Thursday, June 15, 2006

Putting the People in Mass Transit

Again, I call for starting with the ideal of a fareless mass-transit system in Massachusetts. We have pro and con folk here and here.

Even if we don't end up there, let's set the goal where we want to go.

For an active thread on related topics, head over to Live from the Third Rail.

Hop on, jump in, speak up. There is no better set of conditions for an overhaul of the MBTA both at the board and legislature levels. We have to stop thinking about more duct tape on a serious, complicated machine.

Displaced Rant: There seems to be a little comment-posting issue over at Live. Until it's resolved, I'll tuck a reply to that thread here.
Hidden costs and debt are no less real. If auto and truck drivers had to pay the full costs of highways -- without the extra burden from pollution and ill health, every road would have tolls or state taxes would be several times what they are now. From the Eisenhower days and even before, we as a nation and several states have accepted that we pay billions annually to subsidize the roads that let us travel and move our goods from dock or factory to warehouse and store. We pay it and reap the benefits in subsidized food and other goods. The costs are huge and real, but hidden.

Several Europe and Asian countries have awesome intercity train system. Yet in each country and region, the governments recognized the broad significance of having these. They paid for the infrastructure. Only then did they say keep the costs below this or that level and make sure your fares pay for this percentage of costs.

In contrast, adding the $5.2 billion in debt to the MBTA (28% of its budget by its count), the legislature virtually guaranteed failure. All of the economic stars would have had to align perfectly to begin reducing that debt.

We need both extremes here. First, we must have the vision to define our ideal mass-transit system to fit the current and foreseeable conditions. Our oil dependence, pollution and health issues, road congestion and so forth should make this pretty easy. The vision should not say, "Oh, gee, how can we take this broken, unprofitable system and tweak it to make it barely workable."

That's the primary drive for the call for a fareless MBTA.

The could not be a more perfect set of pressures that would promise greater ridership and fewer cars for our cities. We need innovation and farseeing solutions. The current proposals from the MBTA board virtually ensure fewer riders, more cars, and higher per-ride costs.

In the end, removing the debt, putting better managers in charge of the MBTA, reducing fares to $1 for the subway, and giving the MBTA a fair chance at meeting its costs may the enough. I want us to start with that ideal and fareless system on the table.

The General Court made a huge boner in forward funding. As we are demanding that they fix it, we should be looking beyond patch, patch, patch.

I'll try to gather the supporting data as I get to it -- spun my way, of course. I can be like Lightnin' Hopkins saying, "I don't understand why people don't understand the way I do."

Meanwhile, we've been having other discussion on my rant here and here.


Tags: , , , ,

Mad Dad's Lad Had Sad Bad?

Thank the blogosphere for MassResistanceWatch. Bud covered the latest on Lexington's Mad Dad. So, I can avoid doing so.

The supposed publicity-shy guy let the infamous Article8 folk run a press release on his son allegedly being roughed up at school last month.

Bud writes against bullying.

We would add the we hope for the Mad Dad's lad that he has not begun displaying self-righteousness and confrontational behavior at six.

With no apparent irony, the Article8/MassResistance folk aver:
There can be no question that this beating has little to do with children. It was fueled and incited by adults (and, yes, school officials) in the town of Lexington. And it reflects the culture of extreme intolerance against anyone with traditional beliefs, and the willingness of adults to bring children into adult issues.
Indeedy, making your kids carry the burden of your emotional foibles...

Tags: , , , , ,

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Get Them Damn Teenagers Off My Road!

School days, my 12-year-old and I walk the half mile to his bus stop. Today, he wanted to know what it was with the lawmakers and teen drivers. First they wanted to raised the age to 17½. Today's papers cover the bill up for vote today that would provide a one-year loss of license and 50 hours of community service for kids caught speeding.

So, the lad thinking ahead to his vehicular future wanted to know what the august solons on Beacon Street have against kids.

Now, an irony here is that he had missed the story in today's paper about the bozo in Salem caught on his 13th DUI. Of course, he was driving with a suspended license, but driving still.

Granted, hormonally peaking teens have the highest accident rates. Yet, even my 12-year-old asked, "Well, how do they get the experience to drive well if they can't drive?"

I had to allow that we adults can be pretty simple-minded about law enforcement. We have the Tom Reilly lock-'em-up mentality. That's what we grew up hearing and that's what he has done as a career. Our attorney general looks in his tool chest, sees the hammer of retribution and bangs away on everything. (Check his campaign Web site to see how nearly every problem has a law-enforcement solution.)

That's understandable for him and in fact for many Boomers. We grew up with the idea that if you have strict enough laws and enforce them, criminals will be paralyzed with second and third thoughts instead of doing their evil.

Of course, we can see that this is so much hooey.

In Texas for example, the state is the number one murderer, far more deadly than any rampaging gang. Yet state executions do not lower murder rates. In fact, where there is capital punishment, murder rates tend to be considerably higher.

It is similar with major and minor crimes. People driven by passion to shoot or stab a loved one do not sit in the time-out chair contemplating possible consequences. Neither do junkies breaking into a house for stuff to sell for a fix. Similarly, teens at 15, 16 or 17, depending on the state, do not weigh theoretical fines or suspensions every time they merge onto 128.

You can be sure that the lock-'em-up or take-away-their-license folk fall back on the dummy's chant of "It's only common sense." That's the postulate of the intellectually lazy.

Whether it's anti-same-sex marriage or traffic laws, when you hear the common-sense argument, you know it's hype and crap. It means that they can't back it up, but they believe it and want you to take it as an axiom for their main argument.

So, if murdering convicted felons does not deter others from similar deeds, and putting harsher penalties on teens for traffic violations that adults pay for and walk away from, what helps?

Well, for teens, examples are good, no excellent. When peers, parents and police all speed, drive drunk, pass red lights and stop signs, and don't bother with such frills as turn signals, what's a teen to think?

Local Note: The new Boston police chief can do us all a favor by having the department mechanic make sure the turn signals work on those Crown Vics. If necessary, the cops can have a 35-second short course on how to use them. Show us by example, oh mighty defenders of public safety!

We don't need to heap it on kids. We have plenty of traffic laws and regulations. Police from the state down to municipalities and demand 100% safe driving from their officers. Then, they can go through the trouble of writing tickets for such common Bostonisms like trailing cars through red lights. When people see that they are serious, now that's deterrent.

Kids will do what they are taught and shown. Passing harder laws for them while adults scoff at existing ones is inane.

