Friday, January 21, 2011

District 7 Forum 2 of 2

Last evening's forum of candidates for the open District 7 seat was promising in its civic involvement (full house) and big slate of six on ballot and one write-in so far. Here's a take on what the candidates said (plus my usual shallowness of appearance).

Part one on the forum is here.

The ballot order of qualified District 7 candidates (as provided by Gintautas Dumcium over at the Dorchester Reporter) is:
-- Natalie Carithers (former aide to ex-state Rep. Willie Mae Allen)
-- Danielle Renee Williams (Roxbury resident)
-- Cornell Mills (former foreclosure prevention specialist, son of former state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson)
-- Tito Jackson (former political aide to Gov. Deval Patrick)
-- Roy Owens (perennial candidate)
-- Althea Garrison (perennial candidate and former state representative)
In addition, activist, poet and children's book author Haywood Fennell Sr. is a write-in candidate.

Assuming that ousted Councilor Chuck Turner fails to push out the special-election process to replace him, with his suit to be reinstated to Council pending his 1/25 sentencing in federal court, the calendar is set. The last day to register to vote in the election is 1/26. The preliminary to reduce the field to two is 2/15. The final is 3/15. District 7 includes the neighborhoods of Lower Roxbury, Roxbury, and parts of Dorchester, the Fenway and the South End.


Body and Mouth



A glorious night of politics waslargely without insults but heavy on the oratory, at the Roxbury Y. The smallish meeting room was packed with 150 or more folk.

Note: I apologize for the expected low-quality pix. My digital camera's flash is no a match for low light beyond eight feet or so. Regardless, the following images give a sense of the candidates.

Althea Garrison was a no show. The other candidates presented a spectrum of demeanor, appearance and other personal traits. Specifically (links where shown are to known campaign sites):
  • Carithers — Prickly, funny, self-assured and with a powerful voice, she certainly appeals to those who like heroics and histrionics as well as to older voters. She is also entertainer with Touch radio (106.1 FM) She was one of two scolds up front, along with Williams. The community better get its act together to support her. She looked sharp and professional in a gray suit. She had the second strongest presence after Mills.
  • Fennell — With a quiet confidence, the poet is likely the brightest of the bunch, certainly the cleverest with words. In gray sweater and scarf, he had the look of an aged beatnik. His long, deep history as community activist and veterans rights advocate are as key features of him as his ready wit.
  • Jackson — The normally charismatic Tito did not bring his best game. He arrived late from a fund raiser and seemed tired. He was an oddly gracious team player, applauding and smiling at points by his competitors. He came on solid in his answers, got applause on par with Carithers' and almost as good as Mills. His large frame seemed diminished as he slouched and he looked like an assistant bank manager is his black suit with shimmering silver tie.
  • Mills — He came on strong. Although his primary emphasis was on street violence, he was personable and gave a powerful presentation. He has the physical attractiveness and presence of a seasoned politician or performer. He also managed to call many in the audience, particularly the questioners, by name, further showing is community connections. He was by far the snazziest dresser of the group, with a well tailored black suit, red tie and sharp shoes.
  • Owens — He stood out in several ways, from his deep red, wide lapel suit to his insistence that he was the only candidate with traditional family values and an anti-abortion position (a couple of other candidates raised brows and gave him the stink eye as he repeated that). He returned to those points often rather than answering most questions.
  • Williams — The only unsure candidate, she was uncomfortable holding the mic even though her voice was weak. She did not seem at ease speaking to the room. She was a scold, along with Carithers, repeatedly saying nothing a Councilor did would work if the voters didn't have the Councilor's back and didn't vote in large percentages. She seemed a bit thrown together with incredibly high boot heels under a dark skirt under a lumpy camel colored heavy top. She has a long history of community activism and must work better in small groups.
The forum met its primary purpose of letting the audience leave with a good sense of the candidates. Other than the absent Garrison, the would-be Councilors showed their stuff at close range. You want loud and proud? There were a couple of those. You want wry and spry? Got one of those. You want pious? Covered.

Praise to the civic groups who organized this, plus moderator Keith Chaney. A lot of coordination, adaption and planning went into it. Alas, the detailed scheduling and choreography of the event was overly optimisic (see first post), but it all worked in the end. Mirabile dictu! They ended up much closer to schedule than similar events in the past by anyone except for Suffolk's Rappaport Center (they're the gold standard of fora and one-shot conferences).

They Said It

The evening had many jolly moments and good theater. There was a lot of sincerity and considerable overlap in positions. However, each candidate stood out in one or more ways.

Roy Owens. It may be impossible to describe him without the phrase perennial candidate. It's true enough that in many city and state elections, he's run and almost always lost. Here he was again and, boys and girls, did he ever stand out.

It wasn't just the most daring outfit. Rather, he was there to tell us he was holy and fundamentalist. He was anti-abortion and claimed the real garments of family values. Doing so, he managed to annoy several other candidates with the unproven claim he was the only one with those positions. He didn't ask; he told.

Not surprisingly, he said the District should look to its religious leaders and institutions for solutions. As he put it, "(t)he strongest organization in the black community is the black church."

He also was the most racially oriented candidate by his remarks. Specifically, he returned again and again to dubious assertions that black residents of MA were dying at six times the rate of others and so forth. The biggest issue here was of abortion, which he said not only diminished the influence of African Americans, but by lessening the population growth, caused that loss of a U.S. House seat.

No matter what the topic, the resolution almost always was preventing abortion. The other candidates were off on street violence, schools and jobs.

His strongest showing was in response to questions about standing up to City Hall, specifically Mayor Menino. He seemed to have 1960s flashbacks and responded with, "If you're not willing to fight and die for what you want, you're' not ready to rule either." Heady stuff.

Haywood Fennell Sr. Another outlier, but in a far better received way was the writer/activist candidate. He was the only one talking veterans rights in addition to the core issues of employment, housing, violence and schools. He was also the one most of us would prefer to have dinner with among the group.

Many of his goals are higher level and centered on personal responsibility. For example, he would like to better the health of the District (think prostate and breast cancers, asthma and diabetes). He figures educating the community is the key.

He came up with several of the most memorable lines of the evening. For one, when someone asked the group if they would publicly stand up to Menino, he did all those who said yes one better with, "The mayor organized. Why can't we organize?"

He concluded with saying he didn't want people to applaud for him (as they had each candidate). "I want you to vote for me."

His best though was on redistricting. When several other candidates lamented that they would support a set-aside district for a black U.S. House member, he said that it would be "a good idea if he looks like us, but if they don't think like us, " that won't be any good. "Let's not play the skin game here. We got people who look like us now and what have they done? Don't smell the coffee. Drink the coffee."

Danielle Renee Williams. The candidate who seemed to enjoy the evening the least claims a long history of community activism too. Yet, she did not want to hold the mic, even when begged by audience.

She did have a central theme related to the District. She is enchanted with Turner's District office, which he supported with his money and time for the constituents. She held that residents turned to it for resources and help and would not have otherwise. She believes this central location outside of City Hall was crucial in supporting the District.

Another unique position was getting BPS high schools to add licensing programs. She holds that many jobs require licensing in their fields to start, and that getting this in school would be a great leg up to employment.

She was demanding of the audience as well. She decried low voter turnouts, saying that Councilors and legislators were at a considerable disadvantage if they went back to their bodies asking for things when their peers knew the constituents didn't vote heavily. "You have to have our back, " she said. "If you have no interest in us, you have no interest in yourself."

Tito Jackson. "That was my dad, Herb," he said, speaking of the late Herbert Kawku Zulu Jackson, who founded the Greater Roxbury Workers Association. The question from the audience was just about the elder Jackson's efforts to ensure compliance with mandates to include community and minority workers in government-funded projects.

Tito said having such watchdogs ensuring compliance was falling on the wayside and there won't be fair return to the community without it.

