Political Gadfly

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

2010-03-01T11:40:00.000-08:00

This past Saturday evening, I volunteered to help sell concessions at a boys’ tournament basketball game at Newton North High School. Concession sales are part of the fundraising efforts of the newly formed Tiger Booster Club and proceeds go to support all sports at Newton North, not just boys' basketball.

Tip off for the game was 7:00. By 6:30, a huge line had formed in the hallway between Hull Street and the gym entrance. By about 6:40, the spectator area in the gym was completely filled up. Accordingly, the police officer on duty and the athletic director made the decision to close the doors to the hallway. Scores of potential spectators were shut out and understandably disgruntled. For some unknown reason, however, most if not all of them stayed crowded together in the hallway for the duration of the game.

As the game got underway, the police officer and athletic director scrambled to stop people from sneaking into the packed gym. While they were both busy escorting scofflaws out through another exit downstairs, the crowd behind the Hull Street hallway opened the closed doors.

My fellow concession stand workers acted quickly to stop the crowd from rushing into the saturated gym: one went to find the police officer, the other to find the athletic director; and I went to the opened doors to remind them that for fire code reasons, no other spectators were being allowed in the gym. Several in the crowd behind the now opened doors complained that they had tickets. I politely asked them to wait for the athletic director to speak to him about that.

One of the unhappy people who said she had a ticket was a little girl about seven years old. She started to cry when the athletic director came back and said he couldn’t let any of them into the gym. I asked her who she was with, and she explained that she had gone outside to try to find her mother. She then said her “nanny” was in the gym, and then said she had been in there with her but then sent out because he mother was coming later to meet them at the game. I told her she shouldn’t be alone in this crowd and she wouldn’t be able to go back out to look for her mother. I then said I would walk with her to make sure she got back to her “nanny.”

It was so crowded in the gym that people were sitting in the walkways of the bleachers and we had to climb over them to reach her “nanny.” I tried to calm down the little girl by asking her name and calling her by that as we made small talk maneuvering down to her “nanny.” The “nanny” turned out to be the girl’s grandmother or “nana”. I made a pointed remark to nana about the danger of sending little girl outside alone through this chaotic crowd. The nana then exploded at me screaming that I had “traumatized” her granddaughter and she was going to report me to the authorities. Unfortunately, in the heat of the moment I responded in kind by repeating in a louder voice that she should not have left the girl alone in these circumstances and then told nana in her ear (so the little girl wouldn’t hear) that I should report her to DSS for such a negligent action.

According to the spectators around her, the grandmother then spent the rest of the first half of the game complaining about me traumatizing her granddaughter. At half time, she came up to complain to the athletic director and to the police officer about me. She left shortly after halftime – again complaining about me the whole way to another concession worker who was now helping to show people who were leaving how to get out (since those doors to the Hull Street hallway were still closed and that hallway was still packed with would-be spectators).

Given the grandmother’s reaction, I wonder if I did the right thing in this situation. Should I have gotten involved at all? Any comments would be appreciated.

Pride in my Newton, Massachusetts community

2010-02-18T07:21:00.000-08:00

There are frequently occasions when I feel somewhat embarrassed by my home city of Newton, Massachusetts. Generally, those occur when some member or members of the Board of Alderman presumptuously undertake to have my city make policy pronouncements on national or international issues instead of sticking to the local matters they were elected to address. Recent examples include proposed or actual resolutions inviting released Gitmo terrorist suspects to come live in Newton, condemning the U.S. war in Iraq and limiting the portion of the federal budget to be spent on the military to 25%.

The recent work of a volunteer committee consisting of both public and private members, however, should make all Newton residents beam with pride. That committee was formed almost immediately after the tragic death of Newton resident Jeff Beatrice, a well known father, husband and youth sports coach. Beatrice was only 49 and his sudden death devastated his wife and seven school-aged children not only with the loss of his love and emotional support, but also the loss of their home and only source of income. The volunteer committee, known as the "Beatrice Family Fund" stepped in to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay off the Beatrice's home's mortgage and stave off threatened foreclosure.

Kudos to this volunteer committee for putting together their compassion, time and skills to accomplish such a noble endeavor. Additional kudos for their setting up the ongoing "One Newton Foundation" to help any other local families facing similarly drastic situations. For all its foibles and quirks, Newton truly is a caring community.

