The cyclists' local angel Rep. Anne Paulsen, retired last session, but her struggle for us starts again tomorrow. Today, you can and should call or email your two legislators.
Just over a week ago, Acting Governor Kerry Healey botched the widely supported bill of cyclists rights and responsibilities. She apparently didn't understand it. So she vetoed it. Double duh.
Follow the link on the above post if you have not seen the bill's content.
Other supporters have picked up the pump and are ready to reintroduce the bill tomorrow. What we can do now (I already have) is call or email our state Senator and Representative. Ask them to co-sponsor the bill.
Senator Pam Resor will introduce it on her side and Rep. Kay Kahn on hers.
Have your legislators call Sen. Resor to be included as co-sponsors. More sponsors are better.
If you're not sure who your people are in the new legislature, find out here.
Many of the last administration's blunders will be hard to fix and take a long time. This one can be a snap.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, cycling, Anne Paulsen, Kerry Healey, veto
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Cavalry Tries To Save The T
Tomorrow commuters get championed by Senator Jarrett Barrios and Representatives Alice Wolf and Carl Sciortino Jr. They'll try to introduce fiscal reality into the fantasy world of the MBTA.The first step is a bill to have the state release the T from part of the gigantic debt -- the nation's largest for a transit system -- that it unilaterally forced on the MBTA and that is preventing the authority from functioning as well as driving up costs. Supporters of this include Livable Streets, the Conservation Law Foundation, and the T Riders Union.
We had our own rants on this back in June. This post has links to my calls for free mass transit and touches on the issues of absurd debt imposed on the T.
This time, there seems to be a critical mass of politicians and interest groups that admit how untenable the non-funding of the T is.
When over $5 billion of debt piled on the T in 2000, the fantasy was of the post-WWII type. There would be a never-ending growth spiral of tax revenue to fund payments. The debt remains, but the projected growing 20% of the state's sales tax revenue to offset it has dwindled instead.
Now at a time when we allegedly favor mass transit, fewer vehicles, less congestion, decreased pollution, and stewardship of our resources, we have not yet dealt with this huge error by the legislature.
According to the Globe coverage, Barrios will propose a $2.9 billion assumption of debt. This seems to have at least temporarily stunned Gov. Deval Patrick, who has not immediately responded favorably or at all.
Back to reality, long-overdue reconsideration of the debt and T funding seems to be in the works. The pending bill would be "a good first step," according to co-chair of the Joint Committee on Transportation, Senator Steven Baddour. He promises hearings on T funding.
It shouldn't even take a calculator for folks to figure out how badly the commonwealth erred here. The T board has kept its beak firmly in its feathers on this one and has been no help at all. Good on Barrios and his chums for hopping on this.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Boston, MBTA, fare hike, Barrios
Monday, January 08, 2007
Pliers and Screwdriver for Ballot Initiatives
It's well past time for some fundamental refinements in our laws, to prevent the short of divisive and destructive fights we've had for the past four years and before. New Governor Deval Patrick has loaded himself with so many other tasks, let's sneak a few more on this back.
We pinkos should lead the push for change. This type of call seems to be in our nature.
Rambling, old-man story here: Years ago in Manhattan a woman listing to a bunch of us at a party came into the circle to announce, "You're all in publishing." Her (correct) reasoning was that we were referring to the books we discussed as properties and to magazines as books. That argot was as typical of our business as a typical lefty/righty distinction. Many left-wingers look at problems and want to change the underlying causes, thus preventing as well as curing. Many right-wingers tell them to get real and actually accomplish something by working on manageable symptoms.
Now the call here and in come future posts will be for fundamental change.
We are not the only state that has suffered from initiative abuse. California has more awful proposals that are very expensive both in process and in outcome, as well as often anti-freedom in the name of direct democracy. This blog has numerous posts of this topic, such as here.
We must admit that if we go where the SJC is headed, we accept a fourth branch of government -- large-scale town meeting direct democracy in addition to the representative democracy of the legislature. That most assuredly does not seem the intent or wording of the initiative portions of our constitution, but without input and guidance from the governor and legislature, we are creeping that way.
Almost certainly what the majority of voters and politicians alike do not want is:
At the risk of hampering progressive initiatives, I state strongly that we must stopping our passive and passive/aggressive fealty to the existing, still raw initiative article.
Georgia had a form of initiative in 1777 and Oregon pioneered the modern version 16 years before ours came in 1918. We all suffer along with the 24 states and D.C. who have these in loving the concept but not refining it as we went along.
The SJC has its own issues and looks far too human on this topic. Following the one-judgee-majority Goodridge decision that insightfully and fairly interpreted our equal-treatment laws as requiring marriage equality, the SJC has quivered in its cave. It seems so thoroughly fustigated and cowed by the reaction to this ruling that it has made the term activist judges into a punchline.
In fairness, judges in California and New York have been too gormless and gutless to clarify such laws and principles as well. They also have sat in their corners whimpering about maybe the legislature should take care of this problem. This pull-the-covers-over-their-eyes behavior makes life all the much harder for all of us, particularly lawmakers.
Meanwhile, the SJC has backhandedly made its efforts to bring this process into focus. Their continued conservatism and lack of leadership was obvious when:
Unfortunately the legislature in general and Senate President Bobby Travaglini in particular are afraid of this whole subject. First, they could have clarified marriage laws in the six months following Goodridge. That would not have precluded initiative drives to repeal these changes by the same anti-gay groups working the current amendment. However, in the least, the effort would be seen for what it is -- an effort to force religion onto civil contract law that has existed here from Colonial days. In addition, even bashful Bobby would not have been so quick to pass through such initiatives when it meant reversing and rebuking the legislature.
Also, those two SJC findings may lull many legislators into thinking the issues are settled enough that they can pretend they are not pressing any more. Most would love for this whole thing to go away. Ironically of course, their lack of action and clarity have helped produce this ongoing shouting and contention.
Interestingly enough in Doyle, the SJC had to tunnel all the way down to notes of the 1917-8 ConCon to find some support for passing through amendments. They cited a mention of one Mr. Quincy of Boston that it seemed inconceivable that future ConCons might not vote on an initiative. Not only is such not definitive, but it illustrates the need to readdress Article XLVIII now that we have had 88 years of seeing what works and what does not.
Instead, this seems like yet another log to pile on Gov. Patrick's shoulders. He could work with his Attorney General and the normally inert Secretary of State to offer proposals to the legislature. They could make it their own by refinement and promote it as a way to bring sense and clarify to the process. This would surely take longer than the current session in which the anti-marriage-equality amendment must fail or at worst pass. So, they could not face the turmoil of being seen as derailing the existing initiative.
I honestly expect far more from Patrick's administration than this buck-passing cowardice we have seen in recent years. We have a solid, rights-loving Speaker of the House in Sal DiMasi. We have a Governor who wants to work with the legislature. We're not likely to get a brave SJC, so we can look toward getting the Senate with the program.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon, Deval Patrick
We pinkos should lead the push for change. This type of call seems to be in our nature.
Rambling, old-man story here: Years ago in Manhattan a woman listing to a bunch of us at a party came into the circle to announce, "You're all in publishing." Her (correct) reasoning was that we were referring to the books we discussed as properties and to magazines as books. That argot was as typical of our business as a typical lefty/righty distinction. Many left-wingers look at problems and want to change the underlying causes, thus preventing as well as curing. Many right-wingers tell them to get real and actually accomplish something by working on manageable symptoms.
Now the call here and in come future posts will be for fundamental change.
Putting Initiatives Into The Shop
The much discussed and sued-over Article XLVIII of our commonwealth's constitution needs prompt attention. Its vagueness encourages abuses by the worst of our society and interest groups. Nearly 90 years ago, we were among the first to offer ballot initiatives as a way for citizens to correct flawed laws directly. We have since seen how it can work well, poorly and even terribly. Tweaks are overdue.We are not the only state that has suffered from initiative abuse. California has more awful proposals that are very expensive both in process and in outcome, as well as often anti-freedom in the name of direct democracy. This blog has numerous posts of this topic, such as here.
We must admit that if we go where the SJC is headed, we accept a fourth branch of government -- large-scale town meeting direct democracy in addition to the representative democracy of the legislature. That most assuredly does not seem the intent or wording of the initiative portions of our constitution, but without input and guidance from the governor and legislature, we are creeping that way.
Almost certainly what the majority of voters and politicians alike do not want is:
- Pass-through of any amendment with enough signatures to get to the legislature.
