Incumbents win everything

Okay, the election is over. Here's how it came out.

First, in a result that should surprise no one, Lisa Wong handily beat Fuzzy and Tom Donnelly in the mayoral "race".

• Lisa Wong - 60%
• "Write-in votes" (presumably mostly for Donnelly) - 26%
• Fuzzy Voisine - 14%

The city council elections were also predictable, sadly. All the incumbents are back, and known crazy person Rosemary Reynolds joins them. Blech.

In the ward elections, incumbents Boisvert and Starr beat their challengers (Rosado and McNutt).

Fitchburg sure does love its incumbents!

I have no idea why.

Donnelly hides in his hole

So, I checked the paper this morning hoping that newly-announced mayoral anti-candidate Tom Donnelly would be in it, presenting all his brilliant ideas about how he'll do things if anyone's stupid enough to vote for him.

Alas, I was disappointed.

Donnelly on Tuesday said Wong painted a "rosy picture" during the last mayoral race, while he gave a more sobering prediction of financial hardships the city would face over the next two years.

"The disparity is in what was promised," said Donnelly, after the Councilor-at-large debate at Fitchburg State College Tuesday night.

Donnelly did not return phone calls for a more extensive interview by press time Wednesday.

That's all we get. I suppose when you're as terrible a campaigner as Donnelly is, it's best to avoid interviews.

But we do have a little bit, so let's unpack it. Here's what Donnelly is basically saying:

During the last election, Lisa Wong gave people hope for great things, and hasn't been able to deliver on every single thing. I, on the other hand, was a gloomy gus who never even tried to inspire people. Therefore, you should vote for me!

Inspiring! Since the current mayor wasn't able to deliver on absolutely everything she hoped for (which of course is all her fault, and has nothing to do with the city council, economic downturn, etc.), people should vote for Donnelly, who promises absolutely nothing. That way they won't be disappointed when he delivers nothing!

Yay?

Oh, there's also this:

Transparency will be the focus of Donnelly's administration, if he is elected, he said Tuesday.

Is there even anything to respond to there? Transparency is what everyone running for office promises, especially if they have nothing else to offer.

Just how stupid does Donnelly think the people of Fitchburg are, anyway? Judging from the comments on Sentinel articles, most people who aren't rabid anti-Wong loonies have in no way forgotten what the guy's all about, or that he helped create the problems Wong has been trying to fix for the last two years. They also see through the whole "I'll swoop in late and avoid any actual campaigning" gambit.

His supporters are pretty much entirely limited to the nuts. Here's a typical example:

good for tom wong sucks and has ruined the city-we are number 11 at fu

Oh no! Not number 11 at fu! We need to get to work improving our fu ranking!

Those are your supporters, Tom. There aren't very many of them, and they're not very coherent. You are officially the anti-Wong candidate, nothing more.

And that's not a good thing to be.

Tom Donnelly running for mayor!

The Fitchburg mayoral race has been really boring this year. Instead of crazy people like Ted DeSalvatore and townie losers like Tom Donnelly, we had crazy quitter Rachel Rosenfeld for a disappointingly short while, and now have Fuzzy Voisine "challenging" the mayor.

But Fuzzy's heart is clearly not in it. He didn't even show up to the debate, and his little recorded message on FATV was just an embarrassment. He was never even a remote danger to Wong's incumbency.

Now things have changed. It's not just Wong vs Fuzzy anymore. Rather, Tom Donnelly is back!

With encouragement from many friends and residents, Thomas Donnelly has decided to launch a write-in campaign for mayor for this year’s general election on Nov. 3.

Donnelly originally decided not to run after mounting an unsuccessful bid for mayor in 2007, feeling that the people made it clear then that they did not support him enough to gove him their vote.

Yep, Tom's back! And he's running a write-in campaign. With like a week to go. I imagine that he's hoping people will have forgetten what a massive douchebag he is and vote for him based on pure anti-Wong sentiment.

Actually, I don't need to imagine. He basically stated as much:

Many people changed their mind, however, as Mayor Lisa Wong’s term progressed, according to Donnelly.

“After people saw the way things have been going on in the city, they were saying that ‘I wish I voted for you’,” said Donnelly.

This is the political equivalent of seeing a few bumper stickers that say "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for the Other Guy" and deciding that you'll ride that tiny wave of discontent to victory.

So, what to make of all this? I have a few thoughts.

First off, I don't really consider Donnelly to pose a significant threat to Wong. He probably poses more of a threat than Fuzzy, but that's not saying much. He's also getting into the race extraordinarily late, and won't be on the ballot. He doesn't have enough time to present any compelling ideas, yet has to convince people to go out of their way to write him in.

Basically, his only hope is to ride purely on anti-Wong sentiment, which he'll be splitting with Fuzzy. Is there enough of this sentiment to give him a chance? I seriously doubt it, but you never know.

How about his strengths? Well, the truth of the matter is that Tom Donnelly has never presented any compelling ideas. He ran last time on the "vote for me because I'm an old white guy who has experience" platform, which he can't do this time around. But his lack of ideas does mean that this is the perfect time for him to get into the race. He can say any bullshit he wants, the bootlick newspaper will print it, and there's little time for others to rebut it.

As far as I can tell, Donnelly doesn't have a website (which seems par for the course this time around, annoyingly). He may or may not have an organization behind him to work on his sticker campaign, which will require a lot more work than if he were on the ballot. He hasn't yet put forward any reasons why people should vote for him, beyond the fact that some people don't like Lisa Wong. Really, he's more of an anti-candidate than a candidate. He's the one who bitter old townies will vote for because he'll tell them he's going to turn on their streetlights.

On the plus side, Donnelly getting into the race (or at least pulling up next to it) will hopefully motivate more people to go vote. Before, it would have been easy for the average citizen to skip the election, because Wong was essentially unopposed (sorry Fuzzy). Now there's a real reason to get out there and vote. The rabid anti-Wong whiners will no doubt be out to support Donnelly, so the pro-Wong masses will hopefully be similarly motivated to show up. While they're there voting for Lisa, they'll hopefully also vote in a few good city councilors, and not the bunch of losers who came out at the top of the primary.

So, there we have it. We're in both the early and late stages of Donnelly's campaign. Let's see how crazy he can get!

Guy with funny nickname running for mayor!

I'm a day late on this (due to laziness), but there's big news in Fitchburg politics!

According to the Sentinel, here's the deal:

Local sandwich shop owner Michael "Fuzzy" Voisine has pulled papers to run for mayor against incumbent Lisa Wong.

Voisine, 43, a Maverick Street resident, said he's running on a campaign of "change" and that he's fed up with the "good old boys" network that permeates city politics.

"I'm going to give it a shot," Voisine said.

I like that winning attitude, Fuzzy!

So, besides giving Mayor Wong something to do during the run-up to the election, what's Fuzzy all about? Besides sandwiches, I mean.