He also pledged to use his considerable contacts at the state and federal level that he met as an aide to Gov. Deval Patrick for the good of the District. Much as Ayanna Pressley said when she successfully ran for Council in drawing on those she knew from working for U.S. Sen. John Kerry, Jackson said he did not owe his connections favors, rather he could use them for the good of the neighborhoods.

He was also strong on the question of whether the pending redistricting should ensure a minority-majority Congressional seat, in effect a black one. He said there were too many backroom deals in redistricting efforts already. He called for non-political sorts, numbers people, to be involved to avoid such skewing of the district as has happened for so long.

Cornell Mills. He had the best response of the evening, judged by the cheers and applause. He either brought a cadre of supporters or made them in the two hours.

Oddly on the face of it, he is primarily a one issue guy — violence. That is understandable as he used to be a homicide investigator for the BPD. Yet he managed to go from that base to its links to education and employment. He hit a lot of resonating chords with the audience.

He spoke of dealing with youth were they are — street corners, schools, detention centers. He also figures that calling on entrepreneurs to join in the Hope Line and similar youth employment efforts will be the way to expand the base of such jobs.

He claimed that if elected he'd come in not owing anything to anyone.

His biggest crowd pleaser was a rejoinder to Jackson's job watchdog call. He drew applause and cheers when he said just monitoring job sites wouldn't work. Instead, the community needs to be in on the planning and specification of projects. "If we're talking about monitoring job sites, you've already lost."

Natalie Carithers. She was in fine form. She used her voice and hands to best effect and made the strongest statements. She was a crowd favorite.

Catithers is not big and beefy like a couple of the guys, but don't question her resolve. She quickly and repeated claimed to be the best in a scuffle. As she put it early, "If there's a fight, I'll be there. I'll call on you to get my back, because I'm going in." The audience hooted its appreciation.

Among the several candidates citing the need for better education, she alone called for a return to an elected (as she said accountable) school board. Several pointed to the disproportionate number of public schools closing in this district.

She was quickest to say she would not be afraid to call out Menino if she felt the District was getting short shrift in the budget or elsewhere. She said she would public confront him. "He didn't elect me. You did."


Envelope Please


Fun and clarifying, certainly, but the forum brings up the who-wins question immediately, even with over three weeks to the preliminary on February 15th. First, watch your papers, stations and blogs. There will be more debate-like events.

For me, I left feeling sure four of seven were out. Jostling for the two final slots should be Carithers, Jackson and Mills. Each is a good talker, each has strong positions that differentiate from the others, and each has support in the community and beyond.

To stay at the top, Jackson needs to be on for every appearance. He needs to be more competitive and ego-oriented as well. It's nice to appreciate your competitor's positions, but don't lose track that it is a race.

For Mills, he might be able to get to the final with a violence-prevent theme. He should expand his thinking and solutions to appeal to those skeptical of any quick and deep impact here.

Carithers seems on auto-pilot and that's not bad in her case. She's a powerful presence, with a considerable record of constituent services working for Rep. Willie Mae Allen. She may just need to be everywhere with her attitude and proposals.

Any pair of these three would go into March for the seat. If I had to bet, it would include that Jackson comes on strong as he did so many times for the governor and that it ends up being him and Mills for the final.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Roy Owens

District 7 Forum 1 of 2

Rejoice, Boston politics lovers! We are due a couple of months of civic theater. The District 7 City Council race will be a good one.

Last night, six of seven candidates for what was Chuck Turner's slot (inlucing a write-in) postulated and postured for the public at the Roxbury Y. They come at big issues — think street violence and no jobs — differently enough to make for real voter choices. Each has at least one major distinguishing position.

Posting note: Our ISP was sick until a few minutes ago — no net or phone all day. Now I see on Universal Hub that there are a couple of reports on the forum already. This one is an overview and part two will have some quotes and observations.

No Country for Stopwatches



Disgruntled questions from voters with long-standing grudges show some the need to address underlying grievances. Moderator Keith Chaney was naively focused throughout in his expectations of the candidates and audience. Neither set showed any intention to keeping to the idealized time restrictions.

Variously, candidates had like two minutes each to introduce themselves, up to two and one-half to answer the first question and down to one and one-half than one as it was clear the model didn't work. The intent of the organizers was as admirable as it turned out to be unworkable. With no insult to anyone involved, this evening ended up with the feeling of an overly ambitious parent trying to keep a highly structured kids' party flowing from one fun activity to another.

Chaney took it all in good spirits though. One would-be Councilor after the previous would look at the garish black on yellow laminated cards a woman in the front middle of the audience held up. The time keeper had cards reading 30 SECONDS, 15 SECONDS, and TIME. If the candidates even looked, they seemed to take these with the authority a local driver ascribes to a YIELD sign.

Likewise, the moderator admonished each audience member with a question to phrase it in 30 seconds or less. Ha! Virtually no one did. They had points to make first, followed generally with rambling lectures on the failures of Boston pols and politics. At several points, candidates or Chaney admitted they had gotten lost in the verbiage — what is your question?

Hints of what was to come in the audience portion were in the prepared questions introduction. The agenda was a masterwork of theoretical project management and scheduling. It might well have worked if the candidates were a group of engineers who accepted the limits and dutifully worked toward the mandated deadlines.

The sponsors prepared six questions. Two candidates were to address a question, each limited to two and one-half minute answers. Thus, from 7:10 to 7:40 PM, six questions at five minutes each would be perfectly timed.

Back on Planet Forum, they barely managed to struggle through two questions. In fairness, the first one really deserved (and sort of got) a response from each — what are your top three priorities and how would you realize them as Council. Candidates got the six prepared questions in advance and could have come in with carefully crafted, terse responses. They did not. Some really didn't even address the question and most only got through one or two before they got the hook after a generous overage allowance.

Missing Pols



Specters of two local politicians were part of the forum, even as the corporal versions were not. Both Chuck Turner and Dianne Wilkerson were and were not there.

Most obviously, the District 7 Council spot is still "Chuck Turner's seat" in many minds and from many mouths. He held it for 11 years, made himself omnipresent and made it plain he was the man to turn to in times of trouble. A minister might ease your soul, but Turner intended to right wrongs and fix problems.

Absent in all tangible ways was Wilkerson. Cornell Mills is her son, but he avoided all mention of her in is speaking and the campaign literature. As close as he got was in a single-spaced letter-sized flier that reads in part, "My brother and I grew up in a household where public and community service was an expectation."

Many candidates make much of their parental or sibling relationships. Of course, with a convicted and newly sentenced to prison mother, even her career as a MA Senator is not the association he wants.

Even so, women in the audience were loudly saying, "He looks just like her."

I disagree. He is tall, handsome, muscular and well dressed. There's not a tremendous family resemblance in the face and he actually looks quite a bit more attractive and composed than his mom.

As for Turner, none of the candidates on their own either distanced themselves or promised to emulate him. They simply didn't mention him in their opening statements or answers to the prepared questions. The closest any got was Danielle Williams, who repeatedly returned to the efficacy of the District office that Turner maintained on his own dime and time. She said it was the right way to provide a place with the resources for the community.

However, during audience questions, several started with statements about how useful and kind Turner had been. They said he was always there, that he found jobs for young men coming out of incarceration, and tried to help residents navigate housing crises. Of course, those are the constituent services that any decent Councilor would provide and how they get reelected so consistently. Turners combination of pointing what he did repeatedly and having that local office for residents seem to have gone a long way in plumping his image as unusual.

When asked specifically about things related to Turner, the candidates were savvy enough to say they would do the same, that such services where key to the job. Likewise, they were quick to riff on each other's assertions that they would powerfully and eagerly stand up to Menino. None picked up those weapons on their own, but they certainly did when prompted.

Grudges



In the Boston District most burdened with unemployment, foreclosures, street violence, and school closings, no one should be surprised at the distrust of and hostility toward government and pols. Last night, one questioner after another let it rip.

