Please, watch and post your thoughts.
Please, watch and post your thoughts.
I did, for Chicago 2016 during my Mayoral Fellowship back in 2009. I rarely like to toot my own horn, but it was one of the most educating experiences I’ve had in my 25 years. Certainly one of the best public policy lessons.
So keep in mind five things:
1) The Host City and the IOC want completely different things
Declaring that “it would be Boston leading the United States,” Mayor Martin J. Walsh gathered with Olympians and Paralympians Monday night as the city continues its press to host the 2024 Summer Olympic Games.
“It’s an opportunity for us to plan what the future of Boston will look like,” Walsh said, noting that the Games would bring long-term benefits to the city’s infrastructure.
The mayor was assisted by members of the Boston 2024 Partnership, which is working to bring the Games to the city, in the event at Blazing Paddles restaurant, within walking distance of Boston’s best-known sports facility, Fenway Park.
Walsh also argued that hosting the Olympics would kick-start projects across the city by giving them a deadline.
In making his pitch Monday, Walsh said the city would establish a sustainable hosting plan that others could use to help bring down costs in the future. The mayor and Partnership also said Boston would bring awareness to issues such as global warming by focusing on them when developing facilities and transportation plans.
Ah, I see. Spending billions of dollars on white elephant stadiums and on lavish perks for the grotesque members of the International Olympic Committee makes sense because … it’ll increase awareness about global warming? That might be the worst argument I’ve heard yet.
Let’s get a couple of things clear. First, the International Olympic Committee is one of the worst organizations in the world. If we’re serious about an Olympic bid, it means we’re in bed with these guys for the next decade. You thought Steve Wynn was bad? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet. The corruption attending casinos is small potatoes compared to what the IOC has managed over the years.
Second, the Olympics is a huge party thrown by and for (but not funded by) the 1%. Yeah, there are a few sporting events that are fun to watch, but that’s not really what it’s about. If you’re lucky, you might get a ticket in row ZZ to one of the second-string track and field events (not that there’s anything wrong with the hammer throw). But rest assured, you won’t be at the finals of the gymnastics competition, nor will you be at any of the lavish cocktail parties. The most you’ll probably get out of a Boston Olympics is a fistful of cash because you decided to leave town and were able to rent out your house at exorbitant rates to some visiting one-percenter who got the tickets that you couldn’t get.
Third, very recent events should serve as a warning that things haven’t changed much. You might have heard that Oslo (Norway) recently withdrew its bid to host the 2022 Winter Olympics (following the earlier withdrawals of Stockholm, Krakow, and Lviv (Ukraine)), citing among other things the lack of public support, the gargantuan price tag, and the hilariously over-the-top demands the IOC places on host countries. The IOC has pushed back on the story about the demands, arguing that these are only “suggestions and guidance … on how to improve the games experience for all,” not requirements. LOL.
Oslo’s withdrawal means that the only candidates left standing for the 2022 Games are Beijing and a place called Almaty in Kazakhstan. It has not gone unnoticed that every location in which something like small-d democracy exists has taken itself out of the bidding.
Those who want a Boston Olympics will no doubt argue that Boston needs to upgrade its public transit system, and committing ourselves to the Olympics is the only way to guarantee that we’ll actually do it. I find that argument to be pathetic. If everyone agrees that we need to fix the MBTA, then maybe we should just do it.
Mayor Walsh said that a Boston Olympics is “an opportunity for us to plan what the future of Boston will look like.” Gee, Marty, you’re the Mayor. Shouldn’t you be doing that anyway?
The other day I ate some hallucinogenic plants and stepped into an isolation chamber a la Altered States. I saw things like I never did before. All at once everything became clear. Everything.
And then I talked to God. I know, God. So I asked Him a question. “God,” I said, “What d ya think, Martha or Charlie?”
And God answered with no uncertain terms. He laid it all out. His Light shone upon me. It was beautiful. Suddenly I knew what God knew thanks to the shrooms and isolation tank.
But then I awoke in Mass General hooked up to all kinds of machines and not remembering a damn thing God said or anything else that happened after our chat. What’s worse is nobody will tell me what I did and how I got there. In fact nobody will even look me in the eye.
Anyway, I was just waiting in line for my chicken parm sub and it hit me. What a fool I’ve been,
We have to get Martha elected. She has to beat Charlie Baker. Now I can hear all you Bmgers in falsetto voices saying, “Exactly Ernie, you now see Martha gets it on the environment, education, women’s rights, and all the things progressives stand for.”
Wrong MassPirg breath!
