Let’s recap. in 2011 I blogged about the royal screwing the MA House leadership was giving a young woman working for a Republican state representative. (I reposted it on Wednesday and Charley removed it on Thursday. Something about the language I’m guessing. I’ll try not to use big words this time)
2011, a year we remember well. Croatia became a member of the European Union, Apple released the iPhone 4S, and the Mass House passed a budget. I don’t know about the first two but that last thing was a huge deal. So huge that there was a late night/early morning party in Speaker DeLeo’s office. With alcohol. Boys and girls. All the cool kids were there. Mariano, Moran, and the rest of them.
A young male state rep. was invited by someone like Majority Leader Ron Mariano or leadership flaky Mike Moran to the semi exclusive bash. The young 20 something and single rep. brought a young female with him. She was also single, worked for a Republican state rep. and she too had been working long hours until the budget was finally passed in a late night session. The invite is how they cultivate the young reps. Make them feel special.
Get the picture?
Allow me to summarize what happened next in a two act play.
Act 1.
At the party the young rep took the aide on a tour of the House chamber. There is a door in the speaker’s office that leads to the chamber near where the rostrum is. Very accessible, may have been open. So the two left the old big feeling stiffs in the speakers office and wandered out to take a stroll through the garden, I mean chamber. According to the rep. and the aide there was no hanky panky going on and that fits with the evidence. (I don’t care if they were doing every move in the Karma Sutra my position would not change.)
Act 2
A court officer (they are the security for the House. The speaker is their boss) who started working there when FDR could still walk was beginning his day. This started with arriving to work hours before required, showering in the member’s lounge, and then doing whatever he does until normal people start showing up.
He saw the impromptu tour and went berserk and complained to the speaker.
Aaaaaand Scene!
Suddenly the speaker is Mr. Morals. (There’s a former state trooper from Winthrop who would disagree, but anyway…) “How dare these two be alone without an escort? I hope there was room between them for the Holy Spirit”. So rather than ending it there and not letting this become the biggest scandal this middle school has ever seen, DeLeo threw gasoline on it. ‘Must put a stop to this behavior.’
He put the rep. on double secret probation and that was that.
But wait, kids being kids they talk. And talk. And then talk some more. The rumors going around the Massachusetts State House/Middle School were that the girl is a slut. And middle school boys being middle school boys hear this and some of them think she can be their first kiss. So on the down low the aide is sexually harassed, gossiped about, and made to feel like shit. Her boss, the Republican rep. fires her. He couldn’t take it any more. Poor bastard. Real stand up guy.
The aide needed help but couldn’t get any. Female legislators were nowhere to be found. The women’s caucus? To paraphrase the communists, ‘All of us women are equal but some are more equal than others”.
Guess who did speak up for her? BMG friend and my buddy Dan Winslow. (Unlike his former boss Mitt Romney, Dan is not a fraud. He’s authentic.)
The aide gets a lawyer and receives from the House about $30,000 with a non-disclosure agreement which was a deal breaker for DeLeo.
That’s the background.
Here’s where it get’s good.
After the that, the fired aide ran for state rep (not against her former boss’s) and won.
Rep. Diana DiZoglio, come on down! You are this years BIG WINNER!
Then came the #metoo movement. Everyone’s a metooer, right? Couple that with Stan Rosenberg’s boy toy and we have a perfect storm to out these bastards.
Time to review House policies on sexual harassment (meaning public is demanding it).
One issue is non-disclosure agreements. and it came to a floor debate the other day.
Rep. Diana DiZoglio took the floor and told of her experience and abandonment, what it did to her, and the need to protect the people who work for the powerful solons.
Great speech. Unfortunately many members of the Woman’s Caucus kept interrupting her speech and tried to use every procedural move to cause her problems and prohibit her from telling her story.
Hey Marjorie Decker, the progressive’s progressive from Cambridge who has the back of the little guy, you know what you did. Yes you do. Don’t deny it.
Same for you Pat Haddard.
“That’s funny, why would they do that Ernie,” you ask.
Well, you will have to ask them. I can only assume it is because the speaker told them to. Then again he doesn’t have to with the species known as the State House Progressive Fraud. They self-preserve by cornering the moral superiority market while not practicing what they preach. But again, you have to ask them. In fact you should ask them. Perhaps young progressive female primary challengers can ask them.
You know who Aung San Suu Kyi is, right? She is the Nobel Peace Prize recipient from Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, (btw when can we stop having to say “formerly known as Burma”, I don’t get it) She was all in on human rights in Burma and bravely fought the government for the abuses inflicted upon her people.
She’s a true believer in the ‘all people are equal but are some are more equal than others’ credo. In fact, she appears to be all in with the genocide of the Rohingya minority in Myanmar. Not sure what her reasons are for that. Same for Marjorie Decker and the women who were serving in the House in 2011 and serving now.