One coincidental target turned out to be U.S. Rep. Mike Capuano. That gritty, solidly progressive, do-right-by-all Capuano is seen by some as an interloper, even a thief. One candidate and an audience member has not forgiven him for sitting in what should be a black seat (sometimes called the minority-majority Congress post). His 8th Congressional District spot, as far as this community was concerned, needed to go to an African American.

Williams said that the District did not have its act together at election time and did not put up any solid candidates to make that happen. Last night, in the discussion of the pending redistricting that will accompany MA losing a U.S. House seat after the recent U.S. Census, the honest lament all around was that having someone of color in the delegation was the best shot at making sure money and relevant legislation helped the District and its residents. By extension, Capuano is not the best Rep.

We saw a similar phenomenon with MA State Senator Sonya Chang-Diaz a couple of years ago. When she ran a second time, this one successfully, to replace Dianne Wilkerson, audience questions at fora and debates were sometimes harsh. As mixed Latina/Asian/white, she wasn't dark enough for some. She didn't belong specifically to this or that black civic organization. She was the darling to the yuppie and Latino-heavy Jamaica Plain.

A funny thing happened on the way to Senate or really in the Senate. She has done the good, necessary and right work. She picked up the long foundering CORI reform and pushed it over the reality goal line. She has led on one Roxbury need after another.

Far harsher criticism than Capuano got emerged for two vilified demons — Mayor Tom Menino and labor unions. Question after question asked how will you fix these evisl.

Unions often have systemic problems that will require overhauls to fix. They would have to stop excluding black and other minority laborers and managers. They would have to adhere to government mandates for local residents, minorities and women on jobs. Those are long-standing, very real issues and neighborhood resentment is quite understandable.

For Menino though, the strong statements of criticism were a bit of a surprise to some and might be to him as well. The very popular, longest-serving mayor certainly says he represents all Bostonians. That perception may alter dramatically as you get farther away from City Hall.

Numerous questions had the introduction in powerful terms that the mayor runs the city absolutely. The Council has no power. Assuming those, the audience asked the candidates:
  • Will you stand up, publicly, to Menino and call him when we aren't getting fair consideration and treatment?
  • What would you do when the proposed budget shortchanges Roxbury and Dorchester?
In aggregate, Menino owns the residents of Boston. He may not own the hearts of all those in District 7. He and his campaign crew can decide whether he'll work on that perception. In a very real sense, he doesn't have to, even if he thinks about re-election. Yet, he does pride himself in being a people's mayor, of all our people. I'd bet he'd want to do what's right and necessary here.

Part two is quotes and claims and drama from the forum.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Latest Whining by Anti-SSM Forces

Those who truly hate representative democracy have a tough time nowadays. Consider the sputtering and calls for their own political resurrection this week. The cause? The SCOTUS refused to overrule the D.C. Council on same-sex marriage.

The high court ruled these are local issues, making it all sound like states rights to govern where the feds have not reserved powers. The justices didn't even discuss the gay marriage thing underlying it.

An excellent background piece in Bay Windows traces the limited self-governance for the District. Key factors include that even though Congress has jurisdiction over D.C., the District has had some powers since enabling legislation dating to its 1973 charter. It can make its own local laws and regulations, as it did with its Human Rights Act. It can decide as states can which of its citizens can legally marry, as it did in 2009. It can deny a ballot initiative that would legalize discrimination forbidden in its rights act, as it did when a group of fundy ministers tried to overturn SSM. The latter position got the support of the District's high court, which is how its appeal slithered into the SCOTUS.

Not surprisingly, the supporters of this attempt are the two usual suspects, the Alliance Defense Fund and the National Organization for Marriage. The former did the legal work pro bono, as it does with virtually any such anti-gay/anti-SSM effort.

Also as usual, this pair failed in the legislature and failed in the courts. In the end, the pull out the old let-the-people-vote weapon. Unfortunately for this pair, they doubled up in D.C., simultaneously knocking themselves out in both court and a shot at a plebiscite.

Public votes on fundamental policy have their places. At their worst is mob rule, impassioned and often reckless. As bad is the California flavor of ballot initiative, the nation's worst among the half the states that have some form of this; out there, unfunded mandates, unsound laws, and overt discrimination can all get before voters and on the books far too easily. The sleepier version is still common in New England town meeting, which works in small municipalities.

In the larger and I would say more real world, representative democracy is how we advance and maintain our government and civilization. Minimizing emotion and deceit and maximizing knowledge and reasoned debate generally serve us well. Various levels of city, state and national government still make mistakes, but the current hyperbole from the let-the-people-vote types aside, elected officials accountable for what they do have proven superior to forms of mob rule from the beginning of this country.

You needn't wonder how NOM and ADF took this week's ruling. Read all about it here and here.

The pair of joint statements had their best summary with "We are by no means done pressing this issue," from NOM President Brian Brown. The heading of the statement portrayed the District's SSM vote not as expanding civil rights but as destroying marriage, as in NOM "PLEDGES CONTINUED PUSH TO RESTORE MARRIAGE IN DC." Likewise, the ADF has its own (disenfranchised voters) spin and its Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks sounds the vague, "We will remain diligent in looking for other legal opportunities to protect and defend the right of all D.C. residents to have their voices heard as the D.C. Charter clearly intended."

While having lost the effort to force a plebiscite all the way to the SCOTUS, it's unclear what they might do in poor little D.C. Yet, it appears that no SSM or similar marriage equality victory is truly permanent. The plug nasties are still grumbling about yet another go at a ballot initiative in MA. Up a state in NH, they are making repeal noises in the legislature. I predict that when Rhode Island finally passes SSM, which it may well this year, the anti-marriage equality jackals will descend there as well.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Let's Assume, Loughner Edition

I have no doubt that cops, prosecutors, judges and juries alike tend to identify with and cut slack to drivers who kill. Depending on your level of religiosity, you might view that as the there but for the grace of God or there but for luck go I.

All too often it is the police report that reads "unfortunate but unavoidable accident." For the family of the corpse, it's no accident running someone down or smashing your vehicle into theirs. From the forgiving nature of driving laws to juries giving an empathetic pass to a slayer, far too often what would be second degree murder with any other weapon brings light or no punishment with a 3000 pound SUV.

The number of Americans who murder or maim by vehicle has been steadily going down since a high in 1979. Much of that seems due primarily to driving more slowly and mostly to better engineered vehicle safety systems.

The latest annual rate, from 2009, is still an astonishing 33,808 Americans dead from motor vehicles. This is over twice the rate of intentional violent murders by other means — 15,241 for 2009.

In that context, Jared Loughner's murder of six people and attempted murder of another 14 he shot may seem like more Americans doing what American's do.

Americans you may ask incredulously? Yes, we in the United States are far highest among our peer group of industrialized Western nations. Per capita, we sit in the middle of all nations, but those with higher rates are in poor, crime ridden, Third World countries. Our European and Canadian counterparts are far, far below us. Down there, even our similar sized Australia with its own history of a wild west background has less than one-fourth the per capita murder rate.

Yet, we as a nation, as our mass media, as our social networks, as our politicians, look at Loughner's blood and guts and brains rampage to wonder how this might happen. Surprisingly, we feign that murders, particularly with guns are rare here.

Disgustingly, far too many of us then switched on the defenses. It wasn't my side or anything my folk said or did. It wasn't the easily availability of guns, high-capacity bullet clips, and ammunition. Out of all that comes one of two conclusions, either it was the other side politically who tipped this guy over, or he was simply crazy and there is nothing that could have been done to prevent it.

Oddly and given the opportunity after the murders, left-leaning pols and pundits did little blaming of the right. Even when some did ask what effect years of objectifying slander and calls for armed insurrection might have had on Loughner and others, the reaction from the most strident of the right wingers was fierce. The Limbaugh/Palin/Malkin sorts were quick to find little toothpicks of evidence of harsh leftist dialog to claim absurdly that one side has been as bad as another.

