Lame Holiday

Hey everybody, Happy President's Day! When I was a kid they used to call it George Washington's Birthday, but then someone got the lame idea of making the holiday honor ALL the presidents. You mean like President Nixon? Or Clinton? Or Chester Arthur?

Westfield State Senator Mike Knapik noticed this oddity today at a McDonald's President's Day display. Along with George Washington and Abe Lincoln we have - President Ben Franklin!



Actually Ben Franklin probably should have been president, and might well have been had he been younger at the time of the revolution, but somebody needs to tell Micky D that wise ol' Ben was never a President, nor did he ever even attempt to run for the office.

Speaking of State Senators, Northampton's Stanley Rosenberg is taking some well-deserved flack for his latest attempt to make more difficult the process for putting policy questions on the ballot. Every few years he claims that the ballot questions favor special interests, but the truth he just doesn't like the causes that the public puts on the ballot. As those saints at the Massachusetts Citizens for Limited Taxation point out in a recent press release:



Stanley and his mob are back again for yet another assault, his lust to crush democracy undiminished.

"After grassroots groups had to spend about $11 million to fight 2010 questions at the polls seeking to cut taxes," the Hampshire Gazette reported, "Rosenberg said, they have joined a coalition seeking to raise the bar for placing initiatives on the ballot."

Time out, Stanley: What "grassroots groups" had to spend that money? Let's take a look at his latest Big Lie. Let's look at Question 3 on last year's ballot, the proposal to reduce the state income tax from its recently hiked 6.25 percent down to 3 percent. How'd that work, Stanley?

According to the Secretary of State's Elections Division, here is the amount raised by the proponents and opponents:

Proponents: Alliance to Roll Back Taxes
$263,838.66

Opponents: Mass. Coalition for our Communities
$5,673,178.18

According to BallotPedia.org, the largest contributors opposing the 2010 sales tax cut ballot question (Question 3) were:

National Education Association - $1,325,000

Massachusetts Teachers Association - $1,062,000

Service Employees International Union - $888,000

American Federation of Teachers - Massachusetts -$704,000

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees -$200,000

Boston Teachers Union - $150,000

Mass. Nurses Association - $104,000

"After grassroots groups had to spend about $11 million to fight 2010 questions at the polls seeking to cut taxes, Rosenberg said, they have joined a coalition seeking to raise the bar for placing initiatives on the ballot."

"Grassroot groups" indeed! What hogwash.

Almost eight years ago, on Apr. 13, 2003 the Eagle-Tribune editorial ("A wolf in sheep's clothing") stated:

State Sen. Stanley C. Rosenberg, D-Amherst, says his bill to "reform" the initiative petition process is not an attempt to kill it. He says if he wanted to destroy the ability of average voters to pass laws, he would have filed a bill to do exactly that.

Don't believe it. Legislators rarely do things directly. It is much safer, and usually more successful, to do it indirectly.

Rosenberg is indeed trying to kill the only avenue to direct democracy in Massachusetts. He is just trying to kill it softly. He is hoping that, just like the frog in the cook pot, voters won't notice the heat gradually increasing on their already limited powers until it is too late and those powers are boiled out of existence....

It is not that Rosenberg has a problem with manipulating public opinion. He just wants himself and his colleagues to be the ones doing it.

Here former Valley investigative TV reporter Jim Polito, now turned radio provocateur, discusses Rosenberg's anti-democracy efforts on his radio show



In Holyoke the other day I made this video about the old Holyoke Catholic High School building.



Lovers in a Northampton alley.



Local musical treasure Jim Armenti has a new solo album out.



You can listen to some of it by clicking here.

Another local musical talent is Tom Pappalardo, although he's best known for his Valley Advocate cartoons, such as this one mercilessly attacking Valley hipsters. (click to enlarge)



His songwriting shows a pretty caustic wit as well.

Early spring at UMass.

Neal versus Rosenberg?

Tom Wesley in bad company.

When the final campaign filings from the Pioneer Valley 2010 political races came out on Monday, November 22, 2010, eyebrows were raised behind closed doors at the report filed by south Valley Congressman Richard Neal. I say behind closed doors, because the general public was never informed of the figures by the mainstream local media, which is typical regarding matters pertaining to "The Congressman" that might be interpreted as embarrassing.

But the mind-boggling sum spent by Richie Neal to win re-election last year was really the great uncovered story of our local elections in 2010. How much did Richie blow this time around? According to his filing he spent a staggering $2,235,180, which I believe qualifies as the most expensive local race in Pioneer Valley history.

What also makes Richie's money bomb so unique is not just its gargantuan size, but the target against which all that cash was directed - Neal's penniless, unknown opponent, political novice Tom Wesley. To attempt to unseat Neal, Wesley raised a paltry $123,203, which on the congressional level is the equivalent of challenging your opponent on the proceeds of a lemonade stand.