He's known widely around the city as "Fuzzy," a nickname he said he's had since junior high school.

I'm sure there's an interesting and/or humiliating story behind that nickname. Sadly, we don't get the backstory. I'm going to assume Fuzzy was either remarkably hirsute in junior high, had an unfortunate haircut, or maybe it was something to do with pubic hair (kids that age are crazy about pubic hair!).

What else do we know about Fuzzy?

He's worked on Main Street in Fitchburg for most of his life, first at Domino's Pizza, then managing Espresso Pizza for 14 years.

He left Espresso almost five years ago to start his own sub shop, Premier Subs, at 500 Main St.

"No one thought I would last a year, and I've been here for four and a half," he said.

Well, now I'm a little embarrassed. I drive by that place fairly often and had no idea it was still operational. My mistake! (Hey commenters, is the food any good?)

Anyway, it's nice to know that in addition to sandwiches, Fuzzy also enjoys pizza. He's a man of the people! Except maybe the people who think that sugary-sweet sauce they use at Espresso Pizza is incredibly disgusting, like me.

Maybe it's time to get into the part that's actually relevant to politics, though. Knowing his culinary habits is fine and all, but doesn't really say much about his qualifications.

Voisine said has been considering a run for public office for a few weeks.

He got frustrated during the Civic Days celebration when, he said, some city officials would not allow him to have a band or a vendor's tent during the city's block party celebration on July 3.

"I've had some tough runnings with certain people in the mayor's office and I don't like to be talked down to," Voisine said.

Crap.

Running for mayor after minimal consideration, based on some petty frustration, is not really the best way to get into things. Remember what happened with Rachel, who ran essentially the same way and then had to drop out due to shame health problems?

Also, dude, your name is "Fuzzy." If you don't like to be talked down to, you might want to choose a different nickname. I suggest "Admiral Ignatius." That would get you much more respect.

Perhaps it's part of a larger problem?

Voisine said that points to a larger issue of city officials not being receptive to local residents and business owners.

"It seems like they don't care about existing businesses," he said. "Whoever is in office needs to listen to everyone."

Well, those are some... pretty vague charges, actually. I mean, I agree that officeholders need to listen to everyone (within reason, anyway), but do you really think your one little difficulty means that the city government is ignoring huge constituencies? I'd like some more examples, please.

So, what are Fuzzy's plans for improving things?

He said after two decades of working on Main Street in Fitchburg, he would like to see more change.

"Downtown is dying with all the empty storefronts," he said.

One idea, he said, is to make parking more accessible and he likes Wong's idea of angled parking on Main Street.

He also said he would like to continue and expand Wong's First Thursday initiative, which encouraged residents to visit downtown shops on the first Thursday of each month.

Okay, those are really the current Mayor's plans for improving things. But they are good ideas, and there's nothing wrong with supporting them. They're just not really new.

Indeed, Fuzzy thinks Mayor Wong is doing a pretty good job:

Voisine does not have many criticisms of Wong.

He said "given the hand she's been dealt," she is, "doing as good of a job she can."

Oh no, Fuzzy! You're dangerously close to losing the crazy "I hate Mayor Wong no matter what she does" voters!

Actually, that's fine. There aren't very many of those, they're just disproportionately loud.

I have, however, detected another problem:

Voisine said he's not sure he can do better than Wong in terms of managing the city finances, but he would bring a different "mind frame."

Wha?

Okay, I know that Fuzzy hasn't run for office before, but I'm pretty sure that saying you won't actually do a better job with city finances (by far the single most important issue) than your opponent seems like a way to make sure nobody will bother to vote for you.

At this point I'm having a hard time figuring out just why anyone should vote for Fuzzy. He supports ideas Lisa Wong proposed, and he doesn't know if he could do a better job than her on city finances (which suggests he probably couldn't). Given that, why not just vote for Wong?

Give us something fresh, Fuzzy!

Voisine said he would be a down-to-earth, receptive mayor, and would rely on a group of trusted advisers.

He said during his campaign and if he gets elected, he hopes to surround himself with "the best people I can."

That's not fresh! Tom Donnelly said pretty much the same stuff in the last mayoral election, and now he spends every day shining shoes for nickels down at the bus station ^{[Citation needed]}.

But what's this?

Voisine said he hopes to run a clean and inexpensive campaign.

"Throwing dirt does no good," he said.

He said he may hold fundraisers and looks forward to researching city policies in the coming weeks in preparation for the election.

"Once I get going, if I surround myself with the right people, I think I can make it work," he said. "For my own peace of mind, I need to give it a shot."

Well, that's admirable. Ron Dionne did largely the same thing last election (sans fundraising), and Ron Dionne is awesome! He's not the mayor, obviously, but he's still very likable!

It's much too early to say with any certainty, but I suspect that's what we're going to get with Fuzzy too. A well-meaning guy who figures he might as well give running for mayor a shot. Because why not? I, for one, welcome him!

Unfortunately, so far he comes off as sane, reasonable, and unqualified to run the city. This all adds up to "sorta boring." As such, I have some unsolicited advice for Fuzzy.

Dear Fuzzy,

You seem like an okay enough guy, but from what I've seen so far you're probably not going to win this election. You probably already know this.

So, what to do? I have two options you may wish to explore.

The "Respectable" Option: While you're researching city policies, try to come up with some original policies of your own. They don't have to be great, but they should at least be new and interesting. Armed with these interesting new ideas, you can present them to the public and the current mayor as things to consider. Even if you lose the election, if your ideas are good enough they may get adopted by the winner.

Then you can sleep comfortably, knowing you ran a clean and respectable campaign and through the power of your ideas, you will have made an impact on the city, win or lose.

The "Batshit Insane" Option: Look at the past mayoral campaigns of Ted DeSalvatore and Rachel Rosenfeld, and try to be like them. Say lots of things that make no sense, and back them up with bluster and lies. Get personally offended by broad societal trends, and make bombastic, threatening gestures for no apparent reason. You can easily pull in the crazy asshole vote this way.

This option won't win you the election. It also won't make you look respectable, or even sane. However, it would be entertaining and make for some easy blog posts in which I'd be very mean to you.

Either way, good luck.
Pope Unicow

PS The second option will more easily allow you to start calling yourself "Admiral Ignatius," and is clearly the better choice!

FINI

Fitchburg's Bond Rating Improves

This is actually pretty important news, but holy crap is it boring.

The Standard & Poor's bond rating agency increased Fitchburg's bond rating, Mayor Lisa Wong's office announced Tuesday.

Wong credited conservative budget practices, including increasing the stabilization fund and negotiating lower health care costs, with the improvement.

The bond rating was BBB minus with a negative outlook.

S & P officials upgraded the bond rating to BBB plus with a stable outlook, Wong's office announced.

Yay! Good news!

This is also news that is pretty much impossible to say anything funny or interesting about, so you're just going to have to make do with that picture of Timothy Dalton. We're nowhere near Connery level yet, but at least things are moving in the right direction.

