ࡱ> 5@ dbjbj22 XX\ppppppp l ,BBBBBBB$RF!TpBBppBB---pBpB--8-eppeB P3e0 e!j!epppp!peHBX -|0BBB$# Can We Really Eliminate the Income Tax? Nearly half the Massachusetts voters pulled the lever to repeal the state income tax last November. Did they mean it? By Geraldine Hawkins Nearly half the Massachusetts voters pulled the lever to repeal the state income tax last November, but the Legislature thinks this was only an attempt to send a message about lowering taxes. The initiators of the ballot question, Carla Howell and Michael Cloud, dont agree. They are serious. They say its possible to repeal the income tax, as long as citizens accept the responsibilities that would accompany the alteration of life in their state. Most people give Howell and Cloud a tremendous amount of credit for popularizing the subject. One observer, Prof. David Tuerck, who voted for the repeal, says: I was surprised the results were so favorable, considering the limited advertising budget the proponents of the measure had. Tuerck is Executive Director of the Beacon Hill Institute, a public policy think tank at Suffolk University, where he also serves as professor and Chairman of the Department of Economics. The opponents managed to raise a lot of worries. If the measure had passed, it would have eliminated forty percent of the budget, Tuerck tells MassNews. If it had succeeded, it would have exerted a powerful, positive statement, but it would have required a huge restructuring of the system, he says. Tuerck says that repealing the income tax in Massachusetts would involve radically transforming the political and social culture of the state. Are voters willing to undergo that much of a transformation? An ideal income tax would fall only on consumption, he tells MassNews. The Beacon Hill Institute has not yet devised a concrete plan, but Tuerck says they are discussing a way to reform the income tax so that it falls only on consumption. We need to convert the existing income tax into a tax on consumption, and reduce or eliminate the sales tax. This would be a promising approach to tax reform. He says that abolishing the income tax would mean gutting Medicaid and the withdrawal of aid from public schools. Part of my misgivings about this measure stem from the fact that it ties into many other issues, he says. (Medicaid is a federal program, financed by federal, state and local funds, usually for senior citizens, which basically provides them with assistance in nursing homes. It is criticized by some because this means in many cases that the government is paying the cost of nursing home care instead of depleting the persons savings. This often amounts to a gift from the government to the children because the parents savings will be intact at death and will go to the child.) Tuerck is not sure that the state is ready to repeal the income tax without a plan for dealing with Medicaid and education. How do you provide health care? A sixth of our population is dependent on Medicaid. We need to push to put some of the cost of Medicaid back on the recipient. The ballot question opened up a can of worms, Tuerck says. We need to address these major issues: Find a way to provide health care that would allow the state and federal government to shrink and still provide care for the indigent, and stop the lavish outlays in education which are without result. We could cut a billion dollars out of the budget without inflicting undue hardship on the poor, Tuerck tells MassNews. If we cut a billion dollars out of both Medicaid and education, it would go a long way toward easing the budget crisis. Without the income tax, We would have to substitute a state property tax for a local property tax to keep public schools open, Tuerck tells MassNews. Suppose state aid for public schools went away. Rich school districts would be flush. The courts might declare that the unequal financial resources across school districts was unconstitutional. Districts like Chelsea and Brockton could demand that the state fund the system, and the only place the state could go would be to raise sales taxes or property taxes, or force the state to raise revenue some other way. Thanks to Proposition 21/2, since 1982 the amount that can be raised by property taxes is limited to 2.5% of the total assessed value of a communitys levy. In order to raise personal property taxes, special elections would need to be held in individual communities and citizens would have to vote to override the limits imposed by Proposition 21/2. The courts have found many illegalities in the way of funding public schools, he adds. Tuerck does not know of specific cases in Massachusetts, but he says there have been documented cases of illegalities in New Hampshire, Ohio, and, Im sure in many others. In the late 1990s, The state went a long way toward reversing its reputation as Taxachusetts, Tuerck wrote in the Boston Sunday Herald on September 29, 2002. This happened because, Massachusetts spoke largely with a single voice in favor of cutting taxes. The process culminated two years ago in voter approval, by an 18-point margin, of Ballot Question 4, which cut the personal income tax from 5.85 percent to 5 percent. Question 4 succeeded as the result of a grassroots movement to cut taxes for individuals and small businesses. Trouble came when four Massachusetts business groups, Associated Industries of Massachusetts, the Boston Chamber of Commerce, the Massachusetts Business Roundtable and the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, petitioned the Legislature to all but ignore the wishes of the voters regarding Question 4. The groups essentially volunteered to sacrifice the tax cut least important to them in order to keep intact their own hard-won tax breaks. Among these is the single-sales-factor formula for computing corporate taxes, from which some corporations benefit. What the Legislature didnt do was cut spending, Tuerck writes. The single-sales-factor involves corporations. It shifts a corporations income tax away from out-of-state sales and toward sales which occur in Massachusetts, Tuerck tells MassNews. This benefits corporations like Raytheon [which develops defense technologies and converts them for use in commercial markets] and Fidelity [a brokerage service and the nations largest mutual fund company] that get mainly out-of-state business. The Legislature in a cavalier, irresponsible manner overturned Ballot Question 4. Now were back in the soup again. Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limited Taxation tells MassNews, Back in 1980, if you got 55% of the vote in a ballot initiative, you were carved in stone. We got 59% of the vote on Proposition 21/2, but the Legislature does not take initiative petitions as seriously as it used to. Anderson says that before the vote was taken on Ballot Question 4, The Legislature was prepared to come back and raise the income tax rate from 5.3% to 5.6%, which was last years rate. What is hopeful, Anderson says, is that, The publics willingness to repeal the income tax altogether gives backup to Mitt Romney, who has pledged not to raise taxes. David Tuerck believes that so many citizens voted for Ballot Question 1 because, The Legislature thumbed its nose at the voters and raised taxes. This should send a signal to the Legislature concerning that kind of behavior. In his Boston Sunday Herald article, Tuerck predicted that, The business community is about to discover the Faustian consequences of bargaining with the Massachusetts Legislature. The result will be Faustian, Tuerck says, because soon the Legislature will want to increase the sales taxes, and before long they will want to get rid of the single-sales-factor. Quote: We could cut a billion dollars out of the budget without inflicting undue hardship on the poor. David Tuerck Swift and Birmingham Seek SJCs Advice Gov. Jane Swift startled the state on Tuesday, Dec. 3rd by asking the Supreme Judicial Court for advice on what she is required to do about the Protection of Marriage Amendment. The Boston Globe had a large, front-page story about her request. She had announced the day before that she would be seeking the advice of the Court on Tuesday. There we were in the courtroom before the SJC on Tuesday arguing whether I had the right to sue, says Sarah McVay Pawlick, President of Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage. Was I just another citizen so they should dismiss my case without even discussing it? Jane Swift had already announced that she was seeking the advice of the Court. This all happened before the lawyers even started to argue. Then Tom Birmingham did the same thing, two days later on Thursday. Birmingham apparently acted without telling his lawyers that he was officially putting himself under the jurisdiction of the Court for the same questions that I was asking which is, what is his role? Pawlick says that the Attorney General has represented Birmingham in her suit from the beginning and says he will also represent Birmingham if any suit for damages is filed against him personally. Although Gov. Swift is not officially a defendant in Pawlicks suit, anything the Court says will have an obvious impact on her role also. The lawyers assume the Attorney General would represent her as well if any lawsuits are filed. We would like to just settle this and get a vote on our Amendment, says Pawlick. Thats been our only aim since the beginning. All we ask is that everyone obey the law. Let's count the votes. But we can't count them if we don't even have a vote! It is difficult to know how the SJC will deal with this as a legal question because while the Court obviously has notice that Birmingham has voluntarily put himself under its jurisdiction for everything that Pawlick asked for in her suit, he is not officially a party to her lawsuit, although it was obviously her suit that forced the action on his part. Observers say it should not matter because she should be getting the relief she requested in her suit in any event. The Court sent a notice that it is seeking briefs from any interested party on the requests for advisory opinions from the Governor and Senate President. They set a deadline for those briefs of Dec. 13. Most observers expected an answer from the Court on Dec. 17 or 18. Pg1 box: As we were going to press, we were told by reliable sources that the Legislature expects to hold a vote this year on the Protection of Marriage Amendment. The new President of the Senate, Robert Travaglini, and Speaker Thomas Finneran are said to have agreed that a vote will be taken. They Still Dont Get It at the State House Nobody at the State House yet understands why the Democrats lost the Governors race this year even though Tom Birmingham explained it very carefully. Before the primary, he acknowledged that his violation of the state Constitution had hurt him badly. Im a big boy, he said. I took a stand fully knowing what the reaction of the other side would be and would have to be completely removed from the process not to know. He couldnt have been more clear. He lost the primary and the Democrats lost their most experienced leader. What happened to their second team in the general election is history. Not even the Republicans understand this. Everyone at the Stat e House is scurrying around doing whatever they do, but they are all so busy scurrying, that no one has time to think. The people over at Mass. Citizens for Marriage are wondering if they will have to resort to bringing busloads of people to the State House again. Is this the only thing that politicians understand? On the positive side, its great to see that we are having an impact. The whole state was startled when Jane Swift asked the SJC for an advisory opinion on calling the Legislature back and the Globe put it on the front page. But the Globe became so heartsick two days later after Birmingham also requested an opinion from the Court, that they havent reported a word about it yet. They must figure that if they dont report it, it didnt happen. Unfortunately, we must print this paper without letting you know what the SJC decides. Probably we will discover the answer to that question on the day you receive this issue. * * * * In that light, we are very happy to finally be using 2nd class mail, which means you will theoretically receive your copy the day after it is mailed. It may take a while for that change to start working perfectly, but at least it wont take two or three weeks to get a copy to you. You will have to alert your carrier that you are looking for it on time. But we can guarantee that it will move to your local post office that fast. We have been unable to use 2nd class before because we had to give out many free issues when we first started. But we are no longer doing that. Now we must increase our paid circulation dramatically if we are going to improve our coverage for you. Please help us in any way you can. How about sending a whole bunch of gift subscriptions to that family member, neighbor or student who wants to be informed with the truth on issues in our Commonwealth? We are successful only because of your support. * * * * As we watch the Libertarians struggle without a value system other than the freedom to do whatever one feels like doing at that particular point in time, we are struck by the need for a belief. We are sorry that it is already too late to wish our Jewish friends a Happy Chanukah, but we do extend to all our Christian friends a very Merry Christmas! And to everyone, our greetings for a blessed and wonderful New Year. IZZY LYMAN on Denial Syndrome in Amherst They just don't get it. They really don't get it . Im referring to the busybody liberals who live in Northampton and Amherst. On November 5th, their pet causes - bilingual education, clean elections and femme governors - were given a thumbs down by the Massachusetts electorate. Concurrently, voters, at the national level, decided that a more conservative form of government was the ticket. Case closed, right? Wrong. The Welcome to Mittsachusetts bumper stickers were barely distributed when these snarky activists began a flurry of post-election tantrums that seemed directed at their victorious opponents. Remember Robert Reich? The cute little fella, who in spite of his Hollywood connections and his blather about working people, couldn't beat Shannon OBrien in the Democratic gubernatorial primary? Well, he was invited to Amherst to speak to local Democrats in late November. He must have confused the party