WatchBlog

So Much for Wise Latinas

Posted on July 2, 2009 by Monty
Filed Under 1 | Leave a Comment

With the Supreme Court’s decision in Ricci v. DeStefano this week, we can now report that Sonia Sotomayor is even crazier than Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

To recap the famous Ricci case, in 2003, the city of New Haven threw out the results of a firefighters’ test – which had been expressly designed to be race-neutral – because only whites and Hispanics scored high enough to receive immediate promotions, whereas blacks who took the test did well enough only to be eligible for promotions down the line.

Inasmuch as the high-scoring white and Hispanic firemen were denied promotions solely because of their race, they sued the city for race discrimination.

Obama’s Justice-designate Sotomayor threw out their lawsuit in a sneaky, unsigned opinion – the judicial equivalent of “talk to the hand.” She upheld the city’s race discrimination against white and Hispanic firemen on the grounds that the test had a “disparate impact” on blacks, meaning that it failed to promote some magical percentage of blacks.

This strict quota regime was dressed up by the city – and by Sotomayor’s opinion – as a reasonable reaction to the threat of lawsuits by blacks who were not promoted.

That’s a complicated way of saying: Racial quotas are peachy.

According to Sotomayor, any test that gets the numbers wrong – whatever “wrong” means in any given context of professions, populations, applicants, workers, etc. – is grounds for a lawsuit, which in turn, is grounds for an employer to engage in race discrimination against disfavored racial groups, such as white men.

Consequently, the only legal avenue available to employers under Sotomayor’s ruling is always to impose strict racial quotas in making hiring and promotion decisions.

Say, if the threat of a lawsuit permits the government to ignore the Constitution, can pro-lifers get New Haven to shut down all abortion clinics by threatening to sue them? There’s no question but that abortion clinics have a “disparate impact” on black babies.

This week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 for the white and Hispanic firefighters, overturning Sotomayor’s endorsement of racial quotas.

But all nine justices rejected Sotomayor’s holding that different test results alone give the government a green light to engage in race discrimination. Even Justice Ginsburg’s opinion for the dissent clearly stated that “an employer could not cast aside a selection method based on a statistical disparity alone.”

Indeed, the dissenters argued that the case should be returned to the lower courts to look for some hidden racial bias in the test. For Sotomayor, the results alone proved racial bias.

The one advantage Sotomayor’s talk-to-the-hand opinion has over Justice Ginsburg’s prolix dissent is that brevity prevented Sotomayor from having to explain why quotas aren’t quotas.

That was left to Ginsburg.

Liberals desperately want race quotas – as long as quotas never come to their offices.

But they can’t say that, so instead they talk in circles for 10 hours straight, until everyone else is exhausted, and then, when no one is paying attention, they announce: So we’re all agreed – we will have racial quotas.

Based on her lifetime of experience working as a firefighter, Ginsburg said: “Relying heavily on written tests to select fire officers is a questionable practice, to say the least.” Liberals prefer a more objective test, such as race.

Isn’t excelling on written tests how Ruth Bader Ginsburg got where she is? It’s curious how people whose entire careers are based on doing well on tests find them so irrelevant to other people’s jobs.

In the middle of a fire, it can either be a great idea or the worst possible idea to open a door. An excellent method for finding out if your next fire chief knows the correct answer is a written test.

Unleashing the canard of all race-obsessed liberals, Ginsburg observed that courts have found that a fire officer’s job “involves complex behaviors, good interpersonal skills, the ability to make decisions under tremendous pressure, and a host of other abilities – none of which is easily measured by a written, multiple choice test.”

So does a lawyer’s job. And yet attorneys with absolutely no “interpersonal skills” get cushy jobs and extravagant salaries on the basis of their commendable performance on all manner of written tests, from multiple choice LSATs and bar exams to written law school exams.

I note that Ginsburg has not shown any particular interest in rectifying the “disparate impact” of legal exams: She never hired a single black law clerk out of the dozens she employed in more than a decade as an appeals court judge. (Her hiring practices on the Supreme Court are a state secret, but I can state with supreme certainty that her clerks do not reflect the racial mix of Washington, D.C.)

But liberals think other people’s jobs are a joke, so the testing must also be a joke. That is – other than their preferred test: “Is the applicant black, female or otherwise handicapped?”

There is no test that can prove all things about an employee and so there is no test that can’t be derided by the race-mongers. Which is exactly the point. Get rid of all tests – except for lawyers who graduated at the top of their law school classes at Columbia, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Then liberals are free to impose racial quotas on other people’s jobs without limit.

