Questions Unanswered in Boston

Newspapers for sale on Newbury Street (Source: Boston.com)

Last night I spent a good portion on GChat, speaking with a friend in Boston talking about how surreal the entire scene was yesterday. We signed off, saying that we will know more tomorrow. When I woke up this morning and watched the various press conferences I realized that would not be the case. A few items would be clarified, but the bombing would still be shrouded in mystery. Who had done this? Why?

I think these questions have led to a small debate about what constitutes terrorism. When CNN made the editorial decision to call what happened in Boston yesterday a terror attack and then the president did not reciprocate in his evening presser, some wondered why.

Terrorism does not have a proper definition under international law. The common definition of terrorism is an act of violence that meets three criteria (and the US's definition seems to mimic this):

1. A violent act intended to create fear or terror;
2. Is perpetrated to further a religious, ideological and/or political cause;
3. Deliberately targets or disregards the safety of non-combatants (civilians)

Yesterday's events definitely meet criteria 1 and 3. This was no accident and was meant to shatter the joy of the Massachusetts holiday and to shake this community to its core. Boston will bounce back; as Mayor Menino said we are a resilient city, but it would be hard to deny that this event has affected the city.

Yesterday's attack also shares a common terroristic trait: the cowardly targeting of civilians. Those gathered yesterday on Boylston to watch the end of the marathon were not state actors in wartime. They were innocent civilians gathered to celebrate the achievements of family and friends and enjoy the beginning of spring in Boston.

The question that many people are anxious to answer relates to motive. Who did this and why? Why bomb innocent civilians? What message was the bomber(s) trying to get across, if any? Until this is answered, we cannot say definitively that this is an act of terror.

While my hunch is that it is, we don't know that yet. The use of bombs at an event like this almost always indicates terrorism (with a few exceptions), but this could be the work of a deranged individual (think Aurora or Newtown) as opposed to someone trying to influence policy or misguidedly drive home some kind of ideology.

At the end of the day, though, this is simply semantics. Whether or not this falls under the pseudo-legal definition of terrorism will not bring back the victims. It will not repair the lives forever altered from senseless violence. It will not restore the atmosphere in Boston just prior to the attack. And that, in and of itself, is terrifying.

A Quick Word on Boston

Note: I wanted to break up this post into two parts. I had thought about making two separate posts, but I figured it would be a bit confusing. Part I is a personal reflection on the marathon and the inspiration of the event as a whole and the response of people today after the blast.

Part II is about the media response and the irresponsible speculation by journalists to fill air time and drive ratings and social media metrics.

I've written this so the first part is standalone, because not everyone is going to be in the mood to read about issues with today's media after such a tragedy.

Source: Boston Globe

Part I

Having grown up in the Boston area, and spent a decent amount of time on and around Boylston Street in high school, today's events at the marathon have hit close to home, to use a bad cliche. Patriots' Day is a special day in Massachusetts - a day off that most of the rest of the country does not get. Everyone who grew up in and around Boston can remember heading down to the marathon route to cheer on the runners as they go by in droves along the grueling 26.2 mile course.

Today's bombings will change the marathon for the foreseeable future. The openness and carefree vibe of the event will revert to a more closed and tense atmosphere next year and possibly for years to come. For an event with such a rich and vibrant history, from the revolutionary to the bizzarre to the inspirational, the fact that the marathon will forever be tainted with this tragedy is a shame.

Through all of this sadness and anger, watching the video of the scene right after the blast is inspiring in a way. It is inspiring because you see people rushing to the site of the blast, not knowing if there are any secondary devices waiting to take out first responders. It is inspiring to see cops, EMTs, firefighters, BAA volunteers, and runners working together to tear down barricades and get to the injured. Other stories of heroism and kindness coming out of the city do not replace the anger and fear and confusion that follow something like this, but it certainly helps to begin to displace them, which only time and reflection can do.

Part II

Unfortunately, in contrast to the heartwarming response to such evil, is the ridiculous speculation by media outlets. The Post reporting that a suspect is in custody and 12 people are dead (neither of which are confirmed true at the time of this writing and the latter having been reputed by BPD Commissioner Ed Davis multiple times). MSNBC jumped on the suspect bandwagon as well. This is just sloppy journalism with shoddy "sources."

