#MAGOV14 : THINGS GET NASTY FOR JULIETTE KAYYEM

Image

^ the charm offensive has its limits : Juliette Kayyem meets caucus push back

—- —- —-

Not even two days had passed after Democratic governor hopeful Steve Grossman accused rival Martha Coakley of being vague in her commitment to civil liberties than, this morning, I found my twitter feed filled with attacks upon a third Democratic contestant : Juliette Kayyem. One tweet said “Charming Kayyem favors ‘assassination as an instrument of intelligence and law enforcement.” Another, from the same twitter source, said “Charming Kayyem leading panel to legalize Torture ‘we were a room full of people who think it works’.” A third tweet from said source — “Bostonnish” — said : “If Kayyem hadn’t led effort to concoct legal cover for Bush -Era torture use, she wouldn’t be a charming accomplice to torture.”

“Bostonnish” sent me two more tweets of a similar nature. These were sent to me, evidently, as a response to my own tweet “if @Juliettekayyem had an agenda aspecific as her personal charm is masterful, she’d charm Spkr DeLeo — & win the election.” I am , of course, flattered to find that my tweets merit attack by an opponent of the candidate I happen to mention. Yet that’s not all there is to this story. Kayyem did work for the Deprtment of Homeland Security and has surely known that in the heat of this Governor battle she’d be challenged thereon. Big time : because the Homeland Security issue isn’t only about Kayyem. Edward Snowden’s revelations have made it clear that the war on terror has curtailed Americans’ privacy rights much, much more than we either knew or need to accept. The issue has also divided the Democratic Party. Had Snowden’s revelations been made of a Republican presidency, every Democrat would be ringing the tocsin. But no: the revelations were made of the Obama administration, and only on the very Left has there arisen any support for Snowden. Most Democrats find him a traitor.

This split matters for Kayyem especially, because the impact of her candidacy has been strongest among Democrats who consider themselves progressives — exactly the Democratic constituency among which the Snowden revelations have aroused the greatest anger. Now comes an attacker who connects Kayyem not to the Snowden revelations per se but to the Bush administration, no less, and to that part of the Bush government in which “enhanced interrogation” was defined, justified, and decked out in legal lipstick. Much of the Snowden revelations involved NSA measures begun in that Bush administration — though Obama expanded them. It would be hard to think of any political connection less appealing to Democratic progressives than to the Bush ’43 war on terror. For Kayyem, far more than for Coakley or Grossman — who so likely have no such connections — the attack made by “Botonnish” poses threat. And as I have 640 twitter followers right now, almost all of them political, “Bostonnish”‘s attacks will be seen by many.

Is there any truth to them, and, if so, how much truth ? I have read the two newspaper articles linked in the Bostonnish tweets. They do connect Kayyem to Homeland Security discussions on interrogation techniques — discussions in which she participated as part of a Harvard Law School professor’s symposium whose participants sought agreement on what interrogation techniques were permissible and to write their conclusions as a policy paper.

To the average voter, what I’ve just written may seem splitting hairs. Kayyem was involved in torture discussions, helped define “acceptable limits.” Nuff said. And to most voters, her participation therein as a policy advisor ruffles no consciences. unfortunately, the voters whose support Kayyem is seeking — and needs — may not take such a casual attitude of the matter. Though many Democratic progressives are the first to condemn Snowden as a traitor, and to accuse Bush’s Vice President, Dick Cheney — whose brief it was to secure policy approvals on interrogation techniques — of war crimes, other progressives dub Snowden a hero. There’s scant escape for Kayyem here. The Democrats who think Snowden a traitor hate Dick Cheney just as much as do the Democrats who think Snowden a hero; and Kayyem helped write policy papers for matters ultimately answerable to Cheney and Bush. The New York times article, from 2005, appended to one of my “Bostonniosh” tweets documents it.

What does Kayyem do about this ? If I were her advisors I’d tell her to discuss the matter thoroughly. She served the Obama administration as well as Bush’s — as did Bob Gates and others. She can say that she put “country first” — and if the man for whom that was a campaign theme — John McCain — is a case study in why our nation should oppose “torture lite” always, Kayyem did not make policy. She advised possible policy makers. And all of this happened many years ago.

photo (1)

^ beauty talks : Juliette Kayyem with Worcester St Reps Mahoney and O’Day

Also on her case is a report, in the Globe, that Kayyem missed voting in two elections during the time she was living in Washington. There’s some disagreement as to whether she registered to vote there or not. She says she did; the DC elections board has no record of it.

Myself, I find this matter small potatoes. so what if she missed two elections or if she did or did not register to vote in Washington while living there ? She is running for Governor, not “super voter.’ yet the small potatoes does highlight the bigger potato of her consultancy participation in the “torture bureaucracy.”

It is not my job to make excuses for Kayyem or to devise responses for her to difficult challenges. She has opted to play big league ball, and cannot complain if an opposing pitcher plunks her with a curve ball. Her response, however, will matter a lot in how Democratic progressives, as sensitive as any activists to heavy handed war measures, take Kayyem’s interrogation policy years to heart. Who knows ? Maybe they’ll shrug it off. Charm does have its way even with issues obsessives, and charm Kayyem has more than plenty of. But the average voter probably won’t shrug so readily — if Kayyem gets her name onto the average voter’s Governior ballot. This flap doesn’t make that task any easier for her.

—- Mike Freedberg / Here and Sphere

LIFE IN A HEATHER SUIT … FROM THE (FEBRUARY) FACEBOOK DIARY OF HEATHER CORNELL

Image

February 1, 2014 ….
And the tech gods heard my prayer, and granted my request. Ecstatic does not cover it. — feeling Like March feels forever away.

February 4, 2014 ….
Heart shaped cookie dough donuts?? Omgggg …..#MuffinMangeniusness — feeling hungry.

February 5, 2014 ….
Can someone please post about all this snow? I don’t think anyone knows about it yet. Is it obvious I didn’t get to the liquor store? — feeling stuck inside without happy juice.

February 5, 2014 ….
-Gym
-Grab food, beer, and other liquor ( defeating the purpose if the gym)
-Feel so guilty about undoing my gym time that I consume ALL the items listed.
– Drunken EVERYTHING after that point. Hmmm works for me. — feeling Like snow makes me want to drink and cook stuff.

February 5, 2014 ….

Bed. … The next few days should be full of inanity, lots to do tomorrow… night yall.
….
February 7, 2014 ….

She’s so crazy ha ha ha love her — feeling Like there are no bad days when your daughter is this awesome

February 8, 2014 ….

Procrastinating packing I am not impressed With moving my crap AGAIN when I Said I wanted to live here till I buy my Own house I guess what I meant was”I HATE MOVING Stuff Specially MY stuff.HEY LANDLORD JK So by all means please take that as ( sell the house in a year -force tenants out) ….- NOW to figure out where I want need/am going to move to …… GAH — feeling Like UHAUL and I should have (It’s Complicated) as our relationship statuses ooomph.

