Left In Lowell

I haven’t posted on the whole Komen/Planned Parenthood thing. I think it’d be clear where I stand on it (having praised Planned Parenthood many times before, both from a doing-good thing and on a personal level). I’m glad there’s an intense backlash on the fundraising org for its terrible, and apparently very politically motivated decision to stop funding breast exams for poor women at PP clinics (all protestations to the contrary, the evidence is piled quite high…one can doth protest too much).

But this Gin and Tacos blog post (via the dkos “backlash” link above) goes further in dissecting Komen and why you should be boycotting its races and fundraisers, and its products (including this gun):

But you should not have a low opinion of Komen^tm because of their announcement on Wednesday. You should have a low opinion of them because they’re a fake charity run like any other company with a product to sell. In this case the product is a combination of guilt, pity, and hope dissolved in a weak acid and dyed a nauseating pink.

…

And that’s all Komen is – a consulting firm that helps large corporate clients sell more of their products through pinkwashing campaigns. By slathering everything from pasta to baseball bats to perfume to fast food with the Pink Imprimatur, consumers are led to believe that their purchases are making meaningful contributions to breast cancer research. Somewhere down the line a few cents per purchase may trickle into those bloated coffers, but the immediate and motivating effect of that pink packaging is to get you to buy things. In short, Komen^tm is a group of salespeople selling image. Whatever money benefits the sick, researchers, or recovering patients is ancillary. Getting those big, fat tax-exempt checks from their Partners for the Cure^tm is what drives their business model.

The Gin and Tacos post also links to a Marie Claire expose (I know, right?) as background information. Both the post I quoted above, and the Marie Claire article, are well worth a full read. There is a paucity of articles and reporters questioning the very concept of “cause marketing” in general and the breast cancer “pink” campaigns specifically. Like “greenwashing,” “pinkwashing” is a marketing ploy first, a way to make a customer feel good about their purchase and therefore, encourage more buying. The Marie Claire article writes about outfits which provide “pink” branded merchandise that have nothing to do with donating to cancer research, and it’s questionable how much of your purchase of a “good” pink-bedecked item really goes to research. What’s clear is that the proliferation of charities and foundations around the breast cancer awareness and research “movement” have done a lot of enriching of themselves, however, and have become big business.

So next time you are in a store or asked to donate towards or participate in a fundraiser like a race, think before you pink!

Just to add, the last page of the Marie Claire article does outline how to truly support breast cancer research and how to watch out for scam charities. (Sorry, fixed the link!)

You should really try to get through Deluca’s diary, over on Gerry’s blog. Yes, I know. The sickly sweet platitudes are enough to make you yak, but he is on to something.

City Manager Cleans Up Dodge

I’m not sure if Deluca even realizes how correct he is. The City Manager has purged the under the table economy that linked City Hall to less than scrupulous business owners perpetrating bribery, ect. Wake up, folks. You think “cash transaction” management in the Clerk’s office is Lynch’s BIGGEST problem?

There is a reason that the ‘gang that can’t shoot straight’ is falling all over themselves to rid Lowell of Bernie Lynch.

Does this clue you in?:

Feel free to fly over to Never Never Land to discuss this matter. Though, you may come back here to swirl the bowl with me when your pushback to pablum like, “I think Councilor Elliot will place his confidence squarely with City Manager Lynch if he proves its deserved.” gets, …. um …. er …. ah! … recycled. Yes. When your brisk comment gets “recycled,” you can opt to redeem it here.

While Colbert and Stewart lambaste our Citizen United world with hilarious satire and extreme tactics, the Senate race in Massachusetts is having a quiet discussion all its own, with a pact between Brown and Warren (both sort of take credit, though it does appear Warren is the one to suggest something more binding). The pact, in case you live under a rock, is that any money spent for or against a candidate in the race by outside groups will be matched 50% from the candidate it benefited towards a charity of the other candidate’s choosing (thereby hurting the candidate it was supposed to help).

