Tags: massmarrier, Chuck Turner, Boston, District 7, special election, Mark Wolf, Chester Darling
Friday, December 31, 2010
Tags: massmarrier, Chuck Turner, Boston, District 7, special election, Mark Wolf, Chester Darling
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
That came to mind this morning as I saw the DOT News coverage of the 16 who had filed papers to run for what was Chuck Turner's Boston City Council seat. Along with the cynical comments at the UniversalHub post on it, this gives us a whiff of what should be an important campaign.
First, the 16 each need to produce 191 verifiable signatures of registered voters in the district by the end of day Thursday, December 30th. Those who do that have six weeks, until February 15th to distinguish themselves for the preliminary. In turn, the survivors have another month, March 15th, to cinch the win.
I'm not in the district, but am interested. I'll find what I can about those who get on the preliminary ballot. At first glance, I still like Tito Jackson, erstwhile Council candidate and former campaign kingpin and cheerleader for Gov. Deval Patrick. I can easily disregard perennial candidates Althea Garrison (briefly held this seat a long time ago) and Bill Owens. They are the Japanese knotweed that always reappears.
I feel a bit Pollyanna-ish about this special election. Turner set the local standard for constituent services. Otherwise, the district could do with far better representation. Sure they elected him with a solid majority when he was under federal indictment for corruption, but that doesn't mean they won't pick the best, brightest and most honorable from their current choices.
Tags: massmarrier, Chuck Turner, Boston, District 7, special election, candidates
Thursday, December 23, 2010
In case you are not as pink as I, know that Credo puts a lefty twist to cellphones. It is part of Working Assets, and some of its profits go to liberal causes, which you can specify. We have done that for many years, and with the Sprint network that Credo uses, before...a total of, I think 15 May Days and 15 Christmases.
Surely I make too big a deal of this. I have tried and tried. We suffered. We went to their support folk and more. Like the spring runoff with a narrowing river and maybe a whirlpool equivalents finally tipped me today.
My box of causes and catalysts contains:
- No reception in our house.
- Credo's rates have crept up from about 16% cheaper to penny-for-penny matches of the biggies.
- One son lost his.
- One son washed his.
- We did not insure against loss or clumsiness.
- Visitors with other networks can make and receive calls in our house.
Since August 2009, in our new house, we can't get or receive calls on our Credo cellphones. Yet visitors on other networks can. So, basically we have not been getting what we paid for on the family plan, maybe 33% of value since the move. We can use the phone when we are outside. It has reduced us to acting like working smokers in taking our cells out in the cold and wet and dark to use them or waiting like a college student of old for the dorm wall phone to be free.
I tried Credo once more and waded through their asinine voice support system (about five minutes to get to a human when even pressing 0 does nothing). After getting cut off during a hold the first time, I got an impatient sort the second. I complained and he said it was obvious that I should cancel the lines. He put me through in a few more minutes of hold to someone he said would do that. Instead, she tried to troubleshoot by switching a roaming setting from Home Only to Automatic, to have the phone use any network's towers. It barely boosted the bars (from zero to 1 inside) and would not allow calls.
On the money side, Credo also matches the other networks in oppressive contracts, where really the sensible choice has become a two-year contract. If you have a single phone, the no-contract deals are fine, but with a family, they aren't. So, I'm faced with buying out two contracts at about $150 each. Otherwise, replacing two pretty new phones would run at least that much, and more like $175 or $200 each with Credo.
Verizon was typical of the competing offers. I looked online and figured I'd trot to the closest (BJs in Dedham). That way, if I wanted, I could come home with phones the same day.
Sure enough, while Verizon doesn't have a current deal here to buy out a competitor's contract (amusingly enough, Credo does), I got:
- Three free phones.
- No activation fee.
- On-the-spot cancellation of Credo.
- Retention of the existing numbers.
I got 'em. They work. To the point, they work inside the house.