Newton Mayor Setti Warren Setting the Right Tone

2010-02-18T06:48:00.000-08:00

Newton Massachusetts inaugurated a new mayor last month, Setti Warren. In contrast to his dawdling predecessor, Mayor Warren has thus far begun to establish an assertive and confident leadership style. During the transition between his election and inauguration, Warren took to the time to closely examine all city departments and their leaders. This resulted in a selective "cleaning house" pursuant to which several long-tenured department heads were let go, saving the City thousands of dollars and sending a message about Warren as an executive who would demand accountability and efficiency.

Mayor Warren also hired an experienced and much-respected former Newton official, Bob Rooney as his chief operating officer to work with remaining department heads to find ways to enhance the provision of city services. Additionally, in the face of a budget deficit of approximately $11 million, Warren is holding a series of "Town Hall" meetings with Newton residents to hear their thoughts on which services should be cut and which should be retained. The initial consensus among civic-minded Newtonians is that Mayor Warren is not only willing to make some painful cuts if necessary, but that he will only do so after careful consideration and listening to the voices of the people. And it's not just the local "gadflies" who are impressed with him so far, it's also, according to my sources within the Department of Public Works and the Police Department, those who work for the city.

Kudos to Mayor Warren for the way he's starting out as our new mayor!

Governor Deval Patrick delivers a compelling state-of-the-state address, but was anyone paying attention?

2010-01-22T06:03:00.000-08:00

Last night was arguably Governor Deval Patrick's finest moment as a Massachusetts political leader as he delivered his annual state-of-the state address. In that speech Patrick began to build a strong case for his re-election in a way that was methodical yet compassionate.

I couldn't help but notice the contrast between Patrick and his predecessors like Weld, Celluci and Romney. All of those former governors by this point in their terms had seemed bored and disinterested in the Commonwealth, and eager to move on to "greater" political arenas.

Governor Patrick, to his credit, convincingly came across as totally invested in making life better for Massachusetts and its residents. He did a masterful, "Reaganesque" job of "making it personal" by injecting the stories of so many individuals to back up his points. He spoke with justifiable pride of his administration's many accomplishments over the past three years in terms of education, transportation, employee pensions, anti-corruption, and alternative energy enterprises. Those accomplishments are particularly impressive given the initial blunders his administration made in dealing with the legislature (to which Patrick himself humbly alluded). I think it's also noteworthy to recall that Governor Patrick has stuck with it here in the Commonwealth. Remember, many pundits predicted he would follow the lead of his predecessors and defect to a national position, especially since the Obama administration had apparently put offers for such positions on the table for him.

Unfortunately, most Massachusetts voters were probably too exhausted from the recently completed and highly charged Senate election to have the energy to pay attention to another political event. Additionally, the mainstream media offered little coverage, remaining understandably more interested on the rising star of Scott Brown and fixated on their simplistic conclusion that his election will clearly be detrimental to Governor Patrick's re-election prospects. If last night's speech by the Governor is any indication of what's to come in his campaign, however, I wouldn't be so sure of his demise.

Why Scott Brown Won – The Essence of U.S. Democracy is Alive and Well!

2010-01-20T11:12:00.000-08:00

You’ve heard about why Scott Brown’s election to the U.S. Senate yesterday was so shocking. Yes, he’s a Republican in Massachusetts and it’s been almost 40 years since Massachusetts last elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate. Yes, Democrats outnumber Republicans in the Bay State by more than a 3-1 margin. Yes, here in Massachusetts our delegation to the U.S. House and Senate has consisted exclusively of Democrats for over a decade. Yes, Scott Brown had never before run for state-wide office while his Democratic opponent Martha Coakley had already won at that level as Attorney General and was one of the most recognized politicians in the Commonwealth. Yes, Coakley had prominent figures like President Obama, former President Clinton, Senator Kerry and Ted Kennedy’s widow Vicky, figures who are allegedly beloved in the Bay State, stumping aggressively on her behalf. And yes, the message they emphasized was that Coakley’s election was necessary to carry on Ted Kennedy’s legacy, and that electing Brown would decimate not only that legacy, but also Obama’s Health Care reform plans and the rest of his “progressive” agenda.

