Left In Lowell

The Patrick administration is announcing a couple more initiatives to get the state onto more efficient, renewable energy. From their press release:

Governor Deval Patrick has set two new goals for energy efficiency and renewable energy: making all new malls and “big box” retail stores energy efficient and powered in part by solar energy by 2010 and offering a super-efficient building code as a local option for municipalities looking to take the lead in combating global climate change.

With the U.S. Green Building Council’s Greenbuild International Conference under way at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center, Governor Patrick directed Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs to initiate a dialogue with the development community to put together the technical assistance, financing support, and regulatory standards to facilitate the universal adoption of solar power and super-efficient buildings for large retail stores and malls, typically greater than 50,000 square feet in size.
….
Secretary Bowles noted that there are already substantial financial incentives in place for solar power, but that only a few large retailers have taken advantage of them. These incentives include Commonwealth Solar, the state’s rebate program, which provides as much as 40 percent of the cost of a solar energy installation, and federal investment tax credits for solar installations, which were recently extended for another eight years.

“We want to work with the development community to make them aware of the opportunity they have before them in energy efficiency and solar energy, and work with them to find out what they need to take advantage of that opportunity,” said Secretary Bowles. “Malls and big box stores have big flat roofs that are naturals for solar power, and Governor Patrick wants to see them put to use generating clean, renewable energy.”
In addition, Governor Patrick has asked staff at the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and the Department of Public Safety to develop a super-efficient energy code for consideration by the Board of Building Regulations and Standards as a local option for municipalities that want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from development in their communities.

Under the Green Communities Act, the comprehensive energy reform bill signed by the Governor in July, Massachusetts is required to incorporate the latest version of the International Energy Conservation Code in its building code within one year of its adoption. The IECC approved its 2009 standards in September, and the BBRS is expected to update the Massachusetts energy code to include these standards sometime next year.

The new law also allows the BBRS to adopt standards event more stringent than the IECC, and Governor Patrick proposes the Board do so by creating a second, super-efficient code that local officials could adopt as a local option.

“The state is already adopting the highest standards of energy efficiency for its building code, but some municipalities would like to go further,” said Governor Patrick. “An alternative code that is 20 to 30 percent more efficient they can adopt as an option will give cities and towns the tool they are looking for to reduce their community’s carbon footprint as development moves forward.”

This “stretch” code, which will be presented to the BBRS for adoption in the coming months, will be based on established national voluntary above-code efficiency standards that have shown themselves to be cost-effective in producing energy savings, such as the Energy Star For Homes program and the New Buildings Institute’s “Core Performance” program for commercial properties. As an optional addendum to the state building code, the stretch code would be voted on by the BBRS following a public hearing. Once approved by the BBRS, any municipality choosing to adopt the stretch code would have to do so by a vote of town meeting or city council.

So, if there’s more solar going up on all new big retail and mall buildings, adding energy to the power grid, and many cities and towns adopt the more stringent building codes, there’s no need to build more polluting power plants. If we can reduce our usage in this state (and there are a lot of low-hanging fruits to achieve this quite quickly), then this state should have to host NO NEW traditional power plants ever again. Maybe even start thinking of closing some older, seriously carbon-polluting dinosaurs. Right?

This myth that “well, the future isn’t here yet so we still need to build CO2-producing power plants in the interim in order to sustain the current system” is bull. Don’t listen to it. You’d be surprised how rapid the tipping point towards lessening our dependence on fossil fuels will come with the right initiatives in place. I mean, do you like paying more every year for natural gas to heat your home? I sure as hell don’t. The fault for that lies at higher demand for supplies…because more natural gas power plants like the one proposed in Billerica are being built. I say it’s high time to stop the insanity.