February 9, 2014 ….

I think Lauryn Estrella and I should go to BASS WAVE as She-Ra & Catra just cuz…. pros vs. Cons
CON: HeMan reminds me of a low budget Arnold Schwarzenegger cartoon, and gladiator sandals on men — JUST WRONG
PRO: But he totally had a tiger.
PRO: Catra had her own badass feline chauffer.
PRO: Castle of Gray Skull.. nuff said #randomcoffeethought — feeling Like I want to be a “superhero” for a few hours.

February 9, 2014 ….

The moment you realize that you’re realizing a moment. And then laughing as you realize your epiphany is only about the fact that if I’m typing an emoticon, I simultaneously unknowingly mimic the lil yellow head… BUT… On my actual face……. Hmmmm I dislike this discovery that is all! — feeling my fave shape shift to match the one at the start of this sentence.

February 10, 2014 ….

One of my fave tech-sexy DJ/producers is coming just in time for mine and Angel’s Bdays…. This guy is serious, and I’m more than excited.

February 11, 2014 ….

I’m really starting to despise these late night rendezvous with bakery items. Grrr, don’t mind gaining weight I just wish I would think ahead and bake earlier because baking after 10 pm once the pm mads kick in is frickin tricky shit. JS. — feeling pre-apologetic to the fire Department for what may or nay not transpire in my kitchen. @_@.

February 12, 2014 …

Smiles put on your face by the most unexpected people….Good stuff…. Sweet dreams yall xo — feeling Grateful and Sleepy, GOODnight..

February 14, 2014 ….
Blah Blah blah single, Blah Blah oooh presents, screw love, I’m in love, I hate love, Valentines day blahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh and stuff. STAAAAAHHHHHP IT, HAS EVERYONE GONE INSANE? THE IMPORTANT THING HERE IS THIS: tomorrow all chocolate is 50% off…Get with it people #priorities #hypedupdayforsuckers #realloveslikethisallyear #IsitMindControltimeyet

February 15, 2014 ….

To all my good friends that TODAY has been so hard on, for so many reasons…. Please Please do me the favor of knowing theses things.
A) YOU ARE BEAUTIFUL, YOU ARE GOOD ENOUGH, YOU DO, yes DO DESERVE all your hearts desires, just make sure what you desire is worth all your attention, love, and heart.
B) Stop lowering your standards, and let him rise to meet yours.
C) The one that;s meant to love you only adds to your life, never deliberately or repeatedly makes conscious decisions to take from your life, put you down, hurt you, or cause you to feel less than you are.
MY TRUE FEW, are BEAUTIFUL, STRONG, SMART, AMAZING woman,STOP SETTLING My friends deserve the dreams they carry in their heart — and the return of the love, compassion, and so much more they put out. KNOW THESE THINGS AS TRUE, Because they are. I love you, “you don’t have to chase someone who wants to stay. – TS” <3xo

February 15, 2014 ….

2 thoughts
1)We need a back up after-hours– we can call it “The Crisis Center”, lord knows it feels like a damn crisis when .: says stay home lol.
2) We need a liquor delivery service, that should also keep several traveling chefs and masseuses on staff.
k that is all

— Heather Cornell / for Here and Sphere

PROGRESS, ACTUALLY : THE MICHAEL DUNN TRIAL

Image

At least, unlike in the Zimmerman case, the shooter in the case of State of Florida v. Michael Dunn didn’t get acquitted. On all but one count of the indictment, the trial jury found him guilty. As the New York times reported, “guilty of three counts of second-degree attempted murder for getting out of his car and firing several times at the Dodge Durango sport utility vehicle in which Jordan Davis, 17, was killed. Three other teenagers, the subjects of the attempted murder charges, were in the car but were not struck. Mr. Dunn continued to fire at the vehicle even as it pulled away. On the attempted murder convictions, he could be sentenced to 60 years in prison.”

Naturally, Dunn claimed self-defense. It’s what you do in Florida after you’ve killed somebody. In Florida all you have to do is show that you were in fear of your life — a judgment entirely subjective, unprovable — and bang ! No problemo, you are free to kill again.

Admittedly I have overstated. Your belief that you are afraid for your life must be reasonable in the circumstances. That’s not much to go on, but once there’s a law giving armed people the right to fight back, not under a duty to retreat — which was for hundreds of years the good sense of our common law — it’s some comfort to know that a shooter has to pass at least the “reasonable belief” test.

Dunn failed even this.

He pulls up next to the car with the teens in it, starts an argument with them — perfect strangers to him; who would do that ? — about the loudness of their music; then, when one of the teens objects to being “told what to do,” he takes a loaded gun out of his car’s glove compartment and shoots. He says he saw a weapon. Oh really ? At night, through his driver’s side window and the other car window ? No weapon was found by the police. Not very surprising.

The trial was “racially charged.” How could it NOT be ? Dunn is white, the kids in the car Black. Many a middle aged white man, alone, finding a car full of black teens next to him, is afraid; but his usual response is to say nothing — as people on a late night subway train often do when Black teens get aboard. But Dunn had a loaded gun in his car. He was not afraid. He was ready for battle, and when he was talked back to, battle he gave.

That was why he had a loaded gun in his car. “Fuck with me and it’ll be the last fuck you’ll ever do.’ that — or something like it — was surely his mindset. He then ordered a pizza , went back to his home and poured a drink ? Of course he did.

That’s pretty harsh of me to write, but can you think of anything less harsh to say about a man who closes an argument that he had no need to start by shooting the person who argues back at him ?

Comparisons to the Zimmerman case have been put and will continue to be put. The two cases do not compare, except for the mindset. In Zimmerman, the person he targeted, Trayvon Martin, actually fought back, physically, and seems to have beaten Zimmerman up — at which point Zimmerman probably WAS in reasonable fear of his life. That he had no business initiating the chain of events that led to his being beaten up, the jury was correct to find, did not deny to him a self-defense argument that would have applied even in a “duty to retreat” jurisdiction. In a “duty to retreat” jurisdiction, a person may, if no retreat is possible — as it wasn’t for Zimmerman, on the ground being beaten — use reasonable force to defend himself. My own position in Zimmerman is that, having initiated the chain of events that led to the shooting, he cannot escape culpability by claiming self-defense when the chain of events turned against him. But the Florida jury’s verdict was not outrageous.

This Dunn case is nothing like Zimmerman. Dunn initiated the chain of events and at all points was the aggressor; he was never in any danger at all — certainly not in any danger when he shot ten times at the car driving away. He was angry, so angry that he “lost it,” as one infamous Massachusetts murderer said as to why he shot a woman at a Route 24 rest stop at 2 AM some years ago.