When the boys came home, we huddled. Each decided the $5 a month for the total insurance coverage was a good bet. I think I hid my surprise, as I've had the same feature phone for five years and it is still perking. I don't lose them, nor wash them, nor drop them, nor, well, act like a normal human. I confess I'm finicky or cautious or both.
After my research, online, by phone, in circulars and ads, I'm OK with the result. Yet, again, I do like Credo's politics. I did enjoy the monthly whiff of self-righteousness and do-gooder behavior. I went over a year huddled outside to use my phone and finally passed the point of diminishing...diminished...returns.
I wish Sprint's network was better around here. I wish Working Assets or someone like them would do the same thing on Verizon.
I'll have to atone by increasing my personal social action instead of my small contributions through Credo.
Cross-post note: This is personal and political. It runs at Harrumph! as well.
Tags: massmarrier, cellphones, Credo, Verizon, social action
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Those matching fellows would be the couple Sean Eldridge and Chris Hughes. Eldridge is political director of Freedom to Marry. Hughes is co-founder of Facebook, former head of Barrack Obama's online 2006 campaign, and founder and executive director of Jumo. (The screen cap from GLAD's video clip shows Hughes left and Eldridge right.)
Through this month, they are matching donations to up to $50,000 total for GLAD and $100,000 for Freedom to Marry.
You may well wonder what, beyond sexual identity, would inspire them to cough it up for the cause. Specifically, what would what inspire the well heeled Hughes to bother with good works and the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders?
You can grab the one-page GLAD newsletter piece on the pair. You can also go to the video on the site to hear Hughes give some background.
There he was, a Harvard student in 2002, when he volunteered to work for LGBT equality. He worked for GLAD's Legal InfoLine for two semesters. In other words, he didn't just talk about things then and doesn't now.
January 1 will be too late. This is a good time to chip in to one or both GLAD and Freedom to Marry. They're not handing out tote bags (you surely have enough of those), but these two good souls are doubling donations.
Head note: The post heading is a feeble play on a famous UU tale from Rev. Clarke Dewey Wells.
The former will not become a U.S. Senator and the latter is no longer a City Councilor. Yet, they won't stop. They won't accept the realities that are too plain to nearly everyone else.
Moreover, each from his own angle has fallen back to stating that their ego-driven battles are only about voter enfranchisement. They want to champion their people's fundamental American right.
The claim of each certainly deserves consideration. In the end, it does not stand though.
Not Chuck Norris
Miller has modeled his stubbly appearance after a certain action movie star. Yet, he is indecisive and has problems with that reality thing. Rather than bring his fight to a quick end with his wit and strength, he has done the annoying bleed-them-with-lawyers route.
What would Chuck Norris do? Certainly not waffle and backtrack on his promises (he said repeatedly, he'd quit his race when the math no longer works, for example.) Miller seemed to surprise all by taking the GOP primary from sitting Senator Lisa Murkowski. In turn, he was stunned when her write-in campaign in the general got her over 10,000 more votes than his on-ballot total. He was happy to take the first surprise, but not adult enough, man enough, Alaska enough for the second.
His minions challenged every ballot they could, even thousands that elections officials, reporters and other observers said here very clearly Murkowski's. They demanded that the slightest misspelling and even those with a single lower-case letter among the capitals be disqualified.
Miller himself took the position that the intent of voters did not matter. Alaska law read that write-ins must appear exactly as on the candidate's filing papers. Even though that matter has been adjudicated several times and clarified by the elections department to mean more plain-folk sense of voter intent, Miller's efforts put over 8,000 of those 10,000 on hold (not formally disqualified).
After all that, he still came up over 2,000 votes short. Game over, you say...quoting Miller to himself? Not bloody likely! This is where he comes in with the outrageous claim that all he wants is for his voter's ballots to count.
The state and federal courts have been very generous in letting him gum up the works. In each court though, they have ended up saying, "You lost." He now is at the point of the federal judge saying he can go ahead and keep filing actions, but the state needs to certify Murkowski as the winner.
Game over? Hah!
