Left In Lowell

Back on April 20th, the Sunday Sun had a front page article, written by City Editor, Christopher Scott on the hospital rivalry that exists in the City of Lowell. Unfortunately, it is no longer available on line without paying $2.95. If you have not read it or cannot remember the details, and you care about the economic and social future of the City, it is well worth paying that sum. Or you could visit Pollard Library, where everything is free.

Scott’s article focused on the “tension over the long-term future of the locally controlled hospitals in Lowell,” Saints Medical Center and Lowell General Hospital, and the “friendly rivalry.” At the time of the printing of the article, Women’s Health, providers of obstetrical and gynecological services, left Saints and signed an exclusive agreement with LGH.

The April 20th article is probably one of the best researched and written I have read in the paper. Unfortunately, it did not create the public noise it should have but it probably created the private discussions it demanded.

In addition to detailing the failed 2001 merger, Scott quotes State Senator Steve Panagiatakos, “The last thing we need is a boxing match between the two hospitals….They [the hospitals] are not for profit businesses formed to take market share from the other…We need functioning, high-efficiency hospitals. If one succeeds at the detriment of the other, that doesn’t help the system.”

Six months have gone by since that article. Last week, Scott reported that our state delegation, lead by Senator Panagiatakos wrote a letter to both hospitals and urged the two institutions to form an “alliance…to ensure that we have a locally controlled and community-oriented health-care system.” (more…)

What do you get when local talent working out of Lowell Telecommunications gets a little punchy? Why, SNAFUtv of course.

You can see them on the local cable channel, or now, on You-Tube. Just a fair warning, some of it is not safe for work! (Net-speak for a bit racy.)

This PG-safe segment mocks PBS stuffy interview styles and so-called “experts” in a field.

Congrats to SNAFUtv for getting the First Place Award from the Alliance for Community Media!

David outlines how the article claimed by DiMasi to protect his records from investigation is, well, no such thing.

What is clear from the text of [Article 21] is that even if it does apply, it does not somehow require DiMasi to keep the records secret. Nor does it even appear to entitle him to do so. To the contrary, the main purpose of the Article is to shield legislators from civil or criminal liability for things that they say in public, on the floor of the legislature.

So that’s pretty much that. Article 21 reads:

The freedom of deliberation, speech and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever.

David’s seems to be quite a reasonable interpretation of the Article. It appears to be a protection of legislators to say things in debate and not expect to be prosecuted. How it would protect personal records is beyond me. Though I guess the state Supreme Court will have to weigh in on that one.

The frustrating thing about this is, if there isn’t any wrongdoing here, this whole secretive thing is undermining confidence in the House, in the leadership, and jeopardizes DiMasi’s hold on the Speakership. Presumably he’s doing this in order to protect his leadership (whether actually guilty, appearing guilty but actually innocent, or completely innocent). If on one hand he is guilty, well, I guess we’ll have to ferret this out the hard way. If innocent, however, protecting himself in this manner (ie, acting guilty) is only likely to lose him the leadership. Of course if he’s found to have done something wrong I want him gone. But if he goes, and we find out this was a trumped-up witch hunt, we’re going to regret it, and to a large extent, it’ll be his own damn fault.

Today’s is Veterans’ Day, and I’d like to take a moment to honor all vets who have served this country. Thanks.

In this democratic country of ours, the military doesn’t make the policies, but are the ones to carry out what the civilian, sometimes inept Commander in Chief commits them to. A person who joins the Armed Forces signs him or herself to giving up some of their democratic rights in order to serve and defend this country. I think that’s awfully brave, and a part of the military service story that doesn’t get told. We all talk about the bravery of combat, of saving lives or losing theirs, but to commit, to trust your country to do the right thing with the lives they hold in their collective hands, that’s brave too.

To those people who served and serve, thanks for giving us that. We may not always agree on the best use of your sacrifice, but it is still a sacrifice. On this day, remember that we still have many soldiers serving in harm’s way, and let’s make sure we take care of them, now and when they come home.

Lynne may not have issues with the Globe’s coverage but that has not stop them from quoting her and a few other bloggers in today’s edition.

Check out the VoxOp column on the op-ed page.

Now we know someone at the Globe reads all blogs; and that the staff at the paper is neither insecure nor vindictive. And of course, DiMasi is still in trouble.