So how did this shocker happen? Most pundits are citing voter “frustration” or “anger” over the nation’s economy and the current national government’s failure to address it. But were all or even most of the over 1.1 million people who voted for Brown unemployed? No. In fact, the vast majority of his voters were gainfully employed members of the middle class from the suburbs. While frustration and anger with how the national government is handling the economy was certainly a factor, it’s an overly simplistic view. Although there are many reasons for Scott Brown’s victory, the principal one can be traced way back to an essential character trait of our revolutionary era ancestors that endures within Americans today, even those who reside in Massachusetts. Americans simply don’t like to be told how to think or act without having a say in it. Remember studying the American Revolution and how it was caused? Parliament and King George persistently ignored the pleas and protests of Americans by continuing to impose taxes and other laws upon them without their say. “No taxation without representation” became the rallying cry of colonial Patriots.

Today, the sense of many Americans is that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are not listening to their concerns. Health care legislation is being pushed through Congress without any input from Republicans, and even when fellow Democrats question any of its myriad provisions they’re seemingly told that it doesn’t matter if it’s flawed, it has to pass because that’s what the President and Congressional leaders want. There seems to be an approach on the part of the President and Democratic leaders that debate or dissent on any part of the “progressive” agenda should be avoided. It’s a paternalistic attitude that “we’re smart, we’ve got this figured out and we know what’s best for you”. It’s the way the Coakley campaign came across to many in Massachusetts. King George and the British Parliament exhibited that same kind of attitude. It eventually led to the “shot heard round the world” in Lexington in 1775.

I don’t mean to suggest like others have that this election is another “shot heard round the world” that will launch a latter-day “American Revolution.” No, I view it more as a “wake-up” call for President Obama and the Democratic leadership (and any future majority party that presumes it knows what’s best and closes out opposing views). The U.S. system of government only truly works when there is a strong sense that legislated issues are fully vetted and all reasonable opinions are heard and considered. Sure that can slow the legislative process down, but it doesn’t necessarily mean it will kill it. Debate on the health care legislation should be opened up, not conducted behind closed doors with only Democrats present. The sweetheart deals for certain states that were used to induce favorable votes from their Senators (such as the infamous “Cornhusker Kickback“ and “Louisiana Purchase” that were secured by Senators Nelson and Landrieu, respectively) should be discarded. More generally, President Obama and the Democratic leadership should be less dismissive of Republican, Independent and other perspectives that are different than their own. I believe President Obama has begun to recognize this as evidenced by his recent decision to raise troop deployments in Afghanistan to 30,000. He also deserves credit for phoning to congratulate Scott Brown on his victory saying how much he “looks forward to working with him.”

Scott Brown and his strategists deserve credit for running a campaign that, in retrospect, was brilliant. After the December primary, Martha Coakley seemed to disappear for several weeks. Why? Perhaps it was a strategic decision on the best way to act as the front runner – lay low so as to avoid making any mistakes or becoming overexposed. Or perhaps as her handlers explained it, she needed to do fund raising. In any event, Coakley’s absence enabled Brown to define what the campaign would be about. For those weeks from the primary through the holiday season, Brown ran a series of television and radio ads and made numerous campaign appearances while Coakley was practically invisible.

In those ads and appearances, Brown established clear and compelling themes and images. He would be “an independent voice” who would fight for the people “against the machine.” Craftily, he never explicitly referred to himself as a Republican. He was a “regular guy” who wore a “barn jacket,” drove around in a pick-up truck, and loved meeting people to hear about their concerns (implicitly so he could do what he could to help them). At the same time, he fit the ideal image of what a national political leader should be – dashingly handsome, a military leader with 30 years experience in the national guard reserve and with a beautiful and successful family. He parlayed his military experience into a clear contrast with Coakley. Scott Brown would never allow terrorist suspects to be tried in civilian courts because they were “enemy combatants”, not U.S. citizens entitled to the protections and rights of the U.S. Constitution who could lawyers at taxpayer expense.

Further, Brown adroitly compared his economic plan to that of another Kennedy, JFK, in an early TV ad where he morphed out of the former President as soundbites about the benefits of tax cuts were played. Further, he spoke about the election being for “the People’s Seat”, not Ted Kennedy’s seat or anyone else’s seat, and constantly presented himself as “a man of the people.” Finally, he unconventionally responded to Coakley’s late-stage negative ads by addressing them head-on through his own ads in which both he and his daughters complained that Coakley’s negative campaigning was “wrong,” “an unfair attempt to tear him down” and another effort by the “political machine” to block the people from being heard. Everything Brown did, particularly the images and symbols he used, seemed to resonate with a large swath of Massachusetts voters.