faithful in western Massachusetts with the denizens of Stockholm. A local newspaper reporter dutifully noted that Reich was predicting that "another era of progressivism is on its way. Then, in the unapologetically earthy-crunchy Amherst Bulletin, Elisa Campbell, a regular columnist, wrote this pearl of wisdom: "Most of the people I know want at least two parties, but not more Republicans. They want a party to the left of the Democrats, probably the Greens. Soon a dominant theme emerged throughout the Pioneer Valley: We lost because we're not liberal enough. Of course, it's the other way around. They lost because they're too liberal. Carla Howell's "Small government is beautiful" motto is incomprehensible to these people. Unfortunately, the left-wingers of Noho and the People's Republic of Amherst are just beginning their hissy fits. Here are four other ways that Election Denial Syndrome (EDS) is manifesting itself in my neck of the woods. Protestors: In Need of a Nine-to-Five. Anti-war rallies slamming the United States military campaign against Iraq are frequent occurrences in downtown Northampton or on the Amherst Common. Being a conscientious objector is serious business, but the rhetoric spilling from the demonstrators' signs and lips is ridiculous either Democracy is dead, or George W. Bush is donning a cowboy hat to git Saddam, or I have never been so frightened than by what is occurring in Washington. My personal favorite is the peace ceremony that was held in an Amherst park to commemorate 9-11 and honor needy Iraqis. It featured a labyrinth made of about 500 pairs of shoes, an herbalist from Ecuador, and several drummers. The point? Shoes are like witnesses to our commitment. Deep. Who Gave the Voters Permission to Vote? While were on the subject of Democracy is dead, Amherst Town Meeting is fixing, as they say in Oklahoma, to vote in a special session to ignore the mandate of the electorate on English immersion (Question 2). The Amherst Select Board has already unanimously approved this lame petition. Meanwhile, Rep. Peter Kocot (D-Northampton) said he continues to support the notion of publicly-funded campaigns known as Clean Elections. Hello? Will someone call Kocot, and tell him that Question 3 got hammered at the polls. SUV Owners in the Hands of an Angry God. Liberals are always fussing about the separation of church and state, but they arent shy about using Christianity's founder to advance their anti free-market agenda. Residents of Northampton and Amherst are among those who have joined a coalition of left-wing religious and environmental leaders involved with the What would Jesus drive? campaign. In particular, one Paul Gorman of Amherst, the executive director of the National Religious Partnership for the Environment, is a busy guy. Henry Lamb, of the Environmental Conservation Organization, recently reported that Gormans organization will send materials, including bumper stickers, to 100,000 congregations and train the clergy to denounce SUVs as sinful. Jonathan Edwards, Northampton's famed Puritan preacher, who never trivialized the issue of sin, must be rolling in his you-know-what. I Want to Graduate from Publik Skool. Irate comrades turned out in droves even from as far away as Cambridge to tell the Northampton School Committee why they oppose the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System test. One high school student even described the MCAS as subtle slavery. It appears that the Northampton School Committee members are poised to break the law and become the fourth community in Massachusetts to vote, as the Daily Hampshire Gazette noted, to defy state Department of Education regulations requiring that all students graduating on and after June 2003 must pass the MCAS test. This could be a new low in dumbing-down the Commonwealth's students. Happy New Year! And, dont forget to make a resolution to laugh at liberal follies. Do the Libertarians Have the Credibility to Lead the Fight on Abolishing the Income Tax? Carla Howell, this years Libertarian candidate for governor, will spend the next four months taking stock of where to go from here. Weve nothing specific yet, but anything is possible, Howell tells MassNews. Whatever we do, it will be geared toward making government small. The only way libertarians, constitutionalists, and pro-family voters can get what they want is to make government small. Howell contends that the issues that trouble social and cultural conservatives, such as abortion, drug abuse and pornography, are the byproducts of big government. These problems go away when we get government out of the way, Howell says. Big government is inherently unaccountable and corrupting. It encourages people to make bad choices. A large percentage of the voters do not buy the Big Government rhetoric of the Boston Globe, she says. The passing of Ballot Question 1 would have forced exposure of what is in that $23 billion budget. Nobody knows except a very small number of insiders. What was their charter? What were they spending it on? If it was a poverty program, did they reduce poverty or did they increase poverty? People say that government spending is wasteful. They dont have a clue how bad it is. If the Globe actually exposed how that money was spent, Ballot Question 1 would have won by 80 or 90 percent. Most conservatives, however, are motivated by a belief that there is something larger than themselves, whether they believe it is God or an evolutionary force. Either way, they have reservations about the Libertarianism they see in this state, with its primary emphasis on freedom. But Howell sees no need for conflict. Small government encourages personal responsibility, so that people gravitate toward good behavior and integrity, Howell insists. When we dont rely on government, we rely on strong family bonds. Howell tells MassNews that because of governments natural corrupting tendencies, when we give government moral authority, we end up with people like Bill Clinton as our leaders. Government should be less a part of our lives, so that we can look to community and spiritual leaders, leaders of our choosing. Howell has taken a stand against the Protection of Marriage Amendment because she opposes any infringement on the right of citizens to enter into contracts of their choosing. However, Sarah McVay Pawlick, President of Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage, says that Howell is totally wrong that the Amendment infringes in any way on the rights of citizens. She says that Howell has apparently not taken the time to understand the Amendment. Howell does say it was wrong of Tom Birmingham to gavel away the Convention. She believes a vote should have been taken and it is Governor Swifts duty to call them back for a vote. She also agrees that sexuality, homo-, hetero- or otherwise, is not an appropriate topic for public schools. Parents should not be forced to send their children to schools where these topics are even discussed. I am for removing all government involvement in sexuality of any kind. Some conservatives also feel that Howell has undermined her credibility by appearing at rallies to legalize marijuana. They say that she may have a valid point that todays drug war is much like it was trying to prohibit the use of alcohol during prohibition. But they believe she goes much further and fosters the impression that the use of marijuana is not a serious problem. They point to her appearance every year at the drug rally on the Boston Common, which, as usual, was attended by many children, who are encouraged to smoke marijuana at the rally. For example, MassNews reported about the rally on the Common on September 17, 2001 right after the 9/11 attack. Howell appeared there and stood on the stage and inserted copies of the drug laws into a shredder to the cheers of the 10,000 in attendance. She pledged that if elected Governor, she would end the war against responsible marijuana users. What, asked MassNews, is a responsible marijuana user? Thousands of medical marijuana users, some of whom were speakers at that rally, Howell answers. Marijuana is sometimes recommended to treat glaucoma and other ailments, she contends. When marijuana users dont try to sell it or give it to kids, its use constitutes a victimless, or consensual crime. Harmful drug use is its own punishment. When drugs are illegal, when they are sold on the black market, they are not labeled. All that kids know about them is what they are told by an uninformed, irresponsible friend. They dont know the content or the dosage. During the 1920s, when alcohol was illegal, it was poisonous! People died from tainted alcohol and from wood alcohol. No system will keep harmful drugs out of the hands of kids, but they will make better choices in an environment of liberty and personal responsibility. The idea of forbidden fruit has a lot to do with adolescent drug use, Howell believes. Teenagers love to do what they are not allowed to do. Look, some of the kids at that rally were smoking pot, some of them were not smoking pot. They all behave with varying degrees of responsibility. Most of the kids came on the T and went home on the T. They were safer than drunk drivers. The real question is: Are the people fundamentally responsible or irresponsible? Howell would distinguish between a 35-year-old selling drugs to a 10-year-old, and two 25-year-olds giving them to each other. There is a very dramatic distinction, she tells MassNews. But when we pass laws making them appear as the same thing, that is a mistake. Howell contends that, There are no documented deaths attributed to marijuana. It has the potential to be harmful. For instance, if you are driving, it is a sedative. I dont know that its ever happened that anyone ever smoked pot and caused a traffic accident. I dont know that it ever will happen, but it has the potential, she says. I advise kids not to do drugs, Howell says. If anyone listens to what I have to say, they will see that it is all about personal responsibility. You are responsible for your behavior. There are many who disagree with her assessment of marijuana. But what is even a larger problem is that she gives the impression at rallies that smoking pot really is fun. As far as marriage is concerned, many believe that most Libertarians are really libertines, who wish to lead an unrestrained, immoral life. The problem arises when they have children. Without children, it would be possible to live such a life, they say. But when one has the responsibility of raising children from birth, everything changes. There is no turning back for most people or returning the baby. They bond with the new infant. Neither Carla Howell nor Michael Cloud, who ran for the U.S. Senate seat from Massachusetts against John Kerry on the Libertarian party ticket, are married. However Cloud told MassNews last month, in what has been an open secret, that he and Howell are an item. Howells advice to Massachusetts conservatives? If we want to make headway, we need to work together on issues on which we agree. Nobody can deny that the Libertarian Party deserves the credit for pushing this issue to the forefront of the political debate. But the answer from many conservatives is that they cannot take this ticket seriously as long as the Libertarians are viewed by a majority of the electorate as being out of the mainstream. They believe this may be evidenced by the fact that the ballot question received 48% of the vote, but Carla Howell only received 1%. Captions: Carla Howell discussed Second Amendment rights with patrons of Blue Northern Trading Co. in Ayer. Michael Cloud addressed supporters on the campaign trail during his recent campaign against Senator John Kerry for the U.S. Senate. 11th Hour Appeal on Marriage Heard By SJC; Court is Urged to Enforce State Constitution By Ed Oliver The attorney for the sponsors of the Protection of Marriage amendment appeared before the whole Supreme Judicial Court on Dec. 3 to urge the judges to enforce the state Constitution and see that it is obeyed. The case started in July, two weeks after the Legislature adjourned without voting on the Amendment. The court took the case under advisement. The attorney, J. Edward Pawlick recommened that the judges just tell the Secretary of State to send the amendment onto the next Legislature which begins in January, just as though it had been approved. It was pointed out to the full Court that Justice Greaney had written an opinion in 1992 where the court did that in a referendum for a new law, where the legislature had failed to act. They [the Court at that time] were not going to argue with them, Attorney Pawlick advised. They were not going to send it back or issue a writ of mandamus. They just told the Secretary of State that the legislature had forfeited their right. Just move it on. Lets have a vote. And we realize [that a peoples petition for] a law is different from a Constitutional Amendment, but its not really different. The Secretary of State also has a duty in a Constitutional Amendment when he sends it to the Legislature, to watch it. He can not ignore it and let it die and let it fade away. He has a duty to see what happens and to watch that too. And when nothing comes back, he has a duty the same as happened in the 1992 case to see what happened to that initiatve [referendum]. When he sees that they havent followed through on it, the same thing should happen. It should just go on to the next legislature and that is not a very drastic step because its still in the legislature. Its just gone to the next session. But they still have the chance in this one to act properly, to follow the Constitution, to obey it, to have a debate and have a vote. If they dont like it, they can turn it down, but they can do it by following the Constitution, which is what theyre required to do. Pawlick was visibly disturbed with attempts by Asst. Attorney General Peter Sacks to paint the Governor as the one in charge of seeing that the Senate President obeys the Constitution, just because she is given the duty of calling them back if they failed to obey the Constitution. Pawlick told the justices that was hogwash! As far as the role that is given to the Governor, Pawlick said, theres nothing in there that says because theyve involved the Governor in this process, that [means] theyve taken away your right, the right of the Supreme Court to monitor the Constitution and what is done. No! Nowhere by giving the role to the Governor, have