Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Why Visit BMG After the Election?

By

Things could get pretty quiet around here after the elections are over. What will we come here to read about?

This is a serious question. I hope people will continue to visit and discuss all things Massachusetts and politics.

I for one, have some interesting stories to tell about selling and installing small wind turbines.

MA Is a great state for them (from a wind perspective) but the zoning is “all over the place.”

Meanwhile, keep up the reporting on MA politics – I’ll be reading the returns from Wisconsin 🙁

M.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Governor Patrick will have 16 years of cherished dreams to make true pretty much from the moment he says “so help me God.”  And they’re all different dreams held by different people.  I’m sure we’ll be doing a good job telling him (or ourselves) what he’s doing right, and a great job saying what he’s doing wrong.

  4. Some of us were visiting BMG before anyone had ever heard of Deval Patrick!  You think a little thing like him winning an election is going to stop us?

    <

    p>
    We’re not going anywhere!

  5. BMG is the most open and thoughful venue for political thought in the Commonewalth.  I’ll keep reading the Globe and the Herald and the Berkshire Eagle and the Lowell Sun, but I will certainly be a frequent mouser to BMG.

  7. For better or worse, MA politics and the discussion attached are a 24/7 type of operation.

    <

    p>
    I’m guessing that this question is posed in the “once Deval is our governor” framework, which I am loathe to accept before the voters officially do on Tuesday.

    <

    p>
    If Deval becomes our governor, we will have lots of “is he doing what we’d hoped” type discussions to have. If Healey pulls it out, we’d of course have the “What went wrong?” discussions. There’s also ConCon and some other things to tackle immediately after the election which need to be worked through.

    <

    p>
    If Deval wins, ConCon works and affirms our basic human rights to same sex equality and healthcare, and bunnies and squirrels ride on my shoulders in the new Utopia of MA…Well, there’s always the tedious specifics of policy work to delve into and argue about.

    <

    p>
    In short, I don’t see the traffic here being what it is now and what it’s about to be, but…BMG will stay alive. I’ll help it remain interesting, who’s with me…?!?

    • Well, this election is my first time as a blogger, and I come here frequently each day to find out where the “pulse” is at the time. Learn things here, we never see here in Worcester. Sad, since we are the home of the Lt. Governor candidate.

      <

      p>
      I agree that BMG should NOT be going away any time soon. I hope that if Deval is elected, someone from his staff will continue to monitor the site.  I know I want him reading what “we the people” think. Good or bad.  As he loves to say, we will be what makes him a better governor, because we are the closest to the problems in the community, and he’s always finding a way to make him a better leader.

      <

      p>
      So, I’m hooked and I’m not going anywhere but BMG.  We believe in our causes, 365/24/7, they don’t take a  break so why should we.

      <

      p>
      Barb

  8. If you miss the excitement of working on a campaign after November 7, come to Somerville the Land of Special Elections.  Yes, we will soon be having another Special Election here in Somerville for Alderman At Large.  Dates have not been set yet, but stay tuned.

    • Yep.  This one is the delayed result of Alderman-at-Large Denise Provost being elected State Rep in a special election, replacing Pat Jehlen.  Which was the result of Pat jehlen being elected State Senator in an earlier special election, replacing Charlie Shannon, who died.

      <

      p>
      Provost decided that she did not want to continue holding two offices at once, and resigned from the city seat.

  9. bills to be passed (or not) in the Legislature and the ConCon and other issues as others have mentioned. I hope that the Deval staff continue to read this and follow through on the idea that grassroots governing ought to be like grassroots campaigning.

    <

    p>
    I hope that this can be a forum for us to discuss where we want to take the state. If Deval is elected, there will be major opportunities to pass a progressive Democratic agenda with a supermajority in both houses and the Corner Office. Opportunities like that don’t come often, and this can be a place to debate our priorities.

    <

    p>
    I suspect the community will change again in a few days or weeks time. I know that a few months before the election I had this sense that BMG was a lot smaller than it is today. Sometimes I feel lost in the crowd – a mini Daily Kos. I think what we talk about really depends on who sticks around.

