Ghosts are more interesting than streetlights

Oh, what an embarrassment of riches I'm faced with today!

Checking the S&E today, I see it contains not only the dumbest editorial ever, in the form of a special column by village idiot Jeff McMenemy, but also the dumbest actual story ever. It's about ghosts.

Prior to spotting the ghost story, I was all set to address McMenemy's dumbness. But frankly, it's not coherent enough to be worth a full post. It's just a tedious hit-piece attacking both Lisa Wong and Deval Patrick for their shared crime of doing things McMenemy doesn't care for.

For some reason McMenemy is obsessed both with streetlights and with pricey SUVs. I'd explain what his reasons are, but he never really bothers to make them clear. The man has the intellectual sophistication--and language skills--of a mildly retarded parakeet. Just know he's really upset!

But the ghost story, now that's something amazing!

Let's do some quoting!

Kathleen Caslin became a ghost hunter six years ago by accident, after a supernatural encounter got her questioning the existence of the paranormal.

"That's where your life turns on a moment," Caslin said.

Caslin, a registered nurse, was working a night shift at a hospital in 2003 when she was approached by a ghost in one of the patient rooms, she said.

Okay, that's not so terrible. Kooky lady spends her free time doing something stupid. Not really news-worthy, but maybe it would work as a human interest story or something.

So what brings this nurse I hope to never require medical care from to town? She's giving lessons on how to be credulous like her!

Caslin, Edward Perry and other members of the SIGNS Paranormal investigative team gave a presentation on dealing with hauntings at the Thayer Memorial Library Sunday afternoon. Caslin is now a researcher with the group.

Caslin decided to start asking questions about the unexplained after her encounter in the hospital, and that eventually led her to her position with SIGNS.

The group researches haunted houses and tried to determine what, if anything, is actually going on. Perry said paranormal investigators need to keep an air of skepticism as they do their work.

An "air of skepticism"? I don't think they know what the word means.

See, if you're a skeptic, you don't call yourself a "ghost hunter." Because that assumes that ghosts exist, and any "ghost hunter" is going to primarily be looking for things that support their belief. You can no more be a skeptical ghost hunter than you can be a skeptical Leprechaun wrangler or a skeptical dragon slayer.

If you hear funny noises in your walls and send a ghost hunter in to investigate, they're going to say it's a ghost. If you send in an exterminator to investigate, they're going to say it's mice. If you send in a plumber, he's going to say it's your pipes. That's just the way it goes.

But you don't get many newspaper stories about plumbing problems, or rodent infestations. Being a ghost hunter is clearly way more fun.

But wait, the website for this nutty "SIGNS" group says they're all about science! SIGNS even stands for "Scientific Investigations of Ghosts N Spirits."

Ugh. That's terrible.

What sciencey-sounding stuff do they use?

Perry, wearing a polo shirt with the logo from the movie "Ghost Busters" on it, demonstrated the different devices the ghost hunters use in their work. There is an electron meter to gauge the energy in a particular room, a temperature gauge, an audio device to pick up sounds of spirits talking or moving, video camera and audio recording devices.

Ooh, an electron meter! Because ghosts are always leaving their electrons laying around everywhere. Also a temperature gauge (known to laymen as a "thermo-meter"), in case the ghosts have a fever or something. Plus a tape recorder. Obviously that's the most important bit!

Besides the Ghostbusters polo shirt, I mean. Because nothing says "scientific rigor" like referencing a movie in which a giant marshmallow destroys part of New York.

The investigators at SIGNS have been successful [Sic] picking up what they claim are the voices of ghosts in different haunted locations using audio recording. Caslin explained the group will record their discussions inside a haunted location and then hear the voices of ghosts when that recording is played back.

When the ghost is heard, it is called an Electronic Voice Phenomena [Sic], she said, or EVP.

Funny that they don't hear these voices at the time, isn't it? Maybe it's a magical audio recorder?

EVP is awesome in the same way that playing records backwards to look for hidden messages is awesome. It nicely illustrates the brain's ability to find patterns, even if the patterns it finds are totally meaningless.

If you record something (or nothing) and then crank the volume way up to the point where it's mostly a bunch of white noise, you can then rely on the pattern-finding parts of your brain to turn a bit of noise into something that sounds like a voice.