Mirabile dicu! A reassuring number of pols and media types alike seem willing to consider that tough talk may be harmful. Even as they defensively disavow any possible link to action by murderous anti-abortionist or Loughner types, they seem to have gotten that they could be linked to such lingo when there are attacks and deaths.

The gustiest of the right-wing blowhards are not likely to join in by being aware of what they might incite. They appear to have too much invested in dehumanizing those who disagree with them and in using inflammatory lies to get audience and advertising.

Yet even in that pathetic and risible Palin appearance on Hannity, she paid lip service to civility. That much had sunk in, even if she proceeded to lie and blame per usual. If polls numbers for the likes of her and audience share for the Fox folk and their ilk dip enough, they might even pull in a few talons.

Consider for a moment, what if it turns out that Loughner is just a mental and emotional jumble with no way to understand why he shot so many? Then consider, what if his prosecution uncovers documents and oral testimony from him and others that make a convincing causal relationship to right-wing talk and his actions?

Certainly the script that the extreme wingers and many more moderate righties have followed tightly is the former. Loughner was a crazed loner who acted out dictates of his inner demons and his impulses. That's sweet and neat for them, letting them say anyone who even hints there might be a link between calls for revolution and targeting lefties are irrational bigots.

Unfortunately for them, what the vast majorities of lefties and seemingly nearly all moderates have been asking does not start and stop with Loughner. Assuming no link from winger speech to his actions, that would clear violent calls only in his case. The larger issue of urging the public to take out, target and eliminate Democrats and the whole U.S. government remains.

If those whose words are most suspect can't deal with the idea that they may catalyze violence, the bulk of us appear ready to march on without them. That's when those extremists will find themselves talking diminishing audiences and eventually only to themselves.

In the latter case, what if Lougner left records or makes makes a confession that he was inspired by this or that winger pundit? That could have several obvious effects.

First, many of the strident right-wing talkers, media and pol alike, could call freak occurrence — oh, it was only this person Lougner listened to, or oh, it was this one crazy guy, while the rest of the country can listen to us and not flip out. Many of us on the left on the other hand, might find ourselves butting up against First Amendment rights. Six deaths and 14 maimings directly caused by hate speech, therefore...?

So far, the FBI has been pretty quiet. Experience would suggest Loughner was in fact deranged. Then again, for almost any murder, would it be fair to say such inhumane and inhuman act shows insanity?

We humans so love to have people or processes to blame when something terrible happens. We may not get that with the Loughner case. Yet even if we conclude that he was just too crazed to know why he shot all those people, a good portion of the country will be evaluating the worth and impacts of loose violent talk.



Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Supremes Do DC Right

Even the right-leaning Supreme Court nails some. Today, the ennead came down for civil rights and D.C. self-determination. They told a group wanting to overturn SSM there by ballot initiative to go away.

Tip of the Toupee: To John Hosty-Grinnell, who tweeted this.

The G.I. Joe action figure looking minister of a Beltsville, MD, church had a mind to take away the SSM rights of D.C. homosexual couples. The D.C. Council voted to legalize SSM there in 2009, consistent with the District's Human Rights Act.

That didn't suit Hope Christian Church's Senior Pastor, Bishop Harry Jackson. He led the repeated drive, turned down in the D.C. Court of Appeals and onto the Supreme Court. He held the paternalistic view that Congress, not the District should decide what D.C. laws could face a ballot initiative to overturn them. He sued the D.C. Board of Election and Ethics, demanding a plebiscite.

The District legal position was that this was a local issue. Moreover, "(t)here is no national analogue to pertinent provisions of District law, and indeed no federal right of initiative at all," reads the city's brief. The decision of the District court is here.

The Supreme Court did not agree with Jackson. They declined to let the suit continue.

As an amusing little side note, the D.C. appeals decision also points out that Jackson was not only asking for discrimination, he was late. While Congress has authority over the District, any laws the District enacts take effect fully if Congress does not overrule them or object within 30 days. The decision denying everything Jackson sought adds (pp. 13-14), "... Petitioners ask this Court to interfere with the Congressionally mandated legislative framework here."

Game over.

Tags: , , , ,

Gilding the Skunk

Now, there's a tortured metaphor — gilding the skunk, but stick with it a bit. Last evening's WOW, POW, EXCLUSIVE Sean Hannity/Sarah Palin victim fest fooled only themselves and the already deluded.

Just when it might be safe to deal in ideas instead of brushing off self-promoters, Sarah Palin screams out her melodrama yet again. It may be unfair to true conservatives and brighter right-wingers, but it is great that she so highlights the extremes and, well, plain Palin stupidity.

The pair's blathering is significant only as evidence of the vast difference between self-identified political sorts. As noted many times here and at Harrumph!, left and right wingers do often bifurcate. Most liberal/progressive sorts typically wring their hands questioning, questioning. Do what they say and do negatively affect the larger world?

Stereotypical right-wing pols and talk-show sorts don't bother. Instead, the Palin and Hannity types assume their own virtue and correctness. They try to build themselves by knocking others down — reason and evidence be damned!

The not-all-that-complex set of issues following the Tucson shootings clarifies the positions. With efforts that might have been applied to something constructive, this group has instead:
  • Sought to turn attention to themselves and away from those shot and even President Obama's memorial service eulogy
  • Repeatedly and with great strain claimed victimhood for themselves
  • Avoided any analysis of or responsibility for years of incendiary speech and writing
  • Feigned that calling for violence even metaphorically is not only their Constitutional right but their patriotic duty
In a milquetoast counterpoint, numerous lefties, like commentator Keith Olbermann combined his analysis. He called out righties who have long used gun, death and other threatening lingo, and simultaneously noted some of his own loose talk. He apologized for his.

We'll be waiting a long, long time for right wingers to hold themselves accountable. Instead what we have heard is another fictional meme. The loudest of them sifted and filtered the many thousands of comments about the Tucson events to present a charade. As they would have it, every lefty from Obama to media commentators to bloggers to Democratic pols has falsely accused their righty counterparts with causing Jared Loughner to shoot 20 people. Hence, the Palins and Limbaughs would have it, they are the true victims of the dreadful occurrences.

Palin's trio of clips is worth a click. Actually, as usual, she only has a couple of ideas and is so repetitive that you can choose any one and get her whole rap — lamestream media, First Amendment, patriotic duty and such.

The reality of the post-Tucson blather is that the left wing types asked the questions about whether years of superheated hyperbole, exaggerations and outright lies might inspire violence. Instead, the shtick is that if lefties can even ask those questions, they as a group are guilty of accusing the righties of being accessories to the Tucson and other murders. In fact, Palin said that the lefties had accused the entire state of Arizona as well as just her class of blowhards.

The closest we actually come to that is the scary, well documented descriptions of dozens of combo First/Second Amendment destruction, assaults, murders and more in the name of insurrection compiled by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. It is a serious caution to anyone who buys that other current winger meme, that the left wing is just as bad as the worst of the right one. T'aint so.

We should though parse Palin more than she normally deserves. She has coalesced the current positions of her phalanx. Her clips are a clear warning of the slogans and postures we are apt to hear for the next several months.

In case you don't have the stomach for all her clips, be aware that she goes beyond the predictable bizarre defensiveness into commentary on Obama's eulogy. She damned the brilliant healing speech that even Congressional Republicans respect with the faint praise that there were a few good things in it. Instead, she flat out said it sounded like a campaign speech. It's hard to tell where inattentive stupidity ends with that remark and where pure jealousy overtakes it.