In contrast, the themes and images Coakley projected seemed disconnected, lackluster and tired. In the primary contest, she had been presented as a thoughtful, diligent and effective prosecutor and staunch advocate for the working and middle class. In the general election, however, those attributes were downplayed. Instead, her campaign pushed the “evils of Bush-Cheney Republicans like Scott Brown” and keeping intact the “legacy of Ted Kennedy,” the “values of Massachusetts” and the “progressive Obama agenda.” The clear implication of these themes and images was that any intelligent voter MUST elect her since she was the Democratic candidate.

In both her ads and in newscast clips of her campaign appearances, shots of Martha Coakley out mingling with “regular people” were scarce, in sharp contrast to Scott Brown’s ads and clips. Additionally, the press pounced upon several of Coakley's seemingly trivial quotes about it being too much of a bother for her to be out shaking hands in the cold and about her viewing Curt Schilling as a Yankees fan. In summary, Coakley, who strikes me as being a competent and decent person, came across as robotic and presumptuous. There’s likely some gender-bias elements to this as well. In advancing as far as she did professionally, Coakley probably was forced to adopt the cautious, steady and unemotional persona that she displayed in the campaign. Coming across as overly emotional or complaining could thwart the career advancements of women in Martha Coakley’s generation. With Scott Brown, however, his emotions and complaints helped him connect with the people, something Martha Coakley was clearly unable to do.

Yeah, our democracy is not perfect. On this day following Republican Scott Brown’s stunning election to the U.S. Senate, however, I’m proud of the way it worked in my home state of Massachusetts. I’m also hopeful of what this election means. No not because I’m a supporter of the Republican Party, but rather because I abhor presumptuous in either major party and believe zealously in the value of allowing competing ideas to be voiced.

GADFLY'S BACK - after an 18 month hiatus

2010-01-20T06:33:00.000-08:00

Regrettably, for various personal, familial and professional reasons, I neglected this blog for the last year and a half. During that time span: (1) in an historic election, Barack Obama was elected President of the United States; (2) I led a group of high school students from my school on a trip to Washington DC where we “witnessed” Obama’s inauguration (from the far end of the Mall near the Washington Monument along with a throng of over a million others); (3) I left my teaching gig at the end of the 2008-2009 school year in an effort to move to a more financially lucrative job, (4) I’ve engaged in a thus far futile search for such a job, applying for over 50 positions in educational administration and law; (5) at the local level, a new mayor has taken office in Newton with appropriate assertiveness by cleaning house in certain departments and presenting an initial impression of much-needed decisiveness combined with understanding; and (5) U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy passed away and a special election was held for the approximately three years remaining on his term.

It has now been exactly one year since Obama’s inauguration and in that special U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts, a stunning result has occurred – a Republican, Scott Brown, prevailed. This is clearly an opportune time for me to resume my postings of political musings. And I now vow to keep them coming without further interruption, no matter what transpires in my life, as a way to retain my own sanity and sense of purpose.

Homelessness in America - The case of Tim Finch

2008-07-14T09:35:00.000-07:00

He had much in common with me - a middle aged man who wanted to do as much as he could for his children; a social man who enjoyed chatting with all types of people; a former high school football player who missed that excitement and camaraderie; a man blessed with a supportive family but who nonetheless had bouts of feeling unworthy. He even shared a first name - Timothy (or "Tim" to his friends and "Timmy" to his older family members).

The man in question was the late Tim Finch who died in the middle of the afternoon in the middle of historic Boston on July 4th of this year after being beaten up in plain view of hundreds of tourists and local revelers who ignored the homeless man's plight. See http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1106864&format=&page=2&listingType=loc#articleFull

I knew Mr. Finch personally, having been appointed about six years ago to represent him in a custody case involving his infant son. It was an easy case - Mr. Finch recognized that he needed to "clean up his act" in order to have a significant role in his son's life and that he was not in a position to have custody of him. He eventually acceded custody to his sister Karetta. He then set his mind to trying to defeat his alcoholism and get his life on track by working steadily and getting an apartment.