they taken away [pause] are you going to allow them to take away your judicial function? Thats [long pause] hogwash. Its really not important how they rule as far as our case goes because we are going to win it in the political arena, Pawlick told MassNews. What were concerned with is that this whole mechanism for amending the Constitution that was devised in 1918 is broken because of past actions of the Court. It wont be used anymore unless the Court takes charge now. There is a big difference in the way the SJC has been treating a referendum for new laws or for a referendum for a new Constitutional Amendment. This court has a duty to make this clear and correct the mistakes of the past. Nobody will propose any further Amendments if something isnt done. They are killing the whole process, said Pawlick. The travails of the Marriage Amendment present a classic case of why Article 48 was written in the first place, Pawlick contends. Supreme Court Justice Greaney wrote in 1992 that Art. 48 is a peoples process, which gave the people a direct opportunity to enact laws regardless of legislative opposition. In a separate but related development on the same day, Governor Swift asked the SJC for the Courts opinion on whether she is required to call the legislature back into session to finish their Constitutional business on three ballot initiatives, including the Marriage Amendment. Events came to a head last July 17, when a Constitutional Convention led by Senate President Thomas Birmingham failed to vote as required on a proposed Marriage Amendment, voting instead to let it die without debate or vote on the measure itself. Two weeks after they adjourned on July 31, the president of Mass. Citizens for Marriage, Sarah McVay Pawlick, sued Sen. Birmingham and sought clarification from the SJC about the duties of elected officials in the Article 48 initiative process on amending the Constitution. In October, a single justice dismissed the suit without addressing the legality of Birminghams actions and other substantive issues because he said that she was just another citizen and had no right to sue a legislator. On Dec. 3, the full Court heard the appeal from his decision. The parties were allowed only ten minutes apiece to argue their case. MassNews Had Debate about Marijuana MassNews had a Serious Debate in 2000 Between Those who Endorse the Governments Battle Against Drugs and the Libertarians who Oppose it. We pointed out in an introduction to the debate that there are two issues to discuss and we must talk about each one separately or the debate will be contaminated: 1) Is marijuana harmless like caffeine, nicotine and alcohol, which are allowed by the government? 2) If its harmful, should a citizen be denied the right to use it, like cocaine, heroin or other drugs? It was pointed out in the original article by George Biernson in our January 2000 issue that 40% of the active ingredient in marijuana, THC, is stored in the body fat and then slowly released into the blood over many weeks. When a person smokes regularly, the THC in his blood is sufficient to sedate him all the time. This is not true with alcohol. This was answered in February 2000 by libertarian Jeffrey A. Miron, a Boston University professor who founded the Bastiat Institute. He opined that while the drug is not harmless, Biernson had overstated the problem. A balanced review of the evidence, therefore, suggests a far more nuanced picture of marijuana than suggested by Biernson. And Miron concluded, The relevant question for consumers of any commodity, therefore, is whether the benefits outweigh the potential harms. Biernsons characterization of marijuanas effects is meant to suggest that the harms from marijuana are so great that no person who understood these harms would ever voluntarily consume marijuana. That characterization is not consistent with an objective assessment of the evidence. Biernson responded in March 2000 that one reason for some of the conflicting research was that the drug-runners know that marijuana is the stepping stone to heroin and cocaine, from which they make big money. Therefore, they fund many of these researchers. Janet D. Lapey, M.D. also responded in the March issue against Prof. Mirons article. All of these articles plus many more references to marijuana are available free-of-charge on massnews.com. But Carla Howell disagrees that she is out of the mainstream. The War on Drugs lacks any credibility. It has failed. It encourages drug use, she says. When we go to schools and ask kids, If we asked one of you to go out and come back with some alcohol, and another to come back with drugs, which one do you think would get back faster? They always answer, The one with the drugs. Its easier to get drugs with prohibition. Howell hastens to add: Its a crime either way, to sell drugs to children; but when its legal, you know whos selling it, you can more easily prevent it, and you can teach kids to be responsible. Howell contends that drug prohibition undermines our Constitutional rights, our right against search and seizure. It leads to racial profiling and violence. It encourages gun grabbers to regulate guns. Howell tells MassNews that she has reached her conclusions using data that results from the War on Drugs. If youre interested in minimizing the damage caused by harmful drugs, you must get behind ending the War on Drugs. It makes things worse. You destroy the natural market regulation forces by keeping drugs illegal, Howell says. She believes that these natural forces would make it more difficult for minors to obtain drugs. Howell says you could buy heroin in a pharmacy in 1910, but that there were far fewer cases of heroin addiction then than there are today. She insists that prohibition causes more trouble than it prevents. She says that the most flagrant cases of people dying from alcohol abuse were during prohibition. Ten thousand people died of alcohol overdoses during prohibition, she maintains. One person who disagrees with Howell on this subject is a retired naval officer and grandmother, Lea Cox, who founded Concerned Citizens for Drug Prevention, which is affiliated with Drug Watch International. She is at P.O. Box 2078, Hanover, MA 02339 or 781-826-5598. Box: 40-Page Book by Biernson Available at Cost The 40-page book by George Biernson, Dispelling the Marijuana Myth, from which our January 2000 article was based, is available at our costs of printing and mailing of $5 plus 25c sales tax.## This leaflet was distributed to every Legislator last month by Mass. Citizens for Marriage. It tells the facsinating history of the 1917-1918 conventions, at which referendums were established, against the wishes of conservatives, as a way of circumventing an unresponsive Legislature of twenty-one willfu men. Will 2002 Democratic Party Destroy Liberals Dream of Circumventing an Unresponsive Legislature? In 1918, it was proclaimed that every Legislator Is Required to Send an Amendment to the People Unless it is a Freak Proposition, Without Merit, that was Introduced Rashly and Without Proper Consideration. When the Convention assembled in Boston on October 9, 1917, to continue revising our Constitution, they were excited. The dreams of the liberals and Progressives to circumvent the twenty-one willful men in the Senate were being accomplished. No longer would 21 conservative Senators be able to stop the people from adopting Amendments. Even conservatives were happy that a better method of amending the Constitution, without completely opening up the process to the excitable masses, had been found. This new idea, they said, would be sure to cut off the freak proposition, the proposition that is without merit and is introduced rashly and without proper consideration. Under their new system, the Legislature would still be involved. But it would meet as one large body in a Joint Session, not as two separate groups. Then, as now, there were 160 in the House and 40 in the Senate. The delegates made it very clear they had given a minority check to the Legislature only to assure the conservatives that the process was not being opened to the wild ideas of the masses. The Legislature would be involved in debate to examine the measure, but only 25% were required to send it on to the people. In 2002, the Legislators do not understand this. They believe they are required to send amendments on to the people only if they, the Legislator, approves. But that is not the purpose of the minority check. The SJC explained it in 1982: The one-fourth vote requirement applicable to initiative amendments was intended as a legislative minority check on initiative amendments to the Constitution. Its purpose is to ensure that initiative amendments submitted to the people for approval have at least a reasonable amount of public support, as reflected by the favorable votes of at least one-fourth of the legislators elected to the General Court. One of the leaders, Mr. Quincy of Boston, told the Assembly that because of this new process, real debate would occur on the Amendments. One great advantage of the legislative minority check as embodied in this amendment is that it does secure real debate in the General Court. How astounded would Mr. Quincy and the others be to discover that in 2002 no debate at all absolutely none, zero, zilch would be allowed. Or that the President of the Senate would ask the Supreme Judicial Court for a formal opinion as to whether it is necessary that they have any debate. Mr. Quincy went on. We have heard one objection [that has been proposed before this day and has been] dwelt upon at much length and with much force upon this floor, namely, that it does not permit debate and amendment; that it does not permit the operation of that orderly process of discussion, consideration, amendment, which this Convention is engaged in working out as to the important matters which we have had under consideration. And while the legislative minority check is in theory, and I admit it frankly, contrary to the pure theory of the initiative, in that it brings the Legislature in and does not allow the people to go completely around the Legislature and to entirely disregard it, yet in the form in which it stands in this amendment I believe that it is the sacrifice of a theory for a very practical and desirable end. What we are after is results, rather than being strictly logical in respect to maintaining a theory of legislation, or of getting along without any legislative action. And I say as a practical question, as a working question, that this legislative minority check is not inconsistent with the true purpose, in its broad aspect, or with the practical and successful operation of the initiative method of making amendments to the Constitution. Therefore, every legislator in 2002 is expected to vote to send an amendment to the people unless the Legislator sincerely believes it is a freak proposition, without merit, that was introduced rashly and without proper consideration. When asked what would happen if the two Houses failed to agree upon a time for the Joint Session, Mr. Quincy was unable to even conceive such a thing ever happening. The liberals and conservatives of that time had gigantic differences, but they never doubted each others honor. Therefore, Mr. Quincy answered the question with this statement: I do not believe we need to consider seriously that contingency or a defiance of the provisions of the amendment by either of these two branches of the General Court. Mass. Congressmen Violated Law By Curt Lovelace The letter from all of the Mass. Congressmen and Senators to state legislators about the Protection of Marriage Amendment violated federal law, according to Thomas McGee, a 30-year employee of the federal government and resident of South Hadley. First, the letter was written on official House of Representatives stationery, a clear violation of law, McGee says, because this letter was not official business of the Congress. Even the letter itself proves this, McGee says, pointing out the first paragraph, which refers to the proposed Constitutional amendment as an issue wholly within the jurisdiction of the General Court. The same paragraph also refers to the content of the letter as our opinion. Every member of the Congressional delegation has a right to express his opinion, but not in such a manner as to make it look official, says McGee. Fraudulent use of stationery of the Congress of the United States is a violation of Chapter 6 of the Ethics Manual for Members on franking privileges and House Rule 43, clause 11. McGee also notes the date of the letter and claims that it is evidence of a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of six million citizens of Massachusetts. He told MassNews that it appears, There was concern that there werent enough votes to defeat the amendment. So this letter was dated July 12 and delivered to every legislator in the State House on Monday the 15th. The Constitutional Convention was scheduled to take place on the 17th. It is a powerful thing, McGee asserts, for state legislators to receive a letter from their federal counterparts, unanimously urging them to take a certain course of action. He notes also that the letter was timed so that not even the Speaker of the [U.S.] House could take any action for 60 days, because of a 1996 law intended to block frivolous lawsuits during periods of time near primaries and general elections. McGee believes that the citizens have been disenfranchised by the actions of the U.S. Congressional delegation. He would like to see the matter dealt with properly, although he makes no suggestion as to what the proper outcome would look like. In order to make his opinion in the matter known, he has telephoned each of his Senators and his Representative. Noting that all ten members of the states Congressional delegation signed the letter, McGee believes, It is impossible to bring a complaint through your own Member of Congress. He has, therefore, written letters to Chairman Joel Hefley of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the U.S. House and to the Speaker of the House, Rep. Dennis Hastert. In these letters he has carefully documented the several rules of ethical conduct and laws he believes were violated. McGee insists that he has no political agenda. He believes that his rights have been violated, along with those of his fellow citizens. He was reluctant to begin this process. His letter to Speaker Hastert opens with the sentence, "Having