Blue Mass Group

Even Jim Braude looked bored and disheveled on Broadside tonight in what was described as the only CD-05 “debate” before the special election on Tuesday, December 10, 2013.

Clark stuck with her rehearsed stump speech and played dumb perfectly to Addivinola’s only charge at her, regarding her support of AG Coakley’s surveillance bill.  Addivinola stated he’s not a rubber stamp. Clark’s statement about gun control and children being killed was powerful.  She came off as easier to look at with an easy name to pronounce. The video is in three parts if you care to view each segment the above link will bring you to NECN.

@3:30, part 1: “You both agree…..let’s go home then.”  Braude

Borowitz:

ISSA ACCUSES OBAMA OF TRYING TO MAKE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WORK

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In an explosive accusation, the House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-California) today charged President Obama with “using all the resources at his disposal to make the Affordable Care Act work.”

Accusing the President of participating in “a wide-ranging conspiracy,” Mr. Issa told reporters that “behind closed doors, the President has quietly assembled a high-tech brain trust that is working around the clock to fix the Healthcare.gov Web site—at government expense.”

Rep. Issa said that he would call for a new round of hearings and would subpoena “all those persons suspected of being involved in the ongoing plot to fix Obamacare.”

“This is a conspiracy, if you will, that goes all the way to the top,” Rep. Issa said. “If there is a plan to fix Obamacare, what did the President know about that plan and when did he know it?”

Rep. Issa concluded his remarks on a defiant note, drawing a line in the sand: “If the President thinks he is going to repair that Web site so that it works when anyone tries to access it, I’ve got news for him: not on my watch.”

STUDY: AMERICANS SAFE FROM GUN VIOLENCE EXCEPT IN SCHOOLS, MALLS, AIRPORTS, MOVIE THEATRES, WORKPLACES, STREETS, OWN HOMES

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—A new study released today indicates that Americans are safe from the threat of gun violence except in schools, malls, airports, movie theatres, workplaces, streets, and their own homes.

Also: highways, turnpikes, libraries, places of worship, parks, universities, restaurants, post offices, and cars.

Plus: driveways, garages, gyms, stores, military bases—and a host of other buildings, structures, and sites.

National Rifle Association C.E.O. Wayne LaPierre applauded the study, saying that it reinforced his organization’s long-held position that the United States does not need additional gun laws. “This study makes it abundantly clear that Americans are in no danger of gun violence except in these isolated four hundred and thirteen places,” he said.

He added that he hoped that the study would spark a conversation “about the root cause of mass shootings: people who recklessly show up at places where they could be shot at.”

Daniel Kurtzman:

“You know in some countries seeing an unmanned drone means your village is about to be destroyed. In America it means you ordered Mad Men on Blu-ray.” –Jimmy Kimmel [Amazon plans deliveries by drone]

“I heard that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is very excited about the movie ‘Hunger Games.’ He’s apparently under the impression it’s about competitive eating.” –David Letterman

“The Patriots overcame six fumbles and a score of 24-0 to beat the Broncos in overtime. It was amazing. They came back from dropping the ball and being down 24 points. Or, as Obama put it, ‘What’s your secret?’” –Jimmy Fallon

“There are ways to make air travel much, much worse. I think it’s fine if people want to make calls from the plane, but I think they should have to step outside to do it.” –Jimmy Kimmel

“For most Americans, Obamacare is a lot of like sex. You do it online, it’s incredibly frustrating and the idea of anyone getting it makes Republicans insane.” –Bill Maher

“And one reason he had to do this was that Bill Clinton opened his big fat vegan mouth, and said Obama should let people keep their crappy insurance, even if screwed up the whole system. You know what? If you’re a Democrat, the Clintons are a pre-existing condition.” –Bill Maher

“The New York Times is calling this Obama’s Katrina. Which of course is great for George Bush. He loves this. He called up Obama today and said, ‘You’re doing a heck of a job, brownie.’” –Bill Maher

“New Rule: Republicans have to stop saying that if the Obamacare website doesn’t work, that must mean Obamacare itself doesn’t work. That’s like saying the ice cream’s no good because you can’t find a spoon.” –Bill Maher

“So far, only 106,000 people have signed up for Obamacare. Even more disappointing is that it turned out to be one man who accidentally signed up 106,000 times.” –David Letterman

“Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has provided me with so much entertainment this week that I feel like I should pay him a subscription fee. He’s like your drunk uncle who is fun but you’re just getting old enough to realize why your parents never let him take you anywhere by himself.” –Jimmy Kimmel

Boston Globe reports that the campaign of Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker released a statement last night about the position of his running mate, Karyn Polito, on marriage equality.  The Globe quotes Baker campaign spokesman Tim Buckley as saying:

Karyn supported civil unions at a time when most Republicans did not.  Like many, including President Obama, Karyn’s position has evolved, and she now supports the existing [same-sex marriage] law and will not work to undo the progress achieved over the last decade.