Tags: , , , ,

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Blogger Brawn

More mass media mavens make malicious mouthings. Quite a few columnists, TV talking heads and reporters enjoy the new Kick the Bloggers game.

That's understandable and often quite amusing. It's the Wack-A-Mole of the moment.

We'll see how it goes in a couple of weeks at the Media Giraffe conference -- Democracy and Independence: Sharing News and Politics in a Connected World. Big shot real journalists will convene in Amherst to think deep thoughts and voice them. Bloggers are an add-on for one day.

There will be much on how folks can work together. There's certainly nothing about the grandeur of Daily Kos (or Blue Mass Group) nor some snarky stupid-blogger presentations.

Ink in the Veins

Having come out of journalism school and worked newspapers, I'm filled with the poison of print. I love paper, still read rags daily and numerous magazines in my very hands. I am a big clicker of online news and opinion, and have been from bulletin board days -- that's pre-Web Internet, by cracky.

From my jaundiced view, the flutter and pomp of mass media dissecting, dissing, and duplicating (poorly) blogs is too damned funny.
  • Newspapers don blog beanies. Many, including the Boston Globe list several or dozens of their own blogs where they used to link to useful ones. It seems every professional hack on the reporting and editing staff has orders to blog like they know what it is. Lame and worse. Get it not, they do, Jedi knights.
  • Puffer fish TV and radio pundits pronounce on -- and pounce on -- bloggers.
  • Online maggies, like Slate and Salon, feign sophisticated analysis of these nascent media.

Why All the Attention?

First, media types can't let their competitors outdo them. They rarely report on something really new or undefined. Damn it though, when it's in Newsweek or the New York Times, they're going to do something on it.

Many are threatened. It's not so much that blogs are going to cut into their advertising revenue much, but they just don't understand.

For an alter kaker -- probably around my age -- Channel 4's Jon Keller tries. He picks topics only a few weeks or months behind the curve and puts a little snark in his comments, just to show that he's a hep cat. Do wop.

His recent commentary on bloggers reflects that. He never avoids or runs out of clichés and uses such as tin-foil hats in this one. The gist is that there are bloggers of substance and others just off on tangents.

Isn't it nice that TV is so sophisticated, balanced and intellectually solid.

New and Scary

For those who remember the pre-blogger days of desktop publishing, think back. When the tools first let us do the paper equivalent of blogging -- newsletters. Much as the embarrassing proponderance of blogs later, these were often trivial and garish display of family pictures and personal trivialities -- boring at best, wailing cats at night too often.

In fairness, we must say that many of us bloggers love to talk about and aggrandize ourselves. Most of us are enthusiastic about our particular concerns.

I remember from my newspaper days the catharsis of being able to leave with a copy of my work for that day in my hand. When I did a good job or better, there it was. If I goofed up, I knew I could fix it the next day.

Later when I worked business or trade magazines, that changed. Articles were on the sked months in advance and the joy of your work lessened as the weeks passed before the paper was in your hand. The passion paled -- you were onto a half dozen other things by then.

It was worse when I edited a major business book for McGraw-Hill. It was many months from completion until the bound copies arrived. It was closer to meeting the kid you left on someone's doormat six years earlier. The immediacy was long past.

It's back with blogs. You can see it immediately, revise it on the fly, add new stuff to your emotional and intellectual satisfaction, and get reader feedback just as soon.

A handful of blogs are businesses. They promote themselves constantly, compete with each other in every way, and whore for publicity. There aren't many of those, but they are the ones that the mass media target.

Lefter than Thou

A few years ago, the mass media didn't make much of the Republican and other right-wingers making such excellent use of the Web. They raised money, spread lies and innuendo, and in generally made the most of the technology.

Recently though, the allegedly liberal media does make much of the liberal concentration among bloggers. It's almost like they're saying, "Don't call us liberal. It's those damned bloggers. They're the pinkos."

Being pretty pink myself, I don't see a problem with the left coming on strong with blogs. It sort of begins to compensate for the bloated concentration of conservatives on radio, TV and the Web. Then too, I think that the more you know, the more likely you are to be liberal. History and economics have a way of screaming about the inequities past and present. You can turn that off or say this needs fixing.

Even the best of our locals will pose with a celebrity blogger.

It's exciting to us rabble, frustrated by the blandness of the mass media and suddenly able to publish our brilliant or pathetic or even bland offering. Particularly in political area and with campaigns underway, we have dozens or hundreds or thousands of daily readers. That's nothing like what the sports section of the Globe on paper or online gets during baseball season, but its real and consistent and measurable.

Those simple pleasures seem to rile some big-media insiders. Particularly as the mass media have taken to calling the rich press Old Media, they get testy.

One example is behind the Times Select moat -- one way or another, you'd have to pay the Times to read Maureen Dowd's Bloggers Double Down. However, you can get a recap and commentary at Slate in John Dickerson's The Markos Regime.

He's still belittling, but not as toxic as Dowd. She concludes that the head of Daily Kos and the orginal Wonkette really aspire to be her, a real journalist, with a salary. As she wrote, "Even as Old Media is cowed by New Media, New Media is tryuing to become, rather than upend, Old Media."

Dickerson spits and wipes. "I hope Moulitsas doesn't let go of his snotty arrogance too easily. One of the healthiest things about the left-wing blogosphere is its confrontational dislike of the mainstream media."

While admitting that DK and other blogs are politically influential to greater or lesser degrees, he feigns detachment. Bloggers are too in love with themselves and big media reports are suckers for trends. He ends up calling for bloggers to downplay their influence to modulate expectations. He figures that the new truth after the mid-term elections will be big media piling on stories of how little influence blogs had in the election.

As for Dowd, she's off her nut and will likely rue such pronouncements.

I do love newspapers, but they don't get it and are not likely to until it's too late for many of them. Their circulation plunges, their ad revenues go South, and they don't know what to do. They have had centuries of being cash rich and asset poor, selling without maintaining inventory. They are kids in the playground waiting for enough to play baseball, while the soccer fields are full.