You might experience something similar in the shower. I often hear phantom phones ringing when in the shower. It doesn't mean my house is haunted by a phone, it means finding patterns in the random noise of the shower is not particularly useful.

It's sort of cool, as long as you're not a gullible doofus who interprets your brain's reflexive pattern-finding behavior as proof of a ghost.

Not that this group of totally-not-fake scientists would ever do something so obviously stupid!

Caslin played EVPs taken at the Christ Community Church in Chicopee where SIGNS suspect two disgruntled ghosts started haunting the church in 2004 after it switched from being a combination of Methodist and Congregationalist to just Congregationalists.

The recordings played revealed sometimes inaudible and distant whispers responding to the comments of the SIGNS team. At one point, one of the alleged ghosts can be heard telling the team to "get out."

Oh, maybe they are that stupid. Or maybe ghosts really hate it when churches switch from including two Protestant sects to just allowing one. That certainly gets me all worked up!

Caslin researched the history of the church and believes the two ghosts are Methodists [Sic] spinsters and former members of the church who died before it made the change to just being a Congregationalist church.

The two ghosts are known to throw hymn books, move books, hide candles and make apparitions in the church, Caslin said.

Wow, that's some major stuff that these ghosts are "known" to do! Throwing crap, hiding things for some reason, and even appearing! Why are these ghost hunters not cashing in on their findings? With all that evidence, they could definitely win James Randi's million-dollar challenge by providing evidence of the existence of the paranormal!

You could be rich, guys!

Here's another awesome bit of information:

Caslin and Perry said their group is willing to come to investigate homes free of charge. She said the group is very discrete.

Hear that? You can have these crackpots in your very own home!

So here's what you do:

1. If you don't have one, buy a small battery-powered radio.
2. Tune it to something that's either all talk, or at least old-timey sounding (maybe some ragtime, for the folksy ghost feel).
3. Call SIGNS and tell them you are haunted by a noisy ghost who likes ragtime or whatever.
4. Before they arrive, throw the radio in a closet, under a pile of clothes or something. Make sure it's loud enough to be just barely audible in the room, but not loud enough that you can actually make much of anything out. It's even better if it has crappy reception and keeps cutting in and out.
5. Open some windows to make your house drafty (for the thermo-meter).
6. Scatter around some spare electrons.
7. When the ghostbusters arrive, give them mescaline.
8. After they report back that the house is totally definitely haunted like crazy, start giving tours.
9. Retire, rich and happy!

Or you could just make fun of them for being a bunch of credulous nitwits. That would be good too.

Let's justify our ridiculous overreaction with additional fearmongering!

Oh man...

I though the Sentinel's reaction to the goofy "bomb" incident in yesterday's paper was an improvement over their ridiculously overblown reaction to something similar in 2007. At least mostly.

But the police reaction to our new "bomb" was considerably stupider than the police reaction back then, so they need to cover their asses. So we get an ass-covering article today entitled Questions remain about homemade bombs found in Fitchburg. In it, everyone turns the stupidity up to 11.

Before I get down to business, I guess I'll start off with a disclaimer. I haven't examined these "bombs" and am really just relying on the reports for information about them.

So I'm using Occam's Razor here and going with the most parsimonious explanation, which is that they're drano and aluminum foil in a soda bottle, probably made by kids who wanted to create something that makes a loud noise. Because it's fun.

But I could be wrong! These bombs could be full of C4 and thermite! They're almost certainly not, but if something comes to light with further investigation that suggests these things are actually dangerous, I'll take this all back.

I don't expect that to happen.

Now, on to the stupid article. First a recap:

Police called in the State Police Bomb Squad, assigned to the office of the state Fire Marshal, when a homemade explosive device detonated shortly before 7 p.m. Wednesday, according to Fitchburg Police Sgt. Glenn Fossa. Fossa said the bomb squad used a robot to deactivate a second, similar device. Both devices were placed in plastic bottles before exploding, Fossa noted.

Scary! Look at those terms: "homemade explosive device," "detonated," "deactivate." Sure sounds like this thing was some sort of horrible bomb!

What bullshit. It's like calling a shaken-up bottle of soda an explosive device. Don't worry, though, you can "deactivate" that bottle just by waiting awhile. Also, please be careful not to detonate any balloons the next time you're at a birthday party.