Well, you can’t say Governor Patrick is sitting around on his hands with this ethics problem swirling around Beacon Hill. From a press release yesterday:

GOVERNOR PATRICK ESTABLISHES TASK FORCE ON PUBLIC INTEGRITY
Bi-Partisan Task Force Will Advise Governor on Ethics and Lobbying Reform

Governor Deval Patrick today signed an Executive Order forming the Governor’s Task Force on Public Integrity. The task force will examine the existing regulatory frameworks that govern ethics, lobbying and public employee conduct, and will seek input from public officials, experts and the public. The group will make recommendations within 60 days relative to legislation necessary to strengthen current laws, regulations, investigative and enforcement mechanisms, and penalties.

“We in public office are not entitled to our positions. We are placed here by voters to do the best we can on their behalf, and we are expected to conduct their business honestly and openly,” said Governor Patrick. “The members of this task force offer a broad range of professional backgrounds and experience. All of them share a commitment to ensuring the highest standards of honesty and public integrity.”

For more details, you can go here for the full press release (including the names of the people appointed to the 12-member task force) and the video/transcript of the speech.

Who knows if this will really do anything in the end (though I like the idea of this coming down to legislation the Governor introduces…at the very least, even if it fails, it’ll showcase the good guys and the bad in the legislature). But hey, it can’t hurt. It’s better than a kick to the head, anyway.

By the way, this task force includes getting input from the public, so if you have something productive to offer, please do. If you are one of those people who bitch and moan about the corruption on Beacon Hill and you don’t put your input in, I don’t ever want to hear you complain again, on this blog or anywhere. This is your chance to do something productive about this problem instead of just trying to run candidates against it. (That means you conservatives, too.) Of course, to my mind, those same people who do the most bitching are the ones that want to keep that corruption around - it strengthens their arguments against Big Government. If government actually worked really well (I argue that it already is headed there under progressives), then how would you convince people to be pissed off about it and vote for your guy? You might actually then have to run on the issues…heaven forfend.

As many of you know (ad infinitum), I have done some work in support of a few candidates this cycle, and in particular, for Jen Benson (Representative-Elect, 37th Middlesex) and Obama in NH. Now it is time to analyze the experience and share some thoughts I had in doing it.

Jen was running against a very negative candidate, who was willing to lie and distort her record and her positions, not only in his own literature (some of which he didn’t bother to even label as from him, due to some loophole), but also in the local media. Though this seat was previously held by a progressive Dem, whose values Jen shares, it was by no means a slam dunk that she would win this election. There are several small towns in the district, many of which go Republican as much as Democrat.

I arrived a week and a half before Election Day to do my afternoon of phone banking for Jen, as promised, and took up a packet or two of Unenrolled in Harvard, MA. I didn’t say it then (for “stategery” reasons), but I felt really good about Jen’s chances after that day, both from the results of the phone bank and from watching her campaign in action.

First, the phone numbers in the packet were about as good as I’d ever seen. Maybe it’s a town with less transient residents than our area, but I scarcely got a bad number all day. So that is lesson #1 - get the best phone/address lists you can possibly get. It wastes less time for your volunteers, for one. Secondarily, I didn’t find a single supporter for Kurt Hayes the whole time (and no one else there that day did either) and plenty for Jen. So that made me feel pretty optimistic.

But the real reason I am writing this post is the campaign I witnessed on Election Day itself. That day, I met campaign manager Mike Mackin, who was running the show from Benson HQ. I found out that he was something of a rookie in the position; but I can tell you, he certainly was not acting like one.

The campaign had a strategy that ran like a textbook grassroots program: by the time election day had rolled around, they had canvass- and phone-banked-ID’ed your typical likely Dem voters, your Unenrolled, and even, the so-called “Lazy Dems” - the infrequent registered voters. Now, the Benson campaign had the fortune of landing in a presidential year, when more voters typically show up, as well as in Obama’s year, when turnout reached record levels, even in our “safe Obama state.” I suspect Jen did get a percentage point or two more because of this effect (though she still would have handily won). However, that does not mean that this campaign wasn’t prepared for any turnout scenario.