Even though this whole back-and-forth seemed a little gimmicky, and I felt at first that all we really needed was a strong, unequivocal condemnation from both sides, this pact does have some pretty interesting implications. For one thing, it’s an unprecedented candidate-driven pushback against the CU ruling, an acknowledgement of the damage of unregulated, unknown spending. We expect there to be a legislative pushback (so far, unsuccessful) or maybe eventually a constitutional one, but to be coming from two major candidates, that says something particular - a “we don’t want your help, your money, get out” from the parties involved.

There are concerns about whether or not certain deep pockets could get sneaky, create a SuperPAC that pretends to be for, say, Warren that runs ads against Brown, thereby costing the Warren campaign 50% of that ad buy - but I don’t think this will happen. For one thing, that SPAC has to spend double what it’d cost the candidate to make ads in support of them, and even if you make it kind of heavy-handed hoping it will backfire (look totally Rovian, for instance), you’d still be taking a risk of making a big ad buy that hurts the candidate you truly support.

Even more interesting, is will this stop the outside money? The Globe ran an interesting comparison of this pact to the 1996 Kerry-Weld agreement to not spend more than $5M on TV ads. Kerry broke that pact, claiming Weld already broke it by having an unfair low cost to his ad buys. Whoever did break actually it, it got broken.

Leaving us to wonder, is this really going to work?

[Weld’s communication director] Gray projected outside groups will spend up to $20 million in what is being pegged as a $60 million race - $20 million apiece by Brown and Warren, assuming she wins the Democratic nomination, and another $20 million from groups interested in their candidacies.
[…]
The League of Women Voters and the League of Conservation voters have already aired over $3 million worth of ads attacking Brown’s record, while a conservative group, Crossroads GPS, has aired over $1 million in ads attacking Warren’s.

If we’re already $4M into possibly $20M or more in ad buys for or against candidates from outside groups, can a pact like this stem the tide?

I think it will, at least for a little while. I’m certain the pact will get tested, though, so the question remains, will both sides stick to it to the detriment of their campaign, since the numbers here are not small? I’m less cynical about this, because the backlash from breaking this one is not one either campaign can afford. Warren, because she banks her campaign on her commitment to the middle and working class and to fairness, openness, and transparency - a break from her would undermine that. And Brown, whose poll numbers are not where they should be for an incumbent, can ill afford to look like the schmuck in all this.

I doubt Warren, at least, entered into this lightly. Brown either, for that matter. It’s a test of resolve against the tide of insanity that is the money flow in campaigns these days. In the end, I think I’m just glad someone’s willing to appear to put up or shut up. So, kudos to both sides. Now, let’s have the real, substantive debate from the candidates that Massachusetts deserves. Something that might well be possible when we’re not drowning in ads from outside groups.

There’s a good discussion at BMG, and also, what do YOU think? Gimmick, unenforceable, brave move, or something in between?

It’s not an exaggeration to say that no web content maker on the internet should NOT be in total fear of SOPA. (Edit: I meant no web content maker should NOT be in fear…) I knew it was bad, but BoingBoing put it into real perspective:

Boing Boing could never co-exist with a SOPA world: we could not ever link to another website unless we were sure that no links to anything that infringes copyright appeared on that site. So in order to link to a URL on LiveJournal or WordPress or Twitter or Blogspot, we’d have to first confirm that no one had ever made an infringing link, anywhere on that site. Making one link would require checking millions (even tens of millions) of pages, just to be sure that we weren’t in some way impinging on the ability of five Hollywood studios, four multinational record labels, and six global publishers to maximize their profits.

If we failed to take this precaution, our finances could be frozen, our ad broker forced to pull ads from our site, and depending on which version of the bill goes to the vote, our domains confiscated, and, because our server is in Canada, our IP address would be added to a US-wide blacklist that every ISP in the country would be required to censor.