As crazy as this is, even Ginsburg and the other dissenters made a big point of pretending there was some flaw in this particular test. None adopted Sotomayor’s position that unequal test results alone prove discrimination.

This suggests that a wise Jewess, due to the richness of her life experiences, might come to a better judgment than a Latina judge would.

~ Drenched in the blood of slavery ~

Posted on June 22, 2009 by Monty
Filed Under 1 | Leave a Comment

The U.S. Senate voted unanimously last week to adopt a resolution apologizing for slavery.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D- Iowa, lead sponsor of the resolution, said, “You wonder why we didn’t do it 100 years ago. It is important to have a collective response to a collective injustice.”

Only after decades of public education ignoring and distorting U.S. history can such a huge lie be said with a straight face.

Senator, you didn’t do it 100 years ago because 100 years ago you Democrats were enforcing Jim Crow segregation laws, poll taxes to keep blacks from voting, and riding around in sheets and pointy hats just in case blacks didn’t get the message.

You say – “It’s important to have a collective response” – because you want to bury the origins, purposes, and historical practices of your own party.

The worst part is – the “Republicans” in the Senate let you get away with it.

Principled Republicans knowing their history would have authored a resolution reciting the facts that the Republican Party was formed, among other reasons, to oppose slavery and that the Republican Party and its first President Abraham Lincoln responded to Southern, Democrat-led secession with a successful war that preserved the union and freed the slaves.

After Lincoln’s assassination (by a Democrat), the Republican-led Congress (over the objections of the Democratic Party minority) amended the Constitution to confirm the liberation of the slaves (13th Amendment: slavery abolished), and the 14th Amendment (freed slaves are citizens equal to all citizens) and the 15th Amendment (right to vote guaranteed to freed slaves).

Southern Democrats spent the next 100 years trying to keep freed slaves down with segregation laws, poll taxes to deny the right to vote, and lynching to enforce the social order. The KKK was formed by a Democrat; no Republican has ever been a member of the KKK. This is the heritage of the Democratic Party.

In fact, the Democratic Party was formed in the first place to defend and expand slavery.

In 1840, the very first national nominating convention of the Democratic Party adopted a platform, which read in part:

Resolved, That Congress has no power … to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states … that all efforts by abolitionists … made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery … are calculated … to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the union.

Got that, Sen. Harkin? Your party was born defending slavery as necessary for the happiness of the people and threatening secession and war if slavery were challenged.

The same party platform language was used in 1844, 1848, 1852 and 1856. In 1860, the Democrat commitment to slavery took a harsher tone.

The Fugitive Slave Law was passed by Congress in 1850. This monstrous law provided that, since slaves were the personal property of their masters, runaway slaves must be returned to their owners. The law required all law enforcement officers to assist in the recapture of runaway slaves or risk a fine of $1,000 (about $100,000 in today’s dollars)!

The Republican Party was formed in the 1850s in part as a political reaction to this unjust law.

In their national convention of 1860, Democrats harshly responded to certain Northern (Republican) states that were passing state laws to evade the Fugitive Slave Law by adopting a plank in the Democratic Party Platform, which read: “Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.”

Senator, your Democratic Party has much to be apologetic about on the slavery issue.

During the civil war, the Southern Democrats led the Confederacy out of the Union; Northern Democrats formed a separate party, which opposed the war. The 1864 (Northern) Democratic Party platform adopted a “peace” plank, which read in part:

… after four years of failure to restore the union by the experiment of war … justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand … a cessation of hostilities … to the end that … peace may be restored …

Here is the origin of today’s Democratic Party “Peace at any Price, Better Red than Dead, Why Can’t we all just get Along” foreign policy.

The war was started by Democrat secessionists, and just as President Lincoln was on the verge of victory, the Northern Democrats wanted to save the South and slavery with “peace talks”! Voters knew better in 1864 and re-elected Lincoln.

But the Democrats weren’t through. In 1868, Sen. Harkin’s party condemned the Republican Party in its party platform as the “Radical Party,” and condemned Reconstruction in these unforgettable words: “Instead of restoring the Union, it (the Radical Party) has dissolved it, and subjected ten states (the former Confederate states) … to military despotism and negro supremacy.”

And, senator, don’t tell me this is all ancient history in a lame attempt to evade the true origins of your party.

