Crime down, doomsayers disappointed

Good news for people like me who keep insisting crime in Fitchburg isn't as bad as people make it out to be. It actually isn't!

Or at least it's not as bad as it was in 2005, according to this article in the Fitchburg Pride about the Fitchburg Police Department's 2006 report.

According to the Fitchburg Police Department's 2006 annual report, overall crime in the city dropped 15 percent from 2005, especially in areas of drug incidents, breaking and entering, rapes and assaults.

Unfortunately, the most recent report on the FPD website is from 2004. It would be nice for them to put out some recent figures to the public, since people (particularly candidates) have been harping on how terrible crime is despite evidence suggesting otherwise.

So why's crime down? That of course is going to depend on who you ask. But Chief Edward Cronin had something to say that more public figures should listen to:

Cronin said the department has been focusing on more than just suppression, acknowledging through programs, reinforcement and advocacy that crime is a much larger issue affected by outside factors such as economics and race.

"We've generated a big picture way of looking at the problems," Cronin said. "You can't keep hitting things in one way, you can't keep arresting people and ignore the outside factors that have contributed to the crime, and minority status and poverty are right on top."

Holy crap! Address the roots of crime instead of just blindly focusing on enforcement and things actually improve!

He goes on:

He says the department's approaches are about empowering others.

"It's not about things like language, but the affirmation of who someone is when they walk in here and about serving the community honestly and with humility because in my mind, that's what leadership means," he said.

"I'm not saying we don't have problems," he continued, "But we're making progress without having to use thug policing. I have always said that our community is not our enemy."

Indeed it's not.

One of the big problems with things like the "Liberty Walk" is that they treat the community as the enemy. Almost explicitly in that case, since the idea was to get a bunch of people who didn't live in the "bad" neighborhood to walk through that neighborhood, essentially belittling the people who do live there. It's no wonder they were met with scorn by the residents. They were treating that entire community as an enemy, one they could apparently only face with an army of like-minded walkers with them.

Ted DeSalvatore's vigilantism does the same thing. As I quoted in an earlier post:

DeSalvatore admits he regularly walks through neighborhoods in his ward which have a reputation for drugs and violence, often taking videotape and calling the police if he spots illegal activity.
DeSalvatore also acknowledges that certain people often ask him to leave, which he refuses to do.
He says that on one recent occasion, he told a confrontational young man on Elm Street, "I'm going to be back here every day just for you."

Clearly, to some of our mayoral candidates, the community is the enemy.

Glad to see Chief Cronin has the right attitude.

Incidentally, don't expect people to drop the spurious "crime is out of control!" claims. They've never been based on facts anyway, so more recent facts aren't going to change anything.

This is getting tiresome.

Candidates announcing they're running for things just isn't that exciting.

Donnelly's officially in the mayoral race, having pulled papers yesterday.

He had a few things to say, but has yet to really present a platform. He does think the town needs a CFO, which given our recent bond rating issue makes sense.

That's about the only idea presented in the Sentinel piece though, aside from a vague (and somewhat naive) statement that places that can't stand on their own feet shouldn't necessarily get federal grant money to help them. Not sure what to think about that, but the thought requires more fleshing out before it can be either accepted or rejected.

Whatever the case, he should make haste on presenting a damn platform!

Dean Tran is also running for re-election to City Council. Like every other damn candidate for everything he thinks we need business growth.

He's also proud of his sex-offender law, which I already discussed back in October. Aside from his unhealthy obsession with sex offenders (which is hardly uncommon in politics these days), Tran seems like a pretty decent councilor. So good luck to him I guess.

On a non-election related note, I stumbled across the Sentinel's Locals reflect on four years of war article and was struck by this remarkably honest but geographically delusional quote:

Leominster resident Antonio DiGeronimo, 92, said he thinks the war is necessary.

"We have to protect our oil," he said.

Holy fuck.

Here's another one

Well, we have another mayoral candidate. Or will shortly, anyway.

According to a whopping four paragraphs in the Sentinel, city councilor Thomas Donnelly is indeed going to run for mayor. He hasn't pulled papers for it just yet, but has confirmed that he plans to.

That's it. That just told you absolutely everything of significance in the Sentinel piece. Gee, I wonder who the local press is going to back...

Anyway, I don't know a whole hell of a lot about Donnelly, but from what I can gather he seems like a pretty decent guy. He opposes Dean Tran's dumbass idea to put sex offender names on water bills, which means he has at least half a brain.

Once he announces a platform (supposed to happen in "the coming weeks") there will be something to talk about. For now just thank your lucky stars there's a viable alternative to Mylott and DeSalvatore.

Oh, and if you're in the mood go over to the Fitchburg Pride Poll and give him a vote. He's already got half the votes of the ballot-stuffing DeSalvatore team. Even if you don't support him, it'd be nice just to even things up.

(PS If you're a geek like me and use the Firefox NoScript extension, set it to temporarily allow fitchburgpride.com or the JavaScript-based poll won't show up for you.)

Everybody Running for Everything

Oh boy, there are candidates aplenty these days.

First, the local crazy people are aflutter over Ted DeSalvatore's official announcement that he's running for mayor. (even though we've known he'll be doing this for months).

Here's one of those crazy people now:

Patty E. Martin, who owns The Hair Cottage and is a lifelong resident, said to see the decline in the city “and not have anybody recognize it until certain people have stepped forward is very enlightening.”

“He’s a man of the people,” she said, “and for some reason you were led to this city, and you’re going to lead the city to a brighter future.”

Mr. DeSalvatore has found himself at odds with some of his colleagues on the council.

Mrs. Martin said she is proud of how he handles himself at meetings when “negativity” comes up. This is an effort to distract him from the issues, she said.

Of course, this focus on "negativity" is bound to be a recurring theme in Ted's campaign, with Ted presented as the "positive" candidate and everyone who disagrees with him portrayed as negative. Never mind that the only negativity we've really seen is other city councilors saying Ted's ideas suck. And that's only because they do.

Second, (but the first to announce, sorry Ted) is mayoral candidate Ronald Dionne, who pulled papers on Tuesday. The Sentinel didn't bother to report on it until Thursday though, because he's not Ted.

