Not OK in ME and MA

Not OK:

• It is not OK to impose your personal beliefs on any group of fellow humans.
• It is not OK to attempt to legislate your religion on larger American society.
• It is not OK to select portions of your sacred texts to justify harming others.
• It is not OK to use mob rule by ballot initiatives to replace representative democracy.
• It is not OK to proclaim yourself as judge of people who are different from you.
• It is not OK to deny to and jerk back civil rights from other humans.

The deeply disappointing finish in the sprint to save and implement marriage equality in Maine carries an underlying warning. The most vocal leaders of the anti-LGBT and anti-civil rights forces intend to remain relentless, cruel and ruthless. Any thought of playing nice with them is masochistic.

As Left Ahead! co-host Ryan Adams said in our post-election roundup podcast (about 6 minutes in), it is time for the pro-equality movement to be more aggressive. Voters who say jerking back legal rights from any group is not discrimination, not bigotry need to be called out.

We saw and heard it all in Maine — with spillage into Massachusetts — this week. In the cowardly euphemistic people's veto, voters overturned same-sex marriage before the law could take effect. As in half our states, that is the way initiative, referendum and override procedures can work. That is still not OK.

I have ranted before at Marry in Massachusetts about the befuddled form of direct democracy. We should not be surprised that many of the same folk who have befuddled forms of Christianity are the strongest advocates for this form of mob rule. They can't win by logic or compassion or national interest. These bastardized forms of plebiscite are their shot to win on emotion.

What we need to keep before us is that these folk are as relentless as they are cruel. In contrast, those who honestly believe and act on the underlying principles of virtually all religions are not like that. Think of the Talmudic early statement of what Christians call the Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to another.

Instead, the Yes on 1 people, the Massachusetts Family Institute leaders, and particularly the hateful National Organization for Marriage live the axiom that those whom they hate and fear are fair game.

If you're feeling timid or unsure about speaking up, consider the emotions, thoughts and words of the uncloseted anti-equality folk:

• Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action — Here’s the bad news. The margin of victory could have been greater. Many behind the ‘Yes on 1’ campaign, rather than simply telling the truth, chose the Neville Chamberlain approach. They merely circled the wagons around the word "marriage," even suggesting that "domestic partnerships" ("gay marriages" by another name) are acceptable. This makes no sense. If that’s a viable compromise, then why not simply allow 'gay' duos the word "marriage"? It’s an incongruity that demands an explanation. This is an historic battle for the minds and souls of our children – for our very culture. The mealy-mouthed approach must end. This is not just about "marriage." It has everything to do with forced affirmation of homosexuality – under penalty of law.
• Kris Mineau, Mass. Family Institute — This is a great victory for the people of Maine, but once again a bittersweet moment for us here in Massachusetts. It is appalling that in the so-called 'cradle of liberty' the people have never been allowed to speak on the definition of marriage. With marriage vote victories being 31 for 31 states across the country, there is no doubt why the homosexual special interests groups spent so much money and time in denying the citizens of Massachusetts the opportunity to vote on our Marriage Amendment...We certainly have never given up on finding the opportunity or making the opportunity available for the citizens of Massachusetts to vote. It’s by no means decided in Massachusetts.
• Bill Donohue, Catholic League — The people have spoken. The time has come for homosexuals to pack it in.
• Brian Camenker, Mass Resistance — Right now, we're all happy for a great victory. But given the close calls in recent "gay marriage" statewide elections, this debate needs to continue.
• Christian Civic League of Maine — Victory over the radical homosexual agenda does not consist in a temporary rejection of the concept of homosexual marriage. It means faithfulness to God's laws pertaining to marriage and the family, and a return to the Biblical truth about homosexuality. Victory will only be realized when the public returns to an awareness that homosexuality is a sin.
• Michael Heath, solar cooking guy and former head of the CCL — In the interest of protecting and affirming all of Maine's people, especially our children and grandchildren, we must repeal domestic partnership laws that provide benefits on the basis of homosexuality, we must defund the so-called "civil rights teams" and remove "sexual orientation and gender identity" from the Maine Human Rights Act and the Maine Civil Rights Act. It would also be prudent to reinstate Maine's anti-sodomy law that was quietly removed from our criminal code in the late 1970s.We must not stop fighting until Maine's laws are once again just, and equal rights are guaranteed to all Maine citizens on the basis of good conduct, not sinful behavior. For the sake of our children and grandchildren we must fight this evil. And we will fight. We will never surrender. There is too much at stake.

Have no doubts. The self-appointed leaders of the anti-equality forces intend to continue to hamper, hinder, hurt and harm.

They may feign religious ideals of love, but their actions are as far from Christian teachings as possible. The voters whom they influence are not yet fully aware that saying the hateful things many times at increasing volume does not make those messages true. Instead, it means the speakers are loud, repetitive liars.