Does DiNatale value streetlights over firefighters?

Roughly a month ago I wrote this post, about a couple of city councilors making fun of Marcus DiNatale for being an annoying, hypocritical buffoon.

If you recall, the issue at question was the whole streetlight idiocy, and DiNatale wanting to raid the city's free cash in order to keep more streetlights on. Stephan Hay and Jody Joseph then made fun of him for being a self-ordained "fiscal conservative" while being so eager to spend the city's free cash, and also for being an oppositional dummy.

Good times...

Now it's a month later, and we have this story about the city council transferring $91,000 from free cash to pay the city's firefighters. You just know that DiNatale will have something stupid to say about it, and he delivers right off the bat!

"I'm not crazy about taking money out of free cash," said Councilor at-large Marcus DiNatale.

Huh? Where did the freewheeling, free cash-spending Marcus of late March go? That guy would have been totally on board with this plan!

Maybe he just doesn't think firefighters are as important as having some extra streetlights on? Or maybe he's hoping that the light produced by burning homes will eliminate the need for more streetlights? Who knows?

He can believe whatever he likes, but I have to disagree on this issue.

See, if my home is on fire, then I really don't care if the sidewalk near it is well-lit. My bigger concern would be getting rid of the fire, which is where the firefighters come in. It's considerably more important to me to have a home that isn't just a smoking pile of rubble than it is to not stub my toe on a dark sidewalk.

DiNatale's stated reasoning isn't along those lines, of course. Rather, it's a fine example of a dumb idea couched in reasonable-sounding language (like most politics, really).

DiNatale said three budget line items have had money left over in them at the end of the year for each of the last three years.

Those include accounts in the building, health and employee benefits categories.

"Those three accounts, I believe, can cover this overage without using free cash," DiNatale said.

Golly, that almost sounds reasonable on the surface. Well, if you ignore the fact that he's relying on a speculation that maybe there will be money left over at the end of the year.

This argument was pretty-well eviscerated by Mayor Wong.

But Mayor Lisa Wong urged councilors not to support DiNatale's plan.

Wong said the fiscal year is not over, so it is not definitive those accounts will remain where they are. Furthermore, Wong said if those accounts do under run, any money left over would go back into the free cash account.

"At this point it doesn't make sense to transfer money out of those departments," Wong said after the meeting.

Ouch. That's eminently sensible.

If they use free cash and DiNatale's three cited accounts end up with extra money, it'll go back into free cash anyway. Which means what DiNatale is suggesting is basically a stupider and more limiting way of doing the same thing Wong is proposing.

Hmm, if that's the case then why would he be opposed to it? Oh, maybe late-March Marcus is back!

Let's not forget about what Jody Joseph said back then:

Ward 6 Councilor Jody Joseph said he was "tired" of hearing DiNatale criticize Wong.

"I'm constantly hearing the same thing, 'My way is right, her way is wrong,'" Joseph said.

This leaves us with three potential explanations for DiNatale's inconsistency.

1. He could legitimately believe that raiding free cash to turn on a few streetlights is more worthwhile than using it to pay firefighters.
2. He could reflexively disagree with everything the mayor supports, just to be a dick.
3. He could actually not believe anything at all, and just grandstands about any issue he thinks might appeal to local dimwits, in order to get his name in the paper and further his political career.

Whichever of those is correct (I vote for all three), I sure hope he keeps it up.

Not for the good of the city, mind you. Being obstinate doesn't really help the city, as far as I can see. No, he should keep it up because after the disappearance of Rachel, Fitchburg is in desperate need of more insanity in its politics. Because it's funny.

Alternately, he could adopt sensible positions and actually study issues instead of just being a reflexively oppositional nuisance about everything. Then he might actually be well-respected and get something worthwhile accomplished. But where's the fun in that?

Stay the course, Marcus. For the comedy!

Whiny babies, commence whining!

Ugh, more boring crap about streetlights being shut off. Didn't I write about this awhile ago?

(Yes, I did!)

Well, now the plan is actually about to start.

A plan to shut of more than 60 percent of the city's streetlights could be implemented as early as next week, Mayor Lisa Wong said Wednesday.

The plan is expected to yield about $64,000 in savings, according to a report released this week by Department of Public Works Commissioner Lenny Laakso.

"We just have to get the OK from the mayor's office, then we'll tell Unitil to implement the plan," Laakso said.

Wong said it would take a month or two to fully implement the program.

All well and good. They're going to shut off about 63% of the streetlights, while leaving strategically-placed lights on.

Lights would remain on along Main Street, on dangerous curves, near some schools and in some areas recommended by ward councilors and police officials, Laakso said.

Well, that's pretty sensible!

After all, there are about 3,000 streetlights in Fitchburg. That's a lot of electricity and a lot of money. And many of the lights are in places that don't really require streetlights. It's really a very sensible plan.

Of course, local whiny babies don't care for this sensible plan. Because they're scared of the dark, and have apparently never lived anywhere that didn't have a giant streetlamp every 30 feet. You know, exotic places like Alaska. Or Lunenburg.

Some people are not whiny babies, of course, and even speak up. Like this rarely-seen creature, an actual intelligent letter to the editor writer! Hold on to your hats!

The truth is, no conclusive evidence exists on the correlation between streetlights and criminal activity. A 2002 article from the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences concludes that "more research is needed" on the relationship between lighting and crime. Oddly enough, few American studies have been conducted on this crucial issue, and the results of the studies we do have are decidedly mixed.

In one of the newer studies, a 2000 Department of Justice report on Chicago showed that "reported offenses increased" when lighting was improved. How could this be? According to the evaluation, it "could not provide a definitive explanation of these findings." So the answer is, nobody knows.

On the other hand, the International Dark-Sky Association, an organization concerned with the negative effects of light pollution, estimates that the U.S. wastes more than a billion dollars annually in energy costs for unnecessary lighting. In short, the jury is still out on whether (or to what degree) street lighting makes our streets safer. And there is some indication that illuminating our cities may do more harm than good.

Letter-writer Elizabeth Gordon, you are a breath of fresh air! You cite people who actually know what they're talking about instead of just asking dumbass city councilors and people on the street for their uninformed opinion!

Unfortunately, very few whiny babies are capable of understanding what you wrote. Even fewer will give a shit. For instance, here's a lovely comment on that letter. It's from "WHAT ABOUT US":

QUOTED FROM STORY "Since there is no statistically significant evidence that street lighting affects the level of crime, I for one am fine with the city saving money by shutting off the lights. Others, I'm sure, will disagree."

Do you really need a chart or graph or some form of written information to see what is going on in your own town? Open your eyes... Look around you... Forget about waiting for someone to spell it out for you.

Yes, Elizabeth. Your perfectly logical and straightforward approach to decision making is offensive to idiots. You and your "charts" and "graphs." NERD!