Please also note that the devices were not "placed in plastic bottles before exploding." That sounds like there was something exploding inside the bottle and the bottle was just incidental. On the contrary, without a sealed bottle around the aluminum foil and drano, there would be nothing but some bubbles. The bottle is the most important part of the whole thing.

The Fire Marshal representative lady is more than willing to justify her department's budget by making things sound scary and using a lot of weasel words:

Jennifer Mieth, a spokeswoman for the state Fire Marshal's office, said devices like the ones found Wednesday can cause significant injury.

"If one goes off in your hand, you can lose some fingers," Mieth said. "They can burn you, they can affect your eyesight, and they also have the potential to cause property damage."

That's actually pretty hilarious.

While I wouldn't recommend holding one of these while it goes off, it's not the kind of thing that's going to make you lose fingers. Flimsy plastic bottles just don't have enough mass and this sort of weaksauce "explosion" doesn't create enough acceleration to hit you with the kind of force (F=ma) it would take to sever a finger. You could probably draw blood if you're unlucky, but no way are you going to "lose some fingers."

And yeah, you definitely don't want drano in your eyes, but that's true of pretty much everything. You don't want soda from your shaken-up "explosive device" in your eyes either. That's why you don't put your face near the thing.

As for property damage, yeah I can see how that would happen. It would only really work with paper-based property, though. If you have an early printing of the Gutenberg bible, please don't set off any drano bombs on top of it. Same goes for your extensive collection of erotic origami.

Look, here is a university science class's TERROR WEBSITE'S explanation of the reaction you're dealing with.

Basically you're dealing with scrubbing bubbles. They bubble inside a sealed plastic soda bottle, so the gas has nowhere to go. So it exerts pressure on the bottle. And with enough pressure, the bottle gives way and you get a loud noise. This is basically the same thing as overinflating a balloon.

Not exactly life-threatening stuff. But we have to make it seem scary!

Here's fearmonger Mieth again:

"Unfortunately, the information about how to make these devices is very common and easily attainable on the Internet, but what's not as attainable are the risks associated with making them," she said.

Oh my god, she's totally right!

I just found this incredibly detailed and specific set of instructions on this exact sort of thing for a high school chemistry class TERRORISTS!

But fret not, citizens, Sgt. Glenn Fossa will make certain that they spend lots of the city's money on trying to track down these mischevious teenagers VIOLENT CRIMINALS!

Fossa said such devices "are not particularly common for our area."

"Occasionally, someone will find an old grenade or a shell left in an old house, but something like this is less common," Fossa said.

Fossa said investigators will first analyze forensic evidence regarding the materials and methods used to construct the device, then move on to "sifting through more detailed and more specific evidence found at the scene."

"The first thing to look at is whether the devices were intended for police officers, and if not, what they were intended for," Fossa said.

Okay, first off "an old grenade or a shell" is absolutely nothing like what you're dealing with here. They're made of metal and have gunpowder in them. You know, actual explosives. They're potentially deadly. This thing isn't.

But Jesus, it sure sounds like they're keen on finding these evil but surprisingly inept terrorists. Probably because they think they're being targeted. Maybe they've seen too much nonsense on the internet about blowing up cars with drano bombs. It doesn't happen, guys.

Here, let me assist the FPD with their investigation. I'll provide the motive!

Ready?

Loud noises are fun. Explosions are fun. Science is fun. These things were set off for the same reason people set off fireworks: It's fun. That's what it was "intended for."

Now maybe you could spend your time and effort on things that don't involve trying to cover your asses after one of your officers got scared by a loud noise. Please?

History repeats itself, is even stupider the second time.

Back in 2007 I would sometimes write posts for Hello Fitchburg. Then one day I stopped because I am lazy, and Mr. Lincoln over there does just fine without me scuzzing the place up.

Anyway, one of those posts was entitled Scary Loud Pop Terrorizes Fitchburg.

I recommend you read it before continuing with this post, but the gist of it was that the Sentinel reported on a "tinfoil bomb" that made a loud noise and scared some people.

There's also a video over there where you can see how similar "bombs" work, and see for yourself that they're considerably less dangerous than say, dropping a glass in your kitchen.