Of course, it doesn't take much to realize that what Miller is about is disenfranchising voters. He would like enough people who knew they were voting for Murkowski to lose their right that he can win. He wants to toss over 10,000 ballots, over 10,000 voter's sacred American fundamental exercise of democracy.
Back to us, Turner also is contorting his effort to stay in office as a voter-enfranchisement issue. At least he won his last election. Unfortunately for him, his enfranchisement claim seems to be that his 60% showing then trumps all ensuing legal actions after his conviction on four felony counts.
That deserves discussion.
At the city level, the Council's rules let and even mandate that they rule on the fitness to serve of anyone convicted of a felony. At the state level, the law oddly enough does not trigger on indictment or even conviction; instead, an elected official sentenced to even one day of prison time must vacate office.
Turner's federal sentencing is 1/25/11. With federal guilty findings on one count of taking a $1,000 bribe and three of lying to the FBI about doing so, Turner will spend more than one day in prison.
Yet as recently as yesterday, through his attorney in a letter to Council, "The issue of disenfranchisement of the voters of District 7 . . . raises loss of rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.’"
Out here in the real world, the voters made a powerful statement that their sitting Councilor should win re-election. He did. The voters had their say.
Alas for Turner, that does not mean he gets to keep his seat for the full two-year term...no matter what. His voters were not disenfranchised. Removing him from office at the Council level or even next month by state law does not change that he was returned to office.
Moreover, his attorney seemed to want to bully the Council and city with threats of losing a lawsuit on this matter. I bet that neither he nor Turner will have the grace to back away next month when the latter heads off to serve that other kind of term. We can only wonder whether the attorney, one Chester Darling, will sue the state claiming that its law removing felons sentenced to prison likewise disenfranchises voters who were perfectly happy to send Turner back to City Hall.
The common rope binding Miller and Turner seems to be obfuscation. Each would have us believe that if his case does not end up going his way, it is the voters, not the egocentric pol, who is wronged.
I can believe that each has supporters, contributors and voters who buy into that. Each pol is eager to depict himself as a noble small d democrat striving to protect the great public privilege and right of voting.
Yet in the end it has been and surely will continue to be in law, in governing bodies and in courts that the response is to listen and disagree...with rejection.
Tags: massmarrier, Chuck Turner, Massachusetts, Alaska, Joe Miller, corruption, City Council, election
Tags: massmarrier, Chuck Turner, Massachusetts, Speaker, corruption, penalty, Chester Darling
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
- The richest families are on huge spending sprees — for personal property and goods — with their government windfalls
- The richest corporations, including banks and their ilk, are hording cash, maximizing their interest returns with their windfalls
- Most other companies, public and private, follow suit with the big guys and do not hire or expand
- The remaining WWII and Korean War Era adults scream not to cut any of their benefits...to hell with all the following generations who have supported them for decades
Tags: massmarrier, altruism, economy, taxes, commonweal, investment, sharing, recession
Thursday, December 09, 2010
For fornication, the survey reports:
Then for same-sex marriage, the survey reports:
Likewise, for homosexual relations, the survey reports:
Tags: massmarrier, morality, same sex marriage, abortion, , polls, adultery
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Do you promise not to tell?, whoa oh, oh.
Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, WikiLeaks, Unclassified, Declassified...what's in a name and category?
Surely we'll all be sick of this current mess, as well as each have one or more opinions of the meshugas. Ryan and I put out ours (all public, all the time) at Left Ahead! in our podcast. We had our disagreements as always, but we concurred that it is long past time for the executive and legislative branches to demand some sanity here.
The number and variety of government documents in the Secret category is absurd and asinine. Our big shots in D.C. need to stomp and shout. They need to order a major documentation effort. Evaluate every document classified as Confidential or Secret at the very least. Give American people and the larger world a break. Show some respect for the alleged freedoms and honesty we profess.
I could almost guarantee that eight or nine of ten classified documents should be public information. That would harm no one, would benefit some non-profits and businesses, and would go a long, long way to restoring the sense of the nation that their government had their interests in heart and mind.