The Florida jury correctly found Dunn guilty on all counts except first degree murder.
The jury seems to have had doubts what occurred while the Dunn car and that of the teens was parked. that a shot was then fired was proved, but first degree murder requires a plan, formed prior to the event, to kill someone. Clearly in the Dunn case there was no such. what i do not understand is why he wasn’t found guilty of manslaughter. if you shoot a gun at someone, and that person dies, the criminal nature of the act of shooting requires , in Massachusetts, at least a manslaughter verdict.

All that being said, I do see progress in the Dunn case verdict. a Florida jury has found that no self-defense argument will lie, even under a right-to-fire law, unless the shooter’s belief that he is in danger is warranted; and that it is not and will not, henceforth, be reasonable for a white man to be in fear merely because he finds himself parking next to a car with black teenagers in it. Or, that he can be in fear, but he must keep that fear to himself and not act it out.

Can there be any doubt that many Caucasian people feel such a fear in the presence of black teenagers ? The President himself, in a speech not too long ago, recalled times in his life when he could hear car doors locking when he walked up the street. this entirely racial fear is a huge reason why the Michael Dunns of America buy guns, load them, keep loaded guns on or near their person. This racial fear is why gun and ammo manufacturers make huge profits; it’s why there are a reported 310,000,000 guns in private hands (as opposed to 4,000,000 in the military). This racial fear is why the gun and ammo makers pay the NRA to bully legislators in every state they target.

Racial fear stoking the gun industry sits at the core of today’s right wing. Not every right wing person is a racist, but racial fear is the message, the anti-social, armed vigilante mindset that gives right wing venom its venomous edge. It’s what those who talk loudest about “the 2nd amendment” really mean. Thus I find it progress in a Florida jury putting at least some limit to how much armed racial venom they will tolerate.

Sentencing now awaits. Dunn faces a substantial prison term : Image

—- Mike Freedberg / Here and Sphere

#MAGOV : RESTRUCTURING THE MASSACHUSETTS DCF

Image

^ Commissioner Olga Roche : not to blame for DCF budget cuts and out of date agency practices

—- —- —

The six major candidates seeking to be our State’s next Governor sure didn’t plan to have the department of families and Children (DCF) as a huge campaign issue, but that’s what it now is. The facts emerging from the DCF’s failed oversight of 5-year old Jeremiah Oliver cry out. Oliver’s social worker missed several mandated visits to his home but put “visit made’ into her case log; and her supervisor confirmed that the visits were made. When Oliver disappeared –months later, he has yet to be found — the failure and cover up left the DCF’s higher-ups nowhere to hide.

Yet are the DCF top guns to blame ? How was the agency;s head, Olga Roche, to know that a social worker and supervisor in the Fitchburg DCF office had falsified logs and failed their jobs ? Roche can’t personally micro-manage every employee in every DCF office. At some point we have to grasp that this DCF failure is structural and to propose serious reform. Nor can we blame Governor Patrick much. His plate has been heaped with major spending fights in transportation and education and with monitoring the contentious casino licensing process as it works through the gaming Commission. Line Departments like DCF and Public welfare, governed by State Law chapter 119, require oversight by the Governor’s secretary of administration and finance; and to my knowledge, no one has suggested that Glen Shor has misfired his oversight of the DCF. Nonetheless, one notes that in his job description as posted on his page at http://www.mass.gov, Shor doesn’t list DCF in his itemization of key responsibilities:

“Glen Shor serves as Secretary of the Executive Office for Administration and Finance. He is responsible for managing state finances, including preparation of the governor’s budget recommendation, development of a state capital budget, managing budgetary activities across state government, and developing long-term fiscal policy. He also oversees the state agencies that provide core administrative services in the Commonwealth, including the collection of state taxes, the administration of IT services and the management of human resources in state government.

“Prior to his appointment as Secretary in January of 2013, Glen Shor served as Executive Director of the Massachusetts Health Insurance Connector Authority. While at the Connector, Shor oversaw the programs, policies, operations and staff of the Commonwealth’s official public health insurance Exchange – a cornerstone of the state’s historic health care reform law of 2006 and the model for health insurance Exchanges nationwide under the landmark federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

No one can doubt that collection of taxes and administration of information technology are crucial state governance tasks; or that management of “human resources” — state employees — is a non-stop matter that can make stinky headlines if a day of monitoring goes missing. Still…

…here we are, with a scandal and anecdotal talk of many other missed visits by social workers and slack oversight by DCF managers, and the blame machine is already whipping up pies to the face of DCF’s higher-ups. I find the furor misdirected.

Image

^ DCF failures will surely be discussed at a social workers’ conference at Boston College on February 24th that has Charlie Baker as its featured speaker. (See UPDATE below)

Has anyone bothered to notice that, since 2009, the DC budget has fallen by 100 million dollars ? this, during years when our State’s population of homeless and of families in need has increased mightily.

If we want to make events like the Jeremiah Oliver failures less common, we need to restore the 100 million dollars cut from the DC budget — the Governor’s $ 9.2 million budget increase hardly matters ! The DCF needs to monitor social worker visits not in log books but via the internet; to install check-in software in social workers’ cell phones, so that managers know where they are during work hours; to give DCF managers software and smart phones, fully applicationed, so that case loads can be managed, on an ongoing basis, in real time. We need to reset DCF process so that Olga Roche — or whoever succeeds her as DCF commissioner — has on her schedule an in-person meeting at each DCF area office on a revolving basis, with Roche on the road, like a Circuit Judge making rounds, managing the entire DCF not from an office in a Boston State administration building but from an iPad in a state car serving as her mobile headquarters.

Political campaigns operate that way in this year 2014. Why not State governance ?

It’s more important that Roche have a state car and a driver than that she have a large office in a state building. It’s more effective that she hold monitoring sessions — including questions and answers and monitoring reviews — at each local DCF office than that she await reports coming to her from the managers of those offices. After all, social workers have to visit the children whose cases are theirs to oversee. Why shouldn’t Roche, or her successor, do likewise ? DCF is an agency that operates by visits. This should be its strategy top to bottom, bottom to top.

It will be interesting to hear and read the DCF reform plans that each of the major Governor candidates presents to the voters. If they do present one.

Meanwhile, Commissioner Roche is reportedly slated to receive a $ 10,500.00 pay raise.

—- Mike Freedberg / Here and Sphere

UPDATE 02/17/14 10.30 AM : Charlie Baker, the likely Republican nominee for Governor, has called for Olga Roche’s resignation. Many — but not all — GOP legislators have also made this call. To me it seems a bit premature and quite misdirected; but perhaps Baker will explain.