Of course, 2007 was a simpler time. We were all scared of scary terrorists scaring us. Surely some overreaction was to be expected!

Now it's 2009, and what do we find in today's Sentinel?

Fitchburg Police: Bottle explodes near cruiser!!!!!!!!

Well, at least they're not calling it a "bomb" anymore. That's progress. Let's see what the article has to say:

A small explosion caused the State Police Bomb Squad to respond to a Myrtle Avenue incident Wednesday night, according to Deputy Fire Chief Robert Haley.

Holy fuck they called out the bomb squad! That totally negates the "not calling it a bomb" progress, plus some! This must have been bad!

Haley said police responded to a call of a disturbance on Myrtle Avenue shortly before 7 p.m. Wednesday night. He said when police arrived on scene, a small explosion occurred near a police cruiser.

"The officer on scene said the noise and percussion was quite great," he said.

Okay, that headline was sort of misleading. It doesn't sound like someone was trying to blow up a police cruiser with soda-bottle-based terror, the cruiser just parked near someone's toy at a bad time and the cop had apparently had too much coffee or something.

It gets worse:

Haley said police and fire on scene found another similar looking bottle in the street. He said they were filled with some sort of liquid and aluminum foil, which reacts, builds up pressure in a two-liter soda bottle and eventually explodes.

Fitchburg officials called in the State Police Bomb Squad from Devens to handle the second bottle they found.

"We didn't know what's in it, so, as a precaution, we call in the experts," Haley said.

Umm... you just said what was in it...

The liquid was probably Drano, by the way. Which is icky, but hardly a substance that requires the bomb squad. It probably would have been cheaper and quicker to call a plumber.

Two-liter soda bottles are also not known for causing particularly bad shrapnel. Unless you're handling the thing naked when it goes off, you're probably pretty safe.

This part makes me giggle:

State Police officials arrived around 8 p.m. and used a computerized robot to maneuver around the street. The robot traveled over to a green bottle sitting near some trash barrels to examine it. State Police controlled the robot from the back of a pickup truck using cameras mounted on the robot.

Yes, they used a bomb disposal robot (base cost: about $25,000, more with addons like cameras) to handle an old soda bottle with a piece of aluminum foil in it. Your tax dollars are well-spent!

Onward, dumb article!

The bottle did not immediately explode upon being agitated by the robot. Haley said State Police troopers and an officer from the State Fire Marshal's office eventually deactivated the second bottle to keep it from exploding by releasing pressure built up in the bottle.

Yes, they "deactivated" the second bottle. In other words, they unscrewed the cap.

Not that they actually needed to even do that. If the thing didn't explode during the whole arrive on scene, call bomb squad, wait for bomb squad to arrive, play with funny robot sequence, there was no way it was ever going to build up enough pressure to blow. Especially on such a cold night.

But, umm... TERROR!

Oh, here's a video of a similar device. Totally terrifying!



Man, did you see what that bottle-bomb did to that pile of leaves? It slightly messed them up! Also, I think those guys were foreigners due to their crazy pronunciation of "aluminum." Al Qaeda? Perhaps!

One last bit of the article:

He said Fitchburg Police and the State Fire Marshal are investigating the incident and where the bottles came from.

Thank god! Someone needs to protect us from these terrorists!

I want to see bomb squads at every science fair (vinegar & baking soda volcano = terror!)! I want robots picking up my recycling just in case one of the bottles is a secret IED! I want Pop Rocks outlawed! If someone overinflates his bicycle tire so it explodes, he should be sent to prison!

Now is the time, people! We must be vigilant against teenagers making loud noises that couldn't possibly hurt anybody! Otherwise Al Qaeda wins!

Jimmy Writes a Newspaper Article: A short play.

Hello readers.

I am taking a lot of cold medicine and have just read the most wonderful article in the Sentinel.

It's about a study! A study that purports to show that kids who watch sexy tv are more likely to get teen-pregnated than kids who don't. It has inspired me to write this short play about the writing of the story.

Keep in mind this is entirely fictitious. It's a fantasy of what may have gone into the writing of this piece of journalistic brilliance, nothing more. Enjoy!