- Sending amendments to plebiscites that restrict various minorities' civil rights.
- Putting amendments on the ballot that are likely to eventually be ruled unconstitutional.
- Risking unfunded mandates that cripple the ability of the legislature and governor to do their jobs for us.
At the risk of hampering progressive initiatives, I state strongly that we must stopping our passive and passive/aggressive fealty to the existing, still raw initiative article.
Disregarding Consequences
The legislature is in an awkward situation, partially of its own making.Georgia had a form of initiative in 1777 and Oregon pioneered the modern version 16 years before ours came in 1918. We all suffer along with the 24 states and D.C. who have these in loving the concept but not refining it as we went along.
The SJC has its own issues and looks far too human on this topic. Following the one-judgee-majority Goodridge decision that insightfully and fairly interpreted our equal-treatment laws as requiring marriage equality, the SJC has quivered in its cave. It seems so thoroughly fustigated and cowed by the reaction to this ruling that it has made the term activist judges into a punchline.
In fairness, judges in California and New York have been too gormless and gutless to clarify such laws and principles as well. They also have sat in their corners whimpering about maybe the legislature should take care of this problem. This pull-the-covers-over-their-eyes behavior makes life all the much harder for all of us, particularly lawmakers.
Backed Into Corners
Up on Beacon Street, the resulting dynamics include:- If the legislature in ConCon accepts that they are a pass-through body for any amendment that reaches the risibly low bar of 25% of the body, they have not served you, me or the whole commonwealth in their capacity and judgment.
- If they accept such Senate-President tricks as preventing any debate on anti-marriage-equality amendment because it has been kicked around in committee, they also fail their duty and spit on representative democracy.
- If they change Article XLVIII to require a simple majority of two successive ConCons (instead of 25%) to put an amendment before the voters, the special interest groups and let-the-people-vote literalists will never stop screaming.
Meanwhile, the SJC has backhandedly made its efforts to bring this process into focus. Their continued conservatism and lack of leadership was obvious when:
- They ruled that the current amendment was not an attempt to overturn a judicial decision (their own). This Schulman decision tortured words like Bill Clinton on the stand. Pages 2 and 3 of the decision read that because such an amendment would not be robbing the original plaintiffs -- just all future ones -- of rights, no problem, no conflict.
- In the Doyle decision, a non-binding set of comments said that the ConCon had a duty to vote on any amendment appearing before it.
Unfortunately the legislature in general and Senate President Bobby Travaglini in particular are afraid of this whole subject. First, they could have clarified marriage laws in the six months following Goodridge. That would not have precluded initiative drives to repeal these changes by the same anti-gay groups working the current amendment. However, in the least, the effort would be seen for what it is -- an effort to force religion onto civil contract law that has existed here from Colonial days. In addition, even bashful Bobby would not have been so quick to pass through such initiatives when it meant reversing and rebuking the legislature.
Also, those two SJC findings may lull many legislators into thinking the issues are settled enough that they can pretend they are not pressing any more. Most would love for this whole thing to go away. Ironically of course, their lack of action and clarity have helped produce this ongoing shouting and contention.
Interestingly enough in Doyle, the SJC had to tunnel all the way down to notes of the 1917-8 ConCon to find some support for passing through amendments. They cited a mention of one Mr. Quincy of Boston that it seemed inconceivable that future ConCons might not vote on an initiative. Not only is such not definitive, but it illustrates the need to readdress Article XLVIII now that we have had 88 years of seeing what works and what does not.
Who Will Lead?
I don't expect Travaglini to lead effort here, any more than the SJC will. Either side would seem self-serving and self-protective if they tried to redefine the initiative process to avoid the kinds of problems they have experienced from the flawed version now in place.Instead, this seems like yet another log to pile on Gov. Patrick's shoulders. He could work with his Attorney General and the normally inert Secretary of State to offer proposals to the legislature. They could make it their own by refinement and promote it as a way to bring sense and clarify to the process. This would surely take longer than the current session in which the anti-marriage-equality amendment must fail or at worst pass. So, they could not face the turmoil of being seen as derailing the existing initiative.
I honestly expect far more from Patrick's administration than this buck-passing cowardice we have seen in recent years. We have a solid, rights-loving Speaker of the House in Sal DiMasi. We have a Governor who wants to work with the legislature. We're not likely to get a brave SJC, so we can look toward getting the Senate with the program.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon, Deval Patrick
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Trav Mired in Disgrace
It's petulant. It's whiny. It's nasty. It's intellectually solid and insightful.
QueerToday pegs the finale of the ConCon in their TRAV-esty of Justice post. The hypocrites, liars, gay haters, and even libertarians hiding in the clothes of progressives get it loud and strong.
Senate President Bobby Travaglini has put himself squarely into the camp of those who are willing to sacrifice civil rights and marriage equality -- and health care for all in the mix -- for his own vanity. He lost and was humiliated following the Goodridge decision, when he pushed for civil unions.
Last week, he played the vicious game joined in by so many self-identified right, left, evangelical, God fearing or whatever. The call was for democratic process, but after Trav ramrodded the ConCon into 1) passing through the anti-marriage equality without democratic debate on whether to do so, and 2) adjourning without process or the adherence to constitutional duty so important only minutes before, where were principles, or process or even outrage?
We are awaiting fellow travelers, like Blue Mass Group or hardy har, VoteOnMarriage, to scream as loudly over the suffocation of the health-care amendment as they have over the anti-marriage equality amendment. They might eventually raise a weak, "Whoa, dude, this is important too," complaint. Don't count on it.
Those who claimed they were all about process and democracy are back watching the bowl games and snickering over their slap in the collective faces of one minority -- and seemingly unmindful of what it means to those who need health care.
We always knew Bobby was for Bobby and would drive a tractor over his grandmother to get what he wanted. These other clowns who enabled him have lost any credibility they might have had about process and democracy and constitutional duty.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon
QueerToday pegs the finale of the ConCon in their TRAV-esty of Justice post. The hypocrites, liars, gay haters, and even libertarians hiding in the clothes of progressives get it loud and strong.
Senate President Bobby Travaglini has put himself squarely into the camp of those who are willing to sacrifice civil rights and marriage equality -- and health care for all in the mix -- for his own vanity. He lost and was humiliated following the Goodridge decision, when he pushed for civil unions.Last week, he played the vicious game joined in by so many self-identified right, left, evangelical, God fearing or whatever. The call was for democratic process, but after Trav ramrodded the ConCon into 1) passing through the anti-marriage equality without democratic debate on whether to do so, and 2) adjourning without process or the adherence to constitutional duty so important only minutes before, where were principles, or process or even outrage?
We are awaiting fellow travelers, like Blue Mass Group or hardy har, VoteOnMarriage, to scream as loudly over the suffocation of the health-care amendment as they have over the anti-marriage equality amendment. They might eventually raise a weak, "Whoa, dude, this is important too," complaint. Don't count on it.
Those who claimed they were all about process and democracy are back watching the bowl games and snickering over their slap in the collective faces of one minority -- and seemingly unmindful of what it means to those who need health care.
We always knew Bobby was for Bobby and would drive a tractor over his grandmother to get what he wanted. These other clowns who enabled him have lost any credibility they might have had about process and democracy and constitutional duty.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon
Atlas Trembles After 50 Years
A chum on the staff of a couple of grocery-industry magazines I ran afterward wrote for a magazine for physicians. It had no medical content, rather it featured resorts, realty, jeweled watches and sybaritic restaurants. The docs had the dough. The service this maggy provided was a shortcut to keep them from having to research ways to use it for pleasure.
That tradition continues and expands. The Robb Report has been around for a long time. Even the New York Times is often self-parodying in featuring straight articles on treats for the thousands among the billions of us, amoral self-indulgence in $14,000 watches, $9,000 frocks, and $500 lunches for two.
Back when nasty Abe Rosenthal was Times managing editor, he spoke at a press conference announcing the paper's second cookbook. He seemed to think it was all pretty trivial, although, of course, he held that his rag did a better job of food coverage and he admitted there was money to be had from related advertisers.
As a moment of amusement, I asked him whether we'd read more from their great culinary writer Raymond Sokolov, whom Rosenthal tossed out, apparently for not being a lickspittle. Abe actually turned bright red, no mean feat for someone so wrinkled and stuffed into his suit. It was clear, "No," but he didn't raise his puffy fist or jerk back my free cookbook.
