^ Dan Conley : tons of money being spent, but not much of it appears newly raised

—- —- —

Money being the life blood of political campaigns, let us see who has how much life, at least as reported to the Office of Campaign finance. The totals listed below represent money RAISED for the period September 7th  through this morning. They do NOT represent cash on hand:

Marty Walsh ………………… 80,167.02

John Connolly ………………  42,810.00

Dan Conley ………………….  27,853.55 (NOTE : Conley also reported 285,465.33 which, according to my sources, represents money that he already had, not new funds newly raised)

Charlotte Golar-Richie …   24,898.89

Bill Walczak ………………..   14,846.00

Mike Ross ………………….    14,355.00

John F. Barros ……………     12,612.69

(NOTE : I could find no new deposit reports filed by these candidates  Rob Consalvo, Charles Yancey, Charles Clemons, or David Wyatt. For Felix G. Arroyo, see UPDATE below.)

It is difficult without a poll in place to tell who will finish in what place in the September 24th primary. that said, is there anyone who will seriously argue that the top four money raisers listed above are also likely to finish top four, though not necessarily in the order shown, in the Primary ?

—- Michael Freedberg / Here and Sphere

UPDATE Sept 14, 2013 at 2.00 PM :  In the past 27 hours the following candidate deposits have been reported —

Marty Walsh —–  42,768.50

Dan Conley —-      32,675.00

Charlotte Golar-Richie —- 8,093.76

Felix G. Arroyo — 6,004.07

Mike Ross —– 1,520.00

^ the gang’s all here : sexual tension in the mumble world of “Drinking Buddies”

—- —- —-

What happens when your best friend and co-worker is a member of the opposite sex and you’re hopelessly attracted to them but can’t pursue anything because you’re in a long-term relationship heading towards matrimony? That’s the plucky situ that Joe Swanberg’s neo-slacker essay plumbs, and it gets even more complicated when Kate (Olivia Wilde) and Luke (Jake Johnson) bring their significant others along for a couples get away in the woods. In the middle of the night, after some silly drinking games, the two, who both work at a Chicago micro-brewery, sneak down to the beach and forge a raging bonfire. The sexual tension’s aflame too, a veritable tinder box of unrequited passion, needy and raw and open to that game changing spark. You might feel sorry for their SOs, but they’re not so innocent themselves; earlier in the day, Jill (Anna Kendrick) and Chris (Ron Livingston) went out for a hike, drank some wine and after an awkward conversation about love, life and fulfillment, also rolled perilously close to the precipice of crossing over.

If there’s one thing painfully obvious (“My Best Friend’s Wedding” obvious), it’s that Luke and Kate are meant to be together; thankfully, Swanberg, who was one of the early adaptors of mumblecore filmmaking (the lo-fi indie film movement where production values, most notably sound, play second fiddle to the visceral and ideological elements), along with the Duplass brothers (“Puffy Chair”) and Andrew Bujalski (“Funny Ha Ha”), is after something a bit more nuanced and un-Hollywood. For inexplicable reasons Chris leaves Kate which further enables Kate and Luke’s hop-infused brew-mance. The pair, along with other vat rats from work, spend many a late night lighting up the dingy side of Chicago, while Jill, conveniently a teacher by trade, sits at home toiling away on art projects for her special needs students.

The crescendo of consequence seems ripe for revelation, but not all batches of brew are crisp and golden, and this one goes sour when Kate begins to find her sexual liberation (by bedding other men) and Luke, normally the hip jokester, doesn’t quite know how to react. It’s a piquant conundrum of conflict to chomp into, but then again, we’re tagging along with largely un-anchored people, who, with the exception of needing the structure of a (any) nine-to-five and a best friend or convenient SO to make their daily meandering meaningful, don’t seem to have any discernible dreams for the future, not even a bungee jump or a Pacific crossing to see the Great Wall of China. And here Swanberg’s unbridled character exploration begins to sag under the weight of its subjects’ pouty malaise.

Don’t get me wrong, Swanberg’s a competent director and committed to his game. He’s cranked out more than a dozen flicks since 2005 and prolifically appears in other mumblecore and mumble-horror directors’ films–most recently as an uptight yuppie in “You’re Next”. If you look back at Swanberg’s career, many of his early slacker-themed films like “Hannah Takes the Stairs” (which stared Mark Duplass, Bujalski and Greta Gerwig) center around disenfranchised young adults seeking self-gratification. “Drinking Buddies,” beyond some foamy frivolity, takes a slightly older generation and goes down a path beyond ‘the me’ and into the realm of commitment, responsibility and family.