This casino thing is showcasing the old gang and the disreputable types they don’t mind hanging around with. When Bill Weld calls Charlie Baker for a favor for Steve Tocco or Jim Kerosotis or who knows who else…well…what’s he gonna say?
Striking photos from the popular protests in Hong Kong:
Same-sex marriage just became legal in Utah. And Oklahoma. And a bunch of other seemingly unlikely places.
This morning, the Supreme Court denied review of several closely-watched cases in which same-sex marriage had been declared legal despite state laws banning it. In each of the cases, the lower court order legalizing same-sex marriage was on hold pending the Supreme Court’s decision whether to take up the issue. Now that the Supreme Court has refused to weigh in, the lower court orders go into effect, and same-sex marriage is now legal (or soon will be as soon as some technicalities are resolved) in all states encompassed by the three federal appeals court circuits (the 4th, 7th, and 10th) whose orders were at issue.
According to the pro-marriage equality group Freedom To Marry, today’s events will result in same-sex marriage becoming legal in 30 states encompassing roughly 60% of the American population. Per the same group, the states that can now expect to see marriage equality in short order despite state laws banning it are: Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana, and Wisconsin.
The Supreme Court may well still weigh in – there are marriage cases pending before a couple of other federal appeals courts, and they could come out the other way, which would pretty much require the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict. But what happened today makes it much more likely that, fairly soon, same-sex marriage will be legal nationwide.
Why? Think about it this way. Four votes are required for the Supreme Court to take a case. That means that, if they wanted to, the “conservative” Justices – Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito – could have required the Court to accept any of these cases.
But they didn’t. Probably, they didn’t because they don’t think they have the five votes needed for the case to come out the way they want it to, which means they think Justice Kennedy is prepared to recognize a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry.
And, as a practical matter, the Court’s action today means that, by the time the case does finally arrive at the Supreme Court (if it ever does), thousands of same-sex couples in the 10 states listed above will be married, will have kids, will have gotten their affairs in order based on the lower courts’ actions permitting them marry legally. Undoing those arrangements would be terribly disruptive, and would bring the Supreme Court’s already somewhat shaky public reputation into further question. Honestly, I don’t see it happening.
A lot of this is tea-leaf reading, which is notoriously hazardous when it comes to the Supreme Court. But one thing is clear: a whole lot more people just got marriage rights today. And that’s an unalloyed good thing.
What’s this election really about?
We’ve taken to calling it 16YORG: 16 years of Republican governors.
That’s an unacceptable risk. If Baker gets in, are we ready for another 16 years? That would bring us out to 2030.
As noted, I understand the frustration with the candidates. The differences between Coakley and Baker don’t seem to be the yawning chasm that we’d like. But in the immortal words of Donald Rumsfeld, you go to war with the army you have.
Let’s look at the differences. They’re important.(All quotes from the respective issues pages.)
Coakley on Jobs and Economy
Providing earned sick time so that no employee is forced to choose between keeping their job and caring for their health, or the health of a loved one. Today, nearly 1 million workers in Massachusetts, many of them low-wage workers and women, don’t have a single day of earned sick time; extending earned sick time to these workers will increase productivity and reduce income inequality.
Baker’s economic plan:
Charlie will not raise taxes, period. He will work to reform a tax code that has grown overly complicated – benefiting only special interests while harming workers, families, and small businesses.
Charlie opposes the automatic gas tax hike supported by his opponents. Charlie will demand accountability and transparency from Beacon Hill, forcing the legislature to publicly cast their votes before increasing any taxes that affect workers, small business, and the economic future of Massachusetts.
By investing in measures to get people back to work and give them the tools to achieve economic stability, and by stopping abuse, welfare can be reformed so that it provides a true safety net for those who need it. Charlie has announced a series of welfare reform priorities to help people achieve economic independence, support parents and families, ensure the integrity of the program and prevent abuse.
Winner: Coakley. Does Baker really think welfare reform will stimulate the economy? And by the way his plan also raises the work requirement age from 60 to 66.
Coakley on gun control
First, the basics. As you are well aware, Ed Markey’s is one of the safest Democratic Senate seats in the country. Nate Silver gives him a >99% chance of being reelected. Nobody knows who the guy running against him is – the two polls I’m aware of that have polled the race shows that Markey’s opponent, Brian what’s-his-name, is unknown to the vast majority of voters, and that Markey wins the head-to-head running away (53-27 in one, 54-30 in the other).