So LeftinLowell is going to join the one-day blackout tomorrow, Jan 18th, from 8am to 8pm. Lest we go dark permanently under a SOPA world. If you have a website, you might want to consider the simple steps that the website gives you to do so - a simple javascript that goes into your head tag.

You may have read recently that former City Manager and State Senator Joe Tully, having been convicted of his second felony related to corruption, was sentenced. The terms of his sentence have been a matter of contentious discussion amongst those that note such things. The Blog of Record did make the sentence central to its story.

If we are concerned about justice, I suggest we move on from Tully and take note of this snippet:

… Tully and the co-conspirator pocketed the money, according to Assistant U.S. Attorney William Welch.

The co-conspirator has never been charged, although Welch said the investigation is continuing.

The Assistant U.S. Attorney is clear, there is a co-conspirator with half of the loot burning a hole in his/her pocket. I find that troubling. You?

Welch stated about Tully, “He took advantage of the public’s cynicism of public officials,”

*chin scratch*

Among us are sinners and saints. The moral melting pot that is Lowell drives us to accomplish and we should be proud of what we have accomplished. Though, it might be wise to take some shame in facets of how we have accomplished what we have.

What is past is past. It matters more, how we move forward.

Thus, as we endeavor to commit to the enterprise of lifting Lowell up, be consciencous of whose ring you would choose to kiss. You may not know where it has been.

Update (12/5/11): The Blog of Record points a fickle finger:

The clandestine co-conspirator is widely believed to be downtown Lowell property owner Thomas Byrne.

Tommy’s name was out there before. Ho-hum, Chris Scott.

Note: This blog is not here for you to accuse. I reserve the right to censor/delete anything that attacks a reputation. Besides, if you know something important, you should not be blogging here. I’m sure Assistant U.S. Attorney William Welch’s number is in the book.

The Sun has an article about the school committee-teacher contract negotiations. I have a few things to say about it.

First, the reported rejection of the school committee’s offer. Look, I am sympathetic of the fact that the teachers have gone without a cost of living raise (just step increases) for the more than two years there has been no contract. It’s not fair, and it’s frustrating I am sure. Teachers work hard, and should be compensated like professionals. Their job is so important to a strong community.

However, I think asking for too much right now forces the school committee to choose between raises, and JOBS. Chapter 70 money is merely level-funded right now, if even that, and the city can hardly afford to greatly increase their part of the school budget, given the amount of local aid from the state. Medical insurance and other expenses are going up, up, up. This eats into the budget every year. We’re in a serious downtown for heaven’s sake! People are getting laid off right, left, and center in both the private AND the public sector. Why doesn’t this reality sink in? Accept a modest forward-going raise that kicks in over time so the school committee can feel confident they can fund it, or watch colleagues get laid off!!

I am a public and private union sympathizer, but Paul Georges sometimes make it VERY hard for me to sympathize with the teacher’s union and their demands. This isn’t the first time that’s happened. I know his job is to be a hard ass, but enough is enough.

However, that is not the only outrage in that article, and now we come to the real reason for this post. From the article (important part in bold):

As contract negotiations continue behind closed doors between the School Committee and United Teachers of Lowell, one School Committee member tells The Sun that union leaders refused a 3 percent raise offered by the committee this week.

“They are sharks,” said the committee member, who agreed to speak anonymously because negotiations are protected by executive-session privilege. “We have really extended ourselves with the best offer we could make, but it is not enough for them.”

Who the goddamned hell broke executive session rules to comment on the rejection in the first place??

I would like to see that person LOSE the upcoming election. What. An. IDIOT. We NEED to know who that person is.

Of course, the Sun went to Paul Georges for a reaction to the anonymous comment, which included a very incendiary “they are sharks.”

If you thought the negotiations have been grueling, unproductive, and contentious up til now, just wait. Thanks to this stupid farking anonymous School Committee member, the teachers now have an excuse to be even more pissed off. And rightly so. The rules of negotiation were violated by one party. This is not negotiating in good faith. Haven’t we had enough public personnel fights fought in the pages of the Lowell Sun (the former Superintendent) to be smart enough to refrain from this sort of ethical lapse?