The local illiterati have determined that research means nothing at all. All they need to know is that they think that turning off streetlights is bad, so therefore it is. End of argument!

Let's have another example, shall we? This one comes from "cheryl". It's beautiful:

No lights in Fitchburg? good when we get hurt from them turning off the lights then we should send medicol bills to Lisa Wong. she wants Lights Out then she should pay All medicol bills for those who gets injured.

I enjoy the way this person's mind works. Turning off 63% of the streetlights in her mind is apparently the same as "no lights in Fitchburg."

Yes, "cheryl." The mayor is going to come to your house and steal all your light bulbs! Not for any reason; just because she's evil! I bet she won't even pay for your "medicol" bills when the scary darkness hurts you!

See, the fact of the matter is that 98% of the bitching about turning off streetlights has nothing whatsoever to do with streetlights. It has to do with the fact that there's a subset of inbred douchenozzles in Fitchburg who hate Lisa Wong and are going to complain about anything she does, because it's her.

To illustrate that point, here's a comment on that same article from our old racist buddy, "QEII":

Geez i'm surprised and she makes me ill when i see her chuckle on tv. Nothing is funny about what has gone wrong with Fitchburg, i am appalled that we are the source of her sick laughter. She should I suppose she fooled a lot of people didn't she; 29, a mayor (great on her resume) and the people of Fitchburg foolheartedly put her there.

So the comment that this dipshit is making on an article about streetlights is basically "I don't like the way Lisa Wong laughs."

Umm... okay. I've never had an issue with the mayor's laugh, personally. But I'm also not a crazy asshole who hates the mayor.

Look, people who are scared of the dark. This is easy. If you're really scared of Mad Max-style roving gangs of bandits raiding your home because a nearby streetlight was turned off, you can pay about $12 a month to have it turned on. Surely you're willing to pay that much for your own safety, right?

Because if not, then you're probably not actually all that concerned about the streetlights. So if you don't pay for the light, but do whine about it being turned off, you're really just whining because you enjoy whining. Stop it.

---

Also, I'm putting up a new poll. I theorize that the vast majority of people who whine about streetlights being turned off also whine about people getting too many public services (you know, welfare and disability and so forth). Do you agree?

Meet the new Ted DeSalvatore!

Sometimes, when I get bored, I reminisce about the mayoral election of two years ago. It was fun, what with Ted DeSalvatore being a candidate. He was always good for a chuckle, or failing that, a few hours spent tearing out your hair.

"Unicow," I would say to myself, "what you need is another crazy person running for mayor to lift your spirits."

Well, that's what we have now. The new, not-very-improved Ted DeSalvatore comes to us in the form of one of the original DeSalvatore's harshest critics, Rachel Rosenfeld.

Here's an article from the Sentinel: Fitchburg blogger "Really Rachel" running for mayor.

Those of you who were paying attention to such things back in 2007 may remember that I was loosely allied with Rachel, in the sense that we both thought DeSalvatore was scary dangerous. Because he was.

I'll go into the whole story at some point, but let's just say that we're not allied anymore.

Rachel was pretty nutty even when we were on the same side, but since that time she's gone way over the deep end. I suspect she's probably been reading the WingNutDaily too much or something.

Anyway, it's still morning and I'm tired and haven't sharpened my teeth just yet, so I'll just mention a couple of things.

First, Rachel doesn't have a chance in hell of winning. She at least seems to recognize this on some level. Fitchburg may have its flaws, but DeSalvatore's stunning defeat proved that voting for certifiable lunatics isn't one of them.

Anybody who actually reads Rachel's blog can see pretty much instantly that she's just an old crank with a personal grudge against Wong. That's not a platform.

Second, there was one hilarious little quote in the S&E article:

Rosenfeld, an independent voter who said she plans to register as a Republican, said she would like to set up debates with Wong during the campaigns. She said she does not believe partisanship will play a large role in the race, but expressed her belief that Wong is too extreme in her liberal approach.

"There's a group of progressives in this city that are really, really nasty because they don't believe in free speech, and Lisa Wong is in that group," she said.

What's awesome about this is that you can replace "Rosenfeld" with "DeSalvatore" and discover that the two are almost identical in their thinking.

Here's an old quote from DeSalvatore, for comparison:

DeSalvatore said "information terrorists" called his supporters and spread negative information about him.

"As long as that ultra-liberal sense continues we don't have a chance," he said. "Without a prevailing common sense, the city is done."

And here's another from Rachel:

"(Wong) is a bright young girl, but she's got no common sense," Rosenfeld said.

So we have the focus on meaningless "common sense," the demonization of liberals, the paranoid fantasies about some shadowy cabal that's either out to stifle free speech or spread lies, and even the "independent" who spouts nothing but Republican talking points most of the time.

I can only conclude that Rachel Rosenfeld is actually Ted DeSalvatore 2.0 1.5.

This should be entertaining.

Street Lights and Psychoses

Ha, I totally called it!

The dumbasses at the Sentinel have puked out an editorial about turning off streetlights and it's as full of stupid as you'd expect.

But is it the particular flavor of stupid we were expecting? Let's find out!

First a little clarification though. On that earlier post a commenter mentioned that she has been informed that all these crappy (but byline-lacking) editorials are written by Jeff McMenemy, the S&E's editor. I have no trouble believing this, as Mr. McMenemy has written many similarly terrible editorials with an actual byline included.

However, I don't want to attribute such idiocy to an innocent party if it isn't actually Mr. McMenemy. He could have a really dumb acolyte doing the writing or something. So I will just refer to the person behind this editorial as "the editor".

Anyway, the editor pulled a switcharoo on me! I was fully prepared to debunk a claim that turning off some streetlights would cause an increase in crime. Maybe the editor read my earlier post mentioning that, because he didn't go so far as to make that claim. He does dance around it quite a bit though. So let's dance!

First, consider the opening paragraph...

Fitchburg Mayor Lisa Wong's decision to consider implementing a plan as a "last resort" that calls for turning off every fifth street light, except major intersections, in the city is equally farfetched as it is ill-conceived.

Umm.. what?

Her decision is "farfetched" and "ill-conceived"? That doesn't even make sense. You can call a plan "ill-conceived" or "farfetched," but you can't call the "decision to consider implementing a plan" those words.

Or you can, but everyone reading it will laugh at you and call you dumb.

Let's pause a moment to take special note that the editor recognizes that this plan is a "last resort," is by no means guaranteed to happen, and would affect only every fifth streetlight. Remember these things, because the editor will shortly forget them.

Here's paragraph two!

We can't think of a time or place where it would ever make sense for a mayor to call for turning off street lights -- it sends all the wrong signals about your city -- but this is especially true in Fitchburg.

Oh my god I love this paragraph.

It starts off with that great "we lack the ability to think" bit. I can think of a lot of times and places where it would make sense for a mayor to call for the turning off of street lights. Here's a free one: daytime. You'll have to come up with others yourselves.

