Right To Privacy
As background on Helder Peixoto Erin Smith reports "Daniel Furtado, a
mentally ill East Cambridge man [...] was shot by police [...] after he
allegedly attacked officers with a hatchet." (Erin Smith, "From wannabe pol to
playboy, Peixoto lived double life," Cambridge Chronicle, June 07, 2007)
What is the relevance of describing Furtado as "a mentally ill" man? Does
that irrational premise suggest that mental illness causes violence? How was his
medical history obtained by Ms. Smith? It is a violation of state and US privacy
laws to reveal without consent a person's medical records. If the "history" was
obtained from a police officer, a friend or relative, are these diagnoses
reliable?
Mr. Furtado was accused not charged with a misdemeanor offense. The
officers did not see the alleged offense. The mother of a Cambridge police
officer called in the complaint. With no warrant and no court order police broke
into his home in violation of state and US laws and The Fourth Amendment to the
Constitution.
Intense unlawful animus toward persons with disabilities, pervasive among
police, caused the officers to violate all of the above laws. Police reports
omit that part of the incident. But they always include accusations of mental
illness, no matter how unreliable they are.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
From wannabe pol to playboy, Peixoto lived double life
By Erin Smith/Chronicle Staff
Cambridge Chronicle
Thu Jun 07, 2007, 07:00 AM EDT
Cambridge -
When Helder �Sonny� Peixoto first ran for City Council in 1999, Cambridge
residents watched as almost 1,000 of his campaign signs sprung in store windows
and front lawns overnight.
�It was a matter of great interest of how someone that nobody ever heard of
could get so much exposure so fast,� said Glenn Koocher, a former School
Committee member who ran a political commentary show on the local access channel
at the time.
There was no question that the East Cambridge native was ambitious, exploding
onto the city�s political scene with an energetic streak at the young age of 27.
He proudly told the Chronicle that he had ordered even more campaign signs in
the months before the election.
But then the whispered accusations among the Cambridge business community grew
louder � stories of Peixoto using strong-arm tactics and bullying shop owners
into displaying his signs and even flashing his MBTA police badge to help with
the convincing. Those who had political dealings with him described him as a
bully and a loose cannon who went after his political foes with a vengeance.
Peixoto made Vice Mayor Tim Toomey his unwilling political opponent in the
election, accusing Toomey of pressuring business owners to take down his
campaign signs, a charge Toomey denied.
Peixoto seemed to create buzz whenever he went.
Following his conviction for motor vehicle homicide, Peixoto moved to Florida
four years ago and tried to reinvent himself as a wealthy businessman, according
to the Palm Beach Post.
He moved to the El Cid historic district of West Palm Beach, Fla. � an area that
was developed as an upper-class neighborhood in the 1920s � and hobnobbed with
governors, mayors and crashed the parties of rich socialites, according to the
Post.
No one exactly knew Peixoto�s backstory, but some players in West Palm Beach�s
glamorous scene began to question his con story and fear his unpredictable
outbursts, according to the Post.
Peixoto even maintained his air of mystery on his Myspace page, giving few vague
details about who he was and dubbing himself �Sir Sonny.�
He described himself as �Tall tan unpredictable� and was fond of the television
show �24,� Euro house music and traveling. But there are no photos of him or any
friends or messages listed on the page. He last logged into the networking site
about two weeks before he committed suicide. Police suspect he bludgeoned his
former girlfriend, Amity Kozak, to death before hurling himself from an
11th-floor condo balcony.
Even on the brink of suicide, Peixoto kept up appearances of his fake playboy
lifestyle. A real estate agent was giving him a tour of an empty condo at The
Slade, a resort�style waterfront luxury complex, when he wandered onto the
balcony and hurled himself to his death on the sidewalk below.
But Peixoto grew up in the working-class neighborhood of East Cambridge, far
from the glitz of the socialite scene of West Palm Beach Palm, and graduated
from the criminal justice police-training program at the University of
Massachusetts-Lowell. When he first ran for City Council in 1999, he lived in
his mother�s house on Webster Avenue.
Peixoto ran on a platform to increase public safety, limit councilors� terms,
expand funding for the arts, including a scheme to build a �hatch shell� at
Magazine Beach along the Charles. But the political celebrity, which he so
desperately wanted, eluded him, and he only managed to garner 315 votes at the
polls.
But even after his losses at the polls, his commitment to the Portuguese
community in East Cambridge never yielded. Peixoto jumped in the mix to defend
the Portuguese community in 2002, after Daniel Furtado, a mentally ill East
Cambridge man who was born in Portugal, was shot by police three times after he
allegedly attacked officers with a hatchet following a four-hour stand off.
Peixoto, who was no longer living in Cambridge by then, accused Cambridge police
of racism in the case.
The following year, Peixoto found himself facing charges of vehicular homicide
in the death of a World War II veteran. By that time, Peixoto had moved out of
Cambridge and was living in Malden. Although Peixoto � who was in uniform when
his car plowed into Todd�s car � maintained his innocence, he resigned from the
force several months later.
After his eventual conviction, Peixoto moved to Florida and onto what he thought
would his new life.
October 7, 2007
Bigotry Continues at NECN
Bigotry Continues at NECN
Angus McQuilken said on Tuesday April 17, 2007, on NECN's NewsNight with
Jim Braude that we need to "keep guns out of the hands of people with a history
of mental illness." Here is one more example of civil rights activists for
homosexuals who indicate their bigoted hateful feelings toward persons with
disabilities. Upon what rational basis does McQuilken deny persons with a
history of mental illness the right to carry a gun? It appears that he shares
the NECN host's negative opinion of persons with disabilities.
McQuilken also said that mental illness needs to be considered for a gun
license. Why not consider homosexuality for a gun license? Homosexuals are more
violent than mental patients. Homosexuals are more likely to kill others than
persons with a history of mental illness. Typically we scrutinize the peaceful
citizens and ignore the violent ones.
The Constitution does not deny rights to persons with a history of mental
illness. Having a disability does not carry with it a constitutional prohibition
on exercising rights. Unlike homosexuals persons with disabilities do not have
wealthy politically connected TV and political spokesmen defending their rights
and corrupting the law and the courts. Why do homosexual leaders deny equal
rights to persons with disabilities?
Mr. Braude and NECN management continue to ignore my emails about his
bigoted views on persons with disabilities. Jim's current love object, Cadillac
Deval said he was "sick of the careless insults." But neither Deval nor Braude
believe that persons with disabilities have the same feelings as black people,
homosexuals and women. Persons with disabilites are as hurt by Braude's and
McQuilkjen's hate speech as black people are hurt by Imus' speech. This is the
dictionary definition of bigotry. When will it end?
McQuilken is a limousine liberal failed candidate for state office. He
reflects the unlawful liberal position on persons with disabilities, i.e., only
homosexuals, women and blacks are victims of discrimination. That is the
underlying assumption of their fatuous policies.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Angus McQuilken said on Tuesday April 17, 2007, on NECN's NewsNight with
Jim Braude that we need to "keep guns out of the hands of people with a history
of mental illness." Here is one more example of civil rights activists for
homosexuals who indicate their bigoted hateful feelings toward persons with
disabilities. Upon what rational basis does McQuilken deny persons with a
history of mental illness the right to carry a gun? It appears that he shares
the NECN host's negative opinion of persons with disabilities.
McQuilken also said that mental illness needs to be considered for a gun
license. Why not consider homosexuality for a gun license? Homosexuals are more
violent than mental patients. Homosexuals are more likely to kill others than
persons with a history of mental illness. Typically we scrutinize the peaceful
citizens and ignore the violent ones.
The Constitution does not deny rights to persons with a history of mental
illness. Having a disability does not carry with it a constitutional prohibition
on exercising rights. Unlike homosexuals persons with disabilities do not have
wealthy politically connected TV and political spokesmen defending their rights
and corrupting the law and the courts. Why do homosexual leaders deny equal
rights to persons with disabilities?
Mr. Braude and NECN management continue to ignore my emails about his
bigoted views on persons with disabilities. Jim's current love object, Cadillac
Deval said he was "sick of the careless insults." But neither Deval nor Braude
believe that persons with disabilities have the same feelings as black people,
homosexuals and women. Persons with disabilites are as hurt by Braude's and
McQuilkjen's hate speech as black people are hurt by Imus' speech. This is the
dictionary definition of bigotry. When will it end?
McQuilken is a limousine liberal failed candidate for state office. He
reflects the unlawful liberal position on persons with disabilities, i.e., only
homosexuals, women and blacks are victims of discrimination. That is the
underlying assumption of their fatuous policies.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Thank you
Thank you
Thanks to the Cambridge Chronicle and Arlington Internist Byron Diggs for
drawing attention to the pervasive unlawful discrimination against persons with
disabilities. (BYRON R. DIGGS, Letter, "Letter-writer got it wrong," Cambridge
Chronicle, Jun 26, 2007, 28th print edition) I hope to see more.
Having intimate experience with schizophrenia Dr. Diggs surely supports
ending unlawful discrimination in providing health care to persons with
disabilities. That is the issue which began this discussion.
Thanks also to Dr. Diggs for his insights into my personal expression with
which he disagrees.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Letter: Letter-writer got it wrong
Cambridge Chronicle
Tue Jun 26, 2007, 05:36 PM EDT
Cambridge -
Roy Bercaw's enraged and nasty letter to the editor in the June 7 Chronicle
("Doctor�s bias undeniable") illustrates why his reality check keeps bouncing.
This person writes to the Chronicle often, and often unnecessarily, about
perceived threats to "persons with disabilities" from a myriad of agents, state,
local and federal, the MBTA, Cambridge, Harvard; his "enemies list" is long. Of
course, some offenses are real. But Bercaw seemingly writes of nothing else. I
note that few readers respond to his embarrassing tirades; we recognize his
letters to be a waste of time and trees.
To regain attention, he changes tactics - personal insults, distortion of what I
wrote, grandiose generalizations about doctors, journalists, et al. It is
annoying that I must defend myself against his misguided attacks; the imposed
400-word cap makes a comprehensive defense limited. Suffice to say that the
people who know me understand the ignorance of Bercaw's accusations.
In my letter to which Roy refers (Chronicle, May 31), I briefly discussed the
emergency treatment of "psych" patients in the ER, the increased risk of
violence against the patient or the staff, and the need for chemical or physical
restraint, sometimes necessary for a complete clinical assessment. My example of
an actively hallucinating, violently punching patient resisting urgently needed
evaluation and treatment is distorted by Bercaw to "' Diggs' stereotyp(ing) all
persons who arrive at the ER in an unconventional manner!" Bercaw's "example,"
"If a person with muscular dystrophy" is completely irrelevant.
For three decades, I have been an internal medicine specialist, with interest
and experience in the medical care of psychiatric patients. Several members of
my extended family were diagnosed with schizophrenia in their early 20s.
Bercaw confuses and lumps together two different situations. One scenario
involves the news of stable, mentally ill patients being �released� into the
community and met with fear, suspicion and resistance. This is prejudicial
behavior; studies show that stable, mentally ill patients are no more dangerous
than others. The second scenario involves psych patients brought to the ER.
Often, not always, such patients are unstable and dangerous to themselves and/or
staff members. The potential for violence is real, and as well designed studies
show, more likely than those in the general ER population. Bercaw�s fear of this
reality, suspicion of medical staff, and resistance to understanding what is
obvious will always remain a mystery.
BYRON R. DIGGS, MD
Arlington
Thanks to the Cambridge Chronicle and Arlington Internist Byron Diggs for
drawing attention to the pervasive unlawful discrimination against persons with
disabilities. (BYRON R. DIGGS, Letter, "Letter-writer got it wrong," Cambridge
Chronicle, Jun 26, 2007, 28th print edition) I hope to see more.
Having intimate experience with schizophrenia Dr. Diggs surely supports
ending unlawful discrimination in providing health care to persons with
disabilities. That is the issue which began this discussion.
Thanks also to Dr. Diggs for his insights into my personal expression with
which he disagrees.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Letter: Letter-writer got it wrong
Cambridge Chronicle
Tue Jun 26, 2007, 05:36 PM EDT
Cambridge -
Roy Bercaw's enraged and nasty letter to the editor in the June 7 Chronicle
("Doctor�s bias undeniable") illustrates why his reality check keeps bouncing.
This person writes to the Chronicle often, and often unnecessarily, about
perceived threats to "persons with disabilities" from a myriad of agents, state,
local and federal, the MBTA, Cambridge, Harvard; his "enemies list" is long. Of
course, some offenses are real. But Bercaw seemingly writes of nothing else. I
note that few readers respond to his embarrassing tirades; we recognize his
letters to be a waste of time and trees.
To regain attention, he changes tactics - personal insults, distortion of what I
wrote, grandiose generalizations about doctors, journalists, et al. It is
annoying that I must defend myself against his misguided attacks; the imposed
400-word cap makes a comprehensive defense limited. Suffice to say that the
people who know me understand the ignorance of Bercaw's accusations.
In my letter to which Roy refers (Chronicle, May 31), I briefly discussed the
emergency treatment of "psych" patients in the ER, the increased risk of
violence against the patient or the staff, and the need for chemical or physical
restraint, sometimes necessary for a complete clinical assessment. My example of
an actively hallucinating, violently punching patient resisting urgently needed
evaluation and treatment is distorted by Bercaw to "' Diggs' stereotyp(ing) all
persons who arrive at the ER in an unconventional manner!" Bercaw's "example,"
"If a person with muscular dystrophy" is completely irrelevant.
For three decades, I have been an internal medicine specialist, with interest
and experience in the medical care of psychiatric patients. Several members of
my extended family were diagnosed with schizophrenia in their early 20s.
Bercaw confuses and lumps together two different situations. One scenario
involves the news of stable, mentally ill patients being �released� into the
community and met with fear, suspicion and resistance. This is prejudicial
behavior; studies show that stable, mentally ill patients are no more dangerous
than others. The second scenario involves psych patients brought to the ER.
Often, not always, such patients are unstable and dangerous to themselves and/or
staff members. The potential for violence is real, and as well designed studies
show, more likely than those in the general ER population. Bercaw�s fear of this
reality, suspicion of medical staff, and resistance to understanding what is
obvious will always remain a mystery.
BYRON R. DIGGS, MD
Arlington
Psychiatric Fantasy
Psychiatric Fantasy
On Friday July 6, 2007, while discussing the new "Dangerous Book for Boys,"
and how boys are being feminized, Tony Blankley said of boys, "There are
chemical imbalances." That notion is a creation of the PR flacks for the drug
companies and the psychiatric industry.
Researchers do not drill holes through the scull and test brain matter
chemically. They use photographs. But if they did actually do a chemical
analysis of brain matter there is no chemical balance, no standard to measure
against.
A few years ago a group from Mindfreedom went on a hunger strike
challenging the American Psychiatric Association to provide evidence of a
chemical imbalance. They were unable to so do. But they continue to promote the
fantasy, of a chemical imbalance.
It is unfortunate that an educated journalist like Blankley made that
comment and was not challenged by any of your erudite guests.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
On Friday July 6, 2007, while discussing the new "Dangerous Book for Boys,"
and how boys are being feminized, Tony Blankley said of boys, "There are
chemical imbalances." That notion is a creation of the PR flacks for the drug
companies and the psychiatric industry.
Researchers do not drill holes through the scull and test brain matter
chemically. They use photographs. But if they did actually do a chemical
analysis of brain matter there is no chemical balance, no standard to measure
against.
A few years ago a group from Mindfreedom went on a hunger strike
challenging the American Psychiatric Association to provide evidence of a
chemical imbalance. They were unable to so do. But they continue to promote the
fantasy, of a chemical imbalance.
It is unfortunate that an educated journalist like Blankley made that
comment and was not challenged by any of your erudite guests.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Dual Office Holders
Dual Office Holders
Cambridge City Councilor and Court Clerk Michael Sullivan said "I don't as
a rule of thumb, schedule [City Council] things during the day." (Erin Smith,
"Double-Dip Sullivan flouts ehtics ruling," Cambridge Chronicle, May 3, 2007,
page one; and "After Ethics ruling, Sullivan seeks seat again," July 5, 2007,
page one) Many City Council committee meetings are scheduled during the day. He
would not be able to be court clerk and attend those meetings.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Dual officeholders drawing scrutiny
State panel sees potential conflict
By John C. Drake,
Boston Globe Staff
July 16, 2007
In Massachusetts, known for its healthy appetite for politics, a quirk in the
state constitution allows the state's most ambitious politicos to hold more than
one elected office.
For that, Michael Sullivan can be thankful.
Sullivan, from a storied family of politicians, was elected Middlesex County
clerk of courts last fall, replacing his 86-year-old uncle, Edward J. Sullivan,
who had stepped down after nearly 50 years. Michael Sullivan is also an elected
Cambridge city councilor.
His total pay: about $170,000 a year.
A state advisory panel for clerks of court has recommended that Sullivan drop
one of the posts, saying conflicts of interest could arise between the dual
roles. Sullivan insists he has taken steps to avoid any conflict, and has pulled
nomination papers for re election to the City Council. He said he is confident
he could continue to handle both jobs.
"It actually wasn't as demanding as I thought it would be," said Sullivan, who
has yet to decide if he will run again.
Massachusetts is one of a handful of states with few restrictions on holding two
elective positions.
Critics of dual office holding say it creates potential conflicts of interest,
allows job holders to collect two public salaries and added pension benefits,
and prevents new blood from filling public offices.
It is controversial in some states, but there has been little push to abandon
the practice in Massachusetts.
The potential conflicts include the fact that a state lawmaker who is also a
city councilor may vote on a budget that affects his own city, while other
cities also are competing for cash. In Sullivan's case, his office processes
court cases that include him as a defendant.
Besides Sullivan, other double office holders include another Cambridge city
councilor, Timothy J. Toomey Jr. , who is also a state representative; State
Representative Rosemary Sandlin, who is also a member of the Agawam School
Committee; first-year State Representative Stephen Smith, who is serving his
last year as a selectman in Everett; and state Representative Thomas Stanley ,
who is also an at-large Waltham city councilor.
To many of the politicians, the double duty is a point of pride: Not only did
the voters elect them once, they elected them twice. They boast that they know
the issues at home very well.