Rubbing Ideas Together

So over in Amherst, far from the sights, sounds and smells of the Charles, big media and a smattering of we pretenders and upstarts -- with attitude -- gather. As the organizers put it:
Hundreds of traditional and citizen journalists, political strategists, educators, bloggers, developers, technology and media researchers are expected to convene. The Media Giraffe Project, a non-partisan, interdisciplinary research effort of the UMass journalism program, is hosting the roundtable summit and how-to sessions designed to:
  • Consider and recommend answers to changes to the financing and practice of journalism
  • Bridge the gap between new and traditional media
  • Show and consider the impact of new media technologies on journalism and the "public sphere"
  • Spotlight emerging business models
  • Create new networks of media innovators which bridge traditional carriers among journalism, education, politics and technology
  • Watch and share innovations in media-literacy education.
We blogging sorts get in one day, at a much reduced rate. We may be the kids invited in to greet the older, more dignified relatives. A pat on the head, an ice-cream social (literally in this case), and go back out to play.

It looks like some good sessions.
Some of us will be live blogging and chatting it up afterward. Hey, it's easy PR.
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Monday, June 12, 2006

Flamethrower of Populism

The imps and devils of regression have dominated, but not totally controlled, the extremely dangerous weapon of ballot initiatives. A recap in this week's The Nation heaps praise on good results.

Link Note: If you subscribe to The Nation, you can see the piece here. To us, this is the most important publication available to progressives and other lefties. If you don't subscribe, why not start immediately?

Half our states allow ballot initiatives. Regressive and reactionary groups in the right have been successfully perverting their purpose -- to overturn incompetent and destructive laws -- for decades. The effort here and elsewhere to strip gays and other minitories of rights is too outrageous. This will surely continue until legislatures get smart enough to fine-tune this process to return it to its roots.

Of course, here in Massachusetts, we are in the throes of yet another pseudo-populist drive. Under the ruse of populism (Let the people vote! is the cry of the craven.), we have been wasting our intellectual, emotional and temporal capital on yet the latest anti-same-sex-marriage initiative. This one seems worse because it clearly is trying to overturn a court decision, something our constitution forbids. Yet, Attorney General Tom Reilly didn't have the courage and legal vision to call it was it is and nix it.

Elsewhere and otherwise, there are those like us who carp and those who do things. The Nation's article praises the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center. For five years, it has been teaching progressives how to use this process for good ends.

As well as achieving good legislation on their own, these apparently get out the vote:
Although ballot initiatives may not be as sexy as high-profile candidate races, they are an important part of this year's mid-term elections. In addition to paving the way for progressive policy strides, referendums can galvanize voters and increase turnout. According to University of Florida professor Daniel Smith, in the past twenty years of midterm elections, each ballot initiative increased turnout, on average, by 2 percentage points.
In this fall's pending elections, the good guys have:
  • Minimum-wage increases in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Montana, Nevada and Ohio.
  • Renewable energy in Washington and California.
  • Fusion voting in Massachusetts.
  • Stem cell research in Missouri. "If successful, this life-saving proposition could set the precedent for the next progressive multi-state ballot initiative campaign."

Tags: , , , ,

The Racing Gay Glacier in Canada

How embarrassing it is that we are the prissy, hoary aunt and uncle of the First World. The United States is shocked, shocked by fellatio and adultery, while hiding our high divorce and infidelity rates. We are likewise allegedly terrified that in Massachusetts homosexuals are legally marrying -- and for some indiscernible reason think that these civil ceremonies somehow threaten religious unions. Huh?

A bit North, the editorial-pages director of the Ottawa Citizen, Leonard Stern, predicts a last gasp of anti-gay, anti-same-sex-marriage voters this fall. In PM Stephen Harper's kabuki in Canada, the rural aged will get to vent and go off quietly to crunch on the tundra.

He looks on both sides of the border and sees accelerated social shifts, the cultural glacier sliding right along.

"A population can, in one generation, reject a whole set of inherited prejudices," he notes. He supports this with a lot of U.S. stats. Key examples include:
  • Percentages of Americans who say that homosexual relations are always wrong have gone from 80% two decades ago to 55% four years ago and surely less now.
  • Recently, 89% said homosexuals deserve equal job rights.
  • 30 years ago, most people wanted to ban gay elementary teachers. Now 70% are indifferent.
  • Meanwhile the percentage saying adultery is always wrong has gone from 70% in 1973 to 80% in 2004.
The overall trends he cites are parallel to acceptance of gays and a lesser extent, gay marriage. Simplistically, we can say that homosexuals have come out, people know them and find no problem, and most see that same-sex marriage harms nothing. Stern adds that "a growing body of research suggests that sexual orientation is part of our hardwiring, like skin colour. The biological dimension makes it harder to label gays and lesbians as deviants who have made perverted lifestyle choices."

While our states were slamming their aunt and uncle windows, most Canadian provinces were getting on with life. Here, 19 states shuddered in paranoia, to a one fearful of the contagion from Massachusetts.

Yet, Harper was able to reel in the reactionaries for his recent minority government with promises of a free vote on repealing SSM. Most of Canada would rather deal with real and present problems, like the economy. A few are like the snapping turtle that won't let go.

Yet, as Stern notes, "Most of these holdouts are rural folk or people older than 60. The data are clear on that. Very soon, resistance to gay marriage will be concentrated in seniors' residences and on disappearing farms.

"I suspect Harper is personally reconciled to the inevitability of gay marriage, but feels compelled to hold a vote to appease parts of his political base. So let them have their vote. It'll be their last stand."

That's a little sad, but it's sadder still that we here lag behind them.


Tags: , , , ,

Young Voters, Yes! Evangelicals, Eh?

No one seems too surprised that the Gen-Y and to a lesser extent Gen-X types support same-sex marriage, or at least say, "What's the big deal?" However more info suggests that they may stop whining about how unfair life is to them and be a major source of progressive changes.

Out in California, do-gooder foundation exec, Deborah Rappaport does a quick analysis of the political benefits of courting the 18 to 30-year-olds. She concludes that Howard Dean and his minions should not waste time on born-agains. As she put it, "(I)t might be easier and more effective to turn out young people who actually agree with us than to change an evangelical’s mind"

Personal Aside: I knew Deb and her not-yet-rich-VC hubby Andy pretty well when they lived here. That's another story. It's fabulous that they have been so active in giving money and support to progressive causes. Too many got-bucks Boomers turn to the Dark Side or just sit on their capital.

She notes that this group votes right -- the only age set to vote Kerry...and to go to the polls in increasing numbers. There are nearly as many of them in the Boomlet as in the Boom. They vote and they vote progressive.