Time to let the members of the Woman’s Caucus know how we feel. Call or email and ask them to support Rep. Dizoglio. If us sisters don’t stick-up for one another who will?
| Cory | Atkins | 14th Middlesex | Democrat | 617-722-2015 | Cory.Atkins@mahouse.gov |
| Ruth | Balser | 12th Middlesex | Democrat | 136 | 617-722-2396 | Ruth.Balser@mahouse.gov |
| Christine | Barber | 34th Middlesex | Democrat | 473F | 617-722-2210 | Christine.Barber@mahouse.gov |
| Jennifer | Benson | 37th Middlesex | Democrat | 22 | 617-722-2140 | Jennifer.Benson@mahouse.gov |
| Kate | Campanale | 17th Worcester | Republican | 542 | 617-722-2488 | Kate.Campanale@mahouse.gov |
| Linda | Campbell | 15th Essex | Democrat | 238 | 617-722-2380 | Linda.Campbell@mahouse.gov |
| Claire | Cronin | 11th Plymouth | Democrat | 136 | 617-722-2396 | Claire.Cronin@mahouse.gov |
| Marjorie | Decker | 25th Middlesex | Democrat | 166 | 617-722-2692 | Marjorie.Decker@mahouse.gov |
| Diana | DiZoglio | 14th Essex | Democrat | 472 | (617) 722-2800 x8932 | Diana.DiZoglio@mahouse.gov |
Let rep. DiZoglio know you support her.
| Michelle | DuBois | 10th Plymouth | Democrat | 146 | 617-722-2011 | michelle.dubois@mahouse.gov |
| Carolyn | Dykema | 8th Middlesex | Democrat | 127 | 617-722-2680 | Carolyn.Dykema@mahouse.gov |
| Lori | Ehrlich | 8th Essex | Democrat | 167 | 617-722-2810 | Lori.Ehrlich@mahouse.gov |
| Tricia | Farley-Bouvier | 3rd Berkshire | Democrat | 156 | 617-722-2240 | Tricia.Farley-Bouvier@mahouse.gov |
| Kimberly | Ferguson | 1st Worcester | Republican | 473B | 617-722-2263 | Kimberly.Ferguson@mahouse.gov |
| Ann-Margaret | Ferrante | 5th Essex | Democrat | 277 | 617-722-2012 | Ann-Margaret.Ferrante@mahouse.gov |
| Carole | Fiola | 6th Bristol | Democrat | 236 | 617-722-2430 | Carole.Fiola@mahouse.gov |
| Denise | Garlick | 13th Norfolk | Democrat | 33 | 617-722-2060 | Denise.Garlick@mahouse.gov |
| Colleen | Garry | 36th Middlesex | Democrat | 238 | 617-722-2380 | Colleen.Garry@mahouse.gov |
| Susan | Gifford | 2nd Plymouth | Republican | 124 | 617-722-2100 | Susan.Gifford@mahouse.gov |
| Danielle | Gregoire | 4th Middlesex | Democrat | 167 | 617-722-2810 | Danielle.Gregoire@mahouse.gov |
| Patricia | Haddad | 5th Bristol | Democrat | 370 | 617-722-2600 | Patricia.Haddad@mahouse.gov |
| Sheila | Harrington | 1st Middlesex | Republican | 237 | 617-722-2305 | Sheila.Harrington@mahouse.gov |
| Natalie | Higgins | 4th Worcester | Democrat | 33 | 617-722-2060 | Natalie.Higgins@mahouse.gov |
| Kate | Hogan | 3rd Middlesex | Democrat | 130 | 617-722-2130 | Kate.Hogan@mahouse.gov |
| Hannah | Kane | 11th Worcester | Republican | 236 | 617-722-2430 | Hannah.Kane@mahouse.gov |
| Mary | Keefe | 15th Worcester | Democrat | 473F | 617-722-2210 | Mary.Keefe@mahouse.gov |
| Kay | Khan | 11th Middlesex | Democrat | 146 | 617-722-2011 | Kay.Khan@mahouse.gov |
| Elizabeth | Malia | 11th Suffolk | Democrat | 238 | 617-722-2380 | Liz.Malia@mahouse.gov |
| Juana | Matias | 16th Essex | Democrat | 448 | 617-722-2582 | Juana.Matias@mahouse.gov |
| Joan | Meschino | 3rd Plymouth | Democrat | 34 | 617-722-2320 | Joan.Meschino@mahouse.gov |
| Shaunna | O’Connell | 3rd Bristol | Republican | 237 | 617-722-2305 | Shaunna.O’Connell@mahouse.gov |
| Keiko | Orrall | 12th Bristol | Republican | 540 | 617-722-2090 | Keiko.Orrall@mahouse.gov |
| Sarah | Peake | 4th Barnstable | Democrat | 163 | 617-722-2040 | Sarah.Peake@mahouse.gov |
| Alice | Peisch | 14th Norfolk | Democrat | 473G | 617-722-2070 | Alice.Peisch@mahouse.gov |
| Elizabeth | Poirier | 14th Bristol | Republican | 124 | 617-722-2100 | Elizabeth.Poirier@mahouse.gov |
| Denise | Provost | 27th Middlesex | Democrat | 473B | 617-722-2263 | Denise.Provost@mahouse.gov |
| Chynah | Tyler | 7th Suffolk | Democrat | 130 | 617-722-2130 |
| RoseLee | Vincent | 16th Suffolk | Democrat | 473F | 617-722-2210 | RoseLee.Vincent@mahouse.gov |
| Susannah | Whipps | 2nd Franklin | 540 | 617-722-2090 | Susannah.Whipps@mahouse.gov |
Give them a call or send an e-mail. Between these state reps there must be ten thousand awards from Women’s groups. Time to actually earn the award. Anyone can sign on to a bill and learn talking points and raise a hand in agreement with a friendly crowd.
