Cambridge Immigrant Commission

Cambridge Immigrant Commission

Below is the order amending City ordinances creating a new commission. It is specific and extensive about four or five pages, which I could not bring up online. I have it in hard copy format in the printed agenda.
If there were a reciprocity requirement I could support it. For example if Cambridge Citizens went to North Korea we must be able to demand all signs in English. We should get free health care and education, and be allowed to fly the American flag on Korean school houses. More importantly we should be allowed to drive without licenses and without insurance.
Finally we must be allowed to bring in infectious diseases without being checked for them when we enter the country. The reciprocity must be extended to Saudi Arabia and to Iran.
I also think this should be included in the duties of a National Coordinator. (cf. Robert Moses' Construction Coordinator for the New York City. He received all US funds to the City for highways, parks and housing. It is why Fiorello Laguardia said Moses had too much power.) This City position would oversee all monies appropriated to the City from the state and the US, but also all moral and legal concepts employed in legislation. One example would be to exclude homicides by FBI informants from prosecution. The National Coordinator could declare citizenship an outdated concept making all breathing humans citizens and eligible to vote and to get food stamps.
Finally instead of just including the School Committee in making affordable housing policy (see the agenda) temporary guest workers would be eligible for affordable housing also.
It might be helpful to ban useless eaters (heterosexual white males and persons with disabilities) from Cambridge. This would free up jobs for more women and temporary guest workers.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA

O-36
IN CITY COUNCIL
April 24, 2006
VICE MAYOR TOOMEY

WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has been a welcoming community for immigrants from throughout the world for more than a century; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has benefited tremendously from the continued presence of immigrants in the City; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has enjoyed the cultural diversity that immigrants from around the world have brought to the Cambridge community; and
WHEREAS:
The City of Cambridge since 1985 has declared itself a "Sanctuary City" for immigrants; and
WHEREAS:
The rights of immigrants are currently under attack, particularly at the Federal level; and
WHEREAS: It is appropriate for the City of Cambridge to ensure the rights of all immigrants; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge is desirous of obtaining the advice and counsel of residents of the City who are familiar with the goal of immigrant rights and citizenship; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the following proposed amendment to the Cambridge Municipal Ordinance be ordained (attached).

Hijacked Format

Hijacked Format


It sounds as if Patricia Wild has never been to a town meeting. (Wild: "Stand up, speak out (but maybe not for so long?)" Cambridge Chronicle/Somerville Journal, April 6, 2006) Arlington and Lexington still use the town meeting format for their legislative governmental division. Contrary to the misuse of that notion by the ACLU, politicians, and Wild's observations, Town Meeting is run according to Robert's Rules of Order. John Worden is the Arlington Town Moderator who is elected to run the Town Meetings.
Democracy is anything but chaotic in Cambridge. The current third-term Mayor, a liberal Democrat, enforces only one rule, the three minute public comment rule. People can comment only on items on the agenda. Mayor Reeves cuts off public comment of protected speech by persons whose speech he dislikes.
Wild, a cheerleader for the former Somerville Mayor, reports that U.S. Rep. Capuano fights for constitutional rights. Huh? Democrats attack Bush for every abuse. But Capuano remains silent about the greatest abuses -- 19 known and 20 more suspected homicides by FBI agents in his district.
Appearing on CCTV Capuano stated his goal as U.S. Rep. was to get seniority. That requires doing as little as possible so as not to offend anyone.
If spying is an issue there is more surveillance by city and state police than by the FBI or Homeland Security. In Massachusetts the police are run by liberal Democrats. Jarrett Barrios is the Chairman of the State Public Safety Committee. What bill has he introduced to curb abuses by police? He boasts of his Homeland Security experience. Does Bush control what the state legislature does?
Would Democrats abuse the right to privacy? Did Robert Kennedy authorize placing a bug under the bed of Martin Luther King so that J. Edgar Hoover would not reveal John Kennedy's sexual exploits in the White House? Is the Pope Catholic?
Limousine liberal columnists and the ACLU present selective facts. They ignore all of the abuses by Democrats and talk only about the evil the Republicans do. Is it any wonder why so few people read newspapers and why fewer vote? Why not get real or start paying attention?
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM

Wild: Stand up, speak out (but maybe not for so long?)
Cambridge Chronicle/Somerville Journal
By Patricia Wild
Thursday, April 6, 2006