"I never have to 'take the temperature,' because I'm always in the middle of
everything," said Stanley, a Democrat whose Ninth Middlesex District includes
parts of Waltham and Lexington. "I have constant contact with local and state
officials as well as constituents."
He earns two public salaries: $14,874 a year plus expenses from the city of
Waltham, and $55,569 from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
One government watchdog group says the situation is acceptable, as long as the
officials are careful about avoiding conflicts.
"I think we've seen many that are able to juggle those responsibilities well,"
said Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause of Massachusetts. "Any time
you do have a dual role, whether it's elected or having outside employment,
there are potentials for conflicted interests. But frankly, I think they're less
when holding two elected offices than when in the private sector."
State ethics law focuses on preventing financial conflicts of interest. For
example, a state legislator, as a state employee, cannot obtain a contract to
provide services to the state. Also a lawmaker cannot receive a second state
salary, although there are exceptions, including faculty appointments. But state
law says there is no restriction on state officials holding local elected
office.
In other states, however, the practice has been controversial.
In New Jersey, Governor Jon Corzine is reviewing recently passed legislation
that bans dual office holding. Under the law, current dual office holders would
be grandfathered, but any current or future elected official who was elected to
a second office would have to choose one.
Brenda Erickson , a research analyst with the National Conference of State
Legislatures, said many states ban dual office holding to prevent double dipping
for salary and benefits in public coffers.
Generally, city councilors and selectmen are not considered full-time employees,
and they often hold private-sector jobs.
Stanley, the Waltham politician, said voters determine each year whether he's
doing a good job handling his local and his state responsibilities. He's up for
re election to the council and the state Legislature in alternating years.
Having so many elections is certainly time-consuming, he said. He says he
probably has knocked on every door in Waltham.
"I enjoy it," he said. "It's like breathing to me."
But not everyone agrees that dual office holders can adequately serve both
roles.
Waltham City Councilor Kathleen B. McMenimen challenged her council colleague
Stanley in the 2004 primary election for state representative.
She promised to step down from the council post if elected to the House.
The legislative seat encompasses Waltham and portions of neighboring Lexington,
and she said the needs of the two communities sometimes are in conflict.
"As state representative, he has a hard enough time balancing the needs of the
Lexington constituents with the needs of the Waltham constituents," she said.
But Stanley said he has never felt a conflict in representing both communities.
"That was a concern of mine when I was redistricted into Lexington," he said.
"But . . . the communities are more similar than one would think, and I can't
think of a situation where I've been in conflict."
In Sullivan's case, the Supreme Judicial Court's Advisory Committee on Ethical
Opinions for Clerks of the Courts weighed in on his dual roles in January.
He had asked the panel for its opinion on handling court cases involving the
City of Cambridge. The panel's conclusion was that holding both offices would be
"problematic."
The clerk's office controls the flow of cases through the courthouse and handles
evidence and court filings. A Code of Professional Responsibility requires
clerks to maintain impartiality on issues that could come before the court.
Sullivan says his office is up-front about his dual roles when cases involving
the city of Cambridge come before the court. Parties are given the opportunity
to move their cases to another clerk's jurisdiction if they are concerned about
a conflict.
Several lawmakers who had brief overlap in their local offices and their state
offices, say they decided not to run for re election to their local seats,
because of the time commitment, the need to get others involved in politics, and
potential conflicts.
"I preferred to focus on the one job," said state Representative William
Brownsberger , a Democrat who was elected to the Legislature in November while
serving as a Belmont selectman. He served out the last three months of his term
as selectmen after taking office on Beacon Hill in January.
Sandlin was elected to the Legislature in November while serving as an Agawam
School Committee member. She said she decided not to step down from the School
Committee because the vacancy would have required an expensive special election
for her community.
"I've not missed a meeting on the School Committee nor missed a vote in the
House," Sandlin said. "But of course, I'm a very energetic person."
John C. Drake can be reached at jdrake@globe.com
Cambridge City Councilor and Court Clerk Michael Sullivan said "I don't as
a rule of thumb, schedule [City Council] things during the day." (Erin Smith,
"Double-Dip Sullivan flouts ehtics ruling," Cambridge Chronicle, May 3, 2007,
page one; and "After Ethics ruling, Sullivan seeks seat again," July 5, 2007,
page one) Many City Council committee meetings are scheduled during the day. He
would not be able to be court clerk and attend those meetings.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Dual officeholders drawing scrutiny
State panel sees potential conflict
By John C. Drake,
Boston Globe Staff
July 16, 2007
In Massachusetts, known for its healthy appetite for politics, a quirk in the
state constitution allows the state's most ambitious politicos to hold more than
one elected office.
For that, Michael Sullivan can be thankful.
Sullivan, from a storied family of politicians, was elected Middlesex County
clerk of courts last fall, replacing his 86-year-old uncle, Edward J. Sullivan,
who had stepped down after nearly 50 years. Michael Sullivan is also an elected
Cambridge city councilor.
His total pay: about $170,000 a year.
A state advisory panel for clerks of court has recommended that Sullivan drop
one of the posts, saying conflicts of interest could arise between the dual
roles. Sullivan insists he has taken steps to avoid any conflict, and has pulled
nomination papers for re election to the City Council. He said he is confident
he could continue to handle both jobs.
"It actually wasn't as demanding as I thought it would be," said Sullivan, who
has yet to decide if he will run again.
Massachusetts is one of a handful of states with few restrictions on holding two
elective positions.
Critics of dual office holding say it creates potential conflicts of interest,
allows job holders to collect two public salaries and added pension benefits,
and prevents new blood from filling public offices.
It is controversial in some states, but there has been little push to abandon
the practice in Massachusetts.
The potential conflicts include the fact that a state lawmaker who is also a
city councilor may vote on a budget that affects his own city, while other
cities also are competing for cash. In Sullivan's case, his office processes
court cases that include him as a defendant.
Besides Sullivan, other double office holders include another Cambridge city
councilor, Timothy J. Toomey Jr. , who is also a state representative; State
Representative Rosemary Sandlin, who is also a member of the Agawam School
Committee; first-year State Representative Stephen Smith, who is serving his
last year as a selectman in Everett; and state Representative Thomas Stanley ,
who is also an at-large Waltham city councilor.
To many of the politicians, the double duty is a point of pride: Not only did
the voters elect them once, they elected them twice. They boast that they know
the issues at home very well.
"I never have to 'take the temperature,' because I'm always in the middle of
everything," said Stanley, a Democrat whose Ninth Middlesex District includes
parts of Waltham and Lexington. "I have constant contact with local and state
officials as well as constituents."
He earns two public salaries: $14,874 a year plus expenses from the city of
Waltham, and $55,569 from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
One government watchdog group says the situation is acceptable, as long as the
officials are careful about avoiding conflicts.
"I think we've seen many that are able to juggle those responsibilities well,"
said Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause of Massachusetts. "Any time
you do have a dual role, whether it's elected or having outside employment,
there are potentials for conflicted interests. But frankly, I think they're less
when holding two elected offices than when in the private sector."
State ethics law focuses on preventing financial conflicts of interest. For
example, a state legislator, as a state employee, cannot obtain a contract to
provide services to the state. Also a lawmaker cannot receive a second state
salary, although there are exceptions, including faculty appointments. But state
law says there is no restriction on state officials holding local elected
office.
In other states, however, the practice has been controversial.
In New Jersey, Governor Jon Corzine is reviewing recently passed legislation
that bans dual office holding. Under the law, current dual office holders would
be grandfathered, but any current or future elected official who was elected to
a second office would have to choose one.
Brenda Erickson , a research analyst with the National Conference of State
Legislatures, said many states ban dual office holding to prevent double dipping
for salary and benefits in public coffers.
Generally, city councilors and selectmen are not considered full-time employees,
and they often hold private-sector jobs.
Stanley, the Waltham politician, said voters determine each year whether he's
doing a good job handling his local and his state responsibilities. He's up for
re election to the council and the state Legislature in alternating years.
Having so many elections is certainly time-consuming, he said. He says he
probably has knocked on every door in Waltham.
"I enjoy it," he said. "It's like breathing to me."
But not everyone agrees that dual office holders can adequately serve both
roles.
Waltham City Councilor Kathleen B. McMenimen challenged her council colleague
Stanley in the 2004 primary election for state representative.
She promised to step down from the council post if elected to the House.
The legislative seat encompasses Waltham and portions of neighboring Lexington,
and she said the needs of the two communities sometimes are in conflict.
"As state representative, he has a hard enough time balancing the needs of the
Lexington constituents with the needs of the Waltham constituents," she said.
But Stanley said he has never felt a conflict in representing both communities.
"That was a concern of mine when I was redistricted into Lexington," he said.
"But . . . the communities are more similar than one would think, and I can't
think of a situation where I've been in conflict."
In Sullivan's case, the Supreme Judicial Court's Advisory Committee on Ethical
Opinions for Clerks of the Courts weighed in on his dual roles in January.
He had asked the panel for its opinion on handling court cases involving the
City of Cambridge. The panel's conclusion was that holding both offices would be
"problematic."
The clerk's office controls the flow of cases through the courthouse and handles
evidence and court filings. A Code of Professional Responsibility requires
clerks to maintain impartiality on issues that could come before the court.
Sullivan says his office is up-front about his dual roles when cases involving
the city of Cambridge come before the court. Parties are given the opportunity
to move their cases to another clerk's jurisdiction if they are concerned about
a conflict.
Several lawmakers who had brief overlap in their local offices and their state
offices, say they decided not to run for re election to their local seats,
because of the time commitment, the need to get others involved in politics, and
potential conflicts.
"I preferred to focus on the one job," said state Representative William
Brownsberger , a Democrat who was elected to the Legislature in November while
serving as a Belmont selectman. He served out the last three months of his term
as selectmen after taking office on Beacon Hill in January.
Sandlin was elected to the Legislature in November while serving as an Agawam
School Committee member. She said she decided not to step down from the School
Committee because the vacancy would have required an expensive special election
for her community.
"I've not missed a meeting on the School Committee nor missed a vote in the
House," Sandlin said. "But of course, I'm a very energetic person."
John C. Drake can be reached at jdrake@globe.com
October 6, 2007
Good Job!
Good Job!
Fred Dicker and the New York Post deserve great praise for exposing
Spitzer's abuse of police powers. Unexpectedly a Democratic Attorney General
quickly verified the Post's report, "the pretext for the surveillance was a
lie." (Dicker, "Post's haste ignited the gov scandal," New York Post, July 24,
2007, page 4)
If the staff of a former state attorney general easily abused the awesome
police powers targeting an elected official, what defenses are there for
civilian critics? Too many public officials abuse their privileges using police
to intimidate their critics. What remains unaddressed is pervasive abuses of
journalists to mislead the public.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
POST'S HASTE IGNITED THE GOV SCANDAL
By FREDRIC U. DICKER, State Editor
New York Post
July 24, 2007 -- ALBANY - The Post blew the lid off the surveillance of Majority Leader Joe Bruno by Gov. Spitzer's office 2½ weeks ago with an exclusive front-page story headlined: "Police State: Gov. Sicced Cops On Joe."
The Post's probe of the misuse of State Police by Gov. Spitzer's administration - which triggered Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's bombshell report yesterday - was launched after it became clear that something was wrong with an earlier newspaper article suggesting Bruno had misused state aircraft for political purposes.
That Albany Times-Union story on July 1 based its claim on detailed State Police travel records for Bruno - the likes of which had never been made public before for any state official.
State Police sources told The Post at the time that they had never seen records like those - detailing Bruno's stop-by-stop travel schedule and, in the process, potentially compromising Bruno's personal security - ever handed over to a newspaper.
Working through the Fourth of July holiday, The Post interviewed nearly a dozen senior officials with ties to Gov. Spitzer's office, the Legislature and the State Police, and checked volumes of travel records for several top officials.
The paper's bombshell July 5 story documented an unprecedented State Police intelligence-gathering program aimed at Bruno.
It also noted that the pretext for the surveillance was a lie.
Now-suspended Spitzer Communications Director Darren Dopp had told The Post that the record-keeping on Bruno was begun because state Conservative Party Chairman Michael Long had complained about his supposed misuse of the State Police during visits to the city, a claim Long strenuously denied to the paper.
When Dopp subsequently contended he never made such a claim, The Post published an e-mail that Dopp had sent showing that he had.
Later stories also detailed Dopp's multiple and contradictory claims as to why State Police records were kept on Bruno.
They also revealed - in a matter that was not addressed in the Cuomo report - that aides to Spitzer sought to convince prosecutors to begin investigating Bruno before the initial Times-Union report was in print.
Fred Dicker and the New York Post deserve great praise for exposing
Spitzer's abuse of police powers. Unexpectedly a Democratic Attorney General
quickly verified the Post's report, "the pretext for the surveillance was a
lie." (Dicker, "Post's haste ignited the gov scandal," New York Post, July 24,
2007, page 4)
If the staff of a former state attorney general easily abused the awesome
police powers targeting an elected official, what defenses are there for
civilian critics? Too many public officials abuse their privileges using police
to intimidate their critics. What remains unaddressed is pervasive abuses of
journalists to mislead the public.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
POST'S HASTE IGNITED THE GOV SCANDAL
By FREDRIC U. DICKER, State Editor
New York Post
July 24, 2007 -- ALBANY - The Post blew the lid off the surveillance of Majority Leader Joe Bruno by Gov. Spitzer's office 2½ weeks ago with an exclusive front-page story headlined: "Police State: Gov. Sicced Cops On Joe."
The Post's probe of the misuse of State Police by Gov. Spitzer's administration - which triggered Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's bombshell report yesterday - was launched after it became clear that something was wrong with an earlier newspaper article suggesting Bruno had misused state aircraft for political purposes.
That Albany Times-Union story on July 1 based its claim on detailed State Police travel records for Bruno - the likes of which had never been made public before for any state official.
State Police sources told The Post at the time that they had never seen records like those - detailing Bruno's stop-by-stop travel schedule and, in the process, potentially compromising Bruno's personal security - ever handed over to a newspaper.
Working through the Fourth of July holiday, The Post interviewed nearly a dozen senior officials with ties to Gov. Spitzer's office, the Legislature and the State Police, and checked volumes of travel records for several top officials.
The paper's bombshell July 5 story documented an unprecedented State Police intelligence-gathering program aimed at Bruno.
It also noted that the pretext for the surveillance was a lie.
Now-suspended Spitzer Communications Director Darren Dopp had told The Post that the record-keeping on Bruno was begun because state Conservative Party Chairman Michael Long had complained about his supposed misuse of the State Police during visits to the city, a claim Long strenuously denied to the paper.
When Dopp subsequently contended he never made such a claim, The Post published an e-mail that Dopp had sent showing that he had.
Later stories also detailed Dopp's multiple and contradictory claims as to why State Police records were kept on Bruno.
They also revealed - in a matter that was not addressed in the Cuomo report - that aides to Spitzer sought to convince prosecutors to begin investigating Bruno before the initial Times-Union report was in print.
Good Intentions
Good Intentions
High tech police tools for fighting "child predators" is good news. George
Bernard Shaw said, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Toronto
police say, "as soon as we type an e-mail or name or anything else, we know
right away if another department has already launched an investigation, and we
can see their investigation." (ANGELA MONTEFINISE, "NYPD TO UNLEASH 'PREDATOR'
DRONE," New York Post, September 2, 2007, page 2) What safeguards are in this
system to prevent abuses?
How does this system identify political abuses of police powers? In Boston
ethnic cleansing, the FBI framed four men for murder. Two died in prison. Two
spent 30 years in jail. Taxpayers paid $101 million for the wrongdoing of FBI
agents who suffered no liability. Boston FBI informants killed 19 people that we
know of. The one FBI agent convicted of abusing his power regularly filed false
reports to protect his informants.
How will this system distinguish from criminal abuse of power and accurate
law enforcement purposes? This creates the potential for worse abuses. It is
effectively impossible to correct false information in government computer
files.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
NYPD TO UNLEASH 'PREDATOR' DRONE
New York Post
By ANGELA MONTEFINISE
September 2, 2007 -- City cops are going high-tech to catch lowlifes.
The NYPD plans to sign a $542,000 deal with Microsoft to bring the software
company's highly touted Child Exploitation Tracking System to the city.
The CETS technology - which was launched in Toronto in 2004 but is not yet in
the United States - connects law-enforcement agencies across the world, allowing
police to share information to help nab child predators, particularly those who
prey online.
"It's a really excellent program to deal with online predators," said Detective
Constable Warren Bulmer of Toronto Police Services. "With CETS, as soon as we
type an e-mail or name or anything else, we know right away if another
department has already launched an investigation, and we can see their
investigation.
"It definitely helps us catch people. It saves hours of double work, especially
in Internet cases when there's no jurisdiction. Two detectives across the
country can be studying the same guy."
To comply with city procurement rules, the NYPD released a mandatory "request
for proposals" from other potential companies last week, but NYPD brass
considers the Microsoft system "a unique product."
"We're looking at this system to see if it can assist our detectives with child
exploitation cases," said Assistant Chief Michael Collins. "The system is being
used across the world and getting good reviews, so we want to try it."
Collins said the NYPD "would use it in a variety of these types of cases,"
including online predators.
"The CETS will allow the department to collaborate and coordinate investigations
of child exploitation with other police organizations around the world,
including police organizations in Canada and Europe, who currently use the
Microsoft CETS," according to the NYPD's request for proposals.
"The CETS will make use of existing capacity to link numerous existing NYPD
child-exploitation databases with each other and with CETS databases of other
police organizations world-wide."
The system actually analyzes data, Bulmer said, connecting "things detectives
might not notice, like similar postal codes or similar e-mail addresses" to link
cases together.
He remembered when CETS linked two seemingly different cases by connecting the
same postal code, "That's something that probably would have been missed,"
Bulmer said. "Eventually, that guy was caught, and the system is a big reason."
The CETS system is currently in Canada, Britain, Italy, Brazil, Chile and
Indonesia. There are plans to bring it to Australia, according to Bulmer, whose
department actually helped develop the software.
His former colleague in Toronto, Paul Gillespie, sent an e-mail to Microsoft
founder Bill Gates asking for help dealing with online predators, and Gates
responded by creating CETS along with law-enforcement officials.