Time to separate the frauds from the real things.
BTW There is more than one non-disclosure agreement floating around where the House paid off females alleging sexual harassment against male members. No pun intended. Trust me when I tell you this, a few reps up there are extremely nervous about a few of these agreements. Extremely nervous.
I think this issue is important and I am glad it is back on the front page. Decker is a speakers lackey through and through.
The money quote:
Why shouldn’t male representatives and senators also support her? Do women bear a special burden here? Are they obligated to be better to prove they belong?
They talk the talk. This should be a no-brainer. If they are not protecting her then the men have coverage in not protecting her.
You can’t take too seriously anything from EB3 that includes “us sisters”.
There have been indications before that EB3 is a “sister”.
I’m not sure the commentary, at least on this thread, is affected at all by the gender of the original poster.
EB3 has made extremely sexist comments in the past.
I agree that EB3 has made extremely sexist comments in the past.
A person’s gender has little bearing on whether or not they are sexist, just as a person’s race has little bearing on whether or not they are racist.
Perhaps it is better to focus on the commentary rather than the commentator.
One generally isn’t sexist or racist against one’s own sex or race, and I do think a record of commentary can be taken into account. I have agreed with him (and yes, since as a BMGer a male name is used I use pronouns accordingly) on occasion, but at the risk of being a bit stereotypical myself I have a hard time imagining a woman using some of the language and imagery invoked.
I cite Clarence Thomas, Michelle Bachmann, and Ann Coulter regarding your first sentence. Racism and sexism afflict all of us, regardless of our race and gender.
Since we know that the EB3 is a pseudonym, I see no reason to assume anything about the gender. Literature offers many examples of women who wrote under male psuedonyms for a variety of reasons.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Robert Galbraith is a current example of a female celebrity author (J. K. Rowling) writing best-selling adult fiction under a male pseudonym.
Ms. Rowling can certainly publish pretty much anything she chooses under her own name — and yet she is writing an entire series under a male pseudonym (she says that she does so for her own enjoyment and artistic challenge).
What we imagine about others is often very different from who they really are.
I don’t think Thomas is racist. He just doesn’t support policies you believe necessary to remedy racism, and yes, there’s a huge difference. You may have a point about Bachmann and Coulter (though I’ve always maintained that such women have to be just feminist enough to believe that it is OK for women to be in the positions they themselves are in – in this case member of Congress and lawyer/pundit respectively), but if we stipulate to your characterization of them then it’s all the more reason those particular ladies have lost any moral authority to invoke “us sisters” in a show of solidarity. To get back to the original point, even as a woman EB3 has a lot of chutzpah appealing to “us sisters”.
For EBII, women actually bear a less-then-special burden here: He thinks women are merely objects to be used for or against other men. They have no agency outside of what men grant them and their situation is wholly and entirely contextualized by men. The only thing in this screed that EBIII asks women to do is to ask men to do something.
A few years ago Quentin Tarantino made a movie called ‘Inglorious Basterds” in which righteous Jews beat to death unrighteous Nazis. The so-called ‘Basterds’ even killed Hitler in the movie. Ordinarily, Tarantino wouldn’t give a flying fig about Jews… but when he can indulge in his fetishistic violence, and make the viewer complicit in the indulgence by claiming the moral high ground of the victim, he’ll gladly do so. For him, however, it’s not about the victim or the moral geopgraphy. It’s about the violence. Tarantino, I understand, did much the same thing with ‘Django Unchained’ vis a vis slavery and white v black, but I haven’t seen it.