Even more awkward for Neal is how little he got for firing this cannon of cash against a housefly. Although Republicans of a certain stripe can occasionally win in the Pioneer Valley, Wesley was not of that type. He had a military background in a district of peaceniks, was anti-abortion among rabid feminists, and against gay marriage in one of the queerest parts of the country. Wesley was also running as a Republican Tea Partier in a year when Massachusetts (and California) were unique in resisting the GOP wave that swept the other 48 states.

And yet, even with all that against him, the final tally was startlingly close, with Wesley winning a very solid 43% of the vote. It is hard to believe that a sudden attraction to Wesley's right-wing views can account for that turnout, especially since there was no Republican surge in any other races. Although Wesley did have an enthusiastic base, his high vote total can only be fully explained as a personal anti-Neal backlash. In other words, there were a surprisingly large number of voters out there who were prepared to hold their nose and vote for a candidate they disagreed with rather than cast their ballot for Richie Neal.

And no doubt they had their reasons. Years of unchallenged incumbency had made Neal appear as if he took the seat for granted, with many voters even asking "Richie who?" since the lack of the need for Neal to campaign for the seat for 16 years had left much of the public uncertain of who he was. No doubt Neal's inside polling showed him in deep trouble, thereby explaining his frantic spending spree, even against an unpopular opponent with no money. That is the only logical explanation for how you end up with the bizarre sight of a two million dollar race against a guy with pocket change.

Yet Neal won by a margin slim enough to leave one wondering whether Neal could have lost the seat had the GOP had the sense to have nominated the much more electable libertarian Republican Dr. Jay Fleitman of Northampton, who had challenged Wesley in the primary. But that's just idle speculation at this point, in politics the winner takes all, whether victory comes by a sliver or a landslide, and under normal circumstances Neal would be able to sigh with post-election relief and enjoy another term.



But these are not normal circumstances. As a result of slow population growth in Massachusetts, we are losing one of our ten congressional seats. That means that if all ten incumbents want to run for re-election, one of them is going to have to be forced to run against a fellow incumbent. And if you know anything about the way things are done in Massachusetts politics, it ain't gonna be somebody in Boston who is going to have that problem. As usual they will shaft - I mean shift - that difficulty to us here in the Wild West, and make our two congressmen, Neal and John Olver of Amherst, do an electoral duel to the death in a Democrat Party primary.

Both Neal and Olver (like the other eight incumbents) have publicly announced that they are seeking re-election in 2012; but how seriously can we take their intentions? There is no doubt that Neal is sincere, he is poised to possibly become chair of the powerful Ways and Means Committee in the unlikely chance that the Democrats retake the House. Neal is also just in his early 60's and considered still young by congressional standards.

Olver however is a another story. For one thing, doubt is raised by the fact that Olver is required to say he is running in 2012 even if he has no intention of doing so, just to preserve any chance of saving the two Western Mass seats from consolidation. The ten incumbents are just dying to be relieved of the pressure of removing a seat by having someone retire, since then they could just wipe out that person's seat and leave all nine remaining incumbents safe and sound. So if Olver did not say he was running, it would become an irreversible certainty that we would lose the second seat, with no chance of escaping Boston combining Neal's and Olver's districts.

Despite such political posing, everyone is all but certain that Neal and Olver's districts will be combined anyway, it just isn't possible to imagine the scenario where Boston would kill off one of their own to accommodate Western Mass. So would Olver really participate in such a brutal political death match? He is well into his seventies and did not impress people with his doddering, spacy performance in last year's debates against his challenger Bill Gunn. Many suspect that if push comes to shove, Olver will defer to Neal by retiring should it turn out that only one of them can have the seat.



But of course the Pioneer Valley political universe does not consist only of Richard Neal and John Olver. Some powerful Democrat could come forward, and the whispering is growing louder that the someone who may step in to challenge Neal if Olver steps down is Amherst State Senator Stan Rosenberg. After all, Rosenberg is widely considered to be Olver's hand-picked heir, and previous speculation about Olver's retirement has regarded Rosenberg's candidacy to be a foregone conclusion. Why should that certainty be changed should the seat have Richie Neal competing for it?

My personal opinion is that if it is a Neal versus Olver Democrat primary, Neal will win because of his relative youth and the lopsided margin the Democrat machine in Springfield can deliver to Neal to overcome all the small towns that comprise Olver's base. However, a Neal versus Rosenberg race, now that's a whole other story. It's early yet, but meanwhile let us watch with keen interest as events unfold.

The rising sun hits the woodland way into downtown Northampton.



Transforming it into a golden road of unlimited devotion.



Singing along to animal posters in Northampton last week.



On the street by Tony Mateus.

Stepping Out

Rosenberg's Statement

Yesterday in Amherst as I was about to cross the street to go shop at the Big Y, Amherst bloglord Larry Kelley pulled up.



"Hey sailor," he called out, "ya lookin' for a date?"

Just kidding! Actually Kelley was on the way to pick up his daughter, but we chatted a little about recent blogworthy events, such as how State Representative Stan Rosenberg has publicly confirmed that he is gay. He did it in an offhand, almost by the way manner, as part of a Fourth of July essay he wrote for The Hampshire Gazette.