Deb has a sensible list of strong reasons for the Dems to make this group central to their election strategy:
  1. They actually like us. This is the only age group that voted for Kerry.
  2. They will vote if we reach out to them effectively. Young people had the largest increase in voter participation of any age group in 2004.
  3. There are a lot of them, 60 to 70 million. This generation is almost as large as the Baby Boomers.
  4. This is most diverse generation ever in America. One in three is a racial minority.
  5. We keep losing when we write young people off. Democrats have to try something new if we expect a different result.
That leads nicely into an idea attributed to Albert Einstein -- "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." It's long past time to stop that kind of behavior. Her suggestion is spot on for this.

Tags: , , , ,

Saturday, June 10, 2006

Out the Other Ear MBTA!

Over at T Rage! there's plenty of coverage and commentary on the recent Boston version of the MBTA fare-hike hearing. The organizer of the boycott turned rally has the fullest report on the hearing in part 1, part 2 and part 3.

Mike Mennonno has by far the most complete running commentary almost to the mumbling end. He stayed nearly an hour longer than I and took detailed notes.

You have your Deval denigration, your crazies slurs, and your snarky comments on individual testimony. It's like you watched it on CCTV in a bar with a tipsy chum.

By the bye, he thought my comment for a fully subsidized T wouldn't work. He figured hooligans would trash vehicles and stations more if they didn't have to pay something. Huh? His granny must of talked like that.

I do recommend all three parts in order. Reading it might inspire you to send your comments to the MBTA email while the public input sked permits (June 30 deadline).

Tags: , , , , ,

Will the Best Bucks Win?

This year's gubernatorial election may be unique in candidates' attitudes. Three of the four rich folk -- Kerry Healey, Chris Gabrieli and Christy Mihos -- claim not too subtly:
  1. I have so much money that I won't, can't be outspent.
  2. I therefore am the best hope of our party getting (or keeping) the corner office.
From one angle, Tom Reilly is right there. He loves the common-man/apartment dweller image, but he has many millions collected for this campaign.

Only (the still rich guy) Deval Patrick has taken a grassroots approach. His message, not his investment portfolio or existing war chest, has gotten and kept his supporters. The others seem largely left with whines like, "If he really loved you, he'd pledge to give you back your 0.3% -- about one three-hundredths -- of your state taxes back to, to, well, maybe buy dinner.

That surely must please the Republicans and Healey immensely. Gabrieli just barely, and by the grace of House Speaker Sal Dimasi tossing him surely-strings-attached delegates at the last minute, bought his way onto the primary ballot.

Now he has sworn to spend up to $15 million and change to win the primary. This means, most obviously, that the candidates' and Democratic Party's wealth pisses down the political urinal, while Healey and the Republicans watch with amusement and a crisp Muscadet in hand. They count their cash as the Democrats spend each other down.

Obviously, the best for the DP would have been for Patrick or even Reilly to have taken all the marbles at the convention. Second best would have been for the relative losers to say, "Okay. It's important enough for Massachusetts that we retake the governor's office that I step down and support the leader, the next governor."

I think it's fair to say that neither Reilly nor Gabrieli cares as much for the commonwealth's citizens as they do for their own ambitions and egos. That should be no surprise among politicians.

Let's assume the very unlikely, that Gabrieli wins the primary. He would do it on fumes, or more like glue vapors. He has a venture capitalist's platform, which has as its centerpiece and almost entirety a $1 billion stem-cell R&D program. Like any good VC, he's mostly Barnum and bunkum. His latest good idea is a great idea and it will lead to solutions to all major problems. Trust him.

Also like a typical VC, he is very LITE. Even Reilly's pathetic, lock-'em-up platform is deeper and farther ranging. Take away the Healey-style buzzwords and Gabrieli has shown us next to nothing.

Consider the piece in today's Globe that covers how late and lame he was on supporting same-sex marriage and gay-rights. As this DP campaign continues, we're likely to see more comparing by the candidates. Gabrieli was busy doing a good job making money after losing two statewide offices. He didn't have brilliant or even solid platforms then or now. He hasn't been saving the world or the state or even Boston. He has considerable catching up to do, but would be well advised not to claim positions he never had.

Back to the assumption, Gabrieli wins the primary. Then he and the Queen of the North Shore go wallet to wallet, money-o a money-o.

Let's say he's been right all along and that the message isn't the thing. Let's say that the one who spends the most wins, and in this extrapolation, it's he.

What do we, Massachusetts, get?
  1. A Democrat in the statehouse.
  2. A visionless egotist who has a one-trick show.
I can't see him cajoling, inspiring or even browbeating the General Court and its leaders into action. Lord knows, he has next to no actions for promote. We have had a stagnate and cowardly legislature for so long and a series of Republican governors who do not make them solve our problems, much less lead us to a better future.

Perhaps in such a case, it would turn the cliché on its ear. You get what pays for you.

Unless Gabrieli suddenly produces more than fluff and platitudes, that's a very scary thought.

Gabby Up and Down: LeftinLowell has a great set of comments on Gabrieli's money and ideas or non-ideas.

Tags: , , , ,

Friday, June 09, 2006

House Hoses the Net

Wait. A better head is really U.S. House Whores the Net.

On an almost straight party vote, House Republicans tried to permanently screw your Internet access yesterday. By an overwhelming 321 to 101, they passed an act giving cable companies the right to slow down or block your access to sites that don't pay them for suddenly premium throughput.

They also rejected Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey's Net-neutrality protection amendment by 269 to 152. That would have required cable firms, phone companies or others who sell bandwidth to offer "nondiscriminatory" Net access.

If this God awful disgrace repeats in the U.S. Senate, the Net as you know it today is gone. The Verizons and Comcasts will determine within their own monopolistic circles what their customer get and at what speed. The restrictions are off the providers and on content and customer. Nice going, Republican Reps!

Sticking it to us millions of Americans, the House conservatives seem much more interested in future corporate support than public well-being or in freedom of access to information. As Markey told the Washington Post, "The telephone companies have made clear that they can create a fast lane that will require extra payments and a slow lane for everyone else who can't afford it. That is a fundamental change in the history of the Internet, and it will adversely affect millions of Internet users across our country."

Even for the Bush administration, this is too sleazy to believe.

Away from the White House, on the white-hat side, Save the Internet holds out hope that the Senate shows some guts and morality. Free Press co-founder Robert W. McChesney's statement includes:
The Senate cannot ignore the massive right-left coalition of Americans that have unified behind Net Neutrality: over 750,000 individuals, nearly every consumer group, the Internet’s founders, and a rapidly growing coalition of nearly every industry that relies on the Internet...