The secret yeast that makes “Buddies” ferment and keeps it sharp is Wilde. She’s done her share of being a sultry side dish (“TRON: Legacy”), but here she’s able to showcase a verve and range few might have thought possible. Johnson too, best known from TV’s “New Girl,” with his darting eyes and sly smile, is apple to effortlessly connote character through the awkward conflict of his facial features. Unfortunately, the normally redoubtable Kendrick (“Up in the Air”) and curmudgeonly Livingstone (“Office Space”) have less to work with. Their characters feel like props, lazily constructed puppets imbued with domineering asexual unattractiveness to underscore the inevitability of Luke and Kate. At times it feels like a cheap trick, but in the end, Swanberg has the last laugh as the film ties up on a surprising and contemplative high note.

Just perhaps, the maestro of mumblecore is ready for the mainstream?
— Tom Meek / Meek at the Movies

^ Marty Walsh : passion and resolve, as always, detailed well

—- —- —-

The 200 or so NAACP activists who waited patiently for their Forum to begin — it was delayed by a prior debate event — were not disappointed. Simply put, this Forum was “best in show.’ Excellent questions were asked by the moderator, a well-known Suffolk University history professor, and almost all the 12 hopefuls responded with their most persuasive presentations this writer had yet heard from them.

That Marty Walsh and John Connolly, the two perceived leaders, argued eloquently for their candidacies, and in masterful detail, was no surprise. They’re the leaders of this campaign for a reason. Mike Ross, too, put his idealism into words of reformist eloquence. What we did not expect was to see Dan Conley and Rob Consalvo, often absent at these Forums, demonstrate that they, too, know what the job entails, what in it they intend to change, and why. Conley and Consalvo were matched, almost, by Charlotte Golar-Richie, who made several key points by John Barros, who with time given, explained his vision convincingly; and even by Charles Clemons, who spoke with passion his commitment to see the administration of Boston “look and speak like the city, it’s about time.” Bill Walczak managed to address every question asked of him without uttering his “no casino” mantra. And Charles Yancey, who often seems merely along for the ride, challenged many of his competitors — City Council council colleagues in particular — on point, with passion, and sometimes conclusively. Where has this Yancey been hiding these past two months ?

Candidates were divided into three groups of four, each of which was asked different questions, albeit on the same topic, which were: the economy, education, and public safety.

The moderator also addressed a general question to all: “If you are elected, what will that mean for the city ?” To which Marty Walsh gave perhaps the strongest answer : “My cabinet will reflect the (entire) city of Boston, including the top echelon and my police commissioner. (I’ll have) a chief diversity officer. (I see) City hall as an incubator for young people.” John Connolly, to be fair, made his “education Mayor” theme count in this context : “I’m a former teacher who has taught kids from every region of Boston. I will be a bold leader for every Bostonian, but it starts with our schools. i will transform our schools !”

^ John Connolly : stuck to his education theme, but it’s a good one, and he applies it well to most questions

Other candidates missed the point and talked not of promoting a racially and gender-diverse City Administration — including the Police higher-ups — at every level but of of delivering city services equally to every part of the City. Delivery of services does matter, but it’s not the core issue of race and gender as these play out in Boston City Hall.

Of the three economy questions: Dan Conley answered his question, about minority businesses, best ; “(I propose) a second chance, after the bidding process, to give inner city businesses a second chance (at winning contracts).” John Barros gave the best answer to his question, about connectivity between kids from Dudley Square and innovation in Cambridge ; “We have 1000 jobs in the medical area that we can’t fill ! We can do this. (and) We need goals and programs for contractors. (Performance) bonding is an issue for them, they need accessibility to bonding.”

^ Dan Conley : showed knowledge, plans, and much command of what is needed

The third candidate group was asked about under-employment among communities of color. Arroyo gave the best answer : “extend the school day to include arts and music….the ‘invest in Boston program’ needs to be used. It has a billion dollars, let;s use it !” Applause greeted his answer.

^ Felix G. Arroyo ; not always at his best, but when he was, applause showed he knows what the voters want

The three education questions found Connolly ready and eager, answering a question about Boston showing a declining percentage of its teachers being of color : “Mentoring is important to getting students to decide they want to become teachers. Nothing is changing here, though. I am going to break down the dysfunctional bureaucracy at Court Street !” But John Barros’s answer bested Connolly’s : “we’re not even meeting the 1975 goals (established by the Federal Court). need to do three things : create robust recruitment of teachers; develop it; and show leadership in all four economies (levels) that our schools confront.”

Asked, “what are you looking for in a next superintendent, the third group of four’s strongest — if controversial — answer was Consalvo’s : “I don’t want the charter school cap lifted. we must focus on the Boston public schools. My super must be committed to the public schools. No outside group taking over and privatizing our schools !”

^ Rob Consalvo : finally, some passion and some specifics, well argued.

Last came the public safety questions. Marty Walsh’s answer was one of the strongest given by any candidate to any question : “As soon as I take over. The higher (police) ranks need to look like the neighborhood. There’s a problem with trust. Being a police officer is a good career, it pays well. (But) young people need to be ready to take that civil service test. They must…the hierarchy of the Boston Police department must — will — look like the city !” Much applause greeted this answer.