honorably served in the government of the United States for thirty years, it is with regret that I must call upon the Office of the Speaker to take action to restore ethics and dignity to the U.S. House of Representatives. Many would insist that McGee is on a fools errand. If you cant beat City Hall, you certainly dont have much of a chance against the entire Congressional delegation of your state. Thomas McGee, however, cherishes the democratic process and the relationships between the various states and the federal government. He believes that the citizens deserve a Congress which conducts its business in ethical and legal ways. He believes that dignity is a requirement for the carrying on of the peoples business. Hes willing to stick his neck out to restore that dignity. McGee has received no written replies to any of his communications with various government officials. During his years working in the State Department and the Department of the Treasury, McGee was the recipient of many Commendations and Awards. Hes proud to be an American. On July 16, McGee read about the letter in a local daily newspaper. The two chambers of the legislature were scheduled to meet on July 17, in a Constitutional Convention. One of the three items on the agenda was the Marriage Amendment. Only 50 of the 200 legislators had to vote in favor for the amendment to take the next step toward being put before the people as a ballot question. When McGee, who has no relationship with the sponsors of the amendment and didnt even sign the petition to have it put on the ballot read that Senate President Thomas Birmingham had adjourned the Constitutional Convention with no action, he was incensed. He felt that, among other things, the letter from the Congressional delegation had been used to circumvent the Constitutional Convention of a state and the will of its six million citizens. The first thing McGee wanted was a copy of the letter. He called the office of his Congressman, Richard Neal. Although his signature was on the letter, Neals office did not have a copy and had to get a copy faxed from the office of Rep. Barney Frank which they then forwarded to Mr. McGee. He also called the offices of the two U.S. Senators, Edward Kennedy and John Kerry. McGee said of those calls that he found it strange that neither Senate office had a copy of the letter, although both had signed it. Reading the letter, which is only three paragraphs long, McGee decided that numerous violations of law and ethics had been committed and the victims were the citizens of Massachusetts. Written Three Minute Summaries Given to SJC Summary Given at Dec. 3 Oral Argument Attorney J. Edward Pawlick gave this written Three Minute Summary of the marriage case to the Justices the day before the Dec. 3 oral argument in order to help them better understand the issues. The time constraints were necessary because of the necessity of deciding the case quickly. He told MassNews at the time: The short timing on the case has made it difficult for everyone. We were lucky to find a printer who would open his shop on Sunday evening so that we could have our answering brief at the court at 8:30 on Monday morning. The justices have so much to do, it is understandable, but discouraging, that they had not looked at the briefs before the Oral Argument. We hope we have convinced them to take a serious look at this matter. It doesnt affect our case so much because we are also going by the political route, but it is crucial to our democracy that our laws be followed. We hope they realize that many people are unable to understand how this could be happening here. 10-Minute Oral Argument Requires 3-Minute Written Summary The time constraints that the SJC is under require a short, 10-minute argument, and I failed miserably in that environment in October when I was conveying my message to Justice Spina. In order to now explain this case to the Justices in a better manner than I did to Justice Spina, I have prepared both a traditional brief as required under the Rules of Appellate Procedure and a quick 3-Minute Summary, which will help them considerably and save a lot of their time in becoming familiar with the case. As founder/owner of Lawyers Weekly from 1972-1997, I worked closely with Chief Justice Joseph Tauro in 1973-4 to revolutionize the way the lawyers obtained their information in Massachusetts. While serving as publisher of Lawyers Weekly and of the official Advance Sheets (which had always been more than 8 months late until we mailed them in 3 days after we took charge) and publisher of the bound volumes (whose timeframe was also shortened considerably), we changed the way that lawyers in Massachusetts learned the information they needed. We then turned to establishing Lawyers Weekly newspapers in seven additional states. (We watched various people in all 50 states attempting to copy our format. Some even attempted to use our name.) We then used the same techniques to bring this format to technology and eventually to the finest Internet site in the country for lawyers. (Reed Elsevier, the present owner of Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, Lexis Nexis, and others, was unable to compete with us in Texas and abandoned their paper there but still publish a Lawyers Weekly in Canada where they cannot be challenged for trademark infringement. West Publishing Company hired 40 journalists in an unsuccessful attempt to compete with us on the electronic level in the 1990s but gave up after about a year and opted to sell to the Thompson group from Canada and Great Britain.) It seems only fair that I might now possibly suggest the Three Minute Summary as a method of improving the manner in which judges receive their information from lawyers. ***** Three Minute Summary The Current Legislature Has Forfeited Its Right to Vote. The 182nd General Court has forfeited its chance to vote, the same as in 1992 when this Court decided Citizens for a Competitive Massachusetts. In that case, Justice Greaney wrote that where the Legislature had never voted on a measure as required by art. 48, the Secretary should nevertheless place the Initiative on the ballot. This Court said the Secretary of State has a duty to carefully examine what the Legislature does, and after he did so in that case, he would determine that by not obeying art. 48, it had forfeited its involvement in the process. Where the present Legislature has also failed to vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment, the Secretary should inform the 183rd General Court that it should vote on the Amendment as though the 182nd General Court had approved it. This is not a crucial matter for the Legislature because the 183rd General Court will provide another chance for it to hold hearings and debates on the measure and approve or reject it as art. 48 requires, if it chooses to do so, before the measure goes to a vote of the people in 2004. The Boston Globe reported that the measure appeared to have the necessary support and more, and that was the reason why a vote was not allowed. Dichotomy Between Two Types of Initiatives. The perceived enthusiasm by the SJC for art. 48 has extended to new laws but not to Amendments. As a result, only two Amendments have appeared on the ballot in the 85 years since art. 48 was enacted. The reason appears to be that the Court fears getting into a Marbury v. Madison controversy where it cannot enforce its order, or because many of these SJC cases are a response to requests for Opinions of the Justices where no lawyer appeared for the citizens. The relief sought in the present case does not lead to either dilemma. Suggested Order of Court. The plaintiff suggests the following Order: After an Amendment is transmitted to the Legislature by the Secretary of State under art. 48, it is mandatory that the President of the Senate perform his ministerial duty and convene a Joint Session of the Legislature for a debate and a vote on the proposed Amendment. If the President of the Senate fails to do so or fails to take final action thereon, it is mandatory that the Governor call the Legislature to perform its required duties. The Secretary of State shall monitor the entire process, and if it is flawed, the Secretary is required to notify the officials in the Legislative branch and in the Executive branch of their duties under the law. In the present case, the Secretary will inform the 183rd General Court, which convenes in January 2003, that it should consider the Amendment as though the 182nd General Court had approved it. Classic Example of Why Art. 48 Was Written. This case presents a classic case of why art. 48 was written. Justice Greaney wrote for the Court in 1992, We have previously stated that art. 48 ... created a peoples process. It was intended to provide both a check on legislative action and a means of circumventing an unresponsive General Court. It presented to the people the direct opportunity to enact statutes regardless of legislative opposition. It projected a means by which the people could move forward on measures which they deemed necessary and desirable without the danger of their will being thwarted by legislative action. Justice Greaney continued, We cannot endorse a result that would permit the Legislature, by failing or refusing to comply with a mandatory provision of art. 48, to frustrate the right of the people to place a proposed law on the ballot. This is a classic example of the Legislature laughing at the people, with the Governor joining in, as it scoffs at the law of the Commonwealth. Sen. Birmingham Is Sued in His Official and Private Capacity. Although Sen. Birmingham goes into a long 8-page discussion (Argument II in his brief) that, No Declaratory Relief is Available Against the Senate President in His Official Capacity, this is not true. Pawlick is also suing Sen. Birmingham in his private capacity because Sen. Birmingham is ultra vires [acting illegally] in what is a simple, ministerial duty and has therefore lost the privilege known as legislative immunity. This is readily apparent to this Court by judicial notice. If [Sarah McVay] Pawlick cannot sue, who can? Privilege of Legislative Immunity Has Been in Existence for Almost 1000 Years. The Declaratory Judgment Act was not intended to start a new body of law about judicial immunity, only to reinforce the existing law and to indicate that the statute could not be used to destroy the privilege. The existing law would continue to be followed. Important Change after Limits. Joint Rule 12A, which states that the Legislature must adjourn by July 31, was enacted in 1995. This was not in effect when Limits was decided in 1992. Therefore, although the President of the Senate was not in violation of the law when Limits was decided, Sen. Birmingham is in violation today because he has knowingly and intentionally forfeited his duty and has violated art. 48. This violation of the law is an accomplished fact, not something he might do in the future as in 1992. Duties of Secretary of State. The Secretary of State does more than print booklets for voters. According to Justice Marshall in the Clean Elections case [February 2002], the duties of that office include administering the Massachusetts election law. It is he who transmits to the Legislature all certified Initiatives, which according to art. 48 are then deemed to be introduced and pending. The Secretary is expected to monitor the process. If he receives no notice that a vote has been taken prior to adjournment of the Legislature, he has a duty to inquire into the status of the Initiative and notify the officials in the Legislative branch, the Executive branch and the public, of their duties under the law. Caption: Asst. Atty. General Peter Sacks addressed the Supreme Judicial Court while Atty. J. Edward Pawlick reviewed his notes. Summary Given on Dec. 9 in Response to Gov. Swift and Sen. Birmingham This is intended as a quick help for the Court. A traditional brief under Mass. R. App. P. follows this summary. This brief does not repeat material in the plaintiffs brief in Pawlick v. Birmingham, SJC-08879. A more comprehensive discussion of much of this material is found in the plaintiffs brief in that case. Suggested Answers to the Requests from Governor Swift Advisory No. A-105, December 3, 2002 SJC - 08916. 1. Does adjournment by a roll call vote (137 yeas to 53 nays) of the joint session [of the two Houses] constitute final action on a proposed constitutional amendment such that the Governors power and duty to recall the joint session under Article 48 [of the Constitution of the Commonwealth] do not attach? No. The Constitution requires that final action in the Legislature shall be only by roll call vote. This requires a vote on the amendment itself. A vote for adjournment without a vote on the amendment does not satisfy the requirement of the Constitution. This is clearly seen in this request where there are three Amendments pending. It is not possible to have a final, combined vote on all of them at once. They must be voted on one at a time. This is found in the Constitution at art. 48, Init., pt. 4, 4: Final legislative action in the joint session upon any amendment shall be taken only by call of the yeas and nays ... This requires a roll call vote on each Amendment. 2. If there has not been final action by the joint session, may the Governor, using her judgment, reasonably determine whether this controversy has reached the limits of futility. LIMITS v. President of the Senate, 414 Mass. 31, 32 n. 4 (1992), such that she may decline to recall the joint session under Article 48? The Governors citation to the Limits case apparently is incorrect. Apparently, she refers to footnote 5 on page 34. The case cited at footnote 5 is Opinion of the Justices, 334 Mass. 745 (1956). In that case, the Governor had recalled the Legislature three times without any success. In this case, the Governor has taken no action at all to recall them. Obviously, she has not reached any level of futility, particularly where they have now asked this Court for its advice on their following the requirements of art. 48. Suggested Answers to the Requests from the Senate Advisory No. A-106, December 5, 2002 SJC - 08917 1. Would a member of the joint session violate Article 48 by moving to adjourn before the joint session otherwise takes action on any of the proposed amendments? Yes. Each Legislator is required to know and obey the Constitution of the Commonwealth. See Answer #1 above. 