That’s what EBIII is trying to do here. It’s not about the women. It’s not about the moral geography. It’s about the men. It’s about using the women, and making BMG complicit in that use, against other men. Women are just an handy tool for him to stick it to men, and he thinks he can hijack your anger over the situation to join him in doing it.
Quentin Tarentino? How about replacing the non disclosure agreements with non digression agreements?
Well, Bob, I guess I should be appreciative of the fact that you read at least until the beginning of the second paragraph. However, had you bothered to tax your reading comprehension just a little further you’d note that it is an illustration and not digression.
tl:dr Both EBIII and Quentin Tarantino are passive-aggressive entitled white dudes who try to hijack others moral imagination to express their own perversions.
I read it. Your comment wandered way off into the distance and at the end you kind of half-heartedly whistled for it to come back, but it never did.
(Yes off topic, but I am really glad that someone has the same reaction to Tarantino that I do. I actually think he’s responsible for mainstreaming sadism and cruelty in a way we haven’t come to grips with. +1!)
No. Not off topic. The topic. Tarantino tries to hijack your feelings about Nazis to enable his cruelty and sadism. EBIII tries to hijack your feelings about women and #metoo to enable his rage and mysogyny… even going so far as to attempt a hijack of the one woman’s pain so he may compare the rest to Aung San Suu Kyi, whom he views as inconstant and unprincipled…
If you feel uncomfortable, at all, with what Tarantino attempts, you should feel uncomfortable with what EBIII attempts and stop pretending he’s being straightforward.
In a wider sense, this sort of moral bait-n-switch is at the heart of our politics: Tarantino didn’t invent the moves; EBIII isn’t an outlier here. Want to get a tax cut for the wealthy? Hijack racism and blame the Mexicans and make a lot of bluster about a wall. Want to deny people health care? Hijack more racism and call it Obamacare. Want to hide the fact you are in bed with the Russians? Hillary’s emails.
Get people riled up and (besides the fun in that, in and of itself) you can slip your agenda right by ’em…
And here it is no different: want to spit hate and venom at women…? If you are EBIII you will think taking the side of one will inoculate you against the bile you spew at the rest…. and you will think others will join you. Because anger and mysogyny.
The speaker should announce that everyone who has signed a non disclosure agreement with the House is released from it.
I’m beginning to wonder how NDAs are not first amendment violations. You should not be able to alienate your freedom of speech. They should certainly never appear in the same sentence as a public body such as the House of Representatives.
From the perspective of a practicing lawyer: please be careful what you wish for. The use of confidentiality agreements promotes settlement, and when the parties agree to settle, a confidentiality term increases the amount the defendant will pay. In other words, they serve the interests of individual plaintiffs, who are interested in being compensated for their alleged injuries, not necessarily in broader societal issues.
Sorry, I meant this to be a response to bob-gardner’s comment!
1.If the plaintiffs are suing a government body, the extra money comes from the taxpayers.
2. Releasing the plaintiffs from the agreement doesn’t injure anyone. It only affects the people who have been using taxpayer money to hide their behavior.
1. Yes, but the extra money goes to plaintiffs. Getting rid of the confidentiality may be good for the world, but it’s bad for the actual parties to the concrete dispute.
2. Yes, but it will affect the negotiations to settle future cases.
Which sounds like legalized hush money. My response would be see you in court, or better yet ban them so they are not in play at all.
Easy to say if you are not the litigant, who is trying to maximize the dollars.
what about the plaintiff/victim who wants to keep it private?
Releasing the plaintiffs leaves the choice to them,as I understand it.
I was a litigant. The case involved housing conditions on Kelton St in Allston, where the developer (Continental Wingate,run by Gerald Schuster) wanted to keep the tenants quiet.
As a litigant, I can say that the non disclosure clause was entirely the idea of the landlord. I doubt that it is seldom or ever the idea of the injured party.
NDA’s are usually a weapon used against victims. If we can’t ban them completely, we should at least ban them when the government is the offender.
How about, instead of jumping to “the thing itself is wrong”, we step back a bit and say “the use of the thing is wrong.” That is to say, it is being mis-used…
Kinda like when EBIII gets a hair across his (entirely male) ass and attempts to misuse BMG…
I never get why people attack eb3 when he makes a substantive post. Unlike recent posts, it’s about a local issue from a source that has inside knowledge. Exactly the kind of thing that used to be common here when this site was popular.
The appalling thing is how little has changed in the near decade since this incident first happened. Other than the victim now being in a position of power. She should run against DeLeo and really tell him to stick it.
Here’s the ‘substance’ of the post (none of which is “inside knowledge”):
Where’s the substance in all that??
Speaking as someone who has occasionally had reservations about EB3 in the past, the rule in politics is “no permanent friends, no permanent enemies.” Maybe Ernie got woke.