My god. If we do not find out what elected moron commented and leaked executive session negotiations, then we need to concentrate on ousting all the incumbents we can and replacing them with all the challengers running. Even though I am a supporter of some of the incumbents.

If I were the rest of the School Committee, I would publicly come out and state they were not the leak, so by process of elimination, we can figure out who was. Sure, there’s a chance someone might lie about it, but if we continue to have elected officials undermining delicate negotiations, I am ready with the pitchfork of my vote to retire them posthaste. And you should be too.

With the public vastly turning on billionaire Koch kisser WI Governor Scott Walker and his disgusting display of anti-American union busting (didn’t we once have freedom of assembly and speech here?), you’d think that MA Sen Scott Brown would be a little more careful how he begs for money from the least popular rich guy in America. But no! ThinkProgress has the exclusive video:

At the public dedication of MIT’s David H. Koch Integrative Cancer Institute last Friday, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) effusively thanked conservative billionaire David Koch for supporting his election in 2010 and made a plea for help in his re-election campaign next year. David Koch directly gave the National Republican Senatorial Committee $30,400 in November 2009, and the Koch Industries PAC threw in $15,000 to NRSC plus $5,000 more directly to Brown right before Brown’s special election. In the following exchange, Brown thanks Koch and his wife Julia (off-camera) for their support, saying “I can certainly use it again”:

Partial transcript:

BROWN: Your support during the election, it meant a, it meant a ton. It made a, it made a difference and I can certainly use it again. Obviously, the uh . . .

KOCH: When are you running, uh, for the next term?

BROWN: ’12.

KOCH: Oh, okay.

BROWN: I’m in the cycle, I’m in the cycle right now. We’re already banging away.

Mark Arsenault at the Globe notes:

In public appearances, the senator says that he’s not interested in politicking right now, that there will be time for it in 2012 — his re-election year.

Yet in the video, Brown tells Koch he’s politicking right now.

Uh, heck of a job, Brownie.

Being a busy week, I thought I’d post a roundup of things I’ve read or heard on statewide races in the last week, since there seems to be plenty of fodder.

No Nice Guy

First up, the despicable personality of Guy Glodis, who is running in the Dem primary for State Auditor. In 2003, he sent around a disgusting, racist (and also, false) screed about Muslims (via BMG):

(Bold mine) Glodis is generating controversy over his decision to distribute what Muslim activists charge was a racist flier to his 39 Senate colleagues. On June 25 [2003], the pol sent out an e-mail with the message, “Thought this might be of interest to you.” To it, he attached a leaflet purporting to tell the story of General “Black Jack” Pershing, a US military man stationed in the Philippines. In 1913, so the story goes, Pershing was combating his own brand of terrorism: “Muslim extremists.” He executed 49 of them with bullets soaked in pig’s blood because Muslims believe, the flier states, “touching a pig … is to be instantly barred from paradise (and those virgins) and doomed to hell.” Then, he buried their bodies in pig entrails — an act that supposedly deterred terrorism for 42 years. The flier closes with this final sentiment: “Maybe it is time for this segment of history to repeat itself, maybe in Iraq? The question, where do we find another Black Jack Pershing?”

Glodis, for his part, seems untroubled by the matter. … Glodis stresses that he never meant to offend anyone. “If I have,” he says, “I regret it.” He received the “news item” — this is what he calls the leaflet because, he says, “It was news to me when I read it” — from a constituent, and he thought he saw the past event’s relevance to today’s war on terrorism. Do we take a passive approach to terrorism? Or do we fight terrorism by the same means?

Nevermind that this whole story is a myth, so Glodis is an idiot as well as a racist jerk. He sent this to his Senate colleagues, folks. What does this say about his judgment and fitness for statewide office?