I don't know a whole lot about Dionne. He's a Democrat, he's been manager of the old Child World toy store, managed a liquor store, and was a truck driver. (Incidentally Ted is an independent, presumably because it suits his self-styled rebel image. Or because no party would have him.)

Right now those (fairly paltry) qualifications put Dionne well ahead of dangerous Ted DeSalvatore and incompetent Dan Mylott in my book, which is pretty sad.

Finally, Peter Allaire is a 58-year old former firefighter and is running for the Ward 5 city council position. He did say this, which I agree with:

"I'd like to see things in downtown that could draw college kids to Main Street."

However:

Allaire's brother used to be married to Cynthia Allaire, manager of the now-defunct Club Karma and the new Bourbon Street Food and Spirits.

Why is that a "however"? Well, DeSalvatore has some ties with Club Karma. Some potentially unethical ties.

That may or may not reflect badly on Allaire. But if he's a DeSalvatore groupie then he could very well be a dick. Time will tell.

On a side note about Club Karma, a friend of mine used to work part-time there and told me they had "bikini bull riding" on Thursday nights, which sounds awesome. She also told me the boss was a total raving jackass, which isn't so awesome.

So there you have it, three candidates I can't get the slightest bit excited about. One of whom worries me deeply (guess which!).

Which brings me to the next point; are you curious about which of the local papers has the biggest hard-on for DeSalvatore? Wonder no more, it's easy to measure!

• The Worcester Telegram isn't too excited:

  A string of supporters stood up last night to talk about the candidate they were backing, while an audience of about 50 people looked on in the Stonehaven Restaurant.

• The Fitchburg Sentinel & Enterprise is getting a little excited:

  "It is my hope that in '08, we can bar the egos and the shenanigans from City Hall," DeSalvatore told about 60 people who attended a kick-off dinner Thursday at Stonehaven Food & Spirits.

• Fitchburg Pride is raring to go:

  "I guess I'm in this for the long haul," DeSalvatore told a crowd of about 70 people at the Stonehaven Restaurant. "I am your candidate for change."

Congratulations, Fitchburg Pride! You win!



[Addendum] Wait a second! "[B]ar the egos and the shenanigans from City Hall"? Did Ted just disqualify himself at his own kick-off dinner?

Crap

Word of warning to my fellow Linux users. Don't use the Konqueror web browser to write posts on Blogger. Or if you do certainly don't hit "preview" at any time.

Argh.

Oh yeah, and someone else is running for city council. Youngish. Likes to run. Bad puns could ensue.

Also, the Fitchburg Pride newspaper is hilariously bad. Many jokes to be made. Especially about religion in the Corner Corner and the written-by-someone's-eight-year-old-brother expose on typing "Fitchburg" into search engines. Hilarity!

City Council candidate offers youth, freedom from Decepticon tyranny

It was with a bit of pleasure I read this morning's news about 22-year old Shaun Cormier, who will be running for City Council this fall.

First of all, it's almost always good to bring youth into situations like this. Yes, people will automatically fault him for inexperience, but that can be overcome if he has decent enough ideas. And it sounds like he's at least on the right track:

He suggested a tax incentive for first-time homeowners, and said the city should work to attract recreation-oriented businesses such as a miniature golf course or an arcade.

He's also eyeing the empty movie theater on Main Street.

"It's been vacant for so long. We really need to explore ways to make it more lively again," Cormier said.

The theater could be a concert venue, or could be converted to a dance club, he suggested, noting that the club could have some 21-plus nights, but could also host 18-plus nights when no alcohol is served.

All pretty solid ideas, if you ask me.

That theater on Main Street is just ripe for improvement, and while there may be some issues with it (I hear the inside isn't quite fit for man nor beast in its current state), it's got potential. Personally, I'd like to see it become an art-house movie theater, but the club idea isn't terrible.

Either way, it's nice to see someone with some reasonable ideas for actually drawing people into town.

It's still quite early of course, so there's a while yet to see if he actually has viable plans or not, but in trying to find out just who Shaun Cormier is I found this page containing an interview.

The S&E article mentioned him working for Hasbro, and the interview goes into glorious detail:

There are times I do get to play with toys, but that’s only after I have repaired them, finished programming them, or built the electronics for them. Although to me, programming a toy is just like playing with a toy. I am programming the movement of the toy for the final production change.

Nice, so he's at least a fairly smart guy with some intellectual curiosity. Why he's getting into politics is beyond me. Regardless, here's the really important bit:

One of the toys I am working on is called Butterscotch. It is a life size miniature pony that moves its head and blows air out of its nostrils. I’m working on some new Spiderman toys that won’t be out until 2007, some Transformers, and some of the Playskool line.

So not only does he make Transformers (which is awesome), but he makes some sort of demonic horse creature which will surely be involved with bringing about the forthcoming apocalypse!

Based on his experience both with taming fire-breathing stallions of doom and his experience with the complex political climate of the planet Cybertron, he definitely looks like the most qualified candidate in some time.

[Update 3/1/07] A friend who worked with Cormier a few years back has indicated that Cormier's intellectual curiosity at the time he knew him was in fact rather lacking. Hopefully that situation has changed, but the jury's still out on this one until more is known.

Said friend also made fun of the mini-golf and arcade ideas, which I have to agree are pretty weak (does anybody still go to arcades anymore?), but the basic premise of increasing recreational activities I think is still sound.

Nevertheless, Transformers are still awesome!

Piles of bullshit

I don't typically aim to get into national politics here, but when the local paper is running opinion pieces that lack the slightest intellectual honesty it's time to make an exception.

Today's craptacular editorial is entitled Hypocrisy in Congress, and comes to us courtesy of either the Sentinel & Enterprise or one of the copywriters at their parent MediaNews Group. (I'm going to assume the latter, since the NH Broacaster has the exact same editorial.)

Let's start at the beginning:

Two weeks ago, congressional Democrats and Republicans extended unconditional support to Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, President Bush's new commander in Iraq.

Really? "Unconditional support" seems like an odd thing to offer, given that they'd totally be abdicating their responsibility of oversight.