2. Would the President of the Senate, as presiding officer of the joint session, violate Article 48 by recognizing a motion to adjourn before the joint session otherwise takes action on any of the proposed amendments? Yes. Under art. 48, Init., pt. 4, 2, the president of the senate is given the ministerial duty of presiding at the session to ensure that the mandate of the Constitution is followed and the required vote is taken by call of the yeas and nays. 3. Would the joint session violate Article 48 by voting to adjourn before otherwise taking action on any of the proposed amendments? Yes. Same as question 2. Each legislator is also required to obey the Constitution. 4. If the joint session votes to adjourn before otherwise taking action on any of the proposed amendments, does Article 48 require any further action by the President of the Senate? Yes. Art. 48, Init., pt. 4, 2 gives the President of the Senate the ministerial duty to preside at the joint session and 4 requires him to see that the final legislative action at the joint session is a call of the yeas and nays for each of the three amendments before the joint session. Reference to Rules of Legislature. As to the reference by the President to Special Rule F of the joint session and Rule 64 of the House of Representatives, which applies to the joint session according to Special Rule J, it is manifest that the legislature may not enact rules which would allow it to violate the Constitution. Therefore, a decision must be made by the President of the Senate on each and every request by a legislator whether such request would violate the Constitution, which is the paramount law of the Commonwealth. Final Disposition of Case This matter is currently the subject of a lawsuit which was argued before this Court on December 3 and was taken under advisement. The principal defendant in that lawsuit, Thomas Birmingham, is now asking this Court for answers to these questions, and the Governor, Jane Swift, who was not a named defendant but is closely involved in the relief sought in that suit, is also seeking advice on the suit currently before the Court. As a result, the decision by the Single Justice to dismiss the suit because the plaintiff had no standing to sue Sen. Birmingham is moot because Sen. Birmingham, apparently without the knowledge of his attorney, is now requesting that this Court decide the issues raised by the plaintiff in her suit. This means that the Court must rethink the issues because the defenses which were strenuously argued by the Attorney General no longer apply. It appears that the Court now must only determine what is the appropriate relief. All of the defenses such as the argument that declaratory relief cannot be applied against Sen. Birmingham, about Sen. Birminghams official capacity vs. his private capacity, etc., etc. are now moot. The Court should now consider carefully that the 182nd General Court forfeited its right to vote when it made a willful violation of art. 48 of the Constitution by adjourning without taking a vote on three amendment initiatives. The Secretary of State should notify the 183rd General Court that it shall proceed as though the 182nd General Court had approved all three of them. Therefore, there is no further duty required of the Senate President or the Governor this year. Justice Greaneys Opinion in 1992 Justice Greaney wrote in an opinion in 1992 that where the Legislature had failed to vote in an initiative for a new law, the Legislature had lost its right to vote. Sen. Birmingham has many arguments why this opinion would not apply to an initiative for an amendment. The remedy of the citizens is at the ballot when the Legislature violates an art. 48 initiative for an amendment. But that was the remedy available to the citizens in 1918. Go out and elect a majority of the House and Senate. If that is still the only remedy in 2002, then the wonderful dream of the progressives/liberals/populists is truly dead. If that is true, then the words of Justice Greaney were a cruel hoax when he wrote: We cannot endorse a result that would permit the Legislature, by failing or refusing to comply with a mandatory provision of art. 48, to frustrate the right of the people to place a proposed law on the ballot. The duties of the Secretary are much different under an amendment initiative than when a law initiative is involved. There is a facial difference in the language of art. 48 between the process of a law initiative and an amendment initiative, but it is only facial. The Secretary of the Commonwealth is not just a clerk. In a law initiative, there is nothing that gives him any notice whether the Legislature has failed to enact the law before the first Wednesday of May. He is required to monitor the process and discover what is happening. He has no less duty for an amendment initiative. Inaction by the Legislature should not be deemed to be approval. That is absolutely correct. But no one has said that it should be deemed as approval. What is important is that they have forfeited their right to vote. Whether they approve or disapprove the measure is immaterial. Because the Governor has a role in the process, she, and not the Court, has the role of ensuring that the Legislature follows the Constitution. That is obviously not true on its face. Nowhere by giving the role to the Governor, has anyone taken away this institutions judicial function of enforcing the Constitution. Will the SJC Reassure the Citizens? The question is whether this Court will show the citizens that there is someone who will see that our Constitution is obeyed. Justice Greaney told the Superior Court judges on November 1, 2002 about the cynicism about government and about politicians who constantly rail about the mess on Beacon Hill and the corruption in Washington, yet offer no realistic solutions. But the cynicism about art. 48 comes not from the politicians, but from citizens who see a broken government. Many people wished us luck back in July in our endeavor to amend the Constitution, but nobody believed we would prevail. They thought we were tilting at windmills, like Don Quixote, but that is now changing, thanks to your interest and your giving the people a forum in which to express their anger and frustration. They will be watching closely to see if the SJC has the heart of the 1930 Court. Will it really take charge and see that our Constitution is obeyed? Caption: Globe Still Urges Violation of Law The NY Times continues to tell the Boston Globe to urge defiance of the Mass. Constitution. Here it printed a letter Dec. 9 telling the Governor not to obey the Constitution. MassNews Interviews Professor Who Wants To Abolish The White Race By Ed Oliver Harvard Magazine recently published an inflammatory article, Abolish the White Race, written by a white Harvard-trained historian, Noel Ignatiev, who is a fellow at Harvards W.E.B. Dubois Institute, a leading black-studies department. Ignatiev wrote, The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists. The understandable reaction from some quarters was that Ignatiev, who is white himself and publishes an obscure journal called Race Traitor, is advocating genocide as the final solution to perceived white oppression. Ignatiev is also the author of a book called, How The Irish Became White. To find out in his own words what he is talking about, MassNews interviewed Ignatiev in his office at the Mass. College of Art in Boston, where he teaches history. Professor Ignatiev is not what I expected. Ignatiev is no smug, smart aleck, Clinton style yuppie who never got his hands dirty. I actually kind of like the guy even though I strongly disagree with the way he frames Americas problems in racial terms. Ignatiev says he isnt a liberal Democrat and he doesnt like Bill Clinton. He said he didnt vote because if voting worked it would be illegal. He says he even agrees with conservatives on some things, like gun rights and taxes. He doesnt like government, but since were stuck with it, it should be used to correct past injustices. He abhors the shallow pursuit of materialism our society has become and would rather see a hard working but non-competitive close-knit society, something like the Indians had, but with the use of some technology. Professor Ignatiev lives in a modest house in a predominately black neighborhood in Dorchester. His idea of a good time is fishing out in western Mass. near where I live. A bearded, straight talking son of Jewish immigrants from Russia, Ignatiev, with his Philadelphia upbringing and blue-collar jobs in Chicago steel mills and factories, comes across as a Saul Alinsky type of old style liberal, who actually went out into the neighborhoods and tried to improve the lot of the poor. He says he wants to get rid of color designations. No more thinking of ourselves as white. Blacks will do the same if we go first, he said. By thinking of ourselves as white, we white peons joined the white club, and foolishly think we rub shoulders with the moneyed elite, the ones who buy off the politicians and pull the levers of modern society to our destruction. As white club members, we take on some of the privileges of the elites when we have no business doing so and should be standing in solidarity with our brother blacks, who are in the same boat as ourselves as economic slaves to the machine. This worldview is guaranteed to keep the racial pot boiling. But Professor Ignatiev answers that it is our complacency that is dangerous and we should thank people like himself for keeping it boiling. He admitted that he uses inflammatory language partly to get attention. Ignatiev is a self-described radical and Marxist, but he says he deplores how Marx was used to create monstrous, socialist and communist bureaucracies that have nothing to do with what Marx espoused. Ignatiev believes that people have to organize themselves outside of politics to press for justice and freedom, and yes, use civil disobedience and ultimately violence, if necessary, to achieve the goal. What is especially exasperating is how Ignatiev frames Americas problems as white against black, but when you question him, he insists he isnt talking about the color of your skin, but about a white fraternity. His rallying cry of abolish the white race, which he says isnt to be taken literally, is the language of the mob and seems to put the intellectual stamp of approval on a race war. Ignatiev admits that if he were in any other country, he would frame the battle as the big guys against the little guys, the powerful against the powerless. He insists, however, that the establishment in this country is best identified as white because that is how blacks see it, and with some justification, and you need blacks on your side if you want to see any kind of change for the better. MassNews: You advocate the goal of abolishing the white race in the September-October issue of Harvard Magazine and in your Race Traitor publication. Please explain what you mean by abolishing the white race. Prof. Ignatiev: Good question. While we speak of abolishing the white race, we are not talking about killing people with fair skin and straight hair and so forth. We are talking about doing away with the social meaning of what is called race. Your color or anything like that turns out to have no more significance for your position in society than the shape of your ears or the size of your feet. Thats what we mean by abolishing the white race as a social category. Id like to give you two examples. One is royalty. There was a time when people believed that the royal family was really distinctive by blood and owed its position to some special quality that it inherited. Nobody believes that anymore. To abolish royalty does not necessarily mean killing the king or queen. It means doing away with thrones, titles, royal privileges, crowns and all the other trappings of royalty so that Elizabeth Rex becomes plain Lizzie Hanover. Thats what it would mean to do away with royalty as a social formation. Another example: There was a time in Europe when to be a Protestant or Catholic really defined a persons social position. Its still that way in part of Europe, part of Ireland. People fought wars over that and whether you were a Protestant or a Catholic determined what careers were open to you and so forth. Now, thats pretty much all gone today. Its really not very much part of the United States and theres not really very much of that left in Europe. It doesnt mean that people still dont practice the Protestant religion or the Catholic religion. Nobodys trying to kill off Protestants or Catholics, but both Protestantism and Catholicism have in the main been destroyed as social formations. And thats what we mean. MassNews: What are the privileges of the white skin as you call it in your writings? Many would argue that the white male today is the most victimized of all because he is made to pay the freight for everyone else. Weve all heard about the angry white male. Prof. Ignatiev: What I think it still means is a favored access to careers, to housing, to schools. Not so much because of explicit discrimination today, which is considerably less than it was in the past, but rather because of the effects of advantages that were accumulated in the past where race discrimination was pretty overt and is acknowledged by everyone to have existed. The advantages that were accumulated in the past get transmitted to the next generation through methods that appear to be colorblind but in fact are not. Basically what I would say is this: That the person whose grandparents had access to a skilled trade or a college education or a good union job or a nice neighborhood has an advantage over the person whose grandparents walked behind a mule or a mop. I dont say being white guarantees a white person a stress-free life. Im not suggesting that all whites are rich. I understand very well that there are some whites who sink and some blacks who rise. But still, by and large, the weight of the pastthe past is still with us, or as Faulker said, the past is not dead, its not even past. Thats what I mean by the advantage. To me, those few programs of affirmative action or other things like that which have sought to redress the balance really have come nowhere near equalizing the scales. It is still like two drops of blood against a hogs head. It seems to me the whole country today is a giant engine for guaranteeing affirmative action for whites. But its done without