erroneously makes it sound as though the remaining residents are living the high life because the cost per resident there has risen.  As one of the 14 guardians wrote in an email in response to Blumenthal’s message:

Based on what he (Blumenthal) has to say about the “evil 14″, you’d think we were having a blast, loads of fun and just a grand old time! 

Also, just once I’d like to see a picture of one of Fernald “homes” like Malone Park or a cottage, or our beautiful chapel, not a building that hasn’t been occupied for 35 years!  

You’d think I be use to this by now, but I guess not.

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.

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):

Have a gander at the I Team Report from the other day and the Salem News article from today.

Spin baby! Spin!!!

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

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.

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.

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.

Greg Sargent gives the blow by blow:

“You acknowledge that Senator Blunt’s amendment that you’re supporting goes far further than religious objections, no?” The reporter asked.

“No, I don’t,” Brown answered, adding that “one of the cornerstones of our Constitution” is “to allow for religious freedoms.”

The reporter then incredulously pointed out that the bill also allows for denial of coverage due to “moral conviction,” and pressed Brown again and again.

“That’s the language,” the reporter said. “I’m repeating it verbatim, Senator Brown.”

“I disagree with your interpretation,” Brown said. “It’s very clear that this is about the ability for religious groups — churches, universities who want to practice their faith in adherence to our Constitution.”

The video is a must see, Brown had difficulty getting this thoughts together, kept on throwing Coakley’s name out there, religion, attack by Warren, etc. almost like he was given his talking points but couldn’t put them together. But by far the most bizarre was the “I disagree with your interpretation”, Braude exasperated, tells Brown “I’m reading this verbatim”.

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.

209 Democrats showed up at Arlington Town Hall to caucus, and sent a slate of 35 delegates committed to Elizabeth Warren to the convention in Springfield.

photo by bean

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

Politics ain’t beanbag.  HT Lynne.

One of our most fundamental rights as a people is the freedom of religion. It was right here in Plymouth, Massachusetts that pilgrims from Europe established a colony because of religious persecution at home (emphasis mine).

Now, it is Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren who has assumed the mantle of oppressor. She and her allies on the left are 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.

Mantle of Oppressor?

Hear that Scott? That’s the sound of your poll numbers nosediving.

I was glad to see this in my Inbox, a message from Elizabeth Warren standing up to the slander and setting he record straight on the bill that Scott Brown is Co-Sponsoring with the extreme right of his party and detailing her true position.

Like many of you, I was shocked to learn that Senator Scott Brown is supporting the Blunt amendment — a dangerous measure being pushed by Senate Republicans that would allow insurance companies and employers to deny health care coverage to anyone for any reason, just when people need it most.

I was even more shocked Senator Brown emailed his supporters just a couple hours ago attacking me personally — and basically everyone who opposes this radical bill — claiming that I had assumed “the mantle of oppressor.”

Let me be clear: I support President Obama’s solution to make sure that religious institutions are not forced to cover contraception but that women can get the health care they need. This new bill that Scott Brown is supporting is not about religious institutions — it’s about something very different. It would allow any employer or insurance company to refuse to cover any person for any treatment. Not only is it an attack on women’s ability to get the vital health care we need, it is an attack on every one of us.

Think about what this will mean to you and your family. Are you pregnant? Elderly? Disabled? Do you have a chronic problem like diabetes or heart disease? Do you go for routine screening tests or rely on daily medications? Any medical test, treatment or prescription your boss or HMO doesn’t want to pay for could suddenly become morally objectionable — and under this amendment, your employer or insurance company would not have pay for it. You would lose your health care coverage.

Is this Scott Brown’s idea of standing by the middle class? Is this what he means when he says he wants to make this the “People’s Seat?” He wants to help families by letting employers and insurance companies take away health care coverage?

Tell Scott Brown that you want your United States Senator to stand up for the middle class and protect health care. Call his Senate office at (202) 224-4543 or (617) 565-3170 — and tell him you disagree with the Blunt amendment. Then ask your friends on email, Facebook, and Twitter to call Scott Brown, too.

This election is about whose side you’re on.

The economics around health care are huge for families. Skyrocketing costs have been a big factor in the financial squeeze facing middle-class families.

Despite all that, Scott Brown wants to give even more power to corporations and insurance companies to deny basic health care coverage and undermine a fundamental principle of the Affordable Care Act — namely that everyone in this country deserves a basic standard of health care coverage.

Right now, while Scott Brown is fighting to eliminate health care reform, I’m fighting for families to keep that coverage. I’ll fight for it now, and you can be sure I’ll keep right on fighting for families in the Senate.

Call Scott Brown’s Senate office at (202) 224-4543 or (617) 565-3170 and tell him to stand up for middle class families. Then forward this email to your friends and ask them to call, too.

Massachusetts families deserve better — and they need health care. Stand with me and join this fight.

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.

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.

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.

We know there are individuals and small groups across the Commonwealth that are fighting to make a difference in their communities.  It takes courage to take on the system and we know there are a lot of people doing exactly that.  MASS Courage wants to get behind some of these folks to help them have greater impact.  We want to get behind those who have the guts to reject the status quo but need some extra help doing so.

I figured those who post here might have some good ideas.  So, if you know anyone or any group that is courageous, let us know.  Or tell them to let us know at www.masscourage.org.  (Use the submission box at the middle bottom of the splash page.)

Thanks.  I look forward to working with you all over the coming months to bring back courage to Massachusetts politics and public policy.