  10. We’ll have to figure out how to give same-sex couples equal protections and benefits, since right now they don’t get recognition by their own country, and don’t get their relationship acknowledged by any other state.  Plus, Massachusetts same-sex marriages may be thwarting quality of life for same-sex couples in all the other states, so we will have to look at the big picture and think about how our policies and practices might be harming people.  We need to examine if our dogmatic ideological laws might be going too far, blindly claiming “full equality” even as they hinder access to full equality for not only our own citizens but for gay couples in the rest of the country too.

    <

    p>
    I say we have this discussion here at BMG, since it will take a positive step by progressives to make the egg-and-sperm compromise happen.  i don’t think it can happen if it starts from the anti-gay-marrriage side, it will have to start with a capitulation and a corresponding challenge from the progressive side.

    • I’m sorry, but your posts are so full of B.S. it really makes me angry.  Your whole sperm-egg law, or whatever it is, is so offensive that it makes me sick.  To try to pretend that you are a true progressive who believes in equal rights at the same time as you try to propogate a hetero hegemony is disgusting.  Same sex marriages here are not thwarting same sex relationships in other states.  If anything, the fact that Massachusetts allows for same sex marriage and continues to have the lowest divorce rate in the country speaks volumes.  Polling in this election in both South Dakota and Colorado shows anti-marriage initiatives failing (I haven’t seen polling in other states, but I think AZ might be failing as well, despite the attempts of John McCain). 

      <

      p>
      Your egg and sperm compromise is thinly veiled ant-gay marriage propaganda, and after reading about it for months, it finally angered me enought to respond.  Given how little, as a gay man, I have gotten from the debate, I feel little if any reason to capitulate at all.  Given changing public opinion, I think it’s high time the anti-gay side in this debate capitualted.  Please stop foisting your science-fiction dreams on us as fact so we can focus on the real issues at hand.

      • Your egg and sperm compromise is thinly veiled ant-gay marriage propaganda, and after reading about it for months, it finally angered me enought to respond.

        <

        p>
        His comments are a not-so-subtle form of fear mongering designed to scare people into opposing gay marriage.  I don’t know why so many people here tolerate it.  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  His spam should be blown into oblivion irrespective of how eloquently he articulates it.

      • If anything, the fact that Massachusetts allows for same sex marriage and continues to have the lowest divorce rate in the country speaks volumes.

        Massachusetts has a 33% divorce rate – far from being the lowest.

      • Your post is not a constructive way to make your argument. If you have a good argument, you don’t need to lower yourself to insulting people and making personal attacks, as you do in this post. This kind of comment is also against our rules. Personally, although my sympathies lie with the broader point you advance, I think your comment would make many people turn against you and toward your “opponent” — exactly the result you don’t want. Anyway, whatever else it may be BMG will be a place for discussion not insults, and welcome people of a wide range of views, to the greatest degree we can make it that.

    • The discussion of whether the better nationwide strategy is full “marriage” or “civil unions” is a reasonable one, and reasonable people disagree on it.  But the sperm-egg angle is totally ridiculous.  Full stop.

      • Then why are its opponents having such a hard time demolishing it in a simple, coherent, even better funny, manner. Sounds to me like it has touched a nerve.

        • This Howard fellow is the only person I’ve ever heard float this idea — even the Family Research Council et al. haven’t talked about it, AFAIK.  If someone suggested relocating all MA residents of a particular ethnicity to a single undisclosed location in order to cut down on streetfights or some such thing, would you take the time to develop a coherent and rational argument against it, or would you just say “that’s stupid” and leave it at that?  Personally, I have better things to do than rebut pointless arguments, so I’d pursue the latter course.

      • What is ridiculous is insisting on a right to try to have children with someone of the same sex.  Why insist on that?  It is ridiculously risky, unnecessary, and the very idea of it messes up all of our priorities.  We should refocus our medical resources on prevention and care, not on trying to figure out how to manufacture people. 

        <

        p>
        Moving from natural conception to people being conceived from genetic manipulation is the most significant change in the history of life, and our generation owes it to posterity to take this move seriously and think about it some.

        <

        p>
        I’m gonna repeat that:  Moving from natural conception to people being conceived from genetic manipulation is the most significant change in the history of life, and our generation owes it to posterity to take this move seriously and think about it some.