As recently as 1964, when the Senate debated the Civil Rights Act, Southern Democrats (including Al Gore’s father) voted no. While Northern Democrats voted yes, their votes were not enough. The deciding votes to pass this landmark bill were provided by Sen. Everett Dirksen, R-Ill., and the Republicans.

Republicans should be proud of their heritage of liberation of the slaves and civil rights voting record.

It’s Harkin and the Democrats who should apologize and pay reparations.

Pending Federal Legislation

Posted on June 20, 2009 by Monty
Filed Under 1 | Leave a Comment

The Americans With No Abilities Act

Washington, DC – June 20, 2009

Pretendent Barack NObama and the Democrat controlled Congress are considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed by the Democrats as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or promise.

“Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society,” said Democrat California Senator Barbara Boxer. “We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability (POI), who were intentionally programmed by our school systems to be so, to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing. And please don’t ever call me ma’am – Senator will do just fine. I earned that title.”

In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid – both Democrats – pointed to the success of the Massachusetts Legislature, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. Approximately 74 percent of state employees, who received their jobs through friends in the Legislature, lack any job skills, making it the single largest Massachusetts pimp agency for Persons of Inability, more commonly called “hacks” in Massachusetts.

Private-sector industries with good records of non-discrimination against the inept include retail sales (72%) and LNR, the developers of the former Navy airbase in South Weymouth (68%).

At the state government level, the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) also has an excellent record – possibly the best statewide – for hiring Persons of Inability (96%) – with MassHighway in a statistical tie (95.999%). The Turnpike Authority was third with 95.85 percent – although the MBTA machinist and driver hacks, who are challenging the results in a suit being heard by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (91%), claim that figure to be way too high.

Under AWNAA, more than 25 million mid-level positions will be created nationally, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.

Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given so as to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of POI into middle-management positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented people hired.

Finally, the AWNAA contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as “Do you have any skills or experience that relate to this job?”

“As an incompetent person, I can’t be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them,” said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Michigan due to her inability to remember rightey tightey, lefty loosey. ”This new law should be real good for people like me,” Gertz added. With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other unintelligent citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Said Senator Dick Durbin (Democrat-IL), “As a Senator with no abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every incompetent American. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her inadequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation – and a good salary for doing so.”

In his address to a group of Massachusetts’s teachers’ union leaders, Pretendent NObama promised that Title 13 of the Act would direct special attention “not only to your members but also to your political leaders on Bacon Hill.” An aide to the pretendent whispered to him that it was already the case on clueless Bacon Hill and was promptly fired for standing in front of the teleprompter.

(This is an adaptation of a humorous pasquinade that appeared in The Onion in June 1998. It’s not true… or is it?)

Latest from Coulter

Posted on June 14, 2009 by Monty
Filed Under 1 | Leave a Comment

Welcome back, Carter

By Anne Coulter
June 10, 2009

Well, I’m glad that’s over! Now that our silver-tongued president has gone to Cairo to soothe Muslims’ hurt feelings, they love us again! Muslims in Pakistan expressed their appreciation for President Barack Obama’s speech by bombing a fancy hotel in Peshawar this week.

Operating on the liberal premise that what Arabs really respect is weakness, Obama listed, incorrectly, Muslims’ historical contributions to mankind, such as algebra (actually that was the ancient Babylonians), the compass (that was the Chinese), pens (the Chinese again) and medical discoveries (huh?).

But why be picky? All these inventions came in mighty handy on Sept. 11, 2001! Thanks, Muslims!

Obama bravely told the Cairo audience that 9/11 was a very nasty thing for Muslims to do to us, but on the other hand, they are victims of colonization.

Except we didn’t colonize them. The French and the British did. So why are Arabs flying planes into our buildings and not the Arc de Triomphe? (And gosh, haven’t the Arabs done a lot with the Middle East since the French and the British left!)

In another sharks-to-kittens comparison, Obama said, “Now let me be clear, issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam.” No, he said, “the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life.”

So on one hand, 12-year-old girls are stoned to death for the crime of being raped in Muslim countries. But on the other hand, we still don’t have enough female firefighters here in America.

Delusionally, Obama bragged about his multicultural worldview, saying, “I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal.” In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, women “choose” to cover their heads on pain of losing them.