The House vote is a pyrrhic victory for the telecom lobby. Momentum to defend Net Neutrality will only grow as Americans realize that the threat to internet freedom is real. Senators can expect to hear their constituents loud and clear on their responsibility to protect Net Neutrality and we will be watching closely to make sure they listen.
So, this is precisely the time. Click on the Save the Internet button in the left column for details on what you can do. At the very least, right now, email or call your U.S. Senator. Demand protection for Net neutrality.

Tags: , , , ,

Thursday, June 08, 2006

SSM LITE

I hope it's needless to write that if you are not visiting The Onion every Wednesday, you are wasting your chuckling ability. For those of us who take same-sex marriage seriously, perhaps too seriously, they managed to find a yuck or two in the defeat of the Bush amendment this week.

Check out the whole site, but start with American Voices (the person-in-the-street) Gay Marriage Amendment:

The US Senate voted yesterday on a proposed Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. What do you think?

Patrick Walsh,

Bulldozer Operator

"Hopefully this will put to rest the gays' filthy desire to file joint tax returns once and for all."

David Cherney,

Car Wash Attendant

"A ban on gay marriage is a good first step, but it's time to get serious about a complete ban on the institution."

Ariel Kenner,

Piano Accompanist

"I won't rest until we declare heterosexuality the official sexuality of the United States."

Washington State = Waiting State

African elephants can have longer gestation periods than the Washington State Supreme Court has taken -- so far -- with its same-sex marriage ruling. The wrinkled gray things (the elephants, that is) can hold a fetus for 22 months. So far the court has sat on the case 15 months after the arguments.

Six months ago, we reported that it was any Thursday now. According to an update in the Seattle Times, the joke has gone from any day now to anybody's guess.

So what's the clog?

The case was pretty much what went before the Supreme Judicial Court here. However, in this case, the state has a DOMA, one-man/one-woman law in question.

There is another minor kink, in that Olympia doesn't have miscegenation-based laws forbidding out-of-staters from marrying there if those marriages would conflict with the where they normally reside. So folk could marry at a church, city hall or Starbucks in Seattle and take their potential lawsuit home right away.

The judges there can't discuss pending cases. So we are left with speculation, expert and otherwise.

How Washington Works

The funky procedure in the court randomly assigns a case to a justice. After arguments, that justice decides an outcome and tries to convince all or a majority to agree.

If a majority agrees, the first justice who disagrees writes the dissenting opinion. If a majority disagrees, the justice who has the case responsibility does that.

Then majority and dissenting opinion drafts get review and comment by the other justices.

This could be a major delaying factor, according to former Washington Supreme Court Justice Phil Talmadge. "You have opinions circulating to nine chambers. It's time-intensive and a fairly slow process if there are multiple opinions."

The three likely outcomes might be:
  1. Strike the DOMA, immediately legalizing SSM.
  2. Uphold the DOMA.
  3. Chicken out and pass the issue to the legislature.
Meanwhile, a lot of legal experts agree that the delay means it is neither unanimous nor a clear majority. "If they were going to uphold DOMA, that would have been an easier and quicker decision," said Seattle University Law Professor Lisa Brodoff.

Numerous anti-SSM groups concur.

So, we are back to checking in on Thursdays, when the court announces any decisions.

Tags: , ,

Disconnected SSM Panic Button

Nationwide and beyond, left, center and even a few rightist newspaper editorials rip George Bush on his anti-SSM amendment push. After its predictable defeat in the U.S. Congress, we all wonder whether evangelicals and other easily manipulated voters will buy it this time.

Slate's editor, Jacob Weisberg, has three reasons in his analysis that it will fail.

Meanwhile the editorials and news analyses are filled with pandering and desperation and similar terms to describe this election-year ploy. Conservative entertainers like Coulter and Limbaugh, as well as columnists, have fallen to Pee Wee Herman-type retorts -- I know you are. What am I, and You're a bigot if you call me a bigot!

Consider Weisberg's main points:
  1. The "combination of cynicism and futility evident in the way Republicans aer bringing the matter up now." No states beyond Massachusetts have legalized SSM. The DOMA is still in place. There are now laws and/or amendments prohibiting SSM in 45 states. Also, the evangelicals, who sat up and barked on command in 2004, only to find George the Lesser forgetting the SSM issue until now, "are in effect being told: Come and get your election--year bone, before we kick you back into your doghouse on Nov. 8."
  2. Democrats, who can let righteousness get in the way of pragmatism, have learned how to handle SSM. They point to the states-rights angle, to the amendment banning civil unions as well as SSM, and the danger of goofing with the Constitution, particularly with DOMA in effect.
  3. Also, this battle has been lost, here and elsewhere, First World nations have slowly and quietly grown to accept homosexuals and even SSM. Gay-rights legislation abounds and the younger generations yawn while WWII and Boomer grayheads rant like the Pope or Sam Brownback.
Weisberg doesn't touch on what many editorial writers and bloggers do -- our nation is staggering and reeling under borrow-and-spend Republican debt, thousands of our war dead, an ever increasing security peril as the War on Terrorism fails, and an executive branch that lies, spies on us all, and tries to destroy the balance of power in our government.

We were astonished that this nation would end up with George the Lesser -- twice. Surely all but the most dull-witted minority can now see this small group repeatedly pushing this SSM panic button for what it is.

Yet, we have mid-term elections pending that will show whether we choose the fantasy world again or deal with the problems that doing that twice has brought us.

Tags: , , , ,

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Federal SSM Amendment Fails. Now What?

The only question was how much the religious right smooching Bush's anti-SSM Constitutional amendment would fail in the Senate. The AP says it was 49 to 48 votes -- 11 votes short of the 60 to keep it alive, for eventual failure at the state level.

Dark Side forces are spinning it as, "We came closer than last time." In fact several freshmen Senators hopped in.

The question now is what this will do in the mid-term elections. One side is figuring that this will get a higher conservative and reactionary turnout for Republicans. The other thinks this is overreaching in a nation that sees real problems -- war, poverty, economic decline -- unaddressed while George the Lesser and his Congress play SSM games.

The Rev. Jerry Falwell told Richmond Times-Dispatch columnist Ray McAllister that he's taking names. God's man in Virginia said:
I'm glad we're doing it. I want to see where everyone stands. It's my opinion that anyone in the Senate running on the national level will be committing political suicide by voting against it.
He calls this good politics to help keep control of the Congress.