My chums who worked at the Times soon took to calling its Living section the Having section. Early on, it featured upper class and beyond diversions. Only a tiny fraction of its readership could spend at those rates, but apparently they, and the advertisers, subscribed to the daily fantasies.
For years following, the Sunday New York Times Magazine was likewise a catalog of the unobtainable for the insufferable. Lately, there is a bit of relief to find it has become a veritable apothecary for Boomers. It piles pseudo-articles upon each other in what we from print journalism call adver-whorials. The gray lady has found it can publish separate, perfect-b0und displays of extravagance many times a year in their own inserts.
This came up today when the Financial Times sloshed on the lawn. Inside was its own bagatelles-for-the-indolent insert, How to Spend It. Unlike the NYT, the FT has a tone of dry wit. Its editors know how absurd and unrealistic its features are, which you can tell from the risible title of the magazine.
Also, on the op-ed page, their U.K. companies editor, Charles Pretzlik, stomps and hoots to mark the 50 anniversary of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. (This column is available online only if you have a separate subscription to ft.com.)
I concur with his judgment that if you were fortunate enough to be unfamiliar with this 1000-page, cartoony diatribe, don't even think of picking it up. It is toxic to the immature and simple minded. In addition, Prerzlik notes that it has not aged well. As he puts it:
A favorite high-school teacher pulled me aside after a class to not-too-condescendingly explain that she had fallen into the same silly role play, but as a college student. When she said I'd grow out of it, as any good Randist, I insisted she was wrong and I knew better.
In fairness to Rand, she had a great turn of phrase (you immediately detested the industrialist she described as fat over the collar) and an excuse. She fled totalitarian Russia. Unfortunately, she then saw extreme and sudden risk of total loss of freedom in any slack in the ropes of capitalism and idealized freedom to act that she projected on America.
Forward 50 years to when Soviet Russia is no more. The mixed record of capitalism takes the absolute out of her now corny novels. In fact, it would be difficult now for the economically and historically educated to read her works without regular guffaws.
Note that that over six million copies of Atlas Shrugged have been sold, and it is continuing at about 150,000 a year. Some CEOs still believe in it enough to gift it. In addition, a very influential Randist kept his hand on our nation's economic rudder for decades -- Alan Greenspan.
It is unlikely that anyone could update the economic morality play today. Perhaps we should hope not.
Tags: massmarrier, Any Rand, Charles Pretzlik, , New York Times, Financial Times
That tradition continues and expands. The Robb Report has been around for a long time. Even the New York Times is often self-parodying in featuring straight articles on treats for the thousands among the billions of us, amoral self-indulgence in $14,000 watches, $9,000 frocks, and $500 lunches for two.
Back when nasty Abe Rosenthal was Times managing editor, he spoke at a press conference announcing the paper's second cookbook. He seemed to think it was all pretty trivial, although, of course, he held that his rag did a better job of food coverage and he admitted there was money to be had from related advertisers.
As a moment of amusement, I asked him whether we'd read more from their great culinary writer Raymond Sokolov, whom Rosenthal tossed out, apparently for not being a lickspittle. Abe actually turned bright red, no mean feat for someone so wrinkled and stuffed into his suit. It was clear, "No," but he didn't raise his puffy fist or jerk back my free cookbook.
My chums who worked at the Times soon took to calling its Living section the Having section. Early on, it featured upper class and beyond diversions. Only a tiny fraction of its readership could spend at those rates, but apparently they, and the advertisers, subscribed to the daily fantasies.
For years following, the Sunday New York Times Magazine was likewise a catalog of the unobtainable for the insufferable. Lately, there is a bit of relief to find it has become a veritable apothecary for Boomers. It piles pseudo-articles upon each other in what we from print journalism call adver-whorials. The gray lady has found it can publish separate, perfect-b0und displays of extravagance many times a year in their own inserts.
This came up today when the Financial Times sloshed on the lawn. Inside was its own bagatelles-for-the-indolent insert, How to Spend It. Unlike the NYT, the FT has a tone of dry wit. Its editors know how absurd and unrealistic its features are, which you can tell from the risible title of the magazine.
Also, on the op-ed page, their U.K. companies editor, Charles Pretzlik, stomps and hoots to mark the 50 anniversary of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. (This column is available online only if you have a separate subscription to ft.com.)
I concur with his judgment that if you were fortunate enough to be unfamiliar with this 1000-page, cartoony diatribe, don't even think of picking it up. It is toxic to the immature and simple minded. In addition, Prerzlik notes that it has not aged well. As he puts it:
Its Manichean polarisation of consciously selfish, atheist producers and those who use regulation and guilt to rob them may have worked in the 1950s...Atlas's prose is rambling, often wooden; its length is self-indulgent. For chief executives who have got this far without reading it, here is a Randian tip; do something more profitable.As well as confessing to grocery-magazine editorship, I must say that as at 14, I bought into Randism. When you are that callow, caricatures of real humans and absolute reductions of complex situations to perfect virtue and extreme evil are very attractive. This becomes too seductive to resist when you couple with girlfriend or boyfriend who is also eager to act out these self-righteous roles. Philosophy plus hormones...
A favorite high-school teacher pulled me aside after a class to not-too-condescendingly explain that she had fallen into the same silly role play, but as a college student. When she said I'd grow out of it, as any good Randist, I insisted she was wrong and I knew better.
In fairness to Rand, she had a great turn of phrase (you immediately detested the industrialist she described as fat over the collar) and an excuse. She fled totalitarian Russia. Unfortunately, she then saw extreme and sudden risk of total loss of freedom in any slack in the ropes of capitalism and idealized freedom to act that she projected on America.
Forward 50 years to when Soviet Russia is no more. The mixed record of capitalism takes the absolute out of her now corny novels. In fact, it would be difficult now for the economically and historically educated to read her works without regular guffaws.
Note that that over six million copies of Atlas Shrugged have been sold, and it is continuing at about 150,000 a year. Some CEOs still believe in it enough to gift it. In addition, a very influential Randist kept his hand on our nation's economic rudder for decades -- Alan Greenspan.
It is unlikely that anyone could update the economic morality play today. Perhaps we should hope not.
Tags: massmarrier, Any Rand, Charles Pretzlik, , New York Times, Financial Times
Friday, January 05, 2007
Deval: Day Two
The really big question for us is what Governor Deval Patrick will do when (and it is when, not whether) Senate President Bobby Travaglini stymies him. Patrick has the Herculean labor of making Massachusetts work again, both literally putting the people to work and figuratively getting the gelding legislature up and running.
His relatively tame and non-committal inauguration address yesterday (text here and video here) did not lay out his agenda with specifics, as we can expect in budget and policy addresses later. He did not even iterate his strong statements earlier in the week that he would work to defeat the dreadful anti-marriage-equality amendment at this year's ConCon.
Activists Note: If you are still fretting about what you can do, click immediately to this week's Bay Windows. It includes great coverage of what you can do now and later. , a timeline of this whole mess (including some cautionary lessons), and even a clear scolding of MSM and bloggers who bought into the crap that only pro-marriage-equality folk are obligated to play by all the rules and fair play.
Trav's concept of leadership seems to be a control game, regardless of how little gets done or who gets hurt. While Patrick could run over him in a big battle or two, that's terribly inefficient and not suited to Patrick's cooperative style. The best bet seems to be to let Trav take the credit for breaking logjams and innovating.
Of course, that is absurd on many levels. Trav has never been a leader, does not come up with great ideas, and executes poorly. The idea that he would deserve credit for suddenly championing brilliant strokes is, shall we say, an anomaly. On the other hand, Patrick can likely pull this off. Trav has a terrific ego, while Patrick seems to have left his puerile control needs and vanity in Milton Academy or Harvard We really only need one to be mature for this to work.
Our senate president clearly is not suited for the 21st Century in general and for changing times in Massachusetts in particular. He has already shown that he wants to play some sort of street game where he gets to pick the teams and make the rules.
Yet, if anyone can work with him and let him pretend to be the big shot, it's Patrick.
We must wait and watch while Patrick specifies his legislative and policy goals. Then the first (and second, third and fourth) time Bobby thumps his flabby chest and plays silverback, we expect Patrick to win while letting the display go on.
Bobby has been looking out the window since his heart operation, cancer treatment and realizing his kids are nearly ready for college. It would be great if he left soon, but only if we had someone on the senate side like House Speaker Sal DiMasi to give us some real leadership and morality in the office.