But the best part is that once again the editor has fallen back to the braindead non-argument of "sending the wrong signals." Only today we're not sending the wrong signals to kids, we're sending them to... ummm... well the editor hasn't bothered to tell us yet. Devious! He simply tells us that they're sent especially hard in Fitchburg.

Why especially in Fitchburg? I don't know, but the editor has some lies to tell!

Fitchburg is a city where police are fighting an escalating crime problem, particularly violent crime, which is fueled by a growing number of gang members and the illicit drug trade.

Jesus fuck people, how often do I have to point out that crime has been decreasing for the last few years? Just saying things are getting worse all the time doesn't make it true!

I am impressed that the editor has pinpointed the cause of crime though. I'd be curious to see the epidemiological studies he ran to discover that violent crime in Fitchburg is due to gangs and drugs. Good thing he knows just what causes it.

Anyway, what the fuck does that have to do with streetlights? Oh, nothing? Well okay. Let's continue...

Likewise, the city's residents also have to deal with a [sic] higher-than-normal property crimes, caused by the drug addicts who steal anything they can get their hands on to fuel their illegal and destructive habit.

Wow, down on the drug addicts! Those studies must have been really conclusive. Because there's no way that destitute people in a terrible economy would ever steal anything unless it was for drug money. Only those degenerate drug addicts would ever do such a thing!

Also, what's "higher-than-normal" when it comes to property crimes? Is there a normal level of property crime that the dickhead editor would consider fine? Seeing as Fitchburg ranks 6th out of 14 similar-sized cities in property crime, I'd call it pretty normal. Right smack in the middle.

The Sentinel lying about crime rates isn't really newsworthy though. Let's get back to the rest of this idiocy.

Turning off street lights sends the message to them, and everyone else inside and outside the city that your city is in dire straits, and it encourages lawlessness.

Sending messages again! And now we finally know who's getting this message: everybody. Wow!

I wonder what it's like to be Jeff McMenemy the editor. Constantly bombarded by "messages" from streetlights and pieces of legislation and space aliens (probably). It must be hard to live like that.

Maybe he has magic sunglasses like "Rowdy" Roddy Piper in They Live, but instead of seeing the secret authoritarian messages hidden in the environment and becoming a freedom fighter he has embraced them and wants to be one of the creepy skull people too.

The editor sees this and thinks "Well okay, whatever you say!"
We've also finally figured out just what the streetlights are saying when they talk to everyone: They're encouraging lawlessness! Man, streetlights sure are jerks. I mean the ones that are off. The ones that are on are okay I guess. Or at least they don't talk to Mr. Psychotic Editor Guy.

Wait, maybe he's just scared of the dark?

The city of Fitchburg needs more lights and more police on the streets to keep residents, business owners and their customers more safe, not less.

Yep, I think he's just scared of the dark.

Mr. Editor, I am sorry for making fun of you. Clearly your parents did something wrong when you were a child, and never addressed a very primal fear that most of us got past years ago.

You see, darkness can't actually hurt you. More lights don't equal more safety. Also, there are no monsters under your bed.

The last quote represents pretty much the end of even the pretense of an argument about streetlights. From here on the editor just goes into a rant about how Mayor Wong is so incredibly terrible for proposing this plan mentioning this idea as a remote possibility.

Frankly, that part isn't even interesting enough to respond to. After all, it's based on the faulty premise that there's something wrong with the plan. Since that hasn't been established, the ranting that depends on it can be safely ignored.

Finally, just a word of advice to the editor: If a streetlight talks to you or tries to send you a "message" or a "signal", for god's sake just ignore it!

Exciting public policy meetings ahoy!

More than a month ago a nice lady from the Pioneer Institute sent me an email telling me about this event taking place on April 25th and asking me to plug it.

My attitude at the time was basically "meh, I'm not a fucking clearinghouse for press releases." But I'm fickle and haven't felt like writing much lately, so I'll plug it anyway.

It's the "Center for Economic Opportunity Annual Conference" and Mayor Wong is speaking at it. Per the woman organizing it:

Mayor Wong will be talking about her plans for smart growth in Fitchburg - developing by the river, road, and rail. She will be on a panel with city leaders discussing innovations in the field of economic development.

[...]

The event is part of Pioneer Institute's Middle Cities Initiative. Middle Cities are Massachusetts' older industrial cities that are politically and economically in limbo between the traditional power base of greater Boston and the burgeoning political force of the suburbs, and between their former industrial role and newer market function. Pioneer Institute is launching the Middle Cities Initiative to help the state and cities implement a comprehensive agenda for reviving urban markets and improving city governance. Pioneer is facilitating coalition meetings with mayors, making recommendations to the state for better oversight, and creating benchmarks for performance that can be used by the state and cities alike to gauge progress.

In case you're blind, here's the link to it again.

It's on Friday from 8:30-11:30 AM. So I guess if you're retired or unemployed or something and you're a big policy wonk go and have a super-fun time!

In order to make this post less boring, here's a totally unrelated video for a movie I find myself wanting to see!



Sweet.

Liveblogging pre-recorded television!

I suspect liveblogs are a scam to get extra pagehits. This is something I should be a part of!

As such, I am going to liveblog tonight's "Chronicle" featuring Lisa Wong (and um... Fitchburg). To make it an extra challenge, I'm going to do it on my tiny Eee-PC, which is hard to type on. Also, I never watch television, so it's a little challenging just to find the channel.

Anyway, here goes!