In fact, nobody offered anything like unconditional support of Gen. Petraeus's strategies or anything else. What they did was to vote for his confirmation unanimously. Unanimous is not the same as unconditional. When right-wing media tool Chris Wallace made the same dubious connection, here's what Jim Webb had to say:

WEBB: When the administration puts forward a general officer to fill a billet that exists, I will take a look at his qualifications and see whether I believe he is qualified to be a commander. That doesn't mean that I have to back a political strategy that impels him into motion.

Back to the editorial:

However, those same lawmakers that praised Petraeus are now working to deny the crucial funding the general needs for his troops to get the job done.

What hypocrites!

Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, and a host of Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid, Sen. Ted Kennedy and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are working together to get approved a non-binding resolution condemning Bush's troop surge and the money required to support the mission.

Interesting leap of logic here.

Warner, Reid, and Kennedy all voted to confirm Petraeus. That vote was to put him in position as commander of the Mulitnational Force in Iraq. Not for a troop escalation, nor for any of Bush's other plans. Simply for Petraeus as being qualified for the job he was nominated for. Period.

There's no hypocrisy at work here, there's oversight. That's something the conservative press has a hard time accepting, so maybe I can provide a metaphor that could help.

Let's say I run a factory and have just hired a new foreman. The board of directors has approved him as being someone who's fit for the job. We're having trouble with our production due to some machines that have broken down. The new "Diplomacy 1500 (r)" machine is sputtering terribly, for instance, and a number of men have died trying to replace its normal role (which involves welding thermite to TNT or something, you get the point).

Ignoring this, I decide the best course of action would be to hire 21,000 more employees to do the incredibly hazardous job the machine used to do. My foreman agrees with me that this would be effective. The board of directors, on the other hand, thinks we should fix the damn machine and refuses to fund the new hires. Some dolt at the local paper than accuses the board of being hypocrites for hiring the foreman even though he disagrees with them.

This isn't hypocrisy, it's oversight. It's what's keeps us from making horrifically stupid mistakes over and over again, and it's what was missing when Republicans controlled Congress.

At least there's one thing I can agree with in this editorial:

If pulling the plug on all U.S. military operations in Iraq is what Congress really wants, then lawmakers should do it

Yes, yes they should.

Doesn't play well with others.

In what will come as a surprise to no one, Ted DeSalvatore is not very popular with his peers.

Two city councilors say that Ward 4 Councilor Ted E. DeSalvatore is a divisive force on the council, and works to advance his own interests, not those of the city.

But DeSalvatore said the opposite is true: It is the other councilors who take issue with him, and who advance personal agendas.

Here, DeSalvatore is utilizing the "I know you are but what am I?" strategy of debate. Well done, Ted!

"I have grown tired of (DeSalvatore's) implications that his fellow councilors' actions are always of a political nature, while his actions and intentions are always so noble. I see things very differently," Ward 5 Councilor Stephan Hay said during Tuesday's City Council meeting.

Hay and Councilor at-large Thomas Conry both spoke Tuesday night, and disputed DeSalvatore's claims -- printed in a newspaper article last week -- that councilors made "backdoor deals" prior to choosing a new councilor Tuesday night.

"I find this insulting and untrue," Hay said. "Since this process began, I have not been asked by one councilor other than Mr. DeSalvatore to vote for a specific individual. And Councilor DeSalvatore did not ask me to vote for someone; he told me who I should vote for."

The quoted remarks "were false, contained innuendoes and pure suppositions," Conry said.

So, contrary to the "backdoor deals" innuendo previously published (by this same newspaper, natch), apparently the only person trying to rig the election of a new councilor was Ted himself.

At least Ted's honest about one thing:

DeSalvatore acknowledged that tension exists between him and other councilors.

Too bad he thinks it's because he's Sir Galahad and they're a bunch of demons out to steal his Grail (yes, that's a strained metaphor).

"There is a core group that will stand against me because they don't like the way I haven't fallen into place," he said.

Here's a little lesson in human relations, Ted. The other councilors "stand against you" because you do things like slander them to the local bootlick press, not because you're some kind of dashing maverick.

Additionally, it's just conceivable that they disagree with you because all of your ideas are profoundly stupid. Perhaps they'd like to see the town become a better place and are frustrated at having to drive over the speed bump of your ideas to get there.

While I may not be crazy about Dan Mylott as a mayor, I do like his statement.

"Things have been said about the council that are not true," Mylott said.

He added that he hopes DeSalvatore will "start to moderate those loud utterances that really don't make a lot of sense."

I believe that would be all of DeSalvatore's utterances, Mr. Mayor.

While the Sentinel's article focused rightfully on Ted being a dick, the new weekly paper Fitchburg Pride (providing a conservative weekly alternative to the conservative daily paper) focused their website's "Breaking News" for Wednesday pretty much exclusively on Mylott. Perhaps saying anything substantial about Ted's social problems makes them less proud.

The paper named after a high-school pep rally ran the headline "Mylott stands by comments critical of DeSalvatore" and the body of the article contained this:

Mayor Dan Mylott stood behind comments that were made last night by councilors Stephan Hay and Thomas Conry, Jr. towards fellow councilor Ted DeSalvatore. Last week, DeSalvatore said he thought councilors were colluding to select a replacement for an empty City Counicl [sic] seat.

"It is causing dissention [sic] among councilors," said Mylott.

He responded to comments people have made about backroom politics among council members, saying it is not true, and that councilors are open about their opinions. DeSalvatore is considered a likely candidate for mayor, as is the three-term Mylott.

The rest of the article dealt primarily with Mylott's plan to fine delinquent "industrial wastewater users", whatever they are.

Thank god we have an alternative press in Fitchburg!

Are DeSalvatore's plans for a mayoral run in trouble? I really doubt it. This is a man who fancies himself an "outsider", surely he couldn't care less if he has the ability to behave with civility towards the people he'd have to work with as Mayor. Surely he can get more done going it totally alone, right?

Of course, some voters may recognize that it would be unwise for a mayor to constantly make an ass of himself and alienate people like the city council and the chief of police. At least I hope so.

Exploration time!

Good news, everyone! The "exuberant" Ted DeSalvatore has formed an exploratory committee to look into running for mayor!

"It's a question of making sure, that's all," DeSalvatore said Friday.

