If you can be known by the professionals who you surround yourself with, new Massachusetts House Speaker Robert DeLeo (D) of Winthrop may be favorably known as he pulls together a new team of seasoned political veterans to help him quarterback leadership of the Massachusetts House of Representatives.
Having won an easy victory over his opponent, House Majority Leader Rogers, DeLeo is reaching out for some cream of the crop appointments, and has succeeded in recruiting a few former public servants who've been living the good life in the private sector.
Former Boston Phoenix Columnist and Tom Menino Spokesman Seth Gitell will assume the post of PR man for the newly elected speaker.
Deleo served as House Ways and Means Chairman under departed Speaker Sal Dimasi and is known for his reserved and cautious leadership style. DeLeo has promised a transparent leadership style and has recently made a term limits proposal for the office of the House speaker. Gitell, hardly rash or rumbunctions, will make a good fit as DeLeo's communications lieutenant at the state house.
Gitell was highly respected by the press corp while serving as Boston Mayor Tom Menino's communications director, and appreciates the needs of his old colleagues in the press corp. having been on that side of the aisle as the well known scribe for the Phoenix. As a Boston writer, Gitell was highly respected for his probing and careful analysis of city and state politics. Gitell is also an attorney and since leaving Menino's staff has published a well read and noteworthy blog.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Boston mayoral contest '09
Flaherty has his work cut out for him
by Kevin John Sowyrda
MySouthEnd.com Contributor
Thursday Jan 29, 2009
The race for mayor of Boston may not be a "show me the money" contest as much as it will be a "show me some new ideas" race. In that vein, Councilor Michael Flaherty’s novel, YouTube baptism as a contender for the city’s highest office is best taken seriously by the incumbent potentially seeking an unprecedented fifth term at a time when recession beleaguered voters have few reasons to embrace the status quo.
But first, a reality check for the at-large City Councilor, who has enjoyed broad support in the South End, which can be attributed to his progressive stance on key social issues. Menino will hardly go down in history like that Marlin Brando "could-ah been a contendah" film character. Menino has been the de jure contender for many years, beating a crowded field of articulate political pros in a special election in 1993, garnering more than 60 percent of the vote. He’s kept a bullet train pace since then, building a massive, urban political machine envied by other state politicos. To be perfectly blunt, Menino’s the George Patton of Massachusetts politics: brash, highly aggressive, savvy and armed with a legion of loyalists and an intimidating war chest of $1.4 million; in comparison, Flaherty has only $590,000 at his disposal.
"Flaherty’s an articulate candidate, but in a business where money can be the king maker Mayor Menino remains a formidable and respected incumbent," said Boston media consultant Jan Saragoni.
But this is not to say Councilor Flaherty need storm Pork Chop Hill to take the mayor’s office. What he may lack in political cash the young Flaherty compensates for with political cache, an unquestionably superior ability to communicate, and the physical appearance of youth and vitality which plays to the desire for change - presuming you subscribe to the theory of Menino Fatigue, as do I.
True, you can bet the job you might still have that the councilor from South Boston will not out raise His Honor anytime before November. Keeping pace with Menino’s money machine is a marathon no one’s going to win. This is business as usual, and should you doubt it just call former Menino opponents Maura Hennigan and Peggy Davis Mullen.
Hence, Menino Fatigue. Many in the city grow tired of a chief executive at times perceived as temperamental and thin-skinned and whose vision for the Hub seems limited to a nearsighted view of a posh, harbor side City Hall - an architectural plan now thankfully mothballed. And the potential fodder for a Menino challenger is actually quite fresh, coming from recent criticism in the news regarding the Mayor spending more than a cool million on political activities just as one member of his family is revealed for enjoying a special job arrangement with a major city developer.
Flaherty’s chances rest on the possibility that there’s a silent majority of Bostonians who are feeling intense pains in the pocketbook, which might trigger less than the normal level of tolerance for an incumbent issuing disjointed pronouncements and utilizing backroom political tactics from an already scandal-weary electorate.
But a coin flip reveals two factors that may make Menino his usual, formidable self. First, Flaherty, for all his oratorical skills, will have to overcome the political fact that Menino is a municipal version of Barack Obama, which is to say the mayor has consistently proven that he can raise huge sums of money to overwhelm any political opposition. And then there’s this: the mayor is a workaholic. I recall a conversation I once had with former mayoral communications director and South Ender Carol Brennan, who told me that no matter how early she rose for work, the mayor was already awake and 10 steps ahead of the rest of the staff. For Flaherty to outwork the mayor, he best prepare for 18-hour campaign days.