Mr. Finch was a kind and decent man. He endeavored to receive treatment several times for his alcoholism at the local VA hospital, but those stays were always too limited and he could not overcome this disease. For me, Mr. Finch put a "human face" on the homeless and gave meaning to the cliche "there but for the grace of God, . . . "

Mr. Finch is also emblematic of the problem of homelessness in America. To me, the extensive homelessness in our cities marks an inhumane societal failure. It's a blatant sign that we've flunked one of Hubert Humphrey's eloquent moral tests - the treatment of "those who are in the shadows of life . . ."

What can be done about homelessness? Is it so complex and intractable an issue that we should just continue to avert our eyes and say it's just some necessary byproduct of our free society and capitalist economy?

I think not. What I'd propose is increase private and government resources for treatment. Most homeless people suffer from substance abuse, mental illness or both. WE NEED MORE OF FACILITIES TO TREAT ALCOHOLISM, OTHER SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL ILLNESS - FACILITIES WHERE THOSE AFFLICTED COULD STAY FOR AS LONG AS IT TOOK TO ADDRESS THEIR ISSUES. Is it just me or did it seem like prior to the movement to assimilate people with these issues into society and de-institutionalize them, there were few if any homeless. Granted that some of those institutions were deplorable, but is the current state of thousands of homeless around the U.S.A. any better? Wouldn't such institutions now offer more humane treatment given the advances that have occurred in medicine, psychiatry and perceptions of basic human rights? Perhaps with such long-term care facilities more readily available, a good man like Tim Finch would not have had his life ended in the violent and ignominious way it was.

Doing away with the Electoral College system

2008-07-08T11:33:00.001-07:00

Former Massachusetts Governor and Democratic Presidential Candidate Michael Dukakis is now lobbying to do away with the Electoral College system of electing the U.S. President and switching it with a straight tally of the popular vote. Will the Electoral College system soon give way to a simple counting of popular votes? Should the Electoral College system be replaced?

Sorry Mr. Dukakis, I don't see that happening. Indeed, I'm having a difficult time understanding your argument about how " a national popular vote would help a smaller state like Massachusetts have a bigger impact on presidential politics." Wouldn't a national popular vote have the opposite effect since it would encourage candidates to campaign only in the most populous states like California, New York, Texas, Illinois, Ohio and Florida, and ignore smaller states like New Hampshire and Iowa?

What should the U.S. do about Zimbabwe?

2008-07-08T11:16:00.000-07:00

Are the sanctions to be imposed by the G-8 nations on Robert Mugabe and his inner circle a sufficient response by the U.S. to the situation in Zimbabwe? Should the U.S. and it's allies do more to attempt to oust Mugabe and end the suffering of his opponents?

Clearly, the recent "election" in Zimbabwe was a sham, the continued rule of Mugabe is illegitimate and the country's economy is on the brink of total collapse. The U.S. and Britain were correct to make Zimbabwe a major issue at the G-8 conference in Toyako. They are also right to keep pushing sanctions (and appropriate relief) at the U.N. level. But suppose the U.N. decides not to get involved? I believe that with their relative wealth, both the U.S. and Britain, along with other G-8 nations, would then have a moral responsibility to provide assistance to affiliates of opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai and his Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), not only in the form of humanitarian aid but also strategic aid.

President Bush's attendance at the Beijing Olympics

2008-07-08T11:00:00.000-07:00

Should President Bush attend the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics, as planned? Or by doing so, is that seen as some kind of implicit endorsement of China's reprehensible policies toward Tibet, Darfur and Burma?

I say, keep the diplomatic channels open. Not only the Chinese government, but more importantly the vast majority of Chinese people are taking great pride in their role as host of the 2008 Summer Olympics. If President Bush were to renege on his commitment to attend the opening ceremonies it would be construed not only as a diplomatic affront, but also as a personal insult to the Chinese. No doubt that would lead to further charges of the U.S. meddling in another sovereign nation's affairs and being hypocritical. Perhaps Bush and his diplomatic team have already used his commitment to attend as a chit in negotiating the recent North Korean dismantling of nuclear facilities.

George W. Bush and the North Koreans

2008-06-27T18:21:00.000-07:00

Should President George W. Bush be given any credit for the recent move of the North Koreans to start dismantling their nuclear facilities?

