Mass. Politics

“Underperforming” semantics by the Board of Education

What’s more important? That we not feel bad about our failure or that we stop failing? In politically correct Massachusetts, it’s the former. The state Board of Education has decided that it will no longer use the words “failing” or even “underperforming” to describe schools that are failing. (Isn’t “underperforming” already a euphemism?)

To soothe the bruised egos of educators and children in lackluster schools, Massachusetts officials are now pushing for kinder, gentler euphemisms for failure.

Instead of calling these schools “underperforming,” the Board of Education is considering labeling them as “Commonwealth priority,” to avoid poisoning teacher and student morale.

Schools in the direst straits, now known as “chronically underperforming,” would get the more urgent but still vague label of “priority one.”

The board has spent parts of more than three meetings in recent months debating the linguistic merits and tone set by the terms after a handful of superintendents from across the state complained that the label underperforming unfairly casts blame on educators, hinders the recruitment of talented teachers, and erodes students’ self-esteem.

Rather than addressing the actual problem—why are schools and students failing?—they’ve spent three meetings discussing what to call it. And in the end, whether you call it “failing”, “underperforming”, or “Commonwealth priority” (there’s Orwellian newspeak if I’ve ever seen it), those who are indeed failing know that they’re really failing.

This is bureaucratic cowardice that fails to address the real issues—incompetent educators, unsupportive parents, students who need extra time or attention—but instead pretends that everything is hunky-dory and would anyone like more taxpayer-funded grants for field trips and computers and Earth Day programs?

Ironically, it’s the token student on the Board of Education who cuts through the baloney:

Zachary Tsetsos, a senior at Oxford High School and the only student on the board, said he finds the debate frivolous.

“Why are we spending time on this?,” said the 17-year-old. “I don’t want to tiptoe around the issue. I’m not concerned about what title we give these schools. Let’s work on fixing them.”

Or John Silber, former president of Boston University, former head of the Board of Education, and former gubernatorial candidate:

“Changing the name doesn’t change the reality. I think Shakespeare had a good line: ‘A rose by another name would smell as sweet.’ A skunk by any other name would stink.”

[…]

“Now here they have schools that are not doing adequately, so they’re changing the name?” he said with dismay. “Why don’t we call them special schools?”

Reminds me of the dialogue from “The Incredibles”, where Elastigirl tells her son, Dash, “Every child is special.” To which he replies, “If everyone is special, then NO ONE is special.” In other words, your words and your reality don’t match up.

Into the (abortion) danger zone

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley—to absolutely no one’s surprise—has declared that wider restrictions of the free speech of pro-lifers in Massachusetts are not, in fact, restrictions on their free speech. Her brief in response to a lawsuit by pro-lifers makes the same argument she made before the Legislature last year when she backed the law that expanded abortion clinic buffer zones from 18 feet to 35 feet.

What the abortion clinics and their pet politicians want is to use the coercive power of the legislature and courts to silence an inconvenient opposition

(The buffer zones prevent pro-lifers from approaching or talking to anyone with that distance from an abortion clinic’s entrance or a 6-foot floating buffer around people going in or out of a clinic. How you’re supposed to guess the intention of someone walking down the sidewalk in the general direction of the clinic is beyond me.)

Of course, Coakley is trying to feed us baloney and tell us it’s prime rib.

The “act does not ban any expressive activity, but instead ‘merely regulates the places where communications may occur’ during clinic business hours,” Coakley wrote in the brief.

Typical political doublespeak. So-called “expressive activity” is being banned within a particular place. And, yes, that’s permissible under the Constitution. No one has the right to say anything at any time. Yelling “Fire” in a crowded theatre is the standard analogy. But let’s not beat around the bush here.

The “suggestion that under the act ‘leafleting and solicitation [are] completely banned from public places’ is incorrect,” the brief said. “… Plaintiffs, and everyone else, may continue to hold signs, pray, sing, chant, leaflet, converse, and engage in any other kind of lawful speech so long as they do so from outside any buffer zone.”

I haven’t seen the original complaint she’s quoting, but this is disingenuous too. At how many feet of buffer zone does our free speech become effectively nullified? 35 feet? 50 feet? 10,000 feet? What if the whole state of Massachusetts were one, big buffer zone? We’d still be allowed to hold signs, prayer, etc., as long as it’s not within the boundaries of the state. Free speech!