Those long campaign days will be consumed by a needed discussion on the economy, and on this front Flaherty has already outmaneuvered the Mayor by publicly opposing an increase in the city meals tax. While Menino is fighting for state approval to raise the meals tax by two percent, Flaherty has just come out swinging on the issue, arguing that making a night out on the town even more expensive in this economy is hardly a prodigious move. Flaherty’s right on this issue, and proves that he’s more in touch with the hurting local business owners who are already facing empty tables at Boston eateries.
So the race is on. The incumbent who’s everywhere, hardly articulate but hardly unapproachable, versus the renegade councilor who hails from a different generation with better prose but an inferior political machine to propel his candidacy. Sure, the odds-on favorite is the same mayor we’ve had for nearly 15 years. And yes, the era we have chronicled in Boston for so long is one where entrenched incumbents reign without question and are challenged only at the peril of the challengers.
But like many things in American politics of late, that glass ceiling may not be long for this world.
by Kevin John Sowyrda
MySouthEnd.com Contributor
Thursday Jan 29, 2009
The race for mayor of Boston may not be a "show me the money" contest as much as it will be a "show me some new ideas" race. In that vein, Councilor Michael Flaherty’s novel, YouTube baptism as a contender for the city’s highest office is best taken seriously by the incumbent potentially seeking an unprecedented fifth term at a time when recession beleaguered voters have few reasons to embrace the status quo.
But first, a reality check for the at-large City Councilor, who has enjoyed broad support in the South End, which can be attributed to his progressive stance on key social issues. Menino will hardly go down in history like that Marlin Brando "could-ah been a contendah" film character. Menino has been the de jure contender for many years, beating a crowded field of articulate political pros in a special election in 1993, garnering more than 60 percent of the vote. He’s kept a bullet train pace since then, building a massive, urban political machine envied by other state politicos. To be perfectly blunt, Menino’s the George Patton of Massachusetts politics: brash, highly aggressive, savvy and armed with a legion of loyalists and an intimidating war chest of $1.4 million; in comparison, Flaherty has only $590,000 at his disposal.
"Flaherty’s an articulate candidate, but in a business where money can be the king maker Mayor Menino remains a formidable and respected incumbent," said Boston media consultant Jan Saragoni.
But this is not to say Councilor Flaherty need storm Pork Chop Hill to take the mayor’s office. What he may lack in political cash the young Flaherty compensates for with political cache, an unquestionably superior ability to communicate, and the physical appearance of youth and vitality which plays to the desire for change - presuming you subscribe to the theory of Menino Fatigue, as do I.
True, you can bet the job you might still have that the councilor from South Boston will not out raise His Honor anytime before November. Keeping pace with Menino’s money machine is a marathon no one’s going to win. This is business as usual, and should you doubt it just call former Menino opponents Maura Hennigan and Peggy Davis Mullen.
Hence, Menino Fatigue. Many in the city grow tired of a chief executive at times perceived as temperamental and thin-skinned and whose vision for the Hub seems limited to a nearsighted view of a posh, harbor side City Hall - an architectural plan now thankfully mothballed. And the potential fodder for a Menino challenger is actually quite fresh, coming from recent criticism in the news regarding the Mayor spending more than a cool million on political activities just as one member of his family is revealed for enjoying a special job arrangement with a major city developer.
Flaherty’s chances rest on the possibility that there’s a silent majority of Bostonians who are feeling intense pains in the pocketbook, which might trigger less than the normal level of tolerance for an incumbent issuing disjointed pronouncements and utilizing backroom political tactics from an already scandal-weary electorate.
But a coin flip reveals two factors that may make Menino his usual, formidable self. First, Flaherty, for all his oratorical skills, will have to overcome the political fact that Menino is a municipal version of Barack Obama, which is to say the mayor has consistently proven that he can raise huge sums of money to overwhelm any political opposition. And then there’s this: the mayor is a workaholic. I recall a conversation I once had with former mayoral communications director and South Ender Carol Brennan, who told me that no matter how early she rose for work, the mayor was already awake and 10 steps ahead of the rest of the staff. For Flaherty to outwork the mayor, he best prepare for 18-hour campaign days.
Those long campaign days will be consumed by a needed discussion on the economy, and on this front Flaherty has already outmaneuvered the Mayor by publicly opposing an increase in the city meals tax. While Menino is fighting for state approval to raise the meals tax by two percent, Flaherty has just come out swinging on the issue, arguing that making a night out on the town even more expensive in this economy is hardly a prodigious move. Flaherty’s right on this issue, and proves that he’s more in touch with the hurting local business owners who are already facing empty tables at Boston eateries.
