Friday, January 06, 2012

Dorcena Answers Why Him


Will Dorcena will have to sustain his energy, commitment, focus and voice for nearly two years non-stop. He must perfect a quick, powerful, memorable, convincing front-stoop speech to let him get 20 or more households a day to 1) listen to him, 2) believe his platform is better, and 3) think he has a shot at winning. In addition to running his business while supporting wife and two kids, he'll have to find the time to woo donors who are not afraid to be associated with a would-be usurper.

Dorcena does not attack Menino or the administration by claiming sins and crimes. He makes a much harder pitch of missed opportunities, lazy management, lack of vision, and misplaced priorities. The immediately compelling drama of accusations of graft, nepotism and such are much easier sells than appeals to honest accounting. Moreover, he counts on voters to want to understand were the city's money comes from and where it goes. He also expects them to vote.

He does have a worthy personal tale — Haitian American from a rough part of Boston, who stayed away from street trouble, got a bachelors from BC and masters from Babson, started his successful business, and had loads of volunteer work and civic involvement. He's believable when he says, "We know what the problems are," and "When I was 9, I knew who the bad guys were."

In systemic terms, he says the city administration is not "doing the work."

Direct Challenges


While Dorcena is personally positive, he has an edge that may cut Menino. Foremost is a reflection of another side of Dorcena's personality — from his own experience and observations, he's very much an up-by-the-bootstraps guy. He expects the youth and others he's mentored to follow his hard work and firm morals example. Thus, one of his campaign refrains is "They haven't done the work!"

Short of accusing him of a felony, few statements should rile Menino as much. He knows he is hard working, but of course, Dorcena's point is that the important work is not political per se but that which produces those results of better schools, lower unemployment and less crime.

I've never seen a politician, even Bill Clinton, who enjoys politics as much as Tom Menino. For a couple of small examples outside City Hall. At his annual street parties on July 12th, the anniversary of his taking office when Ray Flynn left, he stands for hours in the middle of Chesterfield Street greeting all comers. There are thousands who come to praise him, as well as get free hot dogs and ice cream cones. He knows and chats up nearly everyone. He answers any questions, political or personal. He is indefatigable. Likewise, at the sub-neighborhood citizens' meetings around May, he grips and quips with all. Typically, he personally hands out pots of marigolds and other window box flowers. In one I attended in Readville, I think he knew every single person in his large neighborhood. He greeted all by name and asked about other family members by name. He clearly loved every second of it. That's a lot of work.

Yet, Dorcena started contrasting himself with City Hall when he ran for Councilor. He made it plain then as now that he thinks he:
  1. Works harder than anyone else
  2. Works on the right goals
  3. Will doggedly do whatever it takes to get it done
He also is huge on open government, particular fiscal transparency. Perhaps befitting his MBA, he stresses money and how it relates to priorities and accomplishments. For example, when asked at his announcement whether the city money was going to the right places, he said, "Before I can even answer the question of whether money is short (in a given area), we need an accounting of where it goes, who's getting it. You can live and die by that and you can make better decisions."

He pledges smarter use of resources, but always starting with measurements, how the money is spent compared with previous years. Then he seemed to channel MA Treasurer Steve Grossman, promising the city's checkbook online, and not just salaries. He acknowledged, "It's going to make a lot of people uncomfortable when you get to see where every penny is going, but be uncomfortable. I'm OK with that."

That may be a good sell, if presented right. Honestly, politicians like the concept of transparency as a campaign issue better than the public. It's well enough to say everything will be open to view. Getting residents to do that viewing and analysis is harder than getting them to the polls. You could hand a voter a printout of say, 300 pages of the Boston schools budget, including the hidden 30%, and a few in 100 might even open the report.

"Only real transparency will wake up the electorate," said Dorcena. "So they can know exactly what your elected officials and what your government is doing with your money." Of course, it may well be enough if more data are available, more public discussion takes place, and an involved subset of residents participates.


Hands-On Pledge


His accounting/management nerdiness aside, he has good stories and clear problem definitions. He puts his messages in understandable terms as well.

He has a plan for dealing with the perennial problem of locals not getting the many construction jobs here, for example. "We have a Boston jobs policy but it's not really followed to the tee," he said. He would work with unions to help them recruit directly from the neighborhoods, as well as with the unemployed to get them to apply for union membership and be ready for the openings.

For education, as many pols, he decries that Boston has so many important universities, schools local high-school grads are not equipped to enter or succeed in. As he put it, "A kid who lives in Mission Hill can walk to Northeastern, but he can't get in and his brother can't get in and his sister can't get in. It's not right and it has to change and if I'm the mayor of Boston, it will."

As far as fixing that, some of the solutions will be seeing where the money comes from, where it goes, and how it can be spent to maximum efficiency. The other part is a veiled slam at the current and past City Hall administrations. Back to his central theme, he said on education, "The reason we're not seeing the results is that the work isn't being done."

His pledge here is similar to what it is in policing and other city functions. While he's a union supporter who in turn had the Boston Teachers Union endorsement in his last race, he believes the Mayor needs to be hands on in key areas.

As he put it for schools, "These are some important fights that need to be had with the Boston Teachers Union on behalf of the kids." He said mayors and councilors typically get in office only to step back to avoid fighting with the unions. He claimed that in contrast, "If the decision is being made on behalf of the kids, I'll fight all day. That will piss a lot of people off, but that' s OK, because it's a fight worth fighting for."

Likewise, at his announcement, he waxed philosophic about the ephemeral nature of life. "While I'm here I've got to do everything I can to make make sure that the right decisions are being made on behalf, for the future of the city. And that if that means leaving the fifth floor to go and meet directly with the president of the Boston Teachers Union, the president of the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association, meeting directly with a City Council member in the district of Jamaica Plain, I will do that."

He contrasted himself with typical pols in his belief that it would be his duty to manifest his vision. More rhetorically, he said, "Enough words. Enough gamesmanship...Speeches are great. Words are nice, but at the end of the day, it's the work."

He also has terrific faith in the public to be interested in both the concepts and details, interested enough to participate. He key idea here is that if people have an understanding of and say in big things, that comes with buy-in.

He used expanded gambling as an example. That was also as close as he has gotten in directly attacking Menino. He said, "I know the Mayor is whole hog, 100MPH pushing for the casino to go into East Boston. That's something I intend to fight every day in this campaign."

His posture returns to the theme of involving the public, revealing the particulars of an issue, and going to widespread discussion and buy-in. While seeming to be the essence of democracy, that is also tricky. It relies on residents being willing to learn about an issue and discuss it. All too often here as elsewhere, the same few whiners, nitpickers, loudmouths and the occasional visionary attend public meetings to listen and speak.

He firmly believes that a casino or slot parlor in any Boston neighborhood would deeply affect the whole city. Thus, all the citizens need to know the particulars of any proposal. Yet, he also admitted that even after a discussion, that the decision might be the same as the Suffolk Downs options favored by the Mayor. That would be OK with Dorcena, who said that if that was supported by the majority after a full discussion, "Then its chances of success will be that much greater."