To me, the answer is clearly "yes," although I don't foresee that happening, at least not until the waning days of his Presidency after the November election.

Guns and Logic

2008-06-27T18:18:00.000-07:00

Was the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court logical in ignoring the prefatory language about "a well-regulated militia" in it's recently released opinion about the 2nd amendment?

Probably not. Remember, the U.S. Supreme Court has blundered before ( Dred Scott v. Sanford and Plessy v. Ferguson come to mind). Nevertheless, it's probably better to err on the side of individual freedom when it's a question of government power vs. individual freedom. Now we'll await what "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership will be permitted, and whether those restrictions may vary from community to community.

Education Reform in Massachusetts - building new schools

2008-06-26T10:02:00.000-07:00

The City of Newton Massachusetts is taking ample flak over the $197.5 million price tag for the new high school it's in the process of building. Given that seemingly exorbitant amount, Newton is an easy target. But is Newton being unfairly attacked?

Consider the story in the Boston Globe's ''Globe West" section this past Sunday June 22nd by Rachana Rathi. The new Newton North High School will house nearly 20% more students than Wellesley's $159 million new high school and nearly 72% more than Norwood's $100 million one. The new Newton North also includes features that are not part of the Wellesley or Norwood project such as a pool, theater and vocational education facilities. THESE ARE NOT LUXURY AMENITIES HOWEVER, BUT INSTEAD ARE SIMPLY REPLACING FACILITIES ALREADY PART OF THE EXISTING, DILAPIDATED HIGH SCHOOL IN NEWTON! And looking at the cost per square foot of the three projects, they seem to be fairly close.

Nonetheless, the media and even some public officials like Massachusetts Treasurer Tim Cahill have been calling the Newton North project "extravagant" with a "deluxe design" and comparable to a "Taj Mahal." Cahill has even gone so far to imply that municipalities building new high schools school should focus solely on "core academic" space and not include space for the arts, physical education and community events .

Indeed, Cahill's quotes in this past Sunday's Globe article make him sound like a dictatorial socialist. Cahill rejects the notion of the state giving each community a certain capped amount and then letting that community decide for itself if it wants to spend its own additional money on other features. As he puts it: "just because you have the money doesn't mean you should be allowed to do it. One community should not be able to provide better opportunities for kids versus another community just because they have the money."

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has set aside $2.5 billion in a school building fund, but Tim Cahill as state treasurer has substantial control over disbursements from that fund. This gives rise to a few questions. Mr. Cahill, is it your intent not to provide any state funds for projects unless they meet some bare bones, cookie cutter design approved by you? How does that reflect educational innovation and the different needs and goals of the diverse communities in the Commonwealth? How is that democratic? Have you no sense of the "town meeting" heritage of Massachusetts?

Further Education Reform in Massachusetts

2008-06-26T06:10:00.000-07:00

Although its already being criticized for its failure to promote charter schools, its lack of a funding plan and its inclusion of in-state benefits for undocumented immigrant students, I like the Education Action Agenda announced by Governor Deval Patrick this week.

Moving toward a system of free access to community college or equivalent trade training makes sense in this age of information and technology. To me, it's a logical extension of the free education through high school that Massachusetts has been providing to its residents for over 100 years.

The funding of this move will be challenging, but I believe could be worked out through a restructuring of local aid and consolidation of school districts, as well as contributions from the myriad private institutions in the Commonwealth (who would arguably benefit because of the expanding pool of possible students it would create for them).

On the issue of undocumented immigrant students, if such students have demonstrated a commitment to their education and have been productive in their studies in Massachusetts high schools, then it seems to me they would be more of a resource than a burden to our taxpayers. According to yesterday's press release, this is also the thinking of the Patrick administration which said the plan is to:

"allow children of undocumented immigrants to attend a public college or university in the Commonwealth at the in-state tuition rate (ONLY) if they have attended Massachusetts’ schools, passed the MCAS, received a high school diploma and are on a path toward citizenship"

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3pressrelease&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Agov3&b=pressrelease&f=080625_education_reform3&csid=Agov3

See also:
"Patrick's Plan for Education," by Scott Lehigh in the 6/25/08 Boston Globe and
"The education reform gamble" by Joan Vennochi in the 6/26/08 Boston Glove