The huge joke here is that an amazing percentage of classified docs have long been pubic. Many have been published in books and/or newspapers, others were on the internet long before the government decided to classify them, and others are commonly available in universities and public libraries. Get real!
The heavy SECRET and TOP SECRET stamp wielders are often thoughtless bureaucrats and military functionaries. Typical of those check-your-brains-at-the-door and rules-are-rules types, they err on the side of mindlessness. Like last century's cliché that no one ever got fired for buying IBM, the attitude is it's better to classify something, anything, than get called on it later for not doing it.
So, as with our plethora of local, statewide and national laws, we have far, far too much control and bureaucracy.
Moreover, who can see this stuff is something we should each ask. I've mused this on and off from college days. Then, a roomie brought Secret documents to our dorm. He was careful to keep them closed and ask me not to look at any. Yet, I had to wonder why a junior in a fluid-dynamics engineering program who was in ROTC had access to the middle range of classified docs.
It turns out that the need-to-know requirements are super-loose. As accused info conduit Private First Class Bradley Manning illustrates, a frighteningly wide range of people have free access to terrific amounts of classified and supposedly security-critical material.
I think of the years when I have been on the civilian side of secrecy. I've never had DOD or DOE clearances. Yet as an employee and contractor with various companies and agencies, I've signed non-disclosure agreements — during and after the fact secrecy contracts — maybe 100 times. AT&T, Microsoft, government agencies and others wield their huge secrecy sticks for technology, trade secrets, marketing plans and more. Penalties for violating the contracts don't include prosecution for treason or being shipped to clandestine military facilities without charges, but they are considerable.
I have never violated one of those agreements and never will. Then again, I'm kind of a permanent Boy Scout.
My sister is in the same mold. She has a spooky security clearance. She does something she'll never specify in Las Alamos. That's quite the point. I'm not so sure if it's how we were raised or just us, but she tells no one what she does or anything about her work. Hush.
There can be such compelling reasons...plus the personalities of those involved...that lead to effective secret keeping. On the other hand, if public or private folk know that docs become classified by rote and without thought, there is likely to be considerably less respect for the mandate.
I have no doubt that we would be much better off if we as a nation would have thinking people classifying and declassifying docs, with reasons rather than by reflex. There are several centuries of history at work here. Allegedly a key factor that differentiates our nation and people from nearly all others is our keep love, almost worship, of liberty.
The current trends toward the anti-democratic and anti-liberty should horrify us all. Frankly, all should be available except that which must be hidden. Hiding all and making us distrust and disbelieve government and military, and even defense contractors is no way to run a country, at least not this country.
I call on our President and Congress to show some wit here, along with some awareness of what makes America.
Tags: WikiLeaks, secrecy, classified, bureaucracy, liberty, democracy,
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Rather than expand on what Chuck Turner and others said at his expulsion meeting this week, I'd muse on race and class and power.
|John Thompson||1958-64 resigned||Conspiracy; bribery||Died before case resolved|
|Charles Flaherty||1991-96 resigned||Tax evasion for business expenses and conflict of interest for vacation housing from lobbyists||Guilty plea; 2 years probation and $25,000 fine|
|Thomas Finneran||1996-2004 resigned||Obstruction of justice in redistricting||Guilty plea in exchange for dropping perjury charges; 18 months probation and $25,000 fine|
|Salvatore DiMasi||2004-09 resigned||Rigging state contracts to his benefit||To stand trial|
Well, Turner is not exactly Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread for his starving family and getting prison time for it. Yet in contrast to the wealthy Speakers, he almost certainly will receive a highly disproportionate penalty for the magnitude of his corruption — $1,000 bribe and three counts of lying to the feds about it.
We just saw another black pol, Congressman Charlie Rangel get publicly scolded for many, many times worse at much higher amounts than Turner. Rangel's punishment was to stand in the well of the U.S. House and hear a list of his evil deeds. As my late mother might have exclaimed, "For crying out loud in a bucket!"
