The Boston Globe reports that Massachusetts State Senate President Therese Murray is considering dissing democracy by signing on to Senator Ted Kennedy’s proposal to have Gov. Patrick appoint a temporary senator to substitute for Kennedy in the months prior to a special election to fill his seat. The Boston Herald also has a blood-boiling piece about a state representative who’s all in favor of Kennedy’s pathetic proposal–and who “laughed when asked whether he would support the change if Republican Mitt Romney were still governor.” There needs to be a backlash–a serious backlash–against this sort of amoral arrogance in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The Boston Globe reports on an attempt by ailing Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy to manipulate the effort to select his successor. One hopes, perhaps in vain, that Kennedy’s effort will not be successful, his tragic illness notwithstanding.

Does Kennedy not realize that this move makes him look somewhat arrogant, from a certain perspective? One would figure that in the twilight of his years, Kennedy would avoid taking actions that would antagonize his critics and political opponents. By attempting to manipulate the succession effort in this fashion, Kennedy is once again playing into the right’s perception of him as the ultimate self-righteous politician. Why would he want to do this?

The more things change, the more they insist upon staying the same.

The Boston Globe Magazine’s July 19 profile of the candidates of color—almost all of whom are Democrats—running for the Boston City Council failed to inspire much hope in readers looking for real change on the esteemed board. While the Council—long perceived to be the bastion of Irish- and Italian-American politicians—will likely have more physical diversity in 2010-2011, it will remain deficient when it comes to philosophical diversity.

The article focused heavily on candidate Ayanna Pressley, a longtime aide to Senator John Kerry who is considered a lock to secure a seat on the Council this fall. While Pressley is regarded as having the ability to transcend racial barriers, it’s not clear that she has the ability to transcend business-as-usual liberalism: having spent years working for both Kerry and former Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy II, it’s reasonable to assume that she will not deviate from the doctrinaire liberalism both men embody.

The article notes that “…many of the city’s young black candidates have prepped for campaigns by being government professionals, specifically, aides to [Democratic] legislators. Pressley and [Ego] Ezedi, who was a staffer to US Representative Michael Capuano, have worked for members of Congress…Carlos Henriquez, who is challenging [controversial Councilor Chuck] Turner for a second time, worked for [Michael] Flaherty on the City Council…The resumes of some young candidates do reflect grass-roots connections. Henriquez was a council aide but has also been a community activist with the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative… Pressley describes her mother, Sandra Pressley, at one point an Urban League advocate for low-income families in Chicago, as a community organizer who believes in the power of government. ‘My mother informed me that the way to be a change agent to create change, the first line of defense, or however you want to phrase that, is politics and government,’ Pressley says.

Not to engage in Palinesque mocking of “community organizing,” but is it irrational to suggest that it’s difficult to the point of impossibility to go from “community organizing” to outside-the-box thinking? If “community organizing” cannot solve the problems that affect Boston, the election of down-the-line progressives to the City Council won’t solve those problems either.

Why can’t we have candidates willing to challenge the status quo—willing to call out the Boston School Committee and the educational entities that are standing in the way of true school reform, and to declare that the problems affecting Boston’s public schools are an intolerable shame? We can’t we have candidates who will work to make Boston a more hospitable area for small businesses? Why can’t we have candidates who are willing to actually empower communities, not just “organize” them?

Certainly, Democratic candidates like Pressley talk a good game. The Globe story notes that Pressley “…didn’t want to engage in a contest to stand out in a racial-ethnic soup. ‘I have some concerns about a race that is seemingly driven by identity politics,’ said Pressley, a first-time homeowner who has moved from a Back Bay apartment into a condo on Dorchester’s Ashmont Hill. ‘I’m not naive. All politics is about identity, right? Neighborhood politics, cultural politics, issue politics. It’s not as though I don’t get that. It’s just it has to be, I think, tempered in a way that is for our overall advancement, and not to our detriment or obliteration. When I say ‘our,’ I don’t mean just communities of color. I mean period.’”