So the race is on. The incumbent who’s everywhere, hardly articulate but hardly unapproachable, versus the renegade councilor who hails from a different generation with better prose but an inferior political machine to propel his candidacy. Sure, the odds-on favorite is the same mayor we’ve had for nearly 15 years. And yes, the era we have chronicled in Boston for so long is one where entrenched incumbents reign without question and are challenged only at the peril of the challengers.
But like many things in American politics of late, that glass ceiling may not be long for this world.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Pay for PLAY.......................
Pay to play, Boston style.
by Kevin Sowyrda
If it's Mayor Menino's narcissistic intent to continue impersonating Marie Antoinette - minus the ornate garments and Austrian accent - I'll be the singular person in the Hub to tell you that an upset of historic proportions is in the offing in the upcoming mayoral contest where the incumbent has been considered all but invincible.
For some weeks now, while Bostonians are dodging pink slips more than meter maids, Menino has been apprehended - by the media that is - for living a life style that would put any self-respecting Bourbon Royalist to shame. In good times the chronicles of Menino's missions of self indulgence would serve as sufficiently grating. But at a point in history when we all feel like we're living a real life version of that iconic T.V. series the WALTONS, the news of one million dollars in Menino's political cash being lavished on the payroll patriots, and His Honor's highly paid detective son enjoying the benefits of what some are calling a no show job with a development company which regularly begs for mayoral favors, is just too naked for any apologetic press release to cover up.
It's a little difficult to calculate which sin better portrays the pugnacious and self centered politician. On December 29, 2008 the Boston Globe reported that Menino has spent a staggering $1.2 million from his political war chest over the past three years on all things trite and ridiculous, ranging from fabulous galas to endless dining events at the South End's Hamersley's Bistro. If the mayor's campaign chest was burning such a hole in his pocket, a cool million would have gone a long way to help people in greater need than the perennial political activists already fattened at the trough.
But perhaps the more egregious sin is not that difficult to consider. With unemployment certain to hit eight percent before the end of the quarter, Bostonians learn from a Boston Herald article that Tom Menino, Jr., His Honor's police detective son, was paid $137,000 in 2007. Though it's hard to digest how the mayor's progeny was able to reportedly earn 310 overtime hours, the average laid off Bostonian has a difficult task figuring why and how $137,000 isn't enough for the young lad to survive on, family and all. But apparently it's not. Hence Suffolk Construction enters this sordid, political play.
Suffolk's web page will tell you that they are dedicated to "exceptional client service." Apparently, Mayor Menino's son is treated better than any client could hope for. The royal prince works as a safety consultant for Suffolk for a sum of cash yet to be determined; and we are to believe this has no influence on city hall, where the fate of Suffolk Construction projects is deliberated on a daily basis by the mayor's minions.
The city legal counsel, William F. Sinnot, patronizes us by declaring there's no conflict of interest here and nothing for us to worry our pretty, little heads about. Memo to Mr. Sinnot - Illinois Governor Blagojavich should pray every day that you become the next U.S. Attorney for his state.
Sinnot is as much a sycophant as he is an incompetent lawyer. The Menino affair is absolutely a conflict of interest, even by the lowest bar of ethical standards. It's Boston's version of pay to play and it's a perfectly reasonable impetus for Bostonians to seek a new administration at city hall which will be committed to anything but business as unusual. In the interim, the state should investigate exactly who arranged for the princely sum for the mayoral prince; and what quid pro quos may have been negotiated. Since Attorney General Martha Coakley has disappeared (anyone who can find her doing something about state corruption is hereby offered a $1,000 cash finders fee) we should expect the U.S. Attorney - the only law enforcement office in Massachusetts which seems to care about ferreting out public corruption - to vet the situation.
And then there's this. There's no neighborhood in the Baystate where pay to play has garnered more headlines than in Boston's South End. With a former state senator and a current city councilor headed for trial on bribery charges, South Enders understand what bribery means. But there are two types of bribes, aren't there? There's illegal bribes, where getting caught taking cash lands you in handcuffs. Then there's legal, or acceptable, bribery, where taking cash in an indirect manner - such as a great job for your son - just lands you in the media dog house.
For my money, I see no difference between legal bribes and illegal bribes. It's all the same type of corruption and cronyism.
by Kevin Sowyrda
If it's Mayor Menino's narcissistic intent to continue impersonating Marie Antoinette - minus the ornate garments and Austrian accent - I'll be the singular person in the Hub to tell you that an upset of historic proportions is in the offing in the upcoming mayoral contest where the incumbent has been considered all but invincible.