"There seems to be an incredible outpouring to have me run for mayor, from the community," he said. "The exploratory committee has the task at hand of making sure that what we're hearing is in fact the truth, and not just the figment of the imagination of a number of people."

Well, I can answer that even without a committee.

There's a subset of people in Fitchburg who think Ted DeSalvatore is the cat's pajamas. A small subset. They're the ones with the good imaginations. They're also noisy. There's another subset that thinks he's an embarrassment to the city. Also a small subset. Less noisy, but more sane. Then there's a whole lot of people out there who have no idea who he is or what he thinks. It's those people he'd have to win over to become mayor.

Of course, that's easier said than done. Every time he opens his mouth something stupid comes out, and once he's officially a mayoral candidate more people are going to start to pay attention. At that point they'll realize he'd make a much better cartoon character than he would a mayor. A well-informed voting public is not Ted's friend.

But city residents have urged him to run, saying that "crime is out of control" and "the city has absolutely lost its friendliness," the councilor said.

Well, having an unfriendly city sure is problematic. I don't really see how you can blame that on the mayor though. I'd blame the weather. And the racially divisive marches.

As for crime, it certainly is slightly higher than in neighboring Leominster. But "out of control"? We're lower than the state average overall, though we do rank higher than the state average for violent crime. Let's call it a tossup. Crime could always be lower.

Of course, a mayor generally has to work well with the Chief of Police to do anything about crime. Given DeSalvatore's extremely rocky relationship with Chief Cronin I'm not sure that places him as the best man for the job. Maybe he'll just take his vigilanteism to the next level and run around town in his Bat-Mayor costume to deal with crime personally.

In other news, Dan Mylott is also going to run for mayor again. Which is no great surprise, but hardly the stuff excitement is made of. While Mylott seems like he means well (the same can be said of DeSalvatore), he's just not proven himself to be a very effective mayor. He does have the benefit of experience and name recognition that DeSalvatore lacks (despite Ted's incessant publicity stunts), but there are also plenty of people who will vote for "anyone but Mylott" in the upcoming race.

Let's hope some more people get involved. Anyone, please.


However, one word of warning to any potential candidates named "Matthew" or "Matt". My trolls have taken time off from tossing Ted DeSalvatore's salad to warn me they won't be voting for you because they think you're me (yes, all of you). Apparently when my parents gave me the ninth most popular boy's name of 1975 they didn't count on the possibility that I would one day have a blog about local politics. Go figure.

Former city councilor Matt Straight is in particular trouble, since apparently it's hard for people who've gone off their Haldol to differentiate between us. Of course, he has bigger problems.

What this all means to you unfortunate Matts and Matthews is you potentially may lose up to three votes from people who would have voted for DeSalvatore anyway. Try not to lose any sleep over that.

On a side note: In an attempt to limit future confusion caused by my having one of the most popular names of the last century I will now be writing under the pseudonym of "The Unicow". Hopefully nobody was planning on voting for her anyway. Although she just may be the best choice we have right now.

Seriously, who could ever vote for this guy?

More Crazy Ted time!

I honestly don't go out of my way to find these things, but for some reason it's hard to read anything in the Sentinel these days without finding Ted DeSalvatore doing or saying something ridiculous.

Today's example comes from an article on The Compound nightclub getting shut down early by police:

Police shut down the Compound nightspot about an hour early Sunday morning because of an argument between two women which looked like it might "escalate," Sgt. Glenn C. Fossa said.

Pretty standard stuff. The Compound has had a few incidents in the past, and the city's License Commission has been critical of them lately so I suppose that closing an hour early is sort of newsworthy, even though there were no arrests.

But it doesn't make for a very exciting story. And how do you spice up a boring article? Call Crazy Ted!

Ward 4 Councilor Ted DeSalvatore, a former supporter of downtown's now-defunct Club Karma, said clubs which feature hip-hop will always face an uphill battle.

"I know that tends to bring in the clientele that can be a little tough to deal with it [sic], you know they just have to be a little more vigilant," DeSalvatore said, explaining that Club Karma's staff could not handle the sometimes violent crowds he said hip-hop music can attract.

Okay, I'll grant that a club that plays hip hop may bring in a younger and therefore more rowdy crowd than one that only plays John Tesh and Kenny G. But who in their right mind really thinks hip hop attracts "violent crowds" these days? It's about as mainstream as mainstream gets.

The Compound's web site says its upstairs features live bands, comfortable seating, and pool while the downstairs is "Hip Hop, Techno, and Top 40 Dance". Yeah, that's some hardcore gangsta shit there, alright.

Now, just blaming hip hop for violence would be dumb enough, but Ted rarely stops there. No, it's time to take it to a ridiculous and dangerous extreme!

DeSalvatore said he would consider putting a total stop to hip-hop in the city's bars and clubs, although he wondered if it would be legal to do so.

"If you are going to have regular violence that is due to hip-hop, maybe it should be something that should be banned," DeSalvatore said.

Two big problems here:

One: "regular violence that is due to hip-hop"? Ted, it's two girls fighting in a bar. I'm willing to bet it wasn't over the song selection. It's just possible that the alcohol being served had more to do with the fight than the music being played at the time.

Two: You can't fucking ban an entire genre of music just because you don't like it! Even suggesting such a thing should disqualify you from ever seeking higher office and probably earn you a remedial civics lesson on the Bill of Rights. Then maybe you'd realize that yes, there are some pretty big legal problems with banning music.

The likelihood of anything coming out of DeSalvatore's remarks is slim, but just knowing that he thinks along these lines is frightening. If this man gets any real power the city of Fitchburg is in big trouble.


[In honor of Ted's love of good Marxist hip hop, this post has been written while listening to The Coup's "Steal This Double Album".]

Dancing Christians Everywhere!

Yesterday there was an opinion piece in the Sentinel about the Christian Performing Arts Center (CPAC) that's moved onto Main St.

Reading it I felt a twinge of concern. A performing arts center is a fantastic thing to move into downtown Fitchburg, but what's with all the Christianity?

