There are now five announced candidates for the U.S. Congressional seat representing the 5th MA District.
They are: Incumbent Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D, Lowell); Challenger Sam Meas (R, Haverhill, and for whom I'm volunteering); Challenger Jon Golnik (R, Carlisle); Challenger Robert Shapiro (R, Andover); and Challenger D.L. Brown (I, Chelmsford).
This should make for a lively time, as the three-way Republican primary unfolds to see who can capitalize on the Scott Brown-induced momentum for the GOP in Massachusetts, the Democrats hope for some kind of palpable employment/general economic recovery by November, and the wildcard factor of an Independent running in a year where we're seeing a potentially viable Indy candidate for Governor casts a shadow over everything.
Another wildcard hanging over the whole thing concerns the fate of the district itself. 2010 is a Census Year, and its results could very well spell the loss of a seat in this state. No matter who wins this November, he or she will be the junior member of the 10-person Congressional delegation in DC.
Things might get shaken up again.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Another Reason to Support Embedding
I had never heard of the term 'embedded reporter' until the runup to the Iraq invasion in 2003. The idea at the time, welcomed by the Pentagon with open arms, was that embedding reporters with military units would help bridge the (widening) civil-military chasm that was exposed every time a writer covering the military shot wide of the mark.
From today's Boston Globe, via the Washington Post:
Again, I know it's easier to throw stones than to build the house, but this kind of reminds me of the time that female sideline reporter was chastised for talking about how Jerry Rice was leading the league in "interceptions." It's a simple verbal gaffe just like any that we make on a daily basis, but no football fan is ever going to think about Jerry Rice's prowess in interceptions any more than they would Ronnie Lott's ability to throw spirals while under pressure in the pocket.
From today's Boston Globe, via the Washington Post:
I know that typos can happen, but if there's a Company Commander (O-3) ANYWHERE who just got done leading a brigade (O-6, a full bird Colonel), something must have gone very, very wrong. The sentence as it reads just doesn't make sense.Interviews with military personnel yesterday suggest that attitudes have gradually changed.
“I don’t think it is going to make that big a difference. . . . the consensus is that it isn’t a big deal,’’ said one company commander who just returned from leading a brigade in Afghanistan.
Again, I know it's easier to throw stones than to build the house, but this kind of reminds me of the time that female sideline reporter was chastised for talking about how Jerry Rice was leading the league in "interceptions." It's a simple verbal gaffe just like any that we make on a daily basis, but no football fan is ever going to think about Jerry Rice's prowess in interceptions any more than they would Ronnie Lott's ability to throw spirals while under pressure in the pocket.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Federal Workforce: Biggest Ever
Today's Washington Times carried a story showing how we now have the biggest federal employee total ever, with 2.15 million total jobs.
In a way, that should sort of make sense, because we also have the biggest total American population that we've ever had; if everything were proportional, well, you get the idea. But as it turns out, the rolls had ballooned in the years leading up to the Clinton Presidency before the Clinton-Gore REGO (Reinventing Government) initiative. Since that time of Clinton in the White House and a budget that was kept in balance or even in surplus, something has gone awry.
Remember, Obama has only been in office for just over a year, so you can "make no mistake" that most of the federal workforce ballooning took place under Dubya.
Either way, this is an interesting article, whatever your thoughts on the whys and the consequences. And let me also say I'm not implying here or in the earlier bit that public sector jobs are somehow "bad" -- not only would that be hypocritical in the absolute extreme, but it would fail to recognize all the great things done every day by police, teachers, firefighters, civil servants, etc.
What I do think, however, is that public sector jobs shouldn't be a runaway free-for-all in terms of either hiring or pay and benefits. I don't think I should be able to hit some magical button after 20 years and just collect a check for the rest of my life to sit on my duff solely because I work for the government.
This one time at Band Camp, I did see government civilians make very high five-figure salaries to do very little work within a mandated 40-hour-a-week max. That may happen in the private sector, too, but as I'll heartily confess right here, I wouldn't know. What I do know, however, is that if you are an entrepreneur or a private-sector worker, I fully acknowledge that you are putting food on my table, and I mean it when I say I thank you for it.
In a way, that should sort of make sense, because we also have the biggest total American population that we've ever had; if everything were proportional, well, you get the idea. But as it turns out, the rolls had ballooned in the years leading up to the Clinton Presidency before the Clinton-Gore REGO (Reinventing Government) initiative. Since that time of Clinton in the White House and a budget that was kept in balance or even in surplus, something has gone awry.
Remember, Obama has only been in office for just over a year, so you can "make no mistake" that most of the federal workforce ballooning took place under Dubya.
Either way, this is an interesting article, whatever your thoughts on the whys and the consequences. And let me also say I'm not implying here or in the earlier bit that public sector jobs are somehow "bad" -- not only would that be hypocritical in the absolute extreme, but it would fail to recognize all the great things done every day by police, teachers, firefighters, civil servants, etc.