---

Tags: massmarrier, same sex marriage, Maine, People' Veto, CCL, bigots, Heath

Boston Commuter Rail Rant

The charm quickly peels awayfrom Boston's atavistic transit system. Like the crappy Pennsylvania Turnpike, we have the hemisphere's oldest subway. It seems like it.

Series note: This is part of the Rail-Volution inspired post set.

At the weekend's conference, I was surprised and pleased to learn about the Fairmount Corridor from two key players. Marvin Martin, who drove this city-train revolution as executive director of the Greater Four Corners Action! Coalition (no website) and Gail Latimore, who heads the Codman Square Neighborhood Development Corp., spoke.

I had sort of paid attention, but not enough, to the news over the years. This has been percolating for nearly two decades and is happening as we speak. I'll post details in a few days. However, the key concept it that Martin led largely African-American Bostonians between lower Hyde Park and South Station in indignation. A perfectly good commuter-rail line zipped through their neighborhoods, making the trip in 8 minutes. Read carefully to be fully aware that it made two stops on the way (Morton Street and Uphams Corner). In fact, there were no other stations for it to stop at over 8 miles, by design, where most people lived.

The bus or bus/subway alternatives for this large swath inhabited largely by lower-middle, poor and middle class residents of color was different. It took an optimum 45 minutes and more likely 60 to 90 for the same trip from where people live to where they work. There are four stations (New
Market/ South Bay, Columbia Road, Four Corners, Talbot Avenue, and Cummins Highway) \in the works in an activists' effort that started in 1987 and has continued relentlessly.

I must be a typical American. I paid attention when it meant something personal. Moving to Fairmount Hill in Hyde Park after 21 years in Jamaica Plain, I was pleased to hear from the previous owners here that the Fairmount line at the bottom had a commuter rail. In a pig's eye it does.

Until the Indigo line is complete and the MBTA keeps its promise to increase trips, it is still a white commuters' line. Specifically, inbound, four trains are scheduled for Fairmount between 6:38 and 8:28 a.m. Likewise, outbound, there are four from South Station from 5:10 to 6:30.

Throughout the day, a few may stop if the conductor notices anyone flagging the train from the platform. The last possible train from South Station leaves at 9:30 p.m. and will stop to discharge only if passengers ask the conductor and that conductor remembers to tell the driver.

Weekends? Forget about it!

Moreover, this in unlike a real city transit system for pricing. With a Charlie Card fair of $1.70 for subway and $1.50 for bus, the irregular and inconvenient Fairmount is $4.25 each way, with no provision for transfers, even to buses.

I figure to go to Mike Capuano's function Monday at the Park Plaza from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. That should be a good time to see how to get from here to there and perhaps even back.

First, note that the MBTA trip planner truly stinks. On Universal Hub and numerous blogs, they have depressing examples of being routed absurd ways to go short distances. In this case, I also found the T doesn't use fuzzy logic and requires silly specifics to find the most basic locations. For example, it can't find Back Bay Station without its ZIP code added, and it knows Milton Ave., but not Milton Avenue, but again only with a ZIP and not just the neighborhood. Lame.

For giggles, I asked about getting to and from the event. By the bye, the number 24 bus through Mattapan Square and up to Ashmont stops a half block from my house. The T doesn't seem to know that.

The T would have me spend $5.95 each way, with trip times from 63 to 97 minutes. Those using the commuter rail also indicate a flag stop for the train, which I don't trust from previous experience seeing trains pass vigorously waving potential passengers.

I know from a son who commutes to Latin Academy that a shank's mare version is quicker. A 10 or so minute walk to Cleary Square get a 32 bus in a minute or five, for $1.50. I gets to Forest Hills in 15 to 20 minutes. Then the Orange Line thumps to Back Bay Station in a similar time, for $1.70. So, for $3.20 and under an hour, I'd be done each way with a vastly more flexible schedule than any of the combinations the T suggests.

Were I still on crutches from my leg operation earlier this year, I'd do the 24 close by. I could take it from very close to Ashmont, then the Red Line subway to the Orange Line and get off by the hotel. That would be maybe 90 minutes, or T time.

In other words, it's expensive and slow, practically mandating a car trip with a pocket of quarters and driving around Back Bay for an open meter. That would be when people are leaving so it wouldn't take long.

That's not as significant as the many thousands who live between the Orange and Red Lines with no viable commuter rail. It is inconvenient and unnecessarily expensive.

I think of the much larger, longer, wide and more stop-filled NYC subways. In Manhattan alone, you can travel the 14 miles from the Battery North to Washington Heights local or express and get damned close to where you want fast. The city fare is $2.25 and trains go from where people live to where they work and play. All lines run all the time, frequently and on weekends as well.

Back to Boston and down to earth, we're never going to be a 24-hour city or have a fast and frequent subway system. However, we can do better.

Through the efforts of Martin and the CDCs, the Indigo Line is coming. I remain to be convinced that the schedule will be convenient. I'd love to be able to go into town day and night on a convenient line.