Meanwhile, Patrick has shown himself a great pragmatist, who works with what he has.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon, Travaglini, Deval Patrick
His relatively tame and non-committal inauguration address yesterday (text here and video here) did not lay out his agenda with specifics, as we can expect in budget and policy addresses later. He did not even iterate his strong statements earlier in the week that he would work to defeat the dreadful anti-marriage-equality amendment at this year's ConCon.
Activists Note: If you are still fretting about what you can do, click immediately to this week's Bay Windows. It includes great coverage of what you can do now and later. , a timeline of this whole mess (including some cautionary lessons), and even a clear scolding of MSM and bloggers who bought into the crap that only pro-marriage-equality folk are obligated to play by all the rules and fair play.
Trav's concept of leadership seems to be a control game, regardless of how little gets done or who gets hurt. While Patrick could run over him in a big battle or two, that's terribly inefficient and not suited to Patrick's cooperative style. The best bet seems to be to let Trav take the credit for breaking logjams and innovating.
Of course, that is absurd on many levels. Trav has never been a leader, does not come up with great ideas, and executes poorly. The idea that he would deserve credit for suddenly championing brilliant strokes is, shall we say, an anomaly. On the other hand, Patrick can likely pull this off. Trav has a terrific ego, while Patrick seems to have left his puerile control needs and vanity in Milton Academy or Harvard We really only need one to be mature for this to work.
Our senate president clearly is not suited for the 21st Century in general and for changing times in Massachusetts in particular. He has already shown that he wants to play some sort of street game where he gets to pick the teams and make the rules.
Yet, if anyone can work with him and let him pretend to be the big shot, it's Patrick.
We must wait and watch while Patrick specifies his legislative and policy goals. Then the first (and second, third and fourth) time Bobby thumps his flabby chest and plays silverback, we expect Patrick to win while letting the display go on.
Bobby has been looking out the window since his heart operation, cancer treatment and realizing his kids are nearly ready for college. It would be great if he left soon, but only if we had someone on the senate side like House Speaker Sal DiMasi to give us some real leadership and morality in the office.
Meanwhile, Patrick has shown himself a great pragmatist, who works with what he has.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon, Travaglini, Deval Patrick
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Healey to Cyclists: Die!
In her last days as lieutenant governor, Kerry Healey played the bobble-head one more time. Filling in for her chronically absent boss, she actually vetoed a bill to protect bicyclists. In addition, her terse memo to the legislature showed clearly that she had no idea what she was doing.
Double doh.
Tip of the helmet to Talking Politics for a brief mention of this. I haven't seen anything of this in our rags. Also, MassBike's lament on this is here.
The bill (H.5372) resulted from the dogged efforts of Rep. Anne E. Paulsen. The Belmont legislator is a guardian of public safety, with a particular eye for cyclists.
It provides that police around the state take training in cycling laws and requires real enforcement of such reckless acts as turning a vehicle into a cycle or opening a door and causing a crash. It is full of long overdue, common-sense help for commuting cyclists, the ones most at risk on their daily rides.
Our bleach-job politician (I am a real blond and can write that) clearly was swiveling in her chair instead of reading when she vetoed this one. In its entirety, her note to the legislature reads:
This was safety for citizens, pure and simple. It's too late for a veto override, but at least this will come up again in the next session. Bless Rep. Paulsen. Curse Kerry.
She wasn't a real governor, but she played one at the State House. Thank the forces of heaven and earth that she never had a shot at the office.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, cycling, Anne Paulsen, Kerry Healey, veto
Double doh.
Tip of the helmet to Talking Politics for a brief mention of this. I haven't seen anything of this in our rags. Also, MassBike's lament on this is here.
The bill (H.5372) resulted from the dogged efforts of Rep. Anne E. Paulsen. The Belmont legislator is a guardian of public safety, with a particular eye for cyclists.
It provides that police around the state take training in cycling laws and requires real enforcement of such reckless acts as turning a vehicle into a cycle or opening a door and causing a crash. It is full of long overdue, common-sense help for commuting cyclists, the ones most at risk on their daily rides.
Our bleach-job politician (I am a real blond and can write that) clearly was swiveling in her chair instead of reading when she vetoed this one. In its entirety, her note to the legislature reads:
December 31,2006Okay...but...it wasn't about recreational affairs...it wasn't restricting cyclists...
To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives:
Pursuant to Part the Second, Chapter I, Section I, Article II of the Constitution of the Commonwealth, I am returning unsigned House Bill No. 5372, "An Act Providing for Bicycle Safety."
I support increased awareness of bike safety, but I believe this bill is overly regulative and represents an unwarranted governmental intrusion into the recreational affairs of citizens. I encourage the Legislature to focus on education that promotes safety and not on a new regulatory framework that subjects bicyclists to sanctions and fines.
For this reason, I am returning to you House Bill No. 5372 unsigned.
Respectfully submitted,
Kerry Healey
Acting Governor
This was safety for citizens, pure and simple. It's too late for a veto override, but at least this will come up again in the next session. Bless Rep. Paulsen. Curse Kerry.
She wasn't a real governor, but she played one at the State House. Thank the forces of heaven and earth that she never had a shot at the office.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, cycling, Anne Paulsen, Kerry Healey, veto
Marriage Amendment: Different Tack
The ever dispassionate and insightful NYU Law School Professor Arthur S. Leonard has a farther ranging view than most of us on the anti-marriage-equality amendment stumbling ahead here. On his Leonard Link blog, he suggests that pro-SSM forces here concentrate on maintaining and increasing the percentage of voters who favor keeping SSM.
He writes in part:
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon, Arthur S. Leonard
He writes in part:
The soonest that it could go to the ballot would be 2008. By then, same-sex couples would have been marrying in Massachusetts for four years. Public opinion polls in the state show a slow but steady increase in the portion of the public who express approval of same-sex marriage, indeed a small majority say so at this point. Perhaps in another two years the majority will have grown. In any event, it seems possible that in a fair campaign, with the governor and a majority of state legislators (and probably a majority of the local press) supporting same-sex marriage, the amendment will be defeated by the voters. Nothing is certain, but this past November Arizona finally ended the unbroken chain of public support for constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, showing that it is possible with an effective campaign to defeat such a measure. (Of course, the Arizona measure was significantly different, in that its broader wording made it possible to fire up straight seniors in opposition to a measure that might deprive them of some of the benefits they derive by living together without marrying...)In contrast, I don't see how progressives and pro-marriage-equality forces could do anything other than working as hard as possible to increase the ConCon support to at least 151 legislators. Snip this weed this year!At this point, of course, the LGBT political movement in Massachusetts will focus on lobbying to get the amendment defeated at the next Constitutional Convention, but it strikes this observer that the major work should be focused on persuading the public that adding the amendment to the Constitution would be a bad idea, since it seems likely that the public will be called upon to vote, during the next presidential election year.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon, Arthur S. Leonard
Travaglini Ripe for Advice
Oh, to have been a cockroach under the desk blotter of Senate President Robert E. (Don't Call Me Bobby Anymore) Travaglini yesterday. According to BayWindows and the Boston Globe, he and Governor Elect Deval Patrick discussed the pending ConCon session. Patrick could not convince him to do the right things.
In the late 60s, observers always found amusement watching the faces of school kids attending South Carolina legislative sessions. Having recently studied civics -- and perhaps viewed Mr. Smith Goes to Washington -- the young scholars had raised brows of attention. They knew the pointed and brilliant orations, the clear disagreements and debates over principles, and the struggle for the commonweal were moments away.
Instead, House Speaker Sol Blatt was slow of speech but quick of gavel. Major and minor bills alike rushed by like so many migrating birds. Every vote up or down was unanimous and without debate.
The reporters and other cynics in the chambers knew that the debates had occurred. They tended to come at barbecues and house parties, were the lubrications of overlapping self-interest and liquor eased the otherwise messy process.
The sunshine laws compelling open government have considerably reduced such tactics, even in the original states. Yet, leaders such as Travaglini and Patrick can and should talk privately before and maybe after debates. Understanding what's important to the other can benefit us all.
Unfortunately, the day before yesterday, Bobby had another failure of courage and will. The advisory, but non-binding, comments of the Supreme Judicial Court that the legislature had a duty to vote every initiative up or down scared our little guy. Then yesterday before the ConCon when Patrick visited him, Bobby figuratively plugged his ears during what the Globe quotes an aide as saying was a "cordial conversation."
With a different method, Bobby produced a similar effect to the Blatt era. He did not join House Speaker Sal DiMasi in efforts to sway pro-amendment voters and certainly did not use his power as presiding officer either to use a procedure to block the amendment or to allow a debate that might change minds.