This statement comes up short in several ways.  First, same-sex marriage isn’t the be-all and end-all of the struggle for LGBT legal equality in Massachusetts.  Numerous other issues remain to be addressed, including the protection of transgender people from discrimination in public accommodations.  As I pointed out recently, Karyn Polito has voted against LGBT legal equality every chance she got:

During her 10 years in the state House, Polito voted for a constitutional amendment that would have defined civil marriage as exclusively heterosexual, voted against repeal of the law preventing non-resident same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts, voted against protecting transgender people under the state’s hate crimes and anti-discrimination laws, co-sponsored an anti-gay “parent’s rights” bill penned by anti-LGBT hate group president Brian Camenker, and filed an official complaint when the Registry of Motor Vehicles began allowing transgender people to change the sex designation on their drivers license without proof of sex reassignment surgery.

By speaking only of marriage equality, the Baker-Polito campaign apparently hopes that the press and the public will forget that other LGBT-related legislation is likely to be introduced during the next gubernatorial term, and that Karyn Polito’s history tells us that she will stridently oppose it.

There’s been a fair amount of facepalming in my enviro Twitter feed about Jeff Jacoby’s latest spew of global warming denial. Suffice it to say that Jacoby’s been saying the same silly stuff for years, and — by the definition of denial — no amount of evidence is going to convince him otherwise. At least not publicly.

Denial as a psychological concept doesn’t necessarily mean that you don’t believe something is true, in your heart of hearts. It’s that acting on that knowledge would be too painful: too hard, or too humiliating. (Of course, this leads to further public loss of dignity as one doubles down on an untenable position.)

And so with interest we find today that ExxonMobil, which for years actively funded climate denial, now anticipates a carbon tax of $60/metric ton by 2030. The invaluable Coral Davenport now writes for the New York Times:

A new report by the environmental data company CDP has found that at least 29 companies, some with close ties to Republicans, including ExxonMobil, Walmart and American Electric Power, are incorporating a price on carbon into their long-term financial plans.

… “Ultimately, we think the government will take action through a myriad of policies that will raise the prices and reduce demand” of carbon-polluting fossil fuels, said Alan Jeffers, an ExxonMobil spokesman.

Yes, it probably will. That will be because people will over time, by and large, vote their good sense, regardless of the state of denial in our current Congress and in an unfortunately large cross-section of the public. These big corporations are getting out ahead of the future regulatory and tax environment. Corporations possess a certain bloody-mindedness, a reality-based (if single-minded) focus, which compared to the fantasy-world of politics can be somewhat refreshing.

And in Massachusetts, we would do well to continue to move as quickly as possible to a carbon-free economy. After Gov. Patrick’s fairly hard-charging leadership on this, the gubernatorial race will doubtless offer some pretty stark choices. In particular, I wonder if Charlie Baker has decided he’s “smart enough” to know if climate change is real and poses a major threat to the state he intends to lead.

Meanwhile Jeff Jacoby can talk to the ice. Or the cod. Or the lobsters. Or the shrimp. Or the zooplankton — the basis of ocean food webs. And tell them all that the climate change emperor has no clothes, that he’s Galileo and that they’re a bunch of big meanies for “stifling dissent” or somesuch.

From today’s Globe:

Crosby, who disclosed that he knew about Lohnes’s ownership of the land for roughly a year before revealing their relationship in August, said he is confident that he could be unbiased in deciding whether to approve the land deal between Lohnes and Wynn. But Crosby said he withdrew to preserve public trust in the casino selection process, especially after gambling commission investigators raised concerns that Lohnes was working with “hidden ownership.”

The Globe reported last month that a federal grand jury and other agencies are investigating whether Charles A. Lightbody, a Revere businessman with a long criminal record, is a secret partner with Lohnes and had boasted that he could make up to $18 million from selling the land to Wynn.

(emphasis added – cute bastard. Crosby was never gonna disclose the relationship. But his undisclosed former business partner/owner of Everett Casino land had hidden illegal wise guy partner. Basically Crosby was caught, IMHO)

Get all this.