One of the unexpected joys of being a library trustee is attending statewide
events and spending time with my counterparts from all over Massachusetts, most
of whom hail from the Bay State's smaller communities. Often, when talking to
small town trustees, the subject of town meetings comes up. As in "At our
PowerPoint presentation about the library at town meeting last year ..." Hearing
about these town meetings, especially when library trustees convinced their
communities to change something, do something new and exciting, to spend more
money on library services, I must admit to a certain envy: How authentically New
England. What a great way for a community to collectively make decisions.
So when I received an e-mail inviting me to an "Emergency Town Meeting,"
even though it was to be held in Cambridge, I decided to go. After all, the
featured speaker for this gathering, sponsored by the American Civil Liberties
Union of Massachusetts, was none other than Somerville's very own Congressman,
Mike Capuano. Held at the First Church (Congregational) on Garden Street, the
March 27 town meeting was attended by more than 250 gray-haired, sensible-shoed,
outspoken, activist types. They'd come to this emergency town meeting to talk
about domestic spying, torture, Bush's presidential powers, real and perceived;
restoration of the rule of law. Most of the crowd was old enough to remember the
McCarthy Witch Hunt, Watergate and the Iran/Contra Scandal; they were "mad as
hell and not taking it any more."
Just like a real town meeting (or so I imagine), the March 27 affair was
sweetly chaotic: The microphones didn't work. Technica l dif ficulties meant that
a planned video couldn't be shown; the ACLU organizers had to revamp the program
at the last minute. People kept interrupting or shouted out criticisms: "This is
boring!" one silver-haired woman yelled during the panel discussion. During the
question-and-answer period, a long line formed behind a functional mike; anyone
could speak for as long as he or she wanted. So the crowd was occasionally
subjected to long-winded harangues or off-the-wall comments or rambling
speeches. [...]
Patricia Wild lives in Somerville and is a regular columnist for the
Chronicle's sister paper the Somerville Journal.

Finally, Accessibility on the T

Finally, Accessibility on the T

The authors say, "we see the settlement as the first step on the road to full accessibility, not the last. Implementing the changes will require continued dialogue between T officials and people with disabilities, as well as the support of the general public." (Bill Henning and Dan Manning, "Finally, accessibility on the T," Boston Globe, April 6, 2006) It is long past due (1973 to 2006?) to extend equal access to the right to travel for persons
with disabilities. I can imagine the outcry by public officials if persons of color were allowed partial access to the T. Why are these two advocates satisfied with a dialogue, when denying access to the T is a violation
of the same state and U.S. laws that are enforced for other groups?
I am continually amazed that journalists celebrate crumbs thrown to persons with disabilities while they act as cheerleaders for other vulnerable groups. Why is the pervasive negative bias toward persons with disabilities among journalists, and public officials never addressed?
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA

Finally, accessibility on the T
By Bill Henning and Dan Manning
Boston Globe
April 6, 2006

IF YOU ARE ONE of the thousands of Boston-area residents who commute to work using public transportation, picture yourself making the trip in a wheelchair. Imagine getting stuck for two hours in an elevator at the subway station; watching the bus pass you by, leaving you stranded; feeling the stares of passengers as the driver struggles with a shaky mechanical lift to hoist you onto a trolley, delaying the Green Line.

Frustrated? Frightened? Embarrassed? Then you can imagine what the commute can be like for people with disabilities who brave the T. These are just a few of the situations described in more than 100 affidavits we collected for a class action lawsuit we pursued against the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority under the Americans With Disabilities Act. Fortunately, the settlement of that case will usher in a new era of independence for people with disabilities who rely on public transportation. The agreement reached between the plaintiffs and the MBTA outlines extensive improvements to equipment, facilities, and services throughout the bus and subway system. It should be embraced by everyone who rides the T.
[...]
Bill Henning is executive director of the Boston Center for Independent Living, a plaintiff in the MBTA class action. Dan Manning is lead attorney on the case for Greater Boston Legal Services.