On top of this, there is just wild speculation that has no business in a journalistic environment. I wasn't watching CNN, but from what I heard about Jane Harman she was just spewing speculation with zero basis in fact. Also Luke Russert thought that because he went to a Red Sox game twenty years ago when Waco happened that there could be a link to the marathon bombing.

Let me be clear about this: this could be an AQAP bombing. This could be a home-grown domestic terror bombing. If either scenario is true, Harman or Russert deserve zero credit for saying it on air/Twitter. Their speculation adds nothing to the fact finding that occurs after something like this, it adds nothing to the national discourse, and really only muddles what is going on and further confuses people. I understand there's a drive for ratings and retweets, to be the first to break a story, but that should never supersede journalism. Ever.

In times of tragedy like this there is a human drive to get the facts, to try to make sense of something like this in our minds. We need to see a cause and effect so we can prevent something like this in the future. Unfortunately, rationality and logic are far removed from an event like this and it simply does not make sense. Speculation with no factual backup to try to make sense of it is unfair to both the speculator and the speculatee. We look to the news for information and updates, not ratings-driven false scoops and made-up connections.

Former Massachusetts House Speaker DiMasi Will Continue to Receive Pension

Former Massachusetts House speaker Salvatore DiMasi, who is awaiting federal charges related to bribery, including conspiracy to defraud the federal government, extortion, mail fraud and wire fraud, will continue to receive his $5,000 monthly pension. The ruling, handed down by Boston Municipal Judge Lawrence McCormick, explained that the state erred in taking away DiMasi's pension without a hearing. He even went so far as to call it "offensive."

I'm actually OK with this, because I'm down with the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra. I think its true purpose is to protect everyday citizens from abuses of police power by those in charge, rather than protecting those in charge from answering to their abuses of power, but so be it. I don't really buy McCormick's whole "You should have held a hearing" spiel, though, because you don't need a formal hearing to understand that people facing 185 years in prison for crimes like extortion should not really be collecting $60,000 a year in public monies for doing nothing. But for the sake of fairness let DiMasi collect the money for the time being. Under one condition.

Disaster in Massachusetts and a Supreme Court Decision that Disgraces Democracy

Two pieces of calamitous news in two days. Both pretty much impossible to swallow, but both realities moving forward.

The Massachusetts Senate Election

On Tuesday, Massachusetts voters elected the little-known Scott Brown to assume the late Ted Kennedy's seat. Kennedy spent decades fighting tooth and nail for health care reform, and now reform is severely threatened by Brown's impending inauguration. He has already vowed to obstruct the Democrats from passing a bill (nothing new for a Republican), and now Democrats are starting to back off any ambition they once had for making the bill strong and thorough. Massachusetts voters, who had been enamored of Ted Kennedy for decades, voted to betray his dying wish. I am not saying that the successor to his seat should have espoused his every view; I am saying that whatever values Ted Kennedy held that Massachusetts citizens ostensibly held in such high esteem for so long, they instantaneously turned their backs on.

There are innumerable factors that likely lifted Brown to victory, most of which have been discussed at length. Coakley ran an awful campaign. Voters were still disillusioned by the nation's employment and housing crises. The election was taken for granted by Democrats for too long. But whatever the reason for the shocking defeat, there are now 41 Republicans in the Senate, opening the possibility of interminable filibusters and continued obstruction until November, when Republicans will point out to Americans that Democrats have accomplished next to nothing, despite holding the Presidency and both Houses of Congress by sizable majorities.

The House climate bill can be completely scrapped. (Why do we even have a House, by the way? Sure, they're much more representative of our country than the Senate, but who needs representatives, when they don't seem to have a say in anything?) The relatively progressive House health care bill will likely give way entirely to the Senate health care bill so that at least something is passed (if there's no health care bill passed at all this year, Democrats can probably say goodbye to legislative chamber majorities come November). Who knows if there will be a jobs bill (even though that's what people are most concerned about right now). Financial regulations will pass, but likely in a weak bill that will maintain much of the status quo for the very sharks who helped push the world economy into a deep recession.