After all, we already have a Christian coffeehouse* right next door to the new CPAC. Despite being exactly the type of person to whom a coffeehouse should appeal, I've never gone in. Why? Because I'm quite openly an atheist and just don't feel like I'd be particularly welcome in such a place. Or if welcome, that I'd have to put up with a lot of pointless proselytizing. A well-run coffeehouse on Main Street would be a fantastic thing, but a Christian coffeehouse inherently limits its clientele.

Now, the argument could be made that Christians tend to stick together, so by being a "Christian coffeehouse" they guaranteed themselves a core group of religious folk. But it's coffee, people! I can't imagine someone opening a "Christian bar" or a "Christian pizza place". Why a Christian coffeehouse?

But that's the past. Now the Christian Performing Arts Center is opening. Plenty of great art has been been based on religious themes, and certainly I have nothing against people expressing their beliefs with artistic expression. My one concern was is this going to be something else that (like the coffeehouse) fractures people rather than bringing them together?

To try to figure this out I emailed Jen Potts of the CPAC and asked a couple of questions. First, are non-Christians allowed to participate (Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc)? Second, is the focus primarily on art or religion?

The answers were encouraging. Anyone can participate, and Jen explicitly stated she's not looking to "segregate our society" in any way. Now, their focus will clearly be Christian-themed (or at least Christian "worldview") performance, so it's debatable how many non-Christians would be interested in joining. But it's good to know that they're welcome anyway.

As for the focus, apparently it's really on the arts. The religious aspect can be used as a tool towards that end, and the material chosen needs to stick to the "Christian worldview". You're probalby not going to see them performing "The Vagina Monologues" any time soon, but frankly why the hell would you want to? Regardless, the focus seems to be on the art itself, with the performances (and possibly the instruction to some degree) having clear Christian overtones. Not my cup of tea, but not necessarily something that would prevent a non-Christian from getting involved for the love of the art itself.

Would I prefer a secular performing arts center? Yes, of course. But I have to give CPAC credit for doing what they believe in, so the best of luck to them.

So there you have it, possibly the first time I've ever agreed with an editorial in the Sentinel. Except for the end part about wanting to see a Barnes & Noble downtown. How about a nice independent bookstore that will actually give a shit about the community? Sheesh!



* As a friend pointed out to me, the local coffee house's name, "Common Ground", is shared by a chain operated by the Twelve Tribes cult. I assume this is coincidental. I certainly hope so, because the Twelve Tribes are a bit scary. In a nutshell:

The Twelve Tribes await the coming of the Messiah. Children play an integral part in the preparation for the Messiah and the Last Day. Freeing children from guilt and keeping their minds pure is a critical necessity. For this reason, teachings instruct that children not play with toys, play imaginary or fantasy games, have candy, or watch television or movies.
If a child disobeys these rules, does not respond on first command to an adult, or commits any other sinful act, he or she is spanked by his or her parent with a wooden rod which is an "eighteen inch, thin, flexible balloon stick meant to sting but not injure." When punished, the child is supposed to refrain from crying and thank the punisher, the reproof and instruction having built his character.
Members, upon entering the Community, renounce all possessions, in the spirit of living together communally and sharing all goods.

Eep!

Very Reasonable Man May Run For Mayor

Good news, people! Very reasonable (not batshit insane) person Ted DeSalvatore might run for mayor!

At least that's according to an article in yesterday's Worcester Telegram. It's not so much he's running for mayor yet though as it is that people just really, really want him to:

“I have had people ask me to run for every office: mayor, senator, governor and even president,” Mr. DeSalvatore said with a chuckle.

Mr. DeSalvatore, a first-term councilor from Ward 4, said he was floored when several of his supporters recently stepped forward and asked if they could throw him a party to thank him for his outspokenness on several issues facing the city.

The supporters, who have formed Team to Elect DeSalvatore, will hold an event on Jan. 27. Details will be forthcoming.

Take the Team to Elect DeSalvatore (aka TED) lightly at your own risk. They've already got a kickass website up really lame website they took down [updated 1/19].

It's hard to argue with the man's qualifications. After all, he's a first-term ward councilor. Also, he's a vigilante!

DeSalvatore admits he regularly walks through neighborhoods in his ward which have a reputation for drugs and violence, often taking videotape and calling the police if he spots illegal activity.
DeSalvatore also acknowledges that certain people often ask him to leave, which he refuses to do.
He says that on one recent occasion, he told a confrontational young man on Elm Street, "I'm going to be back here every day just for you."
DeSalvatore says he is only fulfilling the promises he made when he ran for City Council last fall.

I must have missed the part of his campaign when he promised to walk around invading people's privacy and harrassing young people. Which is a shame, because I would have loved to see people's reactions.

Whatever the case, if he does run for mayor it should make for some fantastically surreal debates. Go for it, Ted!

Happy New Year!

Well, I'm back from an interminable 10-day trip to Texas over the holidays. The highlight is reflected in this adorable picture of two meerkats at the Fort Worth Zoo. About 30 seconds after I took this picture they started having angry sex and making some horrifying noises. Children scattered. It was great!

I returned with a horrific cold, and in this sort of state I have a tendency to wander over to "Save Fitchburg". I made the mistake of looking at their poll today. It's about who you'd vote for for mayor if the election were held today. Horrifyingly, Ted DeSalvatore is way ahead. Not that I expect any less from the nice folks who visit Save Fitchburg, but yikes!

So, out of nothing more than antihistamines and spite I present my own poll:

---

How big an idiot is Ted "Liberty Walk" DeSalvatore?
	Really super hugely big, like crazy big man!
	Very very large indeed.
	Big, really big...
	So big he eclipses the sun.
	Bigger than Jesus.
	I think he's a very reasonable person, and you're an asshole for making this poll.

---

Only one vote per person please, this isn't the Sentinel & Enterprise.

Also, happy New Year!

Skeletor makes bad game, liberals do something stupid

For the last couple of weeks I've received a few emails from the generally excellent Campaign to Defend the Constitution (aka DefCon) about a new video game called "Left Behind: Eternal Forces".

If you're not familiar with the "Left Behind" franchise, it's based off Skeletor-lookalike rapture fundamentalist Tim LaHaye's popular book series. It's also spawned movies starring creepy Kirk Cameron. Now it's branched out to a crappy video game.