The fascinating angle is when will even the most simple-minded conservatives tire of all this. We saw it in Maine with the gay-rights law and with the polls in Massachusetts when now favor SSM.

There comes a point at which voters cry, "Enough!"

Tags: , , , , ,

In Your Ear, MBTA! Two

At yesterday's MBTA fare-increase hearing, we were the focused, the scattered, the concise, the self-righteous, and some just plain loony. After a T official cried poor and promised service improvements, we rabble got to rouse.

About 40 or so of us who had signed on the clipboard sheets had our allotments of two to three minutes. We were often angry and indignant, outraged that the mismanaged, underfunded T would come for its second big increase in fares in two years.

There were a few swayers and mumblers in the crowd, but no obvious dirty smellies. A few had non-fare-related agenda. Several of those were a welcome break from the relatively consistent chants of late trains, filthy seats, and why pay for such poor service.

On the Edges

Among the fringe speakers were:
  • A funny, shaved-head cycling guy. He took the mike off its stand and moved in tight circles talking about not being able to get the T after 2 p.m. when he needed it, wondering how many rapes related to women not being able to take the transit in the wee hours, and his finale of pulling a set of scratch tickets out of his pockets and offering them to the first person would cackle like a chicken. A woman did and he gave them to her. He wanted fun in the T and proposed a scratch ticket to benefit the T.
  • A public-access cable TV guy. He filmed the testimony. He wore a Holy Grail tee-shirt reading I'm not dead yet. He claimed to have been wrongly convicted of filming and taping transit cops on public property. He named names, and gave a URL.
  • An angry, sad woman. She claimed that she had been sexually harassed, apparently by a T driver and then had her complaint ignored. She also named multiple names.
While the two slanders were in the air, MBTA Assistant General Counsel Gerald Kelley didn't handle it. He let the people go far too long and cover inflammatory ground of questionable legality and certain irrelevance to the fare-increases.

MBTA Bungling

A little more amusingly, Kelley announced several times that we could get additional information from fareproposal@mbta.com. He referred to this repeatedly as the Website, not email address. He is no alpha geek and needs some 12-year-old to explain addresses to him.

In fact, that email address is where people who can't get to a T hearing, can't get a chance to testify, or have a flash of brilliance they want to share with the T later to send a comment. There is a site for more information about the threatened increase.

Kelley was not even a moderately good moderator. He let quite a few ravers abuse their three-minute limit. The Sierra Club guy for one seems particularly disjointed. He's go on about some angle, then stop suddenly and launch into another. Kelley finally said he had been talking for over six minutes and then let him go for another two. That meant another three or four of us lost out of our chances.

At the beginning was a little humor and much dudgeon. When the tall and gangly Dennis DiZoglio, deputy general manager for development, started his PowerPoint to claim justification for the increase, people said they couldn't hear him. The mike would not extend to his face. So he said he'd bend over. A wag up front called, the best laugh of the hearing, "Isn't that what you're asking us to do?"

The couple of dozen late arrivals who could not get in caused much hooha. Deval Patrick called to let them in. Numerous of the audience yelled the same.

The official story is that the room only held 150 before it violated fire code. Many stood in the back, leaving empty chairs that seem to beckon butts to cover them.

The real issue is that the arrogant MBTA apparently wanted to limit the number and keep within their two-hour hearing sked. They certainly should have arranged for the huge lecture hall in the basement. First come first speaking on the clipboard lists. 150 or 600 in the room is not relevant other than letting people think it really is a public hearing.

Wait 2 Hours, Speak 2 Minutes

At 6:17, I took my two minutes to testify about my request for a fare-free T. I had two advantages at this point. One, no one had already said that, and two, Senator Jarrett Barrios had insisted that the T board come to the legislature for a financial restructuring. That fit nicely into my plea.

Mine was simple enough. We heavily subsidize auto travel through millions here and billions nationally annually for highway construction, maintenance and enforcement. Unlike mass-transit subsidies, these are hidden and accepted. They also encourage exactly what we should not want -- more cars and gas usage, pollution, congestion, noise, accidents, and illness.

We should not compare our T fares with other mass-transit cities. Instead we should lead the nation in putting our money where our mouth is. Fully subsidize mass transit, including commuter rail. Make it too attractive not to take the T. Drastically reduce vehicular traffic, and reap the health, safety, economic and other benefits from then on.

I said that he legislature had made a terrible mistake twice, once in not thinking through the forward-funding and what would happen if the sales-tax and other assumptions didn't work, and two not leading on fixing it when they saw that it didn't work. They have to correct their serious miscalculations.

The proposal got much applause and cheering. One the way out, I heard one sad, strange little woman calling out, "It'll never happen." I wonder whether she works for the T, or maybe she's one of those throttling types who'll say, "I'm only trying to be realistic." In that way lies stagnation.

Tags: , , , , ,

In Your Ear, MBTA!

Last afternoon's whine and bitch fest against the T was energizing. With the exception of a few loonies, the handful of politicians and 40 or so commuters who testified were focused on their angles and united in opposition to fare increases.

Some candidates and legislators showed. Deval Patrick and Senator Jarrett Barrios made the strongest statements. Barrios even gave me a glimmer of hope for my call for a fare-free T.

The hearing was typically T bungled, which seemed only to add to the indignation of the attendants. As you might expect literally everyone scolded or accused the T officials. To their credit, speaker Dennis DiZoglio, deputy general manager for development, and moderator, Gerald Kelley, assistant general counsel, took it well and didn't rubify in anger or embarrassment.

Then again, the MBTA just got through a series of Q&As before starting these formal public hearings -- the chance for us to rant, two to three minutes at a time. Also, it must be like being a garbage collector; even after your afternoon shower, people hold their noses out of stereotyping. Woe to those who say, "I represent the MBTA."

In the what-were-the-thinking class, the hearing was in the teen reading area of the Copley library. That has a maximum occupancy of 150 ranters. I got there 20 minutes before the 4:30 p.m. start time, to find a fair number of seats. Yet, I was about 40th in the list of those who signed up to testify. Apparently cops were counting the bodies and shut the doors at 150, leaving a few dozen to fester outside. We can't know how many passersby wanted to come in but didn't bother.

The solution was typical T, gather your goodies and leave after speaking so that an excluded commuter could come in and take your spot.