For some weeks now, while Bostonians are dodging pink slips more than meter maids, Menino has been apprehended - by the media that is - for living a life style that would put any self-respecting Bourbon Royalist to shame. In good times the chronicles of Menino's missions of self indulgence would serve as sufficiently grating. But at a point in history when we all feel like we're living a real life version of that iconic T.V. series the WALTONS, the news of one million dollars in Menino's political cash being lavished on the payroll patriots, and His Honor's highly paid detective son enjoying the benefits of what some are calling a no show job with a development company which regularly begs for mayoral favors, is just too naked for any apologetic press release to cover up.
It's a little difficult to calculate which sin better portrays the pugnacious and self centered politician. On December 29, 2008 the Boston Globe reported that Menino has spent a staggering $1.2 million from his political war chest over the past three years on all things trite and ridiculous, ranging from fabulous galas to endless dining events at the South End's Hamersley's Bistro. If the mayor's campaign chest was burning such a hole in his pocket, a cool million would have gone a long way to help people in greater need than the perennial political activists already fattened at the trough.
But perhaps the more egregious sin is not that difficult to consider. With unemployment certain to hit eight percent before the end of the quarter, Bostonians learn from a Boston Herald article that Tom Menino, Jr., His Honor's police detective son, was paid $137,000 in 2007. Though it's hard to digest how the mayor's progeny was able to reportedly earn 310 overtime hours, the average laid off Bostonian has a difficult task figuring why and how $137,000 isn't enough for the young lad to survive on, family and all. But apparently it's not. Hence Suffolk Construction enters this sordid, political play.
Suffolk's web page will tell you that they are dedicated to "exceptional client service." Apparently, Mayor Menino's son is treated better than any client could hope for. The royal prince works as a safety consultant for Suffolk for a sum of cash yet to be determined; and we are to believe this has no influence on city hall, where the fate of Suffolk Construction projects is deliberated on a daily basis by the mayor's minions.
The city legal counsel, William F. Sinnot, patronizes us by declaring there's no conflict of interest here and nothing for us to worry our pretty, little heads about. Memo to Mr. Sinnot - Illinois Governor Blagojavich should pray every day that you become the next U.S. Attorney for his state.
Sinnot is as much a sycophant as he is an incompetent lawyer. The Menino affair is absolutely a conflict of interest, even by the lowest bar of ethical standards. It's Boston's version of pay to play and it's a perfectly reasonable impetus for Bostonians to seek a new administration at city hall which will be committed to anything but business as unusual. In the interim, the state should investigate exactly who arranged for the princely sum for the mayoral prince; and what quid pro quos may have been negotiated. Since Attorney General Martha Coakley has disappeared (anyone who can find her doing something about state corruption is hereby offered a $1,000 cash finders fee) we should expect the U.S. Attorney - the only law enforcement office in Massachusetts which seems to care about ferreting out public corruption - to vet the situation.
And then there's this. There's no neighborhood in the Baystate where pay to play has garnered more headlines than in Boston's South End. With a former state senator and a current city councilor headed for trial on bribery charges, South Enders understand what bribery means. But there are two types of bribes, aren't there? There's illegal bribes, where getting caught taking cash lands you in handcuffs. Then there's legal, or acceptable, bribery, where taking cash in an indirect manner - such as a great job for your son - just lands you in the media dog house.
For my money, I see no difference between legal bribes and illegal bribes. It's all the same type of corruption and cronyism.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Behind the movie......
Off screen, Sean Penn is no Harvey Milk
by Kevin John Sowyrda
contributing writer
Wednesday Dec 24, 2008
I got Milk. I mean to say, I’ve seen the flick about the life and times of one of America’s first openly gay elected officials. Milk was a panoply of sexual identity, bigotry, spiritual conversion, seizing power, having it stolen away, revenge and twisted closure. The movie is also about a producer’s denial regarding sensitivity to the real world activities of an actor who is polar opposite to everything Harvey Milk would be doing right now had he survived his assassination in 1978. Sean Penn playing the role of Harvey Milk is rife with ironies that should not be ignored.
The cast is far from homogenized (I simply couldn’t resist) and instead the integral players are found to execute unique acting techniques worthy of the complex characters they try, sometimes too hard, to bring back to life for a younger generation of gay citizens who probably think 1972 (Milk’s debut in San Francisco) was when Cleopatra and Caesar were still dating.