Another area where he faults the administration is not doing enough to get poor kids off the streets and into colleges or careers. Among his plans were he elected would be to replicate the Summer of Opportunity program he worked with at John Hancock. It would pick 40 to 50 at-risk kids identified from the gang unit, train and mentor them, get them jobs in fields they want and have abilities in, and as he put it, "help them see that the world is bigger than their immediate block."

Here he notes that we have many strong companies in Boston that receive tax breaks and other city benefits. He said that the right leader in the Mayor's office could expand that type of program.

Spending Smart


His key example set for money not spent smartly has been the troubled trio of Dorchester, Roxbury and Mattapan. These neighborhoods always seem to have lowest-achieving schools, the most dangerous streets, and the highest unemployment levels.

Yet as he started his campaign announcement with, "There's a serious push to close community centers, close libraries and close schools. Crime and violence are prominent in our neighborhoods to the point where it's the norm. And many decision continue to be made without public scrutiny or participation. We need a strong leader in Boston who will fight for the people of this city and fight for these decisions that are in the best interest of us as a collective and not just a few."

He cited the" musical-chairs" efforts to shuffle school around. In fact, he said in general the School Committee decisions can harm more than help children and parents.

He would eliminate the appointed School Committee, replacing it with an elected one, or perhaps a hybrid with a few appointed slots to ensure that a few educational experts were on the board.

He would further limit the office of mayor with term limits. From Mayor through Congress he believes, "We'd get better government, we'd get more honest elected officials if we had term limits," he said, adding that if you are in office 15 or 20 years, "you become the seat."

He said, "Two terms is plenty for the office of mayor. Two terms and I'm walking out of there. I don't even need you to swing the foot for the boot."

Series Note: This ended up taking on its own life. I attended Dorcena's announcement. There is this post on his platform and there will be another on how he sees his campaign. I am intrigued about whether this early candidacy raises interest and money, and whether it colors the entire election.


Tags: ,   

Thursday, January 05, 2012

Will of 10,000 Doors


The next knock you hear may be Will Dorcena. He's talking of going to tens of thousands of Boston doors in the next 600 plus days. He's announced his run for Boston Mayor in the 2013 election.

In case you've forgotten two months ago, he came in sixth on a ballot of seven for the four at-large Boston City Council slots. It was his first run for public office and he even got in late. His 8,739 votes were about a third to a quarter of those of the four incumbents who were re-elected.

Assuming our longest-serving Mayor ever, Thomas Menino, in his fifth four-year term, runs again, the big question from the outside is what chance could Dorcena have? Let us pause to replay Cassius' words in another Will's Julius Caesar:

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world 
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about 
To find ourselves dishonourable graves.

Not only is this Will not in that mood, but he also said he'd run the same campaign whether Menino is in or not. He said at his announcement this morning at the Reggie Lewis Center that he won't have the money or GOTV machine that the Mayor has, but he intends to win by connecting with voters on doorsteps and in living rooms one-to-one, one at a time.

That certainly has worked in various times and places. Locally though, recent visit-'em-all types Doug Bennett and Sean Ryan fared poorly in Council races. Those with big organizations and healthy bank accounts beat them.

I'll do a future post on Dorcena's positions in detail. He joined us on Left Ahead last year. He covered much of the same ground, many of the same topics. Today, he was consistent in the issues he stressed and his solutions to our problems in that show. These also appear on his Council campaign site. Problem/solution statements that seemed overly ambitious for a Councilor make much more sense in a mayoral context.

His Facebook page is already converted to his new candidacy. His eponymous website surely will soon.

The punchlines include:
  • Will Dorcena is in for Mayor for 2013
  • He intends to win on shoe-leather, retail campaigning
  • He promises 10,000 or more visited in all 22 precincts in a little over 600 days
  • He wants an elected school committee (or a hybrid if that will guarantee ed experts)
  • He pledges two terms and out — he believes in term limits for Mayor
  • He wants all city expenses public, including the quarter billion school budget portion currently hidden
  • He says we can't even know how much money we have or how to deploy it without full, open accounting
  • He wants all major decisions, like casino siting, fully open to public view and comments
He's sure to rile Menino with his evaluation of the state of the city, including:
There's a serious push to close community centers, close libraries and close schools. Crime and violence are prominent in our neighborhoods to the point where it's the norm. And many decisions continue to be made without public scrutiny or participation.
We need a strong leader in Boston, who will fight for the people of this city and fight for these decisions that are in our best interest as a collective and not jut the few.
In a future post, I'll break down his positions a bit more and quote more from his announcement. It'll also be time to ask him back on Left Ahead in his new role.

By the bye, there may or may not be a previously announced 2013 mayoral candidate. In August at his 50th birthday party, entrepreneur and TOUCH radio co-founder Charles Clemons said he'd be in the race. I can't find any evidence of a campaign in print or online material and sites beyond the initial DOTNEWS coverage.

Series Note: This ended up taking on its own life. The second post was on his platform. The third is on his campaign strategy. I am intrigued about whether this early candidacy raises interest and money, and whether it colors the entire election. 

Tags: ,  

Sudden POTUS Confidence

That Obama guy, to put it crassly, looked down to find some 'nads. He used recess appointments to empower two essential parts of government. GOPers had long ignored both laws passed by Congress and the clear will of Americans in refusing to appoint enough members of the National Labor Relations board for a quorum or a head to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau so it could function at all.

In a most pleasant surprise, the POTUS fixed both. May this presage more courageous, rational actions!

The vid below is from the Maddow show, replete with Administration guest to detail the actions.








Tags: ,  

Wednesday, January 04, 2012

Dorcena and Da Mare

Where's our BULLETIN...BULLETIN... flash?

Will Dorcena will announce his candidacy for Boston mayoralty tomorrow (TH 1/5) at 11 AM at the Reggie Lewis Track and Athletic Center in Roxbury Crossing.

He was coy when we chatted over coffee last week, but he did say stay tuned.

He recently ran for an at-large City Council seat, his first political go. I returned his yard sign and added it to the neat stacks on his porch. I'll be intrigued to see how he reworks them to make his happy face work for a mayoral run.

We did talk with him in June about his Council candidacy. That gives a sense of his hopes for Boston and his vitality. Listen to that show here.

He said when he called that he'll work hard for 21 months for the job. That's easy to believe.

I'll be down there tomorrow to see what he promises and to report back. Honestly, competition this early, this enthusiastic, can only increase the dialog and fun.


Tags: , 

Warren Keeps Getting Sharper


For such a thin woman, Elizabeth Warren's handshake is astonishingly strong. It matches her intense gaze, focused attention and full, clear responses to each person — a.k.a. voter — she touches. She couples her sincerity and energy to vast knowledge and analysis.There's no political or economic question you could ask that she hasn't already considered.