This clearly is class and power based. The influential say they're sorry and get probation and a fine.
That's not right. That's not moral. That's not the American ideal, at least not any populist version.
It brings to mind a trivial James Cagney movie of the late 1950s, Never Steal Anything Small. That was about a corrupt union official and played on a recurring theme. Supposedly the Greek proverb related to this is If you steal something small you are a petty thief, but if you steal millions you are a gentleman of society.
We really can't say that the disgraced Speakers were exalted after their crimes. However, none went to prison. Even the $25,000 fines to those rich guys likely caused as much hardship as a pro footballer paying for a nasty hit on another player.
Turner can be annoying and even obnoxious, but not because he's black. Given the same situation as the corrupt Speakers, he did not cut a plea deal nor show or even feign remorse. If that alone did not prevent him from getting just a fine and probation, his small bribe and low political status surely would.
It is difficult to believe in the justice of it all. At the very least, instead of thinking that Turner got hit too hard, how can we doubt that the big guys committing the big crimes got off too easy?
Tags: massmarrier, Chuck Turner, Massachusetts, Speaker, corruption, penalty, race
Friday, December 03, 2010
By the bye, the body passed the bill yesterday 32 to 24; the House had already approved it. Gov. Pat Quinn will sign it.
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Here a Louis. There a Louis.
Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner explicitly compares himself to Rosa Parks, James Michael Curley (and generations of repressed Boston Irish Americans) and numerous martyrs. He implicitly invokes French King Louis XV.
Attributed to Le Roi was "Après moi, le déluge" — imprecisely, after I go, all hell will break loose.
For Turner and his supporters, the updated version is that any Councilor who voted to expel him from the body will at the very least lose the position in the next election. Moreover, his chum and sole Councilor who voted not to oust him, Charles Yancey, repeatedly warned President Mike Ross and Boston Corporate Attorney William Sinnott that they were acting illegally and would surely lose a certain-to-follow lawsuit.
That is a fascinating phenomenon. The most self-important and emotionally involved believe themselves to be both always right and absolutely essential.
It brings to mind the first meeting I attended as a new board member of a major downtown church. It was in terrific financial, membership and other trouble, which I knew when I ran for the position. I was not aware of how angry the very controlling and self-righteous church administrator was.
Rather than give her report at the meeting, she resigned...with great drama. The same person who required the sexton to come to her to unlock a closet containing toilet-paper rolls, came like a Disney-movie witch with portents of doom. The church would not be able to function without her. She regretted she had to leave and that the church would fold without her guidance and constant oversight, but she was out of there.
Well, as these things tend to happen, a bunch of us turned around that church, which has thrived. The administrator's egocentric passion for the position was at once admirable and pathetic. In the end, she was not holding the church together, was not essential, and was not larger than the whole works.
That was a heavy fingered lead-in to another light on the historic occurrence yesterday on the fifth floor of Boston's City Hall, in the Council chamber. That would be the first expulsion of a Council member since the body replaced the Board of Alderman as the city's regulatory body in 1909.
That tack led nowhere. Keeping an eye on the attentive but inexpressive Councilors, I saw neither sympathy nor outrage. To me, and apparently from their vote to them, Turner was stretching way too far to portray himself as the natural extension of Curley and the Boston Irish.
The true oddment here is that courageous and necessary actions by Ross are the catalyst here.
Rule 40A. Pursuant to the city charter and in accordance with the open meeting law, the council president may refer a matter to the council upon his/her determination that any member has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the Boston City Council or may be unqualified to sit on the body. A member may be unqualified by violating federal or state law, or any conditions imposed by the city’s charter, which includes violating any provisions of the three oaths of office.
The council president shall automatically refer a matter to the council upon a felony conviction of any member by any state or federal court.
Any action by the council taken in response to any referral shall require a two-thirds (2/3) majority roll call vote and will be in accordance with local, state and federal law.
