Herman Cain was forced out of the campaign by his immoral acts and lies about them, not by liberal ideologues as Joe Fitzgerald claims. Cain’s plummeting poll numbers came from conservatives who might have actually voted for him.
It’s true that other politicians, on both sides of the aisle, have dallied, gotten caught, and emerged with little damage. The difference is not their politics or their race, but rather their reaction to exposure. It’s obvious that Cain is lying through his teeth, and as usual, the coverup was worse than the crime.
As is befitting in an America which is increasingly post-racial, Cain was judged not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.
I write in opposition to H.408, “legislation to establish civil or criminal penalties for motorists failing to yield to bicyclists,” which you sponsored.
Bicyclists are legally prohibited from riding in crosswalks. To use the crosswalk, a bicyclist is legally required to dismount from his bicycle and walk it, thus making him a pedestrian and therefore protected by the existing law. If he does not dismount, he is legally required to operate his bicycle as a vehicle, which means (among other things) staying out of the crosswalk.
Bicyclists riding in crosswalks are dangerous both to pedestrians and other vehicles on the road. It is both unnecessary and unreasonable to enshrine into law protections which would encourage bicyclists to violate other laws and operate their vehicles dangerously.
Drivers can already be cited for driving unsafely; there is no need for a new law protecting bicyclists in this particular context. This is especially true since the law would create a presumption that the driver of a car that strikes a bicycle in a crosswalk was at fault, when in fact it is just as likely, if not more so, that the bicyclist was at fault for darting into the crosswalk too fast for the driver to stop in time.
I speak from the point of view of someone who regularly walks, bikes, and drives in Boston; someone who strives to adhere to the law in all of those contexts; and someone who resents the many bicyclists who do not.
When I arrived home (__ ___ Street, Brighton) at 6:15 this evening, I found a “Connolly for Boston” campaign sign secured to my porch railing with zip ties:
My wife tells me it was not there when she arrived home at 5:15. My three-year-old son tells me he saw “a man in a pickup truck” put up the sign.
Neither my wife nor I has spoken to anyone from your campaign or approved the placement of this campaign sign on our property.
Please explain yourself.
Furthermore, please remove this sign from our property immediately.
I wrote several days ago about spam I received from Nation of Change at an email address which had previously only been shared with Brave New Foundation. Earlier today, I wrote about Nation of Change apparently attempting to cover their tracks after their unauthorized use of email addresses was discovered and reported by me.
I have been in conversation about this with a high-level employee at Brave New Foundation, and I am now able to report the following important information:
Brave New Foundation does not sell, share or rent their email lists.
There is a Brave New Foundation employee with access to their lists who has a relative who works for Nation of Change.
Brave New Foundation believes that this Nation of Change employee made unauthorized use of his/her relative’s access to copy an as yet undetermined subset of Brave New Foundation’s email lists for Nation of Change’s use.
Brave New Foundation does not believe its employee was complicit in this unauthorized access. In fact, s/he was unaware that it had occurred until I brought it to Brave New Foundation’s attention.
Brave New Foundation considers this breach of their data to be extremely serious, and they are actively investigating it.
Brave New Foundation is considering legal action against Nation of Change both to prevent any further use of the copied email addresses and to obtain financial compensation for the damage to Brave New Foundation’s reputation and the time and resources spend investigating this incident.
All of this information, as well as some additional off-the-record supporting information that I cannot report here, was provided to me directly by an employee of Brave New Foundation. I have no reason to believe that employee is lying, and what s/he told me is consistent with my suspicions and impressions about Nation of Change. However, in the spirit of full disclosure, I want to be clear that I have not seen any hard evidence supporting any of Brave New Foundation’s allegations against Nation of Change.
When you combine these new allegations against Nation of Change with all the other issues I raised in my first posting about them, it seems doubtful that this is an organization which deserves anyone’s support.
I wrote recently about spam I received from a new, shady-seeming progressive organization called Nation of Change, sent to an email address that I had only ever used to subscribe to another organization’s mailing list.
I asked a lot of questions about Nation of Change, and thus far they’ve failed to respond to any of them. Here’s what has happened instead.
IMPORTANT UPDATE: As of August 12, 2011, it appears that Brave New Foundation had nothing to do with the spam reported below and in fact they are as much a victim as I am. Please see this posting for details.