7:29: Hey, I found the right channel! "Inside Edition" is on and has Bush singing. Yuck.
7:31: Is my clock fast? There are a lot of commercials on, but no Fitchburg-lovin'!
7:31: Okay, it's on. And they mentioned the fucking "martini bar" in the first five seconds. Is that the only thing we have? It's nice and all, but I'm sick to death of hearing about it.
7:33: Lack of community pride? Fuck you, Chronicle!
7:33: Hey, Lisa's on! Did you know she's 5'2". Ha, shorty!
7:34: Now they're talking about all Wong's ideas. She said "Fit and Fun in Fitchburg," which is a slogan I'm not crazy about.
7:35: Now some old douchey-looking guy from UMass Lowell is doomsaying. Bad economy, blah blah blah. Go back to Lowell, professor smarty-pants!
7:36: Elm street looks really shitty, but they have a church where grown men with goatees play Connect-4. This is "part of Mayor Wong's vision!"
7:37: Beardy McDouche is back and just said that if Wong can fix the city she "should be president." Wong/Clinton '16!
7:38: Going to a commercial break. Good, I need to pee and grab a beer.
7:39: Holy crap that was a quick commercial break! Luckily I'm quick at peeing and getting drunk (not always in that order).
7:40: Wong just called an old building "both a challenge and an opportunity." Isn't there some urban legend about a Kanji character that means both of those? Or was it crisis and opportunity? Whatever.
7:41: Ron Ansin is on now. He's an okay guy who does a lot of good things for Fitchburg. But doesn't the Ansin family own Channel 7? Traitor!
7:42: Holy crap Fitchburg has geothermal heating/cooling in it? That's awesome!
7:42: Have you heard of Mzeal communications? They're in Putnam Place apparently. I wonder what the hell they do, but apparently the teevee isn't going to tell me.
7:43: Anchors on before the commercial break. They have a pretty sweet gig, like 90 seconds of appearing on camera saying nothing important, then they cut either to a commercial or back to whoever did the actual work coming out to Fitchburg. Lazy-ass anchors.
7:46: We're back! Wong envisions Main Street becoming like Mass Ave or Newbury Street. That would be quite nice. Yes please.
7:47: Hey, Matt Straight is on! People used to accuse me of being him! He apprently owns some fancy hotel/apartment/condo thing in the Johnsonian building that looks pretty nice. Man, now I wish I was him (or at least had his money).
7:48: College students talking!
7:48: "It's not as bad as everyone makes it out to be." Bravo, student!
7:49: Hey, that was awfully brief. There were like 12 people in that panel and they talked to maybe two!
7:49: The Design at 639 lady is on. I've met her before. She's nice, but I can't relate to her.
7:50: There's a total theme of people saying they like Fitchburg but everyone they talk to makes fun of them for being in Fitchburg. Jerks.
7:50: DeStare is on! Martini bar, woohoo!
7:51: "We really wanted to bring a bit of Las Vegas to central Massachusetts." Sorry, DeStare dude, I don't see any strippers in your establishment. Work on that please.
7:52: Yeah, so a bunch of the students plan on leaving Fitchburg after they graduate. Good! That's what college students are supposed to do, dammit!
7:52: Now the anchorheads are talking about how Fitchburg has such great deals in the housing market. Sweet! Please buy my property, Boston-area viewers! And on to the commercials...
7:55: Oh crap, back from commercial and annoying Mike Barnicle is on. I don't care for him.
7:56: "Blah blah blah I'm Mike Barnicle and I'm boring and have no neck."
7:57: Shut up Mike Barnicle! You're too negative and blobby.
7:57: And it's over. Well, that was boring.

My Demand For Mayor Wong: Fix The Damn Weather!

Dear Mayor Wong,

It has come to my attention that there is inclement weather in Fitchburg. Not only that, but there are occasionally weather conditions that interfere with important things like driving buses and being able to walk down the road without slipping around and looking silly.

This will not stand!

As a young, idealistic mayor you've presented a bunch of interesting and creative ideas for improving Fitchburg. That's all well and good, but what's it going to get you when sudden ice storms cause me to slip and fall on my supple and widely-envied ass? A big fat nothing, that's what!

As a well-respected blogger, I join our community in asking--nay, demanding--that you fix the goddamn weather. Right now would be good, because I hear there may be a storm coming later this week.

Now, I've been told that you are of Chinese ancestry. Furthermore, I know that the Chinese government has elaborate weather control systems planned for use during the Olympics. Surely if a nation of 1.3 billion people can stave off a little light rain, a town of a mere 40,000 people can totally eliminate winter! We're much smaller than China! Do you have any connections in the Chinese government/Olympic committee that can help?

I've heard the arguments against this before: "Nobody can control the weather," "Invest in some good snow tires," "It's New England, get used to it," and on and on. These lame excuses (and oddly sensible advice) can no longer be tolerated!

You ran on a platform of changing things, getting rid of the old ways, and maybe some other stuff (fiscal responsibility? Beats me!). What's more of an "old way" than to have crappy winter weather? Let's get rid of it.

Perhaps you're thinking "Fitchburg is very hilly, there are bound to be some unavoidable difficulties in icy weather." Defeatist! Obviously the hills are a problem for snow removal and ice de-icing. So flatten them! I don't want to hear excuses, I want to see bulldozers out there pounding down the hills and filling in the valleys until everything is nice and flat.

If you can just take care of this one little request and keep Fitchburg a comfortable 72 degrees year-round you will go down in history as the greatest mayor Fitchburg has ever had. Otherwise you're a failure. Get to it!

Regards,
The Unicow

PS Please redirect the inclement weather to Leominster. They're jerks.

Mayor Wong is everywhere!

So, you've seen nice articles about our new mayor in the Boston Globe and other significant regional papers. Which is swell, but not that exciting.

You've also seen her mentioned by Andy Rooney, if you're an octogenarian who watches 60 Minutes. Still not great, since he thought she was a man and his sense of humor is poor.

More recently, you've likely seen her nifty photo with Obama, Patrick, Kerry, and a couple of Kennedys.

Now we move into new realms. Driving to work this morning I heard her on WBUR (90.9 FM) in a preview for this week's generally-excellent Radio Boston show. I actually listen to this show just about every week, and it's always been quite good, so it should be an interesting show.

Also, while I'm in the middle of writing this, Radio Boston just left a comment on my last post mentioning the show. Sweet.

Anyway, the show seems to be called "Fitchburg Rising?" and deals with mill cities and "hope" and so forth. Here's the video promo for it:



The show airs Friday at 1 PM on 90.9 FM or can be streamed at wbur.org, though you should be able to hear it archived on the net if you miss it then.

Apparently it will also feature a webchat with Mayor Wong! Nifty!

Whatever you may think about Wong as a mayor so far, I think everyone could agree that she's been excellent at bringing good press to the city.

Go now!

What are you doing wasting your time here when I have nothing to say today?

Instead, go right now to Hello Fitchburg and check out the photo of Mayor Wong surrounded by political bigwigs. Make sure to click on the picture so you can see everyone.

Pretty awesome.

ps also don't forget to vote today. Or something.

So yeah, Obama...

Well, the nearly meaningless Iowa caucus was last night, and we're left with Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee as the winners. Whoopedy doo!

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Obama won. For that matter, I'm glad Edwards beat Clinton. But frankly, I'm not surprised by either of those outcomes.

Why not? Because the media are a bunch of fucking idiots. Hillary's entire "inevitable" status was created by them because they're stuck in an old way of thinking. We in Massachusetts, and especially in Fitchburg, should have already abandoned that way of thinking by now.

Allow me to explain...

Obama's victory was predictable if you watched the elections that gave us Deval Patrick and Lisa Wong, who both won by considerable margins. The commonalities are almost too numerous to mention, and I see no reason why the outcome should be any different.

I'm not talking about stuff like minority status here. It's insignificant as a factor in any of their victories. What I'm talking about is the two basic messages common to each of these candidates; "change" and "hope."

Most people aren't happy with the way the country (or the state, or the city) have been run of late. They want change, and they want intelligent change.