If we’re pushed beyond the limits of the human voice (or eye, in the case of signs) such that we can no longer effectively communicate our freedom of speech has become irrelevant.

The question should be: What is harassing about a sign or a prayer or a conversation or any kind of lawful speech.

Speech should be restricted only for a very compelling public safety and order issue. Yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre puts lives at risk because it can cause a panic. Making a false police report puts police and the public in danger as they search for a non-existent criminal. Using “fighting words” puts people in danger because it cold cause violence.

How does a Hail Mary endanger a life? How does a level-headed request for a conversation with a woman about to abort her child risk public order?

If inconvenience and undesirability were to be the guidelines, I’d like them to pass laws against aggressive panhandlers and petition holders and people canvassing for politicians with whom I disagree and so on. But part of living in a free, democratic society is putting up with speech we dislike, disdain, or disagree with.

What the abortion clinics and their pet politicians want is to use the coercive power of the legislature and courts to silence an inconvenient opposition whose success is success at saving lives—and siphoning coins from their coffers—depends on being able to warn these mothers of the truth of what they contemplate.

If they have to ravage the Constitution to accomplish this goal, so be it.

Skyrocketing costs, new taxes…. surprise!

Mitt Romney and the exceedingly Democrat state Legislature in Massachusetts passed a universal health insurance coverage law before he left. It’s universal in that every business with more than 10 employees has to pay for insurance for employees, never mind whether they can afford or not, and every citizen has to have approved insurance, whether they can afford it or not.

Of course, if they can’t afford it, then that’s where the Massachusetts taxpayers step in. Oh, we were assured that no new taxes would have to be raised to keep the plan affordable— just like we were once assured that the Big Dig (the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project through the center of Boston) would only cost $5 billion and take 10 years to finish. It took 20 years and $15 billion and, by the way, leaks like a sieve and has already had one collapse that killed a driver.

So now, experts say the universal health care plan costs are skyrocketing and taxes will have to be raised in 2009 to cover it. Of course.

Why does anyone believe these politicians any more?

An end to homelessnes in our time

All hail, the Savior, Deval! That’s right, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick has a $10 million plan to end homelessness. How will this happen, you ask? Details, details! Why, he’s spending $10 million, that’s how.

I’m only partially kidding. The truth is decidedly less humorous.

Gov. Deval Patrick is set to unveil a major new $10 million push to virtually eliminate homelessness in Massachusetts in the next five years.

Yes, but how will this $10 million do what 40 years of the so-called “War on Poverty” and several trillion dollars in welfare spending have to do?

The goal of the initiative is to come up with better ways to detect when individuals and families are on the verge of falling into homelessness - and move in swiftly with aid and support.

In other words, they don’t actually have a plan yet. The $10 million will be spent on coming up with a plan. Because, you know, it’s so difficult to tell when someone’s about to fall into homelessness.

Another goal is to quickly move those already homeless into permanent housing, including an increased use of housing vouchers.

Which does nothing to attack the root cause of homelessness. So you give people vouchers to move into permanent housing. After the voucher is used up, how will they pay for the next month’s rent and the month after that? But this sort of plan isn’t really about ending homelessness, is it?

As a down payment on the plan, Patrick’s proposed state budget will include $1.75 million for MassHousing and $8.25 million for the state Department of Housing and Urban Development, an administration source told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity ahead of the formal release of the budget on Wednesday.

Ah, there’s the crux of the plan. In reality it’s a thin tissue of a scheme to “end” homelessness covering the real goal which is to shovel ever more millions of dollars into the hands of political cronies and appear to his liberal base to be “doing” something about the problem by expanding government.

“At the root of most homelessness issues in most instances is a lack of affordable housing,” he added. “How do we do a better job of detecting when families or individuals are at risk? How do we assess that?”

At the root of most homelessness is an inability to pay for housing. Gee, thanks. How many millions did we spend on that in-depth study? Of course, not all homelessness falls into such a category. More than a few of the homeless are the mentally ill or the hopelessly addicted, people who refuse to pull themselves out of the gutter in despair or cussedness or a lack of will.

The flaw in Deval’s vision—and that of so many liberals and even some conservatives—is a failure to appreciate that giant bureaucracies are incapable of addressing root causes for individuals. At best they deal with the large swath of symptoms related to the “disease” without effecting a cure.