All well and good. Bad prose and bad movies often spawn bad video games.

Unfortunately, DefCon has gotten all in a snit over the game:

Just in time for Christmas, the religious right has released a violent video game in which born-again Christians aim to convert or kill those who don't adhere to their extreme ideology. Disturbingly, the game's apparent attempts at religious indoctrination are aimed at children and focus on violent, divisive, and hateful scenarios. While the religious right apparently has no problem pushing the product this holiday season, America's #1 video game seller should know better.

Take action now and urge Wal-Mart to stop selling religious violence this holiday season.

Now, I don't know if their main idea is to get major retailers not to sell the game at all of if they just want Wal-Mart to be consistent in its moralizing. Wal-Mart, of course, refuses to sell certain games due to content all the time. Either way, they're horribly misguided.

Worse yet, they've attracted other groups to their cause, and I've seen complaints about the game pop up on several liberal blogs.

One thing I thought the "reality based community" had a good grasp on was the fact that video games are not reality. Grand Theft Auto didn't make people go out and shoot hookers, Doom didn't cause the Columbine shootings, and Sim City has been responsible for very few city-planning disasters. Left Behind similarly is not going to cause its players to go out trying to kill or convert everyone they see (though some players may already have those propensities).

Unfortunately, the mainstream media has picked up on this story, which will mostly have the effect of selling more games. Reuters, AP, and the Boston Globe all have stories. I even heard it mentioned on Al Franken's Air America show (ugh, that's hard to admit listening to).

Here's some advice to liberals who want this game to go away. Shut up about it!

All indications are that it's a really terrible game based solely on its gameplay alone:

• IGN review: Scored 5.9 / 10
• GameSpy review: Scored 2 / 5
• GameStats review: Scored 4.0 / 10
• Gamespot review: Scored 3.4 / 10

This game can do a great job of failing on its own merits, it doesn't need anyone to help it along.

Yes, the premise offends a lot of people. It is pretty awful. But censorship is censorship, and there's no place for it.

It all reminds me of the truly awful game Postal, which came out back in 1997. It was violent and stupid and not the least bit fun to play, but I played it. So did enough other people that it got an equally stupid and violent sequel.

Why did so many people play such a craptastic game? Because Joe Lieberman made a public issue out of it (in return, easy mode in Postal 2 was named "Liebermode"). He gave a ton of free press to a bad game that would have died a quiet death under the boot of just not being very fun and made it sound cool.

So please liberals, leave the whining about video games to the conservatives and Joe Lieberman. Defend the company's right to make and distribute lousy games about offensive subject matter. Stick with reality, we've certainly got enough instances of the wall between church and state breaking down to keep us busy. You can't defend the first amendment by attacking video games, you can only do it harm.

Sticking our nose in video game sales is not just silly and counterproductive, it's dangerously close to advocating censorship. This is not a fight we should be a part of.

Romney loves gays, anyone else he thinks can get him elected

Newspaper folks have short memories.

Today's Globe has an article entitled Romney is fast rising as a serious contender. In it they claim he's the number two contender for the presidency behind John McCain. This was based largely on a National Journal poll that was released on December 8th.

Among the reasons for his rise cited were the self-destruction of George Allen and Bill Frist, but also his wonderful new conservative credentials:

Now, Romney is widely accepted as a true conservative, to the right of the quirky McCain, by the large GOP punditocracy.

Good for him, he's finally managed to throw off that nasty liberalism of Massachusetts and convince the punditocracy that he's just as bigoted as their favorite sons.

Just one problem...

Between the National Journal's article and today's Globe love-fest the Log Cabin Republicans reared their confused and well-coiffed heads.

First there was a December 8th article in the New York Times. It introduced his 1994 letter (available here as a pdf) to the Log Cabin Republicans and his claim that he'd be a stronger gay rights advocate than Ted Kennedy, who he was running against for Senate at the time.

The religious right doesn't take kindly to such things. From the Times:

“This is quite disturbing,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, who had praised Mr. Romney as a champion of traditional values at the group’s conference in late September. “This type of information is going to create a lot of problems for Governor Romney. He is going to have a hard time overcoming this.”

Paul Weyrich, a founder of the modern conservative movement, said: “Unless he comes out with an abject repudiation of this, I think it makes him out to be a hypocrite. And if he totally repudiates this, you have to ask, on what grounds?”

He hasn't repudiated it, of course. He's instead chosen the baffling tactic of claiming that his views haven't changed. Apparently staying the course and looking like a huge liar to everyone is more sensible to him than just saying he had a change of heart. It's worked great for Bush so far, why not try it himself?

The day after the Times article, the Globe itself printed an article entitled New questions on Romney's stance on gays, which dealt with the same issues. It also throws in an added jab at his flip-flopping on abortion issues:

Romney is likely to face similar criticism over his comments on abortion. During the 1994 Senate race, he said, "I believe abortion should be safe and legal." When he ran for governor in 2002, he said he did not support abortion but would "protect the right of a woman to choose" the procedure. In a 2005 Globe op-ed article, he wrote, "I am pro life," and explained to reporters that his position on the issue had evolved.

In a recent posting titled "The Mitt Romney deception" that touches on Romney's gay rights positions, local conservative activist Brian Camenker wrote: "Despite recent statements across the country by Governor Mitt Romney claiming he's pro-life, pro-family and a committed conservative, a broad investigation of his actual statements, actions, and public positions over the years indicates that he has spent his entire career speaking and governing as a liberal."

As a liberal, I have to disagree with the assertion that he's governed as a liberal, but he certainly does say anything he thinks will get him elected. He's pro-gay rights as long as he's talking to gay people. He's pro-choice as long as he's trying to get elected in a heavily pro-choice state. Everyone in Massachusetts already knew he's an abject liar, it's about time the rest of the country caught on.

Today's Globe article ignored all this inconvenient information, of course. Perhaps the reporter was on a bender over the weekend and missed the developments that totally deflate his main point. Good reporting, Globe!

I'll say it again. Romney has no chance in the presidential election. I just hope he stays in the race, because it's just plain fun watching him flail his way to defeat.

Teenagers are trying to kill you!

Just in time for me to renew my driver's license, the Fitchburg Sentinel and Enterprise is running a hard-hitting special series on how teenagers drive too damn fast.