What struck me was that they had, along with GOTV calls and visibility outside the polls, observers at every polling place checking off the voters who had come in (which is allowed). The plan was that they would compile a list of the Benson-ID’ed voters by early afternoon who had not yet voted and send out a squad of canvassers knock on the doors of these supporters, asking them personally to come out and vote. I myself was on the list of volunteers scheduled to canvass. Now, by happenstance and a good year for Dems, so many of those people had come out to vote that the afternoon canvass became unnecessary. But the volunteer canvassers were lined up to do their jobs should they be needed.

I had a similar experience with the Obama campaign in NH - this was an expert campaign in an atmosphere that can, and often is, very chaotic. They too ran a completely traditional, grassroots campaign where boots on the ground matter more than money in the bank (though money helps hire organizers). They had the right emphasis on the former, such that the latter (the small donors) snowballed into record amounts of donors and donations.

It was evident to me from both my experiences with the Benson campaign and the Obama NH operation that they had planned and executed a great grassroots strategy to get out the vote. And in both cases, this was coupled with a positive campaign that just kept plugging along with its message no matter what the Hayes or McCain campaigns barfed up; you can see why Jen did so well in the 37th Middlesex, and Obama in the electoral college. If our goal as progressive Democrats is to elect more and better Democrats, we also want more and better campaigns. To my eye, that’s exactly what we got with Jen Benson and Obama, and I can sincerely say they both earned their wins last Tuesday.

Last of all, I want to say congratulations to Jen Benson and to Mike Mackin. They should be really proud of the campaign they waged. (And they probably will sleep for a week!)

Can it really get any worse for them? Really? Losing three seats in the legislature, meaning state Republicans hold only 16 of 160 seats total?

You know, if you stopped running hard-right, anti-gay wingnuts that are far outside the mainstream of Massachusetts voters, you might actually get somewhere. Unless you like being the size of a single committee of the state House. *shrug*

(And if you ask me, we already have plenty of “checks” in the legislature with conservative Democrats like Rep. David Nangle. Frankly, I’d love to see them switch parties to more reflect their voting record, but that’s not going to happen while the state Republican party is as impotent as Bob Dole before the invention of Viagra. Talk about a losing side!)

Jim Arciero wins, as does Jamie Eldridge, 56% to 44% (28 of 52 precincts reporting) and Jen Benson, 56% to 44% (10 of 11 precincts reporting) according to Boston.com.

Your friendly neighborhood open thread. Gimme a report from your polling place! How’s turnout in Lowell?

I’m in Lunenburg’s only polling place with Jen Benson visibility. There’s been 6-10 people here holding signs for Jen and Obama, as opposed to 0-3 people for Kurt Hayes, if that’s any indication.

More encouraging, though, is the turnout…locals say that the very (and still, now) steady stream of voters has been incredible even for this politically active town.

Update: here, as of a little while ago, fully 20% of Lunenburg voters had already shown up to vote.

Update II: Don’t forget, if you want to join me at the Brewery Exchange on Cabot St, I’ll be there after the polls close, by 8:30pm. If someone brings a laptop with cell modem access, even better, because there’s no wifi as far as I know. There’s some interactive maps on dkos that I’d love to keep track of while returns are coming in.

Update III: Holy smokin’ voters! By 11am, Acton had seen 30% of its voters turnout, and get this!!! Lunenburg, by noon, was just under 50% turnout!!!!! I am at a loss for words!

Update IV: Word on the street says that people in the SecState office is reporting they expect a 76-77% turnout statewide. Whoa.

We might even have a real democracy around here! GoBAMA!

Kurt Hayes is not even remotely a mainstream Massachusetts candidate. The Beacon asked the question that I did, and placed its answer in a sidebar to this article in its print edition, though it’s missing in the online one.

The sidebar says this with regards to Hayes’ views: “Support teaching of creationism in public schools: Yes, side-by-side with evolution.”