Per Athol real estate listings, this house is for sale with a 14,500 square foot lot for $34,500.  Your monthly payment, if you paid the full asking price would be about $200.00 a month.  Not bad.  But, in fact, there are other properties, both commercial and residential available for this price, or less.  For example, I even found one commercial property with an asking price of $800 (could that be a typo?):

Here is the link for this listing, at 34 Exchange Street, Athol at $800 dollars http://www.homes.com/listing/157106890/34_Exchange_St_ATHOL_MA_01331

Now, while some urban areas, parts of Boston, or near suburbs with MBTA access like Arlington or Cambridge have held their own and seem to be recovering, in fact rural areas without the MBTA like Athol or Orange are in a deep downslide.  Several thoughts come to mind, for example:  1)  What would the current MBTA plan do to real estate values in MBTA access downs; 2) Would expandging public transportation to Central Massachusetts reverse the slide in property values; 3) Why do we have abandoned properties AND homeless families AND unemployed veterans with construction skills?

It would make more sense to provide returning veterans with a voucher good for a sum certain (20k-40k) to be used to rehabilitate a property, which would put people to work, put veterans into housing, and avoid loss of housing stock.

What does this have to do with the so-called Middle Class?  Well, for starters, the whole idea of what is middle class has expanded like clothing sizes (you know, today’s women’s size 12 is yesterday’s size 16).  Take a look at this chart (and maybe one of the tech gurus can insert it, the best I can do is give you the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_01.html

Granted, this is 2005, but still.  Is $25,000 “middle class”  For the planet as a whole, it may be top 1%.  However, I would consider this level of income – say $25k-$45k working class.  Not a dirty word with me, at least, “working class”.  That was back when a wage job in the United States was expected to be a living wage job. 

Adam Smith, in his seminal work, sometimes considered “The Bible of Capitalism”, Wealth of Nations has this to say:

“A man must always live by his work, and his wages must be at least sufficient to maintain him.  They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family , and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation.”  Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Prometheus Books, 1991, P 72-73

Adam Smith goes on to explain that social stability requires that the base wage needs to be sufficient to allow for the maintenance of a family of four.  Otherwise, according to Smith, the result is social instability, the inability to marry or raise children in a two parent household, and declining population is the result.  It seem to me that the hard right capitalists citing to Adam Smith either NEVER read Wealth of Nations or totally missed the point.

Further, “saving the middle class” is not what we in fact need.  What is needed is a return to living wages that allow for families to maintain themselves as a family unit.  Destruction of the living wage combined with the rise of minority and veteran joblessness coincides with out of wedlock births, and population decline.    What those who trumpet “Save the Middle Class” seem to me to mean is something like “make sure college graduates get jobs and earn at least $60-$70k.  Sorry.  That leaves way too many people out, won’t fix the economy, and demonstrates a kind of obliviousness to what is actually going on around us in the USA and abroad.  Whether it is the destruction of 150,000 government jobs in Greeze, or the  “Hyatization” of labor in the USA – it is the working class that is being cannibalized and rendered economically invisible, and placed in a kind of finacial no-man’s land.

Remember the housekeepers, many of whom had worked for the Hyatt for 20 years, who trained their replacements to work for 1/4 of their wages?  You may have forgotten them, but they get what I am talking about, and have NOT gone away.

Photo courtesy of Wicked Local July 2011  These 35 unionists were arrested in July of 2011 – long before the Occupy Boston mass arrests.  This was not about “save the middle class” – but about saving the living wage.  A fan club for the high-end collegiate workforce won’t save the minority family, the working class, housing it Athol – or my kids future. 

If my generation (those born between 1936 and 1950) are to be remembered as anything other than the vampires who sucked the economic lifeblood out of the USA, the focus has to be on the well-being of the future generations in this country and on the planet.

Going back to housing prices in Athol – and Detroit – and Worcester – and Cleveland – how about it folks?  Can you come up with a better idea then mine?  

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!

As you well know, the notorious Citizens United decision by the Roberts-led Supreme Court opened the door to unlimited political spending by corporations and ultra-wealthy individuals, effectively drowning out the voices of everyday Americans.  This is a direct attack on the basic fairness of our democratic process, and the only remedy is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Currently pending in the Massachusetts Legislature is a resolution, Senate 772, calling for such an amendment to our nation’s Constitution.  The bill will be heard by the Joint Committee on the Judiciary on February 28.  On that day, ProgressMass will deliver a letter to Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Robert DeLeo calling for S. 772’s swift passage, and we urge you to sign on to the letter.  (The text of the letter appears at the bottom of this post.)

We have already seen the corrosive effect of the ruling in Citizens United.  At least four corporations have contributed one million dollars each to a Super PAC aligned with Mitt Romney’s Presidential campaign.  One billionaire businessman and his wife – just two people – have contributed ten million dollars to a Super PAC aligned with Newt Gingrich’s Presidential campaign.  When a corporation or billionaire mogul can legally write a check for a political campaign that is literally one million times the amount of the contribution made by an everyday American just trying to make his or her voice heard in our political process, that process is fundamentally flawed.

The Roberts-led Supreme Court declared that Big Money can effectively silence your political voice.  We think that’s wrong.  We think that our democratic process and First Amendment free speech exists for people, not for corporations.  We think that the volume of your political voice should be every bit as loud as any billionaire’s voice.

Please visit the ProgressMass website, sign on to the letter, and share the link with your family, friends, and co-workers.  We, again, also invite you to Like ProgressMass on Facebook and follow the ProgressMass Twitter feed.  More importantly, moving forward, we encourage you to share your thoughts, concerns, and progressive priorities with us by e-mail, on our Facebook wall, and via tweet.