being explicitly or racially overt simply because of inheritance, so people are blind to it. Whereas, when there is a specific program that demands that a certain number of black people get hired for some job or whatever, from which they have been historically excluded, everybody says thats race prejudice, thats quotas and all the rest of the stuff. When in fact what has been going on is a white quota for years and years. It still goes on, even though the old-fashioned forms of racial discrimination are no longer practiced as widely as they once were. MassNews: Arent you really making the case for segregation? Isnt it human nature for people to favor those within their own group? Isnt it impossible to completely stamp out favoritism without a police state? Dont blacks and others favor their own when they are in power and the majority? Prof. Ignatiev: It depends what you mean by ones own group. In America, color tends to be a determinant of what your group is and what your group isnt. That hasnt always been the case and there is no reason why it has to be. One could very well argue, for instance, that social class is more important as a determinant of group than color. The United States like any modern country is divided into masters and slaves. The problem is in this country a whole lot of the slaves think they are part of the masters because they enjoy some of the privileges or all of the privileges of the white skin. So I wouldnt argue that people like to be with their own, I just dont think that white color necessarily has to be the determinant of who is ones own. As far as racial segregation, Americas never been in the deepest sense racially segregated. Black and white have been linked very closely together and borrow very heavily culturally and in religion and a whole variety of other ways. All Americans are culturally at least part African as well as part Yankee and part Indian and part everybody else who has been here. When it comes to erasing the effects of past discrimination, then they dont want to do that, then it becomes a matter of all of a sudden they want to huddle to their own. MassNews: Do you think it is actually possible to do what you say you want to do? Prof. Ignatiev: Sure, race is only a few hundred years old as a determinant. Before that see, people have often divided themselves into a group and another group, and fought wars about it; tribe and language and religion. But color, as a determinant is really only three or four hundred years old. You look back in the ancient world, there were wars between Christians and non-believers or later between Christians and Moslems or whatever. But color didnt play a part in that. MassNews: Where did that come from? Prof. Ignatiev: Where did the color come from? It came from, I think, the development of the slave trade, which as it turned out, based itself on African labor for the most part. Once the status of the slave was fixed exclusively on persons of African descent, then the black skin became the badge of slavery and the fair skin became the badge of freedom. But its not that black people were enslaved because they were black. Its rather they were enslaved because they could be enslaved and then they were defined as black because they were enslaved. I mean, Europeans have a history of murdering each other and enslaving each other and massacring each other for a long time, long before they ever discovered Africa as a place to do that. There was never a color question. You know the Greeks and the Romans and the Germans and the Romanians and everybody else that were fighting all over Europe in ancient times were not divided by color, you see. Its really very recent, 1600s, 1700s, thats all. So Im not arguing that the human race has ever been one big happy family. If it has been it was before recorded history. But to divide people into an in group and an out group based on color seems to me very superficial, because for one thing nobody had any control over what color he was born. People do have some control over their political views and over their religion. Now that, if you were going to divide things up, you might rather do it over something that made some difference, rather than over something so silly and arbitrary as color. Moreover, when you think about it, even which race you put a person into is very much historically determined. In America, anybody with any known or visible African descent is called black. A person could be three quarters of European descent and one quarter black, but that person is put down as colored and treated accordingly. MassNews: Yes, but who is treating people according to color? Isnt it always the government asking you your race on forms and things like that? Who actually looks at things according to color now? Prof. Ignatiev: Well first of all, of course the obvious things like police profiling, being followed in department stores. They havent gone away. Theres still a lot of that as Im sure you will admit. Beyond that as I say, its not so much anymore an explicit discrimination against people of color. I think most whites dont want to be racist, feel that theyre not, and I think for the most part are telling the truth insofar as they understand the truth. I credit people with good faith. But what they dont understand is the effects of the past are still with us. And see, then, they get very defensive about that. White folks like to believe I suppose this is a human characteristic we all like to believe that whatever success we have is the result of our hard work and intelligence. Well, some of it may be that, but some of it may be due to the accident of having been born into the social group that carries advantages with it. Look, if your name were Rockefeller, you would know very well that your chances of success in this world were better than if your name was Smith. MassNews: It seems like you are talking about money advantage rather than color. Prof. Ignatiev: I am talking about money advantage, except in America in the past the money advantage was to a considerable degree color-coded. Not universally I understand, but after all, it made a difference when some people were slaves and some people had the right to homestead land and some people had the right to get skilled trades and others didnt. And that would get passed on to their children. I think it is fundamentally about money, not about color. But in America, money is to a considerable extent color-coded. Id rather face that truth than try and ignore it. MassNews: What are your views on reparations and affirmative action? Do these tie in to abolishing the white race? Prof. Ignatiev: Well, maybe. I have been in favor of affirmative action for victims of past discrimination in order to rectify the effects of that, as I say, my general feeling is not that there has been too much, but that there hasnt been enough. In so far as reparations have been concerned, I think the country owes a debt to those people who did a whole lot of work in building it up. Not the only ones, but a whole lot of work in building it up in the past and by and large did not have access to the fruits of their labor, as many others did not, but them more extremely than others. Whether reparations are the best form to do that, time will tell. But one thing I dont think we can do is just pretend that the past doesnt exist and just say, OK, everybodys fair and square now, so root hog or die, if you dont make it, its your fault, because its just not true. MassNews: You said in a 1997 New York Times interview that, All those who look white, are whatever their complaints or reservations, fundamentally loyal to the race. We want to dissolve that club, to explode it. Arent black people also fundamentally loyal to their race and to black culture? Shouldnt that also be destroyed? Prof. Ignatiev: First of all Im not talking about culture. Race is not culture. Black people can like Shakespeare and Mozart too; it doesnt make them white. White people can like hip hop MassNews: They talk about black culture all the time. Prof. Ignatiev: Well there may be black culture but there is no white culture. There is English culture and Italian culture and Irish culture and hillbilly culture and American culture. American culture is a mixture of Europe, Africa, Asia, Mexico, and every place else in the world. Beyond that, I didnt say that. The problem with the whites is that they are loyal to their racial values rather than the human race. That is to say, if they werent so blinded by believing that they belong to the superior race, they could see that the country is going to hell in a barrel, and that their willingness to accept the advantages or the satisfaction and the consolation of being white as a substitute for being free is part of the reason we have such a big problem. I dont think the white skin brings freedom and dignity, I think its a substitute for freedom and dignity. But its enough to fool a whole lot of folks. If you look at the state of American politics today, it does seem to me a whole lot of the reason people in this country blindly follow their leaders, blindly salute the flag, blindly follow their leaders into any darn war that theyre going to lead us into, is partly because they say, This is my country, Im a white man, Im free and so on and so forth. Thats stupid. MassNews: But still, arent black people fundamentally loyal to the black race? Prof. Ignatiev: Yeah, but you see there is a difference between being loyal to the people who are the victims of oppression and being loyal to the oppressor. Theyre not the same. MassNews: But you see everyone that is white as an oppressor. Prof. Ignatiev: No. I dont see everyone with white skin as an active, deliberate, conscious oppressor. I do believe, however, that all those with white skin in this country are complicit with a system of oppression simply by virtue of going along with it and allowing it to operate in their name. When Im using the term oppressor, Im not using that to mean an evil person standing there with a whip and a gun. By and large in most societies, the agents of oppression are a relatively small minority. But many, many people support them by a variety of means. You see it by being loyal, by paying taxes, by keeping their mouth shut when somebody else protests. Could what happened to Rodney King, for instance, have happened if the majority of white Americans had been as outraged by it as the black Americans were? I dont think so. MassNews: By what happened to himyou mean Prof. Ignatiev: Yeah fifteen cops beating him while he is on the ground and then acquitting them. That could not have happened and the continual outrages that have happened in the past and continue to against black folk could not continue to take place if the whites were as outraged by them as the blacks are. Most whites are not doing that, I understand that, but most whites are keeping quiet and allowing others to do them. MassNews: You mention behavior patterns of the white race in the Harvard Magazine article. Isnt that racist? If whites dared mention behavior patterns of blacks, they would be denounced as racists. Prof. Ignatiev: Well, the way I would put it is this way: those people who do not act according to the patterns of whiteness in society are not white, they just look white. Remember, to me, whiteness is not a physical designation. It does not mean people of fair skin. Its not your fair skin that makes you white. Its the fair skin in a certain kind of society in which the fair skin carries certain privileges and obligations with it. Now to be white in this country is to enjoy the benefits of the white skin and also to take part in the institutions and the patterns of behavior that maintain those institutions in power. It means voting a certain way, it means choosing to live a certain way, it means maintaining certain kinds of job networks, and yes, I think that most people with fair skin operate that way, not all. There are some people who look white in this country who really arent. But, Im not talking about a color. Im talking about a social formation. I would like to break that social formation up into the people who look white, but dont act white against the others that MassNews: But you are fundamentally talking about race. If you say whites, and that things are fundamentally or historically based on race Prof. Ignatiev: No, it wasnt historically based on race; it was based on slavery. People from Africa were not enslaved because they were black. First of all they werent the only ones enslaved. Some Irish were enslaved, some Turks were enslaved, but after awhile, the brand of permanent lifetime servitude got to be fixed exclusively on people from Africa. Not because whites had anything against black people, but because they were available for enslavement in a way that others were not. Those Virginia tobacco planters would have enslaved their mothers if they could have gotten away with it. They could get away with it in Africa in a way they couldnt get away with it in England. Okay, so thats why they enslaved people. Then the black skin became the badge of slavery. But it did not start out about color; it started out about labor. They did not bring people from Africa here in order to discriminate against them. They brought them here to put them to work to grow tobacco, sugar, cotton and rice. MassNews: You dont think, then, that it is racist to talk about white behavior patterns? Prof. Ignatiev: No, because whites dont have to follow those behavior patterns. MassNews: And there are no behavior patterns of blacks? Prof. Ignatiev: Thats not my concern. MassNews: But if it is someones concern, is it racist to talk about behavior patterns of blacks? Prof. Ignatiev: I talk about behavior patterns of blacks. The behavior pattern I observe is they mostly resist white supremacy. Thats a behavior pattern I approve of. MassNews: We read stories occasionally about young blacks who work hard and study to get ahead and are often mocked by their peers and accused of white behavior. If the Protestant work ethic is white behavior, dont we need more white behavior? Prof. Ignatiev: Now we get to the heart of it, the difference between the conservative and the radical. Because I want a society in which people work harder and harder to get ahead. I want a society in which people work hard in order to contribute something to the human experience and in order to produce things of value. But in fact I dont like to see a society in which people compete to