Obama rolled out the crucial liberal talking point against America’s invasion of Iraq, saying Iraq was a “war of convenience,” while Afghanistan was a “war of necessity.” Liberals cling to this nonsense doggerel as a shield against their hypocrisy on Iraq. Either both wars were wars of necessity or both wars were wars of choice.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan – nor any country – attacked us on 9/11. Both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other Muslim countries, were sheltering those associated with the terrorists who did attack us on 9/11 – and who hoped to attack us again.

The truth is, all wars are wars of choice, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, both World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the Gulf War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, maybe the war on teen obesity is a war of convenience, but that’s the only one I can think of.

The modern Democrat Party chooses – really chooses, not like Saudi women “choosing” to wear hijabs – to fight no wars. But the Democrats couldn’t say that immediately after 9/11, so they pretended to support the war in Afghanistan and then had to spend the next seven and a half years trying to come up with a distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq.

Maybe next they can tell us why fighting Hitler – who never invaded the U.S. and had no plans to do so – was a “necessity” in a way that fighting Saddam wasn’t. (Obama on Hitler: “Nazi ideology sought to subjugate, humiliate and exterminate. It perpetrated murder on a massive scale.” Whereas Saddam Hussein was just messing with the Kuwaitis, Kurds and Shiites.)

Meanwhile, Muslims throughout the Middle East are yearning for their own Saddam Husseins to be taken out by U.S. invaders so they can be liberated, too. (Then we’ll see how many women – outside of an American college campus – “choose” to wear hijabs.) The war-of-choice/war-of-necessity point must be as mystifying to a Muslim audience as a discussion of gay marriage.

Arabs aren’t afraid of us; they’re afraid of Iran. But our aspiring Jimmy Carter had no tough words for Iran. To the contrary, in Cairo, Obama endorsed Iran’s quest for nuclear “power,” while attacking – brace yourself – America for helping remove Iranian loon Mohammad Mossadegh.

The CIA’s taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before it became a collection of lawyers and paper-pushers.

Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews lying in bed in pink pajamas. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by “nationalizing” the oil wells, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out.

But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.

True, Mossadegh had been “elected” by the Iranian parliament – but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime minister.

In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah’s choice to assume the office. This “coup,” as liberal academics term it, was approved by liberals’ favorite Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as John Foster Dulles.

For Obama to be apologizing for one of the CIA’s greatest accomplishments isn’t just crazy, it’s Ramsey Clark crazy.

Obama also said that it was unfair that “some countries have weapons that others do not” and proclaimed that “any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

Wait – how about us? If a fanatical holocaust denier with messianic delusions can have nuclear power, can’t the U.S. at least build one nuclear power plant every 30 years?

I’m sure Iran’s compliance will be policed as well as North Korea’s was. Clinton struck a much-heralded “peace deal” with North Korea in 1994, giving them $4 billion to construct nuclear facilities and 500,000 tons of fuel oil in return for a promise that they wouldn’t build nuclear weapons. The ink wasn’t dry before the North Koreans began feverishly building nukes.

But back to Iran, what precisely do Iranians need nuclear power for, again? They’re not exactly a manufacturing powerhouse. Iran is a primitive nation in the middle of a desert that happens to sit on top of a large percentage of the world’s oil and gas reserves. That’s not enough oil and gas to run household fans?

Obama’s “I’m OK, You’re OK” speech would be hilarious, if it weren’t so terrifying.

How Shall I Tax Thee?

Posted on May 26, 2009 by Monty
Filed Under 1 | 2 Comments

my-headshot
WatchBlog logo

The Massachusetts Taxman’s Creed

By Bob Montgomery Thomas

A radical departure from Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s great work

How shall I tax thee? Let me count the ways…

I shall tax thee to the depth and breadth and height my hand can reach – when feeling out of sight.

And to any end that provides my tainted means.

I shall tax thee to the level of everything’s most pressing need, by day –– and by night.

I shall tax thee freely, as I strive for greater might,

I shall tax thee purely, as thou turn from praise.

I shall tax thee with the passion put to use in my old griefs, and with my childhood’s creed.

I shall tax thee with a devotion that I once had –– with my long absent saints,

I shall tax thee with each breath, and smile, and sorrow, of all my life!

And, if God chooses ––
and He does –– I shall but tax thee better after death.

It matters not that thou loseth thy home –– or that there is not work for thee to retain it.

What matters most is that pensions and welfare be provided to the unworthy,

And that unions shall receive inflated wages – and guarantees – all to be provided by thy munificence.

And should thou complain, I shall impose on thee yet another tax –– or raise one that exists,

This that I shall have my way with thee –– and thine –– as often as I should ever want.