What I do think, however, is that public sector jobs shouldn't be a runaway free-for-all in terms of either hiring or pay and benefits. I don't think I should be able to hit some magical button after 20 years and just collect a check for the rest of my life to sit on my duff solely because I work for the government.
This one time at Band Camp, I did see government civilians make very high five-figure salaries to do very little work within a mandated 40-hour-a-week max. That may happen in the private sector, too, but as I'll heartily confess right here, I wouldn't know. What I do know, however, is that if you are an entrepreneur or a private-sector worker, I fully acknowledge that you are putting food on my table, and I mean it when I say I thank you for it.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Catch Sam Meas on the Radio
Sam Meas, candidate for U.S. Congress from the 5th Congressional District in MA, will be on the radio tomorrow morning, Tuesday 02 FEB.
He'll be on WCAP (980 AM) with Bernice Corpuz at 8:05 a.m., probably to stay on for about 10-15 minutes from there.
If you'd like to call in, the number is 978.454.4980
He'll be on WCAP (980 AM) with Bernice Corpuz at 8:05 a.m., probably to stay on for about 10-15 minutes from there.
If you'd like to call in, the number is 978.454.4980
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Baker/Tisei and the Public-Private Chasm
"Remember Charlie, Remember Baker." -- Billy Joel, Goodnight Saigon
Along with a half-dozen or so fellow Sam Meas supporters/staffers, I just attended the Baker/Tisei "kick-off" event at the VFW here in Lowell.
Both came off as polished speakers who had good things to say about fixing the mess on Beacon Hill. Two big feathers in Mr. Baker's cap are his track record with turnarounds -- first as Bill Weld's whiz kid back in the 1990s, and then again with Harvard Pilgrim.
One of the things he said that certainly struck a chord inside this author's rib cage related to comparisons between the public and private sector -- in tough economic times, the private sector workforce can take a tough thumping while the public sector chugs along or even grows. Specifically, Baker referenced Gov. Patrick recently filling 1300 vacancies in the State Government.
As someone in the hunt for a full-time job right now (thanks to some anticipated training courses being filled to quota and a mobilization getting 'bumped to the right') things look really good on the public side of the house and not so good on the private side.
If I had an MBA, or a JD, or a technical background (i.e. a specific skill like Accounting or Computer Science) things might be very different. In fact, the private sector might be offering double whatever I could command as a GS-11 or a GS-12.
However, I don't, and it doesn't.
So the private sector offers me entry-level type stuff that would MAYBE allow me to meet all my bills each month. But that's without even factoring in the "what-ifs" of car repair, new clothes, birthday presents to shop for, or pesky things that I always leave out of budgets like haircuts and car washes.
Meanwhile, in public sector country, it seems that my qualifications command about $30k more, which, when you divide by 12, sure makes the math work a lot better, with plenty of rainy-day contingency spoken for, not to mention those nice things people like to do, such as Roth IRA contributions or other long-term investments.
Here's why that ought to give the taxpayer cause for concern: The old tradeoff between public and private was this: If you work in the public sector, you're trading in your lower salary for the job security and benefits being offered by Uncle Sam. In other words, you were making a compromise.
Maybe this is just unique to the bad economy, to someone without an applicable advanced degree, or to a veteran who can get an automatic foot in the door on the govvie side, but at least through the eyes of this job seeker, there isn't that compromise. If you're going to offer me 40-hour weeks, great benefits, and robust pay, I'm not seeing the catch.
Things just seem a lot better in the public sector.
In the short-term, that's great for me, but can that really be sustainable in the long-term for the country?
I offer no numbers to back this up, but my hunch is to say 'no way.' The 'something' that's going to have to give is either going to be the availability, pay, pension, or benefits of public sector work.
Along with a half-dozen or so fellow Sam Meas supporters/staffers, I just attended the Baker/Tisei "kick-off" event at the VFW here in Lowell.
Both came off as polished speakers who had good things to say about fixing the mess on Beacon Hill. Two big feathers in Mr. Baker's cap are his track record with turnarounds -- first as Bill Weld's whiz kid back in the 1990s, and then again with Harvard Pilgrim.
One of the things he said that certainly struck a chord inside this author's rib cage related to comparisons between the public and private sector -- in tough economic times, the private sector workforce can take a tough thumping while the public sector chugs along or even grows. Specifically, Baker referenced Gov. Patrick recently filling 1300 vacancies in the State Government.
As someone in the hunt for a full-time job right now (thanks to some anticipated training courses being filled to quota and a mobilization getting 'bumped to the right') things look really good on the public side of the house and not so good on the private side.
If I had an MBA, or a JD, or a technical background (i.e. a specific skill like Accounting or Computer Science) things might be very different. In fact, the private sector might be offering double whatever I could command as a GS-11 or a GS-12.
However, I don't, and it doesn't.
So the private sector offers me entry-level type stuff that would MAYBE allow me to meet all my bills each month. But that's without even factoring in the "what-ifs" of car repair, new clothes, birthday presents to shop for, or pesky things that I always leave out of budgets like haircuts and car washes.