Penn’s acting shows few if any flaws, but I found it almost overshadowed, ironically so, by a mesmerizing supporting cast. That guy Lipton with the pile of too many blue cards would lecture me sardonically here, but I find supporting actors the stuff of real movies. James Franco, as Milk’s love interest Scott Smith, seemed to be handing in his straight card for gay credentials, pulling off amazingly credible intimacy moments with Sean Penn that must have required a special imagination that can be found only in a true artist’s heart. Kudos likewise to Josh Brolin, who seems to be the new character actor du jour. Having mastered the idiosyncrasies of President Bush for his lead role in the Oliver Stone drama W, Brolin is compelling for his on screen brooding as City Supervisor Dan White in Milk. The leader of San Francisco’s conservative community -- yes there was once such a thing -- White would kill Milk and San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and commit suicide about five years later. History will note that Dan White was dealing with more demons than he would inevitably find when sent to perdition, and Brolin projects that in the best supporting actor performance of the year. Milk’s message, aside from documenting for us the unlikely political rise of a gay, Jewish man in conservative 1970’s San Francisco is, I suppose, that though heroes are not immune to a .38 revolver, their memories are indeed held harmless to even the most sordid tools of temporal life. Agreed.
But had Milk’s colleague White been captured on that fateful morning of Nov. 27, 1978 while crawling into a city hall window with his gun, and the murders thus avoided, would Milk cheer the fact that his stunning story of unlikely ascendancy is being portrayed by Madonna’s ex? I think not.
In today’s world Milk would be just shy of 80. No one with his energy would dare leave us before blowing out at least 95 or so candles. Therefore, upon getting the word that he’s to be portrayed by Sean Penn, I dare to imagine a present day U.S. Senator Harvey Milk summoning the congressional physician for those paddles needed for heart resuscitation. A modern-day Milk would be raising holy hell -- a technique he mastered -- regarding the treatment of gay people at the hands of our hemisphere’s growing supply of dictator-thugs, and would consequently find Penn’s bipolar existence -- championing gay rights in one event while praising those who literally kill people for being gay in other events, an ugliness far greater than anything Milk had to face in San Francisco.
Sean Penn is a nonsensical hypocrite whose acting may have matured beyond Fast Times at Ridgemont High but whose politics reads as if it were written in the detention room at that fictional school. His recent claim to infamy is a hell bent effort to legitimize the regime of Venezuelan Despot Hugo Chavez, whose sanity is almost as questionable as his deplorable human rights record. Tell Hugo Chavez of Venezuela you’re gay? No problem. Hugo’s thugs cut your head off and then you don’t have to worry about being gay in Venezuela anymore. Easy.
As James Kirchik recently scribed in The Advocate, "The same week that Milk premiered in theaters, The Nation published a cover story by Penn based on interviews he conducted recently with Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro, the dictators of Venezuela and Cuba respectively. The article is a love letter to the two men, defending them against all manner of Western ’propaganda.’ It hearkens back to the notorious dispatches penned by Westerners fresh from the Soviet Union who reported on the amazing progress of the workers’ paradise. These worshipful epistles, often published in The Nation, neglected to mention anything about the gulag, the ’disappearance’ of political dissidents, the Ukrainian famine, or any other such inconvenient truths about communism. Lenin termed the individuals who delivered these apologetics ’useful idiots,’ and Penn and his enablers are nothing if not that."
The nuclear bombs being launched at Kirchik, an assistant editor at The New Republic, are to be expected. The stereotype that card-carrying members of the gay community must also heap praise on any new Politburo infesting the Banana Republics of the world is too strong a misnomer to fight without opposition. But where’s the moral compass of sensible members of the gay community when personalities like Penn are suddenly canonized for what I’ll grant you is his masterful portrait of a gay icon, but not also called to task for embracing men -- Chavez and Castro -- who are known to support the imprisonment and torture of people for the "crime" of being homosexual?
By all means go watch Penn shine in the movie Milk. I recommend the Coolidge Corner Theatre as Brookline was founded for deep thought. But after falling in love with this production -- and you will -- send a snail mail to Penn care of his agent -- 2049 Century Park E Ste 2500, Los Angeles, CA 90067 -- and ask the actor/politician to stop making love off screen to people who hate us.
Harvey would have known better.
by Kevin John Sowyrda
contributing writer
Wednesday Dec 24, 2008
I got Milk. I mean to say, I’ve seen the flick about the life and times of one of America’s first openly gay elected officials. Milk was a panoply of sexual identity, bigotry, spiritual conversion, seizing power, having it stolen away, revenge and twisted closure. The movie is also about a producer’s denial regarding sensitivity to the real world activities of an actor who is polar opposite to everything Harvey Milk would be doing right now had he survived his assassination in 1978. Sean Penn playing the role of Harvey Milk is rife with ironies that should not be ignored.