        <

        p>
        We should not be intimidated by taunts of being anti-gay into standing by while labs use gay people to justify human genetic engineering.  It is not anti-gay to be opposed to genetic engineering, or to recognize that this means that people have a significant right with someone of the other sex that they do not have with someone of their own sex, or to recognize that this right is a right of marriage. 

        <

        p>
        Plus, the positive gains that can be realized right now for gay people in exchange for recognizing this are very significant, and are unlikely to be realized unless if people continue to have dogmatic ideological opinions and continue to polarize the discussion and intimidate people who oppose same-sex marriage, no matter what their reason.

        • Like David said just above, you’re the first and only person I have ever seen, anywhere, on either side of the same-sex marriage debate, make any kind of argument about a “right of conception.”  No gay person I know, or gay-rights organization I’m aware of, has to the best of my knowledge ever said anything about wanting to use genetic engineering to allow same-sex couples to have children biologically related to both of them, nor have they said anything that could reasonably be interpreted as implying that, or as some kind of “code” for that.  And no anti-gay-rights group that I’m aware of has ever tried to raise the specter of genetically-engineered gay lab babies — do you really think the same people who claim same-sex marriage will lead to multi-species marriage would refrain from using a marginally more plausible scare tactic such as genetic engineering?  If they thought there was a possibility anyone would believe in it, they’d be yelling from the rooftops about the gay conspiracy to genetically engineer gay babies.

          <

          p>
          Besides, if there was some sort of “right of conception” conferred by marriage, wouldn’t that seem to indicate that unmarried individuals could constitutionally be prosecuted for having children?

          • Well, the gay rights side I think is practicing self-censorship on this issue, but there are a few little slips that get through.  Here is one article that takes it for granted that lesbians have been waiting for same-sex conception for a long time.  Here is a LGBT organization that demands that no reproductive technology be prohibited (and check out their signatories) .  They don’t mention same-sex conception, perhaps someone should ask them if it is included in their demands or not.  And here is google’s cached copy of an article in GayCityNews that HAS BEEN REMOVED from their website after I started calling attention to it.  This is proof of the self-censorship that I am talking about.
            As to why the FRC and others do not write about it, I have no idea.  I have emailed the FRC, Schlafly, Brian Camanker, the VoteOnMarriage people, every single state representative, the last three Governors, Kerry Healey…  I have repeatedly suggested to these people that they incorporate this research into their campaigns, but they ignore me.  Maggie Gallagher told me to stop bugging her, etc etc.  I have no idea why, and I’d love to hear your theories.  Mine is that they are too proud of their own plans to defeat same-sex marriage, and they want to defeat it on moral/religious grounds only, or maybe they don’t really want to win but only want to object on moral/religious grounds.  And lots of these people make their living by having gay marriage to kick around, and don’t want the issue resolved.
            As to your last question, we decided sometime in the last century that punishing unmarried conception punished women and children who were really the victims, and we decided instead to fold marital responsibility into state law by creating the concept of child-support.  I think the advent of paternity testing might have caused this change.  We never really changed the law so that out-of-wedlock conception was legal, but we stopped punishing people for it, since we could protect children and women better by enforcing child-support after the fact.  But note that marriage never stopped guaranteeing conception rights, remember that Attleboro cult mother that was locked up so that her baby could be taken away after birth was married, which is why she was allowed to conceive in the first place.  There have been cases where judges have told irresponsible couples that they may not have any more children, but all of those cases involved unmarried couples.  If they were married, they would not have been able to tell them that.  And keep in mind that in this case, we are talking about people being prohibited from procreating, not being allowed to procreate.  Being prohibited from procreating together conflicts with marriage rights, and we need marriage to continue to guarantee conception rights because marriage is the only thing that protects our individual conception rights.

            • Well, I do think marriage includes a “right” (maybe privilege is a better word) to engage in the kind of intimate behavior that could lead to pregnancy, and that there is an assumption that same sex couples can’t “procreate” in the same way, just as some hetero couples can not.  But what is your point here?  Marriage is not necessary for procreation.  You seem to be most concerned about the expansion of scientific knowledge about human reproduction.

              <

              p>
              Your idea that “marriage is the only thing that protects our individual conception rights” is frightening.  If that were true, shouldn’t we be concerned that it would lead to forced abortions?  I think your “theories” need some work.