"Eventually, this will be a worldwide thing," he said. "It's really invaluable."
So far, the software has been tested in Wyoming, and some states have expressed
interest, but the system has not been implemented in the United States,
according to Microsoft spokeswoman Katie Ford.
"We are working with U.S. law enforcement toward the possible domestic
deployment of CETS, and we are optimistic that it will happen," she said.
angela.montefinise@nypost.com
High tech police tools for fighting "child predators" is good news. George
Bernard Shaw said, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Toronto
police say, "as soon as we type an e-mail or name or anything else, we know
right away if another department has already launched an investigation, and we
can see their investigation." (ANGELA MONTEFINISE, "NYPD TO UNLEASH 'PREDATOR'
DRONE," New York Post, September 2, 2007, page 2) What safeguards are in this
system to prevent abuses?
How does this system identify political abuses of police powers? In Boston
ethnic cleansing, the FBI framed four men for murder. Two died in prison. Two
spent 30 years in jail. Taxpayers paid $101 million for the wrongdoing of FBI
agents who suffered no liability. Boston FBI informants killed 19 people that we
know of. The one FBI agent convicted of abusing his power regularly filed false
reports to protect his informants.
How will this system distinguish from criminal abuse of power and accurate
law enforcement purposes? This creates the potential for worse abuses. It is
effectively impossible to correct false information in government computer
files.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
NYPD TO UNLEASH 'PREDATOR' DRONE
New York Post
By ANGELA MONTEFINISE
September 2, 2007 -- City cops are going high-tech to catch lowlifes.
The NYPD plans to sign a $542,000 deal with Microsoft to bring the software
company's highly touted Child Exploitation Tracking System to the city.
The CETS technology - which was launched in Toronto in 2004 but is not yet in
the United States - connects law-enforcement agencies across the world, allowing
police to share information to help nab child predators, particularly those who
prey online.
"It's a really excellent program to deal with online predators," said Detective
Constable Warren Bulmer of Toronto Police Services. "With CETS, as soon as we
type an e-mail or name or anything else, we know right away if another
department has already launched an investigation, and we can see their
investigation.
"It definitely helps us catch people. It saves hours of double work, especially
in Internet cases when there's no jurisdiction. Two detectives across the
country can be studying the same guy."
To comply with city procurement rules, the NYPD released a mandatory "request
for proposals" from other potential companies last week, but NYPD brass
considers the Microsoft system "a unique product."
"We're looking at this system to see if it can assist our detectives with child
exploitation cases," said Assistant Chief Michael Collins. "The system is being
used across the world and getting good reviews, so we want to try it."
Collins said the NYPD "would use it in a variety of these types of cases,"
including online predators.
"The CETS will allow the department to collaborate and coordinate investigations
of child exploitation with other police organizations around the world,
including police organizations in Canada and Europe, who currently use the
Microsoft CETS," according to the NYPD's request for proposals.
"The CETS will make use of existing capacity to link numerous existing NYPD
child-exploitation databases with each other and with CETS databases of other
police organizations world-wide."
The system actually analyzes data, Bulmer said, connecting "things detectives
might not notice, like similar postal codes or similar e-mail addresses" to link
cases together.
He remembered when CETS linked two seemingly different cases by connecting the
same postal code, "That's something that probably would have been missed,"
Bulmer said. "Eventually, that guy was caught, and the system is a big reason."
The CETS system is currently in Canada, Britain, Italy, Brazil, Chile and
Indonesia. There are plans to bring it to Australia, according to Bulmer, whose
department actually helped develop the software.
His former colleague in Toronto, Paul Gillespie, sent an e-mail to Microsoft
founder Bill Gates asking for help dealing with online predators, and Gates
responded by creating CETS along with law-enforcement officials.
"Eventually, this will be a worldwide thing," he said. "It's really invaluable."
So far, the software has been tested in Wyoming, and some states have expressed
interest, but the system has not been implemented in the United States,
according to Microsoft spokeswoman Katie Ford.
"We are working with U.S. law enforcement toward the possible domestic
deployment of CETS, and we are optimistic that it will happen," she said.
angela.montefinise@nypost.com
SF Bd of Supervisors Condemns Expression
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Condemns Michael Savage's Expression
Aside from what Michael Savage says, whether it is true, a lie, hateful or
mean spirited, I am shocked at the action of the Board of Supervisors.
How much longer will this country last? Your government and others who
think alike are assisting in the suicide of this country.
Michael Savage is a private citizen. He has a right under the US
Constitution to criticize the government, the original purpose of that
Amendment. I am well aware of how public officials abuse their power for their
own private interest. That does not mitigate the malfeasance and criminal abuses
of their power. This is one more. The First Amendment prohibits any intimidation
of the free exercise of a constitutionally guaranteed right.
Your letter is an example of an attempt to the chill the free exercise of
that right. Savage is strong and may not be chilled. But others who see your
action may fear speaking out. That is an outrage when one purpose of public
discourse is to teach. As public officials you show your contempt for the
Constitution and for your oath of office.
The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect speech that you hate.
Small minds like yours is what the amendment was written to protect the rest of
us from. Shame on you.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
SF: BOARD OF SUPES CONDEMNS LANGUAGE USED BY MICHAEL SAVAGE
10/02/07 5:55 PDT
CBS5.com
KPIX-TV
SAN FRANCISCO (BCN)
All 11 members of the San Francisco board of supervisors voted today for a
resolution condemning radio personality Michael Savage for using defamatory
language against the immigrant community.
The resolution, introduced by Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval, not only condemned
the language used by Savage, but reiterated San Francisco's commitment to being
a tolerant, respectful city. Savage made defamatory remarks about college
students who were involved in a weeklong fast in San Francisco's Civic Center
Plaza from July 2 to July 9 to urge Congress to pass an immigration reform bill.
Savage said in a radio program on July 5 that the demonstrators should "fast
until they starve to death,'' according to the resolution.
The resolution states that the board deems Savage's comments as "symbolic of
hatred and racism,'' both of which are not tolerated or endorsed by the city and
county.
Condemns Michael Savage's Expression
Aside from what Michael Savage says, whether it is true, a lie, hateful or
mean spirited, I am shocked at the action of the Board of Supervisors.
How much longer will this country last? Your government and others who
think alike are assisting in the suicide of this country.
Michael Savage is a private citizen. He has a right under the US
Constitution to criticize the government, the original purpose of that
Amendment. I am well aware of how public officials abuse their power for their
own private interest. That does not mitigate the malfeasance and criminal abuses
of their power. This is one more. The First Amendment prohibits any intimidation
of the free exercise of a constitutionally guaranteed right.
Your letter is an example of an attempt to the chill the free exercise of
that right. Savage is strong and may not be chilled. But others who see your
action may fear speaking out. That is an outrage when one purpose of public
discourse is to teach. As public officials you show your contempt for the
Constitution and for your oath of office.
The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect speech that you hate.
Small minds like yours is what the amendment was written to protect the rest of
us from. Shame on you.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
SF: BOARD OF SUPES CONDEMNS LANGUAGE USED BY MICHAEL SAVAGE
10/02/07 5:55 PDT
CBS5.com
KPIX-TV
SAN FRANCISCO (BCN)
All 11 members of the San Francisco board of supervisors voted today for a
resolution condemning radio personality Michael Savage for using defamatory
language against the immigrant community.
The resolution, introduced by Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval, not only condemned
the language used by Savage, but reiterated San Francisco's commitment to being
a tolerant, respectful city. Savage made defamatory remarks about college
students who were involved in a weeklong fast in San Francisco's Civic Center
Plaza from July 2 to July 9 to urge Congress to pass an immigration reform bill.
Savage said in a radio program on July 5 that the demonstrators should "fast
until they starve to death,'' according to the resolution.
The resolution states that the board deems Savage's comments as "symbolic of
hatred and racism,'' both of which are not tolerated or endorsed by the city and
county.
Save the Rodents (Satire)
Save the Rodents (Satire)
In July 1690 the City Council passed a clearly worded order banning rodents
from the City. It is shameful that these illiterate vermin refuse to obey the
lawful orders of the City Council. (Matt Dunning, "Neighbors: Rats still
plaguing city," Cambridge Chronicle, Jul 20, 2007) The rodent population acts
like the City Manager, as if they are not obligated to obey City Council orders.
Ordinary citizens and visitors often intentionally leave food on the
sidewalks to feed these hated four-leggers with tails. Sympathy for the underdog
is widespread in Cambridge as a sanctuary City. "It is law," said one visitor
who did not want to give her name. "I always try to leave something for them.
When they get hungry so they won't have to go dumpster diving for food," she
added.
A Berklee College musician asked, "If Cambridge is a sanctuary city for
illegal aliens why not for rodents too?"
A Harvard student who volunteers for PETA demanded equal rights for
rodents. "We have a chapter of All Creatures Deserve to Live in Peace (ACDLIP),
at Phillips Brooks House," he added.
Mary Ratanovsky who ran for City Councilor in 1907 asked, "Why are they
picking on rodents? Rodents volunteer for medical research experiments so that
our lives are improved. We should show some appreciation for their sacrifices."
The Board of Directors for Biodgenuflect Industries issued a one-page
single spaced statement defending the rights of rodents to live in peace. "The
safe passage and asylum guaranteed to illegal aliens by the City Manager must be
extended to rodents. Without the ample supply of free roaming rodents that we
need for research, we would move to Silicon Valley. Gov. Deval "Cadillac"
Patrick promised us free and easy access to rodents. It is the primary reason
why we settled in Cambridge" the statement said.
The City Manager had no comment. Quoc Tran issued a statement saying that
the Human Rights Commission and the Police Review Board are taking the matter
under consideration. He said was speaking as a private citizen.
Eight City Councilors did not return calls asking for their opinions. Craig
Kelley demanded more data from the police and Inspectional Services in digital
format. "How can we make decisions about rodents without easily readable data,"
he asked? "This is not a problem in North Cambridge where I live," Kelley added.
He revealed that his sons and his wife collect rodents that they see and deliver
them by bicycle to the Biotech companies in Kendall Square for their research.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Neighbors: Rats still plaguing city
By Matt Dunning/Chronicle Staff
Cambridge Chronicle
Fri Jul 20, 2007, 03:09 PM EDT
Cambridge -
Tenacious rats are still plaguing the city, but officials say they feel they�re
making progress in the city�s ongoing battle against renegade rodents.
When the Chronicle last spoke with Area 4 resident Beth Thomas in February,
rodents had been nesting in her car.
As recently as last week, Thomas said the four-legged fiends were at it again,
making themselves at home in her engine and snacking on her electrical wires.
�It�s still an ongoing thing,� Thomas said. �Sooner or later, something�s going
to have to give with these rats. I went to get my car serviced last week, and
when we lifted up the hood, there were two of them playing under there.�
Thomas, who lives in the Newtowne Court housing project, said while the problem
in Area 4 has gotten better in the last 12 months, city officials could still be
doing more to ward off the rats.
�The city could be a little more aggressive,� Thomas said. �It�s frustrating.
It�s not as bad as it used to be, but they�re still out there. I�m constantly
calling [the city�s Inspectional Services Department].�
Elm Street resident Renea Fontanez said she�s afraid to walk the street with her
daughter.
�I can�t even take my 5-year-old to ride her bike,� Fontanez said. �She�s so
afraid to even live here. These things are running wild.�
City officials are painting a much rosier picture. John Fallon, the assistant
Inspectional Services Department commissioner, said the rat problem in Cambridge
has been significantly improved over the course of the last year.
�We feel like we�re doing a good job,� Fallon said. �We�re not getting as many
calls as we had been getting a year ago.�
According to Fallon, his department fields four to six calls a week from
residents reporting rat sightings, down by about a call per week from the
department�s average from a year ago.
�I think public education is a big piece of it,� Fallon said. �The messages that
we send out, I think it�s making a difference.�
Still, Fallon admitted that Area 4, more than any other neighborhood in
Cambridge, is still besieged by a sizeable rat population.
�If there�s one area of the city that�s stronger than others, it�s Area 4,�
Fallon said. �I couldn�t really tell you why.�
Part of the city�s effort to thin its rat population has been to impose a fine
for uncovered garbage cans. Department of Public Works Commissioner Lisa
Peterson said she hopes to have the City Council toughen the garbage ordinance
later this month. Currently, the fine is a mere $25 for uncovered trashcans or
open dumpsters. Currently, no matter how many times a property owner is fined,
the penalty never escalates, according to Peterson.
�One of the recommendations we�re making is to have the ordinance amended so the
fine can go up to $300,� Peterson said.
Peterson said she hoped the City Council would vote on the amendment at its July
30 meeting, �but it might not get in front of them until September.
In them meantime, residents can call the city Inspectional Services Department�s
hotline at 617-349-4899.
In July 1690 the City Council passed a clearly worded order banning rodents
from the City. It is shameful that these illiterate vermin refuse to obey the
lawful orders of the City Council. (Matt Dunning, "Neighbors: Rats still
plaguing city," Cambridge Chronicle, Jul 20, 2007) The rodent population acts
like the City Manager, as if they are not obligated to obey City Council orders.
Ordinary citizens and visitors often intentionally leave food on the
sidewalks to feed these hated four-leggers with tails. Sympathy for the underdog
is widespread in Cambridge as a sanctuary City. "It is law," said one visitor
who did not want to give her name. "I always try to leave something for them.
When they get hungry so they won't have to go dumpster diving for food," she
added.
A Berklee College musician asked, "If Cambridge is a sanctuary city for
illegal aliens why not for rodents too?"
A Harvard student who volunteers for PETA demanded equal rights for
rodents. "We have a chapter of All Creatures Deserve to Live in Peace (ACDLIP),
at Phillips Brooks House," he added.
Mary Ratanovsky who ran for City Councilor in 1907 asked, "Why are they
picking on rodents? Rodents volunteer for medical research experiments so that
our lives are improved. We should show some appreciation for their sacrifices."
The Board of Directors for Biodgenuflect Industries issued a one-page
single spaced statement defending the rights of rodents to live in peace. "The
safe passage and asylum guaranteed to illegal aliens by the City Manager must be
extended to rodents. Without the ample supply of free roaming rodents that we
need for research, we would move to Silicon Valley. Gov. Deval "Cadillac"
Patrick promised us free and easy access to rodents. It is the primary reason
why we settled in Cambridge" the statement said.
The City Manager had no comment. Quoc Tran issued a statement saying that
the Human Rights Commission and the Police Review Board are taking the matter
under consideration. He said was speaking as a private citizen.
Eight City Councilors did not return calls asking for their opinions. Craig
Kelley demanded more data from the police and Inspectional Services in digital
format. "How can we make decisions about rodents without easily readable data,"
he asked? "This is not a problem in North Cambridge where I live," Kelley added.
He revealed that his sons and his wife collect rodents that they see and deliver
them by bicycle to the Biotech companies in Kendall Square for their research.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Neighbors: Rats still plaguing city
By Matt Dunning/Chronicle Staff
Cambridge Chronicle
Fri Jul 20, 2007, 03:09 PM EDT
Cambridge -
Tenacious rats are still plaguing the city, but officials say they feel they�re
making progress in the city�s ongoing battle against renegade rodents.
When the Chronicle last spoke with Area 4 resident Beth Thomas in February,
rodents had been nesting in her car.
As recently as last week, Thomas said the four-legged fiends were at it again,
making themselves at home in her engine and snacking on her electrical wires.
�It�s still an ongoing thing,� Thomas said. �Sooner or later, something�s going
to have to give with these rats. I went to get my car serviced last week, and
when we lifted up the hood, there were two of them playing under there.�
Thomas, who lives in the Newtowne Court housing project, said while the problem
in Area 4 has gotten better in the last 12 months, city officials could still be
doing more to ward off the rats.
�The city could be a little more aggressive,� Thomas said. �It�s frustrating.
It�s not as bad as it used to be, but they�re still out there. I�m constantly
calling [the city�s Inspectional Services Department].�
Elm Street resident Renea Fontanez said she�s afraid to walk the street with her
daughter.
�I can�t even take my 5-year-old to ride her bike,� Fontanez said. �She�s so
afraid to even live here. These things are running wild.�
City officials are painting a much rosier picture. John Fallon, the assistant
Inspectional Services Department commissioner, said the rat problem in Cambridge
has been significantly improved over the course of the last year.
�We feel like we�re doing a good job,� Fallon said. �We�re not getting as many
calls as we had been getting a year ago.�
According to Fallon, his department fields four to six calls a week from
residents reporting rat sightings, down by about a call per week from the
department�s average from a year ago.
�I think public education is a big piece of it,� Fallon said. �The messages that
we send out, I think it�s making a difference.�
Still, Fallon admitted that Area 4, more than any other neighborhood in
Cambridge, is still besieged by a sizeable rat population.
�If there�s one area of the city that�s stronger than others, it�s Area 4,�
Fallon said. �I couldn�t really tell you why.�
Part of the city�s effort to thin its rat population has been to impose a fine
for uncovered garbage cans. Department of Public Works Commissioner Lisa
Peterson said she hopes to have the City Council toughen the garbage ordinance
later this month. Currently, the fine is a mere $25 for uncovered trashcans or
open dumpsters. Currently, no matter how many times a property owner is fined,
the penalty never escalates, according to Peterson.
�One of the recommendations we�re making is to have the ordinance amended so the
fine can go up to $300,� Peterson said.
Peterson said she hoped the City Council would vote on the amendment at its July
30 meeting, �but it might not get in front of them until September.
In them meantime, residents can call the city Inspectional Services Department�s
hotline at 617-349-4899.
Surprise?
Surprise?
Why is it a surprise that Cadillac Deval "is not quite the progressive,
populist lefty?" (David Bernstein, "Fender nBender," Boston Phoenix, July 27,
2007, News page 12) Anyone paying attention knows he is a Harvard corporate
lawyer with two McMansions. Are populists usually appointed to corporate boards?
The clueless are surprised.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Fender bender
Last year, opponents thought they had killed auto-insurance reform for good. Its resurrection could be a headache for Deval Patrick.
By: DAVID S. BERNSTEIN
7/26/2007 11:52:16 AM
070727_politics_main
Crash test dummies
After their candidate, Kerry Healey, was defeated, Liberty Mutual quickly began buttering the other side of the bread: the company was one of nine “Platinum” $50,000 donors to the Patrick-Murray Inaugural Committee.
