Left In Lowell

Is it an epidemic, yet?

LOWELL — Police are asking the public to help find those who assaulted two men on Middle Street downtown early Saturday morning, sending one of them to a Boston hospital with serious injuries.

About 2:14 a.m., officers patrolling downtown Lowell found two Westminster men assaulted in front of 172 Middle St., according to Lowell Police Superintendent Ken Lavallee. The victims, who are in their early 20s, had just left Village Smokehouse on Middle Street and were walking toward their car parked on the street when they became involved with an altercation with another man, Lavallee said.

One victim was injured so seriously that he was flown to Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston by medical helicopter. He remains in serious condition but is expected to survive, Lavallee said.

The other victim was transported to a local hospital. Lavallee did not know if he has been released from the hospital. Lavallee did not know the victim’s identities Saturday night.
-snip

Now, let’s talk about this guy:

Even anonymous sockpuppets can troll this Open Thread.

For now….

This FOX News article is just delicious. The conclusions are superb.

When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we’ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one.

Yes, this author is totally serious. Link via dkos.

If you are a frequent Facebooker, and have not yet “liked” our page on Facebook, go do it! You’ll be able to keep up with the latest posts from me, Jack, and occasionally Mimi, and I also send relevant updates from the LiL Twitter feed. We’ve got 97 likes, let’s see how far above 100 we can get. I don’t advertise the FB page nearly enough, so I am now.

We’ve been over the pro’s and con’s of allowing anonymity on blogs. On LiL. we ask that you pick a handle and stick with it. This allows the forum to become familiar with your “voice” and perspective on things.

That said, I think we should talk about what Warren Shaw is up to.

I’m not clear on how a political pundit, that takes several degrees of latitude within the rights affforded him and his guests, can come to the point where a libel lawsuit is justifiable. Admittedly, I have heard that Dracut After Dark was a hienous site. I think I went looking once, but don’t remember if I was shocked. Which means I probably wasn’t. That said, it’s Dracut; so I don’t bother much. I read Shawn Ashe, on occassion, to see how Dracut is digesting what happens here in Lowell or maybe a take on events over at GLTHS.

Ultimately, from all that I can gather, we are better off without DAD, So, in a sense, Shaw is doing the blogging world a favor by policing the internet, via a lawsuit.

Policing the internet???

(bold mine)

Dracut lawyer Roland Milliard, representing Shaw, said given that Zabierek has taken the site down, he did not file the lawsuit yesterday. Instead, Shaw directed him to send a letter to Zabierek giving him until Monday at 5 p.m. to comply with Shaw’s demands or show that he is making a good- faith effort to comply.

The demands include:

* Removing all postings about Shaw, his family, business, likeness or voice from any other websites.

* Providing the IP (Internet protocol) addresses of those who posted on the site, cross-referenced with their postings.

* Providing Shaw with a cash settlement, the amount of which Milliard declined to divulge.

If Zabierek complies with the demands, the lawsuit will not be filed. If he fails to, it will be filed Tuesday morning in Middlesex Superior Court, Milliard said.

“People need to know who was involved in this,” Shaw said of requesting the IP addresses. “I suspect some people in Dracut politics are involved.”

Ya, I’m cringing.

Frequently, I moderate comments that bother me. I allow them, but I click ‘Approve’ thinking it is crap. I figure that most others will recognize that it is crap, so allowing it is more of a disservice to the author, than to LiL. Unfortunately, the shitheads that blog this crap, then change their handle to something else. So, we have to start over and figure out that they contribute nothing a value.

On balance, we have a good bunch of eggs pitching in. I don’t always agree, but they are trying to move the ball. I like that. Trying is good. Even the FUD mongers, boo birds and Bernie Bashers that gunk up the discourse are helpful. They reveal the shallow talking points that echo in their circles. How else would we hear them, if not for the light of this blog. I don’t buy The Sun. Do you?

What troubles me about Shaw’s demand regarding IP’s is that it is to broad. He wants every and all comments matched up? That is overreaching, imho. Imagine if some commentor comes on LiL and says, “I want to kill the King of Siam.” Then I, thinking it is a metaphor and not knowing there is a anti-Siam terror cell in the area, post it. Then the FBI and Interpol come knocking on LiL’s door with a warrant.