Propensity of the Press to Pounce

2008-06-24T08:41:00.000-07:00

First off today, check out the following pieces in today's Boston papers on our recurring theme of how the two major party Presidential candidates continue to move mainstream and away from their earlier "maverick" styles and positions:

1. "Obama's virtues aside, it's politics as usual" by Peter S. Canellos (Globe bureau chief)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/24/obamas_virtues_aside_its_politics_as_usual/
2. "Ryan's hope may wane - McCain slow in seizing economic opportunity" by Robert D. Novak (syndicated columnist in Herald)

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/RobertDNovak/2008/06/23/a_chance_for_mccain

Now, let's get to our new issue, the propensity for the press to pounce. The latest example involves Charlie Black, a top strategist for McCain. Black was interviewed in Fortune Magazine as part of a profile of McCain. See

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/magazines/fortune/Evolution_McCain_Whitford.fortune/
Here's an excerpt from Fortune's profile of McCain, containing Black's controversial remark:

"On national security McCain wins. We saw how that might play out early in the campaign, when one good scare, one timely reminder of the chaos lurking in the world, probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy - this according to McCain's chief strategist, Charlie Black. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an 'unfortunate event,' says Black. 'But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us.' As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. 'Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,' says Black."

Black was attacked mercilessly for this last comment, even being rebuked by his boss. But why? Wasn't he just pointed out the obvious, that one of McCain's strengths compared to Obama is his military experience and leadership? Yet, somehow this comment was construed as suggesting that Black was somehow encouraging or condoning such a terrorist attack. That seems rather preposterous to me.

It also reminded me of the firestorm surrounding Hillary Clinton's remarks responding to media criticism of her continuing to fight for her party's nomination until the last primary election in earlier this month. In those remarks, Ms. Clinton mentioned a couple of historic examples of extended Democratic battles, including the 1968 primaries where "'we all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California." It seems patently obvious that all she was trying to do was make a point about how sometimes the process of earning sufficient delegates can take the full primary season. Nonetheless, some in the media deemed it to somehow be insensitive to the Kennedy family and/or a subtle suggestion that Obama might be assassinated. Huh?

It's perturbing in this age of the soundbite that little time and effort goes into understanding the context of remarks. Instead, the phenomenon of trying to titillate the audience with seeming controversy prevails. In both of the examples above - Charlie Black's comments on a terrorist attack and Hillary Clinton's on the RFK assassination in June of 1968 toward the end of the primary season- reporters and commentators simply seemed aghast without explaining why. Did they themselves not think through the comments and the context in which they were made, or were they simply trying to make more of the comments than they should have for the sake of attracting the attention of their audience? Obama has also not been immune to this type of "pouncing." How many of the reporters and commentators who lambasted him for his association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright after the infamous "God Damn America" sermon actually listened to that entire sermon. Indeed, in listening to that sermon in its entirety on an NPR broadcast, I found it to be, taken as a whole, a rather compelling historical depiction of the abhorrent treatment African Americans have received in the U.S.

McCain and Obama's flip flops; can I flip flop my children?

2008-06-23T12:06:00.000-07:00

Great op-ed piece by Joan Vennochi in yesterday's Boston Globe on the Obama and McCain flip flops. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/06/22/obama_and_mccain___flip_flop_flip_flop/
I concur with Ms. Vennochi that it's probably inevitable for both candidates to keep moving more mainstream and consequently lose their "maverick" elements.

I took my 17 year old son to the world premiere of the "According to Tip" play at the Watertown New Repertory Theater last night (written by Dick Flavin and starring Ken Howard). I enjoyed it, but alas, I suspect it has little chance to make it on Broadway (or even anywhere besides the local Boston area). It's a one man show consisting of anecdotes, songs and poems from the life of the late political legend Tip O'Neill. Most of the material seemed to be derived from Tip's autobiography, "Man of the House," which I've recently re-read. The appeal for such a production would seem to be extremely limited; last night's audience consisted of mostly blue hairs who had some direct or indirect contact with Tip and a few political junkies like myself. It was a great case study of a bygone political style and era.