Uh, memo to Mr. Hayes, creationism is not a viable scientific theory, I don’t care what it’s dressed up as. It belongs in your church, not in our schools.

Nutty.

I don’t know if the Beacon read my post or not (they came out with this answer a day after I asked the question), but at least we now know. Which is why we need to send Jen Benson to the state House.

I’ve been interested in the race for Jamie Eldridge’s open Rep seat in the 37th Middlesex, partly because I know we have a great candidate to replace him, Jen Benson, but also because her opponent is the former “independent,” now Republican, Kurt Hayes (who raised a lot of his money from anti-gay forces where “nearly 40% [of his] itemized contributions come from pro-discrimination donors who live outside of the 37th Middlesex state House district”). Of course, Hayes doesn’t like to admit he’s Republican, neither putting it in prominent display on his little website, nor anywhere on his literature, but he represents some of the worst in Republicans. (I still don’t understand the state Republican tactic - run candidates who are not really moderate. They would fare better if they ran candidates palatable to the average MA voter.)

But, the question needs to be asked, is Kurt Hayes for teaching creationism in schools? Because if he is, I think the voters of 37th Middlesex should know about it.

The question comes up first because of Hayes’ membership in Trinity Church of Bolton (no, it’s not you, their website sucks and is half broken). The tenor of the church is severely fundamentalist, and I have listened to some of the sermons (available in MP3 here). One in particular is quite disturbing, dated July 27, 2008. It starts with a reading of Genesis 1, and then the pastor David Smith begins his sermon with a list of science theories on the origins of the universe dating back to Kant in the 18th century, then goes into some length on the Big Bang Theory (emphasis is his):

The one that perhaps most of us are familiar with would be the Big Bang Theory, it’s about 50 years old now. Became very popular in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and even today, it recieves a lot of funding for those who want to research this particular theory. According to the Big Bang Theory, some 10 to 20 billion years ago, all matter and energy in the universe was compressed into a cosmic egg, or a plasma ball of some sort, consisting of sub-atomic particles and radiation. No one really knows where this cosmic egg came from, but there it was. And for no inexplicable reason, this cosmic egg exploded. As matter and radiation expanded, so this theory says, that it cooled sufficiently for elements to form as protons and neutrons, and electrons, combined to form hydrogen. These gases expanded radially, in all directions, until they collapsed upon themselves in local areas by gravitational attraction, forming an estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe. How many of you have heard of the Big Bang Theory? I think probably most of us have in some form or fashion.

He then lists the “flaws” with the big bang theory (the one where it expects uniformity, not “clumping”), mentions in passing the Plasma Theory, then says,

There are many other theories of the beginning of the universe which come and go with different passing generations. Now since there was no one there to observe it, we can never know for sure how the world began. Unless there was someone there who could report back to us on how it happened.

And actually there is someone, isn’t there? God himself. And he records for us how he created the heavens and the earth in the book of Genisis. The Bible begins not trying to describe that God existed, it simply states that God exists and the very first verse in the Bible says it this way: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.” The Book of Genesis stands alone for accounting for the actual creation of space and mass and time continuum.

His conclusion on the age of the earth?

Sometimes we like to try to date it. And certainly from my perspective I know that in a church like Trinity there’s a lot of different views on how old the earth is, and nobody really knows, but from my perspective and looking at the geneologies, even if they are incomplete, from Adam on, if you add a few other people along the way, you come up with an age of the universe of around 10,000 years old. Otherwise the whole geneology is worthless, and it’s pointless. Why in the world would all these names be back to Adam if it wasn’t some kind of at least close approximation of that.

Some crazy stuff. But par for the course for these churches, and certainly he can believe whatever he wants to believe, all evidence to the contrary.

But does Mr. Hayes subscribe to this belief, and if so, does he want our public schools teaching it? There are scattered reports of him approaching voters and telling them he’s for teaching creationism in schools, and given his membership, and indeed, leadership within this church (he’s head of the “Boy’s Brigade” - who came up with that militant name anyway?) it does make you wonder.