Many BMG’ers who live in the Worcester area commented that this is pretty par for the course with Glodis. So I say no thanks. (There are two others in the race for Auditor, Susanne Bump and Mike Lake. Right now I am a leaner for Bump.) Is there any hope of keeping Glodis (who, I believe, has some insider support) off the Democratic ballot at our convention in a couple weeks? He is, at best, an embarrassment to our state and our party.

—-

Cahill Peaked Too Soon

Between our friend Charlie “I know no-ting! I see NO-TING!” Baker (who was the guy with the reigns while the state lege and agencies screwed the funding pooch on the Big Dig) and Tim “I used to be a Dem and now am a teabagger” Cahill, this governor’s race has at a minimum shaped up to be entertaining.

BMG has had a ton of stuff on both candidates, but it was the recent article by the Globe (and special sections like this) tracing the cronyism in the Probation Dept that has Cahill backed up against a wall.

Cahill is friends with Probation Commissioner John O’Brien, and hired his wife and daughter. Ruh Roh!

Independent gubernatorial candidate Timothy Cahill said Monday that patronage is a part of politics…

Let that one sink in for a second. Of course, now he is backing down and says we need to do something about the Probation Dept…since it’s become evident that his friendship with now-suspended O’Brien is a bit, well, toxic. Both Baker and Cahill now say we should bring the Probation Dept under the judiciary, explicitly not the executive.

But that’s not how most states do it. Governor Patrick, back in January, sent a bill to Beacon Hill to put oversight of Probation under the Executive branch. (The lege sat on it and it went nowhere. Wonder why?)

In this great Radio Boston interview, UMass Lowell longtime Professor of Criminal Justice James Byrne went into detail on what’s going on, and how other states do it. Professor Byrne tells the audience that the majority of states are actually overseen by the executive, “so the Deval Patrick recommendation was consistent with what’s considered best practice around the country…which is essentially to consolidate corrections organization…into one agency.” He also mentions that a few states are judicially overseen as well, but are the exception to the rule.

Other great quotes from Professor Byrne:

Well…the basic problem you have is one I heard when I came here to Massachusetts, which is, if you want to become a probation officer, you should get involved in a political campaign.

In Massachusetts we’re the only state I’ve seen that is…I would call it a legislative model, because it essentially cuts the judiciary out of hiring and promotion process. It’s not technically, but in terms of practice.

When asked, have these practices of crony hiring had an impact on public safety, Byrne said:

You could make a strong argument that…we do not know about the performance of the Mass probation system and we haven’t known since the days of Don Cochrain, who was big on transparency, and he found using performance measures and publishing performance measures an important part of the system. …Since O’Brien…you won’t find any statistics [on the website], they won’t be in the state system, and you won’t find them in the national reporting…Massachusetts doesn’t report their basic information on the performance of the system.

So Cahill hires his political bud’s wife and daughter, but claims it had nothing to do with that friendship, and O’Brien is caught in an investigative whirlwind on his bad hiring practices, which at first Cahill tries to excuse and doesn’t want to change, then of course changes his mind.

Oh Timmy, we hardly knew ye…

Remember in November (2011) folks. This was a disgusting display of insiderism, and made all the more ugly because of the two other highly qualified who, in many people’s opinions, interviewed much better than Santoro. I have a report from Paul@01852, a frequent commenter and a fellow member of Move Lowell Forward, who was at the meeting. Which, by the way, was not televised. Perhaps, as Erin Smith reminds about in her article, they should have done what defeated incumbent Michael Hayden wanted, and scrapped the whole search to begin with, if they were so in the bag for a candidate (who, so far as I can tell, has no real ambition, thinks everything is peachy and plans no new initiatives to improve the school, and who is so tight with the cronies that we basically have a Cassin all over again).

Smith writes a pretty good article, by the way. Check that out too (no idea why the Sun’s site sends you to that weird link).

I am thoroughly disgusted and I want these incumbents out. Lenzi and Laferriere are up in 2011, folks, we need people willing to run and kick their crony butts out of there.