Open Meetings

Open Meetings

Letter to Editor
Paul McMorrow says a state court found that the Boston City Council violated the Open Meetings law. ("Judge smacks City Hall on secrecy," Weekly Dig, 4.5.06 - 4.12.06, page 7) The judge "confirmed what the non-coma-suffering public had known all along--that the city council was guilty of systematically breaking state law, not to mention pissing in Lady Democracy's face."
These same words describe the Cambridge City Council. But there are not "three neighborhood activists" who would sue to stop the same abuses in Cambridge. Not enough "non-coma-sufferers" on that side of the River!
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA

Money Over Security

Money Over Security

Letter to Editor,
NY US Senators Clinton and Schumer are accused of being opportunists regarding the UAE lucrative port contracts. (Thomas M. DeFrank, "Emirates are steamed at N.Y. Senators, NY Daily News, April 17, 2006, page 8) Omitted from most reporting on this issue is that both Senators got substantial campaign contributions from the ILA (Int'l Longshoreman's Ass'n), the union that controls the ports in New York, New Jersey, Miami and New Orleans. Sometimes following the money explains it all.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM

More Jokes

More Jokes

Letter to editor,
The candidates for governor are comedians for more reasons than Paul McMorrow stated. ("Gov, candidate likened to dictator," Weekly Dig, 4.12.06 to 4.19.06, page 7) Deval Patrick opens his appearances by reminding his audience that he was born on the Southside of Chicago in a project. He does not explain why he is clear-cutting forest in western Mass for a second McMansion.
He is a curious left-wing candidate or the second coming of Che Guevara. It is unlikely either of them would be a member of the Harvard Corporation as Patrick is.
McMorrow misses another Boston Globe deception by omission. Deval Patrick is a leftist like Dick Cheney is a leftist. He seeks sympathy for his modest beginnings while acting like the fat cats that he says he opposes.
He says he wants to extend the American dream to others as he narrowly defines it. But who wants to live in a mansion and serve on the Harvard Corporation? Leftists have dreams like that?
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM

NAMI, Lobbyist for Drug Companies

NAMI, Lobbyist for Drug Companies

The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill promotes drug treatment over the rights of persons accused of psychiatric illness. (Sid Gelb, "Treating mental illness in jail," Letter, Boston Globe, April 18, 2006) For Gelb everyone is a psychiatrist. Thus there is no such thing as psychiatry. For NAMI and the psychiatric industry all unusual behavior and speech though protected by the Constitution is mental illness.
Medicalizing social problems is what the Nazis did in Germany. Psychiatrists try to do the same in this country. NAMI is a lobbyist for the drug companies. Put into context what Geld says makes sense. It is good for business. But from the perspective of individual citizens it is one more attempt to abolish freedom.
Gelb says he fears that Mr. Hall will be back in jail shortly. To what does Gelb attribute his fear? Is this paranoia, or knowledge of the future? Why not consider all of the people with real illness who are denied treatment because of the millions wasted on fake psychiatric illnesses.

Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM

Treating mental illness in jail
Letter, Sid Gelb, NAMI
Boston Globe
April 18, 2006
I READ with amazement and dismay the article ''Inmate's destructive behavior raises tough issues for jails" (April 17, City & Region, Page B3).
Here again is evidence for the need for jail diversion programs and programs of assertive community treatment. The fact that Mr. Hall had to sue, arguing that the jail authorities failed to protect him from himself and did not provide him with the medical treatment he needed, speaks volumes to the issue of mentally ill people in prisons in New Hampshire. What does it say about the intelligence of an official who knows that an inmate had a history of self-mutilation and says he did not understand what caused the inmate to hurt himself? It is obvious to me that there is a great need to educate the jail personnel on the nature of mental illness and the causes of self-mutilation.
Mr. Hall was returned to the jail after his surgery, which cost $40,000. He was released from jail when the criminal charges were dropped. I fear Mr. Hall will be back in jail in a relatively short time.
How many more times must Mr. Hall be incarcerated before he is offered treatment as an alternative to incarceration or, if necessary, required to accept treatment? It costs much less to provide the services for a mentally ill person than to incarcerate one repeatedly. More important, it is the humane thing to help the individual recover from this debilitating illness.
SID GELB
Brookline
The writer is public policy chair for the National Alliance on Mental Illness of Massachusetts.

Profanity?

Profanity?