No one bothers to ask the question. So I will. Mr. Hayes, are you for or against the teaching of creationism in our public schools?

State Senator Dianne Wilkerson has had a long troubling run of ethics problems while in office. These have been very well documented in many places, not the least of which include the Globe and the Herald.

She narrowly lost the Democratic primary to Sonia Chang-Diaz, but proclaimed herself moving forward with a sticker campaign to keep her seat. She will, of course, not appear on the ballot, an uphill battle no matter what. Now, she’s facing potentially another couple of explosive ethics and tax problems, says the Boston Phoenix. (Via BMG.)

As the only African-American state Senator, and a supposed progressive (though some have questioned this too), it’s unfortunate that Wilkerson has destroyed herself this way. An accidental mistake or two might be forgiven, but her pattern of behavior showcases an attitude of entitlement and rules-don’t-apply-to-me. Her progressive record and minority status does not mean she deserves to be in the Senate.

More and better Democrats, the motto of much of the progressive blogosphere. It’s gratifying that the better Democrat, Chang-Diaz, won the Democratic nomination. Let’s hope we can put the ethics-challenged Wilkerson behind us and get some better governance for Second Suffolk.

Look folks. The economy sucks, you’re working hard, trying to keep your head above water. I know, I am too.

But. This is it, kids. Crunch season.

I put in some time at the BMG NH Canvass last Sunday, and it was very rewarding. I plan on taking some time on Election Day to become a poll worker/phone caller for someone (still unsure who, Obama or otherwise) as well.

So there’s this state Rep candidate who’s been endorsed by this blog (well, by me anyway, I can’t speak for my fellow writers), who is the perfect replacement for the open seat being vacated by Action Rep. Jamie Eldridge (who’s going for state Senate), to whom I made a promise to take a day and work for her in her district. That someone is Jen Benson. That aforementioned promised day will be this Saturday.

Jen is running in a mixed district…while it has been represented by progressive Eldridge for some time, it’s not a guarantee, even in this tough year for Republicans, that a Democrat will take it. And what’s worse, her opponent none other than Kurt Hayes, former “independent” candidate for the MA 5th District US Rep race, who found his inner Republican somehow (their money at least). He is funded by hateful anti-gay forces. (I love how he doesn’t even admit to being a Republican until the very bottom in small text on his website. He might love their money, but he doesn’t seem to want to be associated otherwise.) He’s happy to say he’s gonna deliver lots of local aid to the district but is for rolling back the income tax to 5%. (He does say he’s against Question 1, so at least that’s something…but if the voters pass it, he would support abolishing the income tax entirely, come hell or high water! And it certainly would be hell. Or suicide.)

This is a target open seat for the dwindling state Republican party, and they are pouring in their all. Let’s keep that pathetic shell of a party dwindling, starting in this district. (At least until they figure out they can’t keep running with hate-filled extremist funders and candidates in a state which at a minimum requires a moderate conservative.)

Jen is a really smart, practical progressive. I had the pleasure of interviewing her on WUML (audio here) and also chatted with her afterward. She’s articulate and understands the issues, both of her district, and those we as a state face. I can’t say enough good things about her.

If you’ve been watching the campaign season from the sidelines and feel a little guilty, here’s your chance. I will be going down to her offices to make phone calls on Saturday regardless, but I would love to bring fellow Lowell area activists with me and make a bigger impact. Think of just how much Kurt Hayes made you cringe in the MA-05 election with his pro-war stance, and imagine him taking over Jamie Eldridge’s seat in the legislature. How would you feel then, if you didn’t give it your all now? So email me, let’s carpool! It’ll be fun! (My email is lynne (at) leftinlowell.com, replace the (at) and spaces with a @.)

If you can’t come on Saturday, you should feel a twinge of terrible crushing guilt, which you can alleviate a little by donating to her campaign.