The latter of course, is what those kids in Columbia expected. We don't need that here either apparently. He used his gavel to close off any chance of that. Despite the fact that he controlled whether there would be meaningful debate, he left saying, "There has been discussion on this issue for three years. There was no new elements brought into the conversation."
Bobby has never been much of a thinker and has never led in morality or ethics. However, he does consider his position the pinnacle of his career.
As such, he may be pissed that some upstart governor elect dares to call for him to act with social conscience. On the other hand, he slavishly listens to voters. He most assuredly would love to hear your views on what he should do. Monthly or even weekly contact would be effective.
Senate President Robert E. Travaglini
State House
Room 330
Boston, MA 02133
(617) 722-1500
Robert.Travaglini@state.ma.us
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon, Travaglini
In the late 60s, observers always found amusement watching the faces of school kids attending South Carolina legislative sessions. Having recently studied civics -- and perhaps viewed Mr. Smith Goes to Washington -- the young scholars had raised brows of attention. They knew the pointed and brilliant orations, the clear disagreements and debates over principles, and the struggle for the commonweal were moments away.
Instead, House Speaker Sol Blatt was slow of speech but quick of gavel. Major and minor bills alike rushed by like so many migrating birds. Every vote up or down was unanimous and without debate.
The reporters and other cynics in the chambers knew that the debates had occurred. They tended to come at barbecues and house parties, were the lubrications of overlapping self-interest and liquor eased the otherwise messy process.
The sunshine laws compelling open government have considerably reduced such tactics, even in the original states. Yet, leaders such as Travaglini and Patrick can and should talk privately before and maybe after debates. Understanding what's important to the other can benefit us all.
Unfortunately, the day before yesterday, Bobby had another failure of courage and will. The advisory, but non-binding, comments of the Supreme Judicial Court that the legislature had a duty to vote every initiative up or down scared our little guy. Then yesterday before the ConCon when Patrick visited him, Bobby figuratively plugged his ears during what the Globe quotes an aide as saying was a "cordial conversation."
With a different method, Bobby produced a similar effect to the Blatt era. He did not join House Speaker Sal DiMasi in efforts to sway pro-amendment voters and certainly did not use his power as presiding officer either to use a procedure to block the amendment or to allow a debate that might change minds.
The latter of course, is what those kids in Columbia expected. We don't need that here either apparently. He used his gavel to close off any chance of that. Despite the fact that he controlled whether there would be meaningful debate, he left saying, "There has been discussion on this issue for three years. There was no new elements brought into the conversation."
Bobby has never been much of a thinker and has never led in morality or ethics. However, he does consider his position the pinnacle of his career.
As such, he may be pissed that some upstart governor elect dares to call for him to act with social conscience. On the other hand, he slavishly listens to voters. He most assuredly would love to hear your views on what he should do. Monthly or even weekly contact would be effective.
Senate President Robert E. Travaglini
State House
Room 330
Boston, MA 02133
(617) 722-1500
Robert.Travaglini@state.ma.us
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon, Travaglini
Marriage Battle Becomes Siege
We learned several key truths yesterday:
Before the next ConCon:
The ideologues like Ray Flynn and the theocrat-politicians like Sean O'Malley are hopeless. However, ordinary legislators are subject to pressure of involved and focused voters (that's you).
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon
- The Senate President will help equal rights only when it clearly benefits him. He's going to require extra attention from the Governor, legislators, marriage-equality lobbyists, and each of us this session.
- We are due at least seven months of lies, distraction and divisiveness into the next ConCon.
- House Speaker (and frequent GLBT friend) Sal DiMasi can't carry the day when Bobby Travaglini presides over the ConCon.
Before the next ConCon:
- Donate to the chief marriage-equality lobbying groups -- MassEquality and the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. They are the first line against the toxic distortions of the anti-gay, anti-SSM forces.
- Encourage Patrick by visit if you can or by call, email or letter. Let him know this is a key value to you.
- Contact the 62 who voted against marriage equality by passing this amendment through this time. If one is in your district, raise hell. Make this contact at last once a month to tell them how you want them to vote.
- Thank your senator and representative who voted against the amendment and encourage them to continue and to persuade the confused.
The ideologues like Ray Flynn and the theocrat-politicians like Sean O'Malley are hopeless. However, ordinary legislators are subject to pressure of involved and focused voters (that's you).
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Odious Anti-SSM Amendment Jumps Ahead
The ConCon paused for Gerald Ford's memory and went immediately into action on the amendment to ban future same-sex marriages.
It got more than the minimum 25% (50 of 200) to go onto the 2007 ConCon for a similar vote. If it passes again, it will appear on the 2008 general election ballot. The vote was 132 against the amendment and 62 in favor. Thanks to the Fray for running the roll call.
Check BayWindows' live blogging for details on events leading up to the ConCon startup. I empathize for anyone else trying to follow on the State House's stream. It was intermittent and otherwise God awful.
It did not note that the legislators who voted for the amendment to continue likely miscalculated. They have bought this bill of political goods high and are likely to sell at a loss. They will forever be associated with trying strip citizens of civil rights and trying to add discrimination into the commonwealth constitution. That plays well in Texas, but as voters increasingly favor marriage equality here, many of these bozos have put themselves in indefensible positions.
The new kid in town, incoming Governor Deval Patrick now faces this distraction and diversion. As the recap put it:
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon
It got more than the minimum 25% (50 of 200) to go onto the 2007 ConCon for a similar vote. If it passes again, it will appear on the 2008 general election ballot. The vote was 132 against the amendment and 62 in favor. Thanks to the Fray for running the roll call.
Check BayWindows' live blogging for details on events leading up to the ConCon startup. I empathize for anyone else trying to follow on the State House's stream. It was intermittent and otherwise God awful.
P.M. Update
Go off with the family and what happens? The Globe reports that the ConCon reconsidered the amendment, which passed the second time with an extra vote 62 for and 134 against. It also notes:- This was a boost for the leaving governor, Willard Mitt Romney. It lets him put some additional distance and ups his right-wing cred.
- This ensures more agita and wasted time, money and effort this year and possibly next.
It did not note that the legislators who voted for the amendment to continue likely miscalculated. They have bought this bill of political goods high and are likely to sell at a loss. They will forever be associated with trying strip citizens of civil rights and trying to add discrimination into the commonwealth constitution. That plays well in Texas, but as voters increasingly favor marriage equality here, many of these bozos have put themselves in indefensible positions.
The new kid in town, incoming Governor Deval Patrick now faces this distraction and diversion. As the recap put it:
"I am disappointed by today's vote in the Constitutional Convention," Patrick said in a statement. "We have never used the initiative petition to limit individual freedoms and personal privacy, but today’s vote was a regrettable step in that direction.It's a disgrace, not irreversible, but dumb even for legislators.
"We have work to do over the next year to turn this around," Patrick continued. "I am heartened by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the members of the Legislature – a margin of over 2 to 1 -- voted to move on. I pledge to do what I can to build on that momentum, so that our Constitution will continue to stand for liberty and freedom, and not discrimination."
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon
ConCon Dust Up Live
Thanks to Mark at QueerToday. The ConCon will stream live, starting at 2 p.m. here.
Plus, don't forget to keep checking BayWindows live blogging.
Meanwhile, we're away for several hours and may well miss this. Harrumph. Later...
Plus, don't forget to keep checking BayWindows live blogging.
Meanwhile, we're away for several hours and may well miss this. Harrumph. Later...
Deval -- Stomp the Amendment
Governor Elect Deval Patrick weighed in a few moments ago. His view of today's ConCon choice on the anti-marriage equality amendment is to squash it. We'll post the whole thing, but key sentences are:
We can hope that waffling legislators might heed the incoming governor's view.
The whole release is:
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon
I favor ending this petition initiative promptly. If adjournment can accomplish that, so be it. If the Constitutional Convention chooses to vote on the merits, I want to be utterly clear that I believe a vote to advance this question to the 2008 ballot is irresponsible and wrong. Given the significant challenges we face on so many other fronts, I would be deeply disappointed in such a vote.On the one hand, it's not yet his business. On the other, this is an elephant he's following in the parade and has to clean up after. Meanwhile, it's great that he brings some (albeit late) moral authority to this. Among the brays of "Let the people vote!," cutting through to the real issue is most welcome.
We can hope that waffling legislators might heed the incoming governor's view.