The best way to deal with such social problems is the way Christians have done it for millennia: one by one, bringing charity and the love of Christ to each individual. Unless families, friends, neighbors, and local parishes get involved in the lives of the people who are afflicted, the problem will continue in perpetuity. Even then, Christ promised that we would always have the poor.

But today we have the Messiah of the Big Government to save us from every ill that might befall us, taxing us in into poverty so that bureaucracies can be erected to treat out poverty in a never-ending circle of misery. Deliver us, Lord!

You can’t legislate common sense

Yet more evidence of the flawed thinking in today’s political environment, where we think that every problem has a solution in a politician’s newly filed bill. A college student in Boston recently died when he took a drunken plunge from an apartment building’s rooftop. He’s not the first to do so and he won’t be the last, but no one could claim that there’s an epidemic of people falling from roofs with about one per year reported in the newspapers.

That doesn’t deter Boston City Councilor Mike Ross who wants to pass an ordinance to make hanging out on a rooftop illegal, except where there is a permitted roof deck. He envisions multi-hundred dollar fines as deterrents. Ross claims, “This will make rooftops safer.”

That is complete bunk. The passage of this ordinance will do no such thing. Rooftops will be just as safe or unsafe as they were before. All this does is provide a mechanism for penalizing folks who knew how to use their roofs responsibly.

The only solution to this tragedy and others like it is simple common sense.

Think about your average college student party. How many laws do you think were being broken that night in Allston? Underage drinking? Illegal drugs? There was certainly fighting and disturbing the peace. If there had been a fine for partying on the rooftop, it would not have been a deterrent. That would have made it more enticing as the forbidden fruit.

Every time something tragic happens, politicians know that they have to appear concerned and have to justify themselves. They need to show the voters that the politician has been put in office because he can singlehandedly change the world for the better. He can’t.

The only solution to this tragedy and others like it does not come written on a ticket or a summons. It is simple common sense and that’s not something you can legislate.

Unfortunately, people don’t want to hear that. They want to be told that the Columbine and Virginia Tech killers could have been stopped with more gun control laws. They want to be told that wildfires and earthquakes and plane crashes could be prevented with more regulation and red tape. What they don’t want to be told is that sometimes bad things happen in a fallen world and sometimes those bad things happen because a nice kid with a life full of opportunity does something stupid, something that a hundred other people get away with. But he doesn’t because he steps left instead of right and a bad choice escalates into a tragic accident.

An instinctive turn toward political solutions is evidence that we harbor a false hope that we can build a perfect world without pain or heartbreak or loss if only we could find the right combination of laws to compensate for our occasional lack of common sense or just plain bad luck. Sorry, but it isn’t going to happen.

Vindication for Catholic leader; but blow to journalistic integrity

Last year, Larry Cirignano, who at the time was head of the group Catholic Citizenship, was charged with assault after being accused of shoving a woman to the ground at a pro-marriage rally. This woman, Sarah Loy, is an official with the Massachusetts ACLU and she was standing in front of the speaker’s podium holding a pro-gay sign. Cirignano escorted her away and the woman took a header. She claimed he slammed her to the ground. While other bystanders disputed that claim, a reporter for the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, sister publication of the Boston Globe and owned by the New York Times, supported Loy’s version of events.

Well, a year later, after having had his reputation trashed in the local media, Cirignano has been found innocent by a jury. In fact, the jury completely rejected Loy’s claims and the supposedly unbiased eyewitness account of the reporter, Richard Nangle.

Worcester Telegram-Gazette reporter Richard Nangle misreported the story from the beginning and eventually became a star witness for the prosecution. Telegram Metro columnist Diane Williamson openly mocked the defense case in an Oct. 18 piece entitled “Fishy Excuse Shouldn’t Get Him Off,” and called Nangle the only “objective” witness.

[…]

At the trial, only two of the prosecution’s witnesses supported Loy’s account of the “assault.” Nangle, who was covering the rally for the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, and Unitarian minister Aaron Payson both testified they saw Cirignano push Loy. However, Cirignano’s defense counsel established with video and photos that neither man was close enough to have reliably witnessed the event.

Several witnesses who were in the immediate vicinity testified that Cirignano led Loy away from the lectern with his right arm against her back and had started back to the lectern before Loy fell down. According to witnesses, Loy tripped backward over a 13-year-old girl’s foot, landed on her buttocks, curled up into a fetal position and began to cry. She did not seek medical treatment. Loy said in her testimony that she had felt continuous pressure on her back, but had not actually been pushed down.

