theloquaciousliberal

Person #1588: 3 Posts

Recommended: 9 times

Posts   |   Comments

  1. Uhh (0 Replies)

    I think the implication is that one must be stoned out of your mind on all that legal marijuana to think that Martha Coakley has a high amount of style or charisma:
    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQLmE2FCYiX9EXhlnCGcefs8_kEIt_bkfDbgiXnL5f626ml-Fo5

  2. A Fundamental Difference of Philosophy (0 Replies)

    These sorts of objections to the Affordable Care Act expose the fundamental ideological differences between today’s GOP (the libertarian wing) and today’s Democratic Party (the progressive wing).

    We Democrats – for the most part – see little potential harm and lots of potential good in marginal federal income tax rates, the earned income tax credit, Social Security, Medicare, food stamps and/or subsidized health care insurance (including Medicaid).

    Contrastingly, you in the GOP continue to loudly promote the fundamentally selfish view that government should tax everyone at the same rate (“fairly!”) and should provide most government services without any means-testing (i.e., in this case, without “reducing or eliminating the subsidies as income rises”).

    This is all well and good. It’s a fundamental reason why I’m a Democrat and why I oppose trying to drown government in the bathtub. And I can respect, even as I disagree with, my libertarian friends who honestly argue that everyone would be better of on average (since “the economy” would slightly improve and productivity would undoubtedly be somewhat higher) without the social safety net.

    What I can’t respect are dishonest characterizations of the ACA (Obamacare costs jobs!; Obamacare increases the deficit!) shouted out to the public without qualification or a genuine attempt to engage in dialogue around the complicated facts involved. And, most importantly in the case, without any acknowledgement that there is an underlying ideological dispute at work here.

    Almost any tax and almost every government program provides a marginal disincentive to work. After all, if not for Social Security and Medicare, we’d have millions of elderly folks who would certainly have more incentive to stay at work. But that doesn’t make them “bad” ideas anymore than a small projected impact on the amount of hours workerd “proves” Obamacare is “bad.”

  3. Not the Point (0 Replies)

    Casinos, which I also oppose, do lasting damage you failed to prove the lottery does.

    I would argue that there is ample evidence that the lottery does do actual lasting damage to the addicted players, their families and friends. There’s also too little attention paid to the peripheral economic costs (our time waiting in line at the convenience store to buy milk isn’t valuable?).

    But that’s not the point. The question at issue is whether state government should aggressively promote the lottery – through TV advertising, the creation of games like $20 scratch tickets, ties to X-mas and/or popular local sports teams, etc.

    I’m against prohibition. But I think it’s simply immoral, unethical and bad public policy for government to be in the business of encouraging people to gamble.

    The fact that our government so aggressively promotes the lottery that Massachusetts residents, per capita, spend nearly twice as money much as the residents of any other state on lottery tickets is shameful and should be shocking. The corresponding fact that our government choses to promote Massachusetts’ “highest payout in the nation” as a reason to play the lottery even more is appalling. Our government is using the fact that they take “only” about thirty cents for every dollar spent on the lottery to entice Massachusetts resident to gamble.

    We simply must find an alternative revenue source.

  4. I Suspect Not (0 Replies)

    I suspect that the family prefers as little publicity as possible, and I’m inclined to agree.

    The fact that Jeff Jacoby has been tweeting thanks and other updates as recently as late last night (and has apparently engaged his child’s classmates in the search) suggest that this is not the case.
    See: https://twitter.com/Jeff_Jacoby

    In general, though I agree this appears to be more likely a runaway rather than a kidnapping, it seems perfectly understandable that the family continues to seek and welcome all help in locating Caleb as quickly as possible even if that means “more publicity.”

  5. Such Rights Exist (1 Reply)

    The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized a right to travel. For more information, one should read the Stevens opinion in Saenz v. Roe. That fairly recent 1999 case confirmed that there are three fundamental aspects of the right to travel freely between the states:
    1.The right to enter one state and leave another;
    2.The right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger;
    3.For those who want to become permanent state residents, the right to be treated equally to citizens born in the state.
    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saenz_v._Roe

  6. No (0 Replies)

    He’s running to lower taxes, on “state’s rights” and against gun control:
    http://www.jamesehrhard.com/why-im-running.html

    I think dunwichdem meant “much more liberal”. As in the characterizations of Brewer on the above quoted website which claim Brewer “voted in lock-step with his liberal Democratic colleagues on Beacon Hill. It is record of taxing and spending of which the people of Cambridge and Brookline would be proud…”

  7. Agreed And (0 Replies)

    I think there’s still a (very wrong) sense out there that Massachusetts is a bad place to do business.