In addition to his painstaking refutation of Yancey's parliamentary gambit, Ross strove to give the voting public some fresh proof that the Council and city government at large had a respect for rule of law.
In 13-page preparatory packet to inform the Councilors of the issues and options on Turner, Ross concluded one section with "We are not above the law and none of us is above the rules we have established as a body. If we act as if we are, this body loses its credibility, its integrity and the trust of the people we serve. Many are cynical of government as it is, we cannot add to their mistrust."
It is a pity that Yancey gave Turner's supporters fodder for feeding a beast of conspiracy and victimhood. The idea that Ross in particular and the Council more widely acted illegally is absurd and Yancey surely knows that.
That's irrelevant though. Yancey's arrow long left his bow. The question now is how accurate are the curses of Turner's opponents and his own allusions that voters will as a body rise up and punish the 11 of 12 Councilors to a man and woman come the next two elections?
I say chicken lips!
Turner will be a jailed felon shortly, as will state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, caught in the same odious federal sting operation. Nearly everyone I know joins me is disrespecting the type of sting operation of manufactured temptation that netted Turner. Yet whether through disregard of known laws, sloppy inattention and accounting or simple arrogance, Turner was nabbed and convicted. As his protégé Felix Arroyo said in his emotional remarks at the hearing, "In the end, we cannot escape our mistakes. We cannot escape our deeds."
Even before yesterday's meeting, Turner had grandiose descriptions of how he'd organize prisoners if he ended up in jail. It is unlikely that a short-timer in a federal prison would have any meaningful impact, but it's a good pre-mythology. Turn is forever editing the book of his life.
Instead, it is likely that another strong advocate of the poor and middle-class people of color who comprise most of District 7 will take over Turner's seat in a special election. My bet is for the charismatic Tito Jackson. He lacks Turner's capacity for B.S. but not his clarity of purpose or worthy goals.
Given those developments, there is little immediacy or even need to consider replacing any of the 11. The greatest impetus would be in Turner's district, where the voters will already have made their choice. The chance of driving out anyone else is slim indeed.
Turner's other dire prophesy goes to his often repeated claim that 90% of politicians, including fellow Councilors, are dirty and take money. He also claims to be the most honest and moral of the lot.
Yet so far, our Speakers of the House (three of the last four) are driven out and/or convicted of corruption, but not so Boston Councilors. Turner's fantasy that they all will earn and fail scrutiny was very unlikely before and given the infamy of his slow, endless fall over the past three years, any Councilor would be a total ass to take any risks.
In fact, his disgrace may be the greatest insurance we have had of political integrity. Don't be that guy.
Tags: massmarrier, Yancey, Chuck Turner, Mike Ross, Boston, City Council, conviction, hearing, explusion, felony, Arroyo, Pressley
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
The process was intended to be dispassionate, but the peanut gallery of supporters would not allow that. From shortly after the pledge of allegiance, the call-and-response, catcalls and nasty insults tainted the already emotionally laden special meeting in Council chambers.
In the end, the numbers that counted were that more than the required eight Councilors voted for his expulsion following his four-count felony conviction of taking a $1,000 bribe and lying repeatedly to the FBI about doing so. Deemed by Council President Michael Ross on advice of Boston corporate counsel William Sinnott to have a vested interest in whether he kept his job and paycheck, Turner agreed he would speak but not otherwise act in the meeting. That meant he was disqualified from voting and the two-thirds majority to oust him would become eight of 12 instead of nine of 13. Also, he could not offer amendments to the order to leave the Council under consideration.
Visit from Don Quixote
The vote was 11 to one to expel Turner. Getting to the quick vote took about 100 minutes, largely thanks to Turner's speeches and as much to supporter Councilor Charles Yancey.
I found brief amusement when he first spoke right after Ross opened the proceedings. The humor came from Yancey playing Turner's frequent role of Don Quixote. This other Charles raced at the windmill of the expulsion order, using a limp parliamentary lance.
