There are punks in Fitchburg?

As a guy with a blog with the word "Fitchburg" in the title, I feel it's my duty to point out all things Fitchburg that deserve your attention. Often, that's in order to make fun of them, but not always.

Anyway, on one of my little forays into "what crazy shit can I find on the web about Fitchburg" I came across a MySpace page for a band called "Fitchburg Punx".

So I made them my MySpace "friend" (yes, I have a MySpace page, produced for a post I never finished about how to make really ugly MySpace pages), and will now proceed to promote them here because I hold a special place in my heart for punk bands and have nothing better to do at the moment.

So, what to say about the Fitchburg Punx?

Umm... they're from Fitchburg. They even have a song called "Fitchburg"! Here it is!


So yeah, that's okay.

In addition to being from Fitchburg, they're also "Punx," which I gather means they're dyslexic punks. Or maybe it's more punk to use an "x" than a "ks" these days. Or maybe it's a tribute to the band X, which I would fully support, especially since they're one of the few punk bands I can still go see and not feel like the oldest person there.

In addition to that Fitchburg song up there, their MySpace page also has a song about wanting to be a Dropkick Murphy (why?), and a couple of covers.

They do a pretty decent cover of the Misfits' "Saturday Night." I suppose that's one of the better post-Danzig era Misfits songs, but it's still a post-Danzig era Misfits song, which means it's sort of inherently blah. The cover of Operation Ivy's "Unity" is better, mostly because it's just a better song.

So anyway, punk band in Fitchburg. Yay!

Oh, and they appear to be playing at the Lucky Dog in Worcester next week. I won't be attending, due to my advanced age and the way that being around teenagers having fun just makes me want to start kicking people in the throat. But you could go if you want.

Hooray for culture!

The Myth of a Conservative Central Mass.

Having grown up and first become politically aware in the Fitchburg area, I can't count the number of times I've heard people describe central Massachusetts as "conservative."

Liberals have complained about it, just as conservatives have lauded it. Both I think recognized that central Massachusetts is a bit more conservative than the Boston area or western Mass.

Hopefully they also realized that being more conservative than those two very liberal areas isn't saying much. It's not like central Mass. is on par with central Alabama or anything.

Still, a superficial look at the local media might lead the casual observer to believe that the Fitchburg area is actually conservative.

There's a crappy conservative newspaper, we've had some far-right radio hosts on local stations, and the cranky conservative contingent is quite good at leaving their wingnutty comments all over the local internet. The local blog authors are still mostly moderate or liberal-leaning, but the commenters can be batshit crazy.

What this all brings me to is this article in the Worcester Telegram. It's about the presidential race and the money going into it from central Mass. Seems Obama is by a large margin the favorite of this supposedly "conservative" section of the state.

For instance:

Through September, 364 residents of Worcester, Fitchburg, Leominster, Auburn, Shrewsbury and Westboro made 1,173 contributions of $200 or more to Mr. Obama’s campaign totaling $192,749. That amount is almost three times the $72,809 that 101 McCain supporters in those communities gave in 193 contributions of $200 or more in that same time period, according to campaign filings with the Federal Election Commission.

In Southbridge, alone among the seven communities, Mr. McCain out-raised Mr. Obama, collecting $7,650 from three donors to Mr. Obama’s $1,259 from five donors.

Throughout the state, Mr. Obama received $12.1 million in campaign contributions through August, more than triple Mr. McCain’s $3.6 million in contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics’ Web site.

Yep, Obama more popular than McCain. Shocking news, right? Apparently only Southbridge even gives a shit about McCain, and that mostly looks like three rich Republicans and not some sort of groundswell of support.

When it comes to Fitchburg, we find an even bigger difference.

Keith Stone, a 46-year-old Fitchburg resident, who retired last year, contributed 14 times to Mr. Obama’s campaign, giving a total of $640.

Mr. Stone said Mr. Obama should be president because he will change current political policies.

“To have John McCain admit on TV that he voted 90 percent of the time with the president showed that voting for him is like asking for another four years of the same policies,” Mr. Stone said.

Mr. Stone said residents of Fitchburg, whose mayor may turn off certain streetlights to help manage the city budget, cannot afford four more years like recent ones. He and 18 other Fitchburg residents contributed $9,691 through Sept. 30 to Mr. Obama through 120 contributions, more than 12 times the amount given to Mr. McCain in the same period in that city.

Twelve times! Holy crap!

Really, this shouldn't be surprising. Fitchburg elected Deval Patrick with an even bigger percentage than he got in the general election. It elected Lisa Wong in a landslide. It is basically a pretty liberal town, at least as far as its voting record goes.

So why does it come across as conservative? Obviously, the newspaper doesn't help. But it goes beyond that. There's an old guard of conservative douchebags in Fitchburg. They're all over the media, they spend a lot of time writing letters to the editor and making inane comments on the internet.

They're the people who appear whenever a change (sometimes painful, usually necessary) needs to be made, kicking and screaming and demanding that things would be so much better if only we had an old white guy in charge. They're the ones who think "lifelong Fitchburg resident" is a qualification for public office, not a detriment.

If you get in an argument with this old guard, you will lose. Not because you're wrong. You're not. You'll lose because they can afford to spend ten hours a day writing bullshit about the town, and you don't have the time to debunk each of their idiotic points in turn. They can't win with logic, so they go with bulk.

But you know what? It doesn't matter.

In the end, most people in this area are on your side. Sure, there are plenty of conservative cranks ready to make a lot of noise. But nobody really listens to them. They're enjoying their own little echo chamber where they can talk about how Obama is a secret scary Muslim and Lisa Wong is all about self-promotion, not public service. They're just a little cult of ideology. And have about the same basis in reality as your average cult.