It’s admirable that Pressley “…appears determined to position herself as a broad-based candidate, infrequently speaking of herself in terms of race or gender during a series of interviews…” All nice and good—but not enough. Boston needs candidates for the City Council who are just as skilled, just as smart, just as hard-working as Pressley—but with a willingness to actually confront the entrenched, reflexively liberal interests that prevent true change from reaching Boston, as opposed to merely enabling such interests.

The candidates running for the Boston City Council may be trailblazers. However, with one or two exceptions, they won’t be reformers.

Am I the only one who doesn’t get the whole tiff between Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and controversy-cloaked Rev. Eugene Rivers?

Today Boston Globe columnist Adrian Walker addresses this dispute, which began when Rivers wrote an open letter to Patrick chiding him for his alleged lack of interest in issues relating to the Bay State’s black residents. As Walker notes, ”[Black] discomfort [with Patrick] has been brewing, in fits and starts, for some time. It is in the voices of people who say Patrick has not done enough to confront urban violence. People who support criminal records reform have been critics, though Patrick has taken some modest steps in that area. His record of appointing black judges to the bench – 3 of 29 at one recent point – would get a white governor skewered by black activists. But despite private grumbling, they have been reluctant to criticize Patrick publicly for what he admits is a weak record on this issue.

“This is difficult terrain for everyone involved,” Walker continued. “Blacks are very reluctant to criticize the first African-American governor in the state’s history. And in truth, some of the criticism is plainly unfair. What other governor has ever been held responsible for homicides in Boston? This is the painful downside of running as a transformational figure. When you run as the candidate of hope and change, and people don’t think much has changed, you get to own it.”

Here’s what I don’t get. Patrick wasn’t elected to be the “black governor”; he was elected to be the governor of all Bay Staters. Patrick was not under any special obligation to specifically address issues involving black Massachusetts residents. It’s hard to figure out why Rivers apparently believes otherwise.

Walker writes, “Even factoring in the up-and-down nature of his term, Patrick’s relationship with black voters has been volatile. That is partly the result of a fiscal meltdown that has placed most of his promises on hold, and partly because of expectations – driven by symbolism – that would have been hard for anyone to live up to. Rivers concedes that black voters are unlikely to support [State Treasurer Tim] Cahill over Patrick. He insisted yesterday that his only goal was to begin a discussion. That he has accomplished – but little did he know that it would be about him, not his intended target.”

While we’re having this discussion, let’s add a new angle to it: why don’t black voters who are dissatisfied with Patrick’s performance consider voting for his Republican opponent in 2010?

It’s time for Jay Severin and Scot Lehigh to settle things once and for all.

The libertarian Boston talk-radio star and the center-left Boston Globe columnist have been feuding for the last half-decade, with no end in sight. Lehigh, who has strongly criticized Severin for his statements about America’s efforts to stop terrorism and has raised questions about the WTKK-FM broadcaster’s biographical claims, is now involved in a new endeavor known as “Jay Watch.” Lehigh says this is “…an effort to assist WTKK’s putatively penitent p.m. host as he tries to clean up his act” (Severin recently returned to the airwaves after a month-long suspension for using excessive rhetorical force in describing Mexico’s role in the recent swine flu scare.) “…Jay Watch will focus on utterances that debase the dialogue, like Jay’s recent comments about Mexicans. Declarations that this group or that person should be killed also qualify. So, too, do the misogynistic terms that Jay applies to women he disdains. I know that the odds against success are long. Still, elementary civility is worth the effort. So let’s try to help Jay with his resolution to stop polluting our airwaves.”

Lehigh probably shouldn’t waste his time on “Jay Watch.” This initiative will only result in more hostile e-mails in Lehigh’s in-box and a furtherance of the perception that Lehigh and the Globe have an ideological axe to grind with the main promoter of “Extreme Games.” Instead, how about Lehigh and Severin resolving their differences on-air?