The text of the ProgressMass letter to Senate President Murray and House Speaker DeLeo:

Protect the Integrity of Our Democracy

Dear Senate President Murray and House Speaker DeLeo,

Massachusetts has a heritage of leading the way for our nation when it comes to defending our democratic principles and rights. From abolishing slavery in 1783 to recognizing same-sex marriage equality in 2004, our Commonwealth has been at the forefront of historic progressive battles for fairness.

Our democracy now faces another serious challenge as the basic fairness of our political process is under attack. When the U.S. Supreme Court made its 5-4 ruling on the notorious Citizens United case, it opened the door to an onslaught of unlimited corporate dollars that will effectively drown out the voices of everyday citizens and, with that, First Amendment free speech.

The only remedy to a Supreme Court decision so corrosive to our democracy is an amendment to our nation’s Constitution. We, the undersigned, urge you to expeditiously bring S. 772 to the floors of your respective chambers of the Massachusetts Legislature so that our Commonwealth can, in one unified, progressive voice, declare that we still hold true to the ideal that, in a democracy, one person equals one vote, and that “free speech” doesn’t simply go to the highest bidder.

By passing S. 772, Massachusetts will continue in its meaningful tradition of being a national leader in defense of democracy, fairness, and equality.

Signed,
[Your Name]

As you may have heard, right-wing Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) has offered a truly extreme amendment to the Affordable Care Act.  Of course it is not going to pass, but it’s turned into something of a flash point.  And the critical thing to realize about Blunt’s amendment is this: it goes way beyond birth control, and it goes way beyond religious belief.  Blunt’s amendment would permit any employer, insurer, or health care provider to deny coverage for anything, as long as they say that covering that thing is against either their religious beliefs or their “moral convictions” - and “moral convictions” is not defined in the amendment.  Apparently, if you say “I’m agin’ it” three times, that’ll do.

For the sticklers out there, here is the relevant text of Blunt’s amendment:

A health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health benefits package described in subsection (a) … on the basis that it declines to provide coverage of specific items or services because— (i) providing coverage (or, in the case of a sponsor of a group health plan, paying for coverage) of such specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan; or (ii) such coverage (in the case of individual coverage) is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.

Nothing about abortion or contraception, just “specific items or services,” which seems potentially to include everything.  And note that “religious beliefs” and “moral convictions” are distinct categories of reasons that it’s OK to deny coverage.  So even if your religion doesn’t say anything about a particular health care service, an employer can deny coverage just because, well, he doesn’t like it.  Employer doesn’t want to pay for AIDS treatment because he thinks it’s a disease that bad people like gays and drug addicts get?  No problem – his “moral convictions” let him deny coverage.  Here are two more examples, from health care expert (and Warren supporter) John McDonough:

Let’s say you had me as your employer. Let’s say I assumed all folks with substance abuse problems should join Alcoholics or Narcotics Anonymous, and that should be enough treatment. Under the Blunt-Brown proposal, I would be acting within my rights as your employer.

Here’s another: regular readers of this column know that I’m vegan, in other words, I don’t eat anything that has a mother. That’s a health judgment on my part, and it’s also a moral conviction. Under this proposed legislation, I would be within my rights as your employer to provide no coverage for any essential or preventive health benefit tied to Type II diabetes because I believe it’s largely caused by our awful American diet. I guess no diabetic would want to work for me, and then I’d save a lot of money too. All potentially legal under the Blunt-Brown view of how things should be.

Folks, this is crazy talk.  And Scott Brown is all for it.  Here’s the email from Team Brown that I just got:

One of our most fundamental rights as a people is the freedom of religion. It was right here in Plymouth, Massachusetts that pilgrims from Europe established a colony because of religious persecution at home.

Now, it is Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren who has assumed the mantle of oppressor. She and her allies on the left are 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.

That’s not the America our Founding Fathers envisioned, and it’s just one of the unhealthy side effects of Obamacare, which seeks to impose a one-size-fits-all, government-knows-best health care program on the whole country.

Obamacare is bad law and needs to be repealed. Until that day arrives, it’s important we fight to protect the public from some of its worst aspects.

I support a conscience exemption in health care for Catholics and other people of faith. That’s why I signed on to Senator Roy Blunt’s bill to restore the conscience protections in the law that existed prior to the passage of Obamacare.

Professor Warren is opposed to providing a conscience exemption. Her view is that government can mandate religious people and organizations to act in ways that are contrary to their most deeply-held principles. This type of thinking strikes at the very heart of the religious freedoms enshrined in our Constitution.

My last opponent, Martha Coakley, took the same position and said Catholics who work in emergency rooms should find a new line of work. This attitude is highly offensive to all Americans, not just people of faith.

Religious liberty is at the core of our nation’s founding, and we in Massachusetts know that better than anyone. It is has helped make us a strong and diverse nation. We must continue to cherish it and fight back against those who would chip away at it.

Sincerely,

Scott Brown

Now, either Scott hasn’t read the Blunt amendment and doesn’t know what’s in it, or he doesn’t care (I’m not sure which is worse).  Because to read his email, you’d think the Blunt amendment was all about religious liberty, whereas, as we have just demonstrated it’s not.  And to read his email, you’d think that employers who simply don’t like something (whether for religious or other reasons) have always been allowed to refuse to pay for it, whereas in fact that is not the case.  Blunt’s kooky amendment goes way beyond anything we’ve ever contemplated.