PICKING MARTY WALSH’S SUCCESSOR : DAN HUNT’S THE MAN TO BEAT

Image

^ the man to beat : Dan Hunt

—- —- —-

Five Democrats seek nomination to become the next State Representative from the Dorchester-based District that Marty Walsh gave up to take office as Boston mayor. Dan Hunt, John O’Toole, Liam Curran, Paul “PJ” McCann, and Gene Gorman have been campaigning for weeks now — Hunt, longer than that — in the coldest winter we’ve seen in decades, in the snow and often in the dark. They’re “knocking doors,” as they put it; “standing out” — sign-holding — at major intersections with as many supporters as can take single-digit temperatures; doing “meet and greets” at local pubs; raising funds at what Dan Hunt calls a “friend-raiser”; and “getting on the phones” to reach the District’s “super voters” — those who always vote, including in the District’s one Quincy precinct, assuming they know there’s an election going on.

Last night the race got even more serious, as all five men spoke and answered questions at the Cedar Grove Civic Association’s candidate Forum. Cedar Grove — the part of Neponset that borders Quincy — isn’t just another Dorchester neighborhood; in last year’s Mayor election, almost 75 % of the area’s voters actually voted, by far the highest percentage in all Boston. No surprise, then, that about 70 people showed up to listen, or that State Representative Dan Cullinane, from the District across Granite Street, was in the room, as was State Senator Linda Dorcena-Forry.

For candidates at the very local level, even in a varsity political neighborhood — and Dorchester is super varsity, a candidate Forum presents a challenge. You must be ready to speak well, in a voice confidently loud, to give opening and closing remarks not read from notes, and to talk with appreciable knowledge about the major issues. So it was at Cedar Grove.

Gene Gorman, a professor at Emerson college, spoke eloquently and to the point on almost every question asked.

Dan Hunt, generally considered the likeliest to win, spoke with steady confidence about his readiness and with skilled nuance about issues not cookie-cutter simple. Proudly he listed four union endorsements, including the big one : Service Employees International Local 1199, whose work for Marty Walsh is thought by many to have made the difference in last year’s Mayor election,

Image

Liam Curran ^ looked and sounded the eager, even passionate young attorney that he is, in the City of Boston law department. He has the support of Mayor Walsh’s brother and mother — and has made sure everyone knows it — and over and over he cited Marty Walsh’s priorities as the agenda he would adhere to. Like Walsh, Curran was a Labor Union member –Laborers’ local 223. This too he made known.

John O’Toole, himself a past president of the Cedar Grove Civic Association, spoke strongly about neighborhood issues and gave a shout out, by name, to many in the room with whom he has worked with on various neighborhood concerns over the past 20 years. O’Toole, too, has labor support, more Locals than have endorsed Hunt, but at the Forum he named none.

“PJ” McCann — speaking in a voice soft and conversational, hard to hear easily in the long, large meeting room — stressed his experience drafting legislation, collaboratively with many agencies, and his work at the City of Boston’s Public Health Commission.

It has been frustrating for me to pin down any of the five to specifics of major issues facing Massachusetts : transportation funding; education reform and funding; curbing urban violence. Last night, Cedar Grove’s President Sean Weir had no better luck. Granted that the first two issues are complex and coated in controversy, and that the third issue isn’t really a matter of legislation; it would still have been nice to hear what the five will work for by way of funding, and where that funding will come from. You can be sure that the word ‘taxes’ graced no one’s lips all night long.

All five men support raising the minimum wage, and those who addressed the matter of unemployment insurance give-backs all said that it was irrelevant to raising the wage. But Speaker Robert DeLeo, who controls all legislation because he appoints all House committee members, says that the two are indeed connected and that minimum wage legislation must connect them ; and no one, at the Forum, or in conversations with me, has faced the fact. We are left to assume that each of the five, if elected, will make the District’s opinion heard — and then vote the Speaker’s way.

That said, the true importance of this election lies not in legislative specifics but in the loudness and confidence of the voice that will be the 13th Suffolk’s going forward. Can any of these men be a next Marty Walsh, a major voice in labor — or other — issues, a sought-after endorsement in city and state elections, even a potential Mayor ? Because this, not positions on the issues, is the standard for the District’s voters. They are accustomed to having their representative be a center of influence and attention, and they vote in large numbers seeking it. Everybody I speak to expects 4,000 to 6,000 votes to be cast on March 4th Primary day.

The only question is, what KIND of center of attention do these voters want ? Only two of the five men seem to recognize this question as the race’s big decider : Liam Curran and Dan Hunt. Curran has lost no opportunity to pronounce himself the most Marty Walsh of the candidates; and having the mayor’s brother and Mom in his corner gives his pronunciamento some truth. He has pushed the point perhaps too far. Mayor Walsh early on announced himself staying completely out of the race : Curran’s message, has, say some, forced the mayor to embrace Dan Hunt, who is said to be his preferred choice anyway. A day after Curran made major publicity of a photograph taken of him with Walsh’s brother and mother, Mayor Walsh insisted, at a Labor breakfast, on having his picture taken with Hunt, a man very different.

Hunt doesn’t look like Marty, doesn’t sound like him, has a personal history all his own. He grew up in a political household — his Dad Jim Hunt held administrative positions in Boston City governance for decades. As he said at the Forum, he was “sign holding even as a six year old” and “a lifetime, so far, of political and state House service, as staff to two committees.” Not many election hopefuls in today’s America would tout long staff service in government. But a hopeful who understands that Dorchester voters want exactly that makes it a major closing remark.

At Cedar Grove, Hunt sounded confident, commanding, with no equal among the five on that score; and when he cited that Senator Dorcena Forry has endorsed him, it seemed a knockout punch. Had she really done so ? I asked him that question after the Forum, and, yes, he told me, she has in fact endorsed him. That’s quite a step for her to take in a five way local primary. But it makes sense, because of all the five, Hunt alone spoke like a voice of clout who can back up his claim.

Image

John O’Toole ^ stressed his long history of neighborhood activism, and commands maybe the largest Labor contingent ; all good ; but Labor is split in this race, and neighborhood activist isn’t the office being elected. Liam Curran emphasized how Marty Walsh he is ; but the voters want a voice unique as Walsh, not his duplicate. Gene Gorman has all the issues command that anyone could ask ; but a policy wonk can be the Representative’s issues person. Then there’s PJ McCann : respected, articulate, Harvard graduate, experienced in legislation, with a public heath issues priority vital to city life today, McCann seems more City Councillor than State Representative, a voice among collegial voices, not an advocate going to a place where more are strangers or opponents than allies.

Image

^ likeable, smart, and gentle : “PJ” McCann at the Cedar Grove Forum

Hunt started first, raised $ 59,365 before the special election was called, and — so he said to me — “has personally knocked on the door of every super voter in the district.” 4,000 doors in two months time, I asked ? “Yes,” he said. And : “I’ve attended every civic association meeting at least twice,. No neighborhood association is too small, I visit them all.”