Listen folks, from my limited life experience I can count on very few things. But one thing I can always count on. Never trust a guy who constantly tells you how honest he is.

An extraordinary life ended today.  Has anyone else in recent history done more to change the world for the better?  Off the top of my head, not coming up with anyone.

I am running for Governor because sound government needs to rest on a foundation of economic and social justice. With that in mind, I am supporting the ballot initiative now proposed to repeal the casino law.

My chief concerns:

• The net new revenues to the state budget will be less than hoped, because there is going to be a tradeoff between casino incomes and the state lottery, which compete for some of the same consumer dollars. Some say that lottery income may fall by as much as 30% or 40, offsetting some casino revenue to the state.

Just a few short weeks ago I announced my candidacy for Attorney General of the Commonwealth.  I took this significant step because I believe the office of Attorney General presents a unique opportunity for me to make a difference in the lives of people across our state.

I see the job as Attorney General as a way to build off of my long track record of standing up to entrenched interests. As a legislator, I took on Big Tobacco, leading the fight to make it harder to sell cigarettes to kids.  I stood up to big polluters and led the fight for clean election laws.

I believe that progressive values, like these, can be translated into action almost immediately in the Attorney General’s office. For example:

-       We can and must battle urban violence and the gun lobby, getting guns off our streets and making our communities safer.

-       We can and must stop crime not just in the streets but also in the boardroom, by cracking down on corporate abuses.

-       We can and must continue to bring down health care costs.

-       We can and must stand up for the environment and safeguard future generations.

I am proud of my lifelong commitment to progressive values and progressive action. I have never wavered in my commitment to equality for every member of our society and I never will. I have never wavered in my commitment to a fair deal for every family and I never will. And I will never waver in my determination to ensure that every person in this Commonwealth has someone to speak for him or her in the Attorney General’s office.

I look forward to campaigning across the Commonwealth over the next year, to tell my story and to hear yours, and to chart a course together for the future of Massachusetts. If you stand with me, I believe we can make a real difference for the people of our state. I cannot do it without you, so let me close by asking for your support.  It will make all the difference.

I have one request for you today: Invite me into your community for a neighborhood coffee, an afternoon conversation, or to the next committee meeting in your town or ward. I’ll be there and I look forward to hearing from you about how I can serve you as your next Attorney General.

Thanks,

Warren

Credit where credit is due: Shirley Leung wrote a pretty good column on casinos in yesterday’s Globe, in contrast to the awful one that she wrote a couple of weeks ago.  Yesterday’s column mercifully stays away (for the most part) from punditry, and instead supplies some information that is actually quite useful, namely, where most of the candidates for Governor stand on the casino question.  Here’s her basic roundup:

most gubernatorial candidates, including Attorney General Martha Coakley, Treasurer Steve Grossman, and Boston venture capitalist Jeffrey McCormick, support legalized gambling — if it’s done right. Or, if you are businessmen Joe Avellone and Evan Falchuk , you don’t believe the state should pass laws one year and repeal them the next. It’s just not good government.

Two other candidates, Charlie Baker and Don Berwick, back repealing the casino law.

So, that’s well worth knowing.  There is, unfortunately, an unnecessary swipe at Juliette Kayyem.  Leung says:

Only Juliette Kayyem, my ex-Globe colleague and former Obama administration official, wouldn’t get on the phone with me to talk casinos. Apparently, when you’re no longer a columnist you become shy about sharing your opinions.

Well, gosh, Shirley, your phone calls to a busy candidate can’t always be returned before your deadline.  Fortunately, Kayyem has not been “shy about sharing” her opinion on casinos in other settings.  If you Google “juliette kayyem casino” the first two items that come up are an interview on WGBH radio and a Globe article, both of which make pretty clear that Kayyem, like Coakley, Grossman, and McCormick, basically supports the law as it currently exists.  From the Globe:

She said she supports casino gambling in the state, which would be part of the financial landscape for whatever candidate succeeds Patrick.

“Casinos are now a reality for how the state has budgeted for the next 10 years,” she said.

And from WGBH:

I support the revenue that casinos are going to bring. You look at that number- how will we fund public education without casinos? So, people who are for the repeal- you have to say where are we going to get that income?