Letter to Editor
An AP survey (story below) found 74 percent of those surveyed believe profanity is greater than 20 years ago. (From the Editor, Weekly Dig, 4.5.06 - 4.12.06, page 3) What the f**k, are they talking about? That's a bunch of bulls**t. Those motherf***ers don't know c**p about swearing, anyway. Who the f**k do they think they are? Do you know who the f**k they are? They're just s**t-heads and a**holes.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM

March 29, 2006, 12:01AM
Profanity getting worse?
You bet your @&*#Almost 75% of Americans say they hear it in public frequently, poll finds
By JOCELYN NOVECK
Associated Press

This is a story about words we can't print in this story.
You probably hear these words often, and more than ever before. But even though we can't print them — we do have our standards — we can certainly ask: Are we living in an Age of Profanity?
Nearly three-quarters of Americans questioned last week — 74 percent — said they encounter profanity in public frequently or occasionally, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll. Two-thirds said they think people swear more than they did 20 years ago. And as for, well, the gold standard of foul words, a healthy 64 percent said they use the F-word — ranging from several times a day (8 percent) to a few times a year (15 percent).
Just ask Joe Cormack. Like any bartender, Cormack, of Fort Dodge, Iowa, hears a lot of talk. He's not really offended by bad language — heck, he uses it himself every day. But sometimes, a customer will unleash the F-word so many times, Cormack just has to jump in.
"Do you have any idea how many times you've just said that?" he reports saying from time to time. "I mean, if I take that out of your vocabulary, you've got nothin!'"
And it's not just at the bar. Or on TV. (Or on the Senate floor, for that matter, where Vice President Dick Cheney used the F-word in a heated argument two years ago.)
At the community college where Cormack studies journalism, students will occasionally inject foul language into classroom discussions. Irene Kramer, a grandmother in Scranton, Pa., gets her ears singed when passing by the high school near her home.
"What we hear, it's gross," says Kramer, 67. "I tell them, 'I have a dictionary and a Roget's Thesaurus, and I don't see any of those words in there!' I don't understand why these parents allow it."
For Kramer, a major culprit is television. "Do I have to be insulted right there in my own home?" she asks. "I'm not going to pay $54 a month for cable and listen to that garbage." And yet she feels it's not a lost cause. "If people say 'Look, I don't want you talking that way,' if they demand it, it's going to have to change."
In that battle, Kramer has a willing comrade: Judith Martin, who writes the syndicated Miss Manners column.
"Is it inevitable?" Martin asked in a recent interview. "Well, if it were inevitable I wouldn't be doing my job." The problem, she says, is that people who are offended aren't speaking up about it.
"Everybody is pretending they aren't shocked," Martin says, "and gradually people WON'T be shocked. And then those who want to be offensive will find another way."
Perhaps not surprisingly, profanity seems to divide people by age and by gender.
Younger people admit to using bad language more often than older people; they also encounter it more and are less bothered by it. The AP-Ipsos poll showed that 62 percent of 18 to 34-year-olds acknowledged swearing in conversation at least a few times a week, compared to 39 percent of those 35 and older.
More women than men said they encounter people swearing more now than 20 years ago — 75 percent, compared to 60 percent. Also, more women said they were bothered by profanity — 74 percent at least some of the time — than men (60 percent.) And more men admitted to swearing: 54 percent at least a few times a week, compared to 39 percent of women.
Wondering specifically about the F-word? (For the record, we needed special dispensation from our bosses just to say 'F-word.') Thirty-two percent of men said they used it at least a few times a week, compared to 23 percent of women.
"That word doesn't even mean what it means anymore," says Larry Riley of Warren, Mich. "It has just become part of the culture." Riley admits to using the F-word a few times a week. And his wife? "She never swears."
A striking common note among those interviewed, swearers or not: They don't like it when people swear for no good reason.
Darla Ramirez, for example, says she hates hearing the F-word "when people are just having a plain old conversation." The 40-year-old housewife from Arlington, Texas, will hear "people talking about their F-ing car, or their F-ing job. I'll hear it walking down the street, or at the shopping mall, or at Wal-Mart.
"What they do it their own home is their business, but when I'm out I don't need to hear people talking trashy," Ramirez says. She admits to swearing about once a month — but not the F-word.
And Donnell Neal of Madison Lake, Minn., notes disdainfully how she'll hear the F-word as just an adjective for emphasis, as in: "That person scared the f--- out of me!" Neal, 26, who works with disabled adults, says she swears only in moments of extreme frustration, "like if someone cuts me off when I'm driving, or if I'm carrying something and someone shuts the door in my face." Even then, she says, she'll likely use "milder cuss words" — and never at work.
The AP poll questioned 1,001 adults on March 20-22, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
For those who might find the results depressing, there's possibly a silver lining: Many of those who swear think it's wrong nonetheless.
Like Steven Price, a security guard in Tonawonda, N.Y., who admits to sometimes using swear words with colleagues or buddies, "like any old word."
Price, 31, still gets mad at himself for doing it, worries about the impact of profanity (especially from TV) on his children, and regrets the way things have evolved since he was a kid.
"As I get older, the more things change," says Price. "And I kind of wish they had stayed the same."
HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Front page
This article is: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3753767.html

Ageism is No More?

