Keller whacks Patrick on transportation woes

Jon Keller posts a very tough critique of Gov. Deval Patrick following the resignation — or, should I say, the “resignation” — of Patrick’s transportation secretary, Bernard Cohen.

I don’t know nearly enough about the inner workings of the governor’s office to be able to offer an intelligent analysis. But Keller’s basic theme is that this represents a triumph of the old-line hacks over competent outsiders such as Cohen. Keller writes:

Cohen was a pure policy wonk who worked quietly and diligently to restore order to the state’s chaotic transportation planning and build working relationships with key political players. But he was not much of a headline-grabber or Patrick kiss-up. And he had a tendency to tell the truth about things, like the state’s utter inability to afford the commuter-rail extension to New Bedford that Patrick keeps insisting is still in the cards. So for his trouble, Cohen is now out, to be replaced by [James] Aloisi or someone like him, some wired-in smooth-talker who will convince the governor that he can sell the legislature on the huge toll and tax hikes Patrick apparently believes are necessary.

The Outraged Liberal takes a different view of the “ineffective” Cohen and writes: “While critics snipe that apparent successor James Aloisi was part of the team that created the mess, at least he knows where the bodies are buried.”

But Jay Fitzgerald says of Aloisi that “bringing back a key figure from the Big Dig Culture is an anti-reform disaster.”

And I agree with Jay that House Speaker Sal DiMasi is once again leading the good-government charge, writing an op-ed piece for the Boston Globe in which he calls for change before raising tolls or the gas tax. I’ll even forgive DiMasi for his hoary cliché of a lede.

Photo of Patrick (cc) by Allie Taylor and republished under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

The Journal’s flawed net-neutrality story

The Wall Street Journal today reports a potentially disastrous development, claiming that President-elect Barack Obama is softening in his support for network neutrality, which guarantees common-carrier status for all Internet traffic.

But it’s the story itself that may prove to be a disaster. The Talking Points gang is all over it and has found that (1) Obama has not changed his commitment to net neutrality; (2) Google denies [link now fixed; no, really] the Journal’s claim that it has shifted its support; and (3) academic Lawrence Lessig says what he told the Journal does not represent a change, either.

That’s three for three. How did this crap make it into the Journal? You’d think Rupert Murdoch owned it or something.

Corruption charges cloud Middleborough casino

Glenn Marshall, the former chairman of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribal council, faces federal corruption charges in connection with his efforts to win governmental recognition for the tribe. Marshall was the driving force behind plans to build a $1 billion casino in Middleborough.

According Jay Fitzgerald of the Boston Herald, the charges include making illegal campaign contributions to members of Congress, guided by imprisoned former superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, whose name has come up before in connection with the tribe.

Marshall stepped down in August 2007 after it was learned that he was a convicted rapist who’d lied about his military service. No word on whether his new legal woes are tied to Shawn Hendricks, his handpicked successor.

All this at a moment when the casino industry is falling apart — making it unlikely, Matt Viser reports in the Boston Globe, that Gov. Deval Patrick will revive his three-casino proposal any time soon.

Given the charges against Marshall, it looks like everything is up in the air — not just the proposed Middleborough casino, but whether the Mashpee are even a legal tribe with the right to build such a monstrosity.

It truly is a great day for Middleborough.

Update: Gladys Kravitz says all that needs to be said.

Chuck Turner trashes the First Amendment

Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner may or may not end up doing time. But if the indicted councilor has his way, local journalists — including Joan Vennochi of the Boston Globe, Adam Reilly of the Boston Phoenix and Joe Fitzgerald of the Boston Herald — will be subject to legal sanctions for failing to presume that Turner is innocent.

On Friday, the Herald’s Ed Mason reported that Turner had sent a letter to Gov. Deval Patrick asking that a task force be appointed that would investigate “collusion” between federal prosecutors and the media.

Over the weekend, John Guilfoil, the founder and editor of the online magazine Blast, posted the full text of Turner’s screed. In it, Turner calls for nothing less than the abolition of the First Amendment. Guilfoil, a former student of mine, writes, “Five words, Councilor: ‘Congress shall make no law.'”

Turner, in case you’ve forgotten, is under federal indictment, charged with taking cash bribes in connection with the Dianne Wilkerson case.

Tellingly, Turner cites Deuteronomy, the Quran, the Roman Code, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution in his argument to muzzle the press, yet makes absolutely no mention whatsoever of the First Amendment, which clearly states: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” (Subsequent amendments, as well as Supreme Court decisions, have broadened “Congress” to include all governmental bodies at the federal, state and local levels.)