The whole release is:
Boston – January 2, 2007 – The following is a statement from Governor-elect Deval Patrick on today’s Constitutional Convention:
“I believe that adults should be free to choose whom they wish to love and to marry. The SJC’s decision in Goodridge affirms that basic human right, and I support it.
“Above all, this is a question of conscience. Using the initiative process to give a minority fewer freedoms than the majority, and to inject the state into fundamentally private affairs, is a dangerous precedent, and an unworthy one for this Commonwealth. Never in the long history of our model Constitution have we used the initiative petition to restrict freedom. We ought not start now.
“For practical reasons as well, it’s time to move on. Whatever one’s views of marriage equality, all can agree that we have far more pressing issues before the Legislature and the Commonwealth. It serves no public interest to focus more time and attention on this issue when there are under-served and under-performing schools, an infrastructure showing signs of sustained neglect, gun and gang violence on the rise, jobs and people leaving the state, a growing homeless population, soaring health care costs, a looming deficit and a score of other serious challenges crying out for the attention and the creativity of the government and the people. We cannot in good conscience ask these unmet needs to wait while a few individuals try to insert discrimination into our Constitution.
“I favor ending this petition initiative promptly. If adjournment can accomplish that, so be it. If the Constitutional Convention chooses to vote on the merits, I want to be utterly clear that I believe a vote to advance this question to the 2008 ballot is irresponsible and wrong. Given the significant challenges we face on so many other fronts, I would be deeply disappointed in such a vote. It would do nothing more than condemn us all to more years of debate and expense on a matter that is legally and practically settled.”
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon
South By God Carolina
How I spent my winter vacation by...
I failed at gathering insights from a recent stay in South Carolina. A very unscientific inquiry while visiting produced little.
Only two months ago, the state passed its anti-same-sex-marriage amendment 78% to 22%. With Massachusetts and a Boston mind (minus only the accent), I was armed for the debates sure to ensue.
Friends, relatives and strangers provided neither push-back nor clarity. I can surmise:
We here found the lead-up to the vote far too cautious by the pro-equality side. Also, as someone who does not live there, I still judgmentally posted that this failed.
In fact, the whole culture there seems to be timid in a 1950s or maybe 1850s way. Look over LeftyBlogs' to see the paucity of blogs and entries, on any topic. Even after the defeat in November, these do not rant or even mention the subject.
For the local sentiment, you need go to scgaynews' blog. The post on the vote reads like an underground resistance message in an occupied land. It concludes:
Tags: massmarrier, same sex marriage, election, amendment, South Carolina
I failed at gathering insights from a recent stay in South Carolina. A very unscientific inquiry while visiting produced little.
Only two months ago, the state passed its anti-same-sex-marriage amendment 78% to 22%. With Massachusetts and a Boston mind (minus only the accent), I was armed for the debates sure to ensue.
Friends, relatives and strangers provided neither push-back nor clarity. I can surmise:
- My sampling was largely not of the 78%
- People misrepresented to me how they voted
- That 78% voted mechanically without much thought or emotion
We here found the lead-up to the vote far too cautious by the pro-equality side. Also, as someone who does not live there, I still judgmentally posted that this failed.
In fact, the whole culture there seems to be timid in a 1950s or maybe 1850s way. Look over LeftyBlogs' to see the paucity of blogs and entries, on any topic. Even after the defeat in November, these do not rant or even mention the subject.
For the local sentiment, you need go to scgaynews' blog. The post on the vote reads like an underground resistance message in an occupied land. It concludes:
We lost the vote by a four to one margin: 78% to 22%. On themselves, those numbers are disheartening. But when you look a little deeper, you will see some more numbers that can give cause for hope.I disagree with the tactics, but they do not come short in either perseverance or in optimism.
Hundreds of volunteers worked to ensure that the correct message on the impact of the “marriage” amendment was heard. Thousands of signs asking for a “No’ vote on Amendment 1 dotted the roadsides of the state. Listeners and viewers of the state’s radio and television stations heard hundreds of radio and television spots. Newspaper ads were taken out asking for support. Thousands of mailers brochures and fliers were delivered. In short, for the first time in its history, the GLBTQ community in South Carolina was united under one cause and a statewide organization was created.
Prior to the vote, the GLBQ community in South Carolina was a fractured set of organizations that worked on their own agendas. Now, we are all joined under one voice: the South Carolina Equality Coalition.
Prior to the vote, our private unions were not recognized by the state. After the vote, the state was forced to recognize the union of our community voices. As we round the corner to face our next battle (in my opinion, adoption), our voice will only grow stronger.
Tags: massmarrier, same sex marriage, election, amendment, South Carolina
Angst Before ConCon Vote
Not everyone at the Boston Globe wasted the whole holidays. Despite a lame editorial, the lead in today's edition has insightful comments from legislators heading to the Constitutional Convention coming out of recess on the last possible day to vote on the anti-marriage equality amendment.
Post Post Updates: BayWindows is blogging today's ConCon here. Also, over at Media Nation, Dan develops a somewhat tortured analogy to hypothetical slavery initiative efforts; he hides a lot of good maieutic material in there.
We here often criticize the shallow Globe articles, but this one deserves reading. We expected a lightweight recap, like the Herald provided. On the other hand, the Globe editorial board rambled in its lead about advancing civil rights without saying what it saw as the proper course for the legislature. Gutless.
The main article got comments from key players on the lobbying sides, as well as from the legislators. The gist is that the recent Supreme Judicial Court ruling that included a statement that the ConCon is constitutionally required to vote on the amendment makes many pro-equality lawmakers sweat.
It is not clear whether the introspection arises from rediscovered sense of duty or fear of possible voter reaction.
"We are very definitely struggling with the court's clear decision...," said pro-SSM Rep. Jay Kaufman. "I am not alone. I've spent many hours reading the constitution and in phone calls with colleagues. Many of us are struggling with the decision and the consequences."
Some anti-gay, anti-SSM folk are gleeful and hopeful. Retiring Rep. Philip Travis, for one, said, "They had victory in their jaw and it was snatched right from them."
On the pro-marriage equality side, MassEquality Campaign Director Marc Solomon assesses that "We are the final hour. This will determine whether Massachusetts can move on."
It's not quite that clean. If the ConCon does vote on the amendment today and approves it, it must receive another approval in identical form at another ConCon this year to advance to the 2008 ballot. That's nearly two years of lobbying and debate on this spiteful and perhaps even unconstitutional amendment.
I would prefer to see it die by any means. As dishonorably and dishonestly and clumsily as this amendment advanced, the let-the-people-vote folk are not convincing. We must not let perceived process at this end trump civil rights and basic liberties.
Another key pr0-SSM strategist, Arline Isaacson, is not showing too much. The co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus "said supporters of same-sex marriage have not decided on a strategy for today's convention, mainly because legislators have been on holidays and it has been difficult to take a head count."
While she would not talk tactics, the Globe's Frank Phillips suggests these might include pushing for an adjournment or recessing the ConCon until midnight, when the session expires.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon
Post Post Updates: BayWindows is blogging today's ConCon here. Also, over at Media Nation, Dan develops a somewhat tortured analogy to hypothetical slavery initiative efforts; he hides a lot of good maieutic material in there.
We here often criticize the shallow Globe articles, but this one deserves reading. We expected a lightweight recap, like the Herald provided. On the other hand, the Globe editorial board rambled in its lead about advancing civil rights without saying what it saw as the proper course for the legislature. Gutless.
The main article got comments from key players on the lobbying sides, as well as from the legislators. The gist is that the recent Supreme Judicial Court ruling that included a statement that the ConCon is constitutionally required to vote on the amendment makes many pro-equality lawmakers sweat.
It is not clear whether the introspection arises from rediscovered sense of duty or fear of possible voter reaction.
"We are very definitely struggling with the court's clear decision...," said pro-SSM Rep. Jay Kaufman. "I am not alone. I've spent many hours reading the constitution and in phone calls with colleagues. Many of us are struggling with the decision and the consequences."
Some anti-gay, anti-SSM folk are gleeful and hopeful. Retiring Rep. Philip Travis, for one, said, "They had victory in their jaw and it was snatched right from them."
On the pro-marriage equality side, MassEquality Campaign Director Marc Solomon assesses that "We are the final hour. This will determine whether Massachusetts can move on."
It's not quite that clean. If the ConCon does vote on the amendment today and approves it, it must receive another approval in identical form at another ConCon this year to advance to the 2008 ballot. That's nearly two years of lobbying and debate on this spiteful and perhaps even unconstitutional amendment.