Meanwhile, in public sector country, it seems that my qualifications command about $30k more, which, when you divide by 12, sure makes the math work a lot better, with plenty of rainy-day contingency spoken for, not to mention those nice things people like to do, such as Roth IRA contributions or other long-term investments.
Here's why that ought to give the taxpayer cause for concern: The old tradeoff between public and private was this: If you work in the public sector, you're trading in your lower salary for the job security and benefits being offered by Uncle Sam. In other words, you were making a compromise.
Maybe this is just unique to the bad economy, to someone without an applicable advanced degree, or to a veteran who can get an automatic foot in the door on the govvie side, but at least through the eyes of this job seeker, there isn't that compromise. If you're going to offer me 40-hour weeks, great benefits, and robust pay, I'm not seeing the catch.
Things just seem a lot better in the public sector.
In the short-term, that's great for me, but can that really be sustainable in the long-term for the country?
I offer no numbers to back this up, but my hunch is to say 'no way.' The 'something' that's going to have to give is either going to be the availability, pay, pension, or benefits of public sector work.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Texting While Driving -- What I Still Don't Get
This entry is going to be sort of a rehash of comments I've already made on Choosing a Soundtrack and richardhowe.com. I rehash them, however, because the big question I have about TWD remains unanswered: How is this going to work legally?
I heard all the chatter on the radio this morning about the great triumph of common sense in Massachusetts because our legislature got together and passed some tough laws regarding Texting While Driving. There are graduated fines for repeated offenses, there's some new verbiage about minors and cell phones (they can't use 'em while driving, period), and there are even provisions about "receiving a text."
I don't disagree at all. Just like everyone else and their mother, I have long been opposed to Texting While Driving from a safety point of view. And as I've written many times here before (and will again), I am VERY opposed to the idea that a cell phone is a leash. I know the cell is relatively new technology, so I'm still hoping we can return to the days where it was okay not to answer your phone and you didn't have to apologize for it.
I also think those two things are intertwined -- people would be less likely to TWD or Jawjack While Driving if their boss/friend/spouse/partner, etc. were more understanding of the fact that it's we who own our cell phones, and not vice versa.
But off that little soapbox for a second -- What I still don't get is how you can enforce an anti-TWD measure.
Here's why: People use their cell phones, Blackberries, iPhones, iPads, or you name it for myriad reasons. Unless we make ALL of that stuff illegal while driving -- checking the weather, sports scores, news headlines, etc. it seems that anyone pulled over for sending or receiving a text could plausibly say "No, Mr. Officer, I was just sending a fax via my toaster," or whatever other neat thing their iGadget can do. See my point?
This isn't a rhetorical question.
If anyone out there knows this, or knows if it's just an issue of a police officer's discretion, or if the law is really just intended to scare people into not doing it, or for individual State Reps or Senators to say "Look! I did something to promote safety" then let me know.
I heard all the chatter on the radio this morning about the great triumph of common sense in Massachusetts because our legislature got together and passed some tough laws regarding Texting While Driving. There are graduated fines for repeated offenses, there's some new verbiage about minors and cell phones (they can't use 'em while driving, period), and there are even provisions about "receiving a text."
I don't disagree at all. Just like everyone else and their mother, I have long been opposed to Texting While Driving from a safety point of view. And as I've written many times here before (and will again), I am VERY opposed to the idea that a cell phone is a leash. I know the cell is relatively new technology, so I'm still hoping we can return to the days where it was okay not to answer your phone and you didn't have to apologize for it.
I also think those two things are intertwined -- people would be less likely to TWD or Jawjack While Driving if their boss/friend/spouse/partner, etc. were more understanding of the fact that it's we who own our cell phones, and not vice versa.
But off that little soapbox for a second -- What I still don't get is how you can enforce an anti-TWD measure.
Here's why: People use their cell phones, Blackberries, iPhones, iPads, or you name it for myriad reasons. Unless we make ALL of that stuff illegal while driving -- checking the weather, sports scores, news headlines, etc. it seems that anyone pulled over for sending or receiving a text could plausibly say "No, Mr. Officer, I was just sending a fax via my toaster," or whatever other neat thing their iGadget can do. See my point?
This isn't a rhetorical question.
If anyone out there knows this, or knows if it's just an issue of a police officer's discretion, or if the law is really just intended to scare people into not doing it, or for individual State Reps or Senators to say "Look! I did something to promote safety" then let me know.
Natty Guard Propaganda
A quick confession -- whenever procrastination is getting the best of me, I sometimes fall into "YouTube cycles," which involve finding something interesting, watching, and then seeing whatever else pops up afterwards -- rinse, lather, repeat.
I did a double take on this one when I saw the guy at 2:22 -- not only does he look like a son I could have in the future, but he'd be wearing the right nametapes, too..
I did a double take on this one when I saw the guy at 2:22 -- not only does he look like a son I could have in the future, but he'd be wearing the right nametapes, too..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