So, here we have the only public hearing in Boston proper, home of the largest number of commuters that starts during the workday, unlike the evening suburban ones. There is the huge Rabb hall in the basement, but they squeezed us in like, well, like T riders.

Deval is Deval

The real and hopeful politicians got to speak first -- a metaphor for societal deference. Deval was first and sharp.

As in his comments in a recent press release, he pointed out that this is exactly the wrong time to raise fares. The duty of the MBTA should be to serve the public and attract new riders, not hope to make a little more by charging fewer riders higher fees. Higher gas prices and stagnant wages make this the ideal time to get more commuters on board.

He earned much applause with his closing suggestion. He urged the MBTA board to find an interim funding solution until January, when he (as the new governor) would sit down with them and find a solution. This was clearly a pro-Deval crowd.

Vaguely Related Vignette: I spoke with Patrick at the front of the room. He allegedly recognized the blog and endorsement, thanking me. It is a small pity that our culture largely precludes the male ritual handshake. It is a rare woman who wants or will return and accept a firm grip. So they miss that personality indicator. His is not a flabby minister's version, but he's confident and sincere. Lastly, he doesn't do the finger-grip thing that so many politician use to keep from hurting their hands in the process.

Barrios Bares It

The Senator representing near north in an erose district from Cambridge to Saugus, Barrios was spot on and the highlight of the afternoon.

He noted that the MBTA only allows public input in the process at the fare-increase stage. There was no discussion about other alternatives, just after the board decided they would seek the increases.

He had the history. The MBTA asked for a big fare increase three years ago to make nearly identical improvements -- automated fare system and so forth -- as it is using now to justify it. Barrios has not forgotten and seemed to feel betrayed.

In response to the T's biggest lamentation, he had a solution. The board and its literature it points out that as part of the forward funding (legislatively mandated self-sufficiency), it got $5.2 billion in debt. Service on that takes over 27% of the budget.

Barrios raised his voice and looked piercingly at the T reps. He said that not once had they come to the legislature asking for relief. He urged them to come to the General Court and discuss why the economic conditions do not allow meeting forward funding requirements.

The T board and its general manager Daniel Grabauskas tell everyone, and the media parrots, that they have to raise fares because they can't ask the legislature for different funding. Barrios said that was certainly not so and that it was their duty to do so.

Incidentally, several of us testifying later noted that this fare increase is in fact yet another hidden tax. The T board and legislature did not do their jobs right. So, they try to pass a fare increase, thus taxing commuters.

Barrios also noted that from its origins that the commuters using the T, including Commuter Rail, were not the only or even the main beneficiaries. The idea for such a compact, congested metro area was to reduce vehicular traffic. With this comes, of course, fewer cars, less pollution and noise, easier access to work and shopping, and a superior, New England lifestyle.

The businesses are key beneficiaries, in transporting workers, tourists and shoppers.

It is to everyone's benefit to attract more riders and fewer drivers. The MBTA has long been terrible at this, and in fact, has managed to repel riders with bad service and higher fares.

The Also Speakers

A couple of other politicians testified before we ravers took our turns.

Senator Patricia Jehlen (Medford and parts of Somerville, Woburn and Winchester) gave a tepid assault on higher fares. Unfortunately she repeated "I know you can't come and ask" the legislature. She also inferred that this fare increase would be a short-term solution that did not solve long-term issues. Joan of Arc she wasn't.

For comic relief, the Massachusetts Green Party gubernatorial candidate Grace Ross testified. She provided a rambling and vague soak-the-rich solution. It was something about big developers get huge tax incentives to come to Boston. So, we somehow need to get the T shortfall from them.

Kicks from Hicks: Commuter Rail folk have largely different concerns from townies. They'd get the largest dollar increases if this goes through. They'd like to have trains that arrive near on time, and not an hour late. The MetroWest Daily News covered the Framingham Q&A here. You can see comments on LeftinLowell's readers here.

More Ranting to Come: A bit more on the hearing here. Plus UniversalHub has other coverage here.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

MBTA Boycott, Not

If you decided to honor the T boycott against fare increases call today and walk or bike to work, it'll do you good. On the other hand, the boycott organizers very belatedly bowed to those who said it was dumb -- too many people are not within non-mass-transit reach of work.

Regardless, the last Boston hearing is today at 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. at the Copley library. The no-longer-boycott folk will hold a brief rally (4ish?) before the hearing.

In other news, Deval Patrick announced that he was against the proposed fare hikes as "poorly timed" and impractical. He told the Metro by phone, "When gas prices are at $3 a gallon, and wages are stuck in neutral, itÂ’s a hardship on working families who commute to raise fares. WeÂ’re not talking about a couple of pennies. WeÂ’re talking about a big jump."

Fellow gubernatorial contender Chris Gabrieli's spokesman, Dan Cence, said his man agreed. The Metro couldn't get the other three candidates.

Tags: , , , ,

Bush Makes Pathetic Noises

The eve before the day of the mark of the beast, the only U.S. President we have at the moment branded Massachusetts and its Supreme Judicial Court as, well, being redefiner people. Lackaday.

This was his second speech in three days pimping an unpassable anti-same-sex-marriage amendment. As with the previous one, this received vaguely enthusiastic harrumphing from the most conservative legislators and mild huzzahs from Republicans wonder whether he really stepped into this time.

We'll need to watch before and at the fall mid-term elections to see how many delusional and emotional voters react. George the Lesser knows that he doesn't have a mouse's chance in a snake pit of getting this amendment into the Constitution. So, the question comes whether this false issue will rally the weak-minded or simply drive more moderates to pick Democratic -- more sensible -- candidates.

The laughable insult activist judges has pretty much lost its punch in most of the country. Too many voters have a vague sense of the separation of powers and judicial duty, and even more see that the Bush administration frequently calls on the courts to reinforce its positions.

The Globe cites yesterday's speech. "In returning to the divisive issue of gay marriage, the president is seeking to energize social conservatives in advance of the midterm congressional elections. He maintained that without a constitutional amendment, states across the country might have to recognize marriage 'as redefined by judges in, say, Massachusetts.'"

Over at the Herald, they note that Willard Cap'n Brylcreem Romney was even more manipulative and cynical than Bush. Rather than call Senators to try to influence the debate, he publicly circulated a letter trying to distance himself from the same-sex marriages here than he
enabled through his inertia and lack of leadership.

