Blaming Twinkies
The man accused of attacking BU Professor Elie Wiesel is reportedly
"receiving counseling and medication to treat bipolar disorder, defense lawyer
John M. Runfola said." Runfola said the incident "came about as a result of a
psychiatric condition and not anti-Semitism and hatred." (Terence Chea,
"Wiesel's assailant to face hate case," Boston Globe, Associated Press, August
22, 2007) Flip Wilson blamed the devil. Lawyers blame mental illness.
Here is one more example of pervasive irrational "belief" among lawyers,
prosecutors and police. There is no evidence of a causal connection between
accusations of mental illness and crime. Lack of facts never stopped lawyers
from making it up as they go.
Psychiatry permits judges to avoid accountability. Psychiatry is a
lucrative system of punishment without due process protections. Permitting
charlatans in the psychiatric industry to declare the reason for crime lightens
the load of judges and lawyers.
Creating illnesses and predicting the future is an art form which has no
place in the courts which claim to be a place for rational justice.
Roy Bercaw, Editor, ENOUGH ROOM
Wiesel's assailant to face hate case
Lawyer blames mental illness
Boston Globe
By Terence Chea,
Associated Press
August 22, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO -- The man accused of stalking Nobel laureate and Boston
University professor Elie Wiesel and dragging the Holocaust scholar out of a
hotel elevator earlier this year was ordered yesterday to stand trial on hate
crimes charges.
A San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled there was enough evidence to try Eric
Hunt, 23, on six felony charges including attempted battery, stalking,
kidnapping, false imprisonment, elder abuse, and false imprisonment of an elder.
Each charge carries a hate crime allegation.
Wiesel, 78, who chronicled his experiences as a Jewish teenager at two Nazi
death camps in the book "Night," told authorities he was accosted in February by
a young man who asked him for an interview at San Francisco's Argent Hotel, then
dragged him off an elevator.
Wiesel began screaming, and the man fled. Hunt was arrested later that month.
Police said someone posted remarks on an anti-Semitic website claiming to have
perpetrated the attack.
Hunt has pleaded not guilty. He is being held in a psychiatric unit of San
Francisco County jail, where he is receiving counseling and medication to treat
bipolar disorder, defense lawyer John M. Runfola said.
Runfola said the incident "came about as a result of a psychiatric condition and
not anti-Semitism and hatred."
Hunt was ordered to appear at a Sept. 4 hearing to enter a new plea and receive
a trial date.
The judge also set a Sept. 6 hearing for lawyers, mental health specialists, and
a judge to determine if Hunt's case should be handled in Behavioral Health
Court, which seeks alternatives to incarceration for mentally ill offenders.
The district attorney's office reserves the right to decide whether the case
should go to the alternative court system, and prosecutor Alan Kennedy said
yesterday it is inappropriate for Hunt's case.
August 26, 2007
Negligent Public Officials
Negligent Public Officials
[This letter was published in the Boston Herald on August 30, 2007]
It is curious that 34 years after the Rehabilitation Act and 17 years after
the Americans with Disabilities Act became law, a state agency forces a city
government to comply with basic access to the right to travel. (Marie Szaniszlo,
"Disabled rip Hub’s $320G sidewalk," Boston Herald, August 26, 2007) The many
years of the violations of that right for thousands of Boston citizens and
visitors remain unaddressed.
The City's liberal leaders focus on providing goods and services to illegal
aliens while American citizens with disabilities cannot use the sidewalks. Again
taxpayers pay for the negligence, wrongdoing and malfeasance of public
officials. Is this a hypocrisy or a democracy? The hackarama is the "Spending
Other People's Money Society."
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor, ENOUGH ROOM
Disabled rip Hub’s $320G sidewalk
By Marie Szaniszlo
Boston Herald
Sunday, August 26, 2007 - Updated: 01:28 AM EST
Meet the most expensive patch of sidewalk in Boston: $320,000 and counting.
The state Department of Public Safety’s Architectural Access Board has
fined the Hub $500 a day since Nov. 30, 2005, for an uneven, sloping stretch of
brick on Huntington Avenue, part of what advocates for the disabled denounce as
a pattern of violations in the city that puts them at risk.
“The irony is if the city had just made sure the sidewalk was repaired
the right way in the beginning, it would have cost taxpayers a fraction of that
amount and people like me who use wheelchairs wouldn’t have to risk getting
hit by a car by riding in the street,” said John Kelly of the Neighborhood
Access Group, which filed the complaint with the board.
Advocates note that under state law, the horizontal slope of a sidewalk
cannot be more than 2 percent; in some spots, the slope of the 4-year-old
Huntington Avenue sidewalk is 4.5 percent. That can send wheelchairs tipping
over or sliding toward the street.
“The continued dangerousness of this bumpy all-brick sidewalk has these
past four years been torturing the hundreds of elderly and disabled people
living next door at Symphony Plaza,” the Boston Center for Independent Living,
the Disability Policy Consortium and the Neighborhood Access group wrote in a
July 26 letter to Public Works and Transportation chief Dennis Royer.
Royer did not respond to the letter until Aug. 17, when the Herald
contacted Mayor Thomas M. Menino’s office, which released a statement in which
Royer said he planned to meet with the three groups.
“I take all complaints about the quality of access in and around our city
for mobility-impaired residents and visitors very seriously,” Menino said in a
statement Friday. “I’ve told the Department of Public Works to make these
complaints a top priority and to find short and long-term solutions to make our
city’s streets and sidewalks safe and accessible for everyone.”
So far this year, the Architectural Access Board has received 106
complaints about other Boston sidewalks and curb cuts that allegedly violate
state access code, according to the board’s director, Thomas Hopkins. None has
yet resulted in a fine.
Advocates note there has been progress in disability access in the Hub.
After a 2006 legal settlement, the MBTA undertook major improvements in
equipment, facilities and services, including the installation of new elevators
and bus ramps. Gary Talbot, assistant to the general manager for system-wide
accessibility, and General Manager Dan Grabauskas have earned high praise from
advocates.
But off the T, critics say, many of the most important civic buildings and
institutions in “America’s Walking City” remain off-limits to the disabled
because of inaccessible travel paths.
The state Attorney General’s Office has not sought to enforce the fines
for the Huntington Avenue sidewalk, a spokeswoman said, because the city is
expected to dispute them at an Aug. 30 hearing in Suffolk Superior Court.
The city is expected to claim that although it owns most of the sidewalk,
the MBTA and Massachusetts Highway Department oversaw its construction.
The state access board also has slapped the city with a $5,000 fine for
failing to maintain an accessible route on Huntington Avenue during
construction.
On Thursday, all three agencies said they would work together to make the
sidewalk accessible but would not say when.
“If we can’t even use a sidewalk, that’s a basic right,” said Karen
Schneiderman of the Boston Center for Independent Living, “and we pay taxes.”
[This letter was published in the Boston Herald on August 30, 2007]
It is curious that 34 years after the Rehabilitation Act and 17 years after
the Americans with Disabilities Act became law, a state agency forces a city
government to comply with basic access to the right to travel. (Marie Szaniszlo,
"Disabled rip Hub’s $320G sidewalk," Boston Herald, August 26, 2007) The many
years of the violations of that right for thousands of Boston citizens and
visitors remain unaddressed.
The City's liberal leaders focus on providing goods and services to illegal
aliens while American citizens with disabilities cannot use the sidewalks. Again
taxpayers pay for the negligence, wrongdoing and malfeasance of public
officials. Is this a hypocrisy or a democracy? The hackarama is the "Spending
Other People's Money Society."
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor, ENOUGH ROOM
Disabled rip Hub’s $320G sidewalk
By Marie Szaniszlo
Boston Herald
Sunday, August 26, 2007 - Updated: 01:28 AM EST
Meet the most expensive patch of sidewalk in Boston: $320,000 and counting.
The state Department of Public Safety’s Architectural Access Board has
fined the Hub $500 a day since Nov. 30, 2005, for an uneven, sloping stretch of
brick on Huntington Avenue, part of what advocates for the disabled denounce as
a pattern of violations in the city that puts them at risk.
“The irony is if the city had just made sure the sidewalk was repaired
the right way in the beginning, it would have cost taxpayers a fraction of that
amount and people like me who use wheelchairs wouldn’t have to risk getting
hit by a car by riding in the street,” said John Kelly of the Neighborhood
Access Group, which filed the complaint with the board.
Advocates note that under state law, the horizontal slope of a sidewalk
cannot be more than 2 percent; in some spots, the slope of the 4-year-old
Huntington Avenue sidewalk is 4.5 percent. That can send wheelchairs tipping
over or sliding toward the street.
“The continued dangerousness of this bumpy all-brick sidewalk has these
past four years been torturing the hundreds of elderly and disabled people
living next door at Symphony Plaza,” the Boston Center for Independent Living,
the Disability Policy Consortium and the Neighborhood Access group wrote in a
July 26 letter to Public Works and Transportation chief Dennis Royer.
Royer did not respond to the letter until Aug. 17, when the Herald
contacted Mayor Thomas M. Menino’s office, which released a statement in which
Royer said he planned to meet with the three groups.
“I take all complaints about the quality of access in and around our city
for mobility-impaired residents and visitors very seriously,” Menino said in a
statement Friday. “I’ve told the Department of Public Works to make these
complaints a top priority and to find short and long-term solutions to make our
city’s streets and sidewalks safe and accessible for everyone.”
So far this year, the Architectural Access Board has received 106
complaints about other Boston sidewalks and curb cuts that allegedly violate
state access code, according to the board’s director, Thomas Hopkins. None has
yet resulted in a fine.
Advocates note there has been progress in disability access in the Hub.
After a 2006 legal settlement, the MBTA undertook major improvements in
equipment, facilities and services, including the installation of new elevators
and bus ramps. Gary Talbot, assistant to the general manager for system-wide
accessibility, and General Manager Dan Grabauskas have earned high praise from
advocates.
But off the T, critics say, many of the most important civic buildings and
institutions in “America’s Walking City” remain off-limits to the disabled
because of inaccessible travel paths.
The state Attorney General’s Office has not sought to enforce the fines
for the Huntington Avenue sidewalk, a spokeswoman said, because the city is
expected to dispute them at an Aug. 30 hearing in Suffolk Superior Court.
The city is expected to claim that although it owns most of the sidewalk,
the MBTA and Massachusetts Highway Department oversaw its construction.
The state access board also has slapped the city with a $5,000 fine for
failing to maintain an accessible route on Huntington Avenue during
construction.
On Thursday, all three agencies said they would work together to make the
sidewalk accessible but would not say when.