              • The right seems to include the right to use medical intervention, because that is encompassed in medical privacy.  And it is definitely more than a privelege, it is a basic civil right, a natural right.  But the right is only to attempt it, it does not imply a right to guaranteed success.  The problem comes from what happens if the attempt succeeds – hetero couples will still produce a natural baby, which is OK, but same-sex couples might create a child that has a huge risk of genetic defects, and that should not be allowed.

                <

                p>
                Let me ask you, before we go any further – do you believe that same-sex couples should have this right to use genetic engineering to have children together?  It seems that everyone who tries to argue with me refuses to concede that same-sex conception is unethical and should not be allowed.  They all seem to claim the right to genetic engineering.  Rather than dilly-dally around with semantics or whatever your psuedo-objection is, why not say it straight out: you think same-sex couples should have a right to procreate, using genetic engineering, or whatever it takes.  Come clean.  Be honest.

                <

                p>
                Of course nothing i am saying will lead to forced abortions, that is outlandish.  I am for natural conception, and not for abortions at all.  Where do you get that I would favor abortions?  Only people who think that same-sex conception should be a right are for abortions, since attempts at same-sex conception will undoubtably result in many fetuses that are not developing healthily and need to be aborted.  Would you feel that a malformed fetus ought to be aborted or not?  What if it was a child you had contracted for, and faced a lifetime of caring for?  Would you want to raise a hideously deformed lump of human tissue, or would you want to be allowed to abort it and try again?  Come clean.  Be honest.

                <

                p>

                • seriously to a couple of your questions until you asked “would you want to raise a hideously deformed lump of human tissue.”  Now I’m kind of stuck here, and um.  Well. 

                  <

                  p>
                  Re: the forced abortion implications of your theories–think China one-child policy.  If the govt. says special permission (aka marriage and/or Mr. Howard’s blessing) is the “only” thing that guarantees a “right of conception,” then, what happens if a person becomes pregnant without the requisite permissions and credentials you want to see?

                  <

                  p>
                  Re: the other question about same sex “procreation,” which I think is really a question about 1) scientific research and 2) well, you obviously don’t like the idea of same sex couples. 

                  <

                  p>
                  My participation in this dead end discussion is now ended.

                • what happens if a person becomes pregnant without the requisite permissions and credentials you want to see?

                  <

                  p>
                  The same thing that happens now to couples that conceive without the requisite permissions and credentials (aka without marriage): not much, and certainly not forced abortions.  There would be harsh punishments for breaking the egg and sperm law, and those would apply whether the people that broke the law were married or not.  But even non-egg and sperm conceptions should not be aborted, no matter how malformed the fetus seems to be developing.  Would you agree, or would you urge that same-sex conceived fetuses that look like they will be severely and painfully malformed be aborted?

                  <

                  p>
                  What have I said that indicates that I don’t like the idea of same-sex couples?  I have said that same-sex conception is bad, and that marriage not guaranteeing conception rights is bad.  Same-sex couples do not imply that those things must happen.  I am calling on you folks to learn prove me right on this.

              • Yeah, I think people assume that if we aren’t prosecuting out-of-wedlock births, then we can’t tie prohibiting same-sex conception to prohibiting same-sex marriage.  They also assume that since no one else is using my argument, then there must be something wrong with my argument.  Both of those assumptions are wrong.  Another wrong assumption is that if we prohibit same-sex conception, we then have to start doing genetic tests and prohibiting all conception where there might be a higher risk of birth defects.  That doesn’t follow, either.  We do not have to allow labs to attempt same-sex conception just because there is a risk to all pregnancies.  The distinction is between natural conception, which we all have a natural right to attempt, and genetic engineering, which obviously there is no natural right to attempt.  To protect our right to join our gametes with the person of our choice, we have to have very broad and supportable restrictions on who we can choose that do not intrude on our medical privacy or set any arbitrary risk thresholds or age limits. 

                <

                p>
                Also, I’ve noticed that everyone so far has refused to concede that same-sex conception is unethical and should be prohibited.  Everyone here seems to believe that there is a right to attempt it and that it should therefore be developed and made available.  Some people seem to think that no one is insisting on conception rights, but the fact is, everyone here is.  It is a foolish thing to be so driven by ideology that you would support such unethical and unnecessary experiments.  Love makes a family, folks, no one needs this.  Stop being moonbats and make a practical and rational concession!