The cast is far from homogenized (I simply couldn’t resist) and instead the integral players are found to execute unique acting techniques worthy of the complex characters they try, sometimes too hard, to bring back to life for a younger generation of gay citizens who probably think 1972 (Milk’s debut in San Francisco) was when Cleopatra and Caesar were still dating.
Penn’s acting shows few if any flaws, but I found it almost overshadowed, ironically so, by a mesmerizing supporting cast. That guy Lipton with the pile of too many blue cards would lecture me sardonically here, but I find supporting actors the stuff of real movies. James Franco, as Milk’s love interest Scott Smith, seemed to be handing in his straight card for gay credentials, pulling off amazingly credible intimacy moments with Sean Penn that must have required a special imagination that can be found only in a true artist’s heart. Kudos likewise to Josh Brolin, who seems to be the new character actor du jour. Having mastered the idiosyncrasies of President Bush for his lead role in the Oliver Stone drama W, Brolin is compelling for his on screen brooding as City Supervisor Dan White in Milk. The leader of San Francisco’s conservative community -- yes there was once such a thing -- White would kill Milk and San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and commit suicide about five years later. History will note that Dan White was dealing with more demons than he would inevitably find when sent to perdition, and Brolin projects that in the best supporting actor performance of the year. Milk’s message, aside from documenting for us the unlikely political rise of a gay, Jewish man in conservative 1970’s San Francisco is, I suppose, that though heroes are not immune to a .38 revolver, their memories are indeed held harmless to even the most sordid tools of temporal life. Agreed.
But had Milk’s colleague White been captured on that fateful morning of Nov. 27, 1978 while crawling into a city hall window with his gun, and the murders thus avoided, would Milk cheer the fact that his stunning story of unlikely ascendancy is being portrayed by Madonna’s ex? I think not.
In today’s world Milk would be just shy of 80. No one with his energy would dare leave us before blowing out at least 95 or so candles. Therefore, upon getting the word that he’s to be portrayed by Sean Penn, I dare to imagine a present day U.S. Senator Harvey Milk summoning the congressional physician for those paddles needed for heart resuscitation. A modern-day Milk would be raising holy hell -- a technique he mastered -- regarding the treatment of gay people at the hands of our hemisphere’s growing supply of dictator-thugs, and would consequently find Penn’s bipolar existence -- championing gay rights in one event while praising those who literally kill people for being gay in other events, an ugliness far greater than anything Milk had to face in San Francisco.
Sean Penn is a nonsensical hypocrite whose acting may have matured beyond Fast Times at Ridgemont High but whose politics reads as if it were written in the detention room at that fictional school. His recent claim to infamy is a hell bent effort to legitimize the regime of Venezuelan Despot Hugo Chavez, whose sanity is almost as questionable as his deplorable human rights record. Tell Hugo Chavez of Venezuela you’re gay? No problem. Hugo’s thugs cut your head off and then you don’t have to worry about being gay in Venezuela anymore. Easy.
As James Kirchik recently scribed in The Advocate, "The same week that Milk premiered in theaters, The Nation published a cover story by Penn based on interviews he conducted recently with Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro, the dictators of Venezuela and Cuba respectively. The article is a love letter to the two men, defending them against all manner of Western ’propaganda.’ It hearkens back to the notorious dispatches penned by Westerners fresh from the Soviet Union who reported on the amazing progress of the workers’ paradise. These worshipful epistles, often published in The Nation, neglected to mention anything about the gulag, the ’disappearance’ of political dissidents, the Ukrainian famine, or any other such inconvenient truths about communism. Lenin termed the individuals who delivered these apologetics ’useful idiots,’ and Penn and his enablers are nothing if not that."
The nuclear bombs being launched at Kirchik, an assistant editor at The New Republic, are to be expected. The stereotype that card-carrying members of the gay community must also heap praise on any new Politburo infesting the Banana Republics of the world is too strong a misnomer to fight without opposition. But where’s the moral compass of sensible members of the gay community when personalities like Penn are suddenly canonized for what I’ll grant you is his masterful portrait of a gay icon, but not also called to task for embracing men -- Chavez and Castro -- who are known to support the imprisonment and torture of people for the "crime" of being homosexual?
By all means go watch Penn shine in the movie Milk. I recommend the Coolidge Corner Theatre as Brookline was founded for deep thought. But after falling in love with this production -- and you will -- send a snail mail to Penn care of his agent -- 2049 Century Park E Ste 2500, Los Angeles, CA 90067 -- and ask the actor/politician to stop making love off screen to people who hate us.
Harvey would have known better.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
TURNER's bribery charge pales in comparison to other sins.
Turner's other sins outweigh what he's charge with.