“If we can’t even use a sidewalk, that’s a basic right,” said Karen
Schneiderman of the Boston Center for Independent Living, “and we pay taxes.”
Unlawful Cambridge City Council Actions?
Unlawful Cambridge City Council Actions?
Citizen participation is essential even when the process is delegated to a
private not for profit agency. The reported actions of two City Councilors raise
other issues. (Janice O'Leary, "In this nook, too much affordability?" Boston
Globe, August 26, 2007)
All too often in Massachusetts the end justifies the means. Stopping the
development process to permit citizen input may result from unlawful actions by
two Cambridge City Councilors. Mass General Laws Ch. 43 Sec. 107 prohibits
direct contact between Councilors and city officials except for informational
purposes.
Asking the Planning Board to postpone their decision looks like a violation
of that law. The penalties are severe. But not many laws are being enforced in
Mass for malfeasance. Cambridge is a lawless city. Its academic leaders exploit
this flaw.
It is so pervasive now with one-party rule firmly in place that the
Governor openly encourages ignoring a statute that is inconvenient for his most
powerful supporters. This is a disgrace in a city which boasts of a prestigious
school of government and two international academic institutions.
What is being taught at these schools?
[This is an online copy of the statute. It may not be official, but it is
close.]
PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
TITLE VII. CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS
CHAPTER 43. CITY CHARTERS
PLAN E.—GOVERNMENT BY A CITY COUNCIL INCLUDING A MAYOR ELECTED FROM ITS
NUMBER, AND A CITY MANAGER, WITH ALL ELECTIVE BODIES ELECTED AT LARGE BY
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
Chapter 43: Section 107. Interference with city manager by council forbidden;
penalty
Section 107. Neither the city council nor any of its committees or members shall
direct or request the appointment of any person to, or his removal from, office
by the city manager or any of his subordinates, or in any manner take part in
the appointment or removal of officers and employees in that portion of the
service of said city for whose administration the city manager is responsible.
Except for the purpose of inquiry, the city council and its members shall deal
with that portion of the service of the city as aforesaid solely through the
city manager, and neither the city council nor any member thereof shall give
orders to any subordinate of the city manager either publicly or privately. Any
member of the city council who violates, or participates in the violation of,
any provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than five
hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, and
upon final conviction thereof his office in the city
council shall thereby be vacated and he shall never again be eligible for any
office or position, elective or otherwise, in the service of the city.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor, ENOUGH ROOM
CAMBRIDGE
In this nook, too much affordability?
Residents decry 16-unit proposal for Windsor Street
By Janice O'Leary,
Boston Globe Correspondent
August 26, 2007
East Cambridge residents felt the squeeze at Tuesday night's Planning Board
meeting, but that was nothing new for this group. They feel their elbow room
encroached upon daily in their part of town.
East Cambridge, with its estimated 71 people per acre, is the densest part of a
city deemed the fifth-densest in the country by some data crunchers. Residents
fed up with new housing creating more traffic, more noise, less space, and more
trash for rats to feast on let the Planning Board know it last week.
They crowded a second-floor conference room in the City Hall Annex, lining up
against the walls and overflowing into the hallway. There were no open seats as
they protested a local developer's proposed conversion of a former church into
16 affordable-housing units.
"We're not against affordable housing," said John Raulinaitis, who has lived in
East Cambridge for 79 years. "We're against housing, period."
Just-a-Start Corp., a 36-year-old local nonprofit organization, purchased the
Immaculate Conception Lithuanian Church property earlier Tuesday for $1.425
million. Many residents did not know the sale had taken place and were angered
by the way the nonprofit dealt with neighbors about it.
"I don't appreciate how they've handled the process," said Donna Barry, a
neighbor who said she was undecided about the proposed housing itself.
Just-a-Start made an offer on the property May 23, but did not meet with
neighbors until Aug. 14, just one week before the sale.
Regarding the lack of public involvement, the project's manager, Beatriz Gómez,
said, "We wish we had done a better job."
Vice Mayor Timothy Toomey and City Councilor Craig Kelley agreed and asked that
the Planning Board suspend any decision about whether to issue the nonprofit the
necessary permit to move forward with the conversion until neighbors and
Just-a-Start could hash out an agreeable plan.
The members of the Planning Board agreed to postpone a decision until neighbors'
concerns had been addressed.
[...]
Citizen participation is essential even when the process is delegated to a
private not for profit agency. The reported actions of two City Councilors raise
other issues. (Janice O'Leary, "In this nook, too much affordability?" Boston
Globe, August 26, 2007)
All too often in Massachusetts the end justifies the means. Stopping the
development process to permit citizen input may result from unlawful actions by
two Cambridge City Councilors. Mass General Laws Ch. 43 Sec. 107 prohibits
direct contact between Councilors and city officials except for informational
purposes.
Asking the Planning Board to postpone their decision looks like a violation
of that law. The penalties are severe. But not many laws are being enforced in
Mass for malfeasance. Cambridge is a lawless city. Its academic leaders exploit
this flaw.
It is so pervasive now with one-party rule firmly in place that the
Governor openly encourages ignoring a statute that is inconvenient for his most
powerful supporters. This is a disgrace in a city which boasts of a prestigious
school of government and two international academic institutions.
What is being taught at these schools?
[This is an online copy of the statute. It may not be official, but it is
close.]
PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
TITLE VII. CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS
CHAPTER 43. CITY CHARTERS
PLAN E.—GOVERNMENT BY A CITY COUNCIL INCLUDING A MAYOR ELECTED FROM ITS
NUMBER, AND A CITY MANAGER, WITH ALL ELECTIVE BODIES ELECTED AT LARGE BY
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
Chapter 43: Section 107. Interference with city manager by council forbidden;
penalty
Section 107. Neither the city council nor any of its committees or members shall
direct or request the appointment of any person to, or his removal from, office
by the city manager or any of his subordinates, or in any manner take part in
the appointment or removal of officers and employees in that portion of the
service of said city for whose administration the city manager is responsible.
Except for the purpose of inquiry, the city council and its members shall deal
with that portion of the service of the city as aforesaid solely through the
city manager, and neither the city council nor any member thereof shall give
orders to any subordinate of the city manager either publicly or privately. Any
member of the city council who violates, or participates in the violation of,
any provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than five
hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, and
upon final conviction thereof his office in the city
council shall thereby be vacated and he shall never again be eligible for any
office or position, elective or otherwise, in the service of the city.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor, ENOUGH ROOM
CAMBRIDGE
In this nook, too much affordability?
Residents decry 16-unit proposal for Windsor Street
By Janice O'Leary,
Boston Globe Correspondent
August 26, 2007
East Cambridge residents felt the squeeze at Tuesday night's Planning Board
meeting, but that was nothing new for this group. They feel their elbow room
encroached upon daily in their part of town.
East Cambridge, with its estimated 71 people per acre, is the densest part of a
city deemed the fifth-densest in the country by some data crunchers. Residents
fed up with new housing creating more traffic, more noise, less space, and more
trash for rats to feast on let the Planning Board know it last week.
They crowded a second-floor conference room in the City Hall Annex, lining up
against the walls and overflowing into the hallway. There were no open seats as
they protested a local developer's proposed conversion of a former church into
16 affordable-housing units.
"We're not against affordable housing," said John Raulinaitis, who has lived in
East Cambridge for 79 years. "We're against housing, period."
Just-a-Start Corp., a 36-year-old local nonprofit organization, purchased the
Immaculate Conception Lithuanian Church property earlier Tuesday for $1.425
million. Many residents did not know the sale had taken place and were angered
by the way the nonprofit dealt with neighbors about it.
"I don't appreciate how they've handled the process," said Donna Barry, a
neighbor who said she was undecided about the proposed housing itself.
Just-a-Start made an offer on the property May 23, but did not meet with
neighbors until Aug. 14, just one week before the sale.
Regarding the lack of public involvement, the project's manager, Beatriz Gómez,
said, "We wish we had done a better job."
Vice Mayor Timothy Toomey and City Councilor Craig Kelley agreed and asked that
the Planning Board suspend any decision about whether to issue the nonprofit the
necessary permit to move forward with the conversion until neighbors and
Just-a-Start could hash out an agreeable plan.
The members of the Planning Board agreed to postpone a decision until neighbors'
concerns had been addressed.
[...]
Wagging the Court Dog
Wagging the Court Dog
The tail wags the dog in courts. Competency evaluations are a lucrative
business. (Dave Wedge, "Priest trial delayed for 33rd time," Boston Herald,
August 22, 2007) Competency is an issue of fact for the trier of facts. Judges
to avoid accountability by allowing psychiatrists to make the "decision."
If evaluations were scientific there would be no need for multiple
evaluations. Moreover they need to be done at the time of trial not at the time
of arrest or arraignment. In this case the advice of an alleged expert is being
used to delay the proceeding. The defense can argue that the defendant did not
get a speedy trial and blame it on the court. How convenient. One more way to
protect the guilty and abuse the innocent.
Roy Bercaw, Editor, ENOUGH ROOM
Priest trial delayed for 33rd time
By Dave Wedge
Boston Herald Chief Enterprise Reporter
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
A Worcester victims rights group is fuming after the case against an alleged
pedophile priest deemed incompetent to stand trial was continued for a 33rd
time.
The molestation case against the Rev. John Szantyr has dragged on in
Worcester District Court for four years and was again continued Monday because
prosecutors didn't receive a doctor's report in time for the hearing.
Szantyr, who faces charges he molested an altar boy in Worcester in the
mid-1980s, has already been ruled incompetent by a judge, but District Attorney
Joseph Early Jr.'s office called for a new evaluation "due to information that
was brought to our attention."
Among the new information are reports that Szantyr, 76, was seen walking at
a rest stop just minutes after he appeared in court in a wheelchair and that he
has continued to oversee religious services in Connecticut. Szantyr, who
reportedly is too ill to feed, clothe and bathe himself, also recently renewed
his Connecticut driver's license, court filings show.
[...]
The tail wags the dog in courts. Competency evaluations are a lucrative
business. (Dave Wedge, "Priest trial delayed for 33rd time," Boston Herald,
August 22, 2007) Competency is an issue of fact for the trier of facts. Judges
to avoid accountability by allowing psychiatrists to make the "decision."
If evaluations were scientific there would be no need for multiple
evaluations. Moreover they need to be done at the time of trial not at the time
of arrest or arraignment. In this case the advice of an alleged expert is being
used to delay the proceeding. The defense can argue that the defendant did not
get a speedy trial and blame it on the court. How convenient. One more way to
protect the guilty and abuse the innocent.