    • Visit my site (www.newenglandbreeze.com).

      <

      p>
      I’m on a business trip through Thursday but can give you lots (more than you want to know) information about siting a turbine on your property.

      <

      p>
      The key question, what are the zoning laws in your town (and yes they go town by town).

      <

      p>
      SOme towns have an “explicit inclusion” statement regarding land use – if your town zoing does not specifically allow a particular usage, you cannot do it.

      <

      p>
      Other towns have no such restrictions.  Often your zoning laws are up on the town web site – or a quick call to your town planning board (or building inspector) can get you a quick answer. If you pass the zoning hurdle, then I’ll gladly do a wind assessment…

      <

      p>
      Mark

  12. I’m a total newbie to blogging… I love this place.  BMG you broke my blogging virginity.  I couldn’t have lost it to a better blog.  (Am I taking this too far?)

  13. I’ve no real fear of that.  After all, think how different things will be with a real governor instead of a drive-by governor.  The Patrick bashing should start in earnest as will the usual kvetching. 

  14. With the GOP no longer holding the corner office what will BMG pit itself against?  Sure, there are Democrats to be attacked, but all attacks will be tepid.  We all know that Deval will only be defended from any truthiness that occasionally bubbles up from the swooning media.

    <

    p>
    People looking for a real critique of Massachusetts government will go someplace else, and I don’t necessarily mean the differently winged blog-whose-name-can-no-longer-be-mentioned.  Or is it that you just won’t link to them anymore, what was the deal with that?

    <

    p>
    In the coming years the right wing local blogosphere will bloom much as conservative media bloomed during the Clinton years, and for the same reason.  Conservatives feed on being the underdogs.  There will be new blogs, new technology put to use, and who knows what else.

    <

    p>
    R.I.P.

    <

    p>
    Romney is a Fraud Blog
    http://romneyisafrau…

    <

    p>
    Kerry Healey Out of Touch
    http://kerryhealeyou…

    • I explained the deal here.

      <

      p>
      I think you’re probably right that some sort of conservative blogosphere will take shape after the election.  Frankly, I hope it does.  And this site will definitely change.  But we’re not going anywhere – sorry.

    • There is always the need for healthy, informed and useful critique of whomever may be in power, be it our political foes or allies. Although I look forward to the fresh air and the good, thorough housecleaning of the state’s executive offices that will come with the new administrative, Deval will inevitably screw up something — he’s human, so he’s not perfect. We’ll need to be there to call him on it. The legislature will not see that much change — they really need the push to be sure that the public’s business gets done.

      <

      p>
      Not that long ago, this role was best performed by our state’s leading newspapers. Sadly, the quality of most of those publications is in decline, and the amount of coverage they give to state and local politics continues to drop. State television coverage of politics has similarly declined as the newscasts have been clogged by fluff about how to get the best fit in skinny jeans and deadly house fires in Indiana (which, while tragic and certainly locally newsworthy, are not terribly important relative to the problems in our own backyard).

      <

      p>
      The best contributors to this group have been able to point out problems and alternatives in a manner which improves public discourse on the issues that affect the body politic. We can take a few days to pat each other on the back later this week — but then, it’s back to work.

  15. First project: Local democratic town/ward/city committees.  We need to put the “active” back in “activist.”  You’d be surprised how disorganized some of the committees are up in my neck of the woods.  My goal is to do what I can to work with other activists in nearby committees to help grow the party on the local level.

    <

    p>
    Second project: We, as bloggers should continue the discussions we’ve had with local and statewide candidates even after the elections.  We’ve successfully organized a candidate forum (Lt. Gov. forum in Lowell) in the off years we should try to organize policy forums. 

    • Coming soon in January, or sooner if I can get off my tired ass to stir things up. I’m taking Wednesday off though.

      <

      p>
      RE disorganized committees…why Susan, you could NOT be talking about the LDCC could you?? They are a paragon of activism…

  16. Guys, after the election, can you move the “diary” list up and remove some of the sidebar ads?

  18. Until the election, priority one should be electing Deval.  It’s not over till it’s over.

    <

    p>
    If anyone has any extra time, putting in calls to flip the House and Senate or going up to New Hampshire to elect Paul Hodes are good choices.