Last evening at Florian Hall, I saw and heard her engage about 300 as a group and then one at a time. She owned the room every second.

Disclaimer: At Left Ahead, several candidates for the U.S. Senate seat up in 2012 joined us. That includes two still in the race, Marisa Defranco and Warren. We found the former powerful and with a strong platform, and were even more impressed with the latter.

I've heard and seen Warren personally a few times since last summer, before she officially announced. Of course, she's also been on talk shows as well as in media interviews. I went last night to catch the evolution of her stump speech and how she worked a larger group. Afterward, we chatted just a minute. When I complimented her on the advances in her presentation, she gave that winning little grin and said, "Yup. I've been working on it."

She's gone far beyond the too-often-repeated phrases like growing up "on the ragged edge of the middle class." She's ready to bring values campaigning to a contest and national conscience where values has been a code word for excluding, hindering and harming other Americans.

Click the under-2-minute clip below to hear her wrap-up last evening. The previous hour had detail and background, but here she rouses the crowd with vision of both a past and future America. Her values include opportunity for all and clear steps how to make that happen. As she put it, "What kind of people are we and what kind of future are we going to build?...This is our moment in history!"

Listening to her, I noticed the obvious, that she won't have to lie or generalize. Unfortunately for Sen. Scott Brown, in his two years since winning the special election, he has not advanced laws to help our troubled nation. In a clear record, he voted down all three jobs bills to protect the tax breaks for those making over $1 million a year. Moreover, in interviews and public appearances, he is wont to say he isn't sure about this or that.

Head to head, there'd be no competition. I'd bet that she has 30 IQ points on him, carries a huge bag of knowledge, and is plain about both the problems and the solutions for what ails America.

Yet in this first real test in a post-Citizens United world, we know the mailboxes, email boxes, doorknobs, and most of all airwaves and cable will drip with political venom. It's highly likely she'll be the Dem to run in November. There's certainty that her supporters will do nasty work in revealing Brown's record, and no doubt that the other side will be far worse. I guess that the Brown side will have five to ten times as many millions to attack her. I don't have to guess from what we've seen already that his supporters won't bother with truth or anything verifiable. Theirs will be emotion, particularly fear based, lowest-common-denominator spots.

The best news for her side has two plies. She's tough, can take the attacks, and will call out the lies. Also, she has a clear platform of short-term and long-range goals, with the ways to achieve them. Brown? No, nothing. The cliché is that attack ads work, but it's also true they don't always decide the result.

Refined Roughness


Warren's also been working on presenting her personal story. Brown can stretch and fake his upbringing (absentee executive dad, Tufts's education, and very brief money troubles for his divorced mom). Warren has real experiences that most of America, far less privileged than Brown, can relate to personally.

Her mother answered phones at Sears when her maintenance-crew dad had a disabling heart attack. She worked as a baby sitter at 9, waitress at 13, and earned her way through public university for teaching and law degrees — with a kid, her own divorce, and a remarriage. She and her hubby teach at Harvard Law, but as she put it, she "scratched my way" there.

She also has compelling sibling tales of one brother who had 288 Vietnam combat missions, another who has been a serial entrepreneur (whom Republicans would call a "job creator" except he actually did that).

She has actual struggles overcome. She can even note that she literally hung out her attorney's shingle in front of her house when she passed the bar, nine months pregnant and thus unemployable. She kept the shingle to remind her of what determination can bring.

So, from the listening tours in the living rooms of MA, she's watched and heard what voters care about. As she put it last night when she started out personal, "I think you have the right to know the heart of anyone who's going to represent you."

Past and Future


Warren has the other personal advantage of being a boomer. She grew up when the positive effects of economic reforms and laws made for the commonweal were still strong. She could work her way through public college and earn out her loans by teaching, for example.

She does not gloss over that period either. She says that women, blacks, Latinos and others were not yet welcome in many places and to many jobs. She notes that nation had laid the track with white men that then led to opening up more education and employment opportunity for all...until the terrible lawmaking from the 1980s that nibbled and chomped away at the post-Depression stability.

Refreshingly, she speaks of the related values. She wants us to stop subsidizing "those who have already made it," and instead invest in education, jobs and infrastructure. She provided a list of specific investments that would support those, thus bring back the ideal of an America of opportunity for all that she grew up knowing.

I have no doubt that in debates, or those dreadful debate-like-objects known as forums, she'd skunk Brown. She has specific proposals for clear aims. She accomplished more in her appointed position that led to the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau than Brown has in his entire MA and U.S. Senatorial career.

Yet debates won't be the only factors in this election. Attack-ad weight will surely go to Brown, but she's smarter, more credible and far more humane than he and will win the personal appearances. Fortunately for her, she had only the commonwealth and not the whole nation to cover for this one. She also has an amazing level of energy.

It's possible that MA voters will go with the incumbent, fearing change and fantasizing that the always failing GOP economics lies really will work this time. I wouldn't bet on it. She's hot stuff.


Tuesday, January 03, 2012

Warren Working DOT

Have no doubt, Elizabeth Warren is no mousy professor. She owned Florian Hall in Dorchester tonight. Maybe 300 were there for a stump speech and Q&A. One 3-year-old climbing all over her mother made her little coughs. Otherwise the room was quiet...except when they applauded vigorously.

I'll give a full report tomorrow, replete with a sound clip or two after I edit the digital recording. The short of it is that she's getting better by the week.

Afterward, I did hang around, eavesdropping on her answers to the many who had to, as the expression goes, touch the hem of her garment. She did turn to me and I found myself trying to apologize for causing her trouble when she and I bantered about being labeled hicks up here in Yankeeland, after her 17 and my 32 years here.

She'd have none of it and dismissed the lame GOP effort to latch onto that. Oddly though, she'd remembered that I didn't have yellow glasses the last time we met face to face. Moreover, when I told her that her message was fuller and more fleshed out, she grinned and said, "Yup. I've been working on it."

It showed. She had been dynamic in the early version in August on her pre-announcement listening tour. She's even better now.

Sunday, January 01, 2012

Yes, Virginia, There Is An Occupy


Mirabile dictu! Shortly before the Grand Procession of Boston’s First Night (for God’s sake, don’t dare use the term loosely; they sue), the Parish Café had a couple of bar stools on the street side open. My wife and I grabbed two and got to see the parade perfectly, above the crowd and with drinks in hand.

My Flickr feed has some so-so snaps of the afternoon.

Of greater interest and a pleasant surprise to us was the Occupy Boston presence. They were well dispersed, as in the Common, Copley and more. They handed out 99% buttons, flyers, and conversation. In the Common, a little wagon symbolized the Occupy tents…and the mobility of the movement.

A good counterpoint to the crazed reactionary response to OWS and localized ones appears in the currentPhoenix. Chris Faraone writes starkly and in detail about the evolution of Occupy and of the many proofs that the fantasy and hope that this is a leaderless, pointless, non-movement that is dead already are loopy. Dream on 1% and media.