In short, Scott Brown is panicking.  When people panic, they often make bad decisions because they are so freaked out that they fail to think through the consequences of their actions.  It sure looks to me like that’s exactly what Brown is doing with the Blunt amendment.  Blunt is an extreme guy, and his amendment is an extreme proposal.  No way it’s going to fly in Massachusetts.

Elizabeth Warren’s statement on this business is on the flip.

New Proposal Threatens Everyone’s Health Care
ELIZABETH WARREN CONDEMNS REPUBLICAN BILL CO-SPONSORED BY SENATOR BROWN

Proposal would allow any employer or insurance company to deny anyone access to any health service

SOMERVILLE, MA– Consumer advocate and U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren today said a Republican proposal that would allow any employer or insurance company to deny anyone access to any health service is irresponsible.

“This is a completely new attack that threatens everyone’s health care,” said Warren, of the proposal, introduced by Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) and co-sponsored by Senator Scott Brown (R-MA). “It is an irresponsible assault on the health care of every family in Massachusetts and around our country.”

“I respect the solution President Obama provided last week that ensures that religious institutions are not forced to cover contraception but still makes sure women can get the health services they need. This new bill is not about any of that. This bill would allow any employer or insurance company to refuse to cover anyone for anything,” Warren said.

The Blunt-Brown bill is different from previous proposals, taking an extremely broad approach that allows any employer or insurance company to claim any objection and use it to deny any health insurance coverage to anyone, for any health service. The company needs to claim only that it has a “moral conviction,” an expansive term that is not defined in the proposed legislation.

“Scott Brown is on the wrong side here, standing with Washington and Republican extremists and against the people of Massachusetts – our families, our seniors, and everyone who relies on health insurance to get the care they need,” said Warren. “This is a critical issue and when he ought to be putting the people of Massachusetts first, he’s not.”

The amendment, supported by Brown, was introduced as President Obama offered a compromise to religious institutions that were uncomfortable with offering contraceptive and other health care coverage to their employees. Supporters of the amendment wrongly claim it writes the compromise into law. In fact, it would undermine health insurance and health care, especially recently passed reforms expanding coverage.

###

I mean really, talk about light weights lining-up for the Democratic nomination. Murray’s out. So we have Grossman, Bump, Martha, (Lately i’ve heard Charley Murphy, could he be another Dukakis ’74)) These three make-up the remaining constitutional officers after Deval, Murray, and Galvin.

Of course if Obama is re-elected Deval may get a cabinet position. Or more likely John Kerry gets one and Deval runs and wins his senate seat. Then say hello to Governor Murray. If of course Murray isn’t forced to decline it or has stepped down by then because the lemming like media is driving the non-story story of the accident and Mike McGlaughlin. (Now that’s my Man of Year. He got Scott Harshbarger to show his true phony colors)

So if Murray isn’t the one to take over the corner office then Secretary of State Bill Galvin will fill…..

Heeey, wait a minute. Bill Galvin becomes governor if Murray’s gone? It’s all starting to come together down. Is Bill Galvin fueling the Tim Murray stake burning?

No, not Billy. He’s not that sneaky. Right?

———-

I say the odds are that Sal has nothing to say to the grand jury. Meaning if he tells the truth there will be no drama. Sure he may fill a nexus or two for some of the elements of the counts the feds are currently preparing. But, unless the reports are false, if Sal was giving-up some big fish (and by giving-up I mean telling fibs to benefit his white hairy ass) he would have been brought to a nice safe house somewhere in east bumfuk where he would be fed veal parm. (and who knows? Maybe that’s where he is and the reports are purposely misleading?)

No, I believe this a squeeze job on the very vulnerable and emotional Sal.

Sal probably knows about every job he got for someone but little knowledge of what was done for other people. Beacon Hill types keep their mouths shut about the favors bank because if they don’t the next thing is pains in the asses are asking them to use up favors on them. Capiche?

You have a friend in the Department-of-Shut-Up-and-Stand-In-Line who does you a favor now and then keep it to yourself.

I don’t see Sal cooperating with the Feds. (by cooperating I mean telling bold face lies so the feds can prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. It includes testifying at trial and then getting the biggest beating of his life on cross-examination followed by not guilties.)

Also, if the feds push some grey areas on government hirings and job recommendations then they should be prepared for discovery requests for thousands of state and federal employees’ personal records to determine many things including evidence of selective prosecution or perhaps prosecutorial misconduct. An expert in statistics will opine to the court on the sample type and size needed.

The feds should be careful especially because the shit has royally hit the fan in the conviction of former Alaska Senator the late Ted Stevens. According to the recently released court opinion the fascist U.S. Attorney’s office basically framed the guy. His election affected the power structure of the U.S.

Treacherous behavior of which we in Massachusetts should be vigilant in stopping. So I hope most of you will, like me, read the indictments when they come down and separate the cast of characters from the “good”, the “bad”, and the “stupid”.

If we don’t defend the “good” and the “stupid” from the over-reaching federal government who will?

Oh right. The lawyers. But we can help with reputations.

—-

Can the Globe make it any clearer that it is in the tank for Joe O’Donnell and the Suffolk Downs site for the eastern MA casino?

I think it’s been at least ten years since I’ve read anything in the paper about O’Donnell and Joey Fund other than in passing or mentioning of a fund-raiser.

We in Boston know the gut wrenching story well. His son Joey died of cystic fibrosis many years ago at a young age.  It’s been written about before. Good for O’Donnell for what he’s doing. (I know, I know, he’s from Everett. But still it’s a good thing)

But all of a sudden last week the Boston Globe gives this well known and old story most of the front page above the fold real estate trumpeting this personal story. And who wrote it? Why the very capable Globe tool Brian McGory.