Ageism is No More?

Letter to editor
Richard Griffin's research suggests he is a child of the upper class, and lives among the academic elite. ("Is age bias as age-old as it seems?" Cambridge Chronicle, April 6, 2006, page 35) He says, "how older people are treated depends on their social standing." His lack of awareness of second-class treatment by doctors may have something to do with his column. Professionals fear public criticism.
Ageism may be exaggerated but not as much as racism. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton made racism into million dollar businesses. Ageism is not as popular.
Elder abuse is a crime. Mr. Griffin doesn't travel among young black racist males in Cambridge or among young women at non-university public events. On campus older white males are perceived as faculty members. Ambitious students get close to further their careers.
Feminists attack older white males as sexist and accuse them of sexual harassment if they speak to them. Mr. Griffin is more sensitive to women's bias than to ageism. He appears to be a feminist ally. He never experienced white male bashing?
His observations fit liberal priorities. His lack of awareness of strong bias against older white males is troubling.
Studies show that Americans exhibit little respect for their parents. Nursing homes thrive. The number of assisted living facilities is growing. Unlike the early years of the country three and four generations no longer live together under one roof. Griffin's view on this issue is unique.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM

Selective Publishing

Selective Publishing

Letter to editor
Boston Phoenix

Michael Bronski cites seven Massachusetts statutes "on the books [which] do not
get enforced." ("You can't do that in Massachusetts," Boston Phoenix, April 7,
2006, page 7, News, This Just In)
The Massachusetts Constitution says matters of marriage are to be left to the
Governor and to the legislature. The Court does not have jurisdiction over
marriage. That did not stop the Marshal Court. The Constitution says that the
Senate President shall convene a Constitutional Convention to vote on a
citizen's ballot initiative. When Birmingham violated his constitutional duty I
heard silence from the limousine liberals.
In Massachusetts the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 are not enforced. Persons with disabilities are
denied basic rights including marriage.
Journalists remain silent about overt abuses of persons with disabilities. Why
are journalists so bigoted? Does the equal protection clause only protect
homosexuals? Are some people as in "Animal Farm" more equal than others?
Who decides which laws should be enforced, the homosexual lobby? Margaret
Marshal's Court? Laws are selectively enforced. Stories are selectively
published. What's the difference?

--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA

Myopia of Journalists

Myopia of Journalists

Why do journalists ignore ordinary citizens and fawn over public officials? ("Roll a mile in my chair," Boston Globe, News in Brief, City Weekly, page 11, April 9, 2006) For about a hundred years persons with disabilities (Some people have non-physical disabilities. Hello?) have been denied the Right to Travel on city streets, a basic Constitutional Right. Other rights are still denied to persons with disabilities. (Hello? Anybody home?)
But when an elected official conducts an experiment to see what it is like having a disability, the Boston Globe writes about that. Is it any wonder why so many people have such low opinions of journalists and politicians?

--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA

NEWS IN BRIEF
Boston Globe
April 9, 2006
Cambridge
Roll a mile in my chair

As the weather continues to improve Cambridge residents probably will spot City Councilor Craig A. Kelley gaining a new perspective on the city's sidewalks and crosswalks -- from a wheelchair. The able-bodied Kelley said his jaunts so far have been ''instructive." He recently tried to navigate Massachusetts Avenue from Magoun to Hollis streets and found it tough going because of trash cans left in the middle of sidewalks and the steep slopes of some curb cuts. Kelley admits to being unskilled in maneuvering the chair, but he said he found himself scared he might lose momentum or tip over when the street made too high a lip at a ramp. He said he wanted to see for himself how difficult it is for disabled residents to get around Cambridge.
Got a news item for Cambridge? E-mail Janice O'Leary at ciweek@globe.com.
© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Councilors Should Know The Rules

Councilors should know the rules

Cambridge Chronicle
Tue May 01, 2007, 09:41 AM EDT
[Published May 1, 2007 Cambridge Chronicle online,
in print edition May 3, 2007]
Cambridge -

After years and months of complaints about the council violating its own rules and Roberts’ Rules of Order, there is still no will to correct its unlawful ways (“Clerks grapple to keep councilors in the room,” Cambridge Chronicle, April 25).