What exactly were Massachusetts voters voting for, then? Were they trying to send a message that they're mad? Because like it or not, Scott Brown will not get back at Wall Street. Scott Brown will not help create short-term jobs (his solution is to cut taxes). And by the way, when you're out of a job, Scott Brown certainly won't help you get health insurance. Oh, unless you're from Massachusetts, where progressive Democrats already passed legislation to ensure that for you. Ted Kennedy's dream, and life's work, which was so close to fruition, has been betrayed by his own loving constituents, solely because of his death. The irony is excruciating.

The U.S. Supreme Court Decision

In other horrible elections news, today the Supreme Court ruled that the government can't ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. I've talked at length about this issue before. While I have problems with the inherent idea of democracy (see: Massachusetts voters voting against their own interests and the interests of their country), I still acknowledge that it is the only form of government that reflects the ideals of human freedom, justice, and equality. It has its flaws, of course, and must be periodically improved so that these core tenets are not betrayed. Today, they were betrayed.

The four conservative ideologues on the Supreme Court and one alleged (but woefully misguided) moderate have further opened the election process to unprecedented levels of cash injections from big businesses, arguing that they are defending the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

Let me first say that money is not speech, and conflating those two concepts is nefariously deceptive. But we have to remember here that the Constitution has been bent, twisted, and adulterated incessantly over the past 200+ years, to behoove whomever was "interpreting" its words. In this case, conservative judges who maintain Republican allegiances and were all appointed by Republican presidents, ruled against a bipartisan law that was designed to make elections fair and unbiased, untainted by the influx of money from self-interested groups corporations.

What is democracy now? Does the prefix demo- not mean "people"? What the majority of the Court failed to acknowledge was the underlying foundation of our democratic republic: the right of the people to choose their leaders, and the right for any person to have a chance to become one of those leaders, assuming they can compel the electorate to afford them enough votes. Now corporations will hold undue influence in all federal elections, the wealthiest of them having the biggest say in which politicians will be elected (think: Walmarts who exploit employees, Exxon Mobils and Southern Companies who unabashedly contribute to climate change, Pfizers and Aetnas who exploit the sick for massive profits, and Citigroups who get away with inciting economic turmoil and run away with unfathomable bonuses).

Whatever politicians who are still around that you thought were truly serving the interests of their constituents--that average "Joe the Plummer" that Republicans just love evoking--will soon be a vestige of a previous era of American politics. Don't get me wrong: Democrats are often just as guilty as Republicans when it comes to being beholden to special interests. And elected progressive Democrats who want to reform our election system to make it fair and democratic will soon be few and far between. Unbridled capitalism has commandeered our democracy. Our election system, the basis of American idealism, is truly tarnished in an irrevocable way (unless today's atrocious ruling is one day revoked).

It's been a really bad week for America.

Images: Scott Brown (New York Times), spineless Democrats (photobucket.com), Supreme Court Justices (Zimbio.com), Guy with sign (scu.edu)

How to Lose an Election: Martha Coakely Edition

In a state where the majority of voters seem to bleed Democratic blue, Martha Coakley has lost the special senate race to replace the late Ted Kennedy's seat representing Massachusetts. Where just weeks ago Coakely's opponent Scott Brown was just some dude who posed naked in Cosmo a while back and had a laughable chance at winning Kennedy's seat, Brown is now Senator dude who posed naked in Cosmo. How did this happen?

First we have to look at Coakely's campaign, whose strategy appeared to be to let her opponent surge back in the polls and then make a last-ditch effort to win the seat. Coakley kept a very low profile since winning sure-handedly in the Democratic primary, preferring press releases and aides' statements to Brown's numerous press conferences and campaign events. That is not how you win an election. No matter how much you think you lead by, you get out and talk to the voters who decide your fate. While Brown is out there getting media coverage and talking about issues, Coakley stood by and put out press releases. Doesn't she know that no one reads newspapers anymore? Plus, that whole child rapist thing didn't help, either.