Now, I probably wouldn't normally make a post about something as trivial as this. It's really better suited to a response to their blog post. However, I still seem to be blacklisted from the S&E's blog so the post goes here.

The question the "Twin Cities Blog" is concerned about is "What do you think can be done to slow down young drivers?".

My never-posted answer in a nutshell was that the same things that slow down older drivers slow down young drivers. Training, signage, and enforcement. What doesn't slow down young drivers is treating them as a distinct group to be demonized for speeding when everyone you see on the road is doing the same thing. That's pretty controversial, I know.

Teenagers do tend to speed more than older drivers. That's a fact, but it's hardly the whole story. Everyone speeds. You speed, I speed, even my grandparents speed. Speeding is virtually required if you're going to get on a highway and not cause an accident. Driving 45 mph on Route 2 is going to cause more problems than driving 65 will.

It's not the speed that kills (despite the shocktacular "Speed Kills" headline), it's the inexperience. Teenagers have faster reaction times than older people, so are actually better able to handle the speed. What they lack is the experience required to deal with the unexpected, and the wisdom to not engage in behaviors that are going to get them in trouble. The only way to get that wisdom and experience, like it or not, is to get out on the road.

Now, why will demonizing teens as a group do nothing? Because that's the way it has always worked. Teenagers aren't stupid. They know that everyone else is speeding too. When you introduce a made-up problem like "teen speeding" they know you're ignoring the broader problem of everyone speeding. Understandably, they then tune you out.

Focusing on speeding is also a bit absurd in itself. Speeding is only relative to arbitrarily-set speed limits. It's a handy way to subconsciously characterize those who speed as criminals. The real issue is accidents, and there are a lot of good ways to reduce accidents. How about fixing the damn roads, adding more streetlights, providing proper drainage systems, and so forth? Every time I drive on Route 2 in the rain I feel like I'm dancing with death.

Of course, these are expensive problems to solve. They might require some degree of sacrifice on our part, and possibly even tax money (gasp!).

It's much easier just to blame teenagers for driving too fast. Too bad that's not the real problem.

Stay tuned for next week's Sentinel and Enterprise question: "What do you think can be done to keep women from talking too much?"

Usurping the Constitution

Mitt Romney has sued in an attempt to force the issue of gay marriage to get a vote by the citizens of Massachusetts.

Per today's Telegram:

The suit asks the court to require that Mr. Travaglini call for a vote at the Jan. 2 convention, its last before the end of the 2005-2006 legislative session

If no vote is taken on the measure that day, the suit asks that the court require the secretary of state to put the proposed constitutional amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman on the 2008 ballot without legislative approval.

Furthermore...

“A decision not to vote is a decision to usurp the constitution, to abandon democracy, and substitute a form of what this nation’s founders called tyranny: that is, the imposition of the will of those in power on the people,” Mr. Romney said.

Ignoring for the moment the fancy rhetoric, one thing no article I've seen about this has discussed is the actual constitutional basis for what Romney is trying to force; putting an amendment on the ballot while skipping the legislature itself.

Here it's helpful to look at the Constitution itself, specifically the part dealing with Initiative Petitions. Romney's focus is on the legislature having to have a vote, as supposedly indicated by the word "shall":

Section 4. Legislative Action. - Final legislative action in the joint session upon any amendment shall be taken only by call of the yeas and nays, which shall be entered upon the journals of the two houses; and an unfavorable vote at any stage preceding final action shall be verified by call of the yeas and nays, to be entered in like manner. At such joint session a legislative amendment receiving the affirmative votes of a majority of all the members elected, or an initiative amendment receiving the affirmative votes of not less than one-fourth of all the members elected, shall be referred to the next general court.

What he seems to be missing, however, is the next Section (my emphasis):

Section 5. Submission to the People. - If in the next general court a legislative amendment shall again be agreed to in joint session by a majority of all the members elected, or if an initiative amendment or a legislative substitute shall again receive the affirmative votes of a least one-fourth of all the members elected, such fact shall be certified by the clerk of such joint session to the secretary of the commonwealth, who shall submit the amendment to the people at the next state election. Such amendment shall become part of the constitution if approved, in the case of a legislative amendment, by a majority of the voters voting thereon, or if approved, in the case of an initiative amendment or a legislative substitute, by voters equal in number to at least thirty per cent of the total number of ballots cast at such state election and also by a majority of the voters voting on such amendment.

In other words, it only gets to the popular vote if voted for in sufficient numbers by the legislature itself. I'm no constitutional scholar, but to skip that step, as the suit seeks to do in absence of a vote, also seems like it would be unconstitutional.

So usurping the constitution is bad, unless you're the one doing it.

Now, personally I don't think civil rights should ever be subject to popular vote, but the constitution does appear to allow it in some (but not all*) cases. Furthermore, amending the constitution to remove rights from a subset of people is just abhorrent.

Should there be a legislative vote? Maybe. I'd rather see it after the new reps are sworn in (so long, Emile Goguen!) than during the current session, but either way I suspect the initiative is doomed to failure. The longer this goes on, the less opposition you're going to find in the general population (which may be part of why Romney is so keen to get it on the 2008 ballot).

On another note, why does Romney want to restrict marriage to being between "one man and one woman"? Do his Mormon buddies know he's up to this?


* Per the constitution:

No proposition inconsistent with any one of the following rights of the individual, as at present declared in the declaration of rights, shall be the subject of an initiative or referendum petition: The right to receive compensation for private property appropriated to public use; the right of access to and protection in courts of justice; the right of trial by jury; protection from unreasonable search, unreasonable bail and the law martial; freedom of the press; freedom of speech; freedom of elections; and the right of peaceable assembly.

Governor hates state, loves self-delusion

The AP had an article today about Mitt Romney's presidential aspirations. Apparently he was able to take a little time away from cross-country Massachusetts-bashing to offer up a few quotes.

I have to hand it to Mitt, he must be among the most optimistic politicians ever. Knowing he stood no chance of winning another term at home, he's just going to focus on running the entire country.