It is not enough for the City Clerk to know the rules. All councilors must know them. That is the idea behind a point of order. Any councilor can raise that point which must be recognized immediately.

If only the clerk or even if the chairman knows the rules, the rest of the council remains in a coma if there are any violations. For too many years this council ran its meetings without any rules. It is one certain indication of the lawlessness of this one-party city.

The vigor with which officials retaliate against citizens who criticize their lawlessness makes other citizens fearful of participating in the governmental process. The councilors continue to be clueless about why young people refuse to cooperate with the police. Clueless is as clueless does.

--
ROY BERCAW, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA

Bigotry by Homosexuals

Bigotry by Homosexuals

Bigotry by homosexuals toward heterosexuals is no surprise in Cambridge.
The City government encourages retaliation for historical wrongs and permits
overt unlawful discrimination -- based on gender, race and sexual preference.
The local cable access station (CCTV) funded with $850,000 in city funds
annually, refuses to hire white heterosexuals for many years. The staff
regularly harasses heterosexuals and chases them from the station facilities.
The homosexual lobby is like the pigs after the revolution in "Animal Farm." So
much for equality under law, demanded by homosexuals.

--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA

Provincetown straights complain of intolerance among gays
Wednesday July 26, 2006
By LING LIU
Associated Press Writer

PROVINCETOWN, Mass. (AP) Heterosexuals in this overwhelmingly gay resort town on
the tip of Cape Cod are complaining that the oppressed have become the
oppressors.

Straight people say they have been taunted as ``breeders.'' One woman who signed
a petition against gay marriage says she was berated as a bigot by a gay man,
and another complained that dog feces were left next to her car.

``The gay community is not immune to having potential prejudices. We're all
human, including gay people,'' said Tom Lang, director of knowthyneighbor.org, a
nonprofit group that supports gay marriage.
[...]

The Right to Travel, Persons with Disabilities

The Right to Travel, Persons with Disabilities

The group with the most compelling interest in removing cobblestones
remains silent. (JENNIFER FERMINO, "BLOCK ON THE 'ROCKS,'" New York Post, July 25, 2006, Page 21) Persons with mobility impairments have a constitutional right to travel.
Cobblestone streets are a barrier to the enjoyment of that right.
Roger Byrom's comment, "If you don't like cobblestones in TriBeCa, live on
the Upper West Side," shows he is unaware of the requirement of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which applies to public sidewalks in New York City.
The city gets U.S. taxpayer funds. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
makes it a civil rights issue. Would Byrom as easily deny to persons of color or
homosexuals the right to use the TriBeCa sidewalks?
Why did the New York Post omit persons with disabilities from commenting on
this issue? Why do the rights of persons with disabilities seldom enter the
minds of journalists? This is a shameful display of ignorance and bigotry by
city activists and journalists.

--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA

BLOCK ON THE 'ROCKS'
New York Post
By JENNIFER FERMINO

July 25, 2006 -- A downtown fight over the landmarked streets of TriBeCa has
pitted stroller-pushing moms against hardened preservationists.

Residents of 44 Laight St. - a converted factory where condo lofts go for $5
million a pop - say they're tired of traipsing along the jagged cobblestones
outside their building.
[...]

Psychiatric Drugs Causing Violence

Psychiatric Drugs Causing Violence

A NYC police officer shot up his girlfriend's apartment while on anti
depressants. (TATIANA DELIGIANNAKIS, ALEX GINSBERG and HASANI GITTENS, "'SHOOT'
COP OFF MEDS," New York Post, July 25, 2006) The New York Post reports that he
stopped taking his medication. Journalists and police officers remain unaware of
the causal connection between this family of drugs and violence.

--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA

'SHOOT' COP OFF MEDS
New York Post
By TATIANA DELIGIANNAKIS, ALEX GINSBERG and HASANI GITTENS

July 25, 2006 -- A depressed cop who, while off his medication, pumped 11
bullets into his girlfriend's apartment door in Brooklyn told arresting officers
that he did it because he caught her cheating on him, sources said yesterday.

Joel Rodriguez, who has worked as a cop for two years at the 90th Precinct in
Williamsburg, had just recently stopped taking an antidepressant drug when he
went to Elizabeth Ortiz's Kent Avenue apartment in a jealous rage Sunday,
sources said.
[...]