---

Characters:

• Mr. Crinchley: The editor of the paper. Known for his conservative social stances and tendency to blame broad social problems on things like rap music or bikini waxing.
• Jimmy: Cub reporter for the paper. Idealistic go-getter who has not yet been beaten down by the world.
• Kids #1,2 & 3: just kids, may all be played by the same kid if necessary.
• Dr. Foureyes: some liberal elitist intellectual.

Scene opens in Mr. Crinchley's office, where Jimmy is getting assigned a story:

Mr. Crinchley: Jimmy, I have a job for you.

Jimmy: Gee willikers, that's great boss! What do you need me to do?

Mr. Crinchley: I have this press release here from the RAND corporation. It says that watching dirty tv shows makes kids get pregnant. I require you turn it into a story so I can write an editorial about it in a few days.

Jimmy: Golly, boss, I don't know much about research methods or whatever. This is going to be a head-scratcher!

Mr. Crinchley: Goddammit son! I don't want boring stories about research methods! That's what the liberal intellectual elitists want you to do, with their fancy haircuts and arugula-sandwiches, and high school diplomas, and ivory egghead towers, and... [goes on muttering for awhile]

Jimmy [interrupting]: But boss, how can I make this a story and not just a press release? Also, why is the RAND corporation doing research on teen pregnancy? Don't they usually deal with national security matters?

Mr. Crinchley: It's all the same, Jimmy! As you'll learn when you grow up to be a conservative newspaper editor like myself, all these things we're upset about are part of the same vast conspiracy.
First there was the bombing of the USS Cole, then 9/11, now it's sexy tv shows that are forcing our daughters to get knocked up by Mexicans!

Jimmy: Mexicans?

Mr. Crinchley: Mexicans! And Muslims too! [quietly] Must never forget the Muslims... Also, probably they're turning our kids gay!

Jimmy: Ummm... I think the Muslims and gays might be outside the realm of this study.

Mr. Crinchley: Good journalistic instincts, Jimmy! You'll be an ace reporter yet!

Jimmy beams.

Mr. Crinchley: Anyway, go out there and interview some teenagers about this research that neither I, nor you, nor they have actually read. That'll get to the bottom of whether or not it's true.

Jimmy: Sure thing, boss!


Jimmy leaves the office and heads to the local mall, or school, or wherever it is he can find teenagers. Upon finding them, he goes up and steels himself for an interview.


Jimmy: Hey kids! Who wants to be interviewed to be in the paper? You'll be famous!

Kids all mumble half-hearted okays.

Jimmy (to Kid 1): Okay, you first. I only actually have one question and here it is: A study by very smart people says that kids watching sexy tv shows leads to higher teen pregnancy. Are they right?

Kid 1: Huh? I guess. I'm only fifteen.

Jimmy: Thanks! [to himself]: Excellent, that's the solid confirmation from a trusted source that I needed!

Jimmy (to Kid 2): How about you? These people did a long and expensive study and say that sex on tv makes kids have babies. Are you going to argue with them?

Kid 2: I guess not.

Jimmy (to Kid 2): Surprise followup! What do you watch on tv?

Kid 2: Oh, mostly PBS and the Discovery Channel.

Jimmy: Ever watch MTV?

Kid 2: Once in awhile, I guess.

Jimmy (excitedly): MTV it is! [chuckles] Oh you kids and your MTV! I know how it is, I used to love it myself!

Kid 2: Whatever. I have to go. [walks away]

Jimmy (to Kid 3): Hey last kid! Will watching sex on tv make you get pregnant?

Kid 3: No, that's dumb. What the hell is wrong with you?

Jimmy: Great! Conflict like this makes for a good story! Is it okay if I quote you and then twist everything around to basically say you're wrong?

Kid 3: No.

Jimmy: Too bad. Now get lost, kid!


Kid 3 walks away looking annoyed. Kid 1, who is still hanging around for some reason, spots Dr. Foureyes and calls out to him.


Kid 1: Hey Dr. Foureyes! Come talk to this reporter guy!

Jimmy (to himself): Hmm, maybe I can sneak one egghead in past Mr. Crinchley, if it makes the story better.

Dr. Foureyes (walking over): Hi there Kid 1. What's this all about?

Jimmy: I have a question for you, doctor. Would you mind?

Dr. Foureyes (cleaning his glasses): Certainly not, my good man. Ask away!