As anyone who’s paid any attention or gone downtown in Manhattan, Boston or elsewhere would have predicted, the Occupy folk were cool about it all. They know absolutely that they have altered the political dialog. That’s not a mist about to dissolve.



Tags:  

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Life's Not Fair, Scotto


Let me get this right, Sen. Scott Brown actually has a highly developed, differentiating skill — whining!

He wants us to know:

  • It's unfair for Elizabeth Warren to raise campaign funds
  • It's unfair for reporters and columnists to praise her reasoned arguments

As Uncle Scar told young Simba in the Lion King, "Life's not fair now, is it?"

Here you have it. If you ever felt tempted to say all politicians are the same, think on Brown. The obvious difference across the left and right wings is plain enough. Modern right wingers act with FoxNews-level ethics. What's fair for them is forbidden for lefties.

At its most absurd, think of fund raising. A couple of months ago, when Elizabeth Warren was announcing that she'd run, she was rewarded with a quick $3 million plus set of contributions. Brown with over a year and a half in office had over $10 million in hand. Yet he cried foul.

Like Eddie Haskell in Leave It To Beaver or a current version, say Bill O'Reilly, Brown wants the edge only on his side. His campaign even tried to depict him as being bullied and ganged up on by out-of-state contributors and special interest funds. This came despite the huge support he got and gets from right-ring PACs and financial-industry big shots. He votes on regulating his major contributors, but how unfair if she gets support from any organized group or wealthy contributor.

Today in dueling vignettes, the Globe and Herald run variations on his puerile and illogical whining. Itty-boo, Scotty me lad.

In the Herald, it's a Palin-style screed that the media are all against him and all for her. He can't get an honest article and he gets all the tough questions. I guess he doesn't read or listen to the media.

Of course, all but the delusional and unread know the lies there. He got a free ride in his campaign and for over a year afterward. Even the allegedly left leaning (I snort at that winger distortion where non-GOP-worshiping neutral becomes biased) media gave him great latitude and lauded his promis endlessly. When he blew that through repeated duplicity, grandstanding, and overly plain efforts to hurt all but the wealthiest Americans, he began to get overdue criticism. Well, boo hoo, boo hoo.

Moreover, from the moment Warren began her exploratory meetings with voters, she'd gotten razzed, hassled and grilled non-stop from all media. Now many of us lefty bloggers respect her positions and like her personally, but she's gotten the hairy eyeball and pointy, probing fingers of examination far, far more than that Brown character.

Then at the Globe, he's even more absurd. He stands on top of his mountain and screams that he's the real underdog. Honest to Cornelius Vanderbilt, we'd have to be totally daft to believe that.

Brown has floods of wealthy GOP types eager to keep their thumb in the eye of Massachusetts and the memory of the Kennedys by electing Brown to a full term. He already has over $15 million now in the bank. There's no doubt that his side and those supporting it surreptitiously through super-PACs will outspend Warren's backers many, many times. Underdog, my double wings!

Alas for the self-declared victim Brown, he'll have to do with ideas and proposals in this race. Warren will bring it. Coupled with his disgraceful voting record and total lack of initiatives to help us out of our terrible times, his lie mechanisms will be spinning to the melting point.

No, wee Scotty, you are no underdog, you have not gotten roughed up by the media, and you deserve no one's sympathy. Unlike the clumsy campaigner Coakley who handed you an easy victory in the special election, Warren will make you earn this post in 2012.

Without an intellectual and ethical double transplant, you're in trouble.


Tags: 

Friday, December 23, 2011

Whose Voice Is That?


Using clogged traffic time on the way home Wednesday afternoon, I punched up WBUR for All Things Considered. I briefly heard myself bantering with Elizabeth Warren in a Tovia Smith segment, Mass. Senate Race a Battle Over Who's More Populist.

At the bottom here is an audio snippet (requires flash) of Smith taking an audio snippet from an October Left Ahead show with Elizabeth Warren. The now infamous elite-hick/hicks-for-Elizabeth banter occurred at the start of where she came into the 40 minute program. She made other remarks about populism, not only from her own upbringing, but in historic, economic and political American context.

An audio of Tovia Smith using an audio of Left Ahead using an audio of Elizabeth Warren on an audio of the show on BlogTalkRadio. How recursive can we get? Perhaps Left Ahead needs to introduce an edited audio of Smith using our edited audio. I'll settle on the snippet below to give context.

Indeed, that was what came to me as I listened to myself. When I worked newspapers and magazines and the few times I've been on TV or radio, I fell into my J-school training attribution. I'd say whom I was quoting or citing. If there were a book or other checkable reference, it went there too. Of course in modern times, I insert links as I do here. This takes negligible time and space, and mean a lot to the audience.

Some readers and listeners want to know more. Others are cynical or distrusting. Both types want to see for themselves. Even if a majority of your consumers are passive, be respectful to the group with curiosity, time and emotional or intellectual needs.

In my NPR experiences, they don't, at least with such bottom feeders as bloggers and podcasters. I am not sure whether they consider us some level of competition or merely unworthy of professionalism and respect.

Similarly, a few year ago, a BBC reporter did a brief phone interview with me on companies blocking blogging during work hours. She cited me by location and name, but not by my blog's URL. This time, Smith's coverage reduced me to "a fellow Oklahoman, who was interviewing her."

Setting aside vanity, I think as an NPR listener and as well as online and print newshound, I would have found it useful to know:
  • That the interviewer was local to Massachusetts, where the race is
  • The context and vehicle of the interview, in this case that it was an internet show, a podcast
  • The name of the show and URL, at least leftahead.com
  • The name of the interviewer
Amusingly enough, her disdain would not prevent the curious from ID'ing the site and interviewer. This two-month old story was widely covered in local and national news, online, cable and print. Most reports identified both Left Ahead and me, and many linked to the podcast.

Breeding is free



Including the omphaloskepsis, we at LA deserve the same courtesy we provide sources. I'm sure Tovia Smith, WBUR and NPR expect and likely demand citations for their work. As well as considerate of their readers, doing so would be professional as well-mannered. Breeding is free, but not spontaneous.

Come to pay closer attention though, the most recent WBUR quotes from me before this were only a little better cited. When Bianca Vázquez Toness used me to stir the pot under Boston City Councilor Ayanna Pressley, she named me, but neither this blog nor LA. Of course she was highly selective in what she used; she had called me to extract one criticism I had already written. Having been a reporter, I understood that and won't even consider an out-of-context claim. She was hunting for a specific beast and brought it down with a clean shot.

Unlike Toness, Smith is not ahead of the news. She appears from a scan of her stories with their timing, to follow the elephants on the parade route, gathering up after them. While I prefer fresher reportage, I can see the drive to vary existing work. In that piece comparing Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren's plain-folk campaigning, She walked a very deep path. An internet search would show how rutted it is.