By Kevin Sowyrda
For my money, Chuck Turner being guilty or not of taking a thousand greenbacks for one liquor license is the least of his sins at the concrete bunker, also city hall. In fact, on the accusation of being on the dole I'll give the filibustering municipal hack a pass. In an Al Capone sort of way, Turner may find himself going to jail for a petty crime, and not the more severe escapades with which he’s burdened a district deserving so much better and needing so much more.
I first met Chuck Turner in the aftermath of 9-11, and not so much by choice. Like millions of others who were trying to make sense of the Hate Crime committed against our country, I was still glued to the electronic media coverage which seemed to induce more of a panic attack than understanding of why and who. In any event, there I was tuned to WRKO just a few days after the terrorist hijackings and City Councilor Chuck Turner was being interviewed. He gave such a sadistic twist to the turn of events, that the listening of it made me more ill than watching the still burning debris at Ground Zero.
Speaking to the station’s talk masters, Turner prosthelytized that Americans needed a time of serious introspection concerning the actions we had taken to provoke the attacks. The councilor shamelessly proceeded, to the obvious amazement of the talk show hosts, to give a stupefying lecture that could have been copied from the airwaves of Al Jazeera
The firestorm which ensued was the first time I had reason to consider that Turner was not a Democrat or a progressive or a civil rights activist or even a Socialist. Tuner was and is an Anarchist - by pure definition - holding views that are so divisive and beyond the mainstream that it remains difficult to understand how he'd even pass muster for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
As the pressure mounted on Turner to withdraw his incendiary comments about 9-11, first made on the RKO airwaves, I decided to call him and provide a simple ‘Q and A’ format. We titled the column, ‘Chuck Tuner in his own words,’ and as we sometimes say in the business, Turner simply dug the hole deeper.
As I asked him questions to which he provided simply flabbergasting responses, I kept reminding Tuner that we were on the record. I actually felt bad for someone saying the things he was saying. But sure enough, Turner stuck to his Machiavellian belief that America did indeed bear significant responsibility for the September terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and the crashed airliner in Western Pennsylvania. His philosophy was as draconian as it was overly simplistic; stating that America’s foreign policy had justified the surprise attack on unarmed civilians in the Homeland. It was probably the fist time in his life that Turner was on the same page as Evangelist Jerry Falwell; who echoed a tone similar to Turner's, saying that the sins of America had triggered the attacks, courtesy of God.
One person was recently quoted as calling Turner “a dedicated servant for the voiceless within Boston for over 40 years.” But in the aftermath of 9-11, Turner was hardly an advocate for the thousands of voiceless people who were murdered on that fateful day in September.
Perhaps having acquired a taste for expressing a Lyndon Larouche like view of the world, Turner’s twisted take on foreign policy extended to the Iraq War in the spring of 2004. That's when Turner accused American soldiers of raping Iraqi women. Turner’s and his compatriot, Sadiki Kambon, held a disjointed press conference inside city hall where they presented photos clearly showing men engaging in sex with women. The Boston Globe, over the objections of one of their own reporters, Donovan Slack, gave prominent coverage of Turner’s accusations complete with the photo he supplied. But days later the Globe called the photos falsified. WorldNetDaily reported they were lifted from a pornography web page called "Sex in War". The Globe said it had been duped and condemned Turner, as did six of his council colleagues who signed a formal letter of rebuke.
Turner's bizarre foreign affairs briefings would offend sensible constituents only slightly less than his other disturbing portraits of politics; clearly painted from a chaotic viewpoint of the world. After telling a Boston daily that Secretary of State Condi Rice working for George Bush was "similar in my mind to a Jewish person working for Hitler in the 1930s," Turner's obsession with race would only intensify and become more destructive at the local level.
As reported in an editorial by Sue O'Connell on October 2, Turner referred to State Senator Elect Sonia Chang Diaz as "someone from another community." The painful undertones of that statement should be obvious to anyone and it came at the heels of Turner's comrades actually berating Diaz for not being a person of color. The racial litmus test being put forward by Turner and those he played hard ball politics with was becoming highly volatile.
The legendary Conservative Barry Goldwater once said that, "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." Turner practices the same brash brand of politics, just from a polar opposite end. But he doesn't understand that extremism is indeed a vice; probably the greatest of vices.
It's extremism to compare the city council president to a member of the Ku Kluk Klan, as Turner's surrogate recently did. It's extremism to condemn U.S. support of Israel because the statements border on anti-Semitic. It's extremism to accuse former council president Michael Flaherty of supporting "institutional racism."
And yes, it's at least a little extreme if Chuck Turner took a one thousand dollar bribe.