For it is all but for the common good –– or whomever and whatever I should consider that mine.

And my dutiful unwavering drones shall beat back every attempt to reduce their abominable lot,

So that my dominion shall ne’er be abridged in any way.

And so it shall be forever or until I shall deem else –– for I am the omnipotent god of tax ––

And thou art naught but my wretched vassals until such time thee shall no longer exist.

Coulter on “abortion rights”

Posted on May 20, 2009 by Monty
Filed Under 1 | Leave a Comment

WHY NO PUBLIC DISPLAY OF “ABORTION RIGHTS”?

Anne Coulter © May 20, 2009

How about for next year’s graduation ceremony Notre Dame have an abortionist perform an abortion live on stage? They could have a partial-birth abortion for the advanced degrees.

According to liberals, the right to kill babies was enshrined by the Founding Fathers in our Constitution – and other constitutional rights are celebrated in public.

The right to bear arms is honored in 21-gun salutes, turkey shoots, Civil War re-enactments, firearms demonstrations and, occasionally, at Phil Spector’s house.

The right to petition the government for redress of grievances is celebrated at political rallies, tea parties, marches, protests and whenever Keith Olbermann has a fight with his cat.

The free exercise clause is observed in church services, missionary work, peyote-smoking Indian rituals and for a few days after every time Bill Clinton gets caught having an extramarital affair.

So instead of inviting a “constitutional lawyer” to yammer on about this purported constitutional right, why not show it being practiced?

How about a 21-vacuum hose (D&C) salute? Maybe have the Notre Dame marching band form a giant skull-piercing fork? How about having the president throw out the ceremonial first fetus, like on opening day in baseball? I’m just brainstorming here, folks – none of this is written in stone.

Being such a prestigious institution, Notre Dame could probably get famed partial-birth abortion practitioner George Tiller to do the demonstration at next year’s graduation. Obama could help – inasmuch as Tiller the abortionist is a close friend of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

This is a “constitutional right” like no other.

Even its supporters are embarrassed by the exercise of this right. They won’t practice the right in public – they won’t even call abortion by its name, preferring to use a string of constantly changing euphemisms, such as “reproductive health” and “choice.”

It would be as if gun owners refused to use the word “gun” and the NRA’s motto were, “Let’s all work together to keep hunting safe, legal and rare.”

Liberals were awestruck by Obama’s statesmanlike speech at Notre Dame, but whatever he says about abortion is frothy nonsense because we’re not allowed to vote on abortion policy in America. If it’s a “constitutional right,” we can no more vote on abortion than we could vote on free speech.

With Roe v. Wade, abortion supporters ripped the issue out of the democratic process – limb from limb, you might say – and declared their desired outcome a “constitutional right.” They have hysterically defended that lawless decision for the last quarter-century.

All of Obama’s soothing words about joining hands and not demonizing one another are just blather as long as that legal monstrosity remains the law of the land.

Showing his open-mindedness, Obama asked, “How does each of us remain firm in our principles … without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?” (What do I have to do to get you murderers and you non-murderers to shake hands and be friends?)

A good start would be letting us vote.

Liberals can be all sweet reason as long as their preference for abortion on demand is lyingly called a “constitutional right,” immutable to the tiniest alteration by the voters.

In the minuscule areas where abortion policy can be affected, Obama has shown his passion for compromise by always taking the most extreme pro-abortion position.

On his third day in office, Obama overturned the “Mexico City Policy,” which prohibited U.S. taxpayer money from being spent on overseas organizations that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.

Obama has filled his administration with Planned Parenthood veterans and friends of partial-birth abortionists.

As an Illinois state senator in 2002-2003, Obama repeatedly blocked and voted against the “Born Alive Act,” which would have allowed doctors to give medical care to babies who somehow survived abortions and remained alive, wholly apart from their mothers.

Even the extremist National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League declined to take a position on the bill. The same bill in the U.S. Senate passed unanimously – and that means that abortion-happy nutcake Barbara Boxer voted for it.

But Obama apparently thought it was important to affirm a woman’s critical right to fourth-trimester abortions.

Here’s my idea for how we can “live together as one human family,” as Obama proposed at Notre Dame: Go ahead, demonize pro-lifers, Obama – call us “right-wing ideologues.” But just once, support one little policy that will save a single unborn child.