Instead of dealing with the bigger issues and the widespread call for more civil dialog:
  • Palin claimed that the left as a whole was after her "to destroy the message and the messenger."
  • She dared to invoke Martin Luther King Jr. quoting his that a lie can't live to support her allegation that any link from hot talk to hot lead is that now infamous blood libel she claim on herself.
  • She depicts her repeated calls to violence and insurrection as both respectful and patriotic in petitioning the government for change.
  • Palin takes her bluster and threats as more than her right — "They can't make us sit down and shut up. And if they ever were to succeed in doing that, then our republic will be destroyed"
Her incredible positions are plain enough and worthy of remark only as new archetypes. They are the messages that will repeat many times soon.

Advance Despite Her



She has no more shame than her other TV talking heads and winger bloggers. They eagerly would eclipse the honor and innocence of those shot in Tucson and those who responded to them. Fortunately the President's remarks and those of others at the memorial service focused on the victims and heroes, the real ones.

Also fortunately, even many in Congress are savvier, more civilized and more compassionate than the basest of the right wing. We shall see soon as the House's health-reform repeal debate attempts to gain re-election votes in this quixotic effort. It appears as though those who continue to scream and call for revolution following the national discourse on violent speech are at last temporarily marginalized.

As we all (except for the rightest of the right) saw in the last Presidential election, Palin can ride the waves of national discontent, but on matters fundamental, she has no sense how out of touch with real people she is. The nation will have to advance without and despite her and the Limbaugh types.

We can be sure in later years that the bitterness, lies and overthrow-America talk will pale to invisibility, likely along with our economic troubles. We can be as sure that those who currently steal the honor due the real heroes and victims will find ways to claim they were with the program of building and healing all along.

Sunday, January 16, 2011

The Wolf Who Cried, "Specify!"

Even if he'll already be sentenced to federal prison time, Chuck Turner will fight away, at least in state court. U.S. First Circuit Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf is figuring out whether to send the fairly trivial legal issue of whether the Boston City Council had specific enough authority to expel him following his conviction on four federal felonies.

Impugning motives here is easy enough. Turner and his pro-bono attorney Chester Darling are big honking egos floating all around. With a certainty that his sentence of prison time in nine days will trigger the MA law removing him from office, Turner doesn't care. In particular, he's been willing to push out the special election for his replacement, robbing his constituents of full representation while he plays at dotting every i.

Likewise, octogenarian Darling unretired to get a final bath of limelight. He is famous/infamous for winning the U.S. Supreme Court case letting the Southie veterans exclude homosexuals from marching in the St. Patrick's day parade. On the face of it, he and Turner differ markedly in politics, but their egos are comparable.

If this case gets tossed to state court for clarity, that could have a good or very good result. Obviously, it could clarify for municipalities whether they can build on their charters or must continue to crawl to the General Court for each minor procedure tweak. Beyond that, it would be great if a state court, or even the Supreme Judicial Court, told the GC to get its home-rule act together and to stop playing feudal lord. Ideally, a few lawmakers would take this opportunity to make more reasonable home-rule processes, so they could do their real jobs.

It is unreasonable to hope for a larger resolution of the underlying home-rule issues here. Massachusetts has an anachronistic, paternalistic system whereby the legislature treats municipalities like serfs. Each city and town must beseech the General Court for even minor changes in governing themselves.

Anywhere that their previously legislatively approved charters do not specify in simple-minded detail any possible variance is trouble. It's back to the legislature and if there needs to be even the slightest tweak, it's a lengthy and tedious charter revision. That, of course, requires approval of the General Court.

Soviet Style


In theory, this process keeps mayors, city councils and their equivalents from grabbing commonwealth powers, making conflicting regulations, or committing moneys the GC hasn't allocated or approved. Let's get real about it though. This is just about power. Lawmakers enjoy making cities and towns grovel.

We'd suppose the senators and reps would have more pressing legislative concerns. We'd suppose that they might create guidelines for municipalities and then just deal with problems when there is a conflict. We'd suppose wrong.

The Darling Turner (good name for a child movie star) suit is only the latest expression of the silliness here. A good outcome would be if the state clarified whether the Boston City Council's careful groundwork in preparing for just this problem was valid, like they were adults instead of kindergarteners.

We heard the current version of the role of home rule during the special meeting of the Boston Council considering Turner's status. There his friend and sole supporter, Councilor Charles Yancey, invoked the home-rule specter repeatedly. He held for Turner that unless the city charter explicitly reads the Council can expel a member, it can't, regardless of its authority to determine its membership.

That is what we learned in civics classes differentiated the old Soviet regime from ours. In the USSR, everything not specifically permitted is forbidden. Allegedly in America, everything not forbidden is permitted. It looks like we remain on the wrong side.

An even better result of this suit would be if a few lawmakers were sick and a little ashamed of treating mayors, councils and the like as though they were incompetent, ignorant little kids. A bill to turn home rule into guidelines would be one such evidence of wisdom and maturity by the GC.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Chuck Turner Gets His Own Storms

The vice vise squeezes tighter. Chuck Turner got a double blow today. Commonwealth maggy reports:
  1. U.S. District Court Judge Douglas Woodlock rejected Turner's request to postpone his January 25th sentencing on one bribery and three lying to the feds felonies.
  2. Ramping up for that, the prosecutors provided that judge with a 15-count perjury document, related to Turner's testimony at his trial.
Tip of the toupee to Gintautas Dumcius.

Commonwealth's Paul McMurrow compares and contrasts Turner with the recently sentenced Dianne Wilkerson. Their bribery stings were related although they were not charged as conspirators. She has a history of financial and legal troubles, failures, convictions or pleas. In contrast, his conviction was his first and no one has alleged a pattern of corruption.

He seems to figure that Wilkerson pleaded guilty and admitted to charges. She had many others dropped as part of the deal. Turner on the other hand, claims innocence, that he remembers neither the briber nor the bribe, and that the whole sting is purely a racist move by the feds to stifle a black community leader.

Being just a simple man from the land of the maple trees, I have to wonder whether the feds are giving Turner one last chance (and a huge push) to say he is guilty, made a mistake, and regrets it all.

Of course, the play within this play is Turner's grandstand effort to regain his Boston City Councilor seat, pending his sentencing. That suit is before First District Chief Judge Mark Wolf, who has yet to rule.

MA law would force Turner from office should he receive as much as a day in prison on a felony. I have no doubt his sentence in 12 days will include cell time. However, should Wolf rule that the Council as a body did not have authority to remove a convicted felon from membership and that Turner needs to keep his seat pending sentencing, that would delay his replacement. The February/March preliminary/final special election for the District 7 seat would be pushed out, and the constituents would be deprived of a Councilor even longer.

Sigh.

Wolf is damned sharp. I'm not sure how he'll fall on this. In would be great if he concurred with the Boston city counsel that the rules they adopted over a year ago do give them this power. We certainly don't need to play the home-rule-petition game with elected officials who are convicted felons awaiting sentencing. That's just what all the discussion and voting were about in the year following Turner's indictment. (Coincidentally, the vote to adopt these procedures was unanimous, including Turner.)

I am also eager to see how Turner will assimilate the current status. He has lost at every point so far — indictment, trial, Council hearing, and sentencing delay. Despite his bluster, he's neither historian nor scholar of any type. Yet, he should discern the pattern here.

For little things, he has a shot at keeping his pension for being a Councilor if he appeals it to the pension board. Otherwise, he gets back what he's paid in, plus interest.

I'm far from a chess master, but I do know how to play the game. It appears that Turner doesn't know when to concede. Like a novice who careers his king square to square to delay the inevitable, he seems to be at the mercy of those with more material and better position.

I fear he won't step back. If he pushes and pushes, he'll likely be remembered not as the powerful champion of his neighborhoods that he was for a decade. Rather, it will be Chuck Turner who sacrificed the good of his former constituents for his ego.


Tags: , , , , , , ,


Obama Nails Part One

Your President and mine nailed it — at least the first half of it — last night in Tucson. At the memorial service for the six slain Saturday, he was superb at being the nation's healer. As a bonus, he injected aspiration into a stunned populace.