Another reform-boosting company, Worcester-based Hanover Insurance, has been particularly cozy with lieutenant governor and former Worcester mayor Timothy Murray, observers say. Hanover was also a Platinum donor for the inauguration, and bestowed a $2 million gift for a Murray pet project: restoration of Worcester’s Poli Palace Theatre. Hanover’s chairman, Michael Angelini, was a co-chair of Patrick’s transition committee.
Recent signs on Beacon Hill indicate to some that Deval Patrick is not quite the progressive, populist lefty that many of his supporters — and detractors — think he is. On issue after issue, Patrick’s instinct is to offer breaks and incentives to corporations and large nonprofits, and it’s beginning to diminish the support of an increasing number of legislators — including several state senators who are crucial to the success on his more ambitious agenda items.
Pushing several would-be allies over the edge was the announcement this past Monday that Patrick’s insurance commissioner, Nonnie Burnes, will end Massachusetts’s decades-long experiment with auto-insurance-rate regulation. Instead of a state commission setting those rates, insurance companies will now have the freedom to compete, within limits. Liberal legislators, who argue that the current system protects poor, young, and urban drivers, have expressed shock that Patrick will usher in this change; they fear that insurers will raise rates most on those who can least afford it, and will punish drivers based on location, credit history, and factors other than one’s driving record. Although Burnes says that she will protect against such outcomes, opponents still think this is a bad, anti-consumer idea that they believed had died when Mitt Romney left office.
This auto-insurance stunner, along with other perceived pro-business policies, has helped push progressive senators Joan Menard, Frederick Berry, Steven Panagiotakas, Marc Pacheco, Dianne Wilkerson, and Patricia Jehlen to sour on Patrick, to varying degrees. These are pols who supported Patrick’s candidacy, and should be solid allies now that he is in office. “There are a lot of unhappy people in the building right now,” says Wilkerson.
This dynamic is contrary to Patrick’s public reputation, which was forged by the high-profile fight over closing corporate-tax loopholes. That battle cast Patrick as the populist, and the legislature — House Speaker Sal DiMasi in particular — as the corporate shill.
But aside from that one issue — which Patrick pushed for the fiscally conservative purpose of balancing the budget without adding new taxes on residents — the governor has embraced a string of what some see as corporate-friendly policies.
Patrick has taken heat, for example, for alleged “corporate welfare” in pushing a $10 million grant to the developers of Boston’s Columbus Center. He enthusiastically supported, and this past week signed, new tax breaks for movie studios to film in the Commonwealth. He supports a sales-tax holiday, seen by some as a gift to retail chains with little benefit to the state. He has endorsed financial breaks to help those building the Boston University biotech lab and the Cape Cod wind farm. And in his bio-med/stem-cell bill, he intends to push a billion dollars of investment to companies and universities.
New gov, old fight
“For a long time, we’ve been the Democratic shield stopping the Republican bullets,” says Pacheco of the State Senate. “We finally have a Democratic governor, and we keep having the same kinds of battles.”
Advocates of auto-insurance reform insist that naysayers such as Pacheco are a small but vocal minority, and that they are the pawns of insurance companies, including Arbella, Plymouth Rock, and Commerce Insurance, which would be hurt by increased competition from national insurers that currently shun the state because of the restrictive rate-setting system.
Nevertheless, criticisms from liberals in the legislature have prompted the governor to unleash his PR machine, to insulate him from Burnes’s decision. Although Patrick is publicly supporting the reform, he has done so with tepid language. Meanwhile, his staff and Burnes herself have stressed that she worked independently, apolitically, and non-ideologically in making her decision. Together they have hammered that point home in a series of public comments.
Burnes tells the Phoenix that she did not have any conversation — any at all — with Patrick concerning auto-insurance reform until she briefed him on her decision days before announcing it publicly. Instead, Burnes, a former Superior Court judge, argues she was required by statute, not driven by ideology, to implement the change. “It really was a legal decision,” she says.
Patrick has another reason to insist it was not his decision. Just three weeks before the Burnes bombshell, Patrick solicited, and accepted, $20,000 worth of contributions from executives at Liberty Mutual, the company fighting hardest for reform. That looks unseemly at best, unless Patrick really was totally uninvolved in the decision.
According to people close to the issue, Patrick’s advisors had to be aware that Burnes’s decision to adopt a market-driven rate system would cause political problems. Those advisors also knew that they gained little or nothing by it: even supporters of the reform concede that the public isn’t clamoring for such a change.
The fact that Patrick allowed Burnes to proceed, then, certainly looks like an example of good government as pledged on the campaign trail — just as his “corporate welfare” items look to many to be smart economic-growth initiatives. In this light, Patrick hired Burnes based on competence rather than ideology or loyalty, gave her the freedom to act independently, and didn’t allow politics to get in the way.
But the reaction by angry legislators demonstrates just how hard it is to insulate any governmental action from charges of politics.
For starters, opponents of the reform, including Pacheco, are pointing to a large number of Romney holdovers on Burnes’s staff — and to specific high-placed employees who formerly worked for State Representative Ronald Mariano, a Democrat who has spearheaded auto-insurance-reform legislation. Those staffers, critics say, influenced the decision by feeding Burnes bad information. Burnes denies the charge.
Then there’s the money trail, including that recent bonanza from almost all of Liberty Mutual’s management team. Edmund Kelly, Liberty Mutual’s CEO, stood beside Romney when the then-governor denounced the existing system as “Stalinist” in 2005. In 2006, Kelly and other Liberty Mutual executives contributed more than $20,000 to Kerry Healey and her running mate, but since the election have opened their wallets for Patrick (see “Crash Test Dummies” sidebar).
But if the Patrick administration was for sale on this issue, the other side — the losing one in this past week’s announcement — was also bidding. Reform opponents Arbella and Commerce Insurance were among those Platinum inauguration contributors. Commerce employees and board members also gave tens of thousands to Patrick’s campaign.
The war isn’t over
Public attacks on Burnes’s staff, or on contributions to Patrick’s campaign, are not as potentially damaging as the other charge being leveled: that Patrick is, at heart, the corporate boardroom director that progressives were willing to overlook when electing him.
If that perception takes hold, particularly in the State Senate, Patrick could find himself under increasing attack from the left — as he was recently by state senators who challenged him to debar Big Dig villain Bechtel from eligibility for state contracts.
How well he quells those concerns may be seen in the coming months, in how big a fight senators, including Berry, Menard, Pacheco, and Wilkerson, are willing to put up to preserve the auto-insurance status quo.
It would be an unwelcome challenge to the administration from the left, particularly if it is joined by Senate President Therese Murray, who is said to be sympathetic to the anti-reform argument — and who has herself received contributions from Commerce Insurance board members.
Why is it a surprise that Cadillac Deval "is not quite the progressive,
populist lefty?" (David Bernstein, "Fender nBender," Boston Phoenix, July 27,
2007, News page 12) Anyone paying attention knows he is a Harvard corporate
lawyer with two McMansions. Are populists usually appointed to corporate boards?
The clueless are surprised.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Fender bender
Last year, opponents thought they had killed auto-insurance reform for good. Its resurrection could be a headache for Deval Patrick.
By: DAVID S. BERNSTEIN
7/26/2007 11:52:16 AM
070727_politics_main
Crash test dummies
After their candidate, Kerry Healey, was defeated, Liberty Mutual quickly began buttering the other side of the bread: the company was one of nine “Platinum” $50,000 donors to the Patrick-Murray Inaugural Committee.
Another reform-boosting company, Worcester-based Hanover Insurance, has been particularly cozy with lieutenant governor and former Worcester mayor Timothy Murray, observers say. Hanover was also a Platinum donor for the inauguration, and bestowed a $2 million gift for a Murray pet project: restoration of Worcester’s Poli Palace Theatre. Hanover’s chairman, Michael Angelini, was a co-chair of Patrick’s transition committee.
Recent signs on Beacon Hill indicate to some that Deval Patrick is not quite the progressive, populist lefty that many of his supporters — and detractors — think he is. On issue after issue, Patrick’s instinct is to offer breaks and incentives to corporations and large nonprofits, and it’s beginning to diminish the support of an increasing number of legislators — including several state senators who are crucial to the success on his more ambitious agenda items.
Pushing several would-be allies over the edge was the announcement this past Monday that Patrick’s insurance commissioner, Nonnie Burnes, will end Massachusetts’s decades-long experiment with auto-insurance-rate regulation. Instead of a state commission setting those rates, insurance companies will now have the freedom to compete, within limits. Liberal legislators, who argue that the current system protects poor, young, and urban drivers, have expressed shock that Patrick will usher in this change; they fear that insurers will raise rates most on those who can least afford it, and will punish drivers based on location, credit history, and factors other than one’s driving record. Although Burnes says that she will protect against such outcomes, opponents still think this is a bad, anti-consumer idea that they believed had died when Mitt Romney left office.
This auto-insurance stunner, along with other perceived pro-business policies, has helped push progressive senators Joan Menard, Frederick Berry, Steven Panagiotakas, Marc Pacheco, Dianne Wilkerson, and Patricia Jehlen to sour on Patrick, to varying degrees. These are pols who supported Patrick’s candidacy, and should be solid allies now that he is in office. “There are a lot of unhappy people in the building right now,” says Wilkerson.
This dynamic is contrary to Patrick’s public reputation, which was forged by the high-profile fight over closing corporate-tax loopholes. That battle cast Patrick as the populist, and the legislature — House Speaker Sal DiMasi in particular — as the corporate shill.
But aside from that one issue — which Patrick pushed for the fiscally conservative purpose of balancing the budget without adding new taxes on residents — the governor has embraced a string of what some see as corporate-friendly policies.
Patrick has taken heat, for example, for alleged “corporate welfare” in pushing a $10 million grant to the developers of Boston’s Columbus Center. He enthusiastically supported, and this past week signed, new tax breaks for movie studios to film in the Commonwealth. He supports a sales-tax holiday, seen by some as a gift to retail chains with little benefit to the state. He has endorsed financial breaks to help those building the Boston University biotech lab and the Cape Cod wind farm. And in his bio-med/stem-cell bill, he intends to push a billion dollars of investment to companies and universities.
New gov, old fight
“For a long time, we’ve been the Democratic shield stopping the Republican bullets,” says Pacheco of the State Senate. “We finally have a Democratic governor, and we keep having the same kinds of battles.”
Advocates of auto-insurance reform insist that naysayers such as Pacheco are a small but vocal minority, and that they are the pawns of insurance companies, including Arbella, Plymouth Rock, and Commerce Insurance, which would be hurt by increased competition from national insurers that currently shun the state because of the restrictive rate-setting system.
Nevertheless, criticisms from liberals in the legislature have prompted the governor to unleash his PR machine, to insulate him from Burnes’s decision. Although Patrick is publicly supporting the reform, he has done so with tepid language. Meanwhile, his staff and Burnes herself have stressed that she worked independently, apolitically, and non-ideologically in making her decision. Together they have hammered that point home in a series of public comments.
Burnes tells the Phoenix that she did not have any conversation — any at all — with Patrick concerning auto-insurance reform until she briefed him on her decision days before announcing it publicly. Instead, Burnes, a former Superior Court judge, argues she was required by statute, not driven by ideology, to implement the change. “It really was a legal decision,” she says.
Patrick has another reason to insist it was not his decision. Just three weeks before the Burnes bombshell, Patrick solicited, and accepted, $20,000 worth of contributions from executives at Liberty Mutual, the company fighting hardest for reform. That looks unseemly at best, unless Patrick really was totally uninvolved in the decision.
According to people close to the issue, Patrick’s advisors had to be aware that Burnes’s decision to adopt a market-driven rate system would cause political problems. Those advisors also knew that they gained little or nothing by it: even supporters of the reform concede that the public isn’t clamoring for such a change.
The fact that Patrick allowed Burnes to proceed, then, certainly looks like an example of good government as pledged on the campaign trail — just as his “corporate welfare” items look to many to be smart economic-growth initiatives. In this light, Patrick hired Burnes based on competence rather than ideology or loyalty, gave her the freedom to act independently, and didn’t allow politics to get in the way.
But the reaction by angry legislators demonstrates just how hard it is to insulate any governmental action from charges of politics.
For starters, opponents of the reform, including Pacheco, are pointing to a large number of Romney holdovers on Burnes’s staff — and to specific high-placed employees who formerly worked for State Representative Ronald Mariano, a Democrat who has spearheaded auto-insurance-reform legislation. Those staffers, critics say, influenced the decision by feeding Burnes bad information. Burnes denies the charge.
Then there’s the money trail, including that recent bonanza from almost all of Liberty Mutual’s management team. Edmund Kelly, Liberty Mutual’s CEO, stood beside Romney when the then-governor denounced the existing system as “Stalinist” in 2005. In 2006, Kelly and other Liberty Mutual executives contributed more than $20,000 to Kerry Healey and her running mate, but since the election have opened their wallets for Patrick (see “Crash Test Dummies” sidebar).
But if the Patrick administration was for sale on this issue, the other side — the losing one in this past week’s announcement — was also bidding. Reform opponents Arbella and Commerce Insurance were among those Platinum inauguration contributors. Commerce employees and board members also gave tens of thousands to Patrick’s campaign.
The war isn’t over
Public attacks on Burnes’s staff, or on contributions to Patrick’s campaign, are not as potentially damaging as the other charge being leveled: that Patrick is, at heart, the corporate boardroom director that progressives were willing to overlook when electing him.
If that perception takes hold, particularly in the State Senate, Patrick could find himself under increasing attack from the left — as he was recently by state senators who challenged him to debar Big Dig villain Bechtel from eligibility for state contracts.
How well he quells those concerns may be seen in the coming months, in how big a fight senators, including Berry, Menard, Pacheco, and Wilkerson, are willing to put up to preserve the auto-insurance status quo.
It would be an unwelcome challenge to the administration from the left, particularly if it is joined by Senate President Therese Murray, who is said to be sympathetic to the anti-reform argument — and who has herself received contributions from Commerce Insurance board members.
Inclusion?
Inclusion?
Gary Blumenthal quotes Cadillac Deval saying, "the goal of community
inclusion ended the day when people with disabilities were 'treated as objects
of charity.'" (Gary Blumenthal, "State must appeal ban on Fernald closing,"
Boston Herald, September 4, 2007, page 23) This argument may hold for the
students at Fernald. Does it apply as well to persons accused of psychiatric
illness?
He says Patrick "called for disability policy [in 1995] to be 'based on
inclusion, not exclusion; independence, not dependence; empowerment, not
paternalism.'" How are persons with disabilities included in having access to
state and US Courts? Lawyers alleged to be advocates for persons with
disabilities,
do not empower their clients. They treat them paternalistically. They do not try
to make them independent. They ensure dependence for their own job security.
Twelve years after Patrick said this what has changed regarding the
exercise of rights by persons with disabilities? The same taxpayer funded
lawyers still attend meetings, conferences, and write memos. They lobby for
human services corporations soliciting more taxpayer funding for more treatment.
When did the US Department of Justice ever focus on rights litigation? The
Civil Rights Disability Division of the DoJ writes letters in reply to letters
from public officials. Patrick wrote many of them. Why are these lawyers paid
for writing letters and for attending meetings?
The image of these lawyers far outreaches the reality of what they do.
Patrick ran as a civil rights attorney. Now he governs as the Harvard corporate
lawyer he is.
The stated mission of Blumenthal's organization is "To promote the social,
political and economic well-being of community organizations that support people
with developmental disabilities and their families." Notice the focus is for the
benefit of corporations, not individuals.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Op-Ed; State must appeal ban on Fernald closing
GARY BLUMENTHAL.
Boston Herald. Boston, Mass.:
Sep 4, 2007. pg. 23
Federal Judge Joseph Tauro's recent decision to bar Massachusetts from closing the Fernald Development Center affects far more than the 187 people with mental retardation living at the Waltham institution. His ruling opened a complex legal, human and social issue with the potential to impact tens of thousands of lives across Massachusetts and the nation.
The prohibition on closing Fernald sets back the clock more than 30 years, when families, citizens and politicians first learned of the horrors that had occurred in the back wards of America's state hospitals. Secluded from their families and their home communities, patients suffered widespread abuse and neglect.
The furor that erupted led to community-based programs for the developmentally disabled. Thousands were welcomed back into families and neighborhoods, improving their quality of life and that of their families.
In Massachusetts, the five development centers now serve only a few hundred each, while more than 30,000 people with developmental disabilities live and work in community programs, or remain at home with the help of family support programs. These community-based services cost half of what the state institutions cost.
This fiscal disparity has long been the source of great tension in the human service field as the advocates have watched the commonwealth continue to invest its limited tax dollars into an outdated system, while forcing community programs to struggle.
Making this issue even more complex has been the reaction of a small but vocal group of parents of state institution residents who oppose institutional closure for various reasons, including, but not limited to, fear of change.
I understand the fear. My brother, Steve, was institutionalized at the age of 9 in 1966, when there were few other options. My widowed mother, Blanche, made a gut-wrenching decision that no parent should have to face.
Seeing the rise and success of community programs over three decades actually has proven to be both comforting and frightening for families. They are largely thrilled with the level of care and service their relative receives, but it has prompted many to question their choosing to institutionalize so many years ago. My mom knew that feeling. She chose to move Steve into a community setting 12 years ago, just days before she died.
Choice for families is paramount, and is mandated in Medicaid law. However, Tauro's decision dictates that institutionalization at that particular locale remain a choice that, ironically, could limit the choices of others seeking community-based settings.
Simply put, the decision is also bad public policy. Massachusetts must now continue financing an institutional program that drains millions of dollars for a few hundred.
Some leaders understand this dilemma. In 1995, as executive director of President Clinton's Committee on Mental Retardation, I heard then-Assistant Attorney General Deval Patrick address this very issue at the Conference of the American Association on Mental Retardation.
Patrick said the goal of community inclusion ended the day when people with disabilities were "treated as objects of charity." He called for disability policy to be "based on inclusion, not exclusion; independence, not dependence; empowerment, not paternalism."