A conversation between Severin and Lehigh would not only make for great radio, it would also heal whatever damage both men’s images have suffered in the eyes of their philosophical opponents. Let’s face it: the average Lehigh fan regards Severin as a right-wing reactionary, and the average Severin fan regards Lehigh as a member of the self-righteous elite liberal media. If both men had a civil conversation on WTKK, it might shatter both stereotypes.

Severin would be able to answer the questions Lehigh has raised about his biographical claims and incendiary language. In addition, Lehigh could respond to the constant claims by members of Severin’s hardcore fan base that he would like nothing more than to drive Severin and other non-liberals off the air.

Severin is big on apologies these days. Wouldn’t it be something if he apologized to the man he once characterized as a “pant-load?” Wouldn’t it be fascinating to hear these two rhetorical rivals attempt to find common ground?

“I’ve long been a critic of Severin’s crude, bombastic, xenophobic discourse,” Lehigh wrote last month. “Over the years, I have highlighted a few of his more blatant lies, outrages, and inventions because I thought his listeners should know what a bigot and a fraud he was.” Hearing Severin directly respond to Lehigh’s claims would allow other Severin skeptics to gain new insight into the controversial commentator.

Lehigh would also change a few minds. Lehigh is the E. J. Dionne of the Globe, a clear thinker who can challenge conservatives without furthering the degeneration of discourse. Say what you will about Lehigh’s perspective, but he wasn’t the one who compared climate-change skeptics to Holocaust deniers.

Severin should ask Lehigh to walk over to the WTKK studios and finally put this dispute behind them. Hearing Severin and Lehigh discuss their grievances would be good for ratings, good for radio, good for rationality. Both men have something to contribute to the public square. Neither man should remain the other’s villain.

UPDATE: More from WGBH.

Several weeks ago,  I was heading into a Boston-area Home Depot (10:30 AM EDT) when what did my wandering eye observe? Groups of men, as many as eight to a group, sometimes as few as two,  and,  in an isolated case a single individual. My quick count estimated approximately a total of 24 in number, give or take. And what, you ask is so odd about this scenario? The men appeared to be waiting for someone or something. And what you ask again, is so odd about this scenario? I asked myself the same question: “Self, what exactly is so odd about this scenario; what is going on here?” Self responded: “Why, it appears that these men are looking for work, they are waiting for someone to give them work to do.” I then asked Self another question: “Why wait for work in the parking lot of a Home Depot?” Self responded again, ever patient: “Why you do you think you silly goose?” Not wanting to prejudge the situation, I proceeded to do some field reconnaissance. Two men in a green pickup truck pulled up alongside my vehicle, so I decided to ask the truck’s driver his thoughts on the significance of my observations. At first, he didn’t know what I was talking about, until I pointed out the various collections of men hanging around the parking lot. He then said matter of factly that they were looking for work. I proceeded to “lead the witness” with the following question: “Do you think these folks are here legally?” or words to that effect. He promptly responded “no” and then twice went on to describe the situation as “terrible”. Not content to leave the matter alone, I next called a very wise and knowledgeable friend of mine (a lifeline I think it’s called) to assess the situation. After describing the scene and inquiring as to its significance, Friend responded: “They are probably looking for work. This is happening around the country. They are probably in the country illegally.”  I should add that these were my suspicions all along. I should also add that this country is heading for a very difficult time. These men didn’t appear to have a care in the world that they would be apprehended by Immigration/Law Enforcement officials of ANY kind. In fact, a City of Boston Police patrol car passed through the same parking lot with nary even a glance at the assembly.  So much for enforcement of the laws. If the situation I observed at Home Depot is happening in Boston, Massachusetts, it most assuredly is happening all across this country. It suggests what many of us already know: United States borders are porous as a sieve, and enforcement of immigration laws appears to be lax at best. Undoubtedly, to be continued.