Jesus Christ boys, how freakin’ obvious can you make it? Will the Saugus selectman and the Malden, Everett, Chelsea, Revere, and Boston City Councillors know they are being played? Who knows? Will the voters of East Boston and Revere? Who knows?

—-

Speaking of our phony local media how about Half-Man George Regan just lying up a storm on Emily Rooney about Peter Lucas and Kevin White. He blatantly made up facts. Walter Robinson called him on it in a Globe column.

Half Man the spinmeister, the public relations genius, the political guru.

And how does he do it?

He Lies baby, he lies.

Bill S. 1467 Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011

Declares that nothing in PPACA shall be construed to authorize a health plan to require a provider to provide, participate in, or refer for a specific item or service contrary to the provider’s religious beliefs or moral convictions.

PPACA is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Elizabeth Warren responded to Scott Brown’s position:

“This election is about whose side you stand on,” she said. “Here’s an example of giving power to insurance companies and corporations to undercut basic health care coverage. I’m going to fight for families to keep that coverage. The economics around health care are huge for families.”

“I don’t think this will go over well in Massachusetts,” she said. “I think the people of Massachusetts will want to hear about it.”

Scott Brown’s response:

“It’s elitist for Elizabeth Warren to dictate to religious people about what they should believe and how they should act. She wants to use the power of government to force Catholics to violate the teachings of their faith,” Brown spokesman Colin Reed emailed. “That is wrong. This issue deals with one of our most fundamental rights as a people — the freedom of religion. Like Ted Kennedy, Scott Brown supports a religious conscience exemption in health care.”

It seems that Brown is not telling the whole story, while the amendment does have language on religious exemptions, it also includes what is called “moral objection”, Mother Jones explains that this bill:

would allow any insurer or employer, religiously affiliated or otherwise, to opt out of providing any health care services required by federal law—everything from maternity care to screening for diabetes. Employers wouldn’t have to cite religious reasons for their decision; they could just say the treatment goes against their moral convictions. That exception could include almost anything—an employer could theoretically claim a “moral objection” to the cost of providing a given benefit. The bill would also allow employers to sue if state or federal regulators try to make them comply with the law.

I don’t see the upside of co-sponsoring this legislation.

“The wolves are here,’’ deadpanned Loveman…

“Wolves” is one way to describe super rich casino operators like Loveman. Watch below and learn why the “The Smartest Guys NOT in the Room” is another:

Les Bernal

Selected WBUR Poll Data Points:

View On Massachusetts Health Care Overhaul:
- 62% of those polled said they support the 2006 law
- 33% of those polled said they oppose the law

Its Influence On National Law:
- A majority (54%) said they think the state law was a “major influence” on the national overhaul
- 28% said it was a “minor influence”
- 11% said it was “not an influence”

Romney’s Health Care Stance:
- 68% said they think Mitt Romney disagrees with the national overhaul because he’s “trying to win votes”

Duh, right?

Mitt Romney gained national recognition because of his constructive engagement on the 2006 health care law. He would have no national profile without it — he’d be, say, Tim Pawlenty. And he defends the Massachusetts law — while simultaneously vowing to repeal the national law which is the “same f$%@ing bill” modeled itself after ours.

No Swift, no Twain, no Onion could possibly make Mitt Romney sillier than he has made himself. He is beyond parody; a sad joke that he has made at his own expense. We know it. The GOP knows it. The media knows it. The sooner we drop the pretense of taking him seriously, the better.

And meanwhile, we have health care in MA, and will have it throughout the country as the national law continues to be implemented. Amen to that. Thanks and good work, Mitt.

Click the player below for a half hour of him hitting on casinos, the gigantic hole in Downtown Crossing, and pretty good success in upping voluntary payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) collections. I post here particularly for those following gambling in MA.

He dove into the apparent win over the crater NYC-based Vornado Realty Trust left when it took down Filene’s and walked away from redevelopment. Mayor Tom Menino has been yelling, threatening and negotiating on that for four years. Murphy said the he and other Council members take it personally too, seeing it as serious disrespect for Menino and Boston.

He described how, to use my term, he and Menino got to tag team on this recently. The short of it is that Vornado has a nearly 20% stake in a group seeking a casino in East Boston and the Council determine when…and if….there’s a process leading to a vote on that siting. Murphy is the key player there. He details how the additional leverage and the likelihood of no hearings much less a vote was an extra catalyst.

In the related area, he touched on the casinos process. He said the new gaming commission is in control of the pace. He figured will be in a couple of years and not months.

He spoke too of who’s been naughty and nice among universities in meeting their PILOT pledges. When Boston went to those not chipping in reasonably, many responded with increased payment promises and most with corresponding bigger checks. Notably Northeastern (with newish VPs former Councilor John Tobin and prosecutor/pol/high-end lawyer Ralph Martin) went up about 10 times from the $40K range. Boston College is still blowing off the city by not fulfilling its pledges. Now Murphy and the administration are in the policing mode of getting more commitments and the serious work of collection. Here, he was plain about doing this with no force of law behind PILOT money.

We couldn’t get to everything in 30 minutes, but the guy in the center of the battle was his usual candid self. Again, I wouldn’t want to be facing all that. He claimed he loves it and that it’s great to be the middle of the action.

~Mike

I’m so riled up about what’s going on at the MBTA — and how easy it would be to solve this problem by asking our politicians to make one grown-up decision — that I’ve gone and done something that I’ve never done before…. started a petition.