    We should be doing a better job of touting the reality of our success in this area.

    The latest list of “Best States for Business” published by the oft-cited and non-partisan Forbes magazine shows Massachusetts as the 13th best state to do business. That’s right, the 13th *best*:
    http://www.forbes.com/best-states-for-business/list/

    Yes, we continue to rank near the bottom (49th) in terms of “business cost” (i.e. labor costs, energy costs and corporate taxes) and towards the bottom (35th) if you see “excessive regulations” as a reason the state is “bad for business.” BUT, we now rank quite well in terms of growth prospects (15th), labor supply (6th) and our overall “economic climate” (7th).

    Most importantly, and this is widely misunderstood, Massachusetts now ranks #1 (best of all states!) in the “quality of life index.” This measure takes in to account poverty rates, crime rates, cost of living, school test performance, college rankings, overall health, cultural and recreation opportunities, and even the weather. Taking all of these in to account – many of which are certainly influenced by our Democratic-controlled Legislature and Governor – we rank first among all.

    To me, this is all very good news that doesn’t get shared enough and is not widely understood.

  8. This Reminds Me (1 Reply)

    Of the time (in 5th grade, when I was just a naïve ten year old) that I called a classmate a “dildo” during a class discussion.

    I’ll ask you, eb3, the same basic question the teacher asked me “Do you even know what a ‘douche bag’ is, son?”.

    Next time, why not just call the Attorney General a “bitchy cunt” and get it over with?

  9. Point Taken (1 Reply)

    I agree that “I pledge to serve out my term” is much better and is definitive. It’s even a tad stronger than “I will serve out my term.” I hadn’t really made note of that follow-up statement.

    I do still think that the first statement (“I’m not running for president and I plan to serve out my term.”) was very poorly worded. When one is taking about one’s plans for the future, the words need to be in the future tense. The present tense phrase “I’m not running” is classic political double-speak and much less definitive than “I will not run.”

  10. Here, Here (0 Replies)

    I almost made this comment myself directly to DfW’s latest nonsense but I didn’t want to break the non comment streak. The longer his latest post sits there with 0 comments, the bigger my smile gets. I was excited to return to BMG this morning and see that small victory for reason. Thank you, kirth, for your leadership in this area.

  11. If She' Truly Doesn't Intend to Run.... (2 Replies)

    … then Senator Warren and her people need to learn a little more about the semantics of politics.

    “I am not running” – in political circles – simply is *not* definitive. To insiders, that just means “I haven’t firmly decided to run, so I’m not subject to the FEC rules that would apply if I made that decision.” Meanwhile, “I plan to serve out my term” is less definitive than that.

    The phrases to use are:

    “I will not run for President in 2016.”

    “I will serve out my term.”

    She says those and the speculation is over. I suspect Senator Warren and her people know these realities. Their failure to use these actually absolute phrases is either gross incompetence or, most likely, an attempt to keep her options open.

    Sorry, David, but politics isn’t beanbags and words are important.

  12. Small Correction (0 Replies)

    You’re response here is excellent and well-reasoned. One issue:

    Minimum wage is $8.75, or $17,000 per year.

    Actually, the Massachusetts minimum wage is only $8.00. That’s just $16,000 a year for someone working 40 hours a week and 50 weeks a year!

    Meanwhile, nearly 200,000 Massachusetts residents earn less than $9 an hour, over 300,000 make less than $10 per hour and nearly 500,000 make less than $11 an hour (just $22,000 annually). See: http://massbudget.org/report_window.php?loc=minimum_wage_effects.html#direct

    I urge all to join in the campaign to increase the minimum wage:
    http://raiseupma.org/minimum-wage/

  13. Two Leading UI "Reform" Proposals (1 Reply)

    The reforms currently being touted by business interests (and which seem most likely to be included in a House compromise next year) are:

    1) Lowering the total duration of state unemployment benefits from 30 weeks to 26 weeks.