After losing 20 of 36 governor's races as the head of the Republican Governors Association, he bravely uttered:

"The job of Republican Governors Association chairman is to raise money," he said. "We're not going to take the credit for any wins we get, nor are we going to take the blame for losses we suffer."

Hmm, I wonder if he would have said the same thing if the Republicans hadn't lost so many governorships. It's easy to not take credit for wins when you didn't get any, and it's just cowardly not to take credit for losses.

Also, in reference to wider Republican losses, the multimillionaire said:

"We must return to the common sense Reagan Republican ideals of fighting for hardworking Americans," Romney said in a postelection statement.

Now, I was fairly young during the Reagan administration, but I don't recall Reagan doing much for hardworking Americans. He did classify ketchup as a vegetable, which I suppose helped hardworking ketchup makers like John and Teresa Heinz Kerry. I'm pretty sure that was the extent of his legacy, though.

Romney also has the not-quite-but-almost approval of the religious right:

"We're not trying to find a Sunday school teacher in chief; we're trying to find a commander in chief," said [Jerry] Falwell, who traveled to Massachusetts last month to meet with Romney. Also attending the meeting were Franklin Graham, Gary Bauer, Lou Sheldon, Richard Land and other conservative social and religious leaders.

"Where he goes to church will not be a factor; how he lives his life will be," said Falwell.

Of course, that he does go to church at all is a major factor. He may be part of what many on the religious right consider a cult, but at least he's no stinkin' atheist!

Even if we accept that his nutty religion won't really be a factor, Romney has no chance. Most of the far right sees him as being to the left of McCain, and being from gay marriage loving Massachusetts won't do him any favors there. Not to mention his flip-floppy treatment of abortion rights. He has said a lot of stupid things about Muslims though, which might win him a few points.

The real problem though is that he hasn't done a damn thing as governor. He managed to royally screw up the Big Dig, but that's about all most people here will remember him for. He'll blame the Democrat-controlled legislature, but whoever wins in '08 will also be faced with a Democrat-controlled legislature. Making excuses for not doing anything isn't going to go very far.

Not doing anything isn't necessarily a problem when running for president, but you have to be charismatic enough to make people like you. Which he's not.

Who does like Mitt Romney? I'd wager Kerry Healy doesn't. The voters of Massachusetts certainly don't. The voters of New Hampshire don't (McCain and Giuliani both lead him in polls there). The far right doesn't because he's not crazy enough. The moderates don't because he's too crazy. Someone must, but I've yet to meet them.

His only chance is to shoot for VP and hope his looks get him in. He could be the Dan Quayle of 2008, only less qualified.

Local leaders tired of this shit

I've been too busy to get many posts written lately, but this wonderful piece in the Sentinel just tugged at my heartstrings so much I had to write something:

Locals react to 'coarseness' in today's society

It seems that such moral luminaries as Ted "brown people scare me" DeSalvatore, Dean Mazzarella, and a bunch of Roman Catholic Bishops (who never do anything wrong) are upset that people do things like swear and watch television. Especially those kids with their long hair and Beatle boots.

DeSalvatore, in keeping with his batshit-craziness, has the best quotes:

A number of teenagers and younger children harassed marchers in the "Liberty Walk" that DeSalvatore helped organize this summer, he said.

Some of them wore gang-related apparel and tried to intimidate others, he said.

"If you stand on Wallace Ave., and you see some of these kids coming down the street, and you just close your eyes and listen, you'd think you're on another planet," he said.

Shocking! The leader of the not-so-subtlely racist "Liberty Walk" feels like he's on another planet when he sees kids whose culture he doesn't understand.

Ted, some of us have thought you're on another planet for some time now. And not just because you're standing on Wallace Ave with your eyes closed.

Another gem:

DeSalvatore said he worries that younger children will start to imitate Internet and television images of sex.

"You never used to see sex on TV, and now what you see doesn't take a whole lot of imagination," he said. "That's only going to generate a curiosity, and that curiosity is going to generate some action. It's worked with cigarettes, it's worked with alcohol, it's worked with drugs. We see somebody else doing it, we've got to try it, too."

Scary stuff indeed.

Seeing not-quite-sex on TV is going to make people curious about sex. Just like it did with cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs. None of which were problems prior to the widespread adoption of the television. Prior to that time people just assumed sex was something only dogs did, and were truly baffled by the Opium War and prohibition. Personally, I blame Milton Berle's legendarily large pecker for all this trouble.

Anyway, all you coarse people out there need to cut that shit out. Fuckwads.


Update: On the drive home I realized something. Ted simply has no understanding of cause and effect. Here are how things work in his mind:

• Cause: Three hundred lily-white people go for a march through neighborhoods they characterize in a press release as "filled with the criminally minded, aggressive, threatening individuals that make up our present gangs and drug dealers".
• Ted's Mind Effect: "We'll be greeted as liberators! They'll shower us with flowers and babies!"
• Real Effect: The locals think you're an idiot and aren't afraid to tell you so.

Similarly...

• Cause: For no particular reason, TV executives decide to put sexually-suggestive material on television. They also push drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, and probably the Homosexual Agenda (tm).
• Ted's Mind Effect: Teenagers are overcome by the peer-pressure of the glowing magic box and decide that maybe they should try this "sex" thing too. And smoke, drink, take drugs, and probably hire a gay hooker.
• Real Effect: Since people apparently like sex, ratings go up.

Just look over pretty much everything Ted DeSalvatore has ever said and you'll see the same wacky cause-and-effect distortion. I'd provide more examples, but I have to catch a flight to Thailand.

The death knell for electronic voting machines?

It seems to me that this election could signal the end of DRE voting machines. Everywhere you look (mainstream media included) there are complaints about the unreliability of electronic voting machines.

Yes, we heard these problems in 2004 too, but things are different now. Republicans are losing. Since Republicans control the media, that means that their complaints are going to enter the mainstream much more than they did in 2004. Plenty of Democrats already support reform, and they're about to be joined by numerous pissed-off Republicans and pundits upset that they weren't able to hack the vote as much as they wanted.

Ditching the DRE machines will benefit everyone, regardless of political affiliation. Hopefully all the problems that have already popped up, and all those that will come to light over the next few days, will convince people that it's time to go back to a system that truly ensures that all votes are counted.