Psychiatrist Indicted

Psychiatrist Indicted

This is a case of a doctor prescribing a psychiatric drug for off-label
uses, and accepting payments from drug companies for speeches promoting such
uses. According to the article the practice is illegal. (Alex Berenson,
"Indictment of Doctor Tests Drug Marketing Rules," New York Times, July 22,
2006)
Harvey Silverglate a prominent Boston civil liberties lawyer says "What
they are doing is criminalizing conduct that is not clearly criminal." That the
doctor is being charged criminally, for protected speech.
Promoting the off-label use may be protected speech, but when the drug is
prescribed, are the patients being given informed consent?
There are many arrogant abuses of psychiatrists, the FDA, and the
pharmaceutical industry. FDA approved drugs sometimes kill unsuspecting persons.
Most abuses are legal through drug industry control of the FDA
and the legislative process. Being legal or protected speech does not make the
drugs safe.
Silverglate may be right about protected speech. One can argue as well that
there is a compelling state interest in curbing his speech, which promotes
off-label uses which are harmful. Due to corruption of the FDA it is no longer
possible to know what is safe.
"Dr. Gleason acknowledges that he received more than $100,000 last year
alone from Jazz Pharmaceuticals, which makes Xyrem, the narcolepsy drug he has
promoted." I find it outrageous is that he "continues to practice medicine," and
"a public defender [. . .] took over the case after Dr. Gleason determined he
could not afford a private lawyer."
Here is one more example of how wealthy politically connected persons get
taxpayer funded lawyers while persons with no connections get brutalized by
police and private individuals because they lack access to competent attorneys.
What are the standards for taxpayer funded lawyers?
Will this criminal investigation lead to some curbs of the abuses of the
psychiatric industry and their enablers, the drug companies? The FDA and the
Congress appear to be unable to stop the abuses.

--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA

New York Times
Indictment of Doctor Tests Drug Marketing Rules
Alex Berenson
July 22, 2006

At first, Dr. Peter Gleason thought his arrest was a joke.
In the early afternoon of Monday, March 6, half a dozen men in suits surrounded
Dr. Gleason, a Maryland psychiatrist, at a train station on Long Island and
handcuffed him.
"I said, 'Well, this is a gag,' " Dr. Gleason recalled in a recent interview.
"They said, 'No, this isn't.' "

Dr. Gleason, 53, was taken aback because he was arrested, and later charged, for
doing something that has become common among doctors: promoting a drug for
purposes other than those approved by the federal government.
[...]

Big Money Campaigns

Big Money Campaigns

The argument that "money follows the the message of the candidate and his
or her prospects for winning" is flawed. (JOHN SAMPLES, "'08: BIG TICKET," New
York Post, April 9, 2007) Suggesting that "voters were better informed about
candidates in the most expensive races" is also specious.
How many candidates reveal how their campaigns work? Listen to the
silence about the public relations industry and its influence on journalism.
What politicians speak unscripted truth?
It is deceptive to say that "Americans are free to support the candidates
and ideas of their choice." Samples himself says "party activists" didn't like
the weak candidate's message. Why should party activists decide what messages
will be heard? If messages remain censored how can voters decide on all of the
potential candidates and their messages?
Samples argues for a return to back room "party activist" deals. Why waste
the money if candidates can appear before the "party activists" and they can
tell us for whom we can vote?

--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA

'08: BIG TICKET
WHY A $1B PREZ RACE IS GOOD FOR DEMOCRACY
New York Post
By JOHN SAMPLES

April 9, 2007 -- PRESIDENTIAL hopefuls made headlines last week when Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama both announced they'd raised record sums. On the
Republican side, Mitt Romney also raised more than $20 million in the first
quarter of 2007.

Shortly after the numbers became public, predictable laments began. The
presidential candidates supposedly had been bought by the highest bidder - they
were, in the words of a Washington Post editorial, "beholden to well-connected
financiers." But the truth is exactly the opposite.
[...]

Unequal Addressing of Unequal Fears?

Unequal Addressing of Unequal Fears?

Boston Police Commissioner Davis says that witness intimidation is more
perception than reality. "The fear is much more widespread than the actual
incidents." (Suzanne Smalley, "In study, teens open up about 'snitching,' fear
of reprisal," Boston Globe, April 11, 2007)
The exact same comments apply to rape and fear of rape. The difference is
that women's fears are addressed because of the enormous power of women in this
country. Whereas young poor black people have little influence over politicians,
police and journalists.
Women's distorted perceptions are treated as real, while poor black people
are ignored because of their "misperceptions." What happened to equal treatment
under law and equal access to government services?