Roy Bercaw, Editor, ENOUGH ROOM
Priest trial delayed for 33rd time
By Dave Wedge
Boston Herald Chief Enterprise Reporter
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
A Worcester victims rights group is fuming after the case against an alleged
pedophile priest deemed incompetent to stand trial was continued for a 33rd
time.
The molestation case against the Rev. John Szantyr has dragged on in
Worcester District Court for four years and was again continued Monday because
prosecutors didn't receive a doctor's report in time for the hearing.
Szantyr, who faces charges he molested an altar boy in Worcester in the
mid-1980s, has already been ruled incompetent by a judge, but District Attorney
Joseph Early Jr.'s office called for a new evaluation "due to information that
was brought to our attention."
Among the new information are reports that Szantyr, 76, was seen walking at
a rest stop just minutes after he appeared in court in a wheelchair and that he
has continued to oversee religious services in Connecticut. Szantyr, who
reportedly is too ill to feed, clothe and bathe himself, also recently renewed
his Connecticut driver's license, court filings show.
[...]
Rewarding Incompetence
Rewarding Incompetence
Lack of accountability is pervasive among public officials and agencies.
Lowry's observations apply as well to the FBI. (RICH LOWRY, "THE CIA'S HOLIDAY,"
New York Post, August 25, 2007) The US Court awarded $101 million to four men
framed by an FBI informant with the knowledge of supervising agents. FBI agents
in the troubled Boston office permitted a malicious prosecution for ethnic
reasons. Their motto is "Mess up, move up."
The award is taxpayer funds. The wrongdoers suffered no legal or
administrative penalties. The loud and clear message is that the taxpayer will
pay for misconduct of public officials. Among politicians it is worse. How much
malfeasance is inspired by elected officials who encourage abuses of power?
Roy Bercaw, Editor, ENOUGH ROOM
THE CIA'S HOLIDAY
New York Post
By RICH LOWRY
August 25, 2007 -- THE new report from the CIA's inspector general about the spy
agency's pre- 9/11 failings could be titled, "What We Did During Our Holiday
From History."
The stretch from the end of the Cold War to the 9/11 attacks was supposed to be
a shiny new era of globalized peace and prosperity, to which an intelligence
service was considered quaintly irrelevant. The CIA conformed to the zeitgeist
by remaining quaintly irrelevant.
George Tenet presided over the agency, failing his way to the second-longest
tenure of any director of central intelligence, a Presidential Medal of Freedom
and a $4 million book advance. He made the Peter Principle work for him not just
by advancing to his level of incompetence, but by benefiting from it handsomely.
[...]
More scandalous is how the CIA has escaped serious reform even today. Two CIA
directors in a row have resisted the IG report's recommendation for an
accountability board to evaluate CIA officials' pre-9/11 performance. That word
- not "board," but "accountability" - raises hackles at Langley, where everyone
is above-average at fighting al Qaeda. As many as 60 CIA employees knew that two
of the hijackers were in the U.S. before 9/11 and no one managed to get the word
to the FBI, yet CIA Director Michael Hayden thinks holding anyone accountable
for that or other failures would be "distracting."
And so the band plays on.
Lack of accountability is pervasive among public officials and agencies.
Lowry's observations apply as well to the FBI. (RICH LOWRY, "THE CIA'S HOLIDAY,"
New York Post, August 25, 2007) The US Court awarded $101 million to four men
framed by an FBI informant with the knowledge of supervising agents. FBI agents
in the troubled Boston office permitted a malicious prosecution for ethnic
reasons. Their motto is "Mess up, move up."
The award is taxpayer funds. The wrongdoers suffered no legal or
administrative penalties. The loud and clear message is that the taxpayer will
pay for misconduct of public officials. Among politicians it is worse. How much
malfeasance is inspired by elected officials who encourage abuses of power?
Roy Bercaw, Editor, ENOUGH ROOM
THE CIA'S HOLIDAY
New York Post
By RICH LOWRY
August 25, 2007 -- THE new report from the CIA's inspector general about the spy
agency's pre- 9/11 failings could be titled, "What We Did During Our Holiday
From History."
The stretch from the end of the Cold War to the 9/11 attacks was supposed to be
a shiny new era of globalized peace and prosperity, to which an intelligence
service was considered quaintly irrelevant. The CIA conformed to the zeitgeist
by remaining quaintly irrelevant.
George Tenet presided over the agency, failing his way to the second-longest
tenure of any director of central intelligence, a Presidential Medal of Freedom
and a $4 million book advance. He made the Peter Principle work for him not just
by advancing to his level of incompetence, but by benefiting from it handsomely.
[...]
More scandalous is how the CIA has escaped serious reform even today. Two CIA
directors in a row have resisted the IG report's recommendation for an
accountability board to evaluate CIA officials' pre-9/11 performance. That word
- not "board," but "accountability" - raises hackles at Langley, where everyone
is above-average at fighting al Qaeda. As many as 60 CIA employees knew that two
of the hijackers were in the U.S. before 9/11 and no one managed to get the word
to the FBI, yet CIA Director Michael Hayden thinks holding anyone accountable
for that or other failures would be "distracting."
And so the band plays on.
Promoting a Boondoggle
Promoting a Boondoggle
An insider said, Britney's "sick. [...] She needs help. It's sad because
what she's got - and we've heard it's like bipolar disorder - can easily be
treated with medication, but she won't do it." (Richard Johnson, "Britney
back-out stuns label," Page Six, New York Post, August 22, 2007, page 12)
The New York Post publishes rubbish -- psychiatric diagnoses made by
anyone. Who needs psychiatrists if everyone can make diagnoses?
Is Page Six in on the large joke called psychiatry which makes up illnesses
by consensus? When will the Post expose this great fraud, the harms by such
insiders, by police, by prosecutors and most of all by psychiatrists? When will
the boondoggle be stopped ending the theft of taxpayer funds for nonsensical
treatment?
Roy Bercaw, Editor, ENOUGH ROOM
Britney Back-out stuns label
Page Six
New York Post
Richard Johnson
August 22, 2007 -- Britney Spears backed out at the last minute from recording a
duet with her old flame, Justin Timberlake - and the inexplicable decision last
month has suits at her record label, Jive, very worried.
The duet, which was to be produced by hit-maker Timbaland at his studio in
Virginia Beach, could have started a big comeback for the troubled pop tart, who
peaked before she had two marriages and two kids.
A music industry source said Timberlake wrote the duet specifically for Spears.
Although they wouldn't be together in the studio, his voice would have been
mixed with hers later.
"Timbaland set aside a week out of his crazy schedule to do this - and then,
just before she was supposed to fly out, Britney abruptly canceled the session
and refused to do the song.
"It's crazy," the insider added. "She's looking for a comeback, and this would
have not only been a huge hit, but something she could have opened the MTV Video
Awards with and really blown everyone away."
Another insider said, "Listen, everyone is worried. In her mind, her album is
done and she's done enough work . . . She's an easy target right now, because
she's . . . sick. People like her are sick. It's like an anorexic who's sick in
the head and needs help. She needs help. It's sad because what she's got - and
we've heard it's like bipolar disorder - can easily be treated with medication,
but she won't do it."
[...]
An insider said, Britney's "sick. [...] She needs help. It's sad because
what she's got - and we've heard it's like bipolar disorder - can easily be
treated with medication, but she won't do it." (Richard Johnson, "Britney
back-out stuns label," Page Six, New York Post, August 22, 2007, page 12)
The New York Post publishes rubbish -- psychiatric diagnoses made by
anyone. Who needs psychiatrists if everyone can make diagnoses?
Is Page Six in on the large joke called psychiatry which makes up illnesses
by consensus? When will the Post expose this great fraud, the harms by such
insiders, by police, by prosecutors and most of all by psychiatrists? When will
the boondoggle be stopped ending the theft of taxpayer funds for nonsensical
treatment?
Roy Bercaw, Editor, ENOUGH ROOM
Britney Back-out stuns label
Page Six
New York Post
Richard Johnson
August 22, 2007 -- Britney Spears backed out at the last minute from recording a
duet with her old flame, Justin Timberlake - and the inexplicable decision last
month has suits at her record label, Jive, very worried.
The duet, which was to be produced by hit-maker Timbaland at his studio in
Virginia Beach, could have started a big comeback for the troubled pop tart, who
peaked before she had two marriages and two kids.
A music industry source said Timberlake wrote the duet specifically for Spears.
Although they wouldn't be together in the studio, his voice would have been
mixed with hers later.
"Timbaland set aside a week out of his crazy schedule to do this - and then,
just before she was supposed to fly out, Britney abruptly canceled the session
and refused to do the song.
"It's crazy," the insider added. "She's looking for a comeback, and this would
have not only been a huge hit, but something she could have opened the MTV Video
Awards with and really blown everyone away."
Another insider said, "Listen, everyone is worried. In her mind, her album is
done and she's done enough work . . . She's an easy target right now, because
she's . . . sick. People like her are sick. It's like an anorexic who's sick in
the head and needs help. She needs help. It's sad because what she's got - and
we've heard it's like bipolar disorder - can easily be treated with medication,
but she won't do it."
[...]
Breathing Together
Breathing Together
If you believe government prosecutors, only crime families form
conspiracies. But in reporting the widening scandal of abuses of power by the
Office of the New York Governor, Fredric Dicker refers to "the plot by top
Spitzer Aides," and "one of the plotters." (Fredric Dicker, "Eliot aide lawyers
up," New York Post, August 21, 2007, page 2) A group of men working together to
abuse the police power of the state contrary to law sounds like a conspiracy to
me. Is it possible for public officials to conduct a criminal conspiracy? Is the
Pope German?
Roy Bercaw, Editor, ENOUGH ROOM
If you believe government prosecutors, only crime families form
conspiracies. But in reporting the widening scandal of abuses of power by the
Office of the New York Governor, Fredric Dicker refers to "the plot by top
Spitzer Aides," and "one of the plotters." (Fredric Dicker, "Eliot aide lawyers
up," New York Post, August 21, 2007, page 2) A group of men working together to
abuse the police power of the state contrary to law sounds like a conspiracy to
me. Is it possible for public officials to conduct a criminal conspiracy? Is the
Pope German?
Roy Bercaw, Editor, ENOUGH ROOM
Animal Rights vs Human Rights
Animal Rights vs Human Rights
PETA and Peter Singer regard abuses of humans as a lower priority than
abuses of animals. (Star Parker, "PETA: Sicker Than Vick," Miami Herald,
August 24, 2007) This standard is institutionalized in state and US
laws. Animal Protection Act of 1966 has fines and jail time for violations of
animal research laws. There are no penalties for violations of the laws on
humans used for research (Title 45 CFR Section 46). Office of Human Research
Protection refers complaints about unlawful research using humans to the accused
institution for processing.
After 7 humans died in medical experiments at Harvard teaching hospitals in
Boston there were no criminal proceedings, unlike in the Vick case abusing dogs.
Roy Bercaw, Editor, ENOUGH ROOM
Posted on Fri, Aug. 24, 2007
STAR PARKER: Who is sicker, Vick or PETA?
MiamiHerald.com
The Michael Vick dogfighting scandal is morphing into a broader NFL dogfighting
scandal, as other NFL players also appear to be involved in this very weird
pastime.
But as animal-rights groups get more aggressive in their accusations and
demands, the whole scene is getting stranger and stranger. And the closer you
look, the more you see the deep conflicts in core values that fracture our
society.
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) wants the NFL to "add cruelty
to animals - in all its forms - to its personal conduct policy." What, for PETA,
is "cruelty to animals - in all its forms"? According to its Web site, we should
not eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment or abuse animals in any way.
So PETA's problem is well beyond the sick and cruel murdering of these creatures
of which Vick and others are allegedly guilty. Dogfighting for entertainment, or
any other use of animals for entertainment, is itself, for PETA, cruelty.
If it's relevant to look for any kind of logic here, why would it be decent
entertainment to watch hulks of men ram the daylights out of each other as they
move a ball across a field, but cruel to watch dogs fight? Why would the NFL
sign on to such a thing?
More specifically, among PETA's prohibitions, is the use of animal skins. The
ball, as in football, is an inflated leather object endearingly called the
"pigskin."
Why does PETA oppose existing NFL conduct policy, and not football itself?
J.C. Watts, Chuck Colson and others have asked why abuse of dogs is outrageous
to so many who see no similar outrage in the 800,000-plus abortions that occur
in the United States each year. At the most intuitive level, there is something
unsettling about an attitude for which abuse of a dog is intolerable, but women
destroying their unborn children with impunity is not a problem.
[...]
PETA provides material on its Web site to explain the rationale of the
"animal-rights" concept that drives its worldview. "When it comes to pain, love,
joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy," says PETA founder
Ingrid Newkirk.
For more extensive exposition, the site refers to the writings of Princeton
philosopher Peter Singer, author of "Animal Liberation."
Now Singer has written on a great deal more than animal rights. He's the author
of "Practical Ethics," in which he offers his justifications for euthanasia,
abortion and infanticide.
According to Singer, parents should be permitted to kill a baby born with a
tragic illness or defect. In "Practical Ethics," he argues that "... the fact
that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo
sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather,
characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness that make a
difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot
be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious
beings."
Thus, through a long and twisted road of logic, beginning with one man's own
premises about existence, we are led to a conclusion that killing animals is an
outrage, but an infant, not.
[...]
* Star Parker is president of CURE, Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education
(www.urbancure.org) and author of three books. She can be reached at
parker@urbancure.org.
PETA and Peter Singer regard abuses of humans as a lower priority than
abuses of animals. (Star Parker, "PETA: Sicker Than Vick," Miami Herald,
August 24, 2007) This standard is institutionalized in state and US
laws. Animal Protection Act of 1966 has fines and jail time for violations of
animal research laws. There are no penalties for violations of the laws on
humans used for research (Title 45 CFR Section 46). Office of Human Research
Protection refers complaints about unlawful research using humans to the accused
institution for processing.
After 7 humans died in medical experiments at Harvard teaching hospitals in
Boston there were no criminal proceedings, unlike in the Vick case abusing dogs.
Roy Bercaw, Editor, ENOUGH ROOM
Posted on Fri, Aug. 24, 2007
STAR PARKER: Who is sicker, Vick or PETA?
MiamiHerald.com
The Michael Vick dogfighting scandal is morphing into a broader NFL dogfighting
scandal, as other NFL players also appear to be involved in this very weird
pastime.
But as animal-rights groups get more aggressive in their accusations and
demands, the whole scene is getting stranger and stranger. And the closer you
look, the more you see the deep conflicts in core values that fracture our
society.
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) wants the NFL to "add cruelty
to animals - in all its forms - to its personal conduct policy." What, for PETA,
is "cruelty to animals - in all its forms"? According to its Web site, we should
not eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment or abuse animals in any way.
So PETA's problem is well beyond the sick and cruel murdering of these creatures
of which Vick and others are allegedly guilty. Dogfighting for entertainment, or
any other use of animals for entertainment, is itself, for PETA, cruelty.
If it's relevant to look for any kind of logic here, why would it be decent
entertainment to watch hulks of men ram the daylights out of each other as they
move a ball across a field, but cruel to watch dogs fight? Why would the NFL
sign on to such a thing?
More specifically, among PETA's prohibitions, is the use of animal skins. The
ball, as in football, is an inflated leather object endearingly called the
"pigskin."
Why does PETA oppose existing NFL conduct policy, and not football itself?
J.C. Watts, Chuck Colson and others have asked why abuse of dogs is outrageous
to so many who see no similar outrage in the 800,000-plus abortions that occur
in the United States each year. At the most intuitive level, there is something
unsettling about an attitude for which abuse of a dog is intolerable, but women
destroying their unborn children with impunity is not a problem.
[...]
PETA provides material on its Web site to explain the rationale of the
"animal-rights" concept that drives its worldview. "When it comes to pain, love,
joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy," says PETA founder
Ingrid Newkirk.
For more extensive exposition, the site refers to the writings of Princeton
philosopher Peter Singer, author of "Animal Liberation."
Now Singer has written on a great deal more than animal rights. He's the author
of "Practical Ethics," in which he offers his justifications for euthanasia,
abortion and infanticide.
According to Singer, parents should be permitted to kill a baby born with a
tragic illness or defect. In "Practical Ethics," he argues that "... the fact
that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo
sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather,
characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness that make a
difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot
be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious
beings."
Thus, through a long and twisted road of logic, beginning with one man's own
premises about existence, we are led to a conclusion that killing animals is an
outrage, but an infant, not.
[...]
* Star Parker is president of CURE, Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education
(www.urbancure.org) and author of three books. She can be reached at
parker@urbancure.org.
ADL Ignores Bias Toward Persons With Disabilities
ADL Ignores Bias Toward Persons With Disabilities
The reluctance of the National ADL to officially recognize the Armenian
genocide is not an anomaly. (Michael Levenson, "For longtime ADL leader, a rare
reversal of course," Boston Globe, August 22, 2007) For several years I asked
the ADL locally and nationally to address serious institutionalized
discrimination against persons with disabilities. The ADL ignores the abuses as
they did with the Armenian genocide.
The ADL acts as journalists and politicians do. They consider issues raised
by wealthy and politically connected persons. Instead of focusing on abuses of
vulnerable persons, journalists, politicians and the ADL help wealthy
individuals who are members of politically connected groups. Those who need the
help the least get special privileges due to their identity not according to
their need.
Roy Bercaw, Editor, ENOUGH ROOM
For longtime ADL leader, a rare reversal of course
By Michael Levenson,
Boston Globe Staff
August 22, 2007
He has stood up to Mel Gibson, Jimmy Carter, Louis Farrakhan, and the president
of Iran. But Abraham H. Foxman, the director of the Anti-Defamation League,
backed down yesterday after a standoff with Armenian-Americans in Watertown drew
the attention of some of the nation's most prominent Jewish leaders.
Foxman, a Holocaust survivor, reversed course and acknowledged that the
slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman Turks was genocide. The change
stunned those who have followed Foxman's 42-year career at the ADL, where he has
rarely bowed to critics.
Jewish leaders said Foxman, who has made it his life's mission to fight
anti-Semitism and injustice, had little choice but to acknowledge the Armenian
genocide. Elie Wiesel, the famous Jewish author, had already endorsed the
position, and this week counseled Foxman to follow his lead.
"This issue resonated so deeply with the Jewish community that he simply could
not resist the pressures from below," said Harvard Law School Professor Alan M.
Dershowitz, a self-described Foxman fan. "He had to listen to the people, and
the people spoke in a loud and clear voice. The people said: 'Truth first.
Politics second.' "
Last week, Foxman fired Andrew H. Tarsy, the ADL's New England director, after
Tarsy defied the national group's policy and agreed to call the Armenian
massacre genocide. Foxman said he worried that using the term genocide could
alienate Turkey, a rare Muslim ally of Israel. In a letter, Foxman wrote, "No
organization can or should tolerate such an act of open defiance."
[...]
Michael Levenson can be reached at mlevenson@globe.com.
The reluctance of the National ADL to officially recognize the Armenian
genocide is not an anomaly. (Michael Levenson, "For longtime ADL leader, a rare
reversal of course," Boston Globe, August 22, 2007) For several years I asked
the ADL locally and nationally to address serious institutionalized
discrimination against persons with disabilities. The ADL ignores the abuses as
they did with the Armenian genocide.
The ADL acts as journalists and politicians do. They consider issues raised
by wealthy and politically connected persons. Instead of focusing on abuses of
vulnerable persons, journalists, politicians and the ADL help wealthy
individuals who are members of politically connected groups. Those who need the
help the least get special privileges due to their identity not according to
their need.
Roy Bercaw, Editor, ENOUGH ROOM
For longtime ADL leader, a rare reversal of course
By Michael Levenson,
Boston Globe Staff
August 22, 2007
He has stood up to Mel Gibson, Jimmy Carter, Louis Farrakhan, and the president
of Iran. But Abraham H. Foxman, the director of the Anti-Defamation League,
backed down yesterday after a standoff with Armenian-Americans in Watertown drew
the attention of some of the nation's most prominent Jewish leaders.
Foxman, a Holocaust survivor, reversed course and acknowledged that the
slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman Turks was genocide. The change
stunned those who have followed Foxman's 42-year career at the ADL, where he has
rarely bowed to critics.
Jewish leaders said Foxman, who has made it his life's mission to fight
anti-Semitism and injustice, had little choice but to acknowledge the Armenian
genocide. Elie Wiesel, the famous Jewish author, had already endorsed the
position, and this week counseled Foxman to follow his lead.
"This issue resonated so deeply with the Jewish community that he simply could
not resist the pressures from below," said Harvard Law School Professor Alan M.
Dershowitz, a self-described Foxman fan. "He had to listen to the people, and
the people spoke in a loud and clear voice. The people said: 'Truth first.
Politics second.' "
Last week, Foxman fired Andrew H. Tarsy, the ADL's New England director, after
Tarsy defied the national group's policy and agreed to call the Armenian
massacre genocide. Foxman said he worried that using the term genocide could
alienate Turkey, a rare Muslim ally of Israel. In a letter, Foxman wrote, "No
organization can or should tolerate such an act of open defiance."
[...]
Michael Levenson can be reached at mlevenson@globe.com.
August 14, 2007
Skating in Lane
Skating in Lane
Is skating in traffic a safe way to get a medical professional around
Manhattan? (Ginger Adams Otis, "Dr. Wheel-good is on call," NYPost, August 5,
2007, page 9) If this form of transportation catches on how long before the
skater's lobby demands skating lanes?
Why not ban pedestrians so that there is more room for cars, bikes, and
skaters? This will permit eliminating sidewalks for more parking.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Is skating in traffic a safe way to get a medical professional around
Manhattan? (Ginger Adams Otis, "Dr. Wheel-good is on call," NYPost, August 5,
2007, page 9) If this form of transportation catches on how long before the
skater's lobby demands skating lanes?
Why not ban pedestrians so that there is more room for cars, bikes, and
skaters? This will permit eliminating sidewalks for more parking.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
In the Name of Right
In the Name of Right
Explaining the abuse of police power, New York Governor Eliot Spitzer said,
his administration "'allowed our passion to get the best of us,' They were
'fighting so hard for what we believed was right that we let down out guard.'"
(John Podhoretz, "The Humble Act," NYPost, August 10, 2007, page 31) Have these
small-minded politicians ever heard George Bernard Shaw's dictum, "The road to
hell is paved with good intentions?" Or Greek pre-Homeric Philosopher
Cleobulous's observation that "The chief source of evil among men is excessive
good?"
The lack of respect for New York Senator Joe Bruno and for the democratic
process indicates that these politicians are simply evil. The greatest harm
always appears in the name of good. Why are these superior men employed by "The
Steamroller" unable to simply follow the laws of the state and the US? Does
their superiority make them see what is more important than obeying the law and
their oaths of office?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Explaining the abuse of police power, New York Governor Eliot Spitzer said,
his administration "'allowed our passion to get the best of us,' They were
'fighting so hard for what we believed was right that we let down out guard.'"
(John Podhoretz, "The Humble Act," NYPost, August 10, 2007, page 31) Have these
small-minded politicians ever heard George Bernard Shaw's dictum, "The road to
hell is paved with good intentions?" Or Greek pre-Homeric Philosopher
Cleobulous's observation that "The chief source of evil among men is excessive
good?"
The lack of respect for New York Senator Joe Bruno and for the democratic
process indicates that these politicians are simply evil. The greatest harm
always appears in the name of good. Why are these superior men employed by "The
Steamroller" unable to simply follow the laws of the state and the US? Does
their superiority make them see what is more important than obeying the law and
their oaths of office?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Paying for Citizen Input
Paying for Citizen Input
[This letter was published in the Cambridge Chronicle on Tuesday August 14, 2007 online edition.]
Paying 150 students $7.50 per hour for about two hours each is a bargain at
any price. (Matt Dunning, "City to pay for kids" perspectives on violence,"
Cambridge Chronicle, Aug 10, 2007) Less than $2500 for 150 opinions is a great
investment. Usually the City pays hundreds of thousands of dollars for opinions
from experts with impeccable credentials who say little to help solve city
problems. They always write and print dazzling reports which impress the vacuous
politicians.
Are these students the young people who have negative encounters with the
police? Or will their opinions be second and third hand hearsay? Will these
students flatter the politicians telling them what they want to hear? Will these
students be able to tell the politicians and other public officials that it is
police role models and politician role models who teach young people that
obeying the law is for chumps?
What part of supporting and defending the Constitution and laws of the US
do these politicians not understand?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
City to pay for kids' perspectives on violence
By Matt Dunning/Chronicle Staff
Fri Aug 10, 2007, 04:48 PM EDT
Cambridge -
The city plans to pay kids to get their perspective on youth violence in a forum
Monday night in conjunction with the Citywide Crime Task Force.
Members of the task force announced the Office of Work Force Development would
be co-hosting a youth forum at the Rindge and Latin Monday (Aug. 13) afternoon.
During a discussion about the forum Thursday night, Mayor Ken Reeves said
officials were expecting about 150 teens to attend the forum, all of whom would
be paid $7.50 per hour. Members of the task force will be reviewing the input at
its next meeting in September.
"The reason we anticipate that is that Ellen [Semonoff and the Office of Work
Force Development] have been generous enough to pay the kids to come," Reeves
said. The purpose of the forum. He said, was to give the city's youth an
opportunity to tell city officials how they feel about their relationship with
police, as well as violence and tensions between neighborhoods.
According to Semonoff, the assistant city manager of human services, between 100
and 150 teens - out of more than 800 participating in the city's Summer Youth
Employment Program - have signed up for the forum. Semonoff said the teens would
be paid the program's regular rate of $7.50 per hour.
"It's not a big departure from anything we normally do," Semonoff said. "Every
summer, we offer the kids a number of opportunities to participate in
educational forums and special events, and we pay them if they want to
participate."
"This forum next week is a chance for them to offer their perceptions of safety
in the city, ways in which they think city officials can make Cambridge a safer
place to live, and what role youths in the city might play in that," she added.
"It seemed appropriate to offer the kids the opportunity."
In the past, Semonoff said her department has paid for teen workers to attend
financial literacy and educational forums. Each of the more than 800 Cambridge
teens participating in the summer employment program received an invitation to
Monday's forum.
The 2007 Cambridge Youth Forum is scheduled for 2 p.m., Aug. 13 in the CRLS Main
Cafeteria.
[This letter was published in the Cambridge Chronicle on Tuesday August 14, 2007 online edition.]
Paying 150 students $7.50 per hour for about two hours each is a bargain at
any price. (Matt Dunning, "City to pay for kids" perspectives on violence,"
Cambridge Chronicle, Aug 10, 2007) Less than $2500 for 150 opinions is a great
investment. Usually the City pays hundreds of thousands of dollars for opinions
from experts with impeccable credentials who say little to help solve city
problems. They always write and print dazzling reports which impress the vacuous
politicians.
Are these students the young people who have negative encounters with the
police? Or will their opinions be second and third hand hearsay? Will these
students flatter the politicians telling them what they want to hear? Will these
students be able to tell the politicians and other public officials that it is
police role models and politician role models who teach young people that
obeying the law is for chumps?
What part of supporting and defending the Constitution and laws of the US
do these politicians not understand?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
City to pay for kids' perspectives on violence
By Matt Dunning/Chronicle Staff
Fri Aug 10, 2007, 04:48 PM EDT
Cambridge -
The city plans to pay kids to get their perspective on youth violence in a forum
Monday night in conjunction with the Citywide Crime Task Force.
Members of the task force announced the Office of Work Force Development would
be co-hosting a youth forum at the Rindge and Latin Monday (Aug. 13) afternoon.
During a discussion about the forum Thursday night, Mayor Ken Reeves said
officials were expecting about 150 teens to attend the forum, all of whom would
be paid $7.50 per hour. Members of the task force will be reviewing the input at
its next meeting in September.
"The reason we anticipate that is that Ellen [Semonoff and the Office of Work
Force Development] have been generous enough to pay the kids to come," Reeves
said. The purpose of the forum. He said, was to give the city's youth an
opportunity to tell city officials how they feel about their relationship with
police, as well as violence and tensions between neighborhoods.
According to Semonoff, the assistant city manager of human services, between 100
and 150 teens - out of more than 800 participating in the city's Summer Youth
Employment Program - have signed up for the forum. Semonoff said the teens would
be paid the program's regular rate of $7.50 per hour.
"It's not a big departure from anything we normally do," Semonoff said. "Every
summer, we offer the kids a number of opportunities to participate in
educational forums and special events, and we pay them if they want to
participate."
"This forum next week is a chance for them to offer their perceptions of safety
in the city, ways in which they think city officials can make Cambridge a safer
place to live, and what role youths in the city might play in that," she added.
"It seemed appropriate to offer the kids the opportunity."
In the past, Semonoff said her department has paid for teen workers to attend
financial literacy and educational forums. Each of the more than 800 Cambridge
teens participating in the summer employment program received an invitation to
Monday's forum.
The 2007 Cambridge Youth Forum is scheduled for 2 p.m., Aug. 13 in the CRLS Main
Cafeteria.
Curious Priorities
Curious Priorities
Julia Vitullo-Martin recognizes that "living on the street inevitably
causes mental and physical deterioration." ("Homeless Hell," New York Post,
August 13, 2007, page 25) Nonetheless she does not see anything irrational about
delivering taxpayer funded medication to persons without homes, but not
providing funding to house them.
If being homeless causes dysfunction it is more profitable to continue
taxpayer funding to medicate those exhibiting the results of being homeless. If
they had a home they may not need medication. That would be bad for business. As
long as the taxpayer funds these irrational counterproductive programs they will
never end.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Julia Vitullo-Martin recognizes that "living on the street inevitably
causes mental and physical deterioration." ("Homeless Hell," New York Post,
August 13, 2007, page 25) Nonetheless she does not see anything irrational about
delivering taxpayer funded medication to persons without homes, but not
providing funding to house them.
If being homeless causes dysfunction it is more profitable to continue
taxpayer funding to medicate those exhibiting the results of being homeless. If
they had a home they may not need medication. That would be bad for business. As
long as the taxpayer funds these irrational counterproductive programs they will
never end.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Exploiting Vulnerable Persons
Exploiting Vulnerable Persons
It is better late than never to expose the exploitation of persons with
disabilities by able-bodied persons. (Andrea Estes, "Tough laws eyed against
handicap permit abuse," Boston Globe, August 14, 2007; "Many use handicap
permits illegally," August 13, 2007) When will the courts address the misuse of
discrimination laws by attorneys for millionaire thug athletes and drug addicts
to avoid criminal liability? When will the legislature stop writing laws for the
benefit of human services corporations, which permit further exploitation of
persons with disabilities?
The comment by the private attorney for disbility rights indicates how
accommodating these taxpayer funded alleged "advocates" for persons with
disabilities are. When the Inspector General of the state exhibits more outrage
than an attorney for the Disability Law Center you know there is
institutionalized exploitation. Where were all of these attorneys all of these
years?
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Tough laws eyed against handicap permit abuse
By Andrea Estes,
Boston Globe Staff
August 14, 2007
State and city officials vowed a crackdown on the illegal use of handicap
parking permits yesterday after a year-long state investigation revealed
widespread fraud by drivers using other people's placards to park all day at
meters or in specially designated spaces.
The Registry of Motor Vehicles, which conducted the investigation with the
Inspector General's office, said it would begin cross-checking permits with the
Social Security Administration to ensure that the placards are taken out of
circulation when the driver dies.
The Patrick administration said it will soon file legislation making it a
felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, to use a counterfeit or
altered placard.
State Representative Lewis Evangelidis filed a bill that would double the
existing fines for fraudulent use of a placard from $500 for the first offense
to $1,000. Under the bill, a violator's driver's license would be suspended for
a year, up from the current suspension of 30 days.
"I find it unconscionable that anyone would take advantage of a system that is
designed to help those in need," said Evangelidis, Republican of Holden. "You
are either deemed handicapped and in need of the plate, or you are committing
fraud by using it."
[...]
Andrea Estes can be reached at estes@globe.com.
Many use handicap permits illegally
Registry probe finds violations widespread
By Andrea Estes,
Boston Globe Staff
August 13, 2007
A yearlong investigation by the state inspector general and the Registry of
Motor Vehicles has turned up widespread abuse of the placards that allow people
with disabilities to park all day in designated spots and free of charge at
meters across the state.
Investigators focusing on three Boston commercial districts where parking is
particularly scarce -- North Station, Newbury Street, and the Financial District
-- found nearly a third of the roughly 1,000 placards they saw on vehicles were
being used by people who were not disabled and had been issued to someone else.
Forty-nine placards were used repeatedly even though the registered holder of
the permit had died -- in some cases several years ago. Nine placards had been
renewed since the person's death.
At a time when an aging population has an ever-increasing need for the permits,
the misuse of spots and placards for the disabled is "an unconscionable insult
and a fraud," said Inspector General Gregory Sullivan.
Registry officials, who will announce the findings at a news conference today,
said abuse of the placards is a rampant problem that is getting worse.
[...]
Andrea Estes can be reached at estes@globe.com.
It is better late than never to expose the exploitation of persons with
disabilities by able-bodied persons. (Andrea Estes, "Tough laws eyed against
handicap permit abuse," Boston Globe, August 14, 2007; "Many use handicap
permits illegally," August 13, 2007) When will the courts address the misuse of
discrimination laws by attorneys for millionaire thug athletes and drug addicts
to avoid criminal liability? When will the legislature stop writing laws for the
benefit of human services corporations, which permit further exploitation of
persons with disabilities?
The comment by the private attorney for disbility rights indicates how
accommodating these taxpayer funded alleged "advocates" for persons with
disabilities are. When the Inspector General of the state exhibits more outrage
than an attorney for the Disability Law Center you know there is
institutionalized exploitation. Where were all of these attorneys all of these
years?
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Tough laws eyed against handicap permit abuse
By Andrea Estes,
Boston Globe Staff
August 14, 2007
State and city officials vowed a crackdown on the illegal use of handicap
parking permits yesterday after a year-long state investigation revealed
widespread fraud by drivers using other people's placards to park all day at
meters or in specially designated spaces.
The Registry of Motor Vehicles, which conducted the investigation with the
Inspector General's office, said it would begin cross-checking permits with the
Social Security Administration to ensure that the placards are taken out of
circulation when the driver dies.
The Patrick administration said it will soon file legislation making it a
felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, to use a counterfeit or
altered placard.
State Representative Lewis Evangelidis filed a bill that would double the
existing fines for fraudulent use of a placard from $500 for the first offense
to $1,000. Under the bill, a violator's driver's license would be suspended for
a year, up from the current suspension of 30 days.
"I find it unconscionable that anyone would take advantage of a system that is
designed to help those in need," said Evangelidis, Republican of Holden. "You
are either deemed handicapped and in need of the plate, or you are committing
fraud by using it."
[...]
Andrea Estes can be reached at estes@globe.com.
Many use handicap permits illegally
Registry probe finds violations widespread
By Andrea Estes,
Boston Globe Staff
August 13, 2007
A yearlong investigation by the state inspector general and the Registry of
Motor Vehicles has turned up widespread abuse of the placards that allow people
with disabilities to park all day in designated spots and free of charge at
meters across the state.
Investigators focusing on three Boston commercial districts where parking is
particularly scarce -- North Station, Newbury Street, and the Financial District
-- found nearly a third of the roughly 1,000 placards they saw on vehicles were
being used by people who were not disabled and had been issued to someone else.
Forty-nine placards were used repeatedly even though the registered holder of
the permit had died -- in some cases several years ago. Nine placards had been
renewed since the person's death.
At a time when an aging population has an ever-increasing need for the permits,
the misuse of spots and placards for the disabled is "an unconscionable insult
and a fraud," said Inspector General Gregory Sullivan.
Registry officials, who will announce the findings at a news conference today,
said abuse of the placards is a rampant problem that is getting worse.
[...]
Andrea Estes can be reached at estes@globe.com.
August 9, 2007
$101 million in Taxpayer Money
$101 million in Taxpayer Money
[This letter was published in the Boston Herald on July 31, 2007]
The experts and Prof. Bloom miss the essential point of the $101 million
dollar award. (Dave Wedge and Mike Underwood, "Staggering judgment clear warning
to law enforcement," Boston Herald, July 27, 2007)
The $101 million award is taxpayer money. The criminal agents, police
and other officials who were negligent did not pay for attorneys fees either.
This judgment will not prevent further misadventures and permits police
and the FBI to cover up more abuses. There is no incentive to stop such
malfeasance
because there is no individual liability.
There was no penalty to Paul Rico or any supervising agents over 30 years.
This is not "a warning that no one is above the law." The "loud and clear
message" is that it costs nothing to abuse police powers. The taxpayer will pay
for your abuses.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Staggering judgment clear warning to law enforcement
Boston Herald
By Dave Wedge and Mike Underwood/ Analysis
Friday, July 27, 2007 - Updated: 07:10 AM EST
Stinging criticism of the FBI and the staggering sum awarded to four men wrongly
jailed for murder should flash a warning that no one is above the law, experts
believe.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner yesterday awarded $101.7 million after the
men were jailed for a 1965 murder they did not commit, spending three decades
behind bars because the FBI withheld crucial evidence of their innocence.
“I have concluded that the plaintiffs’ accusations that the United States
government violated the law are proved,” Gertner seethed as she fired a
broadside at the feds.
Peter Limone, 73, and Joseph Salvati, 75, and the families of the two other
men who died in prison had sued the federal government for malicious
prosecution.
They argued that Boston FBI agents H. Paul Rico and Dennis Condon knew mob
hit man Joseph “The Animal” Barboza lied when he named the men as killers in the
1965 death of Edward “Teddy” Deegan.
They said Barboza was protecting a fellow FBI informant, Vincent ‘Jimmy‘
Flemmi, who was involved.
The government’s argument that federal authorities could not be held
responsible for a state prosecution was branded “absurd” by Gertner.
“While Salvati and Limone languished in jail for thirty-odd years and Greco
and Tameleo died in prison, Barboza and his FBI handlers flourished,” the judge
blasted.
Experts say the settlement and Gertner’s fierce criticism should have a
ripple effect on the way law enforcement conducts business in future.
“The judgment has definitely sent a message and the message is law
enforcement needs to play the game fairly and if they don’t play it fairly
there’s going to be ramifications,” said Boston College law Professor Robert
Bloom.
“The fact that it’s $100 million, will be a loud and clear message.”
[...]
[This letter was published in the Boston Herald on July 31, 2007]
The experts and Prof. Bloom miss the essential point of the $101 million
dollar award. (Dave Wedge and Mike Underwood, "Staggering judgment clear warning
to law enforcement," Boston Herald, July 27, 2007)
The $101 million award is taxpayer money. The criminal agents, police
and other officials who were negligent did not pay for attorneys fees either.
This judgment will not prevent further misadventures and permits police
and the FBI to cover up more abuses. There is no incentive to stop such
malfeasance
because there is no individual liability.
There was no penalty to Paul Rico or any supervising agents over 30 years.
This is not "a warning that no one is above the law." The "loud and clear
message" is that it costs nothing to abuse police powers. The taxpayer will pay
for your abuses.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Staggering judgment clear warning to law enforcement
Boston Herald
By Dave Wedge and Mike Underwood/ Analysis
Friday, July 27, 2007 - Updated: 07:10 AM EST
Stinging criticism of the FBI and the staggering sum awarded to four men wrongly
jailed for murder should flash a warning that no one is above the law, experts
believe.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner yesterday awarded $101.7 million after the
men were jailed for a 1965 murder they did not commit, spending three decades
behind bars because the FBI withheld crucial evidence of their innocence.
“I have concluded that the plaintiffs’ accusations that the United States
government violated the law are proved,” Gertner seethed as she fired a
broadside at the feds.
Peter Limone, 73, and Joseph Salvati, 75, and the families of the two other
men who died in prison had sued the federal government for malicious
prosecution.
They argued that Boston FBI agents H. Paul Rico and Dennis Condon knew mob
hit man Joseph “The Animal” Barboza lied when he named the men as killers in the
1965 death of Edward “Teddy” Deegan.
They said Barboza was protecting a fellow FBI informant, Vincent ‘Jimmy‘
Flemmi, who was involved.
The government’s argument that federal authorities could not be held
responsible for a state prosecution was branded “absurd” by Gertner.
“While Salvati and Limone languished in jail for thirty-odd years and Greco
and Tameleo died in prison, Barboza and his FBI handlers flourished,” the judge
blasted.
Experts say the settlement and Gertner’s fierce criticism should have a
ripple effect on the way law enforcement conducts business in future.
“The judgment has definitely sent a message and the message is law
enforcement needs to play the game fairly and if they don’t play it fairly
there’s going to be ramifications,” said Boston College law Professor Robert
Bloom.
“The fact that it’s $100 million, will be a loud and clear message.”
[...]
Egg-laying Hens Need Protection?
Egg-laying Hens Need Protection?
Passing resolutions to protect animals over abuses of humans shows the
curious priorities of the Cambridge City Council. (Donna Goodison, "Cambridge
squawks over cages," Boston Herald, August 1, 2007) There are criminal penalties
to protect animals used for research at the state and US levels. But there are
no penalties for violations of laws using human subjects in medical experiments.
Cambridge has a Laboratory Animal Commissioner but no person whose mission is to
protect humans used in research.
Why are there no standards to protect egg-laying hens from sexual abuses of
roosters? Are full rights under Roe vs. Wade extended to egg-laying hens? What
laws prohibit sexual harassment by roosters? The Cambridge resolution has no
teeth and needs penalties to make it real. This is one more example of pandering
to the voters.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge squawks over cages
By Donna Goodison
Boston Herald
Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - Updated: 09:57 AM EST
Cambridge became the sixth U.S. city to formally condemn factory farms’
confinement of egg-laying hens to small wire “battery” cages.
The Cambridge City Council on Monday unanimously passed a resolution
opposing the “inherent cruelty” of the cages and encouraging consumers not to
purchase eggs produced by caged hens.
“With no opportunity to engage in many of their natural behaviors -
including nesting, dust bathing, perching and walking - these birds endure lives
wrought with suffering,” the resolution, worded with help from the Humane
Society of the United States, states. The resolution was introduced by Councilor
Craig Kelley at the request of Cambridge resident Ryan Shapiro, a Ph.D. student
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “I knew that other city councils
had passed resolutions condemning the cruelty inherent in the use of battery
cages,” Shapiro said. “And Cambridge being such a progressive city, I thought it
would be terrific for us to do something like that as well.”
Shapiro is the brother of Paul Shapiro, senior director of the Humane
Society’s factory farming campaign. [...]
Passing resolutions to protect animals over abuses of humans shows the
curious priorities of the Cambridge City Council. (Donna Goodison, "Cambridge
squawks over cages," Boston Herald, August 1, 2007) There are criminal penalties
to protect animals used for research at the state and US levels. But there are
no penalties for violations of laws using human subjects in medical experiments.
Cambridge has a Laboratory Animal Commissioner but no person whose mission is to
protect humans used in research.
Why are there no standards to protect egg-laying hens from sexual abuses of
roosters? Are full rights under Roe vs. Wade extended to egg-laying hens? What
laws prohibit sexual harassment by roosters? The Cambridge resolution has no
teeth and needs penalties to make it real. This is one more example of pandering
to the voters.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge squawks over cages
By Donna Goodison
Boston Herald
Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - Updated: 09:57 AM EST
Cambridge became the sixth U.S. city to formally condemn factory farms’
confinement of egg-laying hens to small wire “battery” cages.
The Cambridge City Council on Monday unanimously passed a resolution
opposing the “inherent cruelty” of the cages and encouraging consumers not to
purchase eggs produced by caged hens.
“With no opportunity to engage in many of their natural behaviors -
including nesting, dust bathing, perching and walking - these birds endure lives
wrought with suffering,” the resolution, worded with help from the Humane
Society of the United States, states. The resolution was introduced by Councilor
Craig Kelley at the request of Cambridge resident Ryan Shapiro, a Ph.D. student
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “I knew that other city councils
had passed resolutions condemning the cruelty inherent in the use of battery
cages,” Shapiro said. “And Cambridge being such a progressive city, I thought it
would be terrific for us to do something like that as well.”
Shapiro is the brother of Paul Shapiro, senior director of the Humane
Society’s factory farming campaign. [...]
Eliot-gate Grows Larger
Eliot-gate Grows Larger
[This letter was published in the New York Post on July 10, 2007]
The youthful New York Governor did not learn from Watergate that the cover
up is always worse than the crime. ("Eliot's Stonewall," New York Post, Editorial,
July 30, 2007, page 26); (Fedric Dicker, "'Counsel' ploy silenced aides in AG's
probe," Page 5, "Empower Andy: GOP,"page 4) When will Eliot "I Am the the Greatest" 'fess up and face the consequences? The more he tries to avoid his fate the worse it will be for him.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
[This letter was published in the New York Post on July 10, 2007]
The youthful New York Governor did not learn from Watergate that the cover
up is always worse than the crime. ("Eliot's Stonewall," New York Post, Editorial,
July 30, 2007, page 26); (Fedric Dicker, "'Counsel' ploy silenced aides in AG's
probe," Page 5, "Empower Andy: GOP,"page 4) When will Eliot "I Am the the Greatest" 'fess up and face the consequences? The more he tries to avoid his fate the worse it will be for him.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Hear, See and Print No Evil
Hear, See and Print No Evil
Leave it to state legislators to make US politicians look good. (April
Simpson, "Legislators dump US mandates at 'Tea Party,'" Boston Globe, August 6,
2007) With a 14 percent approval rating among voters Congress is lower than the
president in opinon polls. But state officials go out of their way to waste time
and to make it look as if they do something. Their first priority is to keep the
campaign funds flowing into the bank.
Next is to create and maintain a positive image. Throwing empty boxes into
the harbor fits the bill, bringing the fawning media toadies. This boondoggle
costs the taxpayer $1.5 million.
Choosing Boston as the site for this self-serving taxpayer funded gathering
indicates that these state politicians know of the one-party unaccountable
government in Massachusetts. They may know how the Boston Globe looks away when
the government abuses its power. The Globe does not want to jeopardize any of
its sources. Ahem!
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Legislators dump US mandates at 'Tea Party'
By April Simpson,
Boston Globe Staff
August 6, 2007
Mimicking American colonists, four state senators from across the country staged
a modern-day Boston Tea Party yesterday, this time protesting an overreaching
government on the mainland.
"Instead of throwing tea in the harbor, we want to dump some of the unfunded
federal mandates that we've been saddled with by Congress over the years," said
Senator Richard T. Moore, who represents the Worcester and Norfolk districts in
the state Legislature. "It's easy if you live in Washington to vote for a
program, especially if you don't have to pay for it."
From the deck of a 137-foot schooner docked at Rowes Wharf, the four legislators
swung hollow crates marked with unfunded federal mandates above the murky waters
of Boston Harbor.
But it was just a ceremonial toss, imitating the 1773 protest against British
taxation without representation.
"We don't want to get arrested," Moore said while pretending to throw overboard
a crate marked $12 million to fund No Child Left Behind, a law that raises
standards for new teachers and has stringent requirements for public schools to
raise students' test scores.
[...]
Leave it to state legislators to make US politicians look good. (April
Simpson, "Legislators dump US mandates at 'Tea Party,'" Boston Globe, August 6,
2007) With a 14 percent approval rating among voters Congress is lower than the
president in opinon polls. But state officials go out of their way to waste time
and to make it look as if they do something. Their first priority is to keep the
campaign funds flowing into the bank.
Next is to create and maintain a positive image. Throwing empty boxes into
the harbor fits the bill, bringing the fawning media toadies. This boondoggle
costs the taxpayer $1.5 million.
Choosing Boston as the site for this self-serving taxpayer funded gathering
indicates that these state politicians know of the one-party unaccountable
government in Massachusetts. They may know how the Boston Globe looks away when
the government abuses its power. The Globe does not want to jeopardize any of
its sources. Ahem!
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Legislators dump US mandates at 'Tea Party'
By April Simpson,
Boston Globe Staff
August 6, 2007
Mimicking American colonists, four state senators from across the country staged
a modern-day Boston Tea Party yesterday, this time protesting an overreaching
government on the mainland.
"Instead of throwing tea in the harbor, we want to dump some of the unfunded
federal mandates that we've been saddled with by Congress over the years," said
Senator Richard T. Moore, who represents the Worcester and Norfolk districts in
the state Legislature. "It's easy if you live in Washington to vote for a
program, especially if you don't have to pay for it."
From the deck of a 137-foot schooner docked at Rowes Wharf, the four legislators
swung hollow crates marked with unfunded federal mandates above the murky waters
of Boston Harbor.
But it was just a ceremonial toss, imitating the 1773 protest against British
taxation without representation.
"We don't want to get arrested," Moore said while pretending to throw overboard
a crate marked $12 million to fund No Child Left Behind, a law that raises
standards for new teachers and has stringent requirements for public schools to
raise students' test scores.
[...]
Charities for Politicians?
Charities for Politicians?
According to this story (below) the New England Foundation for the Arts, a
tax exempt corporation, held a fund raiser for Deval Patrick saying they only
rented their facilities and did not endorse him. They planned to do it again for
a state senate candidate.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Ross fundraisers might not fly with Feds
By Matt Dunning/Chronicle Staff
Cambridge Chronicle
Tue Aug 07, 2007, 01:26 PM EDT
Cambridge -
Forget whether or not they’re well attended.
A pair of campaign fundraisers state Senate candidate Jeff Ross has scheduled at
the New England Foundation for the Arts may not even be legal.
On his Web site, as late as Monday afternoon, Ross has two fundraisers scheduled
at the foundation’s Boston office in the next eight days, one on Aug. 7 and
another on Aug. 13. Federal law prohibits non-profit organizations from
participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of any
candidate for public office. NEFA is a tax-exempt non-profit that operates with
funding from the National Endowment for the Arts, the New England state arts
agencies, and from corporations, foundations and individuals.
According to a spokesman for the state’s Office of Campaign and Political
Finance, the situation may be more damaging to the foundation than it would be
to Ross.
“There’s no problem with a non-profit hosting a fundraiser for a candidate as
far as we’re concerned,” said spokesman Dennis Kennedy. “It’s rare to see it
happen, because of the implication of their tax status.”
[...]
According to this story (below) the New England Foundation for the Arts, a
tax exempt corporation, held a fund raiser for Deval Patrick saying they only
rented their facilities and did not endorse him. They planned to do it again for
a state senate candidate.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Ross fundraisers might not fly with Feds
By Matt Dunning/Chronicle Staff
Cambridge Chronicle
Tue Aug 07, 2007, 01:26 PM EDT
Cambridge -
Forget whether or not they’re well attended.
A pair of campaign fundraisers state Senate candidate Jeff Ross has scheduled at
the New England Foundation for the Arts may not even be legal.
On his Web site, as late as Monday afternoon, Ross has two fundraisers scheduled
at the foundation’s Boston office in the next eight days, one on Aug. 7 and
another on Aug. 13. Federal law prohibits non-profit organizations from
participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of any
candidate for public office. NEFA is a tax-exempt non-profit that operates with
funding from the National Endowment for the Arts, the New England state arts
agencies, and from corporations, foundations and individuals.
According to a spokesman for the state’s Office of Campaign and Political
Finance, the situation may be more damaging to the foundation than it would be
to Ross.
“There’s no problem with a non-profit hosting a fundraiser for a candidate as
far as we’re concerned,” said spokesman Dennis Kennedy. “It’s rare to see it
happen, because of the implication of their tax status.”
[...]
Banning Speech
Banning Speech
Governments banning uncivilized speech is prohibited by the US
Constitution. But since there is such strong opposition to hateful and hurtful
speech why is it that only words that homosexuals, women and African Americans
find offensive banned? Why are police, prosecutors, politicians and journalists
permitted to utter hateful irrational speech about persons with disabilities
every day?
Saying there is "a history of mental illness" in courts repeated in the
media is a negative stereotyping that is accepted by the above-named three
groups. US Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) when he was District Attorney of Norfolk
County, MA, said, "There is no history of mental illness." about a suspect
accused of homicide, as if that would explain the alleged crime.
Why are only words that some groups find offensive proposed for banning?
The dictionary defines this as bigotry.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
August 7, 2007
It’s a Female Dog, or Worse. Or Endearing. And Illegal?
By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM
The New York Times
The New York City Council, which drew national headlines when it passed a
symbolic citywide ban earlier this year on the use of the so-called n-word, has
turned its linguistic (and legislative) lance toward a different slur: bitch.
The term is hateful and deeply sexist, said Councilwoman Darlene Mealy of
Brooklyn, who has introduced a measure against the word, saying it creates “a
paradigm of shame and indignity” for all women.
But conversations over the last week indicate that the “b-word” (as it is
referred to in the legislation) enjoys a surprisingly strong currency — and even
some defenders — among many New Yorkers.
And Ms. Mealy admitted that the city’s political ruling class can be guilty of
its use. As she circulated her proposal, she said, “even council members are
saying that they use it to their wives.”
The measure, which 19 of the 51 council members have signed onto, was prompted
in part by the frequent use of the word in hip-hop music. Ten rappers were cited
in the legislation, along with an excerpt from an 1811 dictionary that defined
the word as “A she dog, or doggess; the most offensive appellation that can be
given to an English woman.”
While the bill also bans the slang word “ho,” the b-word appears to have
acquired more shades of meaning among various groups, ranging from a term of
camaraderie to, in a gerund form, an expression of emphatic approval. Ms. Mealy
acknowledged that the measure was unenforceable, but she argued that it would
carry symbolic power against the pejorative uses of the word. Even so, a number
of New Yorkers said they were taken aback by the idea of prohibiting a term that
they not only use, but do so with relish and affection.
[...]
Governments banning uncivilized speech is prohibited by the US
Constitution. But since there is such strong opposition to hateful and hurtful
speech why is it that only words that homosexuals, women and African Americans
find offensive banned? Why are police, prosecutors, politicians and journalists
permitted to utter hateful irrational speech about persons with disabilities
every day?
Saying there is "a history of mental illness" in courts repeated in the
media is a negative stereotyping that is accepted by the above-named three
groups. US Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) when he was District Attorney of Norfolk
County, MA, said, "There is no history of mental illness." about a suspect
accused of homicide, as if that would explain the alleged crime.
Why are only words that some groups find offensive proposed for banning?
The dictionary defines this as bigotry.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
August 7, 2007
It’s a Female Dog, or Worse. Or Endearing. And Illegal?
By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM
The New York Times
The New York City Council, which drew national headlines when it passed a
symbolic citywide ban earlier this year on the use of the so-called n-word, has
turned its linguistic (and legislative) lance toward a different slur: bitch.
The term is hateful and deeply sexist, said Councilwoman Darlene Mealy of
Brooklyn, who has introduced a measure against the word, saying it creates “a
paradigm of shame and indignity” for all women.
But conversations over the last week indicate that the “b-word” (as it is
referred to in the legislation) enjoys a surprisingly strong currency — and even
some defenders — among many New Yorkers.
And Ms. Mealy admitted that the city’s political ruling class can be guilty of
its use. As she circulated her proposal, she said, “even council members are
saying that they use it to their wives.”
The measure, which 19 of the 51 council members have signed onto, was prompted
in part by the frequent use of the word in hip-hop music. Ten rappers were cited
in the legislation, along with an excerpt from an 1811 dictionary that defined
the word as “A she dog, or doggess; the most offensive appellation that can be
given to an English woman.”
While the bill also bans the slang word “ho,” the b-word appears to have
acquired more shades of meaning among various groups, ranging from a term of
camaraderie to, in a gerund form, an expression of emphatic approval. Ms. Mealy
acknowledged that the measure was unenforceable, but she argued that it would
carry symbolic power against the pejorative uses of the word. Even so, a number
of New Yorkers said they were taken aback by the idea of prohibiting a term that
they not only use, but do so with relish and affection.
[...]
Protect Big Business, Don't Kill the Job
Protect Big Business, Don't Kill the Job
"We don't have to study homelessness," state Representative Byron Rushing says [...] good research is already available." (Boston Globe Editorial, "A future without homelessness," August 8, 2007)
But Rushing does not explain what kind of research is available.
Does the research explain what will be done with the millions of taxpayer dollars appropriated for treatment by human services corporations and the caring professions? What will become of all of the not- for-profit employees who work at the many shelters?
Where will the suburban wives and their visiting college age children go to volunteer on Thanksgiving? Where will the politicians go for photo opportunities if there are no shelters?
Rep. Rushing ignores the potential for displaced money and people if persons without homes are housed. Homelessness is a big business, which has a big lobby at the legislatures. Forget that it costs less to house people than to arrest them and transport them to hospitals. Appropriating more taxpayer money is better for the human services corporations and the caring professions.
What are your priorities?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Globe Editorial
A future without homelessness
August 8, 2007
WE DON'T have to study homelessness," state Representative Byron Rushing says of a new state commission that he proposed to address the issue; good research is already available.
Instead, the commission has to answer two questions. What kind of housing do people need? And, what will it take to keep formerly homeless people housed?
If Massachusetts can find and pay for answers, it could end homelessness -- for families, adults living on the streets, people leaving prison, and those with mental illnesses or addictions.
"We're on the cusp of a new era," says Tina Brooks, the state's undersecretary of housing.
The commission should work to meet its self-imposed deadline and come up with a comprehensive plan by December.
[...]
"We don't have to study homelessness," state Representative Byron Rushing says [...] good research is already available." (Boston Globe Editorial, "A future without homelessness," August 8, 2007)
But Rushing does not explain what kind of research is available.
Does the research explain what will be done with the millions of taxpayer dollars appropriated for treatment by human services corporations and the caring professions? What will become of all of the not- for-profit employees who work at the many shelters?
Where will the suburban wives and their visiting college age children go to volunteer on Thanksgiving? Where will the politicians go for photo opportunities if there are no shelters?
Rep. Rushing ignores the potential for displaced money and people if persons without homes are housed. Homelessness is a big business, which has a big lobby at the legislatures. Forget that it costs less to house people than to arrest them and transport them to hospitals. Appropriating more taxpayer money is better for the human services corporations and the caring professions.
What are your priorities?
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Globe Editorial
A future without homelessness
August 8, 2007
WE DON'T have to study homelessness," state Representative Byron Rushing says of a new state commission that he proposed to address the issue; good research is already available.
Instead, the commission has to answer two questions. What kind of housing do people need? And, what will it take to keep formerly homeless people housed?
If Massachusetts can find and pay for answers, it could end homelessness -- for families, adults living on the streets, people leaving prison, and those with mental illnesses or addictions.
"We're on the cusp of a new era," says Tina Brooks, the state's undersecretary of housing.
The commission should work to meet its self-imposed deadline and come up with a comprehensive plan by December.
[...]
August 3, 2007
Nobody Here But Us Chickens
Nobody Here But Us Chickens
Passing resolutions to protect animals over abuses of humans shows the
curious priorities of the Cambridge City Council. (Donna Goodison, "Cambridge
squawks over cages," Boston Herald, August 1, 2007) There are criminal penalties
to protect animals used for research at the state and US levels. But there are
no penalties for violations of laws using human subjects in medical experiments.
Cambridge has a Laboratory Animal Commissioner but no person whose mission is to
protect humans used in research.
Why are there no standards to protect egg-laying hens from sexual abuses of
roosters? Are full rights under Roe vs. Wade extended to egg-laying hens? What
laws prohibit sexual harassment by roosters? The Cambridge resolution has no
teeth and needs penalties to make it real. This is one more example of pandering
to the voters.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge squawks over cages
By Donna Goodison
Boston Herald
Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - Updated: 09:57 AM EST
Cambridge became the sixth U.S. city to formally condemn factory farms’
confinement of egg-laying hens to small wire “battery” cages.
The Cambridge City Council on Monday unanimously passed a resolution
opposing the “inherent cruelty” of the cages and encouraging consumers not to
purchase eggs produced by caged hens.
“With no opportunity to engage in many of their natural behaviors -
including nesting, dust bathing, perching and walking - these birds endure lives
wrought with suffering,” the resolution, worded with help from the Humane
Society of the United States, states. The resolution was introduced by Councilor
Craig Kelley at the request of Cambridge resident Ryan Shapiro, a Ph.D. student
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [...]
Passing resolutions to protect animals over abuses of humans shows the
curious priorities of the Cambridge City Council. (Donna Goodison, "Cambridge
squawks over cages," Boston Herald, August 1, 2007) There are criminal penalties
to protect animals used for research at the state and US levels. But there are
no penalties for violations of laws using human subjects in medical experiments.
Cambridge has a Laboratory Animal Commissioner but no person whose mission is to
protect humans used in research.
Why are there no standards to protect egg-laying hens from sexual abuses of
roosters? Are full rights under Roe vs. Wade extended to egg-laying hens? What
laws prohibit sexual harassment by roosters? The Cambridge resolution has no
teeth and needs penalties to make it real. This is one more example of pandering
to the voters.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge squawks over cages
By Donna Goodison
Boston Herald
Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - Updated: 09:57 AM EST
Cambridge became the sixth U.S. city to formally condemn factory farms’
confinement of egg-laying hens to small wire “battery” cages.
The Cambridge City Council on Monday unanimously passed a resolution
opposing the “inherent cruelty” of the cages and encouraging consumers not to
purchase eggs produced by caged hens.
“With no opportunity to engage in many of their natural behaviors -
including nesting, dust bathing, perching and walking - these birds endure lives
wrought with suffering,” the resolution, worded with help from the Humane
Society of the United States, states. The resolution was introduced by Councilor
Craig Kelley at the request of Cambridge resident Ryan Shapiro, a Ph.D. student
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [...]
Embattled NY Gov. Spitzer Ignores the Past
Embattled NY Gov. Spitzer Ignores the Past
[This letter was published in the New York Post on July 31, 2007]
The youthful New York Governor did not learn from Watergate that the cover up
is always worse than the crime. ("Eliot's Stonewall," New York Post, Editorial, July 30, 2007, page 26); (Fedric Dicker, "'Counsel' ploy silenced aides in AG's probe," Page 5, "Empower Andy: GOP,"page 4)
When will Eliot "I Am the the Greatest" 'fess up and face the consequences?
The more he tries to avoid his fate the worse it will be for him.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
[This letter was published in the New York Post on July 31, 2007]
The youthful New York Governor did not learn from Watergate that the cover up
is always worse than the crime. ("Eliot's Stonewall," New York Post, Editorial, July 30, 2007, page 26); (Fedric Dicker, "'Counsel' ploy silenced aides in AG's probe," Page 5, "Empower Andy: GOP,"page 4)
When will Eliot "I Am the the Greatest" 'fess up and face the consequences?
The more he tries to avoid his fate the worse it will be for him.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