Yet with all that established, look at what Nangle wrote for publication the day after the events:

WORCESTER – Tempers boiled over at an anti-gay marriage rally yesterday when the executive director of the Boston-based Catholic Citizenship emerged from behind a lectern outside City Hall, rushed toward a female counter-demonstrator, and pushed her to the ground.

Sarah Loy, 27, of Worcester, was holding a sign in defense of same-sex marriage amid a sea of green “Let the People Vote” signs when Larry Cirignano of Canton, who heads the Catholic Citizenship group, ran into the crowd, grabbed her by both shoulders and told her, “You need to get out. You need to get out of here right now.” Mr. Cirignano then pushed her to the ground, her head slamming against the concrete sidewalk.

Here’s an important point to consider: Despite claims to the contrary, an objective reporter on stories related to the major cultural issues of our time is a rarity. I’ve been at pro-life sidewalk counseling and prayer, at the March for Life in Washington, at Operation Rescue demonstrations, at pro-marriage rallies in Boston, and rarely has the coverage in print or broadcast in the mainstream media been accurate. In fact, I’ve seen what can only be described as willful distortion. I’ve seen with my own eyes pro-abortion activists fighting with police only to have the TV reporter show the footage in such a way as to leave the impression that it was pro-lifers fighting with them.

In other words, a reporter is not necessarily an objective witness and every report on such things should be read with a critical eye and a grain of salt.

Slot machines as the great socializers

Got to love the spin coming from Mass. Governor Deval Patrick’s administration in favor of his plans to legalize casino gambling (via Squaring the Boston Globe):

From today’s Boston Globe casino story:

“Gambling and other forms of entertainment associated with resort casinos can also provide social benefits associated with increased social stimulation and reduction of isolation,” particularly among the elderly, [Health and Human Services Secretary Judy Ann Bigby] said.

Anyone who has watched seniors hypnotically feed quarter and nickel slots can testify to the truth content here.

In software marketing they say, “It’s not a bug; it’s a feature!” We can apply this to other initiatives. For example, think of all the benefits of the brutal genocide in Sudan’s Darfur region: Many fewer mouths to feed, after all.

It’s ironic that the Health and Human Services secretary sees the benefits of senior citizens gambling away their fixed incomes and financial safety nets as a net plus.

Is there any doubt that if Patrick were a Republican proposing legalized gambling, the Democrats would be citing the overwhelming social problems brought on by legalized gambling? They would trot out those very same senior citizens as victims of soulless corporations and Republican greed and the Boston Globe would run articles bemoaning the effects on the downtrodden of society, the poor and minorities and elderly.

Unfortunately, all too often politics is just another word for hypocrisy.

Free speech for some, but not for us

The Massachusetts Legislature, emboldened by recent wins in the courts restricting the free speech of pro-lifers and by complete control of all branches of government by pro-aborts, is preparing to expand the so-called “buffer zones” around abortion clinics.

A bill that would establish a 35-foot no-protest zone around clinics where abortions are performed won the support of the state Senate yesterday and now proceeds to the House, where at least 75 lawmakers have endorsed it.

The legislation would almost double the current 18-foot buffer zone and bar protester from entering it. Currently, protesters may come within 6 feet of someone within the zone to provide counsel or share information, as long as the individual consents.

The pro-aborts, who are supposedly all about choice, are opposed to informed choice, apparently. They want to create zones around the death clinics that allow fathers and boyfriends to drive up and drag their daughters/girlfriends into the clinics without interference. That’s not hyperbole; I’ve seen it done with my own eyes. Again, so much for choice.

Where are all the civil libertarians who are always so concerned about the Bill of Rights? Where are they when our free speech is trampled?

I wonder how they would react to a proposal to set up buffer zones around Armed Forces recruiting offices? How quickly would the ACLU file a lawsuit protesting the silencing of anti-war activists?

Boston Globe’s flexible stance on direct democracy

Harry notes that when it comes to the placement of casinos suddenly the Boston Globe is in favor of voter referenda.