get ahead. I believe in some kind of a cooperative society. None of the names that has been called, particularly socialism and communism are particularly appealing to me given what theyve done. Im going to acknowledge that. I do not share the conservative ideal of a society in which everybody struggles and works and fights to get ahead. I think this is a very wealthy country in which there is enough for everybody and everybody could have an abundant, happy life. Instead, things are getting worse, not better. Its not because of too much cooperation or too much socialism; its because of too much bloodthirsty competition. Youve got a country that reveals their true feelings, their real situation every time they get behind the wheel of a car. They are ready to kill each other. Thats what comes from a society where people work hard to get ahead. Now Id like to see people work hard to produce things of value, things that they enjoy, things that bring pleasure to humanity. I believe in hard work, but not in order to get ahead. MassNews: But to get out of lowly circumstances Prof. Ignatiev: Why should anyone be in lowly circumstances in this wealthiest country in the history of the human race? Why are we living in certain ways worse than people who lived in the past are? Because we are fighting so hard to get ahead. I mean, spending three quarters of the budget on the military preparing to make war on the whole rest of the world possibly. This is all part of wanting to get ahead. You swallow a little bite; you swallow the whole thing. MassNews: But a kid studying to do well and staying out of trouble, thats white behavior? Prof. Ignatiev: All of us are in trouble whether we break the law or follow the law. Whether we study hard or we dont study hard. We are all in trouble. This country is in a disastrous situation. I had to stand in line today to get into some building downtown and go through security, ride up thirty-five floors on an elevator and all I could see on the elevator was a TV screen giving these stock market quotes. This is not Bin Laden that did that. Its the people here in this country that are doing that. Thats not what the new life is about. MassNews: What are the implications of what you are espousing? Who would fill the vacuum? What if Hispanics become the new majority, will they need to be abolished? Do you agree our immigration policy is geared toward abolishing the white majority? Bill Clinton said the goal is to no longer see a white majority in America within 50 years. Prof. Ignatiev: Again, when youre talking about a white majority what you mean is a majority of people of historically European ancestry. Thats not what makes people white. What I want to have in fifty years is that there not be a single white person left in the country. But that doesnt mean I want to get rid of people with fair skin and European background. It means that I want us to become Americans or people of the world. Look, there was time when the Irish and the Italians and even the Swedes were not quite white yet in this country. They had to be made white by being drawn into the advantages of whiteness in this country. MassNews: Youre talking about thinking in terms of color Prof. Ignatiev: Thinking and institutions. Thats right. I dont give a damn about the color of anyones skin and thats not what I youve got to get that if you want to argue with me or at least understand what Im saying. MassNews: But government forms always ask your race Prof. Ignatiev: I dont care what the government does, Im against it. MassNews: Youre against the government asking about race? Prof. Ignatiev: No, its not that Im against them asking. As long as it reflects a reality, then its probably useful to count it. What I want is for colored to disappear as any kind of a social marker. Look, why doesnt the governmentyour religion is a private matter, right? If you have one. MassNews: Sure. Prof. Ignatiev: OK. It doesnt really affect anything very much. Sometimes individuals might ask you whether you go to church Friday, Saturday or Sunday, or which church you go to. But by and large, for most people that doesnt have very much to do with their social chances. Therefore, you dont make a big deal if you are a Protestant or a Catholic or a Presbyterian or whatever. It just doesnt come up very much. If you can imagine, I want race to no longer be an important part of anyones ... MassNews: But you even said its not any more, really. Prof. Ignatiev: Race? But it is because of its past effects. And you will not eliminate those past effects by pretending that the problem has been solved. The first step is to eliminate all the discrimination. Now, to a considerable degree that has been done. Not entirely, not as much as maybe some people think, but to some degree it has been done. The second part is to erase all the effects of past discrimination. When those two things are done, then we can forget about race and I dont care what color people are. I wont talk about it anymore I promise you. MassNews: Are you being purposefully inflammatory to get attention? Prof. Ignatiev: Yes. MassNews: You are. Prof. Ignatiev: Yes I am, but more than that. Partly I am using this language to get attention. However, part of it is this: I want to move the discussion past a discussion of what is in peoples minds and whether theyre prejudiced. You see when most whites say theyre not racist, what they mean is they dont consciously and deliberately set out to discriminate against anybody because of his color. I think most of them mean that and believe that and Im willing to say that they tried to do that. But to me thats not the real issue. The real issue is that there exists a tremendous gap, a measurable gap in the living conditions between a white community and a black community. The fact is there still exists such a thing as a white community and a black community, and it has different rates. Did you know there are more black men in prison now than in college, than graduate college and so forth? I want the discussion to go beyond just the discussion of whos personally prejudiced and to address the question of what are the actual living conditions among different groups of people. And thats why I talk about being against whiteness rather than being against racism because Im trying to shift the focus of the conversation. MassNews: Isnt this a dangerous approach to get your point across? It sounds like a call to attack white people. The mob will not read your articles and explanations, but will only remember the abolish the white race rallying cry. Remember truck driver Reginald Denny was almost beaten to death by a black mob because he was white. Prof. Ignatiev: Very interesting. Reginald Denny is a good example, because he is a person who after that happened, and it was a terrible thing that happened to him, but after it happened, he himself was good enough to say, Yes, I understand why this happened. Because I look like the people who were treating this crowd of folks badly. You see, Reginald Denny had more understanding of that situation than most of the so-called white people rallying around to his defense. Look, is it dangerous? A whole lot of folks already hate white people, you know, because of what they do, not only in this country but also around the world because of what they represent. I am saying, standing up as a person who looks white but tries not to be white and saying that I am against whiteness and all it representsI think that offers a greater possibility of bringing together African American and European American than using a different kind of language, because at least it points out the fact that not all people with white skin in this country think the same and act the same. Unfortunately too many of them still do think the same and act the same. Im trying to destroy an oppressive social formation, not kill individuals with fair skin. I dont care about anybodys color. I do care about his participation in a system that reinforces and reproduces race privilege. Im trying to challenge that and I think the only way to challenge that is to make those people uncomfortable. Thats part of what my language is intended to do. MassNews: On your race traitor website, the May 2000 New Abolitionist newsletter says, The abolitionists do not limit themselves to socially acceptable means of protest, but reject in advance no means of attaining their goal. What does that mean? Prof. Ignatiev: It means what George Washington and Thomas Jefferson meant. After they had petitioned the king, and it wasnt sufficient, they did what they had to do; what every serious partisan of social change has wanted to do. They fought for what they believed by whatever means are appropriate and required under the circumstances. Id stand proudlyif those guys had been caught theyd have been hanged, right? They won so MassNews: Yes, but who do you go after? Prof. Ignatiev: Im after the institutions. Im after the criminal justice system, Im after tracking in the schools, Im after the de facto housing segregation, Im after redlining in the banks, Im after the job reference networks, Im after all the institutions and behavior patterns that continue to make color a relevant social category even though apparently most of the laws against discrimination have been erased. MassNews: But how do you physically go after them if standing against that doesnt work? Prof. Ignatiev: How did the struggle against slavery do it? MassNews: A civil war. Prof. Ignatiev: Well all right. How did the civil rights movement do it? They had sit-ins, they had courtroom measures, they had blockades, they had direct action, they had legislation. They did a whole variety of means. This is a political battle Im engaged in like any other political battlepeaceably if we can, forcibly if we must. MassNews: Thats what I mean, the force will be directed against white people Prof. Ignatiev: Directed against the institutions that reproduce white MassNews: The guys on the street arent going to see it that way. Prof. Ignatiev: I see it that way. MassNews: The ones who attacked Reginald Denny attacked a white guy, not some institution. Prof. Ignatiev: If you dont want the dark skinned people attacking the fair skinned people indiscriminately, then what has to happen is some more of the fair skinned people have to come out on the side of justice and prove that they mean it. Then the black people will say, Wait a minute, all those white people are not the same, therefore we better be a little bit more careful who we attack. MassNews: Do you agree that Prof. Ignatiev: Did you just hear what I said? Do you have any response to that? MassNews: Repeat it. Prof. Ignatiev: If you dont want black people looking at white people and hating them for the color of their skin, then what has to happen is some people who look white have to prove that they are on the side of the black folk. They have to demonstrate that. Not just to say personally Im not prejudiced and therefore Im not responsible. But do something to change the actual conditions. MassNews: What I was going to ask you is related to that but you might not see it that way. Dont you think that gun control is racist? Prof. Ignatiev: Im against gun control. MassNews: You are? Prof. Ignatiev: Yeah. MassNews: Werent the first gun control laws passed in the south to keep guns out of the hands of blacks? Prof. Ignatiev: Im against gun control. Its one of the reasons America started as a country. Im against gun control. MassNews: OK. So somebody who is fighting to get rid of gun control is helping blacks, is helping everybody. Prof. Ignatiev: Im in favorIm against gun control. MassNews: OK, so that would be one way whites can do something. Prof. Ignatiev: That would be one way, yep. Im against gun control. I mean it. I believe a universally armed populace is the best defense of freedom. But, ah Im against gun control. See? Dont put me in a liberal bag. Im not a liberal. Im a radical. Im not a liberal. So Im trying to destroy the system, the general system under which we live which is what you call the system of competing to get ahead. Im against that. I really want to break it apart. Im against race, whiteness in particular because I think its a main pillar of a system based on injustice and exploitation. Im not against race because I happen to love dark skinned people or have anything against fair skinned people. Im against whiteness because I think it poisons peoples minds. It prevents them from understanding their true situation as slaves. MassNews: I think white people dont think of themselves as white. I think it is black people who look at other people as white. Prof. Ignatiev: I think the white people have gotten so accustomed for so long at looking at themselves as white and thinking of white as the norm that they dont even have to say it anymore. It is so much a part of how they look at the world it is like a fish that doesnt even know it is surrounded by water. White people are so white in this country, they dont even think about it; its so normal and natural. So that for instance, when the cops go beat up Rodney King, either they say its good that it happened to him, or they say its too bad it happened to him. What they dont say is, My God, that happened to me, too, because he is me and we are all human beings. And that shouldnt have happened to anybody. And that they dont say. If they said that, if they could see themselves in a dark skin, and could object as strongly when something bad happens to a black person as they would if it happened to their own sister, then this would be a very different country, and that is what Im trying to achieve. MassNews: I thought there was an outcry when people saw that on TV. Prof. Ignatiev: Yes, there was, there was an outcry, a little bit. But they went back to sleep afterwards as soon as it was over. That Rodney King beating was so outrageous, but after the jury came back and let those cops go with a slap on the wrist and Mark Fuhrman becomes a national hero, and so forth and so on, I didnt hear any outrage or protest from the whites. There was a moment when whites were not happy with that video, thats true. But it only lasted a minute and it was not enough. I want to see more. We need some white people in this country, people who look white but dont act white. I call them M&Ms. No matter what color they are on the outside, they are black on the inside. MassNews: The Washington Times wrote that you were a one time steel worker and Marxist activist