From Paul:
Bag Job! Mary Jo Santoro New GLTHS Superintendent

I attended the special GLTHS School Committee meeting tonight. Michael Ready of MoveLowellForward PAC was also in attendance. (Disclosure: I am also a member of MoveLowellForward.) After much lobbying of the current chairman, the former chairman and the school’s legal counsel by Mr Ready, it was decided that the public would be allowed to speak for 5 minutes each. Michael was the only speaker to sign up.

Mr Ready gave an impassioned speech requesting that the search for a superintendent be re-opened based on the fact that the current process was tainted by premature decisions and statements by SC members indicating prejudice in favor a particular candidate, namely Mary Jo Santoro. Published comments by search subcommittee chair O’Hare, Chairman LaFerriere, subcommittee member Lenzi and former SC member Michael Hayden indicating that Ms Santoro was the best candidate. Mr Hayden’s comment indicated that there was no need for a search at all!

Mr Ready was gaveled to a halt after 4 minutes but refused to stop, saying that he had only been speaking for *four* minutes and that he had a very accurate watch. He was allowed to continue. After approximately 30 seconds Chairman LaFerriere once again made a motion to gavel Mr Ready to a stop but was interrupted by current Supt. Cassin who requested that Mr Ready be allowed to go on. Finally as Mr Ready was nearly finished he was gaveled down again but raised his voice over the gavel and finished the last sentence or two of his statement.

A motion was made that a vote be taken with members stating the name of the candidate they preferred for the next superintendent. The motion passed 8-0. A vote was then taken with Mary Jo Santoro receiving 7 votes and Jane Cornell 1 vote (from SC member Fred Bahou). The meeting was then adjourned. It was extremely curious that Ms Santoro did not even receive the proverbial “one hand clapping” of congratulations never mind a warm round of applause! She certainly seemed to have her cheering section in attendance; maybe they all left their pompoms at home!

Following adjournment Mr Ready had a heated conversation with subcommittee chair Mr O’Hare.

It was obvious from the body language and facial expressions that Mr Ready’s statement was not appreciated. Ms Santoro had a disdainful expression throughout his statement and Chair LaFerriere was obviously angry as his face got redder and redder as Mr Ready continued. Other committee members hung their heads (in shame maybe?) or showed scorn.

I am sure there will be a much more detailed account of this meeting in tomorrow’s Lowell Sun as both reporter Erin Smith and a staff photographer were there. One interesting item of note was that this meeting was not televised nor will there be a taped rebroadcast since there were no video cameras or recording devices present! I have to wonder why. Something as momentous as the hiring of a new superintendent does not merit public broadcasting? I wonder who made the decision not to record the meeting. I have to wonder if someone decided there was something to hide. Or something to be ashamed of.

The GLTHS SC needs more exposure! The City of Lowell has had to lay off many many teachers while GLTHS has not had to lay of a single one as Mr Ready stated. Taxpayers of Lowell are told what they have to pay with no input into the process. We have now had a superintendent “shoved down our collective throats” without any citizen input since the majority of the so-called search was done in executive session by a hand-picked subcommittee consisting solely of SC members.

For a while I had hopes that with public scrutiny of this board by MoveLowellForward that some of the activities that appeared to be cronyism were just that GLTHS SC was “under the radar.” MLF made several request of the board for more public exposure of the meeting schedule and agendas which to my surprise was readily granted and in a very timely manner. However, the entire search process completely disillusioned me of this idea. When presented with a choice of only 3 candidates, 2 of whom were insiders, the board chose not the best candidate but the most “connected” and the obviously pre-ordained Ms Santoro which, if reports I have read are correct, was the worst of the three!

Paul@01852

Oh great masters of finance, lead us. (Yes, that’s sarcasm.)

The Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance strikes down a particular law in Massachusetts. So yes, Virginia, that ruling will affect elections as we know it.

(The title and first line, FYI, refers to David’s title, “Allow me to be the first to formally welcome our new corporate overlords.”)