State Senator Jarrett Barrios has started a blog. His first substantive post is an interesting discussion of some measures he’s backing to protect against domestic violence, and some of the civil liberties issues that have been raised in connection with them.
The blog accepts comments (which are moderated for compliance with his posting guidelines) so it’s an actual blog, not just an alternative outlet for press releases. As far as I know, Senator Barrios is the first MA legislator to try anything like this.
This strikes me as an exciting development, and hopefully as a model for other legislators interested in reaching out to the netroots. Welcome to the blogosphere, Senator!
Please share widely!
It is great to see a legislator connecting to this type of media. Especially, one that is involved in so many big issues.
to Sen. Barrios. I am looking forward to following (and maybe contributing to) the discussions.
meh. I’m skeptical, and I like Barrios.
<
p>
Who’s doing the moderating? I’d guess that he is. So, how much filtering is he doing?
<
p>
Maybe it’s worth a test. Perhaps a few of us should start making “questionable” posts, to see just how much he edits. Does he delete the entire post, or just sensor a bit? How much distention before it gets blocked? For that matter, how much fanboi crap can one get away with before your useless cheerleader post is deleted?
<
p>
It’s his web page, he can do what he wants. Still, whenever I see “moderated for compliance” I’m not always sure if good negative signal gets filtered out as noise because the filter is the subject of the signal.
I hear what you’re saying, stomv. Since the configuration doesn’t allow outsiders to initiate discussions, maybe we should encourage him to post a weekly “open thread.” As to your “questionable posts” idea, I think I’ll stick to saying what I mean, and meaning what I say. Always politely. But that doesn’t mean I won’t be following your strategy with interest.
about a weekly open thread. You should post that over on his site.
Good idea to you too, David. I went to the Welcome post on the Barrios blog, but the “comments” function is “closed.” Not a good sign. Not wanting to intrude into the other (worthwhile) conversation in battering, I’ll wait for an opportune opportunity to make that suggestion.
Non-issue for me. Like the Lowell Sun’s political blog (which sucks anyway), they have a legitimate reason to approve comments before they go public. If someone were to use the official blog of a politician or a newspaper to incite violence or say some of the other things, like what some do on my own blog, it would look very very bad.
<
p>
As long as only real bad stuff gets deleted, I don’t have a problem with things having to get moderated. I doubt he’s doing much more than that.
<
p>
As to the language “moderated for compliance,” that could be the Typepad default. shrug
Bloggers at BMG,
<
p>
This blog thing is a new thing for me and a little intimidating–the creation of something that is in all ways ‘permanent’.
<
p>
My hope is to use the blog to hash out issues that I am involved in directly or peripherally. My current plan is to write about a substantive area/policy proposal every other week. This week is Domestic Violence, and in two weeks, I am hoping to do ID Theft, specifically, the legislation I have written with Rep. Mike Costello and MASSPIRG.
<
p>
In the alternate weeks, I was hoping to do a blog entry on a more general issue and discuss with those who choose to comment. Next week, I am hoping to discuss the use of religion by pro-marriage equality advocates.
<
p>
None of these will be open threads, that is, discussions initiated by others. That is purposeful. For the moment at least I am hoping to use this to help me hone my arguments for the issues I advocate for…yes, that means it will be more than simple press releases, but it is (consciously) not a BMG-style blog where anyone can discuss anything.
<
p>
The comment policy is clear–anything ‘on point’ that is not laden with profanity –a point stomv has raised in previous posts–will be printed. Guest bloggers are welcome on an issue I am discussing. Just be in touch.
<
p>
Jarrett
I have visited your blog and see you are already attacking important issues. Since your are the chairman of the State Police oversight committee, I would request that you post a thread about Ben LaGuer. The public needs to be able to talk directly with those in charge of this mess, and see what can be done about it.
<
p>
Thanks, and good luck!
I was recently on the receiving end of a restraining order because of a roommate that either simply wanted me out of the apartment and was willing to file a false affidavit or he filed an affidavit in a delusional state.
<
p>
Anyone can get a restraining order in the state of MA. No one has to have hit you, no one has to have threatened you, all a person has to do is claim that they were placed in fear of imminent physical harm. That’s the box my roommate checked off. You go to a judge, they rubber stamp it, and then the police issue the order and make sure you are removed from the residence.
<
p>
At your hearing you are not innocent until proven guilty, you are not even guilty until proven innocent, you are guilty, period. All the plaintiff has to do is answer in the affirmative when the judge asks, “Are you still in fear of this person?” and the order gets extended.
<
p>
And on this form that a person fills out to initially get one of these things a person can claim whatever they want about who they want the restraining order against, and they don’t have to list a damn thing about themselves. The police that showed up at my door and the judge at my hearing were all confused thinking I owned a gun because of a box my roommate checked off. And that I had an alcohol problem! I’ve never touched a gun in my life let alone own one. My roommate is the one that owned 2 guns. My roommate is the one who only 2 weeks prior joined AA. Did he have to prove one iota of what he claimed? Nope.
<
p>
This whole restraining order/domestic violence system feels incredibly unconstitutional. It’s like something from Kafka. I’d expect it in Soviet Russia, not Massachusetts.
<
p>
And posting this to his blog to make sure he sees it.
pers-1765, you have a serious complaint about the system, so why haven;t you posted this over on Barrios’s blog? It is of interest here, but might be more useful over there. He is the one working on the policy, after all.
My guess is he cares more about civil rights as they pertain to Gitmo rather than Massachusetts.
maybe it’s not visible yet because he reviews comments before posting.
<
p>
as for MA vs. Guantanamo, wow, if you want him to take you seriously, you really should reconsider slinging around baseless crap like that. seriously.
You wouldn’t say it’s baseless then.
stomv, why the zero?
and the second part was a pissing match that detracted from the really interesting points both of you had in the first part.
<
p>
So, “delete comment” — it distracts from the good stuff.
I saw it as good advice – don’t insult the person you’re going to for help. but anyway, thx for answering.
I most often use 0 for the second of a double post. I also use it above, where the thread takes a turn for the less-valuable.
<
p>
I never use it to counter a 6 when I disagree with the high rating, as some people do.
<
p>
Don’t sweat it one way or the other. There are few posters who haven’t gotten some number of 0,3,4,5, and 6s from me.
The hyperbole is offensive and demeaning. Guantanamo, indeed. We really are a nation of self-indulgent whiners.
Focus in on “Pretrial Detention.” Isn’t that what we are doing in Gitmo?
<
p>
It’s crazy that instead of simply losing my apartment along with whatever I couldn’t grab in the 15 minutes the police gave me, under Barrios’ plan my roommate could have instead made sure I was put behind bars so long as he had a domestic violence councilor hold his hand while he crossed the t’s and dotted the i’s of his false affidavit.
I thought the Boston Globe was his personal blog!!