To be fair, this outcome is not only the result of Coakley dropping the ball. Brown ran an excellent campaign. To begin with, he knew he was running in a very left-leaning state and consciously did not outright claim to represent the Republican party in speeches and appearances, instead choosing to say that he would represent "Massachusetts interests" and refusing to identify as a moderate or conservative. He also has struck a chord as a man of the people, driving his GMC pickup truck across the state and featuring it in advertisements as bringing him "closer to the people of this state." Brown just played the game when Coakley thought she was above it and then played it well when Coakley decided to finally get down to brass tacks.

When it comes to the issues, Coakley should be streamrolling over Brown and his bailout-rescued pickup. She's pro-choice, pro-equality for gays, anti-gun, anti-Patriot Act, anti-Wall Street. It's like someone said create me someone with the best stances for Massachusetts and was shipped Martha Coakley. Brown is anti-gay marriage, anti-financial regulation, pro-death penalty, anti-public option, and pro-"enhanced interrogation techniques" (read: torture). That's not very appealing to someone looking only at the issues.

If you think this campaign is being sold on the issues, you're mistaken. Brown ran a much better campaign and drives a pickup whereas Coakley remained silent when she should have been out rubbing elbows with those deciding her fate and appears to be out of touch with the voters. If you read this site at all you know who I would have voted for based on the issues, and tonight she is shaking her head wondering where she went wrong. The hard part for Coakley will not be finding out where she went wrong, but where to begin the analysis. Mike Capuano must be pissed.

Photo - Coakley, back when she was Middlesex DA and not botching "gimme" elections (Boston.com)

What's At Stake

A lot of people don't realize how critical the special election for Senate in Massachusetts today is. Massachusetts Democrats have enjoyed two Democratic Senators representing their state since 1972, with a Kennedy in one of the seats since 1953. When Ted Kennedy passed away last summer, the state legislature, in a reversal from a recent law under Romney's governorship, gave Governor Patrick the ability to appoint a replacement for Kennedy, but only until the election today.

Now, more is at stake than anyone ever thought possible. The Democrats' agenda in Congress is threatened more by this election than by any single other event until the November elections this year (barring another tragedy or resignation). The President's mission of at least having health care passed in his first two years of office is on the line. Any other much needed reform will be destroyed or severely watered down from now until next January if the Republican, Scott Brown, wins. There will be no robust climate bill. There will be no meaningful financial regulations. There will likely be no substantial jobs bill. Senate Republicans, who in the past few years have become synonymous with obstruction, will be able to obstruct at their leisure, with no Democratic override.

Scott Brown is not a terribly adept politician, not a stellar candidate, and not a well-known figure in Massachusetts. But the combination of Democratic complacency, frustration with national politics, and an oddly timed election has pushed him into the front ahead of Attorney General Martha Coakley, who in some polls is now trailing by 10 percent. People from Massachusetts are misguidedly angry about the health care bill. They're angry at Coakley for reasons that they either don't understand or are just too inane to dignify (calling Curt Schilling a Yankee fan? This is the real world, not a game).

The state that elected Obama by a 26-point margin is now turning its back on him, perhaps because of their economic situation. Yet many independents, Republicans, and others voted for Obama over McCain because they didn't want the same failed economic policies to continue to prevail. Just because the economy isn't back and better than ever after one year of Obama's tenure, it's time to go the other way? Again? It's heartbreaking to see this kind of mentality--which we see across the country in nearly every election cycle--in the state of Massachusetts, where voters seem to be a bit more enlightened, patient, and thoughtful than in other states.

A Scott Brown victory will put a halt on all the policy reforms that this country has waited so desperately for for so long--and that Edward Kennedy fought so tirelessly for nearly 50 years--all because of the Liberal Lion's painfully untimely death.