I would prefer to see it die by any means. As dishonorably and dishonestly and clumsily as this amendment advanced, the let-the-people-vote folk are not convincing. We must not let perceived process at this end trump civil rights and basic liberties.
Another key pr0-SSM strategist, Arline Isaacson, is not showing too much. The co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus "said supporters of same-sex marriage have not decided on a strategy for today's convention, mainly because legislators have been on holidays and it has been difficult to take a head count."
While she would not talk tactics, the Globe's Frank Phillips suggests these might include pushing for an adjournment or recessing the ConCon until midnight, when the session expires.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon
Monday, January 01, 2007
Deval Eve Showdown in Boston
Nothing says New Regime like a pitched battle before the new leaders arrive. Tomorrow's version at the State House will simultaneously fix and frame the outgoing administration and create one type of toxic mess or another for the incoming one.
We are, of course, talking about the ConCon's last go at the initiative amendment to ban further same-sex marriages.
Outsider's Recap:
What's less clear is what will happen in the various outcomes' aftermath. Consider:
Regardless of how the ConCon goofs this up, it's going to fall to incoming Governor Deval Patrick to fix. He's a great mediator and this will require all his skills.
Frankly again, there are those of us who no longer care how this amendment dies -- so long as Patrick and the new legislature act quickly to repair the law and ensure that civil rights of any minority are exempt from ballot initiatives. Many of us see the bishops' actions and the tactics of MFI/VoteonMarriage as illegal and immoral. We disdain Attorney General Tom Reilly's willingness to permit an initiative clearly designed to overturn a court decision; likewise, we were stunned when the chastened and gutless SJC let it proceed.
This entire process stinks like a troop of Boy Scouts returning from a two-week hiking trip. We don't need to hear now that we must vote on this because it has sneaked and slithered its way this far.
Unfortunately for him, Patrick is going to have to deal with this. It's a good test of how he can make the right outcome from almost impossible material. We watch with great interest.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon, Deval Patrick
We are, of course, talking about the ConCon's last go at the initiative amendment to ban further same-sex marriages.
Outsider's Recap:
In case you live where you don't play our Bay State pol games, be aware that tomorrow is the last day for the combined legislature in Constitutional Convention to act on this petition initiative. Other than cheating, lying, fooling the voters and relying on coercion by bishops in this heavily Roman Catholic state, the anti-marriage equality folk followed the procedures to gather enough signatures to put this amendment before the ConCon. Now, if 25% (50 of 200) legislators approve it, it moves to the 2007 ConCon. If 25% pass it again in identical form, it goes on the 2008 ballot, where if it passes, it strips homosexual couples going forward from having the marriage rights they enjoy.What's clear is that this odious amendment has lost. The voters here are over 60% in favor of same-sex marriage and that percentage grows with every poll. As a result, most legislators want this issue to go away. If they vote against it, their DINO and most conservative constituents will be pissed. If it passes this ConCon, it will bedevil our lives and waste everyone's time and energy when we have much work to do mucking the Republican stables.
Alternately, the ConCon can adjourn without voting on it. The Supreme Judicial Court says they are not supposed to do that, but there is no recourse if they do. Another option would be if the ConCon defeated the amendment this year. There are still enough anti-gay and anti-marriage equality legislators to make that unlikely -- although next year could well have fewer than 50 to vote for this. Also, the game could be called. That is if there is not a quorum of legislatures tomorrow, everyone goes home without doing any business.
What's less clear is what will happen in the various outcomes' aftermath. Consider:
- Adjournment or lack of quorum tomorrow. The Mass Family Institute and its running dogs, such as Cardinal O'Malley and Ray Flynn, will likely file more law suits and generally play victim like kindergartners rolling on the playground.
- Victory vote for the amendment. The legislature will suffer at least another year with hundreds wasted hours per senator or rep when they could be doing real business. Frankly, we have serious issues of finance, education, and more -- causes not yet lost.
Regardless of how the ConCon goofs this up, it's going to fall to incoming Governor Deval Patrick to fix. He's a great mediator and this will require all his skills.
Frankly again, there are those of us who no longer care how this amendment dies -- so long as Patrick and the new legislature act quickly to repair the law and ensure that civil rights of any minority are exempt from ballot initiatives. Many of us see the bishops' actions and the tactics of MFI/VoteonMarriage as illegal and immoral. We disdain Attorney General Tom Reilly's willingness to permit an initiative clearly designed to overturn a court decision; likewise, we were stunned when the chastened and gutless SJC let it proceed.
This entire process stinks like a troop of Boy Scouts returning from a two-week hiking trip. We don't need to hear now that we must vote on this because it has sneaked and slithered its way this far.
Unfortunately for him, Patrick is going to have to deal with this. It's a good test of how he can make the right outcome from almost impossible material. We watch with great interest.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon, Deval Patrick
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
A Big "So What?" on SSM Vote
Although it included a mild surprise, the thrust of today's Supreme Judicial Court ruling on the same-sex marriage suit was the obvious one. The AP and Boston Globe report that there's nothing they can do legally to force the legislature to vote on a ballot initiative in Constitutional Convention.
Traveler's Apology: We're on the road. However, so far there is decent coverage and links on this news at Blue Mass Group.
The surprise is that the unanimous decision included a mention that the combined legislature is constitutionally required to vote on such amendment petitions. This is a strict interpretation of the state constitution's Article 48. Everyone agrees that its spongy wording requires that any final action on a petition must be by vote. The decision includes:
The suit was theater by our POTUS-envying outgoing governor. We rather doubt that he scored any points in his stagger toward Washington with this one. Instead, it serves to remind potential voters of Willard Mitt Romney's inability to lead in marriage equality for any side.
This was the expected result and likely seals this poison petition's nasty fate. Itty boo, Mitt.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon, Mitt Romney
Traveler's Apology: We're on the road. However, so far there is decent coverage and links on this news at Blue Mass Group.
The surprise is that the unanimous decision included a mention that the combined legislature is constitutionally required to vote on such amendment petitions. This is a strict interpretation of the state constitution's Article 48. Everyone agrees that its spongy wording requires that any final action on a petition must be by vote. The decision includes:
The members of the joint session have a constitutional duty to vote, by the yeas and nays, on the merits of all pending initiative amendments before recessing on January 2, 2007. With respect to legislative action on proposals for constitutional amendments introduced to the General Court by initiative petition, the language of art. 48 is not ambiguous.That may change future such ConCon actions. However, the decision also noted that there could be no court-imposed legal remedy for inaction.
The suit was theater by our POTUS-envying outgoing governor. We rather doubt that he scored any points in his stagger toward Washington with this one. Instead, it serves to remind potential voters of Willard Mitt Romney's inability to lead in marriage equality for any side.
This was the expected result and likely seals this poison petition's nasty fate. Itty boo, Mitt.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon, Mitt Romney
Thursday, December 21, 2006
It's Official in New Jersey
Well, New Jersey was quick if not complete. The legislature passed a civil-union bill in under two months following a court order mandating marriage equality. Today, Governor Jon Corzine signed it into law.This certainly was a fair leap in the right direction. Yet, it is bound to annoy many and inspire them to further action.
Garden State Equality folk want and pledge to work for full marriage. On the other side, the AP article found one group deluding itself into imagining a repeal:
''It's same-sex marriage without the title,'' said John Tomicki, president of the New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage. ''It uproots the cardinal values of our culture.''He said opponents would push for a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex unions in New Jersey, no matter what they're called.Fat chance, John-o. The situation in Jersey is very similar to that here, and in fact, apparently partially responding to the lack of problems following full marriage legalization in Massachusetts. In New Jersey the vast majority of voters favor marriage equality. If the legislators had had just a bit more guts, they would have gone the simpler way and expanded marriage to be gender neutral.
In the accompanying AP photo of the signing, Corzine signed the civil-union law while Garden State Equality CEO Steven Goldstein hugged Senator Loretta Weinberg.
The Northeast is shaping up to be quite a thumb in the eye of America, or at least the anti-gay portions.
Tags: massmarrier, New Jersey, same sex marriage, civil unions
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Marriage Bluster Before High Court
Arguments on the suit to force the anti-same-sex-marriage amendment onto the 2008 ballot were before the Supreme Judicial Court today. Over at Blue Mass Group, David live blogged it.
The short recap is that he figures it ended up pretty well where we said it would -- the SJC doesn't have and won't try to claim the power to force the legislature to vote on it.