Tauro's decision prevents Massachusetts from realizing Patrick's vision. That reason - and others - is why the state must appeal the ruling.
Gary Blumenthal is executive director of the Association of Developmental Disability Providers.
Credit: By GARY BLUMENTHAL
Gary Blumenthal quotes Cadillac Deval saying, "the goal of community
inclusion ended the day when people with disabilities were 'treated as objects
of charity.'" (Gary Blumenthal, "State must appeal ban on Fernald closing,"
Boston Herald, September 4, 2007, page 23) This argument may hold for the
students at Fernald. Does it apply as well to persons accused of psychiatric
illness?
He says Patrick "called for disability policy [in 1995] to be 'based on
inclusion, not exclusion; independence, not dependence; empowerment, not
paternalism.'" How are persons with disabilities included in having access to
state and US Courts? Lawyers alleged to be advocates for persons with
disabilities,
do not empower their clients. They treat them paternalistically. They do not try
to make them independent. They ensure dependence for their own job security.
Twelve years after Patrick said this what has changed regarding the
exercise of rights by persons with disabilities? The same taxpayer funded
lawyers still attend meetings, conferences, and write memos. They lobby for
human services corporations soliciting more taxpayer funding for more treatment.
When did the US Department of Justice ever focus on rights litigation? The
Civil Rights Disability Division of the DoJ writes letters in reply to letters
from public officials. Patrick wrote many of them. Why are these lawyers paid
for writing letters and for attending meetings?
The image of these lawyers far outreaches the reality of what they do.
Patrick ran as a civil rights attorney. Now he governs as the Harvard corporate
lawyer he is.
The stated mission of Blumenthal's organization is "To promote the social,
political and economic well-being of community organizations that support people
with developmental disabilities and their families." Notice the focus is for the
benefit of corporations, not individuals.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Op-Ed; State must appeal ban on Fernald closing
GARY BLUMENTHAL.
Boston Herald. Boston, Mass.:
Sep 4, 2007. pg. 23
Federal Judge Joseph Tauro's recent decision to bar Massachusetts from closing the Fernald Development Center affects far more than the 187 people with mental retardation living at the Waltham institution. His ruling opened a complex legal, human and social issue with the potential to impact tens of thousands of lives across Massachusetts and the nation.
The prohibition on closing Fernald sets back the clock more than 30 years, when families, citizens and politicians first learned of the horrors that had occurred in the back wards of America's state hospitals. Secluded from their families and their home communities, patients suffered widespread abuse and neglect.
The furor that erupted led to community-based programs for the developmentally disabled. Thousands were welcomed back into families and neighborhoods, improving their quality of life and that of their families.
In Massachusetts, the five development centers now serve only a few hundred each, while more than 30,000 people with developmental disabilities live and work in community programs, or remain at home with the help of family support programs. These community-based services cost half of what the state institutions cost.
This fiscal disparity has long been the source of great tension in the human service field as the advocates have watched the commonwealth continue to invest its limited tax dollars into an outdated system, while forcing community programs to struggle.
Making this issue even more complex has been the reaction of a small but vocal group of parents of state institution residents who oppose institutional closure for various reasons, including, but not limited to, fear of change.
I understand the fear. My brother, Steve, was institutionalized at the age of 9 in 1966, when there were few other options. My widowed mother, Blanche, made a gut-wrenching decision that no parent should have to face.
Seeing the rise and success of community programs over three decades actually has proven to be both comforting and frightening for families. They are largely thrilled with the level of care and service their relative receives, but it has prompted many to question their choosing to institutionalize so many years ago. My mom knew that feeling. She chose to move Steve into a community setting 12 years ago, just days before she died.
Choice for families is paramount, and is mandated in Medicaid law. However, Tauro's decision dictates that institutionalization at that particular locale remain a choice that, ironically, could limit the choices of others seeking community-based settings.
Simply put, the decision is also bad public policy. Massachusetts must now continue financing an institutional program that drains millions of dollars for a few hundred.
Some leaders understand this dilemma. In 1995, as executive director of President Clinton's Committee on Mental Retardation, I heard then-Assistant Attorney General Deval Patrick address this very issue at the Conference of the American Association on Mental Retardation.
Patrick said the goal of community inclusion ended the day when people with disabilities were "treated as objects of charity." He called for disability policy to be "based on inclusion, not exclusion; independence, not dependence; empowerment, not paternalism."
Tauro's decision prevents Massachusetts from realizing Patrick's vision. That reason - and others - is why the state must appeal the ruling.
Gary Blumenthal is executive director of the Association of Developmental Disability Providers.
Credit: By GARY BLUMENTHAL
Intent Required for Crime
CYA is so pervasive at Universities that a student has a better understanding of events than university administrators. (Anna Badkhen, "Student causes scare at Logan with shirt 'art,'" Boston Globe, September 22, 2007) The MIT spokesman called the wearing of a circuit board reckless. A student noted it was due to lack of common sense. Criminal intent is necessary for criminal liability. The MIT student had none. Having no street sense is not a crime. In this day of government paranoia it is no wonder we have the highest incarceration rate in the world. Have the terrorists won? They diminished our freedoms knowing the mentality of the government leaders who lack self knowledge. The President of Iran knows the politics of America better than most Americans.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/09/22/student_causes_scare_at_logan_with_shirt_art/
Student causes scare at Logan with shirt 'art'
Device mistaken for bomb
By Anna Badkhen,
Boston Globe Correspondent
September 22, 2007
Small Minded Journalist
Small Minded Journalist
Bailey's use of the word, "inadvertent" shows his bias on the issue of
Emily Rooney not inviting Jay Severin to the Grand Opening of the new WGBH
studios. (Steve Bailey, "At home, and all alone," Boston Globe, October 5, 2007)
Few one-party Massachusetts journalists recognize the small range of views
acceptable to Rooney on her show.
Here's one. After several letters asking why she never has guests on her
show
discussing rights of persons with disabilities, she wrote to me patronizing me
as if I were a mental patient.
After several letters to the President of WGBH asking why persons with
disabilities do not enjoy equal access to the content of what is broadcast on
(taxpayer funded) WGBH, he sent me a list of 100 programs about treatment,
health care and access to treatment. One show discussed physical disability
based discrimination.
I pointed out that Rooney often has on psychiatrists who boast of new or
experimental treatments. But she never has a person who was abused contrary to
state and US law by psychiatrists. Her response was that she wanted to have
debates two sides to discuss.
I often wonder if she thinks she fooled me. I noticed that frequently she
has
one person on her show discussing a controversial issue. Often she has
politicians on to promote themselves in an election. This she sees as a debate,
a one person debate? Is Rooney fooling herself or just trying fool others? Is
that what inadvertent means?
When Rooney finally had on a woman doctor and a member of the Boston
Disability Commission I wrote again mocking her crumb on the issue. Her response
was to threaten to ban me from Boston. She said she would write to others to
notify them. Is this woman a member of the Bulger crime family?-
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
At home, and all alone
Boston Globe
By Steve Bailey
October 5, 2007
Jay Severin, WTKK radio's libertarian loudmouth, is hurt - wounded really - and
Emily Rooney, WGBH-TV's thermally challenged queen bee, is off his show and his
station. Says Rooney: "I didn't think the punishment fit the crime."
Rooney's crime? Inadvertently leaving Severin off the invitation list for WGBH's
party last week marking the 10th anniversary of her show, "Greater Boston."
Everyone was there, even me.
"Dear Emily," Severin e-mailed Rooney on Wednesday evening just minutes before
the big event was to begin.
"As I imagine you well know, I do wish you congratulations on the most
impressive achievement of ten years on the air choreographing your own
presentation. Extraordinary.
"And please do not misconsture [sic] what I ask as mitigating in any way the
earnestness of my best wishes.
"However: I am very personally disappointed (although from what you have frankly
told me of WGBH's attitude toward myself, not necessarily greatly surprised) not
to have been among those from 96.9 to have been invited to the WGBH celebratory
event. After all, we are, I think, friends; and we do broadcast together here
weekly, for an audience which is very considerably larger than even your
television audience, correctr? [sic] It thus strkes [sic] me as fairly
appropriate that I might have anticipated being included - especially
considering others here at 96.9 were.
"Am I wrong and/or presumptuous to wonder why, under the circumstances, I am not
included?"
Since January, Rooney has done a weekly (paid) segment with Severin, discussing
the media. But on Friday, Rooney got a call from WTKK's program director, Grace
Blazer, telling her not to bother coming to the station. The segment was being
canceled; she cited "budgetary" issues, Rooney says. (Disclosure: I occasionally
appear on Rooney's "Beat the Press" show; I hope she was getting paid more from
WTKK than the $100 I get from WGBH.)
"I feel terrible about this. I honestly do. I literally lost sleep over it," she
says. As for Severin's snide remark about ratings or the lack thereof, Rooney
says: "I didn't understand how that was relevant to the issue."
Neither Severin nor Blazer returned my calls or e-mails.
In Severin's world, Hillary Clinton is "a lying [expletive]," Ted Kennedy is "a
fat piece of lying garbage," and Al Gore is "Al Whore." All things considered,
it's surprising the guy is asked out at all.
Jay Severin, WTKK radio's libertarian loudmouth, is hurt - wounded really - and
Emily Rooney, WGBH-TV's thermally challenged queen bee, is off his show and his
station. Says Rooney: "I didn't think the punishment fit the crime."
Rooney's crime? Inadvertently leaving Severin off the invitation list for WGBH's
party last week marking the 10th anniversary of her show, "Greater Boston."
Everyone was there, even me.
"Dear Emily," Severin e-mailed Rooney on Wednesday evening just minutes before
the big event was to begin.
"As I imagine you well know, I do wish you congratulations on the most
impressive achievement of ten years on the air choreographing your own
presentation. Extraordinary.
"And please do not misconsture [sic] what I ask as mitigating in any way the
earnestness of my best wishes.
"However: I am very personally disappointed (although from what you have frankly
told me of WGBH's attitude toward myself, not necessarily greatly surprised) not
to have been among those from 96.9 to have been invited to the WGBH celebratory
event. After all, we are, I think, friends; and we do broadcast together here
weekly, for an audience which is very considerably larger than even your
television audience, correctr? [sic] It thus strkes [sic] me as fairly
appropriate that I might have anticipated being included - especially
considering others here at 96.9 were.
"Am I wrong and/or presumptuous to wonder why, under the circumstances, I am not
included?"
Since January, Rooney has done a weekly (paid) segment with Severin, discussing
the media. But on Friday, Rooney got a call from WTKK's program director, Grace
Blazer, telling her not to bother coming to the station. The segment was being
canceled; she cited "budgetary" issues, Rooney says. (Disclosure: I occasionally
appear on Rooney's "Beat the Press" show; I hope she was getting paid more from
WTKK than the $100 I get from WGBH.)
"I feel terrible about this. I honestly do. I literally lost sleep over it," she
says. As for Severin's snide remark about ratings or the lack thereof, Rooney
says: "I didn't understand how that was relevant to the issue."
Neither Severin nor Blazer returned my calls or e-mails.
In Severin's world, Hillary Clinton is "a lying [expletive]," Ted Kennedy is "a
fat piece of lying garbage," and Al Gore is "Al Whore." All things considered,
it's surprising the guy is asked out at all.
Bailey's use of the word, "inadvertent" shows his bias on the issue of
Emily Rooney not inviting Jay Severin to the Grand Opening of the new WGBH
studios. (Steve Bailey, "At home, and all alone," Boston Globe, October 5, 2007)
Few one-party Massachusetts journalists recognize the small range of views
acceptable to Rooney on her show.
Here's one. After several letters asking why she never has guests on her
show
discussing rights of persons with disabilities, she wrote to me patronizing me
as if I were a mental patient.
After several letters to the President of WGBH asking why persons with
disabilities do not enjoy equal access to the content of what is broadcast on
(taxpayer funded) WGBH, he sent me a list of 100 programs about treatment,
health care and access to treatment. One show discussed physical disability
based discrimination.
I pointed out that Rooney often has on psychiatrists who boast of new or
experimental treatments. But she never has a person who was abused contrary to
state and US law by psychiatrists. Her response was that she wanted to have
debates two sides to discuss.
I often wonder if she thinks she fooled me. I noticed that frequently she
has
one person on her show discussing a controversial issue. Often she has
politicians on to promote themselves in an election. This she sees as a debate,
a one person debate? Is Rooney fooling herself or just trying fool others? Is
that what inadvertent means?
When Rooney finally had on a woman doctor and a member of the Boston
Disability Commission I wrote again mocking her crumb on the issue. Her response
was to threaten to ban me from Boston. She said she would write to others to
notify them. Is this woman a member of the Bulger crime family?-
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
At home, and all alone
Boston Globe
By Steve Bailey
October 5, 2007
Jay Severin, WTKK radio's libertarian loudmouth, is hurt - wounded really - and
Emily Rooney, WGBH-TV's thermally challenged queen bee, is off his show and his
station. Says Rooney: "I didn't think the punishment fit the crime."
Rooney's crime? Inadvertently leaving Severin off the invitation list for WGBH's
party last week marking the 10th anniversary of her show, "Greater Boston."
Everyone was there, even me.
"Dear Emily," Severin e-mailed Rooney on Wednesday evening just minutes before
the big event was to begin.
"As I imagine you well know, I do wish you congratulations on the most
impressive achievement of ten years on the air choreographing your own
presentation. Extraordinary.
"And please do not misconsture [sic] what I ask as mitigating in any way the
earnestness of my best wishes.
"However: I am very personally disappointed (although from what you have frankly
told me of WGBH's attitude toward myself, not necessarily greatly surprised) not
to have been among those from 96.9 to have been invited to the WGBH celebratory
event. After all, we are, I think, friends; and we do broadcast together here
weekly, for an audience which is very considerably larger than even your
television audience, correctr? [sic] It thus strkes [sic] me as fairly
appropriate that I might have anticipated being included - especially
considering others here at 96.9 were.
"Am I wrong and/or presumptuous to wonder why, under the circumstances, I am not
included?"
Since January, Rooney has done a weekly (paid) segment with Severin, discussing
the media. But on Friday, Rooney got a call from WTKK's program director, Grace
Blazer, telling her not to bother coming to the station. The segment was being
canceled; she cited "budgetary" issues, Rooney says. (Disclosure: I occasionally
appear on Rooney's "Beat the Press" show; I hope she was getting paid more from
WTKK than the $100 I get from WGBH.)
"I feel terrible about this. I honestly do. I literally lost sleep over it," she
says. As for Severin's snide remark about ratings or the lack thereof, Rooney
says: "I didn't understand how that was relevant to the issue."
Neither Severin nor Blazer returned my calls or e-mails.
In Severin's world, Hillary Clinton is "a lying [expletive]," Ted Kennedy is "a
fat piece of lying garbage," and Al Gore is "Al Whore." All things considered,
it's surprising the guy is asked out at all.
Jay Severin, WTKK radio's libertarian loudmouth, is hurt - wounded really - and
Emily Rooney, WGBH-TV's thermally challenged queen bee, is off his show and his
station. Says Rooney: "I didn't think the punishment fit the crime."
Rooney's crime? Inadvertently leaving Severin off the invitation list for WGBH's
party last week marking the 10th anniversary of her show, "Greater Boston."
Everyone was there, even me.
"Dear Emily," Severin e-mailed Rooney on Wednesday evening just minutes before
the big event was to begin.
"As I imagine you well know, I do wish you congratulations on the most
impressive achievement of ten years on the air choreographing your own
presentation. Extraordinary.
"And please do not misconsture [sic] what I ask as mitigating in any way the
earnestness of my best wishes.
"However: I am very personally disappointed (although from what you have frankly
told me of WGBH's attitude toward myself, not necessarily greatly surprised) not
to have been among those from 96.9 to have been invited to the WGBH celebratory
event. After all, we are, I think, friends; and we do broadcast together here
weekly, for an audience which is very considerably larger than even your
television audience, correctr? [sic] It thus strkes [sic] me as fairly
appropriate that I might have anticipated being included - especially
considering others here at 96.9 were.
"Am I wrong and/or presumptuous to wonder why, under the circumstances, I am not
included?"
Since January, Rooney has done a weekly (paid) segment with Severin, discussing
the media. But on Friday, Rooney got a call from WTKK's program director, Grace
Blazer, telling her not to bother coming to the station. The segment was being
canceled; she cited "budgetary" issues, Rooney says. (Disclosure: I occasionally
appear on Rooney's "Beat the Press" show; I hope she was getting paid more from
WTKK than the $100 I get from WGBH.)
"I feel terrible about this. I honestly do. I literally lost sleep over it," she
says. As for Severin's snide remark about ratings or the lack thereof, Rooney
says: "I didn't understand how that was relevant to the issue."
Neither Severin nor Blazer returned my calls or e-mails.
In Severin's world, Hillary Clinton is "a lying [expletive]," Ted Kennedy is "a
fat piece of lying garbage," and Al Gore is "Al Whore." All things considered,
it's surprising the guy is asked out at all.
September 28, 2007
Misguided Focus
Misguided Focus
Seeing the world through the prism of white racism as the cause of all things
bad is misguided and itself racist. Shea says, "the growing black prison
population is eroding African-Americans' confidence in the rule of law." What
about the four white men and their families who spent 30 years in Jail (two died
in prison) after an FBI frameup? (Christopher Shea, "Life sentence," Boston
Globe, September 23, 2007)
Peter Limone, and Joe Salvati (Tamelo and Greco died in prison) lived to
see their freedom. They were initially sentenced to death for a murder they did
not commit. Why is this only a black issue? It is a matter for all Americans.
Making the issue a race issue shuts out all non African Americans who were
harmed by the same courts, police, judges and lawyers.
Spineless politicians get elected by the same interest groups who have an
economic interest in keeping the system as it is or making it worse.
Police, corrections officers, lawyers, construction corporations, social
workers, drug companies and psychiatrists (to keep the list manageable) enjoy
the way it is.
Just because "Black Americans interpret [the trends] as evidence of stark
racism," does make it so. Many prominent black people see racism as the cause of
all unpleasant events in their lives. They are obsessed with racism as the
explanation for all evil.