By Kevin Sowyrda
For my money, Chuck Turner being guilty or not of taking a thousand greenbacks for one liquor license is the least of his sins at the concrete bunker, also city hall. In fact, on the accusation of being on the dole I'll give the filibustering municipal hack a pass. In an Al Capone sort of way, Turner may find himself going to jail for a petty crime, and not the more severe escapades with which he’s burdened a district deserving so much better and needing so much more.
I first met Chuck Turner in the aftermath of 9-11, and not so much by choice. Like millions of others who were trying to make sense of the Hate Crime committed against our country, I was still glued to the electronic media coverage which seemed to induce more of a panic attack than understanding of why and who. In any event, there I was tuned to WRKO just a few days after the terrorist hijackings and City Councilor Chuck Turner was being interviewed. He gave such a sadistic twist to the turn of events, that the listening of it made me more ill than watching the still burning debris at Ground Zero.
Speaking to the station’s talk masters, Turner prosthelytized that Americans needed a time of serious introspection concerning the actions we had taken to provoke the attacks. The councilor shamelessly proceeded, to the obvious amazement of the talk show hosts, to give a stupefying lecture that could have been copied from the airwaves of Al Jazeera
The firestorm which ensued was the first time I had reason to consider that Turner was not a Democrat or a progressive or a civil rights activist or even a Socialist. Tuner was and is an Anarchist - by pure definition - holding views that are so divisive and beyond the mainstream that it remains difficult to understand how he'd even pass muster for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
As the pressure mounted on Turner to withdraw his incendiary comments about 9-11, first made on the RKO airwaves, I decided to call him and provide a simple ‘Q and A’ format. We titled the column, ‘Chuck Tuner in his own words,’ and as we sometimes say in the business, Turner simply dug the hole deeper.
As I asked him questions to which he provided simply flabbergasting responses, I kept reminding Tuner that we were on the record. I actually felt bad for someone saying the things he was saying. But sure enough, Turner stuck to his Machiavellian belief that America did indeed bear significant responsibility for the September terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and the crashed airliner in Western Pennsylvania. His philosophy was as draconian as it was overly simplistic; stating that America’s foreign policy had justified the surprise attack on unarmed civilians in the Homeland. It was probably the fist time in his life that Turner was on the same page as Evangelist Jerry Falwell; who echoed a tone similar to Turner's, saying that the sins of America had triggered the attacks, courtesy of God.
One person was recently quoted as calling Turner “a dedicated servant for the voiceless within Boston for over 40 years.” But in the aftermath of 9-11, Turner was hardly an advocate for the thousands of voiceless people who were murdered on that fateful day in September.
Perhaps having acquired a taste for expressing a Lyndon Larouche like view of the world, Turner’s twisted take on foreign policy extended to the Iraq War in the spring of 2004. That's when Turner accused American soldiers of raping Iraqi women. Turner’s and his compatriot, Sadiki Kambon, held a disjointed press conference inside city hall where they presented photos clearly showing men engaging in sex with women. The Boston Globe, over the objections of one of their own reporters, Donovan Slack, gave prominent coverage of Turner’s accusations complete with the photo he supplied. But days later the Globe called the photos falsified. WorldNetDaily reported they were lifted from a pornography web page called "Sex in War". The Globe said it had been duped and condemned Turner, as did six of his council colleagues who signed a formal letter of rebuke.
Turner's bizarre foreign affairs briefings would offend sensible constituents only slightly less than his other disturbing portraits of politics; clearly painted from a chaotic viewpoint of the world. After telling a Boston daily that Secretary of State Condi Rice working for George Bush was "similar in my mind to a Jewish person working for Hitler in the 1930s," Turner's obsession with race would only intensify and become more destructive at the local level.
As reported in an editorial by Sue O'Connell on October 2, Turner referred to State Senator Elect Sonia Chang Diaz as "someone from another community." The painful undertones of that statement should be obvious to anyone and it came at the heels of Turner's comrades actually berating Diaz for not being a person of color. The racial litmus test being put forward by Turner and those he played hard ball politics with was becoming highly volatile.
The legendary Conservative Barry Goldwater once said that, "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." Turner practices the same brash brand of politics, just from a polar opposite end. But he doesn't understand that extremism is indeed a vice; probably the greatest of vices.
It's extremism to compare the city council president to a member of the Ku Kluk Klan, as Turner's surrogate recently did. It's extremism to condemn U.S. support of Israel because the statements border on anti-Semitic. It's extremism to accuse former council president Michael Flaherty of supporting "institutional racism."
And yes, it's at least a little extreme if Chuck Turner took a one thousand dollar bribe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