Next up must be specifics and the politics he so assiduously and properly avoided. The big part missing in honoring the dead, wounded and those who helped them is what to do next.

The NY Times runs the released text of Barack Obama's oration. The delivered remarks differ only in a few repetitions and an occasional substitution of a word that did not change the meaning. Where I quote below, I use his live version.

We should say first that when he's on, he's really on, as he was yesterday. He started off slowly with the necessities and niceties. He praised the heroic deeds of the dead, wounded and those who aided them. He had done his homework and was able to do act like any good preacher delivering a eulogy — giving meaningful vignettes of the deceased to fix them in living memory of the audience.

Moreover, he was slow at the start to heap high the recognition of those who were heroic Saturday. He played that beautifully as well, giving the present and distant audiences a sense of ownership and duty.

It's coming


It's still early on the East coast but I did wonder what the nastiest of the wingers had managed to find for criticism. The Limbaugh types will likely do their spin and nitpicking later.

The only immediate slam I found was from the ever asinine Michell Malkin. She truly wrote a piece last evening saying that because related posters and t-shirts featured blue and not red, this was politicized branding. She may have been bright at one point.

We can listen and look later today for more and worse. Unfortunately for them, Obama steered clear of politics. Smearing his dual messages of eulogy and striving will work only for what Limbaugh calls his ditto-heads.

What Was and Is Missing


The POTUS had a huge down-and-dirty chance and reason to weave pure politics here. He pirouetted instead.

Extremists of all types and particularly self-identified conservatives and Tea Party sorts have been stalking insults since Saturday. It's been pretty pathetic to hear the don't-dare-call-my-hate-talk-what-it-is lingo. The slightest implication that calls for violent overthrow of elected officials might inspire the crazed or hyper-partisan to pick up arms somehow makes these extremists victims — if only in their shriveled hearts.

Instead, Obama said only such as:
But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.

Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, "when I looked for light, then came darkness." Bad things happen, and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.

For the truth is that none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped those shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man's mind.
The odd angle of all this is that what he has joined so many in saying following these shootings is that regardless of what catalyzed the violence, this is the time to evaluate how we speak and act. There is where his memorial oration halted short of content.

Stem Winding


The oration wisely and skillfully pivoted on Christina Taylor Green, the 9-year-old murdered that day. The life not fully lived, the innocent and eager, the gentle potential were and shall remain powerful thoughts and feelings.

As the speech concluded, he invoked her most poignantly (and to great audience approval) including:
...I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.

That's what I believe, in part because that's what a child like Christina Taylor Green believed....She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted.

>I want to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as Christina imagined it. I want America to be as good as she imagined it. All of us – we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children's expectations.

Of course the nasties will do their worst even with such wise, loving and compassionate calls. They surely will when in future days and weeks, the POTUS will suggest to Congress and likely in his next address to the nation how we might honor those who died and do good together.

Alas for the divisive forces, last night's sentiments and those sure to follow are certain to remain powerful. The huge, steady voting blocs such as women and older citizens are far more likely now to be swayed by the imagery, ideas and feelings put forth last night than calls to revolution and loony conspiracy charges.

While last night's oration was decidedly unpolitical, the truth of the politics here is that those who elect our Presidents, governors, lawmakers and others are not inherently stupid or vicious. Given clear enough options for acting rationally and civilly, most may well do just that.


Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Atlas-Level Load for POTUS

As a nation, we have our unifying moments. These are all too often far too short and without lasting changes.

Think about after 9/11. America bonded...for a bit. This dissolved into too many blaming Muslims for the Twin Towers or blaming them in general. It also brought one lasting change — the disregard for and legislative and administrative destruction of our freedoms. By polls, a majority of us said it was OK to give up our Constitutional rights because President George the Lesser said it was necessary.

Long-term threats, such as the Axis powers in WWII, do keep us together so long as the need remains. Responses to such tragic events as political assassinations don't focus us for long.

We too often wishy-washy progressive sorts tend to respond to such horrific occurrences in two ways:
  1. Calling for identifying and solving underlying catalysts and conditions
  2. Asking Americans to work together to prevent these
The first is tough. It requires considerable attention span and commitment. It likely will also exceed the comfortable zone of many and demand introspection. It may even ask for people to take personal responsibility and perhaps change what they say and do.

Where Have You Gone?


I view President Barack Obama as not all that progressive, although he does fit with the rest of us in often sounding and acting wishy-washy. Now, as in the Paul Simon song, "A nation turns its lonely eyes to you." As he speaks tonight in Tucson on the weekend murders and woundings, he has an awesome opportunity to transform us.

We should be plain that not all the brains behind those millions of lonely eyes will be receptive of such inspiration and transformation. We are not, for example, likely to hear widespread support in Congress for either turning down sensational and hateful oratory.

To worry the metaphor a bit, Obama is indeed like Joe DiMaggio in Mrs. Robinson. Tonight, he's effectively the slugger standing at home plate. In theory, he could hit that needed run, but he's on his own.

Alas, personal responsibility is a delusional trait of too many of us. Like we are prone to say we are people persons or multitaskers, we boast of accepting consequences for our mistakes and demand, demand as a result, that others do the same.

This has been astoundingly clear in the past few days, particularly but not exclusively, on the far right and the muddled outer circles such as Tea Party groupies. As with our Left Ahead caller yesterday, the chant is that lefties are lying about righties claiming their years of inflammatory calls for violence drove the acts of Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner. Even those in Congress and the Administration who say this horror should remind us that even if there is no direct link, we'd be better off as a nation if we forwent insurrection and shoot-'em talk are getting slammed.

I noticed one such clear example today on the Washington Post's op-ed page. There Charles Krauthammer set up and destroyed his strawmen. His repetition that Loughner is crazy and that's all there is to it avoids the underlying issues we progressives are wont to identify.

Likewise, Sara Palin has a long piece in video and text on her Facebook page. (Link goes to text, which in turn has a link to the 8-minute video.) It is similarly defensive. She decries any call to crank down the volume and vitriol with such remarks as, "Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions."

Yes to Debate


She too defines Loughner as simply crazed — "...this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal..." Her very defensive point is actually aimed at cutting off public debate, as in claiming any connection of the slightest of violent talk to violent action.

Instead and regardless of the proximate motivations for Loughner's rampage, we do need to debate this.

Many of the most extreme won't want to consider calls to reason and civility. Some are simply self-interested; think of TV and radio talkers who attract listeners and advertisers through quotable, aggressive insults and threats. Others are just too literal; when a Loughner kills people, it's just him and we needn't worry our pretty little heads about anything beyond the obvious. Still others are understandably defensive; they like talk of revolution, even violently, and can't bear to think they may contribute to actual blood in the parking lot.

The lonely eyes and uncomforted ears will turn to our President tonight. This should be a seminal speech and may be the most important one he has given. Even setting aside the minority who can't or won't let themselves consider his thoughts and intentions, a huge majority is ready for inspiration and direction.


Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Time to Downgrade Violence Talk

Despite what our caller to today's Left Ahead podcast repeatedly returned to, Ryan and I weren't about drawing any correlation or causation between the Saturday murders and maiming in Tucson and right-wing violence rhetoric of the past several years. Instead, we have listened to and read so many takes on such that we were looking at the non-physical aftermath.

We figure that the new GOP House majority will take only this week off from showmanship and brinkmanship — trying to earn re-election credits with symbolic repeal efforts for health-care reform and other progressive legislation. Moreover, we don't expect that the extremists who speak nonstop of overthrowing our government — violently if they think they must and can — will take a hint from the exhausted looks and tones of voters and others.