Holy Moley Batman

Posted on May 16, 2009 by Monty
Filed Under 1 | Leave a Comment

my-headshot

Bob Monty here…

It seems that MassGOP chair Jennifer Nassour picked up on the cute trick used by Gov. Default Patrick and the Mass Democrats’ Seventy First Fund to circumvent the intention of campaign finance laws – before our state senate changes all the rules. Maybe she got the idea from one of my published commentaries or perhaps it was her own idea.

A recent invite to the Second Annual Lincoln Reagan Reception, at which National GOP chair Michael Steele will be the headliner, says that GOP high rollers can join a Key Club Gold Level Round Table event with Steele by donating $15K to the MassGOP. That struck me as odd because the maximum one can donate to a state political party is $5000 — until I saw the fine print at the bottom of the reply section. There it states that $5K will go to the MassGOP and $10,000 will go to the national GOP.

Shoot, that’s a relief, I thought they were breaking the law…

I’m wondering if the $10K to the national GOP will allow for one elbow rub or two with Steele. I’m also wondering if there is any guarantee that the MassGOP will get to massage the money a bit before it turns it over to Steele and Company and if there is any guarantee that Steele will return some – and/or how much – of the windfall to Nassour and Company.

Either way – love her or not – ya gotta give her credit for having the canarkies to reach for the moon and the stars.

Anyway – too rich for my blood. I’ll vote GOP for governor if they can persuade a credible candidate to run – but that’s about it. I’ll have my own race to worry about – where the MassGOP will look the other way once again. It’s every person for him or her or its self now that Jen has invited certain closet-dwelling Republicans to come out and run.

~ Setting the Record Straight ~

Posted on May 11, 2009 by Monty
Filed Under 1 | Leave a Comment

my-headshot

May 13, 2009

By Bob Montgomery Thomas

During the so-called May 11 Weymouth Annual Town Meeting, one heated discussion regarded the mayor’s obsession with removing the police chief’s position from civil service law. Her bone of contention is that she had difficulty reprimanding former chief James Thomas for allegations against his behavior and character.

Whether or not they were true is of no consequence to me because the person or persons alleged to have been aggrieved by his behavior never filed formal complaints at the time of the alleged misdeeds.

That said, I spoke before the town council and the audience, mostly comprised of town employees whose attendance was likely required, and suggested that because the Charter is due to be reviewed this year, we ought to wait until the as-yet-to-be-appointed Charter Commission reviews arguments for and against civil service along with other suggested changes to our governing document.

Personally, I could give a rat’s rump as to whether or not we should continue to be served by civil service because I don’t have a dog in that fight. But the Town Charter clearly states in Section 9: “For the purpose of classifying positions under the civil service law and rules, Weymouth, notwithstanding the provisions of a home rule charter establishing its form of government, shall continue to be governed by the provisions of section fifty-two of chapter thirty-one of the General Laws and not by the provisions of section fifty-one of said chapter thirty-one. Nothing in this act shall be construed to affect the civil service status of any person currently covered by such law and rules.”

It’s pretty clear to me that when the Charter was devised, civil service was important enough to be addressed in the proposal to be voted upon by those who took the time to vote on the change in our government. I would add that less than 20 percent of the people got off their couches to vote on such an important document, but hey, that’s Weymouth for you.

Amended Article 89 of the state constitution, Section 8, allows a city to amend its charter by a Home Rule Petition to the Legislature from a mayor, in concert with the town council. It seems to me that when considering the importance such as given to civil service in the compact between the citizens and the government, it should have what is called a local option clause where we, the People, then vote on any legislative action to remove or amend it.

Without that citizen input, this is plainly an attempt to alter the Charter outside of the controls employed in it.

This brings me back to the mid-1990’s when town meeting voted to petition the Legislature to remove the elective offices of tax collector and treasurer and replace them with an appointed combination official. As a member of the town’s-then Bylaw Review Committee, I didn’t have a problem with the premise of having a highly skilled person doing both jobs – the problem is that it violated our then-charter, Chapter 61 of the Acts of 1921. Chapter 61 prohibited town meeting from any action relative to the election of officers. It had no authority to ask the Legislature to take away the voters’ rights and have elective offices removed without the voters’ approval at the polls.

A lawsuit was brought against the town and the Attorney General (it was an unconstitutional issue that his office had approved) and I was lead plaintiff and the only one funding it. After a preliminary hearing, the case went to Judge Philip Rivard-Raposa where then-town-counsel George Lane and I presented cross-motions for summary judgement. The judge and the defendants showed me a modicum of respect for my argument by referring to me as Brother Thomas, a term of respect amongst attorneys, although I am not an attorney. But after hearing the motions, the judge ruled in favor of the town.