If you agree with me — that Beacon Hill, who caused this problem by dropping $2 billion in Big Dig debt on the MBTA, should have to fix it, please sign.

My goal is to get 500 signatures to start with, and then we can see where things go from there… so please sign!

——-

Let’s talk some numbers, to show why this is important:

The MBTA has 1.349 million daily riders, as of September of last year. They are at modern-day record highs, as more and more people in the Commonwealth have been turning toward public transportation.

Moreover, ridership is quickly growing and there’s no reason to expect that growth to slow anytime soon — so long as there’s no draconian service cuts and fare hikes.

The big areas that are being penned for cuts are used by hundreds of thousands of people, including 400,000 daily users on the MBTA’s bus routes and over 130,000 on the commuter rail. Even the oft-derided ferries, just .41% of the MBTA’s ridership, has over a million rides a year.

Here’s the damage: Plan 1′s service cuts would “effect” (euphemism for shutting down) 9.6 million riders a year, including cutting off all weekend commuter rail to save a measly $5.7 million bucks, while Plan 2 would similarly “effect” a whopping 38.1 million riders.

That doesn’t count how many rides would be “effected” by Plan 1′s 43% or Plan 2′s 35% fare hikes.

All of that to fill up the $161 million deficit — a deficit derived from the $2 billion in Big Dig debt Beacon Hill threw on the back of the MBTA.

—–

Of course, there’s a much easier and painless way to come up with the money to plug the hole at the MBTA: Divert the state’s spending on the Film Tax Credit, which the state spent $146 million on last year, to MBTA debt relief.

The Department of Revenue’s report, as mentioned in my last diary on this topic, was merciless on the Film Tax Credit. Not only does it not help our state grow jobs, but because that money could be spent much wiser, we actually lose jobs because of it.

Some dead-enders are clinging to the notion that the Film Tax Credit is like spending money on advertising, helping out the state’s tourism industry… and that’s why those poor schmucks in the Metro Region who can’t afford a BMW to get into town every day should suffer.

Beyond the fact that it may not help Massachusetts to advertise us as the worldwide hub of heroine addicts, bank robbers and the Irish mafia, I have a question to ask:

What do you think the state’s museums, restaurants, clubs and stores — you know, the tourism industry — think is more important to their bottom line? The millions of people who use the MBTA every day, or the tangential vibes (good or bad) of the city people may or may not get from a few extra movies being filmed in Massachusetts?

Are more people going to go to out to the North End, shop on Newbury Street or go see the Bruins because Ben Affleck made a film in Charlestown, or because they had an easy and cheap way to get into town that saved surburbanites too terrified from driving in Boston — or paying the, what is it? $40? — to park here on a game night?

So, let’s lay the “tourism” thing to bed. The MBTA is far more important to tourism than Film Tax Credits, and that’s not even getting into the fact that the Film Tax Credit is a jobs killer, according to the state’s own numbers.

—-

Finally, some of you may be asking me, “Ryan, why put the Film Tax Credit in contention with the MBTA? What does one have to do with the other?”

Beyond the fact that the money at play here alone is enough to almost fully plug the MBTA’s hole, there’s also the strategy involved. How people will feel about the MBTA will largely depend on what question is asked.

If people are asked, “Should the state save the MBTA?” the answer may not be very clear.

People may want to save it, but if they don’t use it every day, it’s easy to muddle up the question. After all, the government is a huge, monolithic thing, too large and confusing to expect people to know a nuanced approach out of a government mess.

Suddenly, in people’s heads, the question may not be “Should we save the MBTA,” but rather, “What else should be cut?” People will quickly think of their schools, or roads or other government services, or taxes having to be raised, even if that’s not what this is about.

That makes it all the more convenient for a politician to say, “Gee, I really wish we could help, but our budget is brutal… so the MBTA has to go out on its own.”

Politicians who don’t like doing the right thing love how monolithic government is, because they can blame their failure to do something that isn’t really a priority to them on any number of other issues… instead of themselves.

That’s pretty much what the Speaker is saying right now.

However, all of that changes when we change the question. If the question is, “What’s more important, Film Tax Credits that don’t grow jobs, or the MBTA… which our entire state depends on for jobs, and the basic necessity of getting from Point A to Point B?”

We’re going to get a very different answer.

That’s why it’s critically important to de-clutter this issue, creating an easy and easy-to-understand choice that reflects the real stakes here and gets at the values of our Commonwealth.

Do we want to grow jobs and help the millions of people who depend on the MBTA every day, or do we want to give Hollywood hundreds of millions in corporate welfare? Are we for the people, or are we for Hollywood studios?

The answer will be clear — and the MBTA will win. Maybe… for once… we just may be able to do something decent in this world.

So, start asking your friends, neighbors, coworkers… and politicians. Email the petition to your friends. Post it on Facebook and Twitter. And, for heaven’s sake, sign it.

Let’s make this happen!

–New York Court Case

In so many ways, the kerfuffle over the Obama Administration’s contraceptive coverage policy is another right-wing canard. Although Planned Parenthood and a host Catholic organizations support the compromise policy, right-wingers from Paul Ryan to the crazy bishop that heads the Sioux City Diocese are chumming the political waters.

Ryan says Obama hasn’t compromised, he’s double-down. And according to the Bishop Walker Nickless, “The power of evil, the devil, is certainly looking everywhere where the power of evil can make a difference… And that’s why we’ve got to stand up and violently oppose this… we cannot let darkness overshadow us.”