Jimmy: Does sexy tv make people pregnant?

Dr. Foureyes: That question is idiotic. If you're talking about the recent study by the RAND corporation, then I'd need to actually read the article in Pediatrics and examine their methodology before I can speculate on the validity of the study. Do you have a copy?

Jimmy (looking confused): No. Why would I?

Dr. Foureyes: Because you're writing a newspaper article about it. Shouldn't you have at least read the study you're supposed to be reporting on?

Jimmy: You're a wacky one, doc! Could you just answer the question? TV makes people get pregnant: yes or no?

Dr. Foureyes: As I've said, it's impossible for me to adequately critique a study I haven't read. However, since you seem so insistent I will say that I strongly suspect that even if a correlation can be shown there is unlikely to be a causative relationship.

Jimmy: I don't know what most of those words mean. Yes or no?

Dr. Foureyes: I suspect no.

Jimmy: Great, thanks doc!


Jimmy interviews a few more kids, then leaves and returns to the newspaper office, where he writes his story in record time. He presents it to Mr. Crinchley for approval.


Mr. Crinchley: Jimmy, this is a totally biased article. You present almost no points of view except those who agree with the outcome of the study, you mostly interviewed people who are in no way qualified to judge the study, and the few qualified or opposing points of view were immediately discarded.

Jimmy: Does that mean you don't like it?

Mr. Crinchley: Haven't you been listening, Jimmy? I love it!


Jimmy and Mr. Crinchley share a hug. Curtain closes.

THE END

Taxes are boring.

The onslaught of Sentinel articles about how awesome Donnelly is continues!

Today's entry is called Donnelly sets foreclosed home as backdrop for tax debate. It's really really fucking boring.

There's a dual tax rate in Fitchburg for homes and businesses, you see. And there's a shift thingy. Donnelly backs a 137 percent shift, while Wong supports a 136 percent shift! Oh my god! That's an incredibly huge difference!

To wit:

Under the 137 percent shift, the owner of a $219,934 house pays a yearly bill of $2,585. Under Wong's plan to shift 136 percent, the same resident's tax bill would increase by $5.18 a year.

Wait... five bucks???

I probably have five bucks in change in my couch! This is worth a press conference and newspaper article? Wow, what an important issue to the people in town!

Rest assured, people of Fitchburg, Tom Donnelly wants to make sure you can afford that extra pack of cigarettes!

Donnelly said even though it is a small shift, any increase on residential property taxes is difficult for residents to swallow.

"I would keep taxes low to help homeowners in these hard times," Donnelly said

Thank you Tom! My five bucks will be well-spent on booze! It's actually very easy to swallow that way.

The business benefits Wong sees are similarly pretty minor...

Shifting to a 136 percent classification rate, as Wong supports, would save commercial businesses an average of $41.94 on a lot worth $332,085 and would save a $643,025 industrial lot owner $81.22.

Yay! That's like one or two printer cartridges! Go business go!

Really, I couldn't care less about all this. I wouldn't even have made this post except for this one bizarre statement in the article...

Donnelly said he is not opposed to shifting the tax rate toward a single-tax rate, but said now is not the time.

"You make changes in good times, not bad," Donnelly said.

Huh?

Tom, during good times it generally makes sense to keep things going the way they are (or change them for the better). During bad times is exactly the right time to make changes!

Also, what the fuck, Sentinel?

Every couple of days Donnelly says something totally insignificant and the Sentinel slobbers all over him like a two-dollar whore. Every article begins with "Donnelly blah blah blah." Every story presents his dumbass statements as something important and relegates Wong to a rebuttal role. It's getting to be really annoying.

It's not like I ever expected the Sentinel to back Wong. Or to be anything but totally biased against her, actually. But it's just getting ridiculous.

On the bright side, nobody in town actually gives a shit what the Sentinel has to say. So there's that.

I guess we know who the Sentinel's going to endorse!

I think that Tom Donnelly and the Sentinel & Enterprise newspaper are in an abusive relationship.

During the last debate, Donnelly attacked the paper as being one of the big problems the city faces, what with its negativity and all. That was before he decided he liked negativity, of course.