Oddly though, there seems to be bias against Warren. For example, she repeated the misinformation about "In his green pickup truck and worn-out barn coat, Brown stresses his hard-knocks upbringing raised by a single mom on and off welfare." She must have read or heard that elsewhere. At this stage in coverage of such an old story, here piece would have served readers better noting that Brown did not wear that expensive jacket until he wanted it as a campaign prop and that his truck was for carrying hay, tack and the sort for his daughter's horse. Neither is exactly behavior of plain folk.

Likewise, he slams the woman who worked her way from nothing to become a Harvard Law professor by saying he didn't go to Harvard. Smith could well note how much better off his family was come college time and that he went to Tufts, in the same price range and with a similar cachet to Harvard.

Instead, it was an old story, told with no new information or analysis. Yet, for those who hadn't paid attention, or read or heard it yet, it was OK.

When I realized that she had dissed us at LA, I did try newsjacking by thanking her on the NPR and BUR post. Of course, I included what she did not, a link to the whole 40-minute show, for listeners who might want to think for themselves. I logged in with a real name, likewise for those who like to vet.

BUR's post left the comment. NPR moderated it out, leaving instead a message saying it violated discussion rules. My comment was simply informative and not in the obscene, insulting or other classes. The only thing they could mean was the rule:
Feel free to share your ideas and experiences about religion, politics and relevant products or services you've discovered.But this is not a place for advertising, promotion, recruiting, campaigning, lobbying, soliciting or proselytizing. We understand that there can be a fine line between discussing and campaigning; please use your best judgment -- and we will use ours. 
So my whine is that it's one-way. They would expect, but not give, attribution. I didn't have a choice on this one, where Smith simply snatched my audio without asking, much less citing. Next time one of their reporters calls to use me though, I'll demand professional citation. It appears they need to be reminded.





Tags:  

Thursday, December 22, 2011

When News is Old


It's not easy being fresh. Newspaper columnists, reporters of all media, and of course, preachers have a rough time producing original material.

Some media sort gave up a long time ago. The agony aunts and uncles among them take leads from readers and chums on a sad personal tale. Talking heads on TV and radio have it easy — writers print out stuff they read off paper or prompters.

If you want to see and hear to good stuff, hot, fresh and innovative, head over to Chris Lovett's shop. He and his jolly gang of BU communications students and staff ID features, do real video reporting, and sit with singles and groups for terse, innovative interviews. Chris links to some on Facebook, to others on the NNN page, and others on his Vimeo area. This not only goes on day after day, but it is original and insightful.

If anything, Chris is overly fair. He often is the idea midwife, as in Socrates' maieutic method of questioning guests. He's so savvy and has such deep perspective that it must be tough for him to analyze without verbally smacking some guests around. He manages quite well.

That's rare to the point of being singular among news types. It seems at any given news cycle, they share and slightly vary maybe a dozen themes. They often draw on the same sources and stack their little reportage still life a little differently from what they have recently heard.

They are far from the only ones to do this. Hell, they're earning a living. Likewise, clerics, particularly Protestant preachers who have to write and deliver two to four sermons a month struggle with such fatigue and imitation.

From the pew, it may seem like 10 to 30 minutes of fresh material a week would be easy. Well, try that yourself, particularly if you are out visiting the ill, counseling the befuddled, conducting rituals, managing staff members, co-planning services including music and more.

For the unchurched and those have no cause to attend services in other churches, be aware that ministers habitually steal from one another. As with news themes, there seem to be a limited number to go around for those who have to deliver constantly. Fortunately for those with sermon block, ministers share sermons in many publications, and now in podcasts and on blogs. They give; they take.

The same topics spread around with very similar treatments. There's no foul here, unless you have reason to be in four different churches in a month hearing the same bit. Even some of those bear repeating. The seasonal revival of Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus, continues to work. Likewise, so do the more recent Who Moved My Cheese and You Be Glad at that star!

Attach no shame to a preacher who delivers the classics well. Folk who are wellsprings of fresh ideas are rarer than oases in huge, dry deserts.

Oddly for me though, I don't have writer's block. I could easily write multiple posts on my various blogs daily should I choose and thing my followers or stumblers-upon could take it.

I have many shortcomings. I immediately think of my lack of musical ability. I can't keep a tune or hit a note on command or keep a good rhythm clapping or dancing or play any instrument other than toys, such jug band ones as jaw harp, nose flute and of course, jug.

It was in college that I became aware that most folk have serious problems writing, largely through lack of ideas for topics. I helped teammates, classmates, roommates, and girlfriends. On the three-times-a-week college paper, I could supply a column for each, write news stories, and one year help the often weeping editor-in-chief by ghosting her weekly editorial when she blanked a hour before press time.

Today's internet world is great for swapping and stealing ideas though. Reporters and clerics alike can develop good searching skills (also difficult for some folk), so they have a solid place to start. You'd expect and hope that they don't cut and paste though.

This musing had a trigger last evening as I heard my voice on an NPR segment on WBUR. The reporter was flogging other folks' ideas about Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown. So, in the traffic tie-up, I listened to her treatment. More on this in the next post.


Tags: 

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Delicious GOP Self-Destruction

But that the latest, and only one of many, decisions by the House GOP will harm millions of us, their call to do a huge Christmas FU on payroll taxes and unemployment benefits would just be superb theater. Speaker John Boehner's calcified response — finger always on the NAY button — is guaranteeing Republican defeat in both the POTUS and Congressional results of 2012.

He astonishes on so many levels. Most obviously, to a nation that has screamed loudly and long that hampering, harming and hindering the middle-class and poor of us is in no longer acceptable, pulling such tricks again speaks only to political suicidal drives. Thank you, Boehner. Thank you, winger extremists. You have taken sure and easy victories and buried them under your dogmatic and doctrinaire tracts.

What's truly astonishing is not that the majority GOP in the House is hectoring Dems and the POTUS or beating up the majority of Americans (a.k.a. voters). Rather, they know from the history of the past decade plus and recent times that this backfires. Those of us who pay attention also know that the underlying economic ploys are God awful and plain stupid.

Instead, they seem to try using their catchphrases, like the big lies of greedy big shots being both job creators and magnanimously trickling down their huge tax breaks and profits to the plebes and workers. Sorry, kiddies, those have gone far beyond different interpretations of the same information and into the realm of fantasy and cruel disdain. Numbers alone show they are job destroyers who suck the wealth and even disposable income from the rest of us.

Now I'm left remembering that Lightnin' Hopkins saying, "I don't understand why people don't understand the way I do."

Consider though what Rachel Maddow so clearly presented last night about what Boehner's evil clowns are really doing.

Friday, December 16, 2011

Alas, poor yuck. I knew them well.

What would this holy season be without a hate-based fund-raiser from an inaptly named pro-family group? The Mass Family Institute has you covered, or rather smothered.

Consider the following spurious email from them, ending with a big honking DONATE button:


That's right, kiddies. after twisting the public-accommodations core of this transgender civil-rights bill around, the MFI shows what's it's always been about.