Image

^ door-knocking at night in a winter campaign ; Dan Hunt with voter list in hand

Yes, the race continues. Yes, John O’Toole, especially, is working to catch up. Yet the race looks Hunt’s to lose. Basic work every waking hour, no mistakes, much money, the largest social media presence, strong support from most of the District’s leaders — including Bill Walczak, who ran for Mayor and got 136 votes in his crucial, Savin Hill precinct even with Walsh on the ballot; City Clerk Maureen Feeney, who was Dorchester’s City Councillor; and Supreme Court Clerk Maura Doyle — and a resume that fits the image. Little wonder that this election is looking like a Dan Hunt victory on March 4th

— Mike Freedberg / for Here and Sphere

Image

^ “freezin’ for a reason,” says John O’Toole, door knocking in savin Hill.

ANNALS OF THE ECONOMY : FATAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE HOUSE PRICE BOOM

Image

^ house prices zooming upward, and debt, of course. Worse if you look back to 1970.

—- —- —-

Back in the early-1970s, the typical house price in Greater Boston ranged from $ 20,000 to $ 40,000. Rents in Boston, for a two-bedroom apartment, ranged from about $ 125 to $ 300 month. Since that time, rents have increased ten-fold, house prices 12 to 16-fold. At the same time, median family income has gone up about four-fold.

In the above numbers lurks huge, vast consequences for our economy, most of it irreversible, much of it enormously damaging. You want to talk income inequality ? It begins with the enormous, unprecedented boom in house prices, a boom which as i see it, is the most significant event in my entire adult lifetime, at least since the mid-1960s civil rights revolution and, ultimately, maybe more significant even than that.

The boom in house prices affected not just Boston. the entire East Coast felt it big time, the West Coast too, and Chicago. No part of America entirely escaped, and only bankrupted cities like Detroit and Camden, New Jersey, have shaken off the boom entirely. And even these places live with the consequences nationally of the huge house price boom.

The rise in house prices from 20,000-40,000 to 250,000-600,000 did not happen because people’s cash on hand suddenly increaesed ten to twelve-fold,. It happened because mortgage debt increased vastly and then some. Before, mortgages were small loans given by neighborhood savings banks to local people and kept by those banks till paid off. Borrowers earned their incomne and paid off those small, 10,000 to 20,000 loans over a 20-year period : paid them off, and never again borrowed money on the security of tueir homes. The national custom was to buy a home, borrow a small amount, pay it off, and live the rest of one’s life free and clear.

Yes, the very very rich lived in their $ 250,000 to $ 500,000 mansions, mostly bought for cash. They were a rare breed. Their home purchases hardly quaked the nation’s economy.

But that was then. In 1970 a system was established whereby banks were encouraged to sell their house mortgages as negotiable instruments, like bonds: the Federal government would guarantee these mortgages for whoever bought them. The idea seemed good at the time : the banks that first gave mortgages would get paid and with that money would be free to lend again.

From Wikipedia’s “Housing Bubble” page comes the following excerpt. Read it. It tells the story in numbers and events —

  • 1970 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) is chartered by an act of Congress, as a GSE, to buy mortgages on the secondary market, pool them, and sell them as mortgage-backed securities to investors on the open market. The average cost of a new home in 1970 is $26,600 [2] ($140,582 in 2007 dollars). From 1960 to 1970, inflation rose from 1.4% to 6.5% (a 5.1% increase), while the consumer price index (CPI) rose from about 85 points in 1960 to about 120 points in 1970, but the median price of a house nearly doubled from $16,500 in 1960 to $26,600 in 1970.
  • 1974Equal Credit Opportunity Act imposes heavy sanctions for financial institutions found guilty of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age.
  • 1977Community Reinvestment Act passed to encourage banks and savings and loan associations to offer credit to minority groups on lower incomes or owning small businesses 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.).[3][4] Beforehand, the companies had been engaging in a practice known as redlining.
  • July, 1978: Section 121 allowed for a $100,000 one-time exclusion in capital gain for sellers 55 years or older at the time of sale.[5]
  • 1980: The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 granted all thrifts, including savings and loan associations, the power to make consumer and commercial loans and to issue transaction accounts, but with little regulatory oversight of competing banks; also exempted federally chartered savings banks, installment plan sellers and chartered loan companies from state usury limits.[6] The cost of a new home in 1980 is $76,400 [7] ($189,918 in 2007 dollars).

The housing market began to move faster and faster, and as it sped up, so prices began to rise. And we all know how that turned out. Less obvious the underlying consequence : mortgage debt increased enormously, to the point where, today, many trillions of dollars of house-secured debts distort the entire economy.

When one talks about inc ome inquality, pone shoiuld aslo think of the huge creditor interests that crowd the Us economy. Back in 1970, when house debt was 12 to 15 times smaller than it is now, the creditor interest loomed far less large — and paid far less income to bankers and other credit administrators. Today the enormous money pools that ultimately deliver the cash that gets paud out in mortgates generate nine-figure salaries and bonuses to managers of those money pools; and the money itself, instwsd of funding capital investments in production and service, spins its wheels in the markets in which mortgage dbets are boiught and sold. A great dea;l more such money sits parked in money-market accounts awaiting revival of the housing market ; because even hard-pressed home owners are a surer — and vastly more diversified — investment bet than risky enterprises, credit swaps, or excahnge-prate arbitrage. The more individual debtors a monmey pool can hook, the stronger its income stream — and the longer : becaue 30 year and 40 year mortgages commit a debtor way beyond the term of most business infestment.

There is no way to escape the enormous inequality that today exists between creditor money and debtor indebtedness. Today’s debtors live mostly from paycheck to paycheck and do not have any prospect of paying off their indebtedness. And it is not on;py house debt. The amount of studebnt loan debt keeps on rising, and as it — unlike house debt =– cannot be discharged in a bankrupytcy, it rebders its dbetors indentured srvants to the stiudent loan grantors. And were do you suppose the money comes from to pay college administratiors seven-figure salaries, or to fund the cutting edge education that businesses now dmand of their new hires ? Thus the economy of today takies its shape : assets intolerably overpriced, consumers burdened to the limit by those intolerable overprices.

But it all began with the house price boom. And how will it end, other than by destroying the entire credit economy ? it won’t. Bankrupting today’s creditor class would wipe out every part of the American economy beyond survival and subsistence.

We can raise the minimum wage, and we can cut interest rates on student debt. But we cannot make houses or education vastly cheaper without crippling the incomes of those who work in education and housing. We can loosen the low-pay strangle, relieve some debt, and bring on the innovation economy; and we should. None of it, however, resolves the fundamental imbalance, the economic unsustainability of the house price bulk boom, the immovability of credit.