The Boston Globe brief coverage also stresses Assistant Attorney General Peter Sack's defense position. He suggested that the only recourse voters who favored the ballot initiative had was to organize and vote out the majority of legislators who voted to recess, likely killing the amendment. If the combined two houses do not have a quorum or otherwise do not vote on this amendment when they come out of recess on January 2nd, it will share Jacob Marley's well known status.
Our avocational governor, Willard Mitt Romney, signed onto the suit as a private citizen, for theatrical and political reasons. He seems to know that he can't be GOP candidate for POTUS in two years unless he at least tries to kick gays. He's late to the game, but is begging to come off the bench.
In all likelihood both the state-level suit and its even more absurd federal version will flame out shortly. This leads us to wonder whether Romney will get any benefit at all from such silliness. We don't see him having any real chance to be on the GOP 2008 ticket no matter how many dumb tricks he pulls.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon, Mitt Romney
The short recap is that he figures it ended up pretty well where we said it would -- the SJC doesn't have and won't try to claim the power to force the legislature to vote on it.
The Boston Globe brief coverage also stresses Assistant Attorney General Peter Sack's defense position. He suggested that the only recourse voters who favored the ballot initiative had was to organize and vote out the majority of legislators who voted to recess, likely killing the amendment. If the combined two houses do not have a quorum or otherwise do not vote on this amendment when they come out of recess on January 2nd, it will share Jacob Marley's well known status.Our avocational governor, Willard Mitt Romney, signed onto the suit as a private citizen, for theatrical and political reasons. He seems to know that he can't be GOP candidate for POTUS in two years unless he at least tries to kick gays. He's late to the game, but is begging to come off the bench.
In all likelihood both the state-level suit and its even more absurd federal version will flame out shortly. This leads us to wonder whether Romney will get any benefit at all from such silliness. We don't see him having any real chance to be on the GOP 2008 ticket no matter how many dumb tricks he pulls.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon, Mitt Romney
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Witness in Worcester
Unless his buds Sean Cardinal O'Malley and Ray Ex-Progressive Flynn convince him otherwise, Larry Cirignano is not likely to do the right thing. The executive director of Catholic Citizenship will be charged with simple assault in Worcester.
Observations of a witness follow in this post. The Worcester Telegram report on the complaint has victim, aggressor and police comments. Today's report says Cirignano will appear before a clerk magistrate who will decide whether there's enough evidence to try him.
Doubting Thomases, there is an item to this effect in today's Boston Globe (half way down). Victim and witness statements seemed adequate to require a summons for the misdemeanor. He will face the charge for seeking out a counter-protester in a crowd at a rally calling for passage of an anti-same-sex-marriage amendment and pushing her so that she fell to the ground.
So far, he and some of his supports use their own blogs, press releases, statements to the press and comments on left-wing blogs to slam the victim and claim Cirignano's innocence. Among this bluster is the she-was-asking-for-it defense. This is not in the she wore a red dress cliché, rather that she was not in a protesting group that had a permit, so whatever happened, just happened.
Odder seems to be Cirignano's seemingly indefensible remarks so far. First, he charged that she was crowding the podium and he was defending the speakers (pix of the rally show perhaps a 30-foot separation from the nearest [and anti-SSM] protesters and the podium). He also claims that he had a portfolio in one hand and was gently leading this misguided little woman out of his group. He says he never pushed her.
A witness from Worcester, who was at the rally, tells me:
It is easy and apt to see this metaphorically. What witnesses say Cirignano did, and even some of his defenders' apology for him, translate. Do these folk respect other humans? Do they honor and obey the law?
We learn some key behaviors early. A prime measure of civilization and civility is never raising a verbal difference to a physical level. Another is not attacking those weaker than you -- small folk, the elderly, children, and in such cases as this a large man against a small woman.
It would appear Cirignano has miscalculated on this one. While the likely penalty would be a small fine, his conviction is both unethical and will follow him and his odious organization. O'Malley and Flynn are already iffy with their other associations; they don't need this either.
A sensible Cirignano might have said that he strode those many yards into a crowd to confront Loy, found himself carried away by the moment and "guided" her more firmly than he originally intended. He might have apologized and been done with it.
That would have required someone willing to own up to his actions and a man of honor. Think. Think. Think. Would that happen here? Did it happen here?
Meanwhile, until video surfaces to convince even some of the most delusional, we have to heap scorn on Cirignano for not expressing any concern for the victim here.
The anti-SSM forces have lost the larger battle and eventually will have to face that. Until that occurs, they should dig down to what they likely learned in church and most may even have heard at home.
Concern and respect for others drives and lubricates human interaction. Self-righteousness and resulting violence are in our feral nature that we need to control and channel. Maybe that should fall to Friar O'Malley to have that discussion with his chum.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, same-sex marriage, Catholic Citizenship, Worcester, Sharon Loy, Cirignano
Observations of a witness follow in this post. The Worcester Telegram report on the complaint has victim, aggressor and police comments. Today's report says Cirignano will appear before a clerk magistrate who will decide whether there's enough evidence to try him.
Doubting Thomases, there is an item to this effect in today's Boston Globe (half way down). Victim and witness statements seemed adequate to require a summons for the misdemeanor. He will face the charge for seeking out a counter-protester in a crowd at a rally calling for passage of an anti-same-sex-marriage amendment and pushing her so that she fell to the ground.
So far, he and some of his supports use their own blogs, press releases, statements to the press and comments on left-wing blogs to slam the victim and claim Cirignano's innocence. Among this bluster is the she-was-asking-for-it defense. This is not in the she wore a red dress cliché, rather that she was not in a protesting group that had a permit, so whatever happened, just happened.
Odder seems to be Cirignano's seemingly indefensible remarks so far. First, he charged that she was crowding the podium and he was defending the speakers (pix of the rally show perhaps a 30-foot separation from the nearest [and anti-SSM] protesters and the podium). He also claims that he had a portfolio in one hand and was gently leading this misguided little woman out of his group. He says he never pushed her.
A witness from Worcester, who was at the rally, tells me:
I can't tell you whether Sarah Loy had ever been as close to the podium as some have indicated. I never saw her there, but I wasn't tracking her movements or anything. What I can speak of is where she was at the time of the assault. She was about 10-15 feet in front of me and about 80-90 feet from the podium. She was in the VoteOnMarriage half circle, but only 4 or so people deep. I saw the hands on her shoulders as she was pushed over, but due to the crowd I didn't see the face "connected" to the hands. She was pushed hard enough that the back of her head hit the ground pretty hard. When I saw Ms. Loy go down and stay down, I went to go and check on her well-being. She was awake but very upset and shaken-up. I picked her head off the ground and as I did so, I looked up to see the man that I now know as Larry Cirignano quickly making his way back towards the podium. I couldn't identify the person until he turned around and looked back at us. I saw the face, sweater, and coat which allowed me to identify Mr. Cirignano, who had spoken at the podium just before the incident. On the orders of the police, I got Ms. Loy up and escorted her out of the crowd.Supposedly there is video by some witnesses. If taken by the VOM folk, it may or may not end up with the police and courts, particularly if what so many witnesses report is accurate.
It is easy and apt to see this metaphorically. What witnesses say Cirignano did, and even some of his defenders' apology for him, translate. Do these folk respect other humans? Do they honor and obey the law?
We learn some key behaviors early. A prime measure of civilization and civility is never raising a verbal difference to a physical level. Another is not attacking those weaker than you -- small folk, the elderly, children, and in such cases as this a large man against a small woman.
It would appear Cirignano has miscalculated on this one. While the likely penalty would be a small fine, his conviction is both unethical and will follow him and his odious organization. O'Malley and Flynn are already iffy with their other associations; they don't need this either.
A sensible Cirignano might have said that he strode those many yards into a crowd to confront Loy, found himself carried away by the moment and "guided" her more firmly than he originally intended. He might have apologized and been done with it.
That would have required someone willing to own up to his actions and a man of honor. Think. Think. Think. Would that happen here? Did it happen here?
Meanwhile, until video surfaces to convince even some of the most delusional, we have to heap scorn on Cirignano for not expressing any concern for the victim here.
The anti-SSM forces have lost the larger battle and eventually will have to face that. Until that occurs, they should dig down to what they likely learned in church and most may even have heard at home.
Concern and respect for others drives and lubricates human interaction. Self-righteousness and resulting violence are in our feral nature that we need to control and channel. Maybe that should fall to Friar O'Malley to have that discussion with his chum.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, same-sex marriage, Catholic Citizenship, Worcester, Sharon Loy, Cirignano
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)