    <

    p>
    After that, BMG should be a place to discuss national and state policies and priorities.  If Patrick is to make real change happen, he’ll need a group of activists outside the legislature to ‘have his back’ — and a group of friends committed enough to tell him when he’s wrong. 

  19. Deval Patrick will not get anything done if the legislature does not work well with him.  I think that is going to be Deval Patrick’s biggest challenge– trying to get the sometimes-in-name-only Democratic legislature to work with him and really make a change in how Massachusetts is governed. 

      • People with power never give up that power easily.  Deval will have his work cut out for him.  But I believe that if people stay focused on the legislative process, and lobby our local senators and representatives, we can help Deval leverage his “charisma” (read: mandate) and effect real change.

  20. is what I plan to post about when things are quieter. My own  look at the various ways we have created affordable housing since the 1930’s and how successful it is – I hope to get lots of feedback.
    Then I want a discussion of our – New England’s – food suppy from several angles: transportation, quality, cost. Again, I hope to post some stuff that starts other bloggers blogging!
    (I sense the beginning of a tongue twister or a christmas carol here… maybe I’ll spark some foolishness too!)

  21. Coming at this as a liberal/progressive, there is still PLENTY do accomplish in MA post Deval’s win.

    <

    p>
    1) There will likely be a lot of special elections in the early part of the year.  This will give the progressive community a chance to increase our numbers in the legislature — which are right now far to small.

    <

    p>
    It will be interesting to see who leaves either for a position in the administration or for some other reason.  But progressives have done very well in special elections in recent years.

    <

    p>
    2) Public Policy!  We need to hold onto gay marriage, make the healthcare law work (and even expand it), do SOMETHING about affordable housing, etc, etc.  There will be big battles around these and lots of other issues, and hopefully we can be as on top of them as we’ve been around the elections.

  22. Because there’s no such thing as too much feminism. Or progressive politics. Or both! 🙂  I’m getting ready for 2008–and hope that BMG will be too!

  23. I guess we don’t have to worry about finding things to talk about!

    <

    p>
    For me, Nov. 9 is the next big step. The ConCon.

    <

    p>
    Also, I’d love to see discussions of things like the lack of women in Mass. politics, as seen in the Globe Magazine Sunday

    <

    p>
    We also can all fight about which priorities we want to see get funded–the environment, foster care, a real discussion of how to improve education, etc.

  24. Don’t worry, BMG.  After the election, you will become MORE important. Politics is a 24/7/365 game, and public information is the only hope for keeping fair play.  It takes a lot of little people’s calls, e-mails, and votes to counteract the big money.

    <

    p>
    Even if Deval wins, it won’t be a “happily ever after” fairy tale.  Everything changes once candidates take office.  They don’t say “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” for nothing. 

    <

    p>
    And besides the governor’s office, the legislature is always cooking up trouble. Jill Stein, Green-Rainbow candidate for Secretary of State, has been our source for action alerts on legislation — and you would not believe what legislators dare to propose, shielded from the “sunshine” laws.  We managed to stop several harmful bills by mobilizing calls and e-mails; when confronted by the voters, they often back off.  But those bills usually come back once public attention fades; the lobbyists never fade.

    <

    p>
    I think we could work on a real legislative agenda, in preparation for future elections.  It should include:

    <

    p>  Term limits.

    <

    p>  Public campaign financing.  And let’s not allow it be sandbagged this time!

    <

    p>  Instant run-off voting.  Almost 50% of the state’s registered voters are unenrolled.  They should be able to vote their real choice without risk of “throwing away” their votes or “spoiling” the race for the Rep or Dem candidate they’d prefer. 

    <

    p>  Reform of the “sunshine” (Public Record and Open Meeting) laws.

    <

    p>  Elimination of eminent domain for private uses.

    <

    p>  Reform of the state’s huge “economic development” (i.e., corporate welfare) program.  Let’s have an “economic justice” program instead. 

    <

    p>
    We should use this time to think out the best strategies for each (ballot initiatives, legislation, constitutional amendments, etc.) and build a broad information/education base all during the year.  With that, people will be ready to act, all year and when elections roll around.  And candidates will get the idea that people are serious about these things.

Archives