Today’s lead editorial in the Boston Globe (“Slots in my backyard”) demands democracy by plebiscite:

Ironclad assurances that voters can decide whether to host a casino in their community should alleviate many fears about traffic and social costs. Putting the decision in the hands of a town’s governing body raises too many questions about the influence of casino lobbyists. A binding referendum is the best way to ensure an honest process and outcome. All indications now point to legislation that requires this sensible option.

Chill, please! We are only deciding where to locate 3 casinos.

It’s not as if we were deciding to re-define marriage and the family.

It’s lovely how flexible their principles are.

They should call it “open wallet” tolling

The Nanny State giveth and the Nanny State taketh away.

Instead of fumbling for change or navigating through special lanes in transponder-equipped cars, drivers may soon have to do little more than cruise on and off highways passing under a metal beam spanning the entire width of the road.

At the end of the month they’d receive a bill, much like any other utility bill. Except this bill would log each time they entered or exited a highway system, how far they traveled and how much they owed.

The idea is called “open road tolling” and it’s a key recommendation of a new report on ways Massachusetts can close a multi-billion gap in transportation funding over the next two decades.

Let me get this straight: Instead of paying ridiculous tolls on a few highways, bridges, and tunnels, now we’ll pay for the privilege of driving on all highways. And this is being billed as a convenience?

And all the criticism of the plan, at least as enumerated by the Boston Globe comes from privacy advocates? Where are the folks like me who realize that this is a scam designed to sap every last penny out of the working families of Massachusetts?

Here’s a question the Globe reporter could have asked: Why are gas-tax revenues declining? Could it be that ever-larger tax burdens on taxpayers are pushing them to change their habits? But then liberal, big-government economists never take into account that changing economic circumstances actually affect human behavior.

It reminds me of the recent mantra from local officials in response to all the shootings in Boston over the past couple of years: “We need to get the guns off the streets.” Guns? How about getting the criminals off the streets?

And if you don’t see the connection, think about it for a while. It will come to you.

Maybe airport pickups will stop being the ninth circle of hell

Gosh could it be that “evil” quasi-public transportation agencies actually take initiatives that make life easier, not harder, once in a while? This could be the start of a trend.

But things could improve this week when the Massachusetts Port Authority opens its first so-called cell phone parking lot. Drivers will be allowed to pull into one of the 50 spaces in the lot and wait for up to 30 minutes until the airline passenger calls from the terminal to be picked up.

It doesn’t make increased tolls any easier to swallow, but it would be quite the convenience … if in fact it is what they say it is. That the government/quasi-whatever sometimes over-promises and under-delivers is a truism that’s nearly a cliche. Set skepticism levels to “Doubting Thomas” and … go.

Very interesting rumor: Fenway Park at Gov’t Center?

Here’s a very interesting rumor I heard recently. It’s a little out of left field (if you’ll excuse the pun), but it sort of makes sense.

First some background. When the current owners of the Boston Red Sox bought the team a few years ago, they began to talk about building a new replacement for Fenway Park to maximize their ticket revenue so they could compete to pay ever-increasing player salaries. Nostalgic, old Fenway with a max of 33,000 paid attendance couldn’t compete with the newer and bigger parks that seat 40,000 or 50,000 or even more. However, their plans went nowhere and they had to settle for smaller improvements to the park for now, like the Monster seats. It wasn’t just resistance from neighbors, but the fact that there was nothing in it for local politicians. They had no reason to buck the voters.

Meanwhile, across town, Boston Mayor Tom Menino has recently floated a proposal to build a new city hall on the South Boston waterfront, leaving behind the current ugly city hall in the expanse Government Center right downtown on the edge of the Financial District. But Menino has also met resistance because of accusations that it would be a waste of taxpayer dollars and that Tommy wants to build the Taj Menino as a monument to his ego. Besides, who would want to buy up the old city hall and Government Center, demolish it, and build what? Another office tower?

Who, indeed, could be found to buy the property? See where I’m going with this?

The rumor is that the City of Boston is looking to sell Government Center to the Boston Red Sox, who would buy the property and build a new, more spacious and profitable Fenway Park. Very interesting.

Now the mayor has a reason to support a move from the beloved “old bandbox” in the Fens and has a buyer with the money to pay for the Government Center property.

Is it just a spurious rumor? Is there substance behind it? Is it a serious proposal? I don’t know, but it certainly bears watching.

And if it does come to pass, you saw it here first.

Technorati Tags: | Red Sox | Boston | politics | Fenway Park |