—- Mike Freedberg / Here and Sphere

ANNALS OF THE ECONOMY : THERE’S A BANGLADESH IN YOUR FUTURE

 

Image

^ what “job creation” really means : The Bangladesh-ization of America

—- —- —-

Not since the Plessy v. Ferguson, “separate but equal,’ 1896 decision has a Supreme Court decision done as much damage to the moral structure of our America as Citizens United. By opening the arena to flooding by billions of secret, mostly selfish, anarchic dollars, this decision has put democracy itself under attack. I am hardly the first editorial writer to say this; worse is that I’m surely not going to be the last. Almost every event since that decision was made shows huge disconect between what our people need and what governments are doing about it, because the vast billions given the green light have moved ruthlessly to capture as many governments as they can and to stymie the rest as much as possible.

Those billions could not have done their destruct without the votes of millions to get destruction elected. How did this happen ? How did the Koch Brothers become the effective demlons of our time ? Dedicated to deconstructing the Anerican economy as we know it, impoverishing the already poor, making vulnerable many millions more, and curbing the civil rights of all ? Can that many voters really be induced to vote against their own fundamental interests ?

Yes they can.

Similar happened in 1933-38 in Germany. The method used was to scapegoat “the other” — first the Jews and the Communosts, then the labor unions, then press and speech freedoms, churches, liberty itself. Always the word was “we are freeing Germany of influences alien to our Fatherland.”

No like madness yet portends here in America. Diversity is us, it is part of our national epic. We are all immigrants, and we celebrate “e pluribus unum” — one out of many. Democracy, too, seems as fundamental to our politics as food to our stomachs. All of us at least profess voting to be the single most basic civil right. And yet….

Consider that, in many states, all that stands between basic rights and the denial of them is Federal Courts. In those states — all of them under the power of “Republican” governments — a torrent of laws has been enacted that (1) impose religion agendas on education, women’s health, and personal lives (2) make it more difficult for low-income people to vote (3) burden lower income workers with sales taxes, lighten the taxes of high income earners (4) deny health insurance coverage to people Medicaid eligible (5) harrass undocumented immigrants (6) refuse to do basic infrastructure repair and (7) cut social services to families in need. Federal Courts have done heroic work overturning many such laws as unconstitutional, yet even so, the damage lasted for the long time it took to win a Court decision.

The only way such a government could be elected is by persuading a majority that those whom it views as a problem are a minority, a small minority, and that lie for the majorioty will be better once that minority is cast out.

I do mean “cast out.” The goal of such governments is, first, to get as much as possible of “the minority” to leave the state, just as Black Americans left the Jim Crow, lynch law South in huge millions of numbers 60 years ago and more. The second purpose, as uring Jim Crow, is to intimidate those who stay so they will work for pittance wages.

One thing only has changed : the methods. 100 years ago the means was terror — and lynching was as terrible as it gets. Today the means is to scapegoat a minority and then use the atx and safety net powers of statre government to impoverish that minority into political impotence. In a political system completely ruled by money, those who have none have no political power. Very simple.

The masters of the Southern — and Plains — states now ruled by secret “opportunity” billions will tell you that they want to make their states as tax friendly and wage-low as possible so as to draw in businesses seeking low-cost everything. They will tell you that such businesses are “job creators.” Myself, I see them as job destroyers. The good-paying jobs, they eliminate. as for the low-pay work, who wants work that pays almost nothing, in a state that won’t provide you any kind of public assistance to supplement your less than survival wages ?

Yet the economy policy under way in states like Louisiana, Kansas, North Carolina, and Alabama has a point : to make these states a kind of Bangladesh or Malaysia, where workers get paid next to nothing and live on nothing in slave-labor factories making goods for sale in high-income economies. This is what the “job creators” mean when they talk aboiut bringing back manufacturing jobs to America. Why NOT create a Bangladesh right here if you can do so ?

As our society splits between low earners and the very high income — as middle earning jobs disappear and, with them, the businesses that serve middle incomes — it kind of makes sense for a state hundreds of miles from America’s high-income coasts to become a Malaysia of coolies crowding into factories making high-end goods for export to New York, Massachusetts, California, Baltimore-Washington, and Seattle. And believe me, that is how it is going to be. The tycoons who run basic goods-making firms don’t really want to depend on factories thousands of miles away in countries whose govenments are corrupt and beyond the tycoons’ power. Why do that, when you can tycoon right here in states run by you and whose voters — those allowed to be such — are grateful to have even the nothing jobs you offer, because the state they live in won’t fund or make affordable the education you need to seek a better paying job ? After all, were they do do that, they might just do it : get that taxpayer-funded education and then leave the state for where the good jobs are.

There is a kind of perverse strength in being at the bottom. The bottom has economic advantages — which is why there Is a bottom at all. It perpetuates itself, almost impervious to raising up, because raising up would destroy it.

As for the technology jobs which pay so well, yes : you will find technology centers in some Bangladesh states. North carolina has a large technology corridor, as does Texas. In both states, however, technology districts gather around higher education institutions — the core of whatever effective political opposition exists therein. It can’t be helped. Even a Bangladesh state needs communication infrastructure competitive world-wide. An American Bangladesh state can tolerate this level of political opposition. It hasn’t anywhere near a majority of the votes, and its entrepreneurs are too attuned to the huge financial demands of maintaining their technological edge.

Image

^ technology jobs ; for the intellectual mandarins needed even by Bangladesh States

Robert Reich, in his ongoing Facebook status editorials, sees the economic consequences of political stymie and the political consequences of economic inequality. So far, however, he does not seem to have recognized how the two forces are likely to evolve into an America divided between coolies and mandarins — Bangladesh versus Hong Kong, Malaysia against South Korea. (Or Shanghai, China, versus China’s hinterlands. Or Sao Paulo, Brazil versus the favelas of Rio.) Perhaps Reich just lacks an answer; if so, I share his lack. These are huge economic changes, historic, maybe the most important events going on in the world right now, changes which no nation or coalition of countries is likely to evade for much longer.

The middle class that made democracy possible and equality more than a pipe dream is losing all its gains these past 150 years — retreating to its origins, 1000 years back, in the professions : teaching, lawyering, medicine, government advisors. That was a powerful middle class, but a small one, vital to governance but politically at the mercy of kings, podestas, and Popes. That sort of middle class, devoid of well-paid manufacture and service, is what the future holds. Your grandkids’ America is very unlikley to be anything like yours.

—- Mike Freedberg / Here and Sphere

BOSTON POLS : CAUCUS — WARD 20 ; AMBITION — 5TH SUFFOLK

Image

^basic democracy : Democratic state chairman Tom McGee of Lynn instructs West Roxbury’s ward 20 caucus

—- —- —-

There may be secret money in the Big Picture, but at the small level where actual people live, vote, and run for office, the money doesn’t taint. Whether it’s caucusing in West Roxbury or manoeuvering a run for State Representative in Dorchester, you find politics basic, the real deal, activism for its own sake. So it was, this morning at Boston Ward 20’s Democratic Party caucus, attended by almost 200 people. So it has been the past two days, since the House expelled Carlos Henriquez, leaving the 5th Suffolk State Representative seat vacant awaiting seekers.