In the meantime, you and I should celebrate. We're actually not the minority. We may be the loud ones. The ones who make blogs and get in arguments and run campaigns and generally work to make things better. But we're just the representatives of the majority of people in this area, who basically support the same ideas.

Conservatism is a dying ideology. That's as true in central Massachusetts as it is in the rest of the state. At this point, that may even be the rest of the country.

Things are changing for the better. Enjoy. And keep up the good work.

The Idiotic Drug War And The Idiots Who Cheer For It

It's a damn holiday. I wanted to do some quick little post about nothing of importance. Maybe snicker at something stupid someone said accidentally or whatever it is I try to pass off as humor around here.

Sadly, this was not to be.

You see, the Fitchburg Police Department has decided that instead of doing something valuable with their time they should devote a whole lot of effort to busting low-level drug dealers.

So some people are probably having a slightly more difficult time getting pot than they did a week ago. Don't you feel safer already?

To make matters worse, they're talking about all this asset forfeiture bullshit. If you're not familiar with it, asset forfeiture laws basically allow the cops to steal the stuff of anyone in any way related to a drug offense. It's abused basically as a matter of policy.

So yeah, I'm not behind this current pointless law enforcement theater. But as anyone familiar with them should already know, the editors of the S&E love it.

Their editorial is entitled New approach against drug crimes will make a difference, which is both unsupported by the facts and laughably naive. Shocking, isn't it?

Let's look at some idiocy:

For literally years now, we have been saying that police and prosecutors, along with city officials and judges, need to start treating drug offenses like the serious crimes they are, and stop coddling drug addicts, who by definition are criminals.

Oh fuck you, editorialist! This "drug addicts are by definition criminals" argument is the oldest and stupidest argument in the prohibitionist's arsenal.

Fornication is illegal in Massachusetts. If you have sex before marriage, you are by definition a criminal. So we could just as easily change the above to say:

For literally years now, we have been saying that police and prosecutors, along with city officials and judges, need to start treating fornication like the serious crime it is, and stop coddling fornicators, who by definition are criminals.

Shit, they probably actually do think that.

The point is, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. Apparently the big-government Republican assholes behind this editorial like having the government legislate their morality, but the rest of us can do just fine without the help, thanks.

Also, hey assholes, drug addicts are NOT criminal by definition. The vast majority of people with a drug problem use only legal drugs (alcohol, mostly). So let's stop with the bullshit argument already.

Whatever. Moving on:

DeMoura said that any property where a drug dealer has been arrested will receive a letter addressed to the landlord or listed owner warning them to evict or eject any tenants that are committing illegal activity.

DeMoura said if no action is taken by the landlord then the owner can be fined between $100 and $1,000, imprisoned for between three months and one year, or the house can be seized.

There's our friend asset forfeiture again.

Don't misunderstand what's going on here. The landlord is being told to evict or eject any tenants that are committing illegal activity. If they don't do this, they face fines, imprisonment, or even the seizure of the house. Even though they had nothing at all to do with the alleged crime, the landlord could suffer serious repercussions.

Why do they do this?

Well, courts have a funny way of considering you innocent until you're proven guilty. I'm sure the S&E doesn't back that either, but that's the way it is. Landlords, on the other hand, aren't bound by that (though they may be bound by the lease).

An arrest took place on their property. That's not a conviction, that's an arrest. It could all be a big mistake. The landlord still has to do the eviction thing, apparently. And they have to evict anyone who's "committing illegal activity." Man, I hope nobody has any speeding tickets!

How, pray tell, is the landlord supposed to know if someone's committing illegal activity? Most people make an effort to keep their illegal activities pretty quiet. But hey, the police don't care about your fancy "rights" and other liberal claptrap. They care about intimidating your landlord into kicking you out of your home, even if there's no basis. Better yet, if your landlord is the principled sort who doesn't want to go along with it, they can fuck up his/her life seriously. Hooray for our great protectors!

But if you ask the S&E, those great protectors aren't worth a damn unless they also punish, punish, PUNISH the already-presumed-guilty!

As important as the actions taken this week are, it's just as important that judges set high bails in these drug cases, and then implement strict sentences when a defendant is found guilty.

Likewise, city officials, working with our Statehouse delegation, should do everything they can to rid the city of Fitchburg, and particularly Main Street and the downtown -- of non-profits that cater to drug addicts.

Oh yeah, and that's who the real guilty party is! It's non-profit organizations that make an effort to help people with substance abuse problems! Those fucking assholes, with all their compassion and their "helping your fellow man"!

It's long past time to get serious about fighting drugs and to throw these failed treating the criminal like a victim or client policies out the window.

There's your final sentence of the editorial. It's a garbled sentence, but the message is clear.

Do you have a substance abuse problem?

Well then, according to the Sentinel you don't have a medical problem, you are a problem. You're not sick, you're a criminal. The system isn't corrupt, you are. And they'll do everything they can to influence asshole cops and spineless lawmakers into ruining your entire life.

We need to take this power away from the cops and the lawmakers (the editorialists are already impotent, they can whine all they like). For now, make sure you vote for Question 2, and help move us in the right direction.

This stupid war on drugs helps nobody. It's just the way that moralizing nitwits like the S&E's editorialist get their rocks off. They clap and giggle when people's lives are ruined. And for what? Because some people like to put things in their body that the government doesn't like.

That's it. That's what people go to jail for.

Time for the government and the police to face reality. Understand that people have always taken mood-altering substances. Get over it. Decriminalize it. And let's start helping those who suffer instead of making everything worse.