Most of us are truly stunned by six murders and 14 woundings. Others on broadcast, in papers and on the net seem to:
  • Deny any conceivable connection of insurrection and revolution speech to what individual or group loonies may do
  • Figure a few dozen or hundred victims are the expected price for getting their political desires
  • Make passing mentions of the 9-year-old girl slain as though that covers their compassion quota
  • Dig up whatever real or tenuous links they can to violent left wingers
In other words, there seems to be no bowing or cowing before the national mood and calls for toning down justification of violence for political aims. On that subject, the best I've been has been the Salon piece by Prof. Glenn LaFantasie. He is an historian and sketches our dreadful trail of assassinations and other mayhem. He figures we can't tone anything down until we stop pretending that we are a peaceful, politically sensible nation.

Alas, I fear he's right.

We even had 10 minutes or so of that today with a winger caller (click the player below to get into it; he starts about 15 minutes in). He wasn't the shouting sort, but he was relentless. He loved a few talking points, such as all lefties are trying to blame Tucson on the Tea Party, Barack Obama is as bad or worse than right wingers because he said Dems would bring a gun to a knife fight if the Republicans wanted to mix it up in campaign rhetoric, and something unspecified in the U.S. Constitution gave his side the absolute right to overthrow the government.


He may not be shoot-'em-up crazy, but he was a ranter. I know that he's not the only one and that he gets those talking points from the same places as so many others do.

What is unfortunately plain here is that the current extremely widespread calls for more civil discourse and elimination of the kill-our-enemies rhetoric won't work on a wired segment of the population. Many like our caller are feeling righteous, even pious, in their politics. Ends and means and like that...

My hope is that the larger nation will see this weekend's events as more than a one-off, as a reason to pull back from loose threats and bluster. If they do and start calling their neighbors as well as the media sorts on inflammatory speech, this could be a country where pols might feel comfortable meeting groups of voters to hear their concerns in public places.

Retirees, elementary students, elected officials and just plain voters should not be gunned down. Saying that the shooter, Jared Loughner, was just mentally unbalanced is neither a remedy nor a prophylactic. Saying my side's shrill, harsh, endless calls for violence had nothing to do with a lone loony's actions may feel like a shield from criticism, but it won't work this time.

In fact, as Ryan and I told our caller, we're not about blaming the Tea Party or calling for outlawing all guns. We're not trying to link Sharon Angle or Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh sensationalism directly to Loughner.

No More Wild West


Rather, fairly balanced people much less unstable ones don't need constant reasons to act out paranoia, conspiracy fears or various hatred. This is yelling "Fire!" in the crowded theater, the very limit on free speech long established in U.S. case law. As a big advocate for First Amendment rights, I write that very carefully.

Let's none of us speak of direct links to the shooter. The packet he left in his parents house and future statements he makes might give us some insight here. None of us, perhaps short of the FBI who owns that packet, has any relevant knowledge yet. We may never get any.

Instead, I'm with that historian. We need to acknowledge our sordid culture of political violence. The wild American west should have faded into the past about statehood time. It too many ways it is with us still.

Let's own it ourselves and do what we must to change that.

It is pure craziness to try to justify murder because your candidate didn't get elected or some policy offends you. We need to call out everyone who speaks that way. We need to stop giving them a forum, to stop rewarding them with listeners, viewers and readers...and any advertising revenue that comes with those.

We don't have to play the bunny Thumper in the Bambi movie with his "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." We need to be more like, "if you're talking violence, go behind a closed door and talk to yourself."


Friday, January 07, 2011

As the Turner Worms

News and noise on the Chuck Turner phalanx as replacement candidates settle and fellow convicted pol gets her sentence...

The probably highly caffeinated Gintautas Dumcius over at Dot News provides the breakdown of who's in already for the Boston City Council District 7 seat. Bribery/lying-to-feds convicted Chuck Turner is still trying his damnedest to queer the preliminary and final special elections to replace him after his ousting from Council.

He is most probably but not certainly going to fail in forcing the city to reschedule his replacement. However, he faces sentencing in federal court on January 25th. The state law that tosses convicted felons out of elected office if they get as much as a day in prison would kick in when he gets any cell time. He goes before the same First Circuit Judge Douglas P. Woodlock, who just sentenced ex-State Sen. Dianne Wilkerson to 42 months for her version of taking bribes.

So we get to speculate on many things. First, will Turner's crazy suit to keep his Council office until the state drives him out like the scapegoat into the desert stay in play?

As we have come to expect from him, he is right and righteous and we're all wrong and immoral where he disagree with him. In this case, he'd have it that while the Council as a body has the right to determine who is fit to sit on it, it doesn't have the power to expel a member for any reason.

The reasoning was expounded upon repeated at the special meeting in the first week of last month to consider what to do following his conviction on four federal felonies. Councilor Charles Yancey was the surrogate and acted as Greek chorus. His inane call that absent a specific phrase that used the term "expel" the Council was powerless, powerless I say, to do anything about it.

That's heavy bluster and hair splitting for a non-lawyer. Yancey pulled his longest-serving-Councilor and he's read the city charter many times cards. Yawn.

So back to 2011 and back to this more tangible world, we have to wonder what Wilkerson's slammer slam means to Chuck Turner. His charm and failing are that he doesn't let more widely perceived reality and facts interfere with his perception of himself and his role, his marvelous role.

So far, he has steadfastly held that he was targeted for a corruption sting because of his race and his outspoken advocacy of his constituents. Outside of court, he claims innocence of the bribe. Inside, he suddenly and incredibly feigns loss of memory...of the event, the person involved, the cash, of everything.

In contrast, Wilkerson coped a plea for dropping a couple dozen other charges and admitting to taking over $23,000 in bribes. She wrote Woodlock a long letter saying she was sorry. Unfortunately, both in the letter and in her statements at her sentencing, she tried to finesse her guilt and in effect say it wasn't her fault.

Woodlock scolded her and found her symptomatic of the larger culture of corruption and compliance in the commonwealth. He's certainly unlikely to take kindly to Turner's lecturing him on law and racism and that other corruption, that of federal investigators and prosecutors.

So, can we suppose Turner will look at Wilkerson's clumsy efforts to avoid prison time and change his posture? Probably not. He's always enjoyed being the victim, individually and as members of various classes and races and political stripes.

To his advantage, this was his first provable incidence of corruption. His supporters contend it was his only one, except for those who say the video lies and it never happened.

Often first-time offenders get probation or at last minimal sentences. Yet, that's not about to happen here. While his $1,000 bribe seems wee in the corruption world, his three related felony convictions of lying to the FBI about taking that grand are damning, particularly at the federal-court level. I don't see how the judge can do anything short of sending him to prison for a year or even two.

Given Woodlock's strong condemnation of corruption and the need to punish crooked pols, he might not even be impressed if Turner suddenly admitted guilt and claimed contrition. We are unlikely to know, as there is almost no chance of a mea culpa from the self-defined "bald, bold and bright."

Thursday, January 06, 2011

Winter and Spring of Retribution

Nemesis has been napping, as is her wont in white-collar crime cases, but has taken wing and will strike down on the waterfront at 2:30 p.m. today. In plain talk, the first of three currently convicted or indicted corrupt MA pols gets sentenced in First District federal court.

Today, it's ex-State Sen. Dianne Wilkerson. On January 25th, it will be ex-Boston City Councilor Charles A. (Chuck) Turner. Assuming either a plea deal or guilty verdict, it will be ex-Speaker of the House Salvatore F. DiMasi later this year or early 2012.

These three marbles are finally making their circuitous spins down the funnel. That says good and awful things about the process.

Dianne


The famous and infamous Wilkerson was a fine legislator and a personal disaster all along. As Senator, she did more than vote the right way. She championed civil rights, including same-sex marriage, with vigor and focus. She led on one key law after another.

Yet, this same constituent heroine was the compulsive tax evader and bribe taker.

Now she appears before Judge Douglas P. Woodlock facing prison. Having already done probations and fines and such for previous offences, she's sure to camp in a cell. Prosecutors call for four years.

In contrast to Turner, she has turned on the contrition. In a long letter to Woodlock for consideration today, she detailed and iterated how sorry she was and how thoroughly she has ruined her life in the process.