According to a Boston Globe story reported by Andrea Estes, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick wants a “do-over”. Specifically:

Governor Deval Patrick in recent weeks approved state union contracts that grant 7 percent raises to tens of thousands of employees over the next three years, but, with the ink barely dry, the deteriorating economic forecast has already forced him to seek concessions.

Those of you living and working in the private sector probably wonder how the state could afford these raises to begin with. Good question. A&F secretary Leslie Kirwan says that it is “unprecedented” for state workers to go without raises in a given year. Again, the private sector denizens wonder why since they frequently do without raises in a given year.

“We would be adamantly opposed to giving up any of the contract increases,” said David Holway, president of the National Association of Government Employees, which represents 10,000 state workers. “They’re slim enough.”

Huh??? Aren’t we all in this together Mr. Holway; are you paying attention to the world around you? Apparently not; or perhaps the only world he cares about involves sucking on the public teat.

The story isn’t entirely bad; out of pocket health contributions for state employees are going to increase, as they should. After all, the benefit accrues to the individual employee, doesn’t it?

Administration officials also pointed out that health costs are likely to increase for almost all state employees starting next year. Patrick proposed increasing their 15 percent contributions to 20 percent or 25 percent, depending on their salaries.

Let it never be forgotten however, that the Public Employee Union tail wags the public policy/tax payer dog.

(Reprinted w/permission from Massachusetts NewsPlatoon, the state editor of which also publishes the site you are now reading).

From an editorial standpoint, we here at Massachusetts NewsPlatoon wholeheartedly support the principles of modest and efficient government, personal responsibility, individual liberty, and self-reliance. History shows that these principles have demonstrable utility, therefore it is our considered judgement that societies whose public policies hew most closely to the aforementioned ideals will succeed in providing the greatest good to the greatest number of individuals living within those societies. Unfortunately, the Massachusetts Congressional delegation, taken as a whole, promotes an expansionist central bureaucracy that is immeasurably at odds with the advance of individual liberty and prosperity.

Occasionally however a clear voice arises from the political clamor and this time it belongs to Stephen F. Lynch, whose soundings of late come as a pleasant surprise. Lynch began his federal congressional career in 2001, representing Massachusetts’ 9th Congressional district,  and on more than one occasion since that time has demonstrated a level of wisdom and sound judgement that is both refreshing and rare amongst the modern-day cabal dominating political discourse.

A notable case in point is Lynch’s strident vote against the initial Wall Street bailout, a difficult and seemingly unpopular position to take given the considerable pressure to hew the party line (party in this case meaning bailout). While America’s financial markets were roiling under the weight of previously misguided public policy decisions, Lynch rose above the fear-mongering to oppose Treasury Secretary Paulson’s overwrought proposal. To his everlasting credit, Lynch twice declined to support the Emergency Stabilization Act of 2008, one of only two Massachusetts congressmen to do so. He wisely based his opposition on an aversion to placing taxpayer dollars at risk for the “sins” of others and a lingering concern that the “cure” might ultimately prove more harmful than the problem itself.  We wish that Senator John McCain (R,AZ) had demonstrated a similar degree of leadership and foresight, but that’s an issue for another day.

Lynch’s latest act of grace under fire concerns the fate of The Boston Globe, an institution literally near (the Globe resides in his district) the his  heart. On April 24, 2009, the Massachusetts Congressional delegation (House and Senate), in yet another dubious exercise, endorsed a letter to Globe parent/owner Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr., requesting that he keep the paper open. While all nine Democrats signed the letter without reservation, Lynch declined to follow, wisely citing “conflict of interest” concerns. Such concerns should be obvious to all thinking men and women: there MUST be a wall of separation between elected officials and the journalists and publications who cover them.