He did, in fact, sound much like Turner in threatening first Ross and subsequently the whole Council with legal liability, ignominy and, of course, likely loss in the next elections. He based these on two of the rules under which the Council operates — 33 and 47. The gist was that things the Council votes on can't be done the same day they first hear of the proposal.
To keep things kosher, this being the first day of Hanukkah after all, Ross ask lawyerly types, including Sinnott to confer in a brief recess to answer Yancey's drama. The response and subsequent expansion when Yancey iterated and reiterated his charges of bastardizing the laws, rules, Council's integrity, yadda, yadda, was that Council rule 40A had them well covered.
These developed when Turner was first under indictment, the Council realized they had no rule to deal with a felony conviction. As a body and unanimously, they developed 40A and approved it over two years ago. This rule calls for just the type of fitness/expulsion hearing held today and in effect enables what happened and was never needed before.
Yancey's windmill tilting will surely reappear and be repeated by Turner's supporters and conspiracy theorists. Yet repeating at increasing volume that the rules don't use the term "expel" anywhere doesn't change anything. In his expanded explanation, Sinnott was losing patience as he granted Yancey inclusion into the larger body of reasonable people who could understand that 40A covered the proceedings.
Sincerity v. Slander
Regardless, the most moving moments came from the two young Councilors who consider Turner a mentor. Felix Arroyo and Ayanna Pressley each read from carefully prepared remarks, in often quavering deliveries. They independently developed very similar speeches. The thrust of each was that they respected and loved Turner, that he had taught them to do what they knew was right and never to hid or run from a conflict. Each than said the vote to expel him was wrenching but necessary.
Turner supporters were at their most obnoxious during these poignant speeches. The overflow who moved into the nearby Curley room (named for the Boston alderman [pre-Council Councilor equivalent] and mayor who served time for corruption) could be heard bellowing for Yancey and Turner's remarks.
Several times, the sincere and decorous Ross called for order and was reduced to threatening to clear the room and finish the proceedings without an audience despite Turner's request for openness. He responded to the most loutish of the audience screaming about racism, electoral retribution and such repeatedly.
Arroyo was greeted not with compassion as he bared his torment, but with calls from two elderly black women behind me of Uncle Tomás (racist as well as muddled Spanish). Pressley got multiple interruptions of "Shame" and "2011" referring to the next election. Cruelly, the worst came as she faced Turner in the adjacent chair and spoke of her feelings for him and the torment of her decision.
Meanwhile, for both speeches, Turner was rapt and seemingly moved. He's a do-gooder, but also quite an egotist. He seemed to relish hearing of his virtues, even from protégés who intended to vote for his ouster. His seated and standing mob did not pick up on his equanimity.
Earlier Yancey had finally accepted that his parliamentary ploy would fail. He suggested fellow Councilors abstain in the vote, robbing the proposal of the necessary eight votes.
No other Councilor spoke, which itself said volumes. They did not try to justify anything. They made no excuses. No one, even Yancey, offered any amendments. Also, when the roll-call came, it was quick, stark and unequivocal. They went by seniority, starting with 27-year vet Yancey. His was the only no vote. The 11 yes votes came quickly and without comment.
Tomorrow, I'll collect a few quotes and beef up the coverage. Unfortunately, Turner's lengthy statements were not the stuff of oratorical legend. He spoke in mangled metaphors, this time, comparing himself to the Boston Irish-Americans, repressed by Yankees who used laws immorally to crush those they considered inferior.
Alas, this meeting was not Turner's finest moment. Yancey tried a lawyer's trick, even though the closest he has gotten to being one is an honorary law degree from Mount Ida. Turner fell into logical fallacies with his own version of if-the-glove-don't-fit summation with a vote-against-expulsion-unless-you're-sure-you're-more-moral-than-I tack. Both approaches were sure losers and convinced no one.
Tags: massmarrier, Yancey, Chuck Turner, Mike Ross, Boston, City Council, conviction, hearing, explusion, felony, Arroyo, Pressley