Let me tell you about a little strategy I use to find out who’s buying and selling my email address… When I give my email address to an organization or Web site, I “tag” it to make it unique to that site while still ending up in my inbox. So when that site decides to sell or share my address, I know who did it.
When I put my address on a petition created by Brave New Films (now the Brave New Foundation) during the 2008 presidential campaign, I did not give Brave New Films permission to give it out to others. Guess what, folks, that’s spamming, and it’s evil, and I don’t support organizations that spam or help others spam. By giving out my address and others without permission, Brave New Foundation has permanently lost my support, and by using my and others’ illicitly obtained addresses, so have you.
An interesting comment showed up a few hours ago on an earlier blog posting of mine about Barack Obama: “Just wanted to say that I am eployed at a large Pharmaceutical company in Clayton NC and I support Barack Obama with all my heart. I would love for all my friends and colleagues to re-elect Obama in 2012!! I LOVE YOU OBAMA.”
The commenter gave the name “Diane Pearce Votes for Obama Again” and linked to my.barackobama.com. I thought it was slightly weird, but not weird enough to merit further investigation.
Then, three hours later, another comment came in on a different blog posting, this time from “Diane Pearce Loves Barack Obama”: “All I know is that I work at a large Pharmaceutical corporation in Clayton NC and I endroce Barack Obama with all my being. I would love for all my friends and colleagues to re-elect Obama in 2012!! I LOVE YOU OBAMA.”
That exceeded my weirdness threshold, so I looked into it a bit further.
The two comments gave two different email addresses, Reitter@gmail.com and Lipovsky@gmail.com, both of which appear to be based on people’s names and neither of which is related to the full name given by the commenter.
One of the comments was posted from an IP address in the United Arab Emirates. The other was posted from Indonesia.
I Googled for pages matching “Diane Pearce” and Obama, and there were 264 matches, many of which were similar comments. I did the same Google search a half hour later, and the count was up to 270.
Someone is clearly astroturfing here. The motives for this, and whether the people doing it are in reality trying to help or hurt Obama, are left as an exercise to the reader.
Here’s the letter I originally sent to the Boston Herald, with mark-up (strikeout for removed text, green for added) showing what they actually printed today:
To the editor:
It is infuriating to see rich people, who can afford to give back their imaginary “profits” from Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, whining about the actions of Irving Picard, the trustee for Bernie Madoff’s defunct firm.
As the Herald noted, Picard isn’t suing people who can’t afford to give the money back. In contrast, many of the victims for whom Picard is trying to recover assets were literally impoverished by Madoff.
Any profits withdrawn by Madoff’s “investors” were fraudulent. As the trustee for Madoff’s defunct firm, Picard is required by law to do everything in his power to recover those profits to help other victims. Blaming Picard for what he is doing is as absurd as blaming the police for recovering a stolen car and returning it to its rightful owner.
Picard is even permitted to sue investors for more than just their profit if they knew or should have known that it was a scam. Plenty of the people Picard is suing are sufficiently savvy that they should have known something was fishy. Rather than complaining, they should be happy that they, unlike most of the victims, got back their initial stake, and that Picard isn’t suing them for more.
Jonathan Kamens
Brighton
My wife would say that they took out the last paragraph because I tried to make two points in my letter instead of just one, and removing the second point makes the first one stronger. I suppose she’s right. But I can’t fathom why they added the extra “Bernie” in the first paragraph.
The greatest crisis facing America is not the state of the economy, or the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the threat posed by al-Qaeda. These are all critically important, and we prolong them at our peril. But none of them is the one existential crisis that threatens to undo everything our country has achieved.
Many people are disappointed in Barack Obama for not standing up to his opponents. The previous administration had spent eight years ignoring the will and desires of half the population, and now it was time to turn the tables and give the other half a taste of their own medicine. If only Obama had turned the thumbscrews a little tighter on a few recalcitrant moderates, he could have gotten any legislation he wanted through Congress, the opposition be damned. Obama was not liberal enough / strong enough / smart enough to do the right thing.
In fact, Obama has been doing exactly the right thing. He knows that what most threatens us now is not economics, war, or terrorism. Obama has seen the enemy, and it is us.
A week from today is election day. In Massachusetts, there will be three statewide ballot questions in addition to candidate elections. These ballot questions are important and I strongly urge all registered voters in Massachusetts (if you’re not registered, register before the next election!) to visit the polls and weigh in. I recommend voting no on all three ballot questions.