The skeptics among us, never in short supply, might attribute Lynch’s decision-making to naked self interest. He has truthfully signaled his intentions to become the next U.S. Senator from Massachusetts. To bolster his resume, he has added a healthy dose of foreign travel, including visits to Iraq, India, Syria and Morocco. These expeditions certainly won’t diminish his Senatorial ambitions. Neither will establishing a record of independence, courage, integrity and good judgement. The Massachusetts Congressional delegation has survived in large part on an unhealthy diet of group think and stale paradigms. Lynch’s ability to break out of this mindset is welcome, and we encourage more of the same.

From an editorial standpoint, we here at Massachusetts NewsPlatoon wholeheartedly support the principles of modest and efficient government, personal responsibility, individual liberty, and self-reliance. History shows that these principles have demonstrable utility, therefore it is our considered judgement that societies whose public policies hew most closely to the aforementioned ideals will succeed in providing the greatest good to the greatest number of individuals living within those societies. Unfortunately, the Massachusetts Congressional delegation, taken as a whole, promotes an expansionist central bureaucracy that is immeasurably at odds with the advance of individual liberty and prosperity.

Occasionally however a clear voice arises from the political clamor and this time it belongs to Stephen F. Lynch, whose soundings of late come as a pleasant surprise. Lynch began his federal congressional career in 2001, representing Massachusetts’ 9th Congressional district,  and on more than one occasion since that time has demonstrated a level of wisdom and sound judgement that is both refreshing and rare amongst the modern-day cabal dominating political discourse.

A notable case in point is Lynch’s strident vote against the initial Wall Street bailout, a difficult and seemingly unpopular position to take given the considerable pressure to hew the party line (party in this case meaning bailout). While America’s financial markets were roiling under the weight of previously misguided public policy decisions, Lynch rose above the fear-mongering to oppose Treasury Secretary Paulson’s overwrought proposal. To his everlasting credit, Lynch twice declined to support the Emergency Stabilization Act of 2008, one of only two Massachusetts congressmen to do so. He wisely based his opposition on an aversion to placing taxpayer dollars at risk for the “sins” of others and a lingering concern that the “cure” might ultimately prove more harmful than the problem itself.  We wish that Senator John McCain (R,AZ) had demonstrated a similar degree of leadership and foresight, but that’s an issue for another day.

Lynch’s latest act of grace under fire concerns the fate of The Boston Globe, an institution literally near (the Globe resides in his district) the his  heart. On April 24, 2009, the Massachusetts Congressional delegation (House and Senate), in yet another dubious exercise, endorsed a letter to Globe parent/owner Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr., requesting that he keep the paper open. While all nine Democrats signed the letter without reservation, Lynch declined to follow, wisely citing “conflict of interest” concerns. Such concerns should be obvious to all thinking men and women: there MUST be a wall of separation between elected officials and the journalists and publications who cover them.

The skeptics among us, never in short supply, might attribute Lynch’s decision-making to naked self interest. He has truthfully signaled his intentions to become the next U.S. Senator from Massachusetts. To bolster his resume, he has added a healthy dose of foreign travel, including visits to Iraq, India, Syria and Morocco. These expeditions certainly won’t diminish his Senatorial ambitions. Neither will establishing a record of independence, courage, integrity and good judgement. The Massachusetts Congressional delegation has survived in large part on an unhealthy diet of group think and stale paradigms. Lynch’s ability to break out of this mindset is welcome, and we encourage more of the same.

According to this Boston Globe article, “Political momentum builds for state sales tax increase”. Indeed.  So as the Massachusetts Welfare State begins its latest effort to stave off a death it well deserves, talk turns toward tax increases (i.e. more revenue), again. No talk of meaningful spending reforms that will address the inherent STRUCTURAL inefficiencies characteristic of most government/state bureaucracies. These reforms include Pacheco Law repeal, Project Labor Agreement termination, and sale of the MBTA (rife with corruption and inefficiency) for starters. It goes without saying that the public employee pension gravy train has run its course. Time for these folks to get off the dole and try living in the real world, where pensions are largely a relic of the past. In its essence, Massachusetts has a spending  problem and not a revenue problem. Let genuine reform begin before anyone searches for “new” revenue.