There's no reason other than inertia or indifference by the T that we don't have real urban transit. There's also no reason other than arrogance why its zone system puts so many parts of the actual city of Boston in zone 1 at $4.25 for what should be the same as a $1.70 subway ride. Absurd and provincial.

Of course, for the upper middle and upper class commuters, these are not problems. The trains run at to- and from-work times. They buy commuter rail passes so they don't feel the per-trip cost. All the rest of the riders subsidize them and make do with the few off-rush-hour trains.

I see a parallel here with computer software. Most of it requires that the users be programmed for the quirks of the applications. We had to learn absurd commands and procedures to do basics. Likewise, T riders are supposed to adapt to the T's edicts and caprices.

We oldsters and early adopters recall illogical Ctrl-k sequences for Word Perfect and such. Here, we're accustomed to transit that just stops at night, trolleys that can't operate over fallen leaves, and commuter rail that doesn't accommodate where people live or when they want to arrive.

That future post will discuss how a indefatigable set of activists changed that for the Fairmount Corridor. At Rail-Volution, attendants from around the country could not stop raving at how sophisticated and effective that effort has been. It gives a Bostonian hope

Tags: harrumph, massmarrier, Hyde Park, Rail-Volution, mass transit, rail, Fairmount, MBTA, Boston

One City Council Spark Unlit

Boston went status quo yesterday, literally at the mayoral level and both literally and figuratively at the council level. That's not bad, just kind of conservative and old fashioned, well, like an old town.

First, I accept my lump on Andrew Kenneally, one of my endorsements for council at large. That's trivial for what must be his exhausted disappointment at not snatching one of the two newly open seats. He and we deserved his victory. I think very highly of him politically and personally. I hope he is inspired to stay in Boston and end up as a councilor or legislator.

Traditionally, council candidates lose one or two times before winning. Because of the two seats with no incumbents running as Michael Flaherty and Sam Yoon stepped down in mayoral tries, two newbies, Felix Arroyo (no, no, his son) and Ayanna Pressley, stepped up. So Andrew goes back to the start of the line in the traditional path in the traditional town.

At its most extreme, voters re-elected District Councilor Chuck Turner over challenger and reform candidate Carlos Henriquez by about 60% to 40%. That was not as big as his normal margin but plenty convincing. His voters are not tired of his self-serving wind and don't seem to believe he is a crook as the feds allege in his corruption indictment that has yet to come to trial. Let us haul out the perennial allusion to James Michael Curley, re-elected as alderman while in jail for corruption. We have a history here in many senses of the term.

The only sad part is that this was in the pattern of votes from mayor down where voters rejected chances for change and improvement. They went with comfort level instead. Not too much, not too quickly, thank you.

As I noted in my posts here, I think both new council winners are likely up to the task. A small good too is the obvious cultural and racial pluses. Just having a bit more diversity on the council should be good. If nothing else, voters may feel increased ownership in the government whose public personae look more like the city itself.

I do think that Kenneally would have been a better choice than either of the winners. If nothing else, he had specific goals and methods to get there.

Too much of the council does constituent services well but are vague and not driven in the big issues. Thus after each year, too little big change occurs or is even proposed. They just don't know where to go, how to get there or whom to buddy up with on the trip. We need some Andrew Kenneally types to lead the sluggish.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Boston, endorsements, Kenneally, City Council, Arroyo, Pressley

Downer Down East

I felt like Bugs Bunny late last night — "A got a baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad feeling about this," he'd say. Sure enough I awoke to find that Maine's same-sex marriage law had been overturned before it could start in a people's veto.

As reported in the Bangor and Portland papers, the count will end up being something like 53% to 47% for repeal. After clerking from before 6 a.m. until nearly 9 p.m. at a Boston poll yesterday, I headed to bed before midnight as the no on question 1 lead had shrunk from two points to next to nothing. I wasn't masochistic enough to hang on for the inevitable.

Regular readers here know the disdain I have for treating statewide issues as town meeting in ballot initiatives. That is particularly true for those who claim to be for democracy but who try to overturn laws passed by their representative democracy, their legislature. In a case where they intend to remove existing rights from a class to suit their prejudices and personal religious views, I have no respect or patience.

That written, it became plain early on that this was a national battle. The anti-gay types definitely wanted have another delay in the inevitable marriage equality crawl to civil rights, a la California's Prop 8. The pro-equality sorts were of a mind that Mainers talked and fought very long, very loudly, very widely and very hard to decide whether to pass the SSM law. It was Maine's business.

Of course, it ended up not being, or not being just Maine's business.

Donations of money on both sides came from out of the state and region. Support to keep the law apparently was largely from individuals, progressive sorts. For the repeal, one national anti-gay group was the almost exclusive funder. Yet amusingly enough, the repeal folk screamed foul when out-of-state donations to keep SSM began matching their out-of-state repeal funds.

Regardless, Maine has been around this bush before. It repealed mild gay-rights legal protections a couple of times before it kept them in another ballot. They surely will not be one of the two regressive kids on the New England playground (with arch-conservative governor led Rhode Island) for too much longer. But the anti-gay forces have won this go and likely delayed SSM in Maine by three years.

It's a shame about Maine, but we can be hopeful by history about Maine.

It doesn't even roil me the anti-gay forces will crow about this and make all manner of political prophesies. They claim victories where they have none. So when they actually do get a win, we know what to expect.

---

Tags: massmarrier, same sex marriage, Maine, People' Veto, NOM, Equality Maine

Who Needs Stinkin' Bike Racks?

I surely make too much of this, but it is my nature to expect much from those who promise much. Where are the bike racks for the snazzy convention center at Ft. Point Channel?

In its very subtle way (click thumbnail for large squint), there is one, one short one for the entire center plus the gigantic Westin adjoining it. They're a package deal, don't ya know, but they better not have more than 10 cyclists at a time anywhere around.

It's amusing and disappointing because:

• Boston has a nifty program under bicycle czarina Nicole Freeman to plant racks wherever they will be useful and encourage cycling. This includes an interactive map of where the city has planted racks.
• The conference I went to at the hotel and center was about transit, specifically about non-motor-vehicular transit.

Yet, in a typical room, when the speakers asked who was from the Boston area, about half the hands went up. While Rail-Volution is annual with a thousand or more attendants, it invariably pulls in more local wherever it happens to occur.

One might expect with hundreds of folk likely within a dozen miles of the complex that a bunch of us would, well, show off transit cred. I was the only jerk who did. I rode the 10 miles from the bottom Hyde Park through some of the town's densest traffic to and from the conference three consecutive days.

I checked the convention center and hotel websites. Neither said anything about racks or any biking accommodation. Check the Westin amenities in the above link — cribs, check; pets (under 75 pounds), check; valet parking (cars), check; Starbucks, check; and wait, there's more. The hotel folk knew nothing about bike racks. I tried the afternoon before at the center, but the switchboard shut down at 5 p.m. and I was out of luck. Then I located one on the city bike-rack map at the shared address of the Westin and center.

The next morning though, I didn't see one at either the center or the hotel. I asked uniformed minions, first at the hotel, but they didn't know. Then one of the center's red jacketed lads said he thought there was a rack behind the trees over there.

I had pedaled by and didn't see them. I did again and didn't again. Then I removed my sunglasses and in the figurative mist, there it was.

Sure enough, it was a Ribbon Rack. Yet unlike the standard, which is black, this is gray against a gray sidewalk and gray wall. The kind word is subtle. Cloaked is more like it.

Likewise, the rack is fully exposed, which became important in the rain on one day. I did remember to tuck in a cloth to wipe down the seat, frame and rims where the brake pads hit. This is even more peculiar than hiding it by color. The convention center (see the image in the link above) has a huge roofed overhang with vast unused space underneath, ideal and standard in bike-friendly areas.

In short, folks, likely from both the city and convention center had decided to hide this rack. Like the envelope in Poe's The Purloined Letter, the rack was hidden in plain sight, this time camouflaged by color and placement. They had also placed it where the bikes parked there would not be weather-protected in the slightest.

The twist is that for three days mine was the only bike in the rack, as in the image above. so the question comes whether if you provide it they will come or if there is so little demand that only a single cyclist used the rack, isn't one anywhere around a major convention center adequate?

I bet it's the former. If Nicole's elves put two or more racks in colors that contrast to their background under the overhang, cyclists will feel encouraged and when they attend event at either the hotel or center, some will leave their cars or SUVs in the driveway.

Tags: harrumph, massmarrier, Hyde Park, Rail-Volution, transportation, rail, bike rack, Boston

Transit Posts Warning Notice

Lever pullers, keyboard punchers, paper shufflers and tool users alike tend to short horizons. We have deadlines and uncertain careers, thinking in terms of days or months. Alternatively, I swam deeply from Thursday evening through Sunday morning with the long-view folk who attended Rail-Volution.

Those involved in big transportation issues and projects necessarily cross over into government funding, housing issues and public approval or comment. The design phases alone are often in many years, as are the implementation ones. The rest of us are living practically new lives when these folk are just finishing one thing.

This transit conference has been perking for 15 years. This was my first, although I've been attending the Massachusetts Moving Together conference for pedestrian/motor vehicle/cycling for seven years. There's an overlap, but as its name suggests, Rail-Volution loves its trains.

I'll post several times here and cross-post at Marry in Massachusetts about what I learned down on the waterfront in the Westin. That will include a book review and a surprising link to my new neighborhood at the bottom of Hyde Park in the bottom of Boston.

Posts include:

• Rant about a bike rack
• Trying to use the closest commuter rail

Tags: harrumph, massmarrier, Hyde Park, Rail-Volution, transportation, rail, Moving Together, housing, Boston

Rolling the Councilor Dice

Being relentlessly egalitarian, I would like to be able to believe that we voters decide on merits and issues, not looks, race, gender and such.

Not only is that not realistic or historically accurate, but those factors are so intertwined, separating them would be impossible.

A short post in No Drumlins, Women for Coakley say woman for Coakley is not for Coakley because she's a woman, plays on that. It touches on U.S. Rep. Niki Tsongas' endorsement with some wit, noting:

I have no doubt that Tsongas’s endorsement is based on merit and not gender. But it’s awfully rich for “a small team of women seeking big gains for women in politics,” which is hoping to unleash “the full potential of ‘the other half’ of the population’s unique perspective, talents and leadership” to criticize someone else for asking if gender is part of the decision-making process.

That can oppose to endorsements that don't pretend. Think EMILY's List. They say up front that they support and endorse pro-choice women who are Democrats. So there. You don't listen to them for the best candidate with their three criteria of gender, party and single position.

The votes and endorsements for 11/3 and 12/8 for Boston City Council and U.S. Senate are more muddled and subtle. They also highlight what the endorsers don't say or only mention in passing.

The Phoenix, Globe and Herald have coincided with my at-large council calls by 75%. They each and all substitute Ayanna Pressley for Andrew Kenneally.

Candidly, I admit that choosing one over the other on 11/3 won't save nor destroy Boston. Yet having interviewed both here and at Left Ahead!, I stand by my choice with confidence. That leaves some musing on the others' endorsements.

It's glib and somewhat justifiable to dismiss those as race and gender based this year. Set aside that Kenneally is vastly more qualified by experience and expertise than the other five never-elected candidates, including Pressley. There's something to be said for trying occasionally to balance the scales.

In this allegedly liberal and civil-rights oriented commonwealth, we have a shameful tally of office holders who are either women or of color. Without Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz, for one, our Senate would look like a 1950s country club golf course.

As she noted too often early in her campaign, Pressley is a two-fer, African-American and female. Our very white, very male city council needs the perspective and indeed the mere presence of some diversity. ...inbreeding and inertia and idea poverty and all that.

Consider the papers' justifications:

• Globe — If elected, Ayanna Pressley would be the first black woman to serve on the council. She offers an impressive resume, including the post of political director for US Senator John F. Kerry. A first-time candidate, she is sometimes prone to political platitudes on the stump. But she is also deeply passionate and knowledgeable about elevating the lives of poverty-stricken families, drug addicts, and victims of domestic and sexual abuse. Pressley, 35, is open about the pain she experienced as the daughter of an addicted and incarcerated father, and she is eager to use those experiences to help others through strong constituent service and sound lawmaking.
• Herald — Newcomer Ayanna Pressley, the only woman in the race, brings experience running the political arm of U.S. Sen. John Kerry’s office in Boston and handling constituent services for ex-Rep. Joe Kennedy, and she has the human touch. We predict differences with her on policy issues, but Pressley would bring a fresh, new perspective to a body that could use it.
• Phoenix — Pressley learned how government works as a staffer for Senator John Kerry and Congressman Joe Kennedy. She has also been active in a variety of nonprofit organizations. Pressley speaks passionately about making the city work for everyone. Her commitment is convincing. Her experience, buoyancy, and energy suggest she will be a results-oriented public servant who will use her skills and connections to get things done. Pressley would also be the first African-American woman ever to serve on the Council — and the first African-American elected to citywide office in Boston in 16 years. Most important, she has the right priorities and basket of skills.

So, they each bring in gender and two cite race. That's fair; Pressley is a package and those are as obvious as her intelligence and smooth presentation. Yet, none of the three suggest she is the best candidate and the Herald is plain about her likely shortcomings. None of them admits that Kenneally suffers from being yet another Irish-American on a council that has a full history of favoring white men from WASPs to Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans, with far too few people of color and damned few women.

I like Ayanna and respect her intentions as well as her intellect. Yet, her primary selling points are similar to those of the seven candidates who did not make the preliminary-election cut last month. She'd work real hard in unspecified ways with vague pathways toward broad goals. We are supposed to trust that she will grow into the job and not be just another councilor who does constituent services well enough to keep enough voters content to get re-elected. In terms of her having worked for a U.S. Senator, there's no correlation to the job in question.

Well for me, I oppose casinos here and I don't like to gamble on our political future. We decidedly could use some diversity in both the State House and City Hall. Getting it by betting on unproven pols is not the way to achieve that.

What we really must demand as an electorate is that pols in power step up as mentors to develop and promote good people. We have a terrible culture of that here. Those in office need to identify potential stars who are not of the same gender, race, culture or class. They are there. Some pass through as interns or other employees. They meet others among activists and community leaders. Office holders should be the professors and impresarios of those stars. We can't count on a few Black, Latino or other hopefuls to claw their way unaided into office.

For this election, we should have no doubt that Kenneally can do the job, and do it better than the other five never-elected candidates. Not only did he do services, policy, budget and public interface for Councilors Maura Hennigan and Mike Flaherty, on his own he has specific platform planks and steps for achievable goals for the council and city.

This really isn't a choice, not this election. I'd rather not gamble on who might be able to grow into the job.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Boston, endorsements, Kenneally, City Council, Phoenix, Herald, Globe, Pressley

Double Pointy

Two worthwhile clicks are:

• Commonwealth/biz partnership for driving-license reminders by John
• Girding for the casino fight by Ryan

Please nearly everyone

John F. Bowes III worked with the Patrick administration to do the project, which restores a service discontinued to save money. The result is an only mildly obnoxious reminder by phone, email or text message with a brief ad. Sign up at the RMV site for free. It securely sends your encrypted data to Sendza, which in turn has its figurative robots generate the message a month before your license will expire. It's free to the commonwealth. Sendza apparently makes its profit from insurance companies and the like who piggyback an ad in the message, like a banner on a web page.

So the fiscal conservatives should like the free service to customers. The free-market folk should appreciate the business/government partnership. The libertarian types should also like the business deal, plus it is an opt-in-only service with secure data use. Lefties may be mildly annoyed by the intrusion, but balance it with the service to the public.

Back in Bed

Here and at Left Ahead!, we've mused on the very odd confluence of disparate types opposing casino gambling here. Ryan Adams will carry our banner to the State House today for the large and surely contentious hearing. He'll surely find himself mingling with fundies and Mass Family Institute sorts, who are also against gambling.

Our reasons may be different — neither Ryan nor I quote any scripture on this. However, all the groups and individuals on our side see it as the wrong way to try to increase cash flow. We largely figure it will end up costing citizens as well as government more in the end, with the profits going out of state to the bad guys.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, RMV, Ryan's Take, gambling, Bowes

Old Enough, Just Old, Too Old?

So Tom Menino is 66. That's a famous highway. It's also a typical obituary number.

With credit to his challengers and critics, few have made much of his age in this Boston mayoral re-election bid. To be sure his four terms and 16 plus years in office, the longest serving ever, have made the debates and campaign literature of those who would take his relative throne in the concrete castle. There's an implication there that he's old, but the thrust is too long in office.

Cross-post note: This is one of those rare cases that seems to fit here and at Harrumph!

I would not be the first or even the 900th to note that in some European nations and typical Asian ones 66 is considered a reasonable age for a chief executive to take office. That's supposed to bring maturity, wisdom, experience, knowledge, expertise, savvy and even statesmanship.

In last night's final debate before next week's voting, his age was the only humor safety valve in a tense session. He got chuckles answering about city workers in general, "I don’t believe in mandatory retirement.’" Pause. Laughter.

Yet, Menino is just a little older than the youngest baby boomer. Judging from print, broadcast and blog chatter, many younger Americans would just as soon that such oldsters toddle off to Cape Cod or wherever they can get to...right now.

It's easy to see them corking up jobs while ignoring the boomer role in keeping Medicare and Social Security funded for WWII and Korean era folk, putting the Gen-X and Gen-Y kids through college, or caring for elderly parents and even considering age protection in employment law. The media melodrama of the 50-something multimillionaire subset is much more, well, dramatic.

So, again, Tom is 66. Is that too old to be mayor? The would-be replacement, Michael Flaherty is no child himself. but at 40, he'd be a decade younger than Tom when he became mayor.

We don't see Mike smearing Tom for his age nor Tom asking if Mike is too young to be mayor.

For sure, Mike and the challengers who fell in September's preliminary had strong arguments for replacing Tom. He has been there so long he's out of ideas. He's so entrenched that development, schools and other key functions seem stagnant.

Perhaps it's to our credit that being a year past the traditional retirement age for the previous two generations has not been a campaign issue. Yet, I think the laughter at Tom's retirement remark is just one indication that we do have it in the back of our minds. We're all adults here, but we know that 66 is not 40.

Tom isn't giving any indication of age-related shortcomings. He is known sarcastically for his long memory (in holding slights) and seems to have great short-term recall.

Now, I'd like him to be healthier and have offered several times to go on long bike rides with him or cycle into City Hall together. Councilor Steve Murphy (himself 50-ish) joined me in that offer. As fond of his mountain bike as he is, Tom prefers to tool solo around his part of our shared neighborhood instead. Yet, even in physicality, he's far from limited by being mid-60s.

Of course, some pols stay in office after age has bested them. I think of U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond, whose brain had, if you pardon, gone South long before he died a few months after leaving office at 100, a very old 100. His voters returned him repeatedly past his expiration date in a combination of sentimentality and the self-interest of having such a senior legislator with power.

I doubt Tom has another 34 good years in office in him or that Bostonians would be so emotional and accommodating to a failing politician.

Meanwhile, our mayor has astonishing energy and focus. A key staffer told me she had trouble keeping pace with him as he did his job and campaigned non-stop. She's in her 20s.

I think Menino's opponents were wise in not raising the age issue. It's better that they stick to more saleable contrasts in how they would do this or that better. Too long in office? Maybe. Too long on the planet? Not yet.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Boston, Menino, debate, mayor, Flaherty, age, boomers

Humble Elias Sits in at Left Ahead! Thursday

Golly, kids, it's been since last fall that we were able to get blogger John Galligan (a.k.a. Humble Elias of The Chimes at Midnight) to join us at Left Ahead! We have a special pre-election podcast this Thursday to get his commentary.

I'm sure we'll hit national and local politics, as well as cultural issues.

If we've worn you down with politicians or maybe just the three usual suspects, listen in on 10/29. We fire up at 2:30 p.m. Eastern. You can catch the live stream here then. Afterward you can hear the show at the same URL or return to Left Ahead! to listen or download the show.

Here's Looking at Me, Me, Me, Me

First, nobody won last night's sole televised debate among the four Dems who would take over Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. I'll sketch what I got out of it.

You can get the nuggets panned by analysts everywhere. I suggest starting with the Phoenix' Bernstein and the Globe's Mooney. In addition, some outside commentators on NRP and elsewhere are trying the idea that as the four are so similar and the primary only six weeks away, advertising will play a huge role; even here though, all four have enough money to compete and match each other's efforts.

Instead, look at the four like most voters are probable to view them. They presented themselves and appeared quite distinctive on the superficial level. while politically similar. That would be how we often decide whether we like someone, be it a coworker, someone at church or a politician.

This was the only chance most of us will get to see and hear the four hip to hip. Which of them would you put into a well-worn U.S. Senate leather chair? (By the bye, the eyes above, from left, belong to Stephen Pagliuca, Michael Capuano, Martha Coakley and Alan Khazei.)

To my shallow points, start that as a group, none of them had annoying stage presence. They didn't fidget or hide by looking at index cards or jingle change in a pocket or diddle an earlobe.

On the other hand, none came across like an elder statesman or even serious senator. Only the lawmaker, Capuano, was believable in the part of lawmaker. The other three are auditioning for the role.

Long-term Ted Kennedy observers and historians frequently note that he started 47 years ago younger than any of these four and no more experienced. In fact, Capuano would be an Eagle Scout to the freshman Ted's Cub. So, the three who have never been legislators of any type can reasonably claim to deserve a chance.

From the left of the stage, I met:

• Martha Coakley — She does a good balance as coming across as a woman professional without being girly. Her pixie-short do tends to make her look a bit like a cartoon, think Jiminy Cricket or Peter Pan, but she doesn't growl, "I'm a woman, damn it!" nor giggle like a ditz. While her opening and closing statements took no risks and had little content, she at least seemed very sure of herself. (For unsolicited clothing advice, she could lose the Transformer-style shoulders on the jacket — distractingly pointy.)
  
• Alan Khazei—He did better in the actual debate. When introduced, he grinned like he'd been hit in the head too often. He then came across as pretty smarmy at several points. He was the only one who seemed to be trying to sell us something. Physically, it's not his fault, but he does come across as kind of a Groucho Marx with the huge glasses and thick eyebrows; I expected to hear, "Say the secret word and win $100.)
  
• Michael Capuano —He looked and acted what he is. He wasn't a rich guy in a custom suit; his looked like it probably was, one he'd campaigned in. His presentation was an odd mix. He stressed his big selling point, that he was the only one with Congressional experience, including a verifiable voting record. Then while he was telling us how well he worked with others to get things done, he was his characteristic combative self. I like his straight-ahead attitude, which others may find arrogant.
  
• Stephen Pagliuca —He seemed much brighter and nicer than I had imagined. He played freshman basketball at Duke, although he has the carriage and shoulders of a high-school wrestler. At Bain, he clearly deals with many people who know their stuff and on stage he deferred frequently to Capuano and indirectly to President Obama and others whom he saw as fact-based managers (he loves fact-based).
  

Of the bunch, Coakley avoided risks the most. Conventional wisdom supports that posture. She was the jack rabbit, entering the race weeks before the others and doing her best to pretend she's Snow White with three dwarfs around her.

All four though avoided some answers, apparently for different motivations. That was a joy to the moderator, Peter Meade, head of the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the U.S. Senate. He noted when they did that, although he occasionally blew it. For example, he started with a question about what moment each realized the desire to run for the seat. Three sidestepped it with a reply about why they were the right candidate. Capuano actually answered it, describing his thought process and timing, plus painting a moment where he stood alone analyzing whether he had the will to go for it. Unfortunately Meade was thinking ahead to scolding the quartet and missed it. Cappy was quick to correct him.

Throughout, Capuano alone seemed impatient with the three non-legislators. He is brusque in a way that I appreciate. He even seems frustrated with the race, as though the choice is obvious. Do you go with the pro or take a flier on an unproven and unknown person?

Yet, Coakley has kept her precocious lead. Capuano's experience, liberal votes and courageous stance are indisputable, but that hasn't leapfrogged her in the race. This is be a fascinating month and a half.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Capuano, Pagliuca, Coakley, debate, Khazei

Kenneally, Connolly, Arroyo, Murphy

Boston's At-Large Councilor race has confounded most voters this year. I can make it simple:

• Vote for the two competent incumbents
• Vote for the only other two with direct City Council experience
• Vote Connolly, Murphy, Kenneally and Arroyo
• Vote positions 1, 3, 6 and 7

All things are not equal this time. First, because Councilors Sam Yoon and Mike Flaherty stepped aside to run for Mayor rather than re-election, there are four spots open, really two when you subtract the two well-respected and accomplished incumbents. There's nothing voters would gain by replacing the two, particularly Connolly. He runs the education committee and is essential in efforts to upgrade our public schools. Keep 'em there.

Second, the original field of 15 candidates had a couple of oh-really and joker types, but was otherwise solid. Only one run-screaming-from-him candidate (crypto-Republican, no-plans, clean-streets Doug Bennett, the scooter guy) snuck into the final.

Tito Jackson and Tomas Gonzalez are bright enough and I can't question either's sincerity. Yet, neither has the chops yet for the job. Electing them would be taking a real flier, just hoping they could rise to the task. No thanks, not yet.

Pressley is the press' darling. Moreover, numerous interest groups who are happy to vote gender and race politics correctly point out that our Council doesn't come anywhere near to mirroring the cultural, gender and racial makeup of the city. It's not as bad as City Hall staff, but it falls short. Some would vote for her to put more check marks on the underrepresented side of the chart. My pinko reflex is to agree and I was surprised to find that I ended up strongly favoring yet another Irish-American from West Roxbury as the best challenger.

Arroyo seems to have captured the third seat after the incumbents, judging by his solid preliminary showing last month. Many of us have concluded the only real race here is between Kenneally and Pressley, with her leading in donations and preliminary vote.

I had to weigh this one carefully. Here personally and at Left Ahead!'s podcasts, we spoke with both. In fact, if you didn't catch their podcasts, click the single post at BlueMassGroup with players for both in one.

Judge for yourself. Pressley is personable, bright and confident. She has grown into her candidacy in the past couple of months. The huge difference is that Kenneally has done the job in Boston for Councilors Maura Hennigan and Michael Flaherty, and more important that he has the one thing Pressley does not. He has specific plans for accomplishing his/our goals.

In one area after another, Pressley says she'll work and try real hard — schools, safety...whatever. That seems to reflect the years of D.C. instead of Boston experience and expertise. She sounds like a member of Congress, with high-level aims and the knowledge that any path to them will have many guides and detours.

I'm a simple guy who grew up from country stock. I'll go with people who know where they're heading and how they want to get there.

Kenneally, Connolly, Murphy and Arroyo on November 3rd.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Boston, endorsements, Kenneally,City Council, Connolly, Arroyo, Murphy, Pressley

Tom Tumbled Not

Grading himself with a B+ and immediately dropping it to a B, Mayor Tom Menino was only OK in last night's debate with challenger Mike Flaherty. That almost certainly was enough...and for a notoriously poor orator, OK is a B.

As I dreaded yesterday, the fizz went totally off the election tonic. Short of the introduction of deus ex machina, Da Mare will shuffle into his fifth four-year term. For Flaherty's team, that contrived salvation would be a swarm of new and young and change-hungry voters to confound the pollsters have Menino up 10 to 20 or more percent with two weeks before ballot-smudging date.


Selfishly, I wanted a new, improved Flaherty to take the stage. Instead of bright, reasoned and pleasant, he'd be charismatic and insightful. Instead of just better arguments and more detailed plans, he'd offer indisputably brilliant guides to Boston's future.

He didn't appear.

Flaherty was aggressive, more than he has been the whole campaign, but he was still like a prosecuting attorney recapping his best, belabored evidence. Menino was evasive and unconvincing (see examples in the Globe, Herald and WBUR). The short of it that as unfair as the requirement might be, Flaherty needed to be Magic Mike and was not.

---

Where was Magic Mike?

---

Come to think of it, there haven't been challengers to any Boston mayor of vitality and excitement since Mel King almost became the guy to follow Kevin White when he nearly defeated Ray Flynn in 1983. Since then, most challengers or first-time candidates have been pretty drab or otherwise only OK.

Moreover, we tend to attract and elect city councilors who do constituent services well, but are not inspiring leaders or mellifluous orators. We have one who thinks he is, Chuck Turner; he's flaky and despite an Ivy degree has a very poor command of language.

A few others do well enough. I think of John Tobin immediately, who has tons of good ideas and shows intermittent eloquence. Steve Murphy and John Connolly are quite adequate. Yet, I think of my minister, Kim Crawford Harvie over at the Arlington Street Church. If UUs had a a hell, a word and wave from her would inspire people to follow her there...singing all the way. No one in Council or in fact in City Hall has that personal power.

That's fine, except when it would be essential, as last evening.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Boston, Menino, debate, mayor, Flaherty