"According to Tip" was also torture for my 17 year old son. Although eligible to vote in the upcoming general election (he turns 18 at the end of October), he admits he has not been following the election process in any way whatsoever. Before the play, I tried to engage him in conversation about the caricatures drawn on the backdrop (the 7 Presidents from Kennedy to GHW Bush) and the various knickknacks of the set, but he simply grunted back. He also expressed no curiosity whatsoever about anything he heard or say in the play. I guess he does deserve some credit for accompanying me -- it was out of a sense of duty/guilt since my wife and other son were away and it was my birthday. All in all, I think he's an honorable guy, but right now he has this obsession with hanging out every night with friends until 11:30-12:00 (a contentious situation with my wife and me).

I wish my other son had been there. He's almost 15 and was enthralled by the primary process, and by Obama's ultimate victory for the Democrats. He watched several of the debates with me, as well as CNN coverage on most primary days, including several hours worth on Tuesday June 3rd, the night Obama "clinched" because of the declarations of the super delegates. My second son is an avid supporter of Obama, or as he puts it in the parlance of his age group "Barack is my boy!" (note how that might be considered a racist statement from someone from an older generation). He also, however, has respect and admiration for John McCain, with his courageous background and "straight-talking" style.

Son #2 recently saw my copy of "Man of the House" sitting on a side table, picked it up, started reading it, and commented about how he found Tip to be a fascinating guy and was now going to read the whole book. Why couldn't he have come with me last night to the play? And why couldn't he be the one eligible to vote in this November's election?

Let's start off with the U.S. Presidential Contest

2008-06-22T09:34:00.000-07:00

Some people make New Year's resolutions; I'm trying something new (this blog) on my birthday.

On the surface I appear to be conservative, but I've always felt a connection with the mavericks and gadflies in the political world. In past Presidential elections, candidates like Shirley Chisholm, Mo Udall, John Anderson and Ross Perot were intriguing to me. In my home state of Massachusetts, I've been drawn to gubernatorial candidates like John Silber and Chris Iannella. What makes these ostensibly rational and intelligent people run for office when it's so patently obvious that they have no chance of winning? Indeed, in some cases just as they begin to gain support and become viable, they make statements and take actions that sabotage their candidacies. It seems as if their main point is to bring greater attention to, and stimulate discussion of, certain issues about which they are passionate.

That's also the point of this blog - to engender discussion about national, state and local political issues that I believe warrant greater attention.

Let's start with the current Presidential election. It's come down, of course, to Barack Obama as the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party and John McCain in the same position for the Republican Party. Both have from time to time exhibited certain "maverick" style elements that seem to be lurking within their personalities: Obama with his early stance against the U.S. military involvement in Iraq and with his initial support of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright; McCain earlier in his career with his crusade for campaign finance reform and more recently with his call for the surge in Iraq at a time when many other politicians were calling for withdrawal.

Which one would make the better President? I haven't made up my mind yet. Obama is clearly the more dynamic and inspiring speaker. His rhetorical ability would give many Americans that intangible sense of hope needed to move the economy forward (or at least to create that perception -see FDR). Is it just me, though, or are his positions on issues thin. Isn't it a bit simplistic to say that he will have all U.S. combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months of his election and no permanent bases there? See his official webwsite at: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/ Remember, there are nearly 60 years later, almost 30,000 U.S. troops in Korea. Those troops have certainly been a stabilizing influence there. The challenge is to come up with the right number and the right mission for U.S. troops in Iraq to help stablize the situation there.

Also, what about these statements from Obama's official campaing website on the economy: "Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. . . . Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers. " Again, those are examples of how simplistic and naive he seems to be.

McCain, on the other hand, has been showing his age more frequently of late. Even his aides acknowledged how horrendous his speech was several weeks ago on the night Obama wrapped up the Democratic nomination (with super delegates not regular delegates, by the way). McCain has seemed tired and lacking in passion for most of this campaign (in contrast to his 2000 campaign when the GOP party honchos stepped in and derailed his "straight talk express" in South Carolina). He is also in the unenviable position of being associated with G.W. Bush and his unpopular military and economic policies.

The question for both Obama and McCain as we await this summer's party conventions is how to address their shortcomings -- Obama's in the areas of depth, experience and "gravitas"; McCain's in the areas of personal vigor and association with policies that are perceived as failures. Can it be done through their choices of running mates? Perhaps. For example, what about former Senator Sam Nunn as Obama's V.P. candidate and incumbent Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal on the Republican ticket with McCain? Both would be somewhat "maverick" choices. Do Obama and McCain have enough of the maverick in them to make such choices?