Month: December 2007

Crowdsourcing Severin

In today’s Boston Herald, Jay Severin writes: “Just this week the august Columbia School of Journalism presented a panel on public speech. A Harvard law professor listed various types of speech that must be made illegal.”

I’d like to track this down. I’ve searched Google and Google News and tried a couple of things on LexisNexis — nothing so far. Does anyone know what Severin is talking about?

Case closed: Media Nation’s readers come through again. Carl noted that there was a panel discussion at Columbia recently featuring the notorious anti-speech activist Catharine MacKinnon. I’d seen the same thing, but she’s not at Harvard. Except that she is: Steve discovered that MacKinnon is the Roscoe Pound Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.

Northeastern’s mystery building

Not to engage in any special pleading on Northeastern University’s behalf. But I keep looking at this photo of a building used to illustrate a blog post claiming that NU has one of “The 20 Ugliest College Campuses in the USA,” and I’m convinced that it’s not at Northeastern.

I could be wrong. I’m not the most visually oriented person in the world. But I think I’m right, and commenters on Digg agree with me. If this is the best evidence they’ve got, can Northeastern truly be said to be ugly?

Mystery solved: Jim Chiavelli, editor-in-chief of the Northeastern Voice, tells me that it’s a building on the Dedham campus. My point exactly.

Heavy grading, light blogging

I’m up to my neck in end-of-semester grading, and I’m coming down with a cold. So don’t look for much fresh content this week.

I do want to call your attention to a conference held at Southern New Hampshire University last week on blogging the New Hampshire primary. We ended up talking about everything but that, but that’s OK. The New England News Forum, which sponsored the discussion, has an account here. Christine Stuart of CT News Junkie writes it up here.

Also, Robert Weisman of the Boston Globe reports that Google’s Street View will arrive in Boston today at 10 a.m. I’m figuring there’s a pretty good chance I’ll be captured coming out of the Northeastern Au Bon Pain with a medium regular.

No comeback for Marshall

Peter Kenney of Cape Cod Today and Stephanie Vosk of the Cape Cod Times cover the election to fill two seats on the Mashpee Wampanoag tribal council. No word of disgraced former chairman Glenn Marshall seeking write-in votes, as Kenney had predicted on Saturday — though he does say that Marshall was seen “cheerfully chatting” with his successor, Shawn Hendricks, and others.

But both Kenney and Vosk report that Brailyn “Bright Star” Frye — the tribe’s “Pow-Wow Princess” — was barred from voting even though she is the daughter of a council member and is so involved in tribal activities that she often appears at events in traditional Mashpee garb. Apparently Frye’s status as a voting-eligible member was questioned, although there is no information about the reason yet. Several other members of her family were barred from voting as well.

Vosk: “Multiple sources witnessed Frye’s mother, Cheryl Frye in a verbal spat with tribal council Chairman Shawn Hendricks outside tribal council headquarters yesterday. This is the tribe’s second election since former tribal council Chairman Glenn Marshall was forced to resign after his rape conviction and military lies were exposed. In both elections, tribe members have raised concerns about people who should be on the tribal rolls not being allowed to vote.”

Kenney: “She [Bright Star Frye] apparently fell victim to the mysterious virus that has taken hold of the tribal rolls. This once unknown ailment attacks the central record system of the tribe, rendering it uncertain whether life-long members will be recognized and allowed to vote. Those who oppose tribal leadership appear more likely to fall victim than those who remain silent.”

Crossing the infomercial divide

I watched in slack-jawed amazement last night as WBZ-TV (Channel 4) took up 1:58 of its newscast for this Song of Itself — a gushing tribute to a CBS-branded sports bar to be built at Gillette Stadium. (CBS, of course, is WBZ’s corporate owner.) Yes, WBZ disclosed. Then it oozed. The piece was a truly odious use of airtime.

You know that little plug the Boston Globe gave to a Red Sox DVD that its corporate cousin NESN produced and that I poked fun at? I take it back. Not a problem. Not when a network-affiliate newscast broadcasts a two-minute commercial for a bar that its parent company is opening. I’d rather drink alone.

Glenn Marshall, comeback kid?

The Great Gadfly, Peter Kenney, writes that Glenn Marshall — the public face behind the proposed Middleborough casino — may be trying to make a comeback.

Marshall, the former chairman of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribal council, was forced to resign last August after Kenney broke the news that Marshall had a hidden rape conviction in his past and had lied about his military record. Marshall is now under investigation for his management of the tribe’s assets.

Despite all that, Kenney hears that Marshall is trying to gather support as a write-in candidate for one of two open seats on the tribal council. The election will be held tomorrow.

Meanwhile, Matt Viser reports in the Boston Globe that well-organized casino opponents are outflanking Gov. Deval Patrick, taking advantage of the “tepid effort” he has made thus far to advance his three-casino proposal.

Gee, do you think Patrick now realizes his plan is a loser, and he’s hoping it will just fade away?

My standard disclosure.

An inside pitch

“Looking for the perfect gift this holiday season for the baseball fan in your life? Look no further than NESN’s DVD that chronicles the championship journey of the Red Sox.” — Nancy Marrapese-Burrell, writing in today’s Boston Globe. The Globe, of course, is owned by the New York Times Co., which also owns 13.6 percent (if I’ve done by math right) of NESN.

If the phone don’t ring …

It’s beginning to dawn on the Middleborough selectmen that there will be no casino coming to town. Alice Elwell reports in the Brockton Enterprise that officials just can’t understand why they’re not hearing anything from the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, which, as recently as this past summer, was very hot to build the world’s largest casino in Middleborough.

Of course, that was all a tribal-leadership meltdown and a federal (and state) investigation ago. It seems like such a long time.

The anti-casino group Casinofacts.org has a take on what’s going on here. And the inimitable Gladys Kravitz comments on Gov. Deval Patrick’s claim that anti-casino arguments are nothing but mindless emotionalism.

My standard disclosure of mindless emotionalism.

Brooks captures Romney perfectly

The most astute commentary I’ve seen on Mitt Romney’s religion speech is David Brooks’ column in today’s New York Times. Brooks starts out on a positive note, writing, “It is not always easy to blend an argument for religious liberty with an argument for religious assertiveness, but Romney did it well.” But then Brooks brings down the hammer:

When this country was founded, James Madison envisioned a noisy public square with different religious denominations arguing, competing and balancing each other’s passions. But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds. The supposed war between the faithful and the faithless has exacted casualties.

The first casualty is the national community. Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious.

That’s exactly right. Indeed, on “Imus in the Morning,” CBS News analyst Jeff Greenfield noted that even President Bush has taken pains not to kiss off non-believers the way Romney did yesterday.

The normally astute Peter Canellos writes in the Boston Globe today that Romney’s speech was aimed “at all the people of the United States. With its breadth of spirit, it was the most presidential moment of the 2008 campaign.”

I have to disagree. It was a good speech, but hardly a great one. And it was deliberately divisive, aimed not at the American people as a whole but at those evangelical Christians who are thinking of voting for Mike Huckabee.