At the same time liberal politicians promoted and implemented policies
which encouraged the causes of increased crime and incarceration. As recently as
1995 Princeton Professor John Iulio noted that there were 4 million young men
who would be teenagers in the beginning of the 21st century. He said they are
fatherless, godless and jobless. 12 years after that observation (See Fox
Butterfield, NYTimes Nov 19 1995) and the country is reaping what it sowed
over the past 40 years.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
CRITICAL FACULTIES
Life sentence
It's a government program whose impact rivals the New Deal. It pushes whole
communities out of society's mainstream. It costs tens of billions of dollars a
year. Scholars are just beginning to understand how prison is reshaping the
country.
Boston Globe
By Christopher Shea
September 23, 2007
WHAT if America launched a new New Deal and no one noticed? And what if, instead
of lifting the unemployed out of poverty, this multibillion-dollar project
steadily drove poor communities further and further out of the American
mainstream?
That's how America should think about its growing prison system, some leading
social scientists are saying, in research that suggests prisons have a far
deeper impact on the nation than simply punishing criminals.
Fueled by the war on drugs, "three-strike" laws, and mandatory minimum
sentences, America's prisons and jails now house some 2.2 million inmates -
roughly seven times the figure of the early 1970s. And Americans are investing
vast resources to keep the system running: The cost to maintain American
correctional institutions is some $60 billion a year.
For years sociologists saw prisons - with their disproportionately poor, black,
and uneducated populations - partly as mirrors of the social and economic
disparities that cleave American life. Now, however, a new crop of books and
articles are looking at the penal system not just as a reflection of society,
but a force that shapes it.
In this view, the system takes men with limited education and job skills and
stigmatizes them in a way that makes it hard for them to find jobs, slashes
their wages when they do find them, and brands them as bad future spouses. The
effects of imprisonment ripple out from prisoners, breaking up families and
further impoverishing neighborhoods, creating the conditions for more crime down
the road. Prisons have grown into potent "engines of inequality," in the words
of sociologist Bruce Western; the penal system, he and other scholars suggest,
actively widens the gap between the poor - especially poor black men - and
everyone else.
"This is a historic transformation of the character of American society," says
Glenn Loury, a Brown University economist who has begun to write on this topic,
most recently in the Boston Review. "We are managing the losers by confinement."
The shift isn't just academic. In national politics, concern about the people
who actually go to prison has been drowned out by tough-on-crime rhetoric, but
today the issue is getting a hearing from some politicians, and not just
hard-left liberals. On Oct. 4, Congress's Joint Economic Committee will hear
testimony from Western, Loury, and others on the economic and social costs of
the prison boom. The session will be chaired by Jim Webb, the gruff, moderate
Democratic Senator from Virginia. Cities including Boston and San Francisco are
changing their hiring practices to destigmatize prisoners, and there is
detectable momentum in Congress toward reducing the extraordinarily harsh
minimum sentences for possession of crack cocaine, which disproportionately
affect poor black Americans.
The issue has arrived on the public agenda in part because of the work done by a
handful of leading sociologists. Western's 2006 book "Punishment and Inequality
in America" is a key work in this new scholarly movement. Devah Pager, a
Princeton sociologist, has been making headlines since her dissertation,
completed in 2002 at the University of Wisconsin, demonstrated how a criminal
record - even for nonviolent drug offenses - made it nearly impossible for black
ex-convicts in Milwaukee to land a job. This month, a book based on that work,
"Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration," appears
in bookstores. And the sociologist Lawrence Bobo, who left Harvard for Stanford
two years ago but is returning in January, has been investigating how the
growing black prison population is eroding African-Americans' confidence in the
rule of law.
For years, the penal system was a marginal topic among sociologists, catching
the interest chiefly of professors with an interest in hard-core criminology.
But in the past decade, discussion of incarceration has moved to the center of
the field, in the work of respected scholars at top institutions who are
interested in a broad understanding of American inequality.
"My sense of it is just that the sheer mass, the weight of the reality of what's
happening, has sunk in," says Loury.
With black men in their early 30s more likely to have been in prison than to
have graduated from college, and with 700,000 ex-prisoners reentering society
each year, the trends cannot be ignored. The current US rate of some 750
prisoners per 100,000 citizens is several times higher than rates in Europe -
higher, even, than the rates in formerly repressive states like Russia or South
Africa.
In "Punishment and Inequality in America," Western documented the degree to
which poor black communities across America live in a penitentiary shadow. Of
black males born in the late 1960s who did not attend college, 30 percent have
served time in prison, he pointed out. For high-school dropouts, the figure is a
startling 59 percent. "I don't think the really deep penetration of the criminal
justice system into poor and minority communities has been fully understood by
people outside these communities," says Western.
Mass incarceration, Western argues, also renders invisible a substantial portion
of American poverty. At the height of the tech boom in 2000, he points out, 65
percent of black male high school dropouts weren't working. Government
statistics, however, said the unemployment level of this group was 33 percent,
because government surveys exclude prisoners.
At the root of prison's broader social impact lies its lingering effect on
individual lives. In an ideal penal system, prisoners might exit the system
having paid their debt to society and be more or less restored to their previous
status as free men and women. But Pager's book demonstrates just how detached
from reality that view is. She had four college students, two black and two
white, pose as applicants for low-level jobs in Milwaukee (excluding jobs where
a criminal record would have disqualified them).
They used résumés that were nearly identical - high school degrees, steady
progress from entry-level work to a supervisory position - except that in some
cases the applicant had a drug conviction in his past (possession with intent to
distribute) for which he served an 18-month sentence and then behaved perfectly
on parole.
In surveys conducted by Pager, 62 percent of Milwaukee employers said they'd
consider hiring an applicant with a nonviolent drug offense in his past. But in
her field study, Pager found that her black applicants with criminal records got
called for an interview - or to interview on the spot, as they applied in person
- a mere 5 percent of the time. That compared with 14 percent for the black
applicants without a criminal record. Meanwhile, the white applicants with a
record were called back 17 percent of the time, compared with 34 percent for the
white men lacking the blotch on their résumé. "Two strikes" - blackness and a
record - "and you're out" is how Pager summarizes her findings. (Pager has
replicated this study in New York City, with similar results.)
Job prospects for black ex-prisoners in Milwaukee may be even worse in the
future, Pager argues in "Marked," because while the vast majority of job growth
is in the suburbs, the gap between employers' receptiveness to black and white
ex-convicts is even wider there.
Western explores the same set of post-prison issues on a broader statistical
canvas. He found that whites, Hispanics, and blacks all face a hit in their
wages of about a third, relative to their peers, when they emerge from prison,
and also work fewer weeks per year. Their peers will see significant raises from
ages 25 to 35, but the ex-prisoners won't, widening the gap. Former prisoners,
too, are far less likely ever to marry, but no less likely to have kids, meaning
that prisons contribute to the epidemic of female-headed, single-parent
households. (Some 9 percent of all black children now have a father in jail.)
Sociologists and a few politicians are not the only ones aware of these trends,
argues Lawrence Bobo. Black Americans interpret them as evidence of stark
racism, according to surveys he's done. Seventy-nine percent of white Americans,
for example, think drug laws are enforced fairly, compared with 34 percent of
black Americans.
Black Americans' concerns about the justice system burst to the fore in Jena,
La., last week when thousands protested prosecutors' tough treatment of six
black teenagers after an assault on a white student. When Bobo looks broadly at
black attitudes about the justice system, he doesn't find them irrational.
"We as a society," Bobo wrote last year, "have normalized and, for the time
being, depoliticized a remarkable set of social conditions."
Policy makers are slowly beginning to reckon with some aspects of these
developments. In 2004, President Bush, in his State of the Union address,
acknowledged some of the challenges caused by mass incarceration, Pager points
out, describing the hundreds of thousands exiting prisons annually as a "group
of Americans in need of help." And this year liberals like Senator Joseph Biden
(D-Del.) and conservatives like Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) have cosponsored
the so-called Second Chance Act. It would provide $192 million for drug
counseling, family counseling, housing, and mentorship for ex-offenders to
assist their reentry into their communities.
A handful of cities, including Boston, no longer ask applicants for city jobs
whether they have a criminal record, although their backgrounds can still be
checked later. A growing "Ban the Box" movement - referring to the check-off box
on an application, signaling a conviction - is designed to reduce the kind of
upfront discrimination Pager identifies. San Francisco and St. Paul have also
signed off on the idea, while Los Angeles is pondering it.
To these ideas, Pager would add a policy modeled on how we treat debtors: After
a certain amount of time, records of most convictions, especially for nonviolent
offenses, would be expunged. Stigma would have a deadline.
Such proposals would do nothing to roll back prison populations, but bills
introduced by Senators Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), and Biden
to raise the amount of crack cocaine that triggers automatic five- and ten-year
sentences might do so. (The possession of crack - typically a drug of the poor,
and specifically the black poor - is penalized far more harshly than the
powdered cocaine preferred by middle- and upper-class drug users.) Bruce Western
advocates ending mandatory minimum sentences for drug conviction, and adds some
further thoughts about reducing prison populations: "We could be spending money
and social services to reduce the risks that make people likely to go to prison
in the first place - on drug addiction, on mental-health services, on housing."
In a campaign year, the prison issue is a tough one - such arguments don't have
the easy pull on voters that "tough on crime" policies do. Yet with Congress
calling prison experts to testify about their research, and coverage in the
mainstream media of the protests in Jena, "I do sense there is a public
conversation beginning," Western says.
Christopher Shea's column appears regularly in Ideas. E-mail
criticalfaculties@verizon.net.
Seeing the world through the prism of white racism as the cause of all things
bad is misguided and itself racist. Shea says, "the growing black prison
population is eroding African-Americans' confidence in the rule of law." What
about the four white men and their families who spent 30 years in Jail (two died
in prison) after an FBI frameup? (Christopher Shea, "Life sentence," Boston
Globe, September 23, 2007)
Peter Limone, and Joe Salvati (Tamelo and Greco died in prison) lived to
see their freedom. They were initially sentenced to death for a murder they did
not commit. Why is this only a black issue? It is a matter for all Americans.
Making the issue a race issue shuts out all non African Americans who were
harmed by the same courts, police, judges and lawyers.
Spineless politicians get elected by the same interest groups who have an
economic interest in keeping the system as it is or making it worse.
Police, corrections officers, lawyers, construction corporations, social
workers, drug companies and psychiatrists (to keep the list manageable) enjoy
the way it is.
Just because "Black Americans interpret [the trends] as evidence of stark
racism," does make it so. Many prominent black people see racism as the cause of
all unpleasant events in their lives. They are obsessed with racism as the
explanation for all evil.
At the same time liberal politicians promoted and implemented policies
which encouraged the causes of increased crime and incarceration. As recently as
1995 Princeton Professor John Iulio noted that there were 4 million young men
who would be teenagers in the beginning of the 21st century. He said they are
fatherless, godless and jobless. 12 years after that observation (See Fox
Butterfield, NYTimes Nov 19 1995) and the country is reaping what it sowed
over the past 40 years.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
CRITICAL FACULTIES
Life sentence
It's a government program whose impact rivals the New Deal. It pushes whole
communities out of society's mainstream. It costs tens of billions of dollars a
year. Scholars are just beginning to understand how prison is reshaping the
country.
Boston Globe
By Christopher Shea
September 23, 2007
WHAT if America launched a new New Deal and no one noticed? And what if, instead
of lifting the unemployed out of poverty, this multibillion-dollar project
steadily drove poor communities further and further out of the American
mainstream?
That's how America should think about its growing prison system, some leading
social scientists are saying, in research that suggests prisons have a far
deeper impact on the nation than simply punishing criminals.
Fueled by the war on drugs, "three-strike" laws, and mandatory minimum
sentences, America's prisons and jails now house some 2.2 million inmates -
roughly seven times the figure of the early 1970s. And Americans are investing
vast resources to keep the system running: The cost to maintain American
correctional institutions is some $60 billion a year.
For years sociologists saw prisons - with their disproportionately poor, black,
and uneducated populations - partly as mirrors of the social and economic
disparities that cleave American life. Now, however, a new crop of books and
articles are looking at the penal system not just as a reflection of society,
but a force that shapes it.
In this view, the system takes men with limited education and job skills and
stigmatizes them in a way that makes it hard for them to find jobs, slashes
their wages when they do find them, and brands them as bad future spouses. The
effects of imprisonment ripple out from prisoners, breaking up families and
further impoverishing neighborhoods, creating the conditions for more crime down
the road. Prisons have grown into potent "engines of inequality," in the words
of sociologist Bruce Western; the penal system, he and other scholars suggest,
actively widens the gap between the poor - especially poor black men - and
everyone else.
"This is a historic transformation of the character of American society," says
Glenn Loury, a Brown University economist who has begun to write on this topic,
most recently in the Boston Review. "We are managing the losers by confinement."
The shift isn't just academic. In national politics, concern about the people
who actually go to prison has been drowned out by tough-on-crime rhetoric, but
today the issue is getting a hearing from some politicians, and not just
hard-left liberals. On Oct. 4, Congress's Joint Economic Committee will hear
testimony from Western, Loury, and others on the economic and social costs of
the prison boom. The session will be chaired by Jim Webb, the gruff, moderate
Democratic Senator from Virginia. Cities including Boston and San Francisco are
changing their hiring practices to destigmatize prisoners, and there is
detectable momentum in Congress toward reducing the extraordinarily harsh
minimum sentences for possession of crack cocaine, which disproportionately
affect poor black Americans.
The issue has arrived on the public agenda in part because of the work done by a
handful of leading sociologists. Western's 2006 book "Punishment and Inequality
in America" is a key work in this new scholarly movement. Devah Pager, a
Princeton sociologist, has been making headlines since her dissertation,
completed in 2002 at the University of Wisconsin, demonstrated how a criminal
record - even for nonviolent drug offenses - made it nearly impossible for black
ex-convicts in Milwaukee to land a job. This month, a book based on that work,
"Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration," appears
in bookstores. And the sociologist Lawrence Bobo, who left Harvard for Stanford
two years ago but is returning in January, has been investigating how the
growing black prison population is eroding African-Americans' confidence in the
rule of law.
For years, the penal system was a marginal topic among sociologists, catching
the interest chiefly of professors with an interest in hard-core criminology.
But in the past decade, discussion of incarceration has moved to the center of
the field, in the work of respected scholars at top institutions who are
interested in a broad understanding of American inequality.
"My sense of it is just that the sheer mass, the weight of the reality of what's
happening, has sunk in," says Loury.
With black men in their early 30s more likely to have been in prison than to
have graduated from college, and with 700,000 ex-prisoners reentering society
each year, the trends cannot be ignored. The current US rate of some 750
prisoners per 100,000 citizens is several times higher than rates in Europe -
higher, even, than the rates in formerly repressive states like Russia or South
Africa.
In "Punishment and Inequality in America," Western documented the degree to
which poor black communities across America live in a penitentiary shadow. Of
black males born in the late 1960s who did not attend college, 30 percent have
served time in prison, he pointed out. For high-school dropouts, the figure is a
startling 59 percent. "I don't think the really deep penetration of the criminal
justice system into poor and minority communities has been fully understood by
people outside these communities," says Western.
Mass incarceration, Western argues, also renders invisible a substantial portion
of American poverty. At the height of the tech boom in 2000, he points out, 65
percent of black male high school dropouts weren't working. Government
statistics, however, said the unemployment level of this group was 33 percent,
because government surveys exclude prisoners.
At the root of prison's broader social impact lies its lingering effect on
individual lives. In an ideal penal system, prisoners might exit the system
having paid their debt to society and be more or less restored to their previous
status as free men and women. But Pager's book demonstrates just how detached
from reality that view is. She had four college students, two black and two
white, pose as applicants for low-level jobs in Milwaukee (excluding jobs where
a criminal record would have disqualified them).
They used résumés that were nearly identical - high school degrees, steady
progress from entry-level work to a supervisory position - except that in some
cases the applicant had a drug conviction in his past (possession with intent to
distribute) for which he served an 18-month sentence and then behaved perfectly
on parole.
In surveys conducted by Pager, 62 percent of Milwaukee employers said they'd
consider hiring an applicant with a nonviolent drug offense in his past. But in
her field study, Pager found that her black applicants with criminal records got
called for an interview - or to interview on the spot, as they applied in person
- a mere 5 percent of the time. That compared with 14 percent for the black
applicants without a criminal record. Meanwhile, the white applicants with a
record were called back 17 percent of the time, compared with 34 percent for the
white men lacking the blotch on their résumé. "Two strikes" - blackness and a
record - "and you're out" is how Pager summarizes her findings. (Pager has
replicated this study in New York City, with similar results.)
Job prospects for black ex-prisoners in Milwaukee may be even worse in the
future, Pager argues in "Marked," because while the vast majority of job growth
is in the suburbs, the gap between employers' receptiveness to black and white
ex-convicts is even wider there.
Western explores the same set of post-prison issues on a broader statistical
canvas. He found that whites, Hispanics, and blacks all face a hit in their
wages of about a third, relative to their peers, when they emerge from prison,
and also work fewer weeks per year. Their peers will see significant raises from
ages 25 to 35, but the ex-prisoners won't, widening the gap. Former prisoners,
too, are far less likely ever to marry, but no less likely to have kids, meaning
that prisons contribute to the epidemic of female-headed, single-parent
households. (Some 9 percent of all black children now have a father in jail.)
Sociologists and a few politicians are not the only ones aware of these trends,
argues Lawrence Bobo. Black Americans interpret them as evidence of stark
racism, according to surveys he's done. Seventy-nine percent of white Americans,
for example, think drug laws are enforced fairly, compared with 34 percent of
black Americans.
Black Americans' concerns about the justice system burst to the fore in Jena,
La., last week when thousands protested prosecutors' tough treatment of six
black teenagers after an assault on a white student. When Bobo looks broadly at
black attitudes about the justice system, he doesn't find them irrational.
"We as a society," Bobo wrote last year, "have normalized and, for the time
being, depoliticized a remarkable set of social conditions."
Policy makers are slowly beginning to reckon with some aspects of these
developments. In 2004, President Bush, in his State of the Union address,
acknowledged some of the challenges caused by mass incarceration, Pager points
out, describing the hundreds of thousands exiting prisons annually as a "group
of Americans in need of help." And this year liberals like Senator Joseph Biden
(D-Del.) and conservatives like Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) have cosponsored
the so-called Second Chance Act. It would provide $192 million for drug
counseling, family counseling, housing, and mentorship for ex-offenders to
assist their reentry into their communities.