In the real world, pitching public accommodations as being about little girls in public toilets is outrageous dishonesty and dishonor. What's at issue here is a definable class of citizens who can still be legally denied access to hotel rooms, tables at restaurants (and yes lunch counters), or any other for-pay or open facility the rest of us can use — exclusively by who they are on the caprice of people who run a facility. It isn't about bathrooms or locker rooms or any such hoo-ha.

The MFI is simply another winger bigot group that tricks its dumb donors with emotional calls. It's about making money on the stupidity and ignorance of others. It's about paying the salaries and expenses of MFI staff.

Sure, it's disgusting and dishonest and hateful. They've been doing it for many years. While their membership plunges or dies off, they keep at it. This time around, they lost big in terms of the bulk of transgender rights passing into law.

Some MFI members may even be aware that cities (like Boston) and states that have had transgender protections for many years do not have the dire problems MFI swears will happen. MFI is not about facts or truth.

In a year or two, the accommodations piece will naturally follow. Then the few B&B and restaurant owners who quiver into helplessness or rage when they are unsure at first glance whether a customer is a man or a woman will have to suck it up. They'll have to, well, do as all the major religions like Christianity mandate, treat others as they would like to be treated.

Then the MFI staff might have to find something honest to do for a living. I wonder if they'll remember how.


Tags: 

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Not a Generational Thing


While selective essayists like Tom Brokaw love to pretend about The Greatest Generation, most of us know more to the story.

Of course, as a boomer, I am prey to the cliché of each generation disdaining the obvious flaws of the preceding one. We aren't short of examples, such as our parents' delusion that a never-ending post-WWII growth spiral would pay for their corporate and governmental excesses, and that the Vietnam was was wise, right and winnable.

Yet it is annoying and shameful that now that the boomers are pretty much in charge, they, that is we, are doing many of the same stupid things that the WWII, greatest/greediest generation did.

The warmongering of the elected boomers is stunning. We're not as crazy and hateful about homosexuals, so there's that. Polls are solidly convincing that when the WWII generation dies off, marriage equality will occur. They hated equality for African Americans, for women and now for gays. That'll be better soon and the states can fix those inane and vicious one-man/one-woman laws and amendments.

On the other hand, George Bush the Lesser and Barack Obama are the same on stripping away our rights and accustomed liberties. They both are monsters of awful effect.

For a decade or so, we figured that the intrusive, unconstitutional, dictatorial spying, wiretapping, and secret-police tactics belonged to the days of J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon. We boomers grew up tittering about commies under the bed and Tricky Dick's paranoia. Those are not limited to previous generations. Not by a long shot!

Boomer Bush with his Igor Chaney implemented a terrible reign of the inaptly named Homeland Security. The ramifications include as bad a set of laws and secret policing as we have seen since the British occupation in the colonial period. To his permanent, ineffable disgrace, Bush was wont to say if you have nothing to hide, you can't object to the spying, police bullying, and wiping out the powers of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Who needs habeas corpus when arbitrary whispers of terrorism trump the protections millions of died for from even before we formally were a nation?

We boomers grew up with a deep sense of our citizens' rights. Our history and civics classes found reinforcement in books, comics, TV and movies with morals about our rich set of liberties. We did learn along the way that they hadn't always applied to Native Americans, black folk, women, Asians and many other groups, nor to interracial couples and on and on. Yet, we saw how in one area after another, we had fixed those oversights, shortcomings, and legal bigotries.

However, we as a nation have an ingrained habit of electing exactly the Presidents who most despise and abuse those liberties boomers assumed we'd have. Long before he was prez, Nixon was Joe McCarthy's chief investigator on the House Committee on Un-American Activities, a.k.a. HUAC. That alone should have disqualified him from higher office. George Bush the elder was head spook at the CIA, which likewise should have kept a professional liar and sneak from the Oval Office. That Reagan fellow likewise was the dishonorable, dishonest, anti-free-speech/anti-liberty black list guy in Hollywood. Yet, he also became POTUS.

Each of those Presidents spit at and stomped on U.S. citizens' freedoms. There was always an excuse of the Cold War, 9/11 or whatever. Give up what defined America to stay alive, they'd tell us.

Now that Obama guy has done it repeatedly. The latest is surelyt as reprehensible as it gets, apparently done to solidify the POTUS power at the expense of the rest of us.

Glenn Greenwald at Salon has a frightening series on this. Check this current post and click to his background ones. The Levin/McCain bill that Obama signed has to be found unconstitutional, I say, but until it is, it allows indefinite detention of anyone suspected by undefined police types of terrorism leanings against this country, either here or overseas. That's right, boys and girls, anyone anywhere can be picked up and incarcerated without proof or defense for as long as the formerly freedom supporting U.S. agents feel like.

Thinking of Tricky Dick, how un-American can you get, Barack?


Tags: 

Sunday, December 04, 2011

Another Decal Wife Pressed On Stage

Finally...from the Atlanta JC newspaper comes the analysis I've been wanting to read. Jim Galloway writes about the tiny Gloria Cain playing the giant on stage behind her failed hubby Herman.

Alas and to the embarrassment of pols of both major parties from local to POTUS level, we have seen this far too many times. The wife of the puffball taken down by accusations or even verdicts of lying, stealing, philandering and all manner of ethical sins stands by while he makes excuses or outright lies yet again.

We were there with Gloria. At last for the present, the whole 23-minute speech is at the NYT. Watch the wife.

I let the whole spectacle splat on the windshield of news, in no small part to gauge body language of both of them. She's been married to this gonif for 43 years. He's made piles of money, which she could certainly separate him from if she chose divorce. Honest to God, his defiant statements continue to be fantastic tales for every obvious misdeed and character flaw. Those include multiple payoffs for sexual harassment, as well as reasonable and credible claim of a 13-year mistress relationship. He would have us, and Gloria, believe that his employer paid off employees for no particular cause and that he gave a woman many thousands of dollars for more than a decade just because he is a giving sort of guy.

Perhaps most insulting to us, to his supporters and to Gloria Cain is his recent tack expressed by his staff that any mistress would be a consensual and private matter. Say no more, and they mean say no more. Unfortunately, many on the left and right have pointed out he set himself up as a minister and values model, so he opened himself to just such comment. This reeks with the redolence of Newt Gingrich leading the impeachment against Bill Clinton for covering up receiving adulterous fellatio at the same time Gingrich was sleeping around on this deathly ill wife.

Men have their needs, but honor and honest don't seem to be among them.

To Gloria on stage, she did not betray her betraying husband. Like a cliché photograph, she stood full five paces behind Herman as he propped up his facade for 22-plus minutes. She applauded casually when the audience of supporters did. At only one point, shown in the screen cap above, she showed any animation by seeming to gesture in thanks to the supporters as Herman thanked them, and even her, again.

For the rest of the time, she was implacable, inscrutable. She did show for the theater, but ad libbed nothing.  She did not wear a cartoon smile as so many wronged wives have next to their pol hubbies (generally shortly before filing for divorce). She did not make any false display of enthusiastic support. Hers was the face of acceptance.