Would a judge likely limit their intrusion to a reasonable proximity to that one threatening comment or would they fling the site wide open, matching everyone to everything that was ever posted here? I’m no lawyer, but I think the warrant limits the search. Searches for a stolen car can’t venture into your sock draw.

What happens if Zabierek rolls over? Is there a judge involved? Who controls the list matching IP’s to people? Can Shaw take that list to the studio on Saturday and cherry pick what names he reads from it? Certainly, the list will reveal Shaw’s political enemies, but what if his buddies are stabbing him in the back, anonymously?

Punishing Zabierek is appropriate, based on what I have heard. Maybe even punishing a few horendous commentors, too. But, should Warren Shaw, a man with his own objectives, be given the authority and responsibility to have such a list?

Maybe the lesson here is that you blog at your own risk. I see some of you take great care to disguise yourself, especially the Bernie Bashers. The worst of you are subject to some pushback, just to check your venom or immaturity. When you betray the “social compact”of this forum, justice should be dispensed. Blog justice, though, in accordance with the “industry standard.” We operate LiL within the “industry standard,” unlike DAD, so things should go on, as they have.

But who knows. If Shaw’s action sets a stifling template for others to follow, you may have to go back to The Sun and WCAP to know what’s going on around town.

Folks, listen up, please. One thing to remember, as we toil in the day’s scrum. What is written in The Sun, will go on microfiche in the Pollard Memorial Library, as the permenant record of what the hell happened.

If you look at this, Search results for ‘LHA’, you’ll see there is enough difference to warrant a long pause, ………….. and serious contemplation.

Now TESTIFY!

“Testify
It’s right outside your door
Now testify
Testify
It’s right outside your door”

My-oh-my, how the Bernie Bashers are all jazzed up. The kabuki level is volcanic in the Council Chamber. The Blog of Record can’t kill enough trees. The heat from their pages are singeing little birdie bottoms all over the Merrimack Valley.

Now, WCAP spilleth over!!!!!!
(bold mine)
1/25/2012 City Manager Bernie Lynch on LHA, Resumes & Non-Profits

“Susan from Lowell” (13:00) I do think that, Mr. Manager, you lost all credibility and respect, last night, when you basically said that you didn’t know that, you know, the Council wanted you to bring all of the resumes forward. That the motion, you know, you weren’t clear on that. I mean, you’re supposed to be a professional, smart man and you didn’t know that. And, this has been an ongoing issue for some time now about resumes and you mean to tell me, you know, that you didn’t know you were asked to bring all 3 in. I think you blatantly lied, you know, right there and I think it should be a wakeup call to the City Council and to the citizens of Lowell. If you lie like that, you now, right out in public, God only knows what you’re doing behind closed doors.

By gosh, by golly. “Susan from Lowell” speaks truth to POWER! Woot! Whoa, wait, truth to power requires truth. Mostly, but not in the mouths of Bernie Bashers.

“Susan from Lowell” is about as sure of what Councilor Elliott said on Tuesday, January 17th; well as, Councilor Elliott. Here is the words C.Elliott used to offer a substitute motion, that fateful eve. (bold mine)

C. Elliott (42:13) After listening to the discussion, I started counting a number of individuals that have expressed concern over the resume issue. I’d like to make a substitute motion that we delay this until we get the resumes, and then bring it in, so that we have a chance to evaluate this individual.

Please verify my transcription, between 28:19 - 46:39.

This one from a new transplant making his way in Lowell. Great photos and and interesting perspective on life in Lowell. Welcome, and I’ll add you to the sidebar.

(Hat tip to KRS.)

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?

Hat Tip to Gerry who today wrote: “and if you are a fan of Irony read this post at richardhowe.com then look at the photo and caption on page B5 of today’s Sun.”

The photo caption reads: “Sun editor Jim Campanini speaks to sixth-graders at the St. Jeanne d’Arc School in Lowell about the dangers of plagiarism recently.”

Gerry is referring to a recent post on Dick’s blog: The Globe & the Sun on fees – in stereo where Dick long list of identical sentences that appeared in a Globe article that was published on January 5th and the Sun editorial that appeared two days later on January 7th.

Whoever is responsible for the Sun’s “school/education” pages has a great sense of humor. I wonder if Campi told the kids if you get called out for potential plagiarism and you are the one responsible for the content of the publication, make sure you pass the buck and blame “new staff.”