As a foster child who grew up as a ward of the state, as a gay man, as a Jew, I understand what it's like to be cast as "the other." I rarely discuss these facets of my character because I don't practice identity politics. I practice policy politics. And I firmly believe that we will never fulfill our potential as a just society until we embrace the principle of equality for all and adhere to it as fundamental, immutable policy.

Kelley and I agreed that the statement was no surprise. Not just in the gay community, but among straights as well it was pretty obvious to anyone who cared to contemplate it that the never-married, never seen on the straight dating scene Rosenberg was probably gay. But does it matter that he came out and said so?

Sorta. It doesn't hurt to have straight people see that gays are not creepy deviants, but people they actually know and who are successful in public life. It is especially important for young gay people to see that. On the other hand I have no qualms about any gay person who doesn't care to talk it about it. Who wants to go through all the crap you have to put up with from ignorant people who have all kinds of misconceived notions and ugly labels they want to put on you once you say that you are gay?

Personally I never pretended to be straight, as I knew early on that the damage I would do to myself by faking straightness would be worse for my psyche than anything any gay basher might do. But I've seen plenty of people come out and what they have to put up with. Beforehand, everyone is always whispering behind your back, "Is he gay? Is he gay?" Then when you finally come out and say, "Yeah, I'm gay," the straights go, "Aha, I always knew it!" Well if you always knew it, why all the whispering? Then they criticze you for being dishonest for not coming out sooner. However, if you then go on to talk about your sexuality more than a couple of times after that, they tell you to "stop shoving your sex life down our throats."

Straight people - I'll never understand them.

As a politician Rosenberg is not ideologically aligned with me. For example, from what I've seen he never saw a tax increase he didn't like. But I was impressed with Rosenberg when I met him in person last year at the Amherst Survival Center. Here's a picture of him I took that day.



What impressed me was that Rosenberg was genuinely interested in learning about the Survival Center and how it operated. I could see that this was not some politician blowing through on some photo opportunity for a political campaign. He asked intelligent questions and made insightful comments. He actually sat down and ate lunch with all our regular customers, and again showed an interest in what people had to say. In other words he acted like a real person gathering information about an issue he cared about, instead of just acting like a politician.

Kelley pointed out to me other admirable aspects of Rosenberg's character. Several years ago Amherst got embroiled in one of those political correctness scandals that only Amherst seems capable of, this time regarding the play Westside Story being performed at the local high school. Most people regard that play as a beloved American classic, but a handfield of dizzy leftists were demanding the play be cancelled on the grounds that it had racist overtones that no one had ever noticed before.

In other words, it was precisely the sort of issue that politicians abhor, since politically there is no winning position on it. Whatever side you take, you're going to alienate people. Yet Kelley expressed admiration for the fact that Rosenberg came out publicly on the side of those who wanted to show the play, citing First Amendment issues. That did not please some members of Rosenberg's core constituency, but he defied them anyway. Few would have criticized Rosenberg for staying silent, but he spoke out because he felt there was a larger issue at stake.

Kelley also reminded me that Rosenberg, despite representing the district that includes UMass, recently caused the UMass hotel to lose its special tax exemption. For Rosenberg it was a simply matter of fairness, why should the region's privately owned hotels be placed at a competitive disadvantage? Such commonsense thinking is in too short supply in politics these days.

In other words, Stan Rosenberg is a person that, whatever your political persuasion, must be considered a man of courage who isn't afraid to do what is not politically popular. Sadly there are not many others of such strong principles in politics today. These are characteristics that dwarf into insignificance anything to do with Rosenberg's sexual orientation.

Yet I'm sure there are those who, having supported him in the past, will now not do so because Rosenberg has become "officially gay." But that's okay. Who wants the support of such mental midgets anyway?

Says it All

I love this graphic in today's Boston Herald:



The "GOP hopeful" referred to is Charlie Baker, a former bureaucrat under William Weld who is running for Governor. But the fact is every candidate for Massachusetts Governor this year from both parties (and third parties) is going to lambaste Deval Patrick for the recent round of tax increases by linking him to the still reviled Michael Dukakis. The tax-raising Dukakis handed control of the governorship to the Republicans for sixteen years. Will that be the Patrick legacy as well?

High Times



Captain Skypilot Ken Babbs the Intrepid Traveler (above) invited the Merry Pranksters over for a Fourth of July bash. Check out the home movie.



Gathering Clouds



Bill Dusty took a series of cool photos of a massive thunderstorm descending on Springfield's Eastfield Mall. Check it out here.

Orientation

The UMass campus was filled this morning with new students undergoing orientation for the start of school in September.



The UMass Alumni Association had a little display set up offering the members of the Class of 2013 free UMass flip-flops (useful when dealing with ideologically rigid professors) and Cape Cod potato chips.



The Class of 2013?



Damn that makes me feel old!

Today's Video

In the late 1970's UMass Collegian cartooning legend Steve Lafler was so popular you would go to parties or Martian Highway shows and see people actually dressed up like characters from his comix. Here is Steve and his friend Johnny Ricco in a recent attempt at playing the Grateful Dead.

Um, stick to the penwork Steve.