--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA

In study, teens open up about 'snitching,' fear of reprisal
By Suzanne Smalley,
Boston Globe Staff
April 11, 2007

One teenager described seeing a witness pistol-whipped for reporting a rape to
police. "His eyes were completely red; you couldn't see any white," the
unidentified youth said in an interview with researchers for a study on witness
intimidation released yesterday. "They threatened to kill him and his family."
Another said: "I'd get in trouble if I reported a violent crime. Gangs would be
mad at me."
A third teenager recalled deciding not to talk to police after witnessing a
shootout.
"If I told them, the drug dealers would come back to me and make more trouble,"
the teenager said. "I told my mom, and she was scared. She went back to the drug
dealers and told them that I didn't say nothing."
[...]

Children Need Love Not Medication

Children Need Love Not Medication

"Dr. Joseph Gold of McLean Hospital, director of Community Child Psychiatry
Services for Partners Health Care said "in recent weeks, the backups have
'dramatically increased' again." (Carey Goldberg, "Children face delays in
mental health care," Boston Globe, April 13, 2007)
"Joan Mikula, assistant commissioner of [...] the state Department of
Mental Health [said,] State officials and care providers are trying hard to
understand what is going wrong and how to fix it." What is wrong is the
arbitrary diagnoses of illness by the psychiatric industry. These licensed
professionals work on behalf of and with the support of the drug companies and
the hospital who thrive on more patients.
How many of the increased number of children diagnosed with mental illness
are really in need of hospitalization? If their parents and friends provided the
love and support is there any need for the professional friends and dispensers
of drugs?
When will this boondoggle known as psychiatry end so that taxpayer funds
can be directed to programs that provide help to vulnerable citizens instead of
the wealthy and politically connected elite psychiatric industry?

--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA

Children face delays in mental health care
Shortage of beds, facilities leading to record backups
By Carey Goldberg,
Boston Globe Staff
April 13, 2007

The state's mental health system for children is clogged with some of its worst
backups in years, leading to long emergency room waits and a record number of
"stuck kids" who are deemed well enough to leave hospital units but have nowhere
to go.
The logjam tends to worsen in late winter and spring, when mental illness often
worsens. But it is particularly bad this year: in the latest count, state
monitors found 156 stuck children at the end of February, some 50 percent more
than the average number in recent years.
[...]

Cambridge City Council Rules, Unruly Enforcement

Cambridge City Council Rules, Unruly Enforcement

[Published online April 17, 2006
print edition April 19, 2007 Cambridge Chronicle.]
http://www.townonline.com/cambridge/opinions/x731193587

Letter: Council vote a little fishy
Cambridge Chronicle
Tue Apr 17, 2007, 05:41 PM EDT
Cambridge -

“City Clerk Margaret Drury said that as long as none of city councilors realized
there was not a quorum, or a majority of members present, or called for a quorum
beforehand, the vote stands.”

“Drury also [said] the City Council’s voting procedures had never been
questioned in the past.” The most cooperative city employee is wrong twice.
(Erin Smith, “City Clerk: Don’t question councilors who missed vote,” Cambridge
Chronicle, Apr 12, 2007.)

Erin Smith correctly notes more is in play here than Robert’s Rules. The City
Council’s rules require a quorum. Rule 5 states, “The Mayor shall declare all
votes. [...] The mayor shall declare the results, but no such declaration shall
be made unless a quorum of the City Council has voted.”

It is wishful thinking to say the council was never questioned in the past about
rules violations. The clerk verifies my belief that city councilors and city
employees ignore public comment. During several meetings, a few citizens openly
challenged the council about having less than a quorum present. Once the mayor
threatened to have me removed when I noted that there was no quorum.

In many letters to the council, I pointed out the frequent anomalies on voting
(most recently my letter in the April 9 agenda). On that day there was no vote
on a motion to table an item. It was tabled without a vote. There are frequent
violations of City Council rules on suspending the rules. I detailed the
violations dozens of time.

It is clear that city officials hear selectively, see selectively, speak
selectively, and worst of all, enforce rules and laws selectively. That is the
major problem resulting from nine councilors being intentionally ignorant of the
rules of running a meeting. The City Council rules mandate that the meetings be
run by Robert’s Rules. It is a recurring problem with one-party government.

The mayor admitted on April 9 he is now taking classes on how to run a meeting
after being a councilor for 18 years. It is never too late to learn.

ROY BERCAW, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA