Person #1588: 3 Posts

Recommended: 15 times

Posts   |   Comments

  1. HBCs (0 Replies)

    Some commentators (and Clinton bakers) have made the argument that offering free college tuition at public schools would make it impossible for private, historically black colleges to compete. I assume that’s what the OP was referring to. See e.g. Clyburn:

  2. The Arrow (0 Replies)

    points forward. Progressively. Not backward (conservatively).

  3. The MA SJC Answers (1 Reply)

    In the underlying opinion:

    … we note that stun guns deliver a charge of up to 50,000 volts. They are designed to incapacitate a target by causing disabling pain, uncontrolled muscular contractions, and general disruption of the central nervous system. It is difficult to detect clear signs of use and misuse of stun guns, unlike handguns. Stun guns can deliver repeated or prolonged shocks without leaving marks. The Legislature rationally could ban their use in the interest of public health, safety, or welfare. Removing from public access devices that can incapacitate, injure, or kill a person by disrupting the central nervous system with minimal detection is a classic legislative basis supporting rationality. It is immaterial that the Legislature has not banned weapons that are more lethal. Mathematical precision by the Legislature is not constitutionally required.”

  4. Ummm (1 Reply)

    No she didn’t.

    In Sept. 2008, when she won, Chang Diaz ran and beat Wilkerson in the Democratic primary. Neither candidate ran a write-in sticker campaign (that year). Wilkerson ran a brief sticker campaign (as an Independent) for the General before dropping out in late October. Chang-Diaz won the

    In 2006, which you night be thinking of, Chang-Diaz ran a sticker campaign but in the Democratic Party primary (after Wilkerson failed to collect enough signatures to be on the ballot herself). Wilkerson won the nomination and Chang-Diaz did not run in the General.

  5. Very Thoughtful! (1 Reply)

    This stuff (defining what it means, to you, to be a Christian liberal) is where you are at your best, jconway!

    Thanks to this post, I’m committing right now to calling myself a “secular humanist” and not an “atheist” from now on. I certainly believe in the importance of following the Golden Rule and do “suppose a public morality”!

  6. Not, It's Not (1 Reply)

    That one increases the minimum wage to $10/hr and then sets a different minimum wage–$12/hr– for fast food and big box retail.

    No, it doesn’t. It increases the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 1/1/18. Keep reading until Section 4.

    I don’t see anything about 200 employees.

    Umm, it’s right there in the second line, after (a).

    What is the reasoning behind making various different minimum wages apply to different industries, or depend on whether the employer has a certain number of employees?

    The focus is placed on large retail and service industries (those that employee more than 200 people either directly, through subcontracting, or through franchising). The justification for the focus on certain industries (I’d think) is because most larger employers in other industries already pay more than $15. The justification for the focus on large employers is obvious (I’d think) and is based on their presumed ability to pay a higher wage (in comparison to, say, a small or mid-sized employer).

  7. Simply Done (1 Reply)

    “Fast food or big box retail employer,” an individual, corporation, partnership or other entity, or group of individuals or entities, including any agent thereof, that (a) employs 200 or more fast food or big box retail employees in the commonwealth, whether directly or through a contractor or subcontractor such as a temporary or staffing agency or a cleaning or security contractor, or (b) is a fast food franchisor, or a fast food franchisee of a fast food franchisor, where the franchisor and the franchisees of that fast food franchisor together employ a total of 200 or more fast food employees in the commonwealth. Any such contractor or subcontractor, fast food franchisor, or fast food franchisee shall qualify as a fast food or big box retail employer and shall be jointly and severally liable for compliance with the minimum wage and other wage and hour requirements for fast food or retail employers.

    The bill is available here:

  8. Okay Then (2 Replies)

    Quick Test Then: How much wealth did the 12th richest American acquire last year? What about the 99,999,999 richest American?

    The ad doesn’t tell us that at all.

    I agree with sabutai that this statistical characterization of inequality is too complicated for a quick sound bite in a 30 second add. It unnecessarily and confusingly conflates income inequality and the wealth gap. It unnecessarily causes someone really paying attention to wonder what “in two years” means (which two years?). It uses a wonky term (“acquired more wealth”) when a simpler verb (“made” or “got” or “stockpiled”) and a simpler noun (“money”) are readily available. It uses a big and seemingly precise, yet difficult to wrap your head around, number (one hundred million) with vague descriptors like “bottom” and “combined”.

    Do you really doubt that something like this could have made the same point more quickly and clearly to the average person?:

    “Is the economy rigged? Well, thanks mostly to tax cuts for the rich and low wages for everyone else, the richest 5% of Americans now have more money stashed away than the rest of us combined.”

  9. Yes - 2 Year Terms (0 Replies)

    Every Boston City Councilor, including the 4 At-Large members, run every two years. It’s admittedly ridiculous. During non-Mayoral elections, turn out for the City Council elections only is anemic. It’s much improved every other election, when the Mayor is also up.