I assume she has gotten used to accepting quite a bit in 43 years of marriage to the huge, honking ego that is the dishonorable Herman. I also suspect that his self-indulgence has exceeded even her capacity. This is to be continued.

Who Knows Newt?

Creepy crawly lizard man, a.k.a. Newt Gingrich, sits atop the Iowa rock. Punditry pounces and pronounces that dropout Herman Cain's 8% of GOP voters slithered to the more attractive of the reptiles available.

The corollary to chant of the predictive chorus is that Dems smirk and salivate that Gingrich's candidacy. Shift to stage right to hear, "Mighty, mighty orator Obama. Nasty, nasty goader Gingrich will lay him low!"

My take is a bit different. If the POTUS is the Prez race debate champ, it is by default. The deeply flawed GOP candidates open their mouths to let dull winds from empty minds rush out.

Newt is indeed a risible selection. It seems the same majority of Republican (as wingers insist on calling Democratic voters and the party, Democrat voters/party, should they be Republic voters/party?) voters have sudden amnesia on why they found his despicable and unacceptable as either a candidate or even dinner guest.

Another corollary to his judgment is a new meme of MSM and bloggers alike — that GOP voters will forgive his dreadful basket of sins because he admits failings and claims he has been redeemed by God. Let us pretend for the moment that wingers are not so dull-witted.

That Newt fellow not only had known affairs when each of his first two wives were dreadfully ill — MS for one and cancer for another — he traded in those wives for younger models like they were sputtering cars at the end of the lease periods. This anti-marriage stance might seem to be at odds with the professed, if you pardon the expression, pro-family values of the right. However, none of us can keep track of how many winger pols and preachers have been proven fornicators and adulterers. We know only that when caught, they and their apologists are wont to say, "Oh, it's just like Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy."

Odd too is that Gingrich bills himself as a professor and scholar, hence an authority on all subjects domestic and foreign. Of course, his high scholarship was low-brow. He joined a fourth-rate school as an assistant professor of history, transferring to geography, and quit when denied tenure. His credentials are written on water.That doesn't stop him from making Herman-Cain-level claims that he'll bring the big ideas that will save us all.

Odder still is how the GOP voters are trying mightily to forget his many non-stereotypical conservative positions, as on immigration and climate change. He wriggled himself up to House Speaker before facing 84 ethics charges, and then resigning after his leadership led to a disastrous midterm House election and majority loss. Even now as he calls for prosecution of House Dems involved in any way with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, he denies that while taking millions from them himself in what he somehow convinces no one that he was a lobbyist for them.

Any voter who supports this newt Newt can only be grotesquely ignorant or splendidly delusional.

This calls for a variation on the Star Wars line, let the Newt win. Only good can come of it for the Dems next year.

Saturday, December 03, 2011

Cain Can't


So, boys and girls, the Hermanator terminated his shuddering run to top the GOP flops. I go for a long walk and Cain sneaks away.

An initial reaction is what wondrous spin, a.k.a. lies, will his former boosters make of it. Think of the dreadful Ann Coulter. It was only last week that she was spewing calumnies — aimed at the increasing set of women who said Cain had sexually harassed them and in that latest case had her as his mistress for 13 years. Coulter's masterpiece of spurious slander holds that:

  • Those who criticize Cain are racists
  • The women who accuse him must be lying because they don't have enough corroboration

The second angle is typical Coulter, typical winger and typical misogynist. Some claim Coulter's a woman, but that attitude is straight from when women were considered property. The attitude here used to be, as it still is in some countries, that rape isn't rape unless there were at least two witnesses to swear to it. Likewise,  it used to be and too often still is that sexual harassment, even physical advances, are not to be taken seriously without additional witnesses willing to testify.

Really, Ann? Herman is innocent if he was so clever as to cover his tracks, to make his worst moves in dark, parked cars, and make his sexual professions of desire or thanks in unrecorded phone calls? Really?

That's a common winger tactic, but particularly nasty here. We hear the lies nationwide on Fox and the likes of Malkin as well. Locally, we don't get much in Massachusetts beyond the state GOP and the RedMassGroup. They are prone to do the Pee-wee Herman I'm rubber/you're glue thing when their pols are guilty of adultery, bribery or corruption. They'll say that, well, Bill Clinton got fellatio from an intern and lied about it or that Jack or Ted Kennedy had affairs. These are not the droids you seek.

In contrast, I appreciated the folksy take last night on Politics Nation hosted by Al Sharpton. As we all waited the timing of Cain's quitting (sudden or a prolonged agony?), the Rev. Sharpton discussed the Rev. Cain without lies or hysterics.

The show's clearest and savviest response though was by guest Joe Madison (about 6:30 into this segment). Sharpton asked for his advice to Cain and heard, "Take a large piece of jewelry to y our wife and ask her for your forgiveness." He followed up immediately with "forget about the Presidential campaign" and try to salvage what's important, a 43-year marriage.

Whether Cain's wife dumps him is TBD. What we can be pretty sure of is that no winger commentators or pols will apology for anything, anytime, anywhere. They are as constant as the monsoon season.

Friday, December 02, 2011

No 2012 Ride on Marriage Horse


A few fools still try to ride the same-sex marriage horse. Nostalgia for the 2004 election alone may inspire this. Back in the Kerry/Bush-the-Lesser contest, fears of queers still played well nationally, and on the state level with the worst of them rushing anti-SSM laws and amendments.

The irrational, malicious and puerile do require much repetition over long periods to understand the obvious.

In this election cycle, splendid proof that we are finally catching up to the larger industrialized world includes how unimportant SSM is in debates and speeches. Out of the GOP clown car, only the craziest, that Bachmann person, is the atavism. While polls and election results show clearly that Americans have transcended this former issue, Michele alone clings to selective Old Testament justifications for discrimination.

As illustrated all to plainly in the news and via Huffington Post with video, Bachmann retreats to crazy talk even when quietly confronted by a high-school student Jane Schmidt.

Wake up, Michele! Kids struggle with and get same-and-different as well as fair-and-unfair early on. Repeating the big lie that we all have the same rights, so long as gay people marry folk of the opposite gender is dishonest and dishonorable on several levels.

Our disgraceful history has many blotches of crazy discrimination. Women couldn't vote or own property, white marriages to Chinese or black or other folk were prohibited, girls could be cheerleaders but not athletes, restaurant owners could refuse service by race or any other basis. We are finally approaching the enlightenment on homosexuals and their fundamental right to wed.

Yet elsewhere this time, SSM is a wee ripple in the pond. Previous loud haters like Rick Santorum seem to get it. If pressed, they'll say reflexively but quietly they're opposed to SSM or use some silly, disingenuous term like "traditional marriage," when they mean they want to appear anti-marriage, anti-family, and anti-adoption to those who would punish kids as well as adults to hurt, harm and hinder homosexuals.