You'd think the local paper would respond by being a little cold to him. Maybe saying "Hey Tom, we don't have to take this kind of shitty treatment from you!" and then trying to make him look bad or something. But you'd be wrong!

Instead what we get is this sloppy blowjob of an article on how he loves change. There was also another one recently about the stupid boring financial stuff. It's like the Sentinel is trying to win his love!

Which I guess is common in an abusive relationship, but is still a bit sad. Don't you know he's just going to hurt you again, Sentinel? Get out while you can!

The clincher came today, in the deceptively named and super-long-titled Donnelly draws support from majority of city's public officials as candidate for mayor.

That's a pretty dramatic statement! Also, it makes one question why the city's current "public officials" are so out of sync with the rest of the city. I wonder if that's why there's an anti-incumbent feeling in the air.

Not to worry though, the article isn't really about a majority of the city's public officials. At least not in the way that any reasonably competent third-grader would understand it. Allow me to quote!

A majority of city councilors support Thomas Donnelly in the race for mayor against Lisa Wong, according to interviews with each of the councilors.

Six of the 11 members of the City Council, including the candidate himself, support Donnelly, while four are uncommitted and only one said he supports Wong instead of Donnelly.

Wow...

That's totally fucking meaningless.

First, let's not be idiots here. Donnelly doesn't get to count as a Donnelly supporter! We'll just disregard him, which leaves 5 supporters out of 11 members of the City Council. Which is not a majority of the City Council. Even if we knock it down to 10 members because we disqualified Donnelly himself it's not a majority. It's half.

Also, there are quite a lot more "public officials" in the city than the 11 people on the city council! The mayor and the school committee come to mind instantly. So what the hell, Sentinel? Are you so desperate to win back your man that you're willing to ignore basic facts? (The answer to that is "No, the Sentinel has always been willing to ignore basic facts!")

But just looking at the City Council, one has to wonder what the deal is. Take ten people (because to include Donnelly would be incredibly stupid); five support Donnelly, one supports Wong, and the remaining 4 mysteriously won't say who they support.

Well, I think we can safely say that Ted DeSalvatore probably doesn't support either, and that neither candidate wants his support. So really we have three who are keeping their thoughts to themselves.

Why would someone do that? Are they really so wishy-washy that they don't care? Everyone interviewed basically said they'd be fine with either candidate, so maybe. Or, you know, maybe the ones who won't pick a side just don't want to embarrass the guy they have to work with on the City Council itself. Just a thought.

I mean, you'd think it would be pretty easy to say they support Donnelly if they really did, right? Saying you support Wong could lead to some pretty dirty looks during the City Council meetings though. Plus Donnelly might not pick up the tab when you stop in at the bar for a few drinks after the meeting! (That's not to say Tom buys votes with beer, just that I've often seen a segment of the Council hanging out together after meetings.)

So our fence-sitters are probably one of a few things:

• Really undecided: could be, but I honestly have trouble understanding how anyone can be undecided.
• Wong supporters who don't want to tick off Donnelly: aforementioned dirty looks and beer bills.
• Donnelly supporters who don't want to tick off Wong: because she's probably going to be mayor and all that.
• Weenies who don't want to piss off anyone: because they're weenies.

But you know what? I don't care at all!

Seriously, who the fuck would care? It's 11 people in a town of 40,000. Eleven people who are at the very least complicit in getting the city into the crappy state it's currently in. These are not people who I trust for advice on who can make things better!

Also, they're people who spend time around Donnelly at City Council meetings, and are presumably at least on civil terms with him in most cases. I bet if you take a group of eleven people that spend time around Wong you're probably going to find that at least half of them support her for mayor too!

So what's the lesson from all this? Aside from "you shouldn't read the Sentinel" there really isn't any! It's a totally meaningless dyscalculaic article about nothing of any importance to anybody!

But here's what I imagine they were thinking/saying while preparing the article:

Reporter guy: "Hey, did you hear that Donnelly is all about changing the status quo now? Well, other elected officials who helped him to actually create the status quo sort of tepidly support him!"
Editor guy: "Stop the presses! Maybe he'll like us again if we run with this story!"

Seriously Sentinel, stop trying so hard. It just makes you look desperate, and he'll just hurt you again!


ps Also there was an article in a real newspaper about the race! See here for the Boston Globe's take on the financial non-story.