But first, the caucus. I chose Ward 20’s because it is Boston’s biggest voting ward; many were sure to attend to elect 29 delegates to the Democratic convention. The caucus met in the community room at West Roxbury’s Police Station. Attendees and candidate volunteers filled every nook — the hallway too. The State Party chairman was there, Tom McGee of Lynn; so were two competing slates of delegates, a Don Berwick group led by Helen Bello — who hosted the huge Berwick house party that I wrote about recently — and a Juliette Kayyem list led by an old friend, Paul Nevins, an employment lawyer. A group of independent names was nominated too, well known people sure to draw votes on name alone; and attendees voted as much for names they knew as for any slate; there wasn’t at all the structure that I had expected of this meeting. It seemed as much a meet and greet as an election.

Image

^ Ward 20 state Representative Ed Coppinger discusses matters with Here and Sphere follower Michelle Von Vogler

There was voting, but mostly there was conversation as faces familiar or new worked the room. State Senator Mike Rush was there, as was West Roxbury State Representative Ed Coppinger. Governor candidate Martha Coakley worked the room for about 20 minutes, then left. District Attorney Dan Conley shook hands. So did Congressman Steve Lynch. Old friends Carole White (Kevin White’s sister in law) and Marilyn LaRosa were elected; I noticed Helen Greaney in the room and Greg Haugh also — two other Haugh’s sought election as delegates — and Ann Murphy, still glamorous as ever, now working as an aide to Mike Rush. A couple of Boston Teachers Union activists signed in — but I did not see Ward 20’s biggest BTU name, Ed Doherty — and people from both the Connolly and Walsh mayor campaigns.

Circulating as well were four who ran last year for City Council : local resident Marty Keogh, Jack Kelly, and winners Steve Murphy and Michelle Wu. It was a “good hit,” as pols say of an event well worth being seen at.

UPDATE ON DELEGATES ELECTED : Thanks to Rob for posting to me the entire list, mostly of the usual Ward 20 activists (including two Haugh’s and a BTU active, City Council candidate Marty Keogh, a Marty Walsh cabinet member — Alejandra St. Guillen — and at least one State Employee) and two Don Berwick delegates. Take a look :

Female Delegates:
Alyssa Ordway – 75 votes
Carole White – 74
Ann Cushing – 71
Cathy Fumara – 68
Helen Haugh – 68
Diana Orthman – 68
Marilyn LaRosa – 65
Patricia Malone – 65
Anita Salmu – 65
Margaret Sullivan – 63
Josiane Martinez – 60
Alejandra St. Guillen – 59
Sue Anderson – 58
Heather Bello – 26
Hema Kailasam – 21
Jennifer McGoldrick (Alternate)
Pamela Keogh (Alternate)

Male Delegates:
Robert Orthman – 69 votes
David Isberg – 66
Steve Smith – 66
Marty Keogh – 65
Bill Smith – 64
Kevin Walsh – 64
Bill MacGregor – 63
George Donahue – 62
Joe Haugh – 60
John Fumara – 59
Leo Connell – 58
Tom Hanktankis – 58
Patrick Murray – 58
Larry Connolly – 56
Bob Tumposky – 56

(UPDATED 02/09/14 at 10.45 AM)

—- —- —-

And now to the 5th Suffolk District, in Dorchester, where the expulsion of Carlos Henriquez has left a gaping hole…

Image

will he be the first Uphams Corner state Rep since Jim Hart 40 years ago ? John Barros may become a candidate in the 5th Suffolk special election… But so might the woman pictured below, Karen Charles of the Bowdoin-Geneva neighborhood :

Image

The 5th Suffolk State Representative seat in the Massachusetts House won’t be vacant for long. Already the hungry are circling, impatient, guessing and out-guessing. The big news is that John Barros, who ran for mayor last year and impressed many, is seriously considering a run. Barros lives in the heart of the District, owns a successful restaurant in it,. and would be an elite voice for 40,000 people very much in need of one. Barros is not, however, the only notable who is thinking publicly about running. There’s also Karen Charles, who works at WGBH (full disclosure : WGBH’s Peter Kadzis was my editor at the Boston Phoenix and remains a friend professionally and personally), and who, with her husband Kevin Peterson, an NAACP activist, make a formidable team of articulate reformers and who are said to be close to Charlotte Golar-Richie, who once represented the 5th Suffolk, still lives in it, and who was, like Barros, a candidate in last year’s Mayor campaign.

In that Mayor campaign, Barros won 2,072 votes in the 5th District’s 20 precincts; Golar-Richie won 1,465. Barros thus starts with a 600 vote advantage. That isn’t the entire story, though, Felix Arroyo won 570 votes in the District; and Carlos Henriquez, of Hispanic origin like Arroyo, is said to intend running again to reclaim his seat. Even if he does not run, the 570 Arroyo votes seem up for grabs, not to mention the 313 won by Charles Yancey and the 495 won by John Connolly. (Marty Walsh’s 640 votes might split between Barros and a Golar-Richie-backed candidate, as both she and Barros helped Walsh win the Final).

That said, Barros certainly would enter the race as the favorite no matter who else decides to run — including Henriquez himself. The two men are said to be close friends as well as political allies, and some speculate that if Henriquez runs — and he probably will — Barros will not. We shall see. Whatever the case may happen, this is a District that badly needs an A-list voice. It has always had a working-class majority even in the days, not too long ago, when much of it was Roxbury Red Raider country. The “5th” includes the entire Bowdoin-Geneva neighborhood, one of Boston’s most impacted by gang violence; a stretch of Blue Hill Avenue that Red Raiders knew as “Cherry Valley,” once almost entirely blighted but, of late, enjoying the beginnings of a resurgence (as anyone familiar with local hot-spot Merengue Restaurant knows); Upham’s Corner and half of Jones Hill (where I had my first adult job, working as go-fer to state Rep. Jim Hart); and, of Roxbury, the north side of Dudley Side from Hibernian Hall eastward, all the way past the Governor Shirley mansion to and including “the Prairie” ball field (where Red Raider teams played Park League baseball and football). None of the district is high-income; not much of it is middle-income. Everyone benefits from having an eloquent and respected voice in the legislature, but the people of the 5th Suffolk would benefit more than most.

There will be a special election to fill the vacancy. It will be called soon — the date of it as yet unknown but probably early May. It will be a short campaign, a local effort, politics at its most basic and not much different from that Ward 20 caucus that I attended this morning. More voters to reach, yes, but not much more structure. It also looks now to be the most attention-getting time that the 40,000 people of the “5th” have gained in many, many years if ever. Let the democracy of it begin.