Turner blasts columns by Vennochi, Reilly and Fitzgerald, saying they have “unashamedly proclaimed my guilt.” He also claims that Globe columnist Adrian Walker’s interview with Ron Wilburn, the cooperating government witness, is proof that the FBI’s affidavit against Turner is full of lies (not how I would interpret it). And Turner includes this tantalizing tidbit:

Even Howie Carr, self proclaimed protector of the public good and verbal slayer of public officials who betray their trust has not even mumbled one word about the fact that the US Attorney’s wire is making accusations against him.

Really? Does anyone know what Turner is referring to? The ball’s in your court, Howie.

Not to save the best part for last, but Turner closes by recommending legal sanctions against journalists who discuss “the ‘evidence’ in the court of public opinion before it has been presented in a court of law,” including:

  • “State legal policy should be significantly reformed to promote respect for the presumption of innocence among state officials, mass media representatives, and citizens.”
  • “Mass media outlets must be prohibited from spreading information that conflicts with the presumption of innocence.”

Now, let me move on to the fallacy at the heart of Turner’s proposal to round up journalists and send them to re-education camp. Yes, the legal system is required to presume that Turner is innocent unless it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that he is not. But the media are under no such constraints.

Turner is free to avail himself of the libel laws if he believes a journalist has said something about him that is false, defamatory and, as he is a public official, made with knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. And there are circumstances in which the courts will intervene by way of gag orders on the lawyers in order to balance the First Amendment with the Sixth, which guarantees the right to a fair trial.

But this is not North Korea, or even Britain, where the press has far fewer protections than it does in the United States. (I’ve had a couple of interesting discussions with my editor at the Guardian, whose home office is in Manchester, England.) In the U.S., everyone is free to speak and write the truth as he or she sees it.

By the way, I am willing to grant Turner the presumption of innocence. Taking cash from a supplicant shows incredibly poor judgment, but let’s wait and see if it adds up to a criminal act. (Although I was unimpressed by Turner’s claim that the photo might have been doctored — a subject with which Turner has some passing familiarity.)

Regardless of whether Turner is guilty of bribe-taking, though, he has already convicted himself of holding freedom of the press in utter contempt.

Firefox versus Safari versus Blogger

So I was enjoying my trial with Safari (for reasons that I can’t quite describe, it feels a little more nailed-down than Firefox 3) when I hit a roadblock: Blogger.

I noticed a post I’d written with Safari had some weird spacing in it. When I looked at the underlying HTML, I saw that Safari inserts bracketed “div” and “/div” thingies every time you hit the RETURN key.

Why, after all these years, are Safari and Blogger still not entirely compatible? Anyway, that’s pretty much a show-stopper for me, so I’m back to Firefox, somewhat reluctantly.

Why the Globe should save “Spiritual Life”

It’s hard to believe the Boston Globe was paying freelancer Rich Barlow so much that it will save more than a pittance by letting him go (via Universal Hub). But these are desperate times, and I’m not going to argue that the Globe should keep paying him the money.

Rather, I’m going to argue that a newspaper has to appeal to many niches in order to survive, and that Barlow’s Saturday column — “Spiritual Life” — is an important niche. In Michael Paulson, the Globe has an outstanding full-time religion reporter. Could Paulson take it over? How about an intern working under his supervision?

I realize there are limits to the do-more-with-less philosophy, but dropping “Spiritual Life” entirely is going to alienate quite a few readers. It already is — just check out the comments.

In search of a crime

Jay Fitzgerald rounds up more on the matter of whether Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich broke the law simply because he wanted something in return for a Senate seat.

Everybody wants something. Some somethings are legal, some aren’t. But simply being a foul-mouthed, arrogant moron is not a crime.

Jon Keller doesn’t like Barry Coburn’s op-ed in today’s New York Times, in which Coburn takes U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to task for his inflammatory anti-Blago rhetoric.

I think Coburn makes some good points, though. A prosecutor in a high-profile political-corruption case has enormous credibility with the public, as the charges invariably play into (often justified) cynicism about politics.

I come neither to praise nor bury Blago. But let’s calm down until we see the specifics.

Flaking out with Firefox 3

For the past month or so I’ve been using Firefox 3 almost exclusively. I’m running version 3.0.4. And though it basically works fine, it does a few things that are flaky.

Example: In just the past day or two, the typeface for stories at NYTimes.com changed, and I was not pleased. I even considered writing a post about it. But when I looked at it in Safari, it hadn’t changed. And then, when I went back to Firefox, the change for the worse had magically disappeared.

Example: I happen to like those little icons that appear next to Web-site names in my bookmarks. But the one for the Boston Globe keeps changing. It’s currently a ladybug, of all things.

Firefox works fine; these are just minor aesthetic annoyances. But aesthetics matter. Safari keeps getting better and better, and I’d like to give it an extended workout — but I can’t transfer my Firefox bookmarks to it.

Has anyone else experienced what I’m talking about?