Despite all of that, Markey’s fundraising emails arrive almost every day, each of them imploring us to send him money, lest the Senate fall into Republican hands (without ever actually saying that his seat is in danger, because he knows as well as anyone that it isn’t). Here’s one from yesterday:
November is fast approaching, and for Democrats across the country, it’s not looking good. The Washington Post, the New York Times, Nate Silver, and others are predicting a likely Republican takeover in the Senate.
The GOP only needs to pick up six seats to gain the majority in the Senate. We can’t let that happen.
Forecasters are giving the GOP the edge. We need to work harder than ever between now and Election Day, and that’s going to take resources — can you get us $5 closer to our $16O,OOO October goal? …
We need to raise $16O,OOO in October to keep fighting. Help us out with a $5 contribution.
That’s $16O,OOO with a letter “O,” by the way, not the number “0.” I still don’t get that.
Anyway, here’s what I got today:
The Washington Post is giving Republicans a 77% chance of taking over the Senate this November….
Whatever else happens on November 4th, we need to take care of business here in Massachusetts. To finish this race strong, we need to raise $19O,OOO in October — get us $5 closer to our goal now.
Wait, wait – why the $30,000 raise for October? Did something happen between yesterday and today to dramatically change the nature of the race here in Massachusetts? Did Markey commit some epic gaffe, or did ol’ what’s-his-name say or do something so remarkable, such that the outcome of this race is suddenly in doubt?
I’m pretty sure the answer is no. It just looks to me like Markey got even greedier for campaign cash. Ugh.
It took the feds indicting the guys who own the land where Steve Wynn wants to build a casino, but the Globe has finally realized that maybe, just maybe, casinos tend to attract characters who are not always exactly on the up and up.
A question for [voters] to ponder — and for casino proponents to answer in these final weeks of the campaign — is whether a certain amount of seedy intrigue is an inexorable part of bringing the gambling industry to town, and if so whether the economic impact of casinos nevertheless outweighs it….
[T]he fact that a Mafia associate [Charles Lightbody] was involved in a land sale raises the possibility that no matter how hard regulators try, corruption still finds a way to ooze into the process.
[T]he indictments are likely to broaden a casino debate that’s been cast primarily in economic terms. Are casinos too corrupting? Advocates on either side of Question 3 have less than a month to make their case, and voters have less than a month to decide.
On the one hand, it’s great that the Globe has finally woken up to the fact that any time casinos come to town, corruption tends to tag along. On the other, it’s a tad concerning if the Globe thinks the “certain amount of seedy intrigue” that it concedes might be “an inexorable part” of the gambling industry could nonetheless be justified by the dubious economic benefit of having casinos here. And all of this, on the heels of two alleged mafiosi being indicted for – what else – “extorting tens of thousands of dollars in protection payments from a video poker machine company.”
EB3′s advice has been right all along, and recent news makes it even stronger: arguing that “gambling is bad” isn’t enough to win on election day. There just aren’t enough MA voters who think that way. But if the Yes On 3 crowd can make a convincing case that, whatever you think of gambling in the abstract, the reality is that when casinos come to town, a bunch of unpleasantness tags along, then things will start to look better. Get to work.
U.S. Assures Hong Kong That Their Protest Just One Of Many Issues White House Staying Silent On
WASHINGTON—Addressing concerns that the Obama administration was selectively ignoring their ongoing demonstrations against the Chinese government, White House officials held a press conference Wednesday to reassure Hong Kong residents that their protest was just one of many issues the White House is currently keeping completely silent on. “While pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong may question why the United States hasn’t offered its unequivocal support, I want to make it clear to each one of them that their campaign is but one of dozens of important causes around the world that this administration is sidestepping,” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest, adding that demonstrators should not feel singled out or slighted in the least, as the president is presently neglecting to acknowledge a long list of issues with thorny political and economic ramifications, from dangerous working conditions throughout Southeast Asia, to oppression of women and gays in Saudi Arabia, to wrongful political imprisonment in Eastern Europe. “Our inaction puts the people of Hong Kong in good company with the subjugated populations of South Sudan, Eritrea, Central Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa, all of whom we systematically overlook. So, our message to the protesters is clear: You are not alone.” Earnest added that Hong Kong’s demonstrators could take pride in the fact that they are receiving the same amount of attention from the U.S. government as the pressing domestic issues of gun violence, environmental protection, and immigration reform.
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Iraq’s new Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi, has cancelled a scheduled visit to the White House, citing “concerns about the security situation there.”
Speaking to reporters in Baghdad on Wednesday, Abadi said that he had been looking forward to visiting the White House but that recent reports had “given me the willies.”
“They really need to get on top of things there,” he said. “Until they do, I’m better off staying in Iraq.”