Kerry Healey didn't represent change, Tom Donnelly didn't represent change, and Hillary Clinton doesn't represent change. Patrick, Wong, and Obama did (or do). Whether that representation is accurate is an open question, but the perception is that they're at least agents of change. And not just any change, but a change that inspires people and engages them. That's perhaps the most important bit.

That's also the bit that involves "hope."

Now, hope is a tricky thing. Some (including myself) might say it's an empty word meaning nothing. You can't hope your way out of an unjust war, you can't hope your way to better healthcare, and you can't hope your way to a better government. But hope's still a powerful thing. If you don't have it, you don't get a lot done. You just sort of sit around being bummed out. So you sort of need hope.

And hope is what those three candidates give people. Which is no easy task with a populace as apathetic and jaded as ours. But it's pretty fucking powerful.

So here's what happens, and this is what the political pundits and media talking heads have yet to realize. All the elections in the coming year or so are going to have record turnout, and that turnout is going to push for the candidate who inspires hope and represents change.

Let's look at Obama vs Clinton for an example.

This is just anecdotal, but in my experience people who support Clinton are pretty lukewarm about her, and people who don't support her hate her fucking guts. So her supporters aren't necessarily passionate about going to support her, and those who don't support her are passionate about going to vote for someone else.

Obama has the opposite situation. People who support him are excited to do so. Those who don't support him don't seem to hate him, but sort of have a lukewarm (lukecold?) attitude towards him. There's not a lot of hate for Obama (unlike Clinton).

Anyway, Obama's motivated supporters definitely show up to vote for him. Clinton's haters show up to vote against her (and may well vote for Obama). Obama wins, Clinton loses.

This doesn't have a perfect analogue with the Patrick/Healey and Wong/Donnelly races, because I don't think people had the same hatred of Healey or Donnelly that they have for Clinton, they were just uninspired by them. Still, if you have one inspiring candidate and one boring milquetoast, the inspiring candidate is always going to win.

When it comes to Huckabee, it's sort of the same thing. Which is weird, but allow me to explain.

Willard "Mitt" Romney is the most boring piece of offal on the planet. Dull dull dull. He's the functional choice. The one with the nice hair and a lot of money. Seems like he'll win by the old-school thought.

But Huckabee excites people. Granted, the people he excites are batshit crazy. But it's the same deal as with the Democrats. He excites the crazy people while Willard just sort of appeals to the dullards. Hence, Huckabee won because the crazy idiots came out to vote in droves.

No idea if that win will carry over to other primaries (issues of money and so forth, plus Huck's general insanity do still matter a bit), but it should be a warning shot for Romney. Boring dudes don't win when the country wants change and vision!

Anyway, yeah. Vision is extremely important in a political leader. Hope and passion are very important to getting elected, and not so bad to have in a leader either.

And the media isn't going to get it yet again. What else is new?

I'll give my prediction, just in case you care. I've expressed this privately before the caucus, but might as well get it on the record in case I'm right...

For the Democrats, it comes down to Obama & Edwards, with Obama coming out on top. Hillary takes a couple of states, but that's it. Maybe an Obama/Edwards ticket in the general. Anyway, Obama wins president.

For the Republicans... well, I'm rooting for Huckabee just because he's so totally unelectable. It'll probably be Willard Romney though. Who will lose in the general election, just like he would have lost had he run for governor of Massachusetts again. McCain's the only Republican with a chance in hell of winning the presidency, but the guy doesn't have the money or support from the far-right base to get the nomination.

So there you have it. Feel free to make fun of me if I'm wrong.

Why Does Lisa Wong Hate America?

Sad, sad news today.

It seems that Mayor-Elect Lisa Wong has a problem with the incoherent ramblings old-school comedy stylings of beloved nonagenarian Andy Rooney.

I realize this is deeply troubling, so if you need to take a few moments to collect yourself, please do so now. It gets ugly from here on out.

The story begins a few days ago. Whichever one has the day with Andy Rooney giving his wonderful commentaries. Sunday? Yeah, Sunday.

Anyway, Rooney had the ingenious idea of looking at local newspaper headlines out of context and then complaining that he didn't understand them. Hilarious stuff, and totally original! Nobody ever makes fun of newspaper headlines!

You can view the genius of his performance here (link courtesy of 1970's Abraham Lincoln, the master of all internettery). By all means, do it now! Don't wait!

Did you notice the mention of Wong and Fitchburg? Hey, I know who that is! I also know that she's not a "he," but I'm going to assume that was dementia intentional and was just Andy being too lazy to even read one sentence into the article madcap crazy hilarious like usual! Oh man that guy is funny!

Because old man ranting comedy gold like that is obviously big news, the Sentinel today ran a story about it! Good reporting for once, Sentinel!

Rooney's rant focused on how newspaper headlines are too broad and do not give enough information to readers.

As an example, Rooney held up a headline from the Nov. 7 Boston Globe which read "Wong Claims Win in Fitchburg," and used it as an example of headlines that are vague.

"You don't know if Wong won in Fitchburg or if he just claimed to have won," Rooney said.

Oh man, that's lame funny stuff!

Anyway, the Sentinel went out of its way to interview Wong herself (himself?) about it!

"I think it's great actually that Fitchburg was mentioned in a positive -- if not humorous -- light," Wong said.

Oh no!

Wong is clearly calling the mention "not humorous!" Or maybe she's not, but that's how I'm choosing to interpret it!

That's Andy Rooney, national annoyance treasure you're calling "not humorous," Miss Wong! Which leads me to my question: Why do you hate America?

Also, other stuff might be going on in town. Beats me. This whole Andy Rooney thing has sent me into a deep funk about our mayor-elect's apparent lack of a sense of humor. Also, I had trouble coming up with the headline for this post, and I blame her for that too. Man, it's a dark day in Fitchburg...

Thank you, Sentinel, for your waste of space that could have been spent reporting on something meaningful important article!

The taming of the tax rate: A short play

Okay, this is getting annoyingly ridiculous at this point.

Allow me to present for you a brief play I've written that imagines a conversation between Tom Donnelly and someone on his campaign staff.

Donnelly: Hey, it turns out I really like this negative campaigning stuff! It's a handy way to try to distract people from my history of inaction and lack of any real accomplishment!
Staffer: Okay. So what's next?
Donnelly: Well, so far all I've done is take things Lisa Wong says and say she's a big fat liar-pants. That seems to work pretty well!
Staffer: But according to these polls...
Donnelly: Silence, cur! Unless you're telling me something Wong has said recently that I can cause a stink about I'm not interested!
Staffer: Um, okay. Well, she endorsed Dean Tran's idea of only having a 2.25% increase in property taxes instead of the 2.5% you back. But I don't think we can use that...
Donnelly: Fool! Of course we can use that! We'll say she wears flip-flops in winter!
Staffer: But that doesn't make any sense...
Donnelly: [glowers menacingly]
Staffer: Fine, fine, whatever. But doesn't it make you look bad when you keep saying she wants to raise taxes and now you're actually supporting higher taxes than she is?
Donnelly: Flip-flops!!!
Staffer: [pulling out a calculator] But the tax rate shift you criticized her for comes out to a roughly 0.2% increase in the residential tax rate. And going to a 2.25% increase instead of the 2.5% increase you support is a 10% residential savings. That's, ummm, like fifty times as big. Doesn't that make you look pretty bad?
Donnelly: Of course not! She wants to change the status quo! That's scary to old white guys like me.
Staffer: But her increase costs the average homeowner about five bucks, while her decrease saves them $550. So she's saving them $545 more than you.
Donnelly: That's why we mention flip-flops! Everyone knows wearing flip-flops when it's cold outside is stupid, so they'll think she's doing something stupid!
Staffer: But the math...
Donnelly: Shut up, nerdlinger! [Donnelly storms out to go talk to the local press.]
Staffer: Man, did I ever pick the wrong horse to back...