Undeterred by Rivard-Raposa’s decision, I filed an immediate appeal. The suit cost me a lot in that I spent so much time arguing for the rights of people who could care less, I wound up losing my business dealership and the source of my income – but I would do it all over again for a number of reasons.

In 2002, the court clerk notified me that the time limit on my appeal was coming to an end and that I had to make a decision to continue or quit. The town had already voted to adopt the Charter, which provided for an appointed treasurer/collector, and so the point was moot. But that’s not why I quit. If Weymouth’s voters didn’t care about their rights, why should I fight for them?

Soon after his decision, Rivard-Raposa became an appellate judge, most likely with then House Ways and Means Chairman Haley having something to do with it since Haley was part of the cabal that wanted our government changed. And of all things, our current state rep MIA Murphy, Haley’s former legislative aide, became a law clerk for Rivard-Raposa until such time as Haley decided to not take office after having been re-elected in 2000.

That election ploy cost the town $20K for a special election, which Murphy won. And we’ve been stuck with his ineptitude ever since.

As now-solicitor Lane pointed out at the May 11 town meeting in response to my referring to the suit, the case was adjudicated in favor of the town. However, Lane failed to mention that he once told me he made $12K defending the town while I spent my own personal funds. Maybe if I had had the town’s wallet at my disposal as Lane had, the outcome in front of Rivard-Raposa would have been different.

The town never sought to recover its costs from me for what one former selectmen called a frivolous suit. Well I’m still here, so come and get me.

You be the judge as to what really went on and how high the stink factor is. I already know. To me, this is nothing more than an extension and solidification of that 1994 power grab. These folks are never satisfied – they want it all and more!

Dead on Arrival

Posted on May 5, 2009 by Monty
Filed Under 1 | Leave a Comment

Being a retiree concerned with rising taxes, I made an appointment to appear before the town council in February to propose an ordinance that would allow the town, and through it, we, the taxpayers, to recover expenditures to provide personnel and/or equipment for rescue, recovery or clean-up operations required because someone violated an ordinance or law.

Although I’m not an attorney, I did acquire a valuable understanding of statute structure during my six-year-long stint with the bylaw review committee in our former government; the last two as chairman.

In our current mayoral government paradigm, councilors are appointed by the council president to serve on the ordinance committee, where new ordinances are pondered or older ones are reviewed and updated. At least that’s what’s supposed to happen.

My proposal was dubbed the Recovery of Public Resources Ordinance. The condensed purpose reads: “Notwithstanding any laws to the contrary, and without limitation, the purpose of this Ordinance is to allow the Town of Weymouth, and through it its taxpayers, to recover bona fide costs for having to provide personnel and/or equipment for rescue and recovery operations; or for hazardous or other material containment or clean up; or for police and/or fire details for such operations, etc.”

It goes on to say, “It is further the intent of this Ordinance that its application shall only be employed where there is a violation of the local laws related to the Peace and Good Order provisions in Section 6 of the Weymouth Code of Ordinances; or of the Massachusetts General Laws; or of any federal laws or other statutes that cause or caused the town to expend public resources to address corresponding situations.”

The proposal mandates that the town be reimbursed its costs including: the per-hour, per-person cost, including pension and benefits, for each employee provided by the town to remedy a situation; the per-hour, per-piece-of-equipment cost essential to remedy a situation; the replacement or repair cost, including the cost of salvage operations for any piece of equipment damaged, lost or destroyed in facilitating a remedy; and that ten-percent be added to reimbursement demands for administrative costs.

There are also provisions for interest for non-payment, exclusions and an appeals process.

Two weeks before my appearance, I brought copies of the proposal to the council office so that the president and councilors would be able to review it beforehand. Then, just before the start of the meeting, I told President Smart that I wouldn’t be surprised to see the proposal defeated if CFO Wilson could have his way; because Wilson had a propensity back in the town meeting day to do all that he could to defeat anything that anyone but he thought of. It’s some sort of a queer head game with Wilson.

Lo and behold, Wilson’s law partner, councilor Kevin Whitaker, who chairs the Ordinance Committee, made a motion to table the proposal in order to get a ruling from the solicitor as to whether or not the idea should emanate from the council or the mayor. How odd and coincidental is that?