Charlotte Golar-Richie then delivered her campaign theme and a knockout blow in one superb question: “There isn’t one police captain who is female. Don’t you think it’s about time we changed that ?” Laughter and applause greeted its truth.

^ Charlotte Golar-Richie : “don’t you think it’s time we changed that ?”

Connolly focused not on the police department but on youth and violence : “Every killing there’s also survivors, the family. For them it never ends. We need to have public vigils to remember the victim. Long term ? It’s about mental health and school transformation. Schools are the way to opportunity.”

The next group of for was asked about the police commissioner, Consalvo and Walczak praised Ed Davis, the current commissioner. Arroyo ducked the personal point and focused on accountability : “15 of my current 19 campaign and office staff are of color or female. Judge me on what I am doing now !”

The twelve were then given one minute to sum up. Most spoke well, some eloquently. Yancey’s summation was the strongest speech I have heard from him. He affirmed his long Council experience — “30 years !” — as if it were his campaign theme (it is). He also cited education credentials, including a degree in public administration from Harvard. This son of long time Boston PTA voice Alice Yancey, whom I remember well as a strong leader for better school performance, finally lived up — rhetorically, anyway — to the assertive mastery his Mom always showed in public meetings. So where has this Charles Yancey been all these months ? It is very strange. as strange as the quiet, almost absent performance of David Wyatt, who seems more given to a soft sigh of resignation than to a candidacy he, after all, had to adventure upon; only to, now somehow, reject entirely. It’s almost that he wishes there were no such thing as a Mayor and a campaign.Very, very odd, is David Wyatt, an educator — and a Stoic.

—- Michael Freedberg / Here and Sphere

^ to slap a bad guy or not to slap ? the President has made it clear.

Three weeks ago Here and Sphere addressed the issue of Syria — of what, if any, should our nation’s response be to Bashir Assad’s uses of chemical weapons upon his own population, civilians almost all. We supported a response aerial only.

Today we reaffirm that position. We know now even more certainly that Assad, who tortures his people in “torture centers” — 27 of them, according to news accounts — and wages war upon them, has used chemical weapons on civilians numerous timnes. There is no reason to posit that he won’t do so again, as often as he likes, if no one does anything to stop him.

Death by chemical weapons — sarin gas, mostly — is slow and horribly painful. Of course, for a man whose torturers day after day inflict hurt and mutilation upon people to the point that they beg for death, killing by sarin gas is just another day at the office. Assad is a brute whose crimes, if we can believe the New York Times accounts, approach, maybe even surpass, those of the late Saddam Hussein. If even half of what has been reported is true, he is a war criminal every bit as criminal as those of Nazi Germany; he needs to be captured and tried at The Hague International Court.

That said, the ouster of Bashir Assad is an issue for another day. In the civil war that now rages over Syria, the U.S. can play no clear role. Assad is at war with a bewildering varierty of rebel factions, some of which would rule at least as lethally as he does. This war might go on for years.

Our responsibility here is simply to defend international rules of war — yes, there are such; no war can be allowed to be total — primary among which is the protection of civilians who have to live, or try to live, lives inundated by combat going on all around them. The international community also defends combatants from the worst of war crimes. That’s why the Geneva Convention exists, a protocol signed by almost every nation, including ourselves; it’s the Geneva Convention that first established a category called “war crime.” At Nuremburg in 1946, we and the other nations victorious in World war II, held a tribunal to adjudge defendants guilt or innocence of war crimes. Nuremburg wasn’t perfect, but it established a precedent that even when people go to war, civilization oversees their combat.

Thus we, the U.S., have every right to respond to Assad’s use of chemical weapons. We should do so. The question is, how ? And when ?

When, we assert, is NOW. This morning Saudi Arabia and Qatar signed on to our doing so. So has Germany. France was already aboard. None of these nations may deliver retaliation themsleves, but that is okay; we can do that. What we need is the approbation of nations, and now we have it.

As for the “how,” we say this: find Assad’s chemical weapons dumps and strike them. Eliminate the weapons. Eliminate the factories in which they are made.

Israel has already done it — more than once. When Israel intelligence found chemical weapons being transported toward Hezbollah’s redoubts in the Lebanese mountains, its air force struck. We can do the same and more.

Of course the long debate has given Assad tons of time to move his chemo and cloak his chemo factories. But they can be found. The rebels can find them — will find them. Once found, they should be struck, quickly.

That is all that we should do. We should play no part in this horrific civil war except to defend the international community and its standards; nor has President Obama called for any such involvement. As he and Secretary Kerry rightfully insist, the ultimate fate of Assad will be decided by Syrians.

—- Michael Freedberg