The End!


I hope you've enjoyed this brief dramatic journey. Feel free to perform this at your next school play or dinner-theater event!


PS also a new poll is over there -->

Monster Truck Martini Rally!

Last evening I had the fortune of visiting Cafe DeStare on Main Street. It's quite nice! The super-talented "Scott Beddia Trio" (oddly composed of five people) was playing, the Red Sox game was on, there were sexy ladies, it was a nice place!

It's also the place that Lisa Wong praised as bringing some new life to Main St. in that fluffy Globe article about her.

Donnelly, of course, doesn't seem to care for it, and was quoted in the article as saying this:

"All this vision of wine bars is very cute, but that's not going to be the salvation of the city."

Hmm...

Okay, I agree, bars are not "the salvation of the city," even if they're nice like this one. Still, the rest of that article suggests that Donnelly is opposed to "wine bars" like DeStare (though actually it's a martini bar, but whatever).

So why was he (and his wife, and his very fetching daughter, and probably some sons or something, and maybe someone else associated with him) there last night?

More importantly, what the fuck is up with his giant monster truck that was illegally parked across the street from the bar? Witness the crappy cell-phone photo of it!



That's probably the best picture I could get of it. You can't make it out in the photo, but the back end (above the rear wheel) says something like "The Mad Fisherman," which is frankly quite confusing. Should I start calling Donnelly "The Mad Fisherman" now?

That's a rhetorical question. Of course I'm going to start calling him that!

A friend who saw the truck on a separate occasion (today, apparently) described it like this: "It’s like a bad campaign idea and a mid-life crisis rolled into one." That's possibly the most perfect description ever!

Here's another bad picture of the Mad Fisherman-mobile!



In this picture you can actually see the red DeStare sign across the street. Plus you can see the minivan-thing also illegally parked behind it (though it's dwarfed by Donnelly's overcompensation-mobile).

You see, the Mad Fisherman himself didn't appear to drive the bigass truck. That job must have been taken by one of his sharply-dressed followers. I'm not positive, but I suspect the minivan thing was his. Because, you know, it's like 60 feet from that spot to a giant free parking lot and that's too far for an important mayoral candidate to walk!

Anyway, Donnelly didn't really interact with anyone in the bar that he didn't already know. Which seems to be par for the course with the guy. On the other hand, neither did I!

But I'm not running for mayor.

Regardless, I look forward to Donnelly's new campaign slogan: "The Mad Fisherman will kick your ass into fiscal solvency with his bitchin' monster truck! Fuck yeah!!!"

I'd also like to thank him for making himself so easy to ridicule. Thanks Tom!

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.

Dear Tom Donnelly, please stop making an ass of yourself.

Blah. I've been on a self- imposed news boycott for the last week or so. Resting, relaxing, actually doing work when I'm at my job, stuff like that. Ignoring the local politics and the exciting dual tax rate and stuff.

But I've been pulled back in by forces out of my control!

The forces in question are Tom Donnelly acting like a total idiot and the Sentinel continuing its trend of fellating him at every opportunity. Want to know more? Check out this oddly-capitalized article: Donnelly eyes Wong's Web site changes.

The gist is that Lisa Wong has someone other than herself doing her website now and that person has changed some stuff around. Jackass Donnelly sees this as some sort of scandal, which makes no sense at all. The Sentinel, being the world's worst newspaper, happily reports on all of it. Argh!

Here's some of the stupid article:

Mayoral candidate Thomas Donnelly is questioning changes his opponent, Lisa Wong, made to her campaign Web site recently.

Wong took down a section of her Web site titled "Accomplishments" and replaced it with a calendar tab where visitors to her site can view upcoming events.

Oh my god! A candidate actively involved in a political race made some changes to her website! (Incidentally, they were good changes! It looks much better now.)

Apparently Donnelly is desperately seeking out some validation that his stupid "Lisa Wong's slightly less awesome than you think" attacks are working, and he thinks that her website changes provide that validation. Which is so dumb it's laughable.

By the way, Donnelly doesn't have an "Accomplishments" section on his site either. He has a biography thingy that lists some jobs, but that's it. Also, Wong's biography does the same exact thing, but with more detail. You could almost say it lists her accomplishments...

Know what we really have here? A microcosm of the race itself!

Donnelly apparently hates change, because no sane person would give a fuck about this non-issue otherwise. Certainly he'd never change his site!

Donnelly's campaign manager, Joe Engwer, said the Donnelly campaign site has undergone no substantive content changes and instead the site is updated on a weekly basis for events and posting new literature about Donnelly.

Yeah, that's something to be really fucking proud of! Stagnation rules! Way to go with that message of change, Tom!

Wong on the other hand did change her site, for the usual reasons that people change websites:

Wong said she has a new campaign volunteer who has made changes to the site, www.votelisawong.com. Wong said the changes make the site more user friendly and are now more consistent in appearance to her other campaign materials.

"I'm very happy to have delegated that to someone who knows more about Web sites," Wong said.

Yeah, so she changed the site to improve it. Upsetting the status quo! Scandalous!

I have some totally unsolicited advice for Donnelly, presented in letter form for some reason:

Dear Tom,
Things like this make you look like an idiot. People change websites all the time. Going to the Sentinel and acting like it means something just makes you look like someone who doesn't understand the internet, and furthermore reinforces the belief that you're a cranky old guy who hates change.

You're not doing yourself any favors with the attacks on Wong. You look increasingly desperate and Wong comes out looking just fine. It's really embarrassing to watch, to be honest.

You're probably going to lose this race. Not because you're a bad guy (Though it did suck when you came to my door that one day and walked away to talk to someone you knew in the middle of me trying to talk to you. So you are sort of a dick.), but because you're just not what the city needs.

The least you can do is lose with dignity.
Best wishes,
The Unicow

ps I look forward to reading your accomplishments on your site, if you get some.

Also, here's something for the Sentinel:

Dear Sentinel,
Enough with the Donnelly/Sentinel circle jerks already!

Love,
The Unicow

There, that should fix things!