After much discussion, the vote was 6 to 4 to table the proposal until a ruling could be had. At that point, the proposal was dead on arrival.

The solicitor, who works for the administration and not exclusively for the council, ruled that in his interpretation of the Charter, only the mayor could advance such a remarkable idea to save the taxpayers’ money. From what I heard, there was a blaring flushing sound in the background when he delivered his ruling. I wasn’t able to attend that meeting because of the death of an aunt, so there were really two passings that night.

The council voted unanimously to forward the idea to the mayor, who, two-months later, hand-pumped the proposal to Deer Island to its final resting-place. So there we have it in a nutshell people – no enterprising Weymouth ordinance shall ever see the light of day in her administration.

As an aside, I would be remiss not to mention that my appointment with the mayor was first scheduled on a day that she would be out of town; so I had to break starch two days in a row to be able to watch the proposal swirl around the bottom of her porcelain bowl before it met its pre-planned demise.

At the close of our meeting, the mayor did say she was interested in the lists of fees I gathered from municipalities that charge for similar services. But since I don’t have any more shirts that need starch broken, she could have her appointment secretary research them on the Internet. That way it can be her idea if she thinks of it.

How large a House do we need?

Posted on April 18, 2009 by Monty
Filed Under 1 | Leave a Comment

By Weymouth expatriate Bob Casimiro

The Maine Legislature has under consideration bills to reduce the size of the Legislature and to increase the term of office from two to four years.

As someone who returned to Maine two years ago after a very long, circuitous route, the last eighteen years of which were spent in Massachusetts, all I can say is: Whoa!

My activism on immigration and other issues during the last eight years of my stay in Massachusetts resulted in dozens and dozens of trips up to Beacon Hill to testify, advocate, distribute literature, debate the issues, etc.; a level of involvement that gave me an intimate knowledge of the political and governmental processes in Massachusetts.

This was in addition to my participation in neighborhood organizations; attending town council meetings and testifying on citizen concerns items before the town council; and my one attempt at local elective office.

We don’t want to emulate Massachusetts and that is where we will go if some of the measures being floated become law. Government is about representation and that is what we should focus on, not speed or efficiency.

Our constitutional systems were designed to be inefficient. The word streamline and representation do not go together. We are not making widgets; we are looking for the best expression of the popular will.

The Massachusetts House of Representatives reduced its membership from 240 to the current 160 in 1974. It was done, purportedly, as a means of efficiency but it has served, among other things, to consolidate power, reduce representation and limit voter involvement.

Think about this: In 1974 with 240 reps for a population of 5.8 million there was one rep for every 24,000 residents in Massachusetts. With the reduction in reps from 240 to 160 and a population increase to 6.4 million representation is now about 40,000 residents per rep.

Here’s what happens: I tried for six months to get a meeting with my state rep (Bob Monty: that would be our own “James” MIA Murphy) but had to settle for a chat with a friend of his who sat in for him at the town hall during my rep’s “office hour” (One hour per week). A nice fellow, for sure, and we had some interesting discussions about the books we each were reading at the time – but not the direct encounter with my representative I was looking for.

Several municipalities in Massachusetts were in the process of changing from a Town Meeting/Board of Selectmen form of government to Mayor/Town Council when I was there and I followed these initiatives closely. And I went to testify at one of the hearings on the issue in a neighboring town.

So, what is an ideal level of representation?

My own view is that each local councilor should represent about 1,000-2,000 people. The area circumscribed by a population area of this size has the grade schools, shopping and service facilities residents customarily use and the councilor will be bumping into his constituents on a regular basis and can get their views firsthand. This is the basic principle of representation: first hand, direct, eyeball to eyeball communication. Anything else puts up barriers between individuals and communication is diluted as it comes in the form of letters or other less effective forms of communication.

Here in Maine there are about 8,600 residents per state rep. My state rep, Rick Sykes, (R-Harrison, Bridgton, Lovell, Stow, and Sweden) picked up on this theme when I talked to him and he told me he is satisfied with the way it is because he “does his (constituent) business at the Market Basket and the post office.”

When considering any changes you must start with a standard, an ideal against which to judge any of these proposed changes.

So, go slowly and deliberately and do no harm, or else we could go the way of Massachusetts — and that is truly scary!

A. Robert Casimiro is now a Bridgton, ME resident and is sorely missed by his many friends here in the Commonwealth. He can be reached through us, the fine folks here at WatchBlog.

keep looking »