  10. Your Point Here is What now? (1 Reply)

    Sure, details matter. So, why not look them up?

    This is a very simple bill doing little but calling upon the federal government to address the issues. It only does three basic things:

    1) Section 3 directs HHS to “conduct a study and develop recommendations for preventing and treating prenatal opioid abuse and neonatal abstinence syndrome…” They get a year to issue a comprehensive report.

    2) Section 4 directs HHS to “review” current services to “develop a strategy to address research and program gaps.” And they get a year to issue a report.

    3) Section 5 directs thee Director of the Centers for Disease Control to “provide technical assistance to States to improve the availability and quality of data collection and surveillance activities regarding neonatal abstinence syndrome.”

    That’s it. That’s what this bill does.

    I’m no Mitch McConnell fan but to suggest that his mere lead sponsorship of this bill in the Senate is a an “oh dear” reason to oppose is irresponsible and silly. The details matter.

  11. Mandatoriness (0 Replies)

    Mandatory minimums are mandatory, allowing for no judicial discretion.

    Sentencing guidelines are not mandatory, allowing for judicial discretion.

    Lucky you, in Massachusetts, the sentencing guidelines already work pretty much as you say you think they should.

    The guidelines do write “enforcement and consequence” in to the law. If a judge wishes to depart from the guideline range (imposing a sentence based on a finding that one or more mitigating or aggravating
    circumstances exist), then the reasons required for departure from the guidelines must be set forth in writing giving the “facts, circumstances, evidence, opinions, and any other matters considered.” Then, either the defendant or the prosecutor may appeal the sentence.

    So, that’s the difference?

  12. F on H (0 Replies)

    “[She's] a focused, determined, intelligent, empathetic, powerful leader… Women in positions of authority, particularly bold women who are trying to change things, are caricatured differently, commented upon differently and held to different standards. I watched all of this happen to Hillary Clinton.” – Carly Fiorina on HRC, 2008

  13. S.1004 Changes (1 Reply)

    Senator Rodrigues bill to “clarify” the ballot initiative makes several substantive changes designed to undermine and weaken the earned sick time law approve by the voters. The big ones are:

    1) Weakens employee protections through numerous new provisions that, for example, allow termination of employees who don’t follow all the new rules to the letter around requesting sick time, eliminate most of the bill’s treble damages provisions, deny the right to use sick time to care for a child over 18, and allow employers to deny the right to carryover sick time.

    2) Impose costly new burdens on the Attorney General and the Labor Department. The provisions look like this: “There shall be a fiscal impact statement made by the state Office of the Attorney General regarding the costs associated with analyzing, promulgating, and educating Massachusetts businesses and individuals regarding the new law. The cost associated with this should also itemize the cost associated for businesses to analyze, operationalize and possible risk cost associated with legal cost associated with non-compliance.”

  14. Punters Only? (0 Replies)

    I’m afraid I’m such a nit, that I can’t take a real stand in this election. ;-)

  15. You're Sure? (1 Reply)

    Baker announced and Opioid Addiction Working Group in February:

    That 16-member group included AG Healey, EOHHS Secretary Sudders and 14 other heavy-hitters.

    You still expect a different “Task Force” that “competes with Healey”?

  16. Oh, And (1 Reply)

    I forgot to say that I still do think your initial comment about Coakley “dismissing the allegations” was misleading since it was made without noting that she did nevertheless start an investigation. It confused me, at least, in to thinking you were saying that the AG chose to completely ignore the charges altogether. Which is why I responded with the fact that there was what I consider to be a fairly thorough AG investigation.

  17. Fair Enough (0 Replies)

    She didn’t quite say it was a “stunt.” And I wonder what she might have said before or after that sentence (I can’t seem to find the quote in question in any context). But, that said, no, you didn’t significantly mis-charecterize her comment.

    But all AG investigations of government officials are political. I have more inherent trust than you in those processes, obviously. The results of this one, started in the midst of but not finished until more than six months *after * the Mayoral and Senate election, speak for themselves. And, in exonerating Kineavy, the investigation’s findings mesh with my personal experience with the Boston City Hall email system at that same time period.

    I am an attorney and knew that my emails were legally required to be retained as public documents. But, I swear, the IT department (MIS) repeatedly told us that they backed up the email server every night. We were specifically instructed that this was enough for compliance with the law. Plus, space definitely was an issue and our email boxes were often “getting full” so that we’d get escalating warnings directing us to fee up space. L Double deleting became routine in that environment.

    I know that I double deleted thousands of emails from my account, without even considering the possibility that I was destroying them forever (which, again, I knew very well was illegal). MIS told us otherwise! I believe Kineavy when he say that he did the same.