So, Kayyem’s position on casinos is not exactly a mystery.  And dogged reporting by BMG’s crack news team (stated otherwise, a phone call with Matt Patton, Kayyem’s communications director) allows us to add that (a) Kayyem is not taking a position on the effort to repeal the casino law until the SJC rules on whether that question may appear on the ballot, and (b) Kayyem is aligned with Governor Patrick in opposing the Wampanoag Tribe of Aquinnah’s plan to open a casino on Martha’s Vineyard.

Anyway, the best part of Leung’s column is the report on Charlie Baker’s position on the repeal.  Here’s what he said:

Charlie Baker … back[s] repealing the casino law. Baker, a Republican and former health insurer chief executive turned venture capitalist, doesn’t think the state can support three resort casinos and a slots parlor….

“I would be for getting on the ballot,” Baker said in an interview. “There should be a go-slow strategy. Why would you presume you could build four or five of these?”

Instead, Baker touts a one-casino plan for the state, something he championed during his unsuccessful run against Patrick in 2010.

This makes zero sense, right?  Think about it.  Candidate Baker thinks that the state, having accepted a couple million bucks in application fees and put several casino applicants through a grueling process in hopes of getting a license, should repeal the very law that put that whole process into place, thereby presumably strangling all those applications in their cribs and royally pissing off everyone involved in the application process, who will have just seen a lot of money, time, and effort go down the toilet.  Then, once he wins, Governor Baker wants the legislature to write a new law, presumably with a new and improved extensive and grueling application process, that would authorize only one casino.

What casino operator in its right mind would want to come to Massachusetts under those circumstances?  Is Steve Wynn really going to be lining up to plunk down another half a mil to go through yet another vetting process to apply for the state’s only casino license, having had the rug yanked out from under him last time around just when he was looking like a shoo-in for the eastern license?  Seems very unlikely to me.  As far as I can see, there are two plausible possibilities: we go forward with the current law, which will ultimately yield somewhere between zero and three resort casinos, or we repeal the whole shebang and go forward without casino gambling in the state.

Except maybe on Martha’s Vineyard. *sigh*

Probably.

Republican candidate for lieutenant governor Karyn Polito (left), and Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker (right)

Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker introduced former state Rep. Karyn Polito as his running mate this morning at a press event in Shrewsbury.

Both candidates dodged questions about Polito’s Tea Party affiliation and anti-LGBT record. During her 10 years in the state House, Polito voted for a constitutional amendment that would have defined civil marriage as exclusively heterosexual, voted against repeal of the law preventing non-resident same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts, voted against protecting transgender people under the state’s hate crimes and anti-discrimination laws, co-sponsored an anti-gay “parent’s rights” bill penned by anti-LGBT hate group president Brian Camenker, and filed an official complaint when the Registry of Motor Vehicles began allowing transgender people to change the sex designation on their drivers license without proof of sex reassignment surgery.

Asked by a reporter whether Polito considers herself “under the Tea Party umbrella”, Polito answered in reference to Shrewsbury that “This is my umbrella. This is home. These are the people that support me and this is who I represent.”

Calling herself a fiscal conservative, Polito went on to say that “I believe in small government, lower taxes, less regulation. That’s what my record stands for, that’s what I believe in my core, and that’s the label that I ask you to assign me.”

Whether she also believes in her core that LGBT people should still be discriminated against under the law, as her legislative record indicates, neither she nor Baker would comment.

When a reporter from Boston Herald noted that Polito’s social policies differ greatly from those of Baker’s former running mate, openly-gay state Sen. Richard Tisei, and asked whether that difference was a factor in Baker’s choice of Polito, Baker would only restate the campaign’s apparent tagline, “jobs, schools and communities”.

“Giving the people of Massachusetts a state government that’s as thrifty and hardworking and creative as they are.  That’s the way we’re going to run this race, and that’s what we’re going to talk about,” he said.

There’s a radical-right elephant in the room.  The question is, how long can Polito and Baker pretend it isn’t there?

Update (12/6): The Baker campaign has released a statement on Polito’s marriage views.  Read about it and my reaction here.

A couple of weeks ago, in a discussion about urban issues, I made the statement that the state was resettling poor people from Eastern Massachusetts to cities in Western Massachusetts. I don’t think that people actually believed my statement because it seemed so incredible.

The Boston Globe published an article today outlining this phenomenon. The bulk of the article is reserved for Boston.com subscribers, but the key line remains available for everyone to read:

The demand for shelter is so great that the state has been temporarily sending homeless families from Boston to motels in Western Massachusetts, although state officials said many have been relocated back again, closer to home.