Lost in the political shuffle is the reasonableness of the original policy and thus the compromise. Agree or disagree with the policy, it was hardly revolutionary. As NPR reported last week–I don’t know how I missed it,

Employers have pretty much been required to provide contraceptive coverage as part of their health plans since December 2000. That’s when the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that failure to provide such coverage violates the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act. That law is, in turn, an amendment to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlaws, among other things, discrimination based on gender. 

Here’s how the EEOC put it at the time: “The Commission concludes that Respondents’ exclusion of prescription contraceptives violates Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, whether the contraceptives are used for birth control or for other medical purposes.”

But it’s not only the EEOC that has ruled on the issue. More than half the states have similar “contraceptive equity” laws on the books, many with religious exceptions similar or identical to the one included in the administration’s regulation.

That’s no accident. “The HHS rule was modeled on the exceptions in several state laws, including California, New York and Oregon,” says Lipton-Lubet of the ACLU.

There are now lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the policy, including a new one filed on behalf of the religious television network EWTN. But the exemptions have already been tested in court, at least at the state level.

In 2004, the California Supreme Court upheld that state’s law, in a suit brought by Catholic Charities, on a vote of 6-1.

The court ruled that Catholic Charities didn’t qualify as a “religious employer” because it didn’t meet each of four key criteria (which, by the way, are the same as those in the new federal regulation):

• The organization’s primary purpose is “the inculcation of religious values.”
• It primarily employs people of that religion.
• It primarily serves people of that religion.
• It’s a registered nonprofit organization.

Federal courts have yet to rule on state mandates for contraceptive coverage, though at least one case is pending. And in light of Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in which the Supreme Court that found discrimination law didn’t apply to church ministers, there are probably new grounds for appeal. State court decisions, however, will carry some weight. But since Hosanna was narrowly focused on what’s called the ministerial exception–which the Catholic Charities case seems to have followed closely–any challenges based on it would seem to be an uphill climb.

In my unprofessional opinion, the law seems to stand on the side of the Obama Administration. From a moral perspective, he can certainly be excused from the charge of radically trying to usurp the free exercise of religion. Politically, the fall out remains to be seen.

That’s why a lot of people have taken former State Senator and Lt. Governor nominee Richard Tisei, who’s challenging Congressman Tierney in the upcoming election, seriously. Because he’s a “moderate” and “reasonable” Republican.

Well, Richard Tisei wanted to take a break from the rest of his busy day to inform everyone he’s officially joined the lunatic fringe:

“Requiring employees who work for the church to carry insurance that reimburses for things that are against the teachings of the church just shows how big and intrusive government has become,” Tisei said, adding, “With all the problems facing the country, I don’t understand why the Obama administration has made this a priority.”

I’ll be waiting for him to speak out about how he thinks nonprofits affiliated with Jehovah Witnesses should be able to ban blood transfusions, Scientologists should be able to ban depression meds and Christian Scientists should be able to ban… the practice of medicine.

The good news is Congressman Tierney’s staff had a far more rational position:

“As our middle class families continue to struggle to make ends meet, it is critical that they are able to afford basic health care, such as contraception, regardless of which hospital or university employs them.”

I’m glad to see Richard Tisei wants to take the Tea Party approach toward victory as Bill Hudak did before him, instead of the much more rational path of fellow New England Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. It’s good to know Tisei hasn’t learned anything from his epic defeat in the 2010 Governor’s race.

Most of all, I’m glad Tisei’s outing himself as a Tea Party conservative now, so he won’t be able to fool the public later — and that he’s giving some great reasons for people to get behind Congressman Tierney.

It seems probable, if not likely, that the hard-line anti-union measures introduced by Wisconsin Republicans will cost them the governship and legislative majority. On the other hand, they will have dealt a serious long-term blow to the power of unions in the state. By one calculus, they’ve made the right strategic choice. The end of politics is not to get re-elected, it’s to get things done. If you’re always putting off policy objectives to prevent short-term political fall-out and keep the majority, what’s the point of getting elected in the first place? Perpetuating the majority as an end in itself is a recipe for avoiding the big issues … forgoing opportunities to do great things.

The lesson applies particularly well to the state of transportation in the Commonwealth. The most common explanation for why there’s no gas-tax increase on the horizon: it’s political suicide. Not that it’s bad policy.* It’s not. Not that it won’t solve (or substantially ease) our fiscal problems, particularly the matter of the MBTA debt. It will. Just that it will cost some seats.

That’s a terrible reason not to take critically necessary action. Bob DeLeo is quoted saying that the MBTA crisis is not a legislative issue. Not only is it a legislative issue, it’s a legislative opportunity.

Patrick, Murray, DeLeo and all the Democratic rank-and-file: save the MBTA, put transportation funding on a solid footing, reap the environmental benefits. Sure, there will be political consequence. But, don’t think of the seats you put at risk as potentially lost. Think of those seats as being put to good use towards the right policies.

Policy success is more important than political victory.

*Governor Patrick has pointed out that the gas tax has some limitations and a vehicle-miles-travelled (VMT) tax is better policy. As a long-term matter, maybe, as more cars are fueled by other than petroleum products. But the day that a significant enough percentage of the fleet is non-petroleum fueled is a long-way off. As for the likelihood of ever-increasing fuel economy (and corresponding loss of gas-tax revenue)? Keep hiking the gas tax.

By the way, think increasing the gas tax is politically tough? Wait until somebody tries to first pass a VMT tax.