A handful of cities, including Boston, no longer ask applicants for city jobs
whether they have a criminal record, although their backgrounds can still be
checked later. A growing "Ban the Box" movement - referring to the check-off box
on an application, signaling a conviction - is designed to reduce the kind of
upfront discrimination Pager identifies. San Francisco and St. Paul have also
signed off on the idea, while Los Angeles is pondering it.
To these ideas, Pager would add a policy modeled on how we treat debtors: After
a certain amount of time, records of most convictions, especially for nonviolent
offenses, would be expunged. Stigma would have a deadline.
Such proposals would do nothing to roll back prison populations, but bills
introduced by Senators Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), and Biden
to raise the amount of crack cocaine that triggers automatic five- and ten-year
sentences might do so. (The possession of crack - typically a drug of the poor,
and specifically the black poor - is penalized far more harshly than the
powdered cocaine preferred by middle- and upper-class drug users.) Bruce Western
advocates ending mandatory minimum sentences for drug conviction, and adds some
further thoughts about reducing prison populations: "We could be spending money
and social services to reduce the risks that make people likely to go to prison
in the first place - on drug addiction, on mental-health services, on housing."
In a campaign year, the prison issue is a tough one - such arguments don't have
the easy pull on voters that "tough on crime" policies do. Yet with Congress
calling prison experts to testify about their research, and coverage in the
mainstream media of the protests in Jena, "I do sense there is a public
conversation beginning," Western says.
Christopher Shea's column appears regularly in Ideas. E-mail
criticalfaculties@verizon.net.
Cheating is Pervasive
Cheating is Pervasive
The pervasive cheating in America is nothing new. (Drake Bennett, "Bad
sports," Boston Globe, September 23, 2007) David Callahan wrote "The Cheating Culture," wherein he explained how the practice is embedded in scientific research, Ivy league students, lawyers, doctors, and everywhere there are humans. Bennett
focuses on sports which is of minor concern.
If you cannot trust what is published in scientific journals what can you
trust? How many journalists were caught at The New York Times, the Boston Globe
and the Washington Post making it up or plagiarizing? Too many for sure. It is
not just politicians who lie for a living.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Bad sports
Why people cheat when they don't have to
Boston Globe
By Drake Bennett
September 23, 2007
IT'S BEEN A tough month for fair play in New England.
Three weeks ago, a police prosecutor in Hanover, N.H., announced that he might
bring felony charges against nine students accused of breaking into their high
school to steal advance copies of AP exams. The taping scandal that engulfed the
New England Patriots after their season opener was finally resolved last week,
with no penalties beyond the $750,000 in fines and probable loss of a
first-round draft pick. And the Patriots remain without safety Rodney Harrison,
suspended until Oct. 2 for violating the league's policy on
performance-enhancing drugs.
All of which has left people scratching their heads. Why would smart students
steal a test? Why would the favorites to win the Super Bowl break a rule,
especially when they had already been warned about the behavior? Why, in other
words, do people cheat in situations where there is little to gain - one good
grade, a slight edge in a game - and so much to lose?
This irrationality may be the rule, rather than the exception, when it comes to
cheating, according to a group of scholars who have turned their attention to
the mysteries of the cheating mind. Cheating is often thought of as something
that is done after cold calculation. But, the new research has found, people are
prone to cheat even when it is not in their best interest. Instead of carefully
weighing the costs and benefits of breaking the rules, people can be heavily
swayed by peer pressure, their mood, their image of themselves. Sometimes,
people even cheat out of a sense of fairness.
"A lot of the time people are thinking about the broader costs and benefits, but
there are biases or blind spots or other psychological factors that are actually
driving their behavior," says Maurice Schweitzer, an associate professor at the
University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School who studies deception.
The new research into the psychology of cheating comes at a time when others,
largely economists, are finding stark evidence that cheating is a widespread
part of sports, and not merely in the sort of cases that make the news. Using
economics as a forensic tool, they're arguing that foul play, either by referees
or players, is common in sports as varied as figure skating, basketball, and
sumo wrestling.
Whether it's corporate malfeasance, academic dishonesty, tax fraud, or point
shaving, researchers are looking with renewed interest at the motivations behind
breaking the rules - and whether we fully understand what we're doing when we do
it. Cheating has always interested social scientists, but increasingly today
they're trying to find ways around the secrecy and obfuscation that surrounds
cheating, and designing experiments that expose telltale patterns.
[...]
Drake Bennett is the staff writer for Ideas. E-mail drbennett@globe.com.
The pervasive cheating in America is nothing new. (Drake Bennett, "Bad
sports," Boston Globe, September 23, 2007) David Callahan wrote "The Cheating Culture," wherein he explained how the practice is embedded in scientific research, Ivy league students, lawyers, doctors, and everywhere there are humans. Bennett
focuses on sports which is of minor concern.
If you cannot trust what is published in scientific journals what can you
trust? How many journalists were caught at The New York Times, the Boston Globe
and the Washington Post making it up or plagiarizing? Too many for sure. It is
not just politicians who lie for a living.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Bad sports
Why people cheat when they don't have to
Boston Globe
By Drake Bennett
September 23, 2007
IT'S BEEN A tough month for fair play in New England.
Three weeks ago, a police prosecutor in Hanover, N.H., announced that he might
bring felony charges against nine students accused of breaking into their high
school to steal advance copies of AP exams. The taping scandal that engulfed the
New England Patriots after their season opener was finally resolved last week,
with no penalties beyond the $750,000 in fines and probable loss of a
first-round draft pick. And the Patriots remain without safety Rodney Harrison,
suspended until Oct. 2 for violating the league's policy on
performance-enhancing drugs.
All of which has left people scratching their heads. Why would smart students
steal a test? Why would the favorites to win the Super Bowl break a rule,
especially when they had already been warned about the behavior? Why, in other
words, do people cheat in situations where there is little to gain - one good
grade, a slight edge in a game - and so much to lose?
This irrationality may be the rule, rather than the exception, when it comes to
cheating, according to a group of scholars who have turned their attention to
the mysteries of the cheating mind. Cheating is often thought of as something
that is done after cold calculation. But, the new research has found, people are
prone to cheat even when it is not in their best interest. Instead of carefully
weighing the costs and benefits of breaking the rules, people can be heavily
swayed by peer pressure, their mood, their image of themselves. Sometimes,
people even cheat out of a sense of fairness.
"A lot of the time people are thinking about the broader costs and benefits, but
there are biases or blind spots or other psychological factors that are actually
driving their behavior," says Maurice Schweitzer, an associate professor at the
University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School who studies deception.
The new research into the psychology of cheating comes at a time when others,
largely economists, are finding stark evidence that cheating is a widespread
part of sports, and not merely in the sort of cases that make the news. Using
economics as a forensic tool, they're arguing that foul play, either by referees
or players, is common in sports as varied as figure skating, basketball, and
sumo wrestling.
Whether it's corporate malfeasance, academic dishonesty, tax fraud, or point
shaving, researchers are looking with renewed interest at the motivations behind
breaking the rules - and whether we fully understand what we're doing when we do
it. Cheating has always interested social scientists, but increasingly today
they're trying to find ways around the secrecy and obfuscation that surrounds
cheating, and designing experiments that expose telltale patterns.
[...]
Drake Bennett is the staff writer for Ideas. E-mail drbennett@globe.com.
Celebrating Provocateurs
Celebrating Provocateurs
John Dean is celebrated as a hero exposing wrongdoing by his own political
party members in the Nixon Administration. (Anna Mundow, "Warping the lessons of
Watergate," Boston Globe, September 23, 2007) Some history books portray Dean
and James McCord as infiltrators who deliberately encouraged wrongdoing. Dean
allegedly promoted the first break-in at the Watergate complex to retrieve an
address book with his name in it. McCord was White House security who replaced
the tape on the door of the break-in. Clearly history is written by the victors.
It is no more reliable because Democrats won that battle.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Warping the lessons of Watergate
Boston Globe
By Anna Mundow
September 23, 2007
John Dean, who was White House legal counsel to President Richard Nixon,
famously identified "a cancer growing on the presidency" when he testified as
the government's key witness in the Watergate trial. In 2004, in the damning
analysis "Worse Than Watergate" he made a similar diagnosis about the
Bush-Cheney administration, and now "Broken Government" (Viking, $25.95)
examines, with great precision and even greater urgency (in the words of the
subtitle), "how Republican rule destroyed the legislative, executive and
judicial branches."
Dean spoke from his home in California.
Q. Did you plan this indictment of Republican rule as a trilogy?
A. I did not. I started to write about the Bush-Cheney administration in my
weekly column for Findlaw.com, and that evolved into "Worse Than Watergate." I
kept thinking, these people are going to get their act together, but then I
realized this was their act. In "Conservatives Without Conscience" I reported on
research examining why they act as they do. After that, so many people asked me
what damage has been done by this administration. That was the genesis of the
third book, "Broken Government."
Q. Has your writing style changed along the way?
A. No, I guess it's still the lawyer's approach. You never know how much the
judge (or the reader) is going to know, so you try to be explicit without being
insulting and detailed without being dull. I generally have somebody in mind
that I'm writing for, a friend perhaps. Also I try to write books that I want to
read. This is often information that I had been trying to find and I wish
somebody had written the book; then I wouldn't have to.
Q. Was there a critical moment during this administration when you perceived
American democracy to be in danger?
A. When I wrote "Worse Than Watergate" I was deeply troubled by the truly
excessive secrecy of this presidency and the efforts [Vice President] Cheney was
making to keep things secret. I look at it as someone who has been on the
inside. There's a reason for that secrecy; it's because you don't want people to
know what . . . you're doing. It's not because you're trying to gain
presidential powers; it's because you don't want people to know what you're
doing with those powers. When I was writing the postscript to "Worse Than
Watergate" I asked the Kerry campaign, off the record, why they had given Bush
such a free pass on all this secrecy. And they said "It's a process issue." I
said "Right, it's a process issue. Everything that's going on in that town is a
process issue, and you're ignoring it." But they insisted that voters don't like
process issues. I knew the opposite to be true, and I eventually found
groundbreaking, empirical studies carried out by political scientists at [Univ
ersity of] Nebraska that showed how important process is to a large segment of
American voters. You see, people don't need to know what a motion to recommit
is; they understand at a gut level when they're getting screwed by the process.
That was a great revelation and comfort to me.
Q. Why does Watergate still matter to you - and to Dick Cheney?
A. It clearly matters to Cheney because he thinks as a result of Nixon not
staying, fighting, and prevailing, somehow the presidency was weakened. As I
show in "Broken Government" that's just not true; it's a ruse. Reagan took the
presidency way beyond where Nixon ever hoped to take it. A massive amount of the
work of the Senate Watergate Committee was on preventing just what Cheney,
[Karl] Rove et al. have so successfully accomplished. That is, to totally
politicize the process. So it shows that Watergate really had no lasting effect.
I think it established some sort of standard of what was not acceptable - I
don't think those were bad standards - but we've gotten around them. Today, the
lessons of Watergate really come down to "Don't get caught."
Q. In what sense is this a "neo-Nixonian" presidency?
A. In the sense that Nixon gave us what Arthur Schlesinger appropriately labeled
"the imperial presidency," but these people have gone way beyond that Nixonian
standard. They have given us the imperial presidency on steroids. This is
Cheney's legacy, and I have real concerns that a Democratic president would be
unlikely to send all those powers back to Congress. When they're in power, they
too would use these powers.
Q. Of all the problems and abuses you identify, which demands the most urgent
attention?
A. The Democrats have already started to repair the damage in the legislative
branch. With the executive branch, if the expanded powers are not misused it's
not quite as dangerous. To me the most troubling abuse and what should be
focused on in 2008 is what the Republicans have done to the federal judiciary by
making political the nonpolitical branch. It's a conservative Supreme Court
today. It's clear that if Bush were to get another appointee, he would appoint
another legal fundamentalist who would embrace a supreme executive with strong
military inclinations. It's a remarkable authoritarian vision of America that I
don't think the majority of Americans want. The Democrats have the power to
block that.
Q. You're optimistic?
A. I am. I think that if you give Americans the information, they do the right
thing. Just think of an average jury. You put them in a room and 99 percent of
the time they come out with the right judgment. It happens with voters too.
Anna Mundow is a correspondent for the Irish Times. She can be reached via
e-mail at ama1668@hotmail.com.
John Dean is celebrated as a hero exposing wrongdoing by his own political
party members in the Nixon Administration. (Anna Mundow, "Warping the lessons of
Watergate," Boston Globe, September 23, 2007) Some history books portray Dean
and James McCord as infiltrators who deliberately encouraged wrongdoing. Dean
allegedly promoted the first break-in at the Watergate complex to retrieve an
address book with his name in it. McCord was White House security who replaced
the tape on the door of the break-in. Clearly history is written by the victors.
It is no more reliable because Democrats won that battle.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Warping the lessons of Watergate
Boston Globe
By Anna Mundow
September 23, 2007
John Dean, who was White House legal counsel to President Richard Nixon,
famously identified "a cancer growing on the presidency" when he testified as
the government's key witness in the Watergate trial. In 2004, in the damning
analysis "Worse Than Watergate" he made a similar diagnosis about the
Bush-Cheney administration, and now "Broken Government" (Viking, $25.95)
examines, with great precision and even greater urgency (in the words of the
subtitle), "how Republican rule destroyed the legislative, executive and
judicial branches."
Dean spoke from his home in California.
Q. Did you plan this indictment of Republican rule as a trilogy?
A. I did not. I started to write about the Bush-Cheney administration in my
weekly column for Findlaw.com, and that evolved into "Worse Than Watergate." I
kept thinking, these people are going to get their act together, but then I
realized this was their act. In "Conservatives Without Conscience" I reported on
research examining why they act as they do. After that, so many people asked me
what damage has been done by this administration. That was the genesis of the
third book, "Broken Government."
Q. Has your writing style changed along the way?
A. No, I guess it's still the lawyer's approach. You never know how much the
judge (or the reader) is going to know, so you try to be explicit without being
insulting and detailed without being dull. I generally have somebody in mind
that I'm writing for, a friend perhaps. Also I try to write books that I want to
read. This is often information that I had been trying to find and I wish
somebody had written the book; then I wouldn't have to.
Q. Was there a critical moment during this administration when you perceived
American democracy to be in danger?
A. When I wrote "Worse Than Watergate" I was deeply troubled by the truly
excessive secrecy of this presidency and the efforts [Vice President] Cheney was
making to keep things secret. I look at it as someone who has been on the
inside. There's a reason for that secrecy; it's because you don't want people to
know what . . . you're doing. It's not because you're trying to gain
presidential powers; it's because you don't want people to know what you're
doing with those powers. When I was writing the postscript to "Worse Than
Watergate" I asked the Kerry campaign, off the record, why they had given Bush
such a free pass on all this secrecy. And they said "It's a process issue." I
said "Right, it's a process issue. Everything that's going on in that town is a
process issue, and you're ignoring it." But they insisted that voters don't like
process issues. I knew the opposite to be true, and I eventually found
groundbreaking, empirical studies carried out by political scientists at [Univ
ersity of] Nebraska that showed how important process is to a large segment of
American voters. You see, people don't need to know what a motion to recommit
is; they understand at a gut level when they're getting screwed by the process.
That was a great revelation and comfort to me.
Q. Why does Watergate still matter to you - and to Dick Cheney?
A. It clearly matters to Cheney because he thinks as a result of Nixon not
staying, fighting, and prevailing, somehow the presidency was weakened. As I
show in "Broken Government" that's just not true; it's a ruse. Reagan took the
presidency way beyond where Nixon ever hoped to take it. A massive amount of the
work of the Senate Watergate Committee was on preventing just what Cheney,
[Karl] Rove et al. have so successfully accomplished. That is, to totally
politicize the process. So it shows that Watergate really had no lasting effect.
I think it established some sort of standard of what was not acceptable - I
don't think those were bad standards - but we've gotten around them. Today, the
lessons of Watergate really come down to "Don't get caught."
Q. In what sense is this a "neo-Nixonian" presidency?
A. In the sense that Nixon gave us what Arthur Schlesinger appropriately labeled
"the imperial presidency," but these people have gone way beyond that Nixonian
standard. They have given us the imperial presidency on steroids. This is
Cheney's legacy, and I have real concerns that a Democratic president would be
unlikely to send all those powers back to Congress. When they're in power, they
too would use these powers.
Q. Of all the problems and abuses you identify, which demands the most urgent
attention?
A. The Democrats have already started to repair the damage in the legislative
branch. With the executive branch, if the expanded powers are not misused it's
not quite as dangerous. To me the most troubling abuse and what should be
focused on in 2008 is what the Republicans have done to the federal judiciary by
making political the nonpolitical branch. It's a conservative Supreme Court
today. It's clear that if Bush were to get another appointee, he would appoint
another legal fundamentalist who would embrace a supreme executive with strong
military inclinations. It's a remarkable authoritarian vision of America that I
don't think the majority of Americans want. The Democrats have the power to
block that.
Q. You're optimistic?
A. I am. I think that if you give Americans the information, they do the right
thing. Just think of an average jury. You put them in a room and 99 percent of
the time they come out with the right judgment. It happens with voters too.
Anna Mundow is a correspondent for the Irish Times. She can be reached via
e-mail at ama1668@hotmail.com.
News Is Not For Everyone
News Is Not For Everyone
CYA is so pervasive at Universities that a student has a better
understanding of events than university administrators. (Peter Gelzinis, "D’oh!
Play explosive could’ve detonated a tragedy with pranks gone wild," Boston
Herald, September 23, 2007) The MIT spokesman called the wearing of a circuit
board reckless. A student noted it was due to lack of common sense.
Criminal intent is necessary for criminal liability. The MIT student had
none. Having no street sense is not a crime. Many academics do not read
newspapers. Sorry to disappoint you Peter.
In this day of government paranoia it is no wonder we have the highest
incarceration rate in the world. Have the terrorists won? They diminished our
freedoms knowing the mentality of the government leaders who lack self
knowledge. The President of Iran knows the politics of America better than most
Americans.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
D’oh! Play explosive could’ve detonated a tragedy with pranks gone wild
By Peter Gelzinis
Boston Herald
Sunday, September 23, 2007
http://www.bostonherald.com
“What was the Play-Doh all about?”
The state cop who posed the question was not on duty at Logan International
Airport on Friday morning when his colleagues trained their machine guns on Star
Anna Simpson, a 19-year-old goofball genius from MIT.
But his intimate knowledge of Logan’s fail-safe procedures left him more
disturbed by the Play-Doh than the circuit board or blinking lights fastened to
the front of the sophomore’s sweatshirt.
“You train for hours and hours,” the cop explained, “you train against the
possibility of numerous (explosive) devices. And when it comes to preparing for
plastic explosives, what we use to simulate C-4 is Play-Doh. It’s the same
texture.
“That’s one of the things that amazes me about this incident,” he said. “Bad
enough she decides to walk into the same airport where two sets of terrorists
boarded two separate jets and flew them into New York’s two tallest buildings,
with wires attached to a battery and a circuit board.
“Even if she says the board, the blinking (LED) lights and the battery were only
art,” the cop said, “what was the Play-Doh all about? Of all the things she
could have been holding in her hand, she walks in with a hunk of Play-Doh? What
did she think was going to happen?”
It’s true that geniuses often come in wildly eccentric packages. Still, it’s one
thing for Star Simpson, a beguiling tinkerer from Hawaii, to make a fashion
statement during MIT’s career fair by accenting a black sweatshirt with a 9-volt
battery attached to a circuit board.
And it’s quite another to wear that sweatshirt into Terminal C at Logan Airport
while holding a hunk of Play-Doh. She went there to pick up her boyfriend,
another electrical engineering genius, who was flying in from California.
But did Simpson also go to Logan in search of a YouTube moment, not unlike the
one created a few days earlier at the University of Florida by unctuous
self-promoter Andrew “Don’t Tase me, bro” Meyer?
There was nothing stupid about what Andrew Meyer did during a
question-and-answer session with Sen. John Kerry. The solo riot he generated
with a bunch of campus cops was little more than a shameless attempt to show how
easy it is these days to grab 15 minutes of cheap fame.
Indeed, less than a day after Meyer quite deliberately asked a friend to video
the moment when he essentially begged campus cops to zap him, more than 400,000
suckers were clicking on this fool.
Today, you can buy several types of “Don’t Tase Me, Bro,” T-shirts on the Web.
I don’t know if Simpson’s journey to Logan on Friday was quite as calculating.
On the other hand, I can’t buy the pixie genius defense her court-appointed
lawyer used at her arraignment in East Boston on Friday.
Simpson was a freshman at MIT last year when a couple of freelance bozos,
looking to make a few extra bucks, sent this city into Def-Con 4 with a handful
of cartoon circuit boards that gave everyone the finger.
Sure, maybe we weren’t hip enough to appreciate a little guerrilla marketing.
But that doesn’t matter, because the city still got the last laugh with a $2
million apology from Turner Classic Movies for our frayed nerves.
Maybe Star Anna Simpson thought she could saunter through Logan and return to
Cambridge with a helluva tale about how no one said a word to her. Or maybe she
thought a half-dozen machine guns would do wonders for her Web site profile.
“A couple of things struck me,” the state cop said, “I thought about what a
burst of machine gun fire might do to other people in the area. And then, of
course, if it had been a real device, what those bullets would have done to
everyone after the explosion.”
Article URL:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1033468
CYA is so pervasive at Universities that a student has a better
understanding of events than university administrators. (Peter Gelzinis, "D’oh!
Play explosive could’ve detonated a tragedy with pranks gone wild," Boston
Herald, September 23, 2007) The MIT spokesman called the wearing of a circuit
board reckless. A student noted it was due to lack of common sense.
Criminal intent is necessary for criminal liability. The MIT student had
none. Having no street sense is not a crime. Many academics do not read
newspapers. Sorry to disappoint you Peter.
In this day of government paranoia it is no wonder we have the highest
incarceration rate in the world. Have the terrorists won? They diminished our
freedoms knowing the mentality of the government leaders who lack self
knowledge. The President of Iran knows the politics of America better than most
Americans.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
D’oh! Play explosive could’ve detonated a tragedy with pranks gone wild
By Peter Gelzinis
Boston Herald
Sunday, September 23, 2007
http://www.bostonherald.com
“What was the Play-Doh all about?”
The state cop who posed the question was not on duty at Logan International
Airport on Friday morning when his colleagues trained their machine guns on Star
Anna Simpson, a 19-year-old goofball genius from MIT.
But his intimate knowledge of Logan’s fail-safe procedures left him more
disturbed by the Play-Doh than the circuit board or blinking lights fastened to
the front of the sophomore’s sweatshirt.
“You train for hours and hours,” the cop explained, “you train against the
possibility of numerous (explosive) devices. And when it comes to preparing for
plastic explosives, what we use to simulate C-4 is Play-Doh. It’s the same
texture.
“That’s one of the things that amazes me about this incident,” he said. “Bad
enough she decides to walk into the same airport where two sets of terrorists
boarded two separate jets and flew them into New York’s two tallest buildings,
with wires attached to a battery and a circuit board.
“Even if she says the board, the blinking (LED) lights and the battery were only
art,” the cop said, “what was the Play-Doh all about? Of all the things she
could have been holding in her hand, she walks in with a hunk of Play-Doh? What
did she think was going to happen?”
It’s true that geniuses often come in wildly eccentric packages. Still, it’s one
thing for Star Simpson, a beguiling tinkerer from Hawaii, to make a fashion
statement during MIT’s career fair by accenting a black sweatshirt with a 9-volt
battery attached to a circuit board.
And it’s quite another to wear that sweatshirt into Terminal C at Logan Airport
while holding a hunk of Play-Doh. She went there to pick up her boyfriend,
another electrical engineering genius, who was flying in from California.
But did Simpson also go to Logan in search of a YouTube moment, not unlike the
one created a few days earlier at the University of Florida by unctuous
self-promoter Andrew “Don’t Tase me, bro” Meyer?
There was nothing stupid about what Andrew Meyer did during a
question-and-answer session with Sen. John Kerry. The solo riot he generated
with a bunch of campus cops was little more than a shameless attempt to show how
easy it is these days to grab 15 minutes of cheap fame.
Indeed, less than a day after Meyer quite deliberately asked a friend to video
the moment when he essentially begged campus cops to zap him, more than 400,000
suckers were clicking on this fool.
Today, you can buy several types of “Don’t Tase Me, Bro,” T-shirts on the Web.
I don’t know if Simpson’s journey to Logan on Friday was quite as calculating.
On the other hand, I can’t buy the pixie genius defense her court-appointed
lawyer used at her arraignment in East Boston on Friday.
Simpson was a freshman at MIT last year when a couple of freelance bozos,
looking to make a few extra bucks, sent this city into Def-Con 4 with a handful
of cartoon circuit boards that gave everyone the finger.
Sure, maybe we weren’t hip enough to appreciate a little guerrilla marketing.
But that doesn’t matter, because the city still got the last laugh with a $2
million apology from Turner Classic Movies for our frayed nerves.
Maybe Star Anna Simpson thought she could saunter through Logan and return to
Cambridge with a helluva tale about how no one said a word to her. Or maybe she
thought a half-dozen machine guns would do wonders for her Web site profile.
“A couple of things struck me,” the state cop said, “I thought about what a
burst of machine gun fire might do to other people in the area. And then, of
course, if it had been a real device, what those bullets would have done to
everyone after the explosion.”
Article URL:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1033468
Activist Silenced for Fear of Surveillance
Activist Silenced for Fear of Surveillance
Jennifer Flynn says she's afraid after learning she was being
watched. ROCCO PARASCANDOLA, "Activist silenced for fear of surveillance,"
Newsday.com, September 24, 2007) Flynn was clueless that the FBI watches
everyone who influences others.
If the watchers were public officials she has less to fear than if they
were FBI or police informants who do harm and are seldom identified. In
Boston FBI informant and fugitive James Bulger is accused of murdering 19
civilians. Some went to the FBI to report him.
The FBI conducts character assassination and high tech harassment among
many programs. The FBI uses behavior psychologists to disrupt the lives of
people they target.
The freedom described in the US Constitution no longer exists. The FBI
believes they are the law. If Flynn is intimidated by surveillance she is weak.
Being able to continue activities in spite of surveillance is essential. Flynn
should be grateful that the FBI has not murdered or framed her. They do it to
many civilians.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nyroc245387882sep24,0,2760679.story
Newsday.com
Activist silenced for fear of surveillance
ROCCO PARASCANDOLA
rocco.parascandola@newsday.com
September 24, 2007
Jennifer Flynn is not a rabble-rouser. She's not an aspiring suicide bomber. She
doesn't advocate the overthrow of the government. Instead, she pushes for
funding and better treatment for people with HIV and AIDS.
Better keep an eye on her.
Wait! Somebody already did.
On the day before a rally by the New York City AIDS Housing Network at the 2004
Republican National Convention - a rally by an organization Flynn co-founded,
and a rally that the NYPD had approved - she experienced something straight out
of a spy novel.
While visiting her family in Hillside, N.J., Flynn spotted a car with a New York
license plate parked outside the house. When she left to head back to her
Brooklyn home that evening, the car followed hers. Shortly after leaving
Hillside, two more vehicles, also with New York plates, seemed to be tailing
her, too.
Trying to assure herself she wasn't nuts, Flynn tested her hunch - changing
lanes, making turns, pulling over and parking. The drivers in those three
vehicles mimicked her actions.
At one point, she recalled, she slowed down and one of the other vehicles ended
up alongside her car. She looked over to see several men in the vehicle. She
gestured toward them. The men "threw up their arms as if to say, 'We're only
doing what we're told,'" she remembers.
On the New Jersey side of the Goethals Bridge, her followers pulled away. But
later, when Flynn pulled up in front of her Flatbush home, she spotted another
car, with two men inside, both with laptops. At 4 a.m., they were still there.
Is Flynn paranoid? Well, she is now. She did, however, jot down the license
plate number of one of the vehicles in Jersey - a blue sport utility vehicle.
When a reporter asked for the number, Flynn couldn't find it. Recently, it was
found in a file kept by Christopher Dunn, the civil liberties lawyer she called
that day in a panic.
The license plate number traces back to a company - Pequot Inc. - and a post
office box at an address far from the five boroughs. Registering unmarked cars
to post office boxes outside the city or to shell companies is a common practice
of law enforcement agencies to shield undercover investigators.
The NYPD, however, says it didn't follow Flynn that evening. And the
department's Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence David Cohen has said no federal
agency was involved in preconvention surveillance.
So who was following Flynn? And what, exactly, did they hope to learn about a
woman the NYPD knew well, as it had been in regular communication with her about
her organization's rally?
The answer - well, part of it - is a 99-mile road trip from NYPD headquarters:
uptown, into the Bronx, and onto I-87. A quick switch onto the Saw Mill River
Parkway, then the Taconic Parkway. Fifty more miles to go, past the leaves
turning color and the country club golf courses. After that, it's the winding
roads of tony Millbrook, with its horse farms and vineyards.
At last, we're in Amenia, population 1,115. It's so far from the city its dry
cleaners actually clean horse blankets.
The street named on the license-plate printout exists, though the address
doesn't. An auto-shop worker on the block suggests checking with the post
office. When Postmaster Bonnie Colgan and an assistant are shown the printout,
they stop dead in their tracks.
There's a Pequot Capital Management in midtown and a Pequot Construction in the
Bronx. But no Pequot Inc. in Amenia.
"That's not a real company," the assistant says. "The people who used that box,
they're from New York. They used to come here and get the mail, but not
anymore."
Colgan is tempted to elaborate, but doesn't.
"I can't because of the sensitive nature of the issue," she says.
Back in the city, Flynn takes a seat at a Starbucks near City Hall and shakes
her head. She still feels as passionately about what she does as she did three
years ago. But she concedes the experience has taken its toll.
"I feel like I've stepped back, in a way," she says. "I feel I'm not as vocal as
I was. I'm still going to sign a petition. I'm still going to organize a rally.
I do it. But now I'm deathly afraid."
Flynn, 35, may one day learn who was following her. Activists have decried
police tactics at the GOP convention - 1,806 arrests, protesters hemmed in with
orange netting, people arrested and held for hours and hours in a West Side pier
warehouse. The New York Civil Liberties Union, which represents seven plaintiffs
suing the city over their arrests, is pushing for the release of raw NYPD
intelligence reports detailing police surveillance of activists and protest
groups.
Flynn says the damage is done. She sees it in the attitudes of other activists.
There's less desire. More trepidation.
"When you use scare tactics, you really are curbing our right to dissent against
the government," she said. "The only thing this is serving to do is squash
public dissent. By going after the organizers of a rally, you really are sending
a message - 'Don't hold a rally.'"
Copyright © 2007, Newsday Inc.
Jennifer Flynn says she's afraid after learning she was being
watched. ROCCO PARASCANDOLA, "Activist silenced for fear of surveillance,"
Newsday.com, September 24, 2007) Flynn was clueless that the FBI watches
everyone who influences others.
If the watchers were public officials she has less to fear than if they
were FBI or police informants who do harm and are seldom identified. In
Boston FBI informant and fugitive James Bulger is accused of murdering 19
civilians. Some went to the FBI to report him.
The FBI conducts character assassination and high tech harassment among
many programs. The FBI uses behavior psychologists to disrupt the lives of
people they target.
The freedom described in the US Constitution no longer exists. The FBI
believes they are the law. If Flynn is intimidated by surveillance she is weak.
Being able to continue activities in spite of surveillance is essential. Flynn
should be grateful that the FBI has not murdered or framed her. They do it to
many civilians.
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nyroc245387882sep24,0,2760679.story
Newsday.com
Activist silenced for fear of surveillance
ROCCO PARASCANDOLA
rocco.parascandola@newsday.com
September 24, 2007
Jennifer Flynn is not a rabble-rouser. She's not an aspiring suicide bomber. She
doesn't advocate the overthrow of the government. Instead, she pushes for
funding and better treatment for people with HIV and AIDS.
Better keep an eye on her.
Wait! Somebody already did.
On the day before a rally by the New York City AIDS Housing Network at the 2004
Republican National Convention - a rally by an organization Flynn co-founded,
and a rally that the NYPD had approved - she experienced something straight out
of a spy novel.
While visiting her family in Hillside, N.J., Flynn spotted a car with a New York
license plate parked outside the house. When she left to head back to her
Brooklyn home that evening, the car followed hers. Shortly after leaving
Hillside, two more vehicles, also with New York plates, seemed to be tailing
her, too.
Trying to assure herself she wasn't nuts, Flynn tested her hunch - changing
lanes, making turns, pulling over and parking. The drivers in those three
vehicles mimicked her actions.
At one point, she recalled, she slowed down and one of the other vehicles ended
up alongside her car. She looked over to see several men in the vehicle. She
gestured toward them. The men "threw up their arms as if to say, 'We're only
doing what we're told,'" she remembers.
On the New Jersey side of the Goethals Bridge, her followers pulled away. But
later, when Flynn pulled up in front of her Flatbush home, she spotted another
car, with two men inside, both with laptops. At 4 a.m., they were still there.
Is Flynn paranoid? Well, she is now. She did, however, jot down the license
plate number of one of the vehicles in Jersey - a blue sport utility vehicle.
When a reporter asked for the number, Flynn couldn't find it. Recently, it was
found in a file kept by Christopher Dunn, the civil liberties lawyer she called
that day in a panic.
The license plate number traces back to a company - Pequot Inc. - and a post
office box at an address far from the five boroughs. Registering unmarked cars
to post office boxes outside the city or to shell companies is a common practice
of law enforcement agencies to shield undercover investigators.
The NYPD, however, says it didn't follow Flynn that evening. And the
department's Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence David Cohen has said no federal
agency was involved in preconvention surveillance.
So who was following Flynn? And what, exactly, did they hope to learn about a
woman the NYPD knew well, as it had been in regular communication with her about
her organization's rally?
The answer - well, part of it - is a 99-mile road trip from NYPD headquarters:
uptown, into the Bronx, and onto I-87. A quick switch onto the Saw Mill River
Parkway, then the Taconic Parkway. Fifty more miles to go, past the leaves
turning color and the country club golf courses. After that, it's the winding
roads of tony Millbrook, with its horse farms and vineyards.
At last, we're in Amenia, population 1,115. It's so far from the city its dry
cleaners actually clean horse blankets.
The street named on the license-plate printout exists, though the address
doesn't. An auto-shop worker on the block suggests checking with the post
office. When Postmaster Bonnie Colgan and an assistant are shown the printout,
they stop dead in their tracks.
There's a Pequot Capital Management in midtown and a Pequot Construction in the
Bronx. But no Pequot Inc. in Amenia.
"That's not a real company," the assistant says. "The people who used that box,
they're from New York. They used to come here and get the mail, but not
anymore."
Colgan is tempted to elaborate, but doesn't.
"I can't because of the sensitive nature of the issue," she says.
Back in the city, Flynn takes a seat at a Starbucks near City Hall and shakes
her head. She still feels as passionately about what she does as she did three
years ago. But she concedes the experience has taken its toll.
"I feel like I've stepped back, in a way," she says. "I feel I'm not as vocal as
I was. I'm still going to sign a petition. I'm still going to organize a rally.
I do it. But now I'm deathly afraid."
Flynn, 35, may one day learn who was following her. Activists have decried
police tactics at the GOP convention - 1,806 arrests, protesters hemmed in with
orange netting, people arrested and held for hours and hours in a West Side pier
warehouse. The New York Civil Liberties Union, which represents seven plaintiffs
suing the city over their arrests, is pushing for the release of raw NYPD
intelligence reports detailing police surveillance of activists and protest
groups.
Flynn says the damage is done. She sees it in the attitudes of other activists.
There's less desire. More trepidation.
"When you use scare tactics, you really are curbing our right to dissent against
the government," she said. "The only thing this is serving to do is squash
public dissent. By going after the organizers of a rally, you really are sending
a message - 'Don't hold a rally.'"
Copyright © 2007, Newsday Inc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