Even our timid POTUS drags out his perhaps insincere statement of belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. Of course, he's run around this tree many times. As a lawyer, he clearly knows the differences between civil marriage and individual church ritual or doctrine. In the last election and his first term, he cowardly chose not to do the right thing, not to proclaim that SSM is a civil-rights issue. Assuming his reelection, will he finally show courage and leadership here? I bet yes.

Meanwhile, fortunately for nation and the larger political dialog, candidates have nothing to gain by Bachmann-style gay bashing. That is, if your pardon the expression, evolution.

Around the nation, slowly increasing numbers of states institute SSM. Sure, a large majority have those anti-gay/anti-SSM laws and amendments. Yet, it's likely California will join several populous Eastern states by re-instituting SSM within a year or so as court actions inch forward. That will fundamentally be the game, with the smaller, more primitive states either left to undo their discrimination blunders or perhaps a SCOTUS finding along the line of Loving v. Virginia, but for SSM.

Either way, it can't happen fast enough for me. Yet, I recognize that many people take a long time to come to terms with any change that first requires an emotional shift before they can hear reason. Meanwhile, we can be glad SSM is a non-issue this election cycle.

Monday, November 28, 2011

Barbed and frank Barney Frank


My immediate thoughts on reading that U.S. Rep. Barney Frank would not run for reelection were:
  • One fewer courageous progressives in Congress
  • The clarity of vision in the House will plunge
  • Some tiny minded winger in Sen. Scott Brown's mold may slither into the seat

Yet, the 71-year-old, 16 termer may well be doing the right thing for various other reasons. To the WaPo, he said candidly (his only mode) that his newly reconstructed district would be much more conservative and that at his age he thought he didn't have the energy level for that kind of prolonged contention.

There's one lesson. We see far too many in Congress tired of body, mind and emotion plugging along. We occasionally see the likes of a near dead, addlepated Sen. Strom Thurmond returning to office long after they can no longer serve any useful public duty. In contrast, Frank still has fire and wit and knowledge and, as needed, sense of outrage.

As soon as it became clear he'd announce today, the local winger papers and blogs piled on jealous vitriol. It was an early Christmas present and he should bear the responsibility for the economic collapse and recession. In reality, beyond such spite, he was a formidable force to gather the hate and fear of the right and the corporate lickspittles.

I should be so short-tempered. I am wont to Southern politeness and a UU wishy-washy desire to let people have their say before pointing out how wrong they are and why. He does not tolerate such inanity. He is quick to call B.S. on liars and frauds, be they committee witnesses or other Congressmen.

As such, there's lesson two for whoever follows him and to his peers. You frame the argument when you do not allow deceit and stupidity unchallenged into the debate. Although often funny, he may do that a bit too abruptly and with too intense a level of ridicule, but the end is the right one. Do not pretend that everyone's opinions are as right or as valuable as another's.

Frank has long been a bugbear to wingers. He is viper tongued, impatient, and of course, openly gay. He finds immorality and dishonor not in anyone's sexual orientation, rather in making many Americans go without so a few can play Scrooge McDuck.

We can at least hope that Frank has set the pattern for a few younger progressive pols...maybe even that one will step up in 2012.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Time to Make the Marriage

Yes, yes, yes, I am Mike Ball, but I'm a.k.a. massmarrier. That is, this blog sprung coming up on eight years ago from a double marriage-per-Massachusetts catalyst. Long-term friends asked me to solemnize their coupling at the same time the commonwealth's highest court was deciding whether marriage equality was the law here.

Now I'm still about the business of marrying folk. That's a bit of a pun, as I am a long term monogamous guy. I'm no Newt or Big Dog Clinton. No one puts asunder in our house.

Next month will mark solemnization number four. A buddy from several years back asked me to do the theater and signature for his eldest daughter. That will happen right after Christmas.

Originally, I'd figured to go one a year. First it was Kay and Paul, she I'd known long and well, socially and in church service. She'd followed me immediately chairing first Personnel when it meant figurative heads on the ground, job descriptions, and battles over benefits and salaries and then the Prudential Committee (the board). We'd fought far too many skirmishes and major battles not to be friends. She was also the one who knew that ordinary, non-ordained folk could perform marriages here, so long as you petitioned the governor's office.

The next year, Jasper, a much longer term friend, yea, back from college days in South Carolina, asked whether I would marry him and his partner Jay. We attended their civil ceremony in New Hampshire the previous year, before same-sex marriage was in place here. Like so many long-partnered homosexual couples, they wanted, well, equality in the form of marriage.

Next was the long spell. I tried to lure sandbox buddy Charles from Florida. He and partner Karl have been together almost as long as Cindy and I. Of course, a Massachusetts marriage means nothing to the satraps of Florida, but they intend to come here and have me solemnize their union as well.

Forget the dreadful, hateful lies of the self-styled pro-marriage/pro-family wingers. We who actually are pro-marriage and pro-family believe in the legal union for those committed to each other. We thus have to believe in marriage equality.

In the middle, I figured I was out of the marriage business. That in itself is a funny term. Of course, I charge no one. In fact, I pay the $25 application fee for the one-day designation of solemnization myself. It is well worth it to me.

However, my almost-32-year-old firstborn surprised us by asking me to solemnize his marriage this June. Of course, that's a good surprise that a parent likes, officiating at Aaron and Jessica's wedding. In contrast, I know from others there are the surprises of "You ruined my life. I never want to hear from you again," or "It's a felony charge. They want $50,000 cash bail."

The fourth marriage will be next month and the fifth sometime next year. That's not exactly on track for even an avocation. However, a long-time friend who's a minister has more than once called my one-day solemnizations "poaching." He holds that doing weddings is an important income supplement for clerics. He doesn't like the MA law, recently copied by CA, that allows plain folk to pronounce the couple married and sign the license making it legal.

I do. I recommend it.

Performing the marriages of friends or even of friends' children is an emotional rush. I think it might be a wee version of what an OB feels delivering babies.

I was in on the birth of my three, catching all, and doing the final one solo as the nurses and midwives were across the room chatting, not realizing it was showtime. While I have to say I was more involved and fulfilled by delivering my sons, I was deeply moved by the three marriages I've already done. Those are over a lot faster than labor and they are a lot less physically messy, but they too are quite a bit of fun and make you feel a part of something important.

Tags: 

Monday, November 21, 2011

How Transgender Rights Finally Passed

Grouse, moan...I can complain about what is missing from the long-delayed transgender-rights bill that finally passed in MA. I have already carped about the big hole of public accommodation.

Yet, we need to keep in mind that that the plug uglies tried successfully for years to pretend this was the bathroom bill instead of an issue of civil rights and plain fairness. What the new law will do is huge — prevent discrimination on gender identity in housing, employment and credit.

They can circle back and do the missing piece...we would hope in the next legislative session.

For a fascinating look at who to bless and what kind of work they did, click over to this diary at BlueMassGroup.