    2) Requiring workers to be employed for at least 20 weeks before being eligible for benefits, up from the current 15 weeks.

    See e.g.: http://www.mhtc.org/images/StatementRestoreMinimumWage.pdf

  14. Ummm (1 Reply)

    I guess I’d continue to argue that, while “similar in many ways”, England’s gun control policies make it quite different from the United States when it comes to discussing whether law enforcement should carry guns.

  15. Most Logan Workers Are Non-Union (0 Replies)

    Local SEIU 615 has been seeking to represent the workers out at Logan airport for several years now.

    They note that a lot of the workers at Logan – including aircraft cleaners, baggage handlers, skycaps, wheelchair assistants, and ticket agents – are non-union and work for private sub-contractors. Not the airlines or Massport directly.

    See here to read more about the campaign and the workforce:
    http://www.seiu615.org/category/airport/

  16. Police in England (1 Reply)

    They “do alright,” sure, but they also don’t face an armed populace nearly on the scale as Americans.

    In the U.S., there is nearly 1 gun for every resident. Actually 0.9 gun for every man, woman and child. In England and Wales – thanks in large part to much stricter gun control laws – there is only 0.06 gun per resident.

    For the math challenged, that means Americans own, on average, 15 times more guns than those in England/Wales.

    Moreover, in England/Wales virtually all firearms must be licensed, handguns are banned, no guns can be carried in public except rifles and then only to and from a shooting club and all “assault weapons” are banned.

    Of course, there are criminals in England/Wales too who ignore those laws but it’s pretty clear that this level of gun control makes it far easier for police to enforce the law without being armed.

    Continuing to leave out Northern Ireland (which was/is a war zone), the number of police officers shot dead in England/Wales annually can be counted on the fingers of one hand. In the U.S., it’s more like 150 a year (and that’s shootings of usually armed police officers!).

    Disarming police officers in the U.S., I would argue, is hardly a realistic option and certainly not where I would start my efforts to reform the nation’s gun laws.

  17. Great Typo! (1 Reply)

    And frankly that cult-like devotion is one of my chief objectives.

    I assume you meant “objections”?

  18. YAWN.... (0 Replies)

    For the record, Dan is just as foolishly wrong here as always.

    The reality is that wind turbines kill about one tenth of 1% of all birds that die of unnatural causes.

    Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of birds a year are killed by feral and domesticated cats. Hundreds of millions are killed by power lines. Hundreds of millions fly in to windows. About 70 million are killed by pesticides used in farming. All while, by even the most inflated estimates by the biggest climate deniers, fewer than 1 million birds are killed by wind turbines. For, you know, actual statistics and information on this, see: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm

  19. Which Is Why... (0 Replies)

    Candidate Walsh included this in his pretty comprehensive LGBTQ platform:

    Enhance LGBTQ Trainings for the Boston Police Department – The Walsh Administration will support the expansion of trainings for BPD to focus on same-sex and transgender domestic violence issue, hate crimes, and the offering resources for both LGBTQ victims and those who are incarcerated.

    http://www.martywalsh.org/issue/lgbtq

    Seriously, tudor586, I respect that you have a long history of standing up for LGBT issues in Boston. But your insistence that Walsh’s commitment to LGBT issues is insufficient seems awfully poorly documented here and more than a bit of a stretch,

    The Bay Windows endorsement you point to is pretty weak itself, relying almost exclusively on the St Pats parade issue. In that endorsement itself it says “Walsh’s campaign plan related to LGBT issues is impressively detailed.” It also concedes that “if you are making your decision about who to vote for on Tuesday, November 5 based solely on LGBT issues, this will be a tough decision. Both candidates have taken leadership roles in legislative efforts impacting our communities. ”

    Meanwhile, the Rainbow Times counters its’ own endorsement of Connolly with this: “Undeniably, a tried-and-true friend of our community, Marty Walsh is an unabashed backer of LGBT equality.” Their three reasons for going on to support Connolly (he’s pro-diversity, pro-school and pro Gay Games) either are pretty insubstantial differences or mostly spin.

    To me, both Walsh and Connolly are and will continue to be very strong supporters of the LGBTQ community. One’s decision ought to really be made on other issues.