Coakley may not have run a good campaign, but she's shown in her service to Massachusetts over the past decades that she will be a strong and principled Senator. And the state, the country, and yes, even the world, need her to pull off a win today.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mass Backwards
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Images: Coakley and Brown (Talking Points Memo)

Justin Barrett of "Jungle Monkey" Fame Still Being Paid by Boston Police Department

Boston Police Officer Justin Barrett (CNN)

While following up on the about Boston Police Officer Justin Barrett, the person who wrote to the Boston Globe's Yvonne Abraham, who he calls a "hot little bird," chiding Henry Louis Gates, Jr. for being a "banana-eating jungle monkey" who has returned to his "roots," I could only find articles about Barrett's suspension and frivolous lawsuit. I thought to myself that this was pretty typical of the media, picking up an interesting story and then doing no follow up when the next hot story had come along. It turns out that Officer Barrett is still being paid by the Boston Police Department with Massachusetts tax dollars.

I called the Boston Police Department just to make sure, and they confirmed that Officer Barrett is suspended from the force with pay. So he's not even doing work and is being paid. I called the Mayor's office, knowing that Menino had previously called for Barrett to be fired, but got no comment on Barrett's suspension and continued tax dollar drain. The BPD said that Barrett's employment with the department was pending a termination hearing, but no one I spoke to seemed to know when that hearing would take place.

Now here's the ridiculousness of the entire situation: in an economy where unemployment is so high and layoffs are happening left and right as companies try to downsize, to have someone employed in a position he is not qualified to handle is ludicrous. Even going beyond the racism/sexism in Barrett's email, the line, "Your defense (4th paragraph) of Gates while he is on the phone while being confronted (INDEED) with a police officer is assuming he has rights when considered a suspect." That's Constitution 101 and any half-decent police officer should know that even suspects have rights in this great country.



Barrett's continued employment by the Boston Police Department while other city services are cut is a slap in the face to every person out there who has suffered and will suffer because of city budget cuts. I know that if I had sent an email like that to a newspaper and embarrassed my company the way Barrett did the BPD, HR would not think twice about letting me go, especially in this economy. So why is there a double-standard here and why is Barrett still being paid with Massachusetts tax dollars in the worst recession in recent memory?

The Best Lawyer Money Can Buy

Boston Police badge (Wikipedia)

We have seen time and again that police officers have been given preferential treatment in our justice system. The trend continues, this time involving a Boston police officer. Officer Paul Durkin pleaded guilty on Monday to shooting a fellow officer while off-duty. Apparently, Durkin shot Officer Joseph Behnke for the egregious act of offering the officer a place to stay for the night. You see, Durkin and Behnke had been drinking and Durkin thought it would be a good idea to drive home to Easton from West Roxbury, a 17 mile drive which involves navigating the 93/95 split in Milton which is construction-laden and involves numerous lane shifts. Behnke realized that this was a bad idea and offered Durkin a place to stay, but Durkin insisted on driving. At this point, Behnke pressured his friend to stay, but Durkin was having none of it and, according to the Boston.com article, "unholstered his service weapon and fired once at close range." What makes this story even crazier, is that once Durkin shot Behnke, he just walked away and arranged to stay at the house of another friend, leaving Behnke's wife to tend to her wounded husband. Durkin was given quite a light sentence - he must be on probation for 3 years and leave the BPD.

The message this sends to the residents of Boston, who are experiencing a spike in gunplay recently, is underwhelming. Here is a cop who was playing around with his government-issued gun while he had a few too many and ends up shooting his friend. This is not some novice policeman; Officer Durkin has been on Boston's police force for 27 years. He is able to court, strike a deal with the prosecutor and get no time whatsoever in a state penitentiary. His probation alone is shorter than some jail sentences that the Boston area has seen in the past involving non-lethal shootings. Not only does Paul Durkin get to avoid jail, but he also gets a city pension because technically he will be voluntarily resigning from his position.

Boston Police car (Hill Holiday's Flickr)

No one seems to want to talk about this case, as Police Commissioner Edward Davis declined an interview and gave a generic "Violence is bad," statement, Durkin would not answer the phone at his home, Durkin's lawyer declined to comment and Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley did not want to be interviewed. No surprise there, as everyone involved most likely knows that Durkin is getting off way too easy and they do not want to draw attention to themselves in the context of this injustice.

It's insulting that Durkin won't end up in jail, and it's just throwing salt in the wound to give him his pension. How are Boston's police expected to control gun violence in the city when their own officers clearly have little regard to the responsibility involved with owning a gun and the courts refuse to punish them when they abuse their power?