—- Mike Freedberg / Here and Sphere

MISDEMEANORS TO THE FORE : THE HOUSE EXPELS CARLOS HENRIQUEZ

Image
^ “impaired judgment” ? the 5th Suffolk’s Carlos Henriquez addressing the Massachusetts house during debate on expelling him

—- —- —-

Not very often do you see a Legislature vote to expel a member. It hasn’t happened in Massachusetts since the late 1970s, when State Senator Joseph DiCarlo was booted for taking bribes. I well remember that day. DiCarlo was a boisterous, dominant presence, the Senate’s majority leader. His crime was a felony, a high crime by any legislature’s definition. Expelling him was a big deal, a giant of politics crashing and burning.

In contrast, yesterdays 146 to 5 vote — to accept the House Ethics Committee’s unanimous resolution to expel the 5th Suffolk District’s Carlos Henriquez — seemed like small potatoes. Yes, his conviction on two misdemeanor counts of assault and battery on a woman was serious. He should have resigned. Had he any concern for the well-being of his 40,000 constituents, many of them needing a full-time legislative voice, he WOULD have resigned. Of this affair he has made many statements. He is innocent, he says — again and again. Not once has he grasped that that isn’t the point ; that the point is his 40,000 constituents. Not once, in his “I am innocent” statement on the floor of the house yesterday did he address a bigger picture. Indeed, he had the temerity to say that domestic violence is a serious crime and cannot be tolerated !

Having delivered this message, he then walked out of the House, an insult to every member and, I suppose, intended as such.

Debate on the Ethics Resolution — H. 3894 — lasted more than an hour. Speaker DeLeo, on whose complaint the Ethics Committee was acting — seemed ready to let his members speak as long as they liked. Several did. Most supported the committee recommendation, some sadly, a few angrily. Over the top was Malden’s Chris Fallon, who shouted his disapproval of domestic violence, very much the candidate — as he is — seeking a state Senate seat, the one vacated by newly elected Congresswowman Katherine Clark.

Image

^ cogently arguing for censure, not expulsion : Russell Holmes of the 6th Suffolk District

Representative Russell Holmes, of the 6th Suffolk District bordering Henriquez’s 5th, offered an amendment to the Ethics Committee’s resolution. He asked that the House censure Henriquez, not expel him. Holmes’s amendment made two strong points : that with parole, Henriquez will be out of jail by mid April, well before a special election to replace him occurs; and that his crime did not explicitly violate the House Rules and thus could not warrant expulsion.

Image

^ “this is a sad day for us all, i don;t enjoy this task at all” : Ethics Committee Acting  Chairman David Nangle of Lowell

The Ethics Committee’s finding, that Henriquez had violated Rule 16A, which addresses a member’s impaired judgment, did seem strained. Arguing the point, Reps. Garrett Bradley and David Nangle (acting Ethics Chairman) asserted that, being convicted of a crime of domestic violence, Henriquez’s ability to judge domestic violence legislation was impaired. Really ? if anything, his judgment on such legislation has probably become more acute. As for Henriquez being free of jail by mid-April, Bradley and Nangle argued that that was not the point; that Henriquez is quite free to seek re-election to his seat and to be allowed to take his seat if elected.

They’re right on this. It has happened in other legislatures, including Congress.

Yet even if the Ethics Committee’s Rule 16A argument stretched things, there was a general sense in the House that Henriquez no longer had any credibility to address domestic violence matters and that, by his continued insistence on innocence and not resigning, Henriquez had impaired his own judgment on the matter. Representative Ted Speliotis of Danvers voiced the feelings of many when he noted that, by walking out before the end of debate, Henriquez had insulted the “institution.”

No one, not even Russell Holmes, argued with the Ethics Committee’s finding that domestic violence is a serious matter and cannot be taken lightly by the House. Accepting this argument, the House now deems expulsion no longer limited to felonies; that a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence is full grounds for expelling a member. As Representative Bradley said, “we’ve never faced this situation before, this is a case of first impression.”

But to return to Russell Holmes’s amendment : it was defeated with only 10 members voting “Yes.” Among the Yeas were Representatives Gloria Fox, Byron Rushing, Carl Sciortino, Denise Provost, Holmes himself, Benjamin Swan, John Rogers, and Angelo Scaccia.

Holmes himself said that Henriquez should have resigned. Little wonder that the actual expulsion vote was even more one sided. Voting not to expel were only Carl Sciortino, Denise Provost, Gloria Fox, Benjamin Swan and, after some hesitation, Holmes too.

A special election for the 5th Suffolk District has been called.

—- Mike Freedberg / Here and Sphere

IN CHARLESTOWN : EVERETT MAYOR CARLO DE MARIA WINS AT WYNN CASINO MEETING

Image

Three hundred people, at least, attended last night’s Wynn Casino public meeting at Charlestown High School. The meeting lasted more than two hours, as representatives of the Wynn project spoke, then City of Boston officials and consultants, then local elected officials and residents.

Much was explained, about traffic flow and overflow, new uses of Sullivan Square — which is slated for extensive reconfiguring, dredging of the Mystic River, disposal of contaminated dredgings, public transportation, and noise impacts. Consultants illustrated their concerns about traffic queuing; Boston Transportation Commissioner Jim Gillooly weighed in on Sullivan Square’s competing outcomes ; District Councillor Sal LaMattina expressed that it was “very insulting that you (Wynn) don’t have an answer to the traffic problem.” A Wynn representative answered LaMattina : “It’s a 100 million expense that makes the project unfeasible. Others cause much of the traffic.”

Image

^ “very insulting that you haven’t solved the traffic problem” — District Councillor Sal LaMattina

Image

^ “would you prefer a stadium ? More people, no mitigation ?” — Mayor Carlo deMaria of Everett, the Wynn casino’s host city

And so it went. then came Everett Mayor Carlo deMaria, who, for me, commanded the night’s key moment. “You know,” said deMaria — reminding the audience that he had Charlestown relatives too and that “many of your families live in Everett” — “there’s noises and smells coming from both sides of the (Mystic) River. This project is the best for all of us. Mitigation and jobs.” Then deMaria delivered the bomb : “Others have approached me about use of that land ; scrap yards, a stadium — the New England Revolution wants to build a stadium there. Many more people. No mitigation.”

Sometimes it takes a slap down that painful to get a message across to people who fear the future. “Hey,” deMaria was telling them, “I’m the Mayor over there, 92 % of my people voted for this, I am gonna do it, and if you say no, I will build a stadium that you will like even less.”

The audience got the message. Some residents spoke in favor of the Wynn plan. As one resident said, “Wynn is the best casino operator we have.” Another pointed out that casino traffic was mainly nighttime, not rush hour. Of other objections to the Wynn casino, little was heard. It was Carlo deMaria’s night. And Steve Wynn’s.

—- Mike Freedberg / Here and Sphere