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—President Barack Obama has decided to move his family into a full-service doorman building in Washington, D.C., saying that “it just makes more sense right now.”
“It really will work better for us,” Obama said in a press conference Tuesday morning. “In addition to the doorman, there’s a guy at the front desk, and, if anyone comes to see you, the desk guy will call up to your apartment first to make sure it’s O.K.”
The senior doorman at the Obamas’ new building, Alex Kornash, seemed unfazed about providing security for the President. “I’ve been a doorman for twenty-three years,” Kornash said. “Someone doesn’t belong here, you tell them to go away. What’s so hard about that?”
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) — A Republican Super PAC defended the broadcast, on Saturday morning, of an attack ad highly critical of Hillary Clinton’s newborn granddaughter, Charlotte, who was born on Friday.
The ad raises several serious questions about the newborn, at one point accusing her of being “related to Benghazi.”
“After all the recent security breaches at the White House, Julia Pierson, the director of the Secret Service, resigned today. She said she’ll miss being in the White House, but knowing the Secret Service, she should be able to come back any time she wants. The door is always open, literally.” –Jimmy Fallon
“In a new interview, Mitt Romney referred to Hillary Clinton as an ‘enabler’ of the president’s foreign policy. Which would be a big deal if that wasn’t the definition of being secretary of state.” –Jimmy Fallon
“Autumn is a beautiful time of year. At the White House, squirrels are rounding up nuts on the lawn, which is more than the Secret Service is doing.” –David Letterman
“In California yesterday, Governor Jerry Brown signed the first state-wide ban on single-use plastic bags at grocery and convenience stores. I think it’s very interesting that a guy named Brown is forcing us to buy paper bags.” –Jimmy Kimmel
“Security is so tight now that they’ve asked members of Congress to circle the White House – because that way nothing will get past.” –David Letterman
Unfortunately, but unavoidably, the wording of the ballot question to repeal the casino law is somewhat counter-intuitive. If your position is “no casinos,” you should vote “yes.” If your position is “yay casinos,” you should vote “no.”
The latest Globe poll shows pretty convincingly that the confusing wording of the question is having a real effect. This week’s poll, which used the ballot question’s exact wording, shows No with 53% of the vote and Yes with 40% (which is roughly where most polling has been lately). Looks like the pro-repeal forces are losing badly, and so goes the Globe article summarizing the poll (which is entitled “casino repeal faces long odds”).
But the article didn’t pick up on a fascinating detail of the poll. This week, the pollster (SocialSphere) asked a new follow-up question: “what is the number one reason you would vote [YES/NO] on Question 3?” (Questions 15-16 in the PDF.) This question allowed respondents to say whatever they wanted; as you’d expect, the most popular answer among “yes” respondents was that they’re generally opposed to gambling, and the most popular “no” answer was the jobs/economy line.
The really interesting result is this: for both “yes” and “no” respondents, the second-most popular answer was classified as “did not understand question.” That is, of the respondents who said they were voting “yes” on Question 3, 12% “gave reasons why they support casinos,” and of the “no” respondents, 17% “gave reasons why they oppose casinos.” That seems to mean that 12% of people who said they would vote “yes” actually should be voting “no,” and 17% of “no” voters should be voting “yes.”
It’s probably too simple to be reliable, but if we assume that the “did not understand” respondents would actually vote the other way (in line with the reasons they gave) if they understood the question properly, we’d be looking at 48-45 instead of 53-40. That is a huge, huge difference – 48-45 is well within the 4.9% margin of error of this poll.
Having said that, it must be pointed out that SocialSphere’s earlier polling on the casino question was worded differently, so that there seemed to be little chance for confusion, and it tended to show majority support for keeping the casino law in place. There’s no question that the pro-repeal forces have a difficult uphill battle ahead of them, and time is running short. But this week’s poll does seem to show that part of the task is to educate voters as to what a “yes” or “no” vote on Question 3 actually means.
…just a couple of weeks earlier, if I recall.
When I watched the latest piece of crap ad from the RGA in support of Charlie Baker, I immediately recalled that awful feeling – maybe without the knot in the pit of my stomach because at least this time it didn’t involve my twelve-year-old son.
It’s not like they sent guys in orange jump suits this time – I suspect they’ll never make THAT particular mistake again. It’s not even some campaign employees and goons doing the “tomahawk chop” on the corner in Dorchester. That was just around this time as well, I believe. But for me, it’s the same feeling because what this represents is an instinct with Republicans that allows them to repeatedly cross a line – a line it seems they can’t even see. It’s not good.