A big part of the reason, I suspect, is that Brown has done more than almost any other person in America to delay and water down our economic recovery, from supporting GOP efforts to continue the economic policies of the Bush administration that produced the 2008 economic collapse to advocating tax breaks for the rich while denying investment to more productive parts of the economy. He is the GOP point guard, and he has played his position skillfully.

At the same time, he has shown a keen eye for the main chance: keeping his name in the newspapers  — I saw Osama bin Laden dead, and I’m going to “do some missions” in Afghanistan — and reaping the rewards: a $700,000 book advance. Celebrity does not mean Senator.

If past GOP practice in Massachusetts is any guide, look for negative attacks and dirty tricks like the “Crazy Khazei” Twitter smear mounted by a top Brown lieutenant, or the “Inmates for Deval” program in which Kerry Healey’s campaign sent men dressed in jumpsuits to stake out the home of Democratic Party Chair John Walsh (succeeding in frightening his 12-year old).

Brown has an overwhelming financial advantage. Warren remains the underdog so long as it persists. He is an exceptionally able professional politician, and will use his wealth to maximum effect.

“But politics is a game of addition in the Patrick administration, which adheres to the core Democratic belief that a job for a politically wired candidate today will lead to an important campaign alliance or policy victory down the road.”

AS OPPOSED TO

“John Moffitt served as chief secretary for former Republican Governor William Weld during the early 1990s. He, too, was in charge of major personnel appointments and patronage. But he took a different view of the job. ‘I saw my role as a goalie for a hockey team – keep pucks out of the net,’ said Moffitt.”

Anyone with an intact memory must have gotten a huge belly laugh out of the Moffitt quote considering back in ’96 he wasn’t stopping pucks, he was the GOP’s patronage high scorer! Case in point: On his way out the door, Weld ‘eliminated’ the position of Susan Costello (GOP activist, Weld ally and Assistant Secretary of Human Services) two days after she reached 20 years in the state system.  As a result of her ‘elimination’ and 20 year employment the 42 year old Costello received a state pension, which I’m sure came in very handy in supplementing her pay in her next job with a lobbying firm headed by none other than – you guessed it! - Weld’s pal and former patronage chief, John Moffit. Same John Moffitt who memory challenged Larry Harmon wants us to canonize now.

I am very concerned about Larry Harmon’s memory. They say hindsight is 20/20 but it appears that Larry’s political memory has gone off the tracks and become very weak and purposefully selective.

BMGers! Let’s help Larry fill in the GOP political patronage gaps that he is for whatever reason missing:

.  District Court Judge Douglas Stoddart – former Republican state rep.  (Appointed by GOP Gov Weld or Cellucci).

.  District Court Judge Robert Howarth – former Republican state rep.  (Appointed by Weld).

.  District Court Judge David Locke, Jr. - son of Senate Minority Leader David Locke, Sr. and brother of Republican state rep John Locke (Cellucci)

.  Jeffrey Locke – appointed Norfolk DA after Delahunt elected to Congress.  And, OMG what a coincidence, another son of the Senate Minority Leader and brother of the state rep!! (Weld)

.  William Constantino – Republican state rep and non-lawyer appointed as a Dept. of Industrial Accident judge (Weld)

.  Greg White – failed Republican candidate for Worcester County DA, appointed a DIA judge by Romney (though he had no experience in workers comp or industrial accident cases)

.  The Massport crew:

.      Jane Swift – no experience in aeronautics (the helicopter flight came years later)

.      Peter Blute – need I say anything? Refer all calls to Sandy Tennant in the marina.

.      Stephen Tocco, former Deputy COS - I guess the airport needed a pharmacist

.      Joseph Lawless, (Weld driver / trooper)

.      Charlotte Amorello – Matt Amorello’s then-wife

.       Bob Marsh, former Republican state rep appointed to Massport Board (I think by Romney).  Completely impossible that a Republican would make an appointment to influence patronage though.  In Harmon’s world, that is the rule for Dem’s board appointments but apparently not Repubs.

.  Mitch Adams – Weld’s college roommate was at MTC making some $300k plus or minus for years.  Protected by Republican appointed board and impossible to fire until a second Democratic term (due to length of board appointments).  Definitely not a hack though, because he went to Haahvaahd.

.  Peter Torkildson – appointed by Romney as exec director of the Mass. Workforce Investment Board.

.  Dan Winslow – seen today as rising political star , experienced judge, etc.  But when Weld appointed him to the District Court, he had minimal experience and just happened to be the young legal counsel to the state GOP

.  Matt Amorello – MassHighway and Mass Turnpike

.  SJC Justice Bob Cordy – Weld’s former general counsel, with no previous judicial experience.

MDC Commissioner David Balfour who took creating and fulfillng patronage jobs to new levels

State Treasurer Joe Malone, don’t even know where to begin with his operation! Not enough bandwidth on this site!

These are just a handful of examples from over the years, but I am sure BMGers with sharper memories than Editor Harmon can think of the many others from GOP state committee members, donors, etc.

Truth be told (but not so much lately in the Globe), most Republicans appointed to or recommended for state positions were qualified for the positions, as are most Democratic appointees. But the double standard the Globe is applying is blatant, offensive and absolutely ludicrous. Why is it okay and appropriate for GOP leaders and office holders to have their team in place (through patronage appointments) to move state government forward, but nothing short of ‘hackerama’ for the Dems to do the exact same?

BMGers, HELP ME HELP LARRY! EDITOR HARMON NEEDS OUR ASSISTANCE TO RESTORE HIS MEMORY! (and some of the Globe’s credibility that is being squandered of late)

Share whatever you can…every little bit helps when dealing with this serious condition…