He wrote, "As governor of the state most directly affected by this amendment, I hope my perspectives will encourage you to vote yes..." Then he had the gall to add, "We all oppose bigotry and disparagement, and we all wish to avoid hurtful disregard of the feelings of others,” he wrote. “But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It’s a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage."

So, the Bushies think this will work for them as it did two years ago. Maybe, but the pro-marriage head of the Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solmonese, thinks this will not be enough to draw attention from real problems. "This year, it's a political tactic that's going to backfire," Solmonese said. ``You have a nation that is demanding answers from its leadership. . . . The American people look at what's going on here and are disgusted."

Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio added, "I don't get the equation" of emphasizing SSM. "You run the risk of looking like you're out of touch."

The effort seem to be to portray SSM as what very anti-gay Sen. Sam Brownback (Kansas) as, "This is a critical policy issue."

More realistically a Republican congressional senior aide says is a bid "to stop the bleeding. This is one of those surefire ways to say, 'See why you ned us?'"

We're not so sure voters are willing to accept fully the administrations failures and culpabilities. However, they certainly know that things in general are worse and that the party that controls Congress and well as the Presidency has no one to blame.

In addition, many right as well as left wingers hesitate to consider 1) writing discrimination of any type into the Constitution, and 2) taking states' rights to regulate marriage from them and giving direction to Big Daddy. We predict this are the real areas of risk for the flying monkeys in the Senate and White House.

By the bye, the Globe's lead editorial nails the issues/non-issue well. It includes:
As for the claim that gay marriage is hurting straight marriage: Where's the evidence? Straight marriages have flaws, from fights to extramarital (and largely heterosexual) affairs. But these problems predate gay marriage by centuries.

Government should be concerned about children. But the big threat they face is poverty, not gay marriage. Any serious defense of children has to include better physical and mental health care, stronger schools, increasing family incomes, and less exposure to crime and violence. Banning gay marriage would not accomplish any of these things...

America needs effective government action to solve serious and life-threatening problems. Gay marriage isn't one of them.


Tags: , , , ,

Monday, June 05, 2006

George Pimps Marriage

Today begins the measure of how cynical and dishonest a sitting president and his party's senators can be. Over the next three days, George the Lesser will command his amazing performing solons in the Kick the Gays Circus.

The august U.S. Senate debates the unnecessary and unpassable anti-same-sex-marriage amendment. Bill Clinton's DOMA law already forbids federal recognition of Massachusetts SSMs. There's also nothing like the two-thirds majority necessary to pass this in both houses of Congress and put it out for an impossible three-quarters of the states to ratify.

Only a week and change ago, similarly regressive Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced his version of this cheap manoeuver.

This can serve to remind us that:
  • These national leaders are also charged with keeping their parties in power, and will do the most emotional and cynical things in that effort.
  • That emotion carries over to their core voters, who use the same irrational and easily disprovable arguments.
On both sides of the border, these bozos are trying to make a point, trying to differentiate themselves and their parties from the other -- liberals, homosexuals and who knows what else, and trying to fire up their voter base before the fall elections and legislative campaigns.

Ironically here, George runs afoul of his conservative base in his marriage push. The power to regulate intrastate affairs, including marriage, has always belonged to the individual states. U.S. consevatives have long believed in states rights.

He wants a major change that rankles many in the South and Midwest. He already operates a huge borrow-and-spend government, larger and more expensive per capita than any, even WWII era. He has been publicly and often secretively claiming legislative and judicial rights for the executive branch, unbalancing the government. In short, he represents what Republicans in general say they hate -- fat government, deeply intruding in daily lives in big and small ways.

Now he knows that he has no chance of getting this amendment or even getting it through the Senate. Yet, he is willing to pursue it for the sleaziest and most cynical of party-pandering aims.

Today's New York Times editorial on the issue nails it. It states, "It was depressing in the extreme to hear the chief executive trying to pretend, at this moment in American history, that this was a critical priority."

It also rips him for using the Republician wheeze that the judicial system is overreaching. To wit:
If there's anything the country should have learned over the past five years, it is that Mr. Bush and his supporters have no problem with judicial decisions, no matter how cutting edge, that endorse their political positions. They trot out the "activist judge" threat only when they're worried about getting out their base on Election Day.
I didn't vote for him.

Tags: , , , ,

(Less) Fare T

Well, the Duke has the nicest way of disagreeing while agreeing. I'll tuck former-Governor Michael Dukakis' response to my call for fully subsidized MBTA below.

The gist is that he too wants low T fares to attract riders, to reduce cars/gas/pollution in the commonwealth, and like that. However, as when he was in charge, he wants to propose a reduction back $1, something he thinks the General Court might begrudgingly support. Michael Dukakis seated

Here, we have our reasons for a no-fare T. We call on others to help make this point at the last Boston hearing on the pending no-fair fare increases. This is Tuesday, June sixth, 4:30 -- 6:30 p.m. at the Copley Library.

Political Ice Water: The current T administration claims that its mandate from the legislature does not allow any thoughts, proposals or whispers of funding changes. We say it's their job to listen at the hearing and report on the public comments, even if these include no-fare T.

We have simultaneously written to our legislators (Walsh and Owens-Hicks) and Senate and House leaders. We used our right of free petition to request that they propose a fully subsidized T to permit fareless mass transit.

None in the legislature has responded. On the other hand, Gov. Dukakis' remarks follow.
Michael:

Thanks for your letter. Free transit is a damn good idea. The problem, of course, is money. We already subsidize the T to the tune of several hundred millions of dollars a year, and it seems obvious that at the very least, we are going to have to start picking up its capital costs with general revenues if we are going to avoid this insane proposal for another fare increase. Convincing nonriders, especially in other parts of the state, that those of us who ride it should pay nothing will be very difficult. My preference at this point is to get it back down to a buck and begin to pay for its capital costs out of the regular state budget. That may not do as much as free transit, but at a time when gas is over three dollars a gallon, it should attract thousands of motorists out of their cars and on to the T. Of course, if we don't get ourselves a new Democratic governor, all of this will be academic. Romney doesn't know where Ashmont is, and I suspect Kerry Healey doesn't either.

All the best. Mike Dukakis
To us, that's a start. We also have to talk it up (as at Tuesday's hearing, as well as to our own legislators). With modest exceptions, such as the Mass Pike toll, we fully subsidize that other mass transit, highways. We enable the highways and infrastructure that discourages us from taking trains and buses.

Let's call it what it is! It's time to take the T and make it so efficient and inexpensive that we all take the T or bike.

Tags: , , , , ,