She's likely to get the four or at least two.

P.M. Update 1/6/11: She received a sentence of 3.5 years.

Chuck


On the other hand, Turner is hanging tough and likely will all the way into his own sentencing hearing, or in his case, event. He has always been confident in being both right and righteous. His current tack of suing to retain his Council seat while awaiting certain prison time is...well, he could not be expected to act otherwise.

We can differentiate this pair in several ways. Most obvious is that Turner neither shows regreat nor admits guilt. Pols and other big shots don't know when to stop their bluster. He's just another who has never learned when it is counterproductive to fling the bull.

Both were caught on poor-quality video taking bribes. She remains forever more comical, as she stuffed some in a brassiere while in a restaurant. Such is the stuff of The Onion and The Daily Show.

Yet, his $1,000 corruption was at a much lower level. Unfortunately for him, the feds had targeted her in a sting and she had pointed their briber to Turner, apparently as a share-the-wealth favor. Thanks a bunch, he must have surely thought many times since.

Also in the difference column, she has a long history of allegations and proof of financial misdeeds. His was a nibble on a federal fishing trip.

The big one though is his refusal to fess up. He insisted on taking the stand in his trial on one count of bribery and three of lying to the FBI about doing it. That was plain stupid and many of us speculate that the case was so weak and the link to tit for tat in the recording so questionable that he might have gotten off if his ego and self-righteousness not compelled him.

Oddly enough, he seems to have shown some self-preservation sense on the stand. While before and after his trial he alleged innocence, he did not risk perjury aloud in court. He repeatedly and incredibly claimed not to remember the bribe or the briber. He never said he didn't take a bribe, just that he didn't remember this, that and the other event and person.

That dodo did not fly with the public (except his diminishing cadre of supporters), the press, bloggers and more important, the judge. Guilty on four federal charges.

Turner is likely to spend months to a year or two in prison.

He never should have been the target of a sting operation. He had not earned it by history and allegations. Moreover, given that two of the most prominent black pols in the commonwealth were stung and convicted, his charges of racism have credibility that he personally lacks.

Sal


Oddly enough in counterbalance, a white white-collar criminal (innocent until proven otherwise, of course) will be before the dock. DiMasi is only the most recent of the past three Speakers forced from office after corruption charges. He should go to trial April 25th.

While to my liking, he also was a hero in the SSM battles, his level of accused corruption is in the millions of dollars. He allegedly help rig commonwealth contracts for his and his mates' benefit.

For many, a DiMasi conviction or plea bargain this year will never erase thoughts and feelings of the race-based nature of the Wilkerson and Turner stings. Yet, it is all to fitting that the more powerful and much lighter skinned Speaker goes before the same First District federal court. In his case, he drew Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf, for whom I have great respect.

DiMasi is certain not to play brinkmanship as Turner is. He'll cut a deal if it's obvious that he'd lose at trial.

Yet, his receiving probation, restitution to MA and a fine would not cut it here. We have a minnow and a trout headed for prison for corruption. He's big, honking tuna. As the expression went in the 60s, the whole world is watching.

Dirty White Collars


All three cases share the white-collar/federal-court thingummy. Their cases stagger haltingly and lethargically toward, into and through the system.

In the name of preparation by all concerned and a fair trial, these corruption cases can take longer than those of violent criminals looking at life sentences on the far end. The public may be eager for swift, certain justice. The system operates like my New Mexican relatives refer to as mañana scheduling; they'll get around to it tomorrow, some indefinite tomorrow.

That carries over to sentencing in such cases as well. Also, convicted or plea-bargained white collar criminals tend to ramble about living pretty normal lives for months or years as trials slowly come into view and sentencing eventually occurs.

A few just can't take the idea of prison. I think of my co-editor on a book project who resolved his pending incarceration with a death leap. I can't see either Turner or Wilkerson or DiMasi going through a window.

Instead, if all three end up with prison terms and fines, there'll be a few of lessons and opportunities.
  1. We have a long, filthy and no longer amusing history of corruption here as many states do. If pols see their peers in the can, they will likely be less willing to take bribes and funnel public funds for their benefit.
  2. The stink of the Turner sting could well force evaluations of the misuse of the FBI, U.S. Attorneys and their ilk of such operations. Particularly when there is a fair argument that racism played here, the POTUS and Justice Department shots should give some direction about doing the real work in uncovering and prosecuting the clever and dirty pols instead of creating crimes through temptations and entrapment.
What's almost certain not to happen is equalizing treatment for white-collar criminals with others. Their indictments, trials and punishments take much longer and have much greater latitude for prosecution and sentencing.

Like Jean Valjean and his stolen loaf of bread, misdeeds of ordinary folk receive swifter and surer punishment than those of power and influence. How odd that so many in the public are eager to demand fast and harsh dealing with petty and violent criminals when as a group they already face that much more frequently than pols and business leaders who are corrupt.

Saturday, January 01, 2011

Turner/Darling and the Daddy Ploy

Home rule...doesn't that sound empowering? Don't count on it, boys and girls.

Massachusetts continues to stifle and subjugate cities and towns with this archaic, paternalistic set of laws and procedures. Just now, ousted Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner is making a last effort to hide behind this illogical and demeaning atavism.

Let's call it as it is. The legislature has kept the power to run any municipality as it sees fit. Cities and towns can't raise their own money or make any single fundamental change to their governance without the General Court's approval. Home rule means the GC rules.

If Boston or any town wants any change to the way it works, it must plead with the legislature. If the lawmakers feel like it, they will set up an ad hoc comission to look at the municipality's whole charter. Then if the comission approves the entreaty, it may allow the change.

Any change? Go through it all again!


This odious process arose again in the Council's special meeting to consider Turner's status after he was convicted a few months ago of four felonies related to accepting a piddling $1,000 bribe two years ago. Then his friend Councilor Charles Yancey showed his hand in setting up the current drama. He opined that if the body expelled Turner for his convictions, there'd be a lawsuit.

He, Turner and Turner's pro bono lawyer, Chester Darling, hold that the Council has no power to toss one of its own. Instead, they claim that it would have to go to Big Daddy GC, go through the home rule process and get permission. The outline of the history of the expulsion is in the suit that Darling filed here.

In contrast and to me far more logical and legal are the positions of the city's corporation counsel, William Sinnot, and then body president, Michael Ross. Read the material Ross distributed before the special meeting to see the justification for acting like adults. The short version is that when the feds indicted Turner, the Council realized they had no procedure in place for such cases. They researched and discussed this at length and as a body. They turned to their existing powers for the Council to decide who could be a member. The body voted unanimously (including Turner) to make this process a Council rule for the current year. Then when Turner was convicted on all four felonies, they followed the procedure by holding the mandated hearing and voting over two thirds to oust Turner.

Many note that when Turner gets his sentencing hearing on January 25th in federal court, he is certain to receive prison time. A single day in prison triggers a state law that removes elected officials in such circumstances.

Yet as certain as that is to happen, it does not deal with this dreadful home-rule mess. The fact is that city and town governments should not be treated like minor children by the legislature. Sure, they have to be limited in making regulations or other acts that would conflict with state statutes or commit the state financially, but those are already covered by other limits and case law.

It is singularly offensive that Yancey, Turner and Darling would take this approach. Now that they have, the best outcome would be for the hearing official, Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf of the First District of the U.S. Court to let them have it. It will not be adequate for him to decide simply that the procedures the Council follows were proper. The decision should also find that the city governing body does not have to return to the legislature for any application of procedures already in place under the existing charter.

Even if that happens, the home-rule skunk remains in the basement. General Law 43B needs serious updating. The people who run municipalities should not be treated like ill behaved kindergartners. Instead, Massachusetts needs to make clear its guidelines and the legislators should spend their time doing something useful instead of playing micromanaging parent.


Tags: , , , , , , ,