and that you set up Marxist discussion groups in the early 1980s. They say you helped organize strikes and protests by the predominately black work force and were arrested for throwing a paint bomb at a strike breakers car. Is that all true? Prof. Ignatiev: Yeah. MassNews: So youre a Marxist? Prof. Ignatiev: Thats not against the law, is it? MassNews: What drove you to these extreme leftist views? Prof. Ignatiev: Just looking at the world around and living in America, thats all. MassNews: The Washington Times also wrote that you were accepted into Harvards Graduate School of Education without an undergraduate degree. After earning your Masters, you joined the Harvard faculty as a lecturer and worked toward a doctorate in U.S. history. How did you get into Harvard? Prof. Ignatiev: By sending in my fifty dollars and applying and going through the MassNews: Was it your views that they liked? Prof. Ignatiev: You have to ask Harvard, I didnt make their decisions. I applied like anybody else. MassNews: Were you funded by anybody? Prof. Ignatiev: Funded? What do you mean, I paid tuition like everybody else. MassNews: Did anybody fund you or encourage you to promote the message of abolishing the white race? Prof. Ignatiev: We are funded by our readers and subscribers. We receive no other kind of funding. MassNews: Did anybody fund your Marxist activities years ago? Prof. Ignatiev: I worked like everybody else. Earned a wage, paid my rent, paid the utilities, and paid the taxes to the government. MassNews: There wasnt some Rockefeller fund or foundation money Prof. Ignatiev: No, no, none of that. Im just an ordinary person. I used to earn my living as a steelworker, now I earn my living as a schoolteacher. I earn my living. MassNews: These are views you just thought up Prof. Ignatiev: I didnt think them up. Many, many people before me and alongside me had similar views. MassNews: Now Harvard Prof. Ignatiev: All kinds of people go to Harvard. Some very conservative. I applied to a masters degree in education at Harvard. I got admitted to the program, did my studies, got a masters degree, applied to a doctoral program there, got admitted, did my studies and eventually wound up with my paperhanger and decorator degree. MassNews: You went a long way for a blue-collar kid. They must have really loved your views Prof. Ignatiev: I dont know about my views, they have to deal with all different kinds of views there. I dont know if they loved my views. I was a good student. I worked hard, so they let me through. MassNews: You cant do that, you cant work hard to get ahead, right? Prof. Ignatiev: Harvard has many crimes in its history, but it does not bear responsibility for me. They didnt fund me, they didnt do anything. All they did was let me go through there and take classes, write a degree and give me a certificate at the end of that time. Also during that time, they allowed me to teach as a way of supporting myself as they do many other people who are going to school there. MassNews: A blue-collar guy cant go to Harvard like that. Prof. Ignatiev: Well, I used to sometimes laugh and say I hope the rest of the fellows back in Gary, Indiana, dont find out how good Ive got it here or else theyll all leave and there will be nobody left to make iron. When I worked in the mills, I read, I studied, I paid attention to things and so when I applied to go to Harvard in the School of Education I wrote them a letter and said I want to study, I want to get a masters degree in education and I had a couple years of college. I sent them my transcripts and sent them a letter. So they let me in. MassNews: Now those things you did go to school, try to get ahead, are the same things a black kid does that you said are not good behavior, competing to get ahead. Prof. Ignatiev: I didnt do this to compete and get ahead and I didnt say a black kid shouldnt there were other black people in my school there and they worked hard and got degrees too. Im not against people working hard and learning things. I just dont believe in society founded on competition. MassNews: Thats called white behavior in the black community and looked down upon when kids try to do what you did. Prof. Ignatiev: Go talk to some black folk about that, Im just not going to comment on that. Its not my business. I have plenty to criticize among the white folks for how they behave. I think they have set up a society that is walled around with exclusivity based on selfishness and hostility. The family, the kids, the wives hate the husbands, the husbands hate the wives. They cant talk to their own children. They are locked behind their $4000 video home entertainment units instead of getting out there and meeting the rest of the folks in the country and all that. That is not a good way to live. Thats what I call white behavior and I can criticize it plenty. MassNews: What do you think of the political situation in Massachusetts? What would you like to see changed? Who did you vote for, for governor, if you want to say? Prof. Ignatiev: I didnt vote for any of them. MassNews: Not even Jill Stein? Prof. Ignatiev: No. I might have voted for her if I thought it would make a difference. If I would have had my arm twisted, I would have voted for her. But, I dont think voting is going to change anything. If it did it wouldnt be legal. I certainly didnt like the one that got elected, but I didnt like the Democrat that ran against him. So far as I can see, there wasnt a dimes worth of difference between them. Not enough to get me excited. I thought a little bit about voting for Jill Stein, but I think mostly what we need is a movement outside of the electoral system. A movement of people in the streets, a movement of people in their jobs, organizing themselves, asserting their power to direct action. Editors Comment on Prof. Ignatiev: When Ed Oliver presented a 7700-word story on Prof. Ignatiev, I was flabbergasted that we would waste so much space on an obvious charlatan. But then I realized this story would show parents what their children face in college today. As you see this Communist (who still advocates the use of violence to change our society) weave and duck in absurd postures, think what you would do if such a person were in a position of great power and were grading you. How could you possibly respond? Ignatiev was finally cornered by Oliver, who noted that the professors own behavior of attending college and trying to get ahead was exactly what he condemned in white people. Oliver asked, Thats called white behavior in the black community [trying to get ahead by hard work] and looked down upon when kids try to do what you did. But Prof. Ignatiev did not respond to this question directed to his own behavior but replied instead, Go talk to some black folk about that, Im just not going to comment on that. Its not my business. I have plenty to criticize among the white folks for how they behave. Oliver had him cornered and the professor knew it. He had no credible response about his crude attempts to blame all the ills of the world on white folk. So he immediately went back on the attack. But more important, he represents the two whitest groups in the country, according to his definition. It is an indisputable fact that the white people in America are about evenly split between the two political parties. The two groups that are almost totally white (in that they think as a group and along racial lines) are Jews and blacks. Both of those groups are about 90% Democrats and are intractable in their racial solidarity. The professor is a member of one group and is fomenting the other. I was raised in the excellent suburb of South Orange, New Jersey, where the rich homes on Orange Mountain were predominately Jewish, probably German Jews, although I never thought about that until I started writing this. All of my children had a maternal Jewish grandfather whose ancestors came from Russia (like the professors). He was a wonderful man who regularly went to Synagogue until his death. Two of my granddaughters would be considered black by the Professor and the liberal establishment because their wonderful father, a Yale graduate, has black (not tan or light) skin. What right will anyone, particularly the government, have to treat those two differently than my other grandchildren? We cannot complete a discussion on this subject in an Editors Response, but one must wonder why these two races of Prof. Ignatiev are the whitest ones of all. Some other points about Prof. Ignatiev for your consideration: He obviously has no knowledge of his heritage as a Jew. He believes that white people invented slavery of another race. But the Jews were held in bondage in Egypt until rescued by Moses. Their Bible, the Pentateuch, known to Christians as part of the Old Testament, dictates how they were to treat the slaves that they owned. He says, Europeans have a long history of murdering each other and enslaving each other and massacring each other for a long time. But that is the history of a fallen world, not just Europeans. When people have formed into groups, it has always been based upon whether you look like the other people. Slavery is pandemic across the world in 2002. When asked whether black people are fundamentally loyal to the black race, he answered, Yeah, but you see there is a difference between being loyal to the people who are the victims of oppression and being loyal to the oppressor. Theyre not the same. What an absurd response. How would he answer when informed that before the Civil War, there were thousands of blacks who owned slaves in the U.S.? Its common knowledge that slavery has existed in Africa for thousands of years and still exists there today. The reason the slaves were available to whites was because the Africans sold their own people to anyone. The professor keeps talking about a man who had more than thirty police cars chasing him for miles. This was a huge man on drugs who lunged at police officers and would not stop his attacks, even after being hit with nightsticks and mace. While this was happening, a passenger in the car peacefully surrendered to police. This was the story of Rodney King. Ours is a very wealthy country only because many people act white and work very hard to keep it that way. There is nothing special about the land. He agrees he uses his words effectively to get attention. He is trying to destroy the system and will use violence to do so. This is the man to whom Harvard University has given special treatment, and who is now using his position as a Marxist advocate for violent change of our country. Anyone who wants to read a true account of the Jewish experience in America should read the books by Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, who was Chaplain at Dartmouth College and rabbi of Temple Emanu-El, Englewood, New Jersey. Although the Jews were saved from the Holocaust by American teenagers, somehow that truth has gotten lost and we hear rumblings that America and Christianity were responsible for it. Nothing could be further from the truth and never acknowledging the sacrifices of Americans to accomplish that is not fair. The Jews in Massachusetts are split into two camps, those who are basically secularists and those who still believe in God. The overwhelming numbers of the Reform and Conservative temples are secularists, while the believers are mainly in Orthodox temples. Many of the Orthodox say they feel a deeper kinship with Christians than they do with their secuar neighbors. Text Box: Oliver had him cornered and the professor knew it. Caption1: While we speak of abolishing the white race, we are not talking about killing people with fair skin and straight hair and so forth. We are talking about doing away with the social meaning of what is called race. Prof. Ignatiev Caption 2: Im trying to destroy an oppressive social formation, not kill individuals with fair skin. I dont care about anybodys color. I care about his participation in a system that reinforces and reproduces race privilege. Prof. Ignatiev __________________________________ Priests and Members of Episcopal Church Rebuild After Being Driven Out by Bishops By Geraldine A. Hawkins Remember the Episcopal priests who were removed from St. Pauls Anglican Parish in Brockton by their Bishop, along with the congregation, in the autumn of 1998? They had voted unanimously to secede from the Diocese as far back as April 1996, because of longstanding and fundamental theological differences. This spring, they will break ground for a new building, after years of holding services on the sidewalk in front of their old church and in churches of other denominations. They will not reveal where the new building will be because of concerns with the Diocese. They are no longer a member of Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA) and are affiliated with the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA). They currently hold services at 8 a.m. and 11 a.m. at a Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Brockton. Their former building now operates as St. Pauls Episcopal Church (ECUSA). The priest-in-charge at that church, Rev. Michael Hodges, says, We have sixty worshippers on a Sunday morning, and the numbers are increasing. The church is growing by leaps and bounds. This was agreed to by Kenneth Arnold, Director of Media Relations for the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts. There has been a lot of care around the rebuilding of that community, Arnold tells MassNews. The parish continues to do its work and its ministry. They have a thriving soup kitchen. When MassNews pointed out that the soup kitchen was started in 1982, Arnold replied, Yes, but the soup kitchen is flourishing. Bishop John Hewitt Rodgers, Jr., from the AMiA visited the new parish Nov. 8. He tells MassNews that the rector, Rev. James Hiles, has a son who is a real estate man in California, and he gave the land to the church, which was a beautiful gift. According to traditionalist Anglican journalist David Virtue, the new parish is starting all over again with 98% of the original parish and its two rectors, Fr. James Hiles and Rev. Thomas Morris. Virtue reports that he is told that only about 12 people remain at St. Pauls Episcopal, and they are shipped in from Rhode Island. For some time now, ECUSA has been following drifts in the culture that are contrary to Scripture, says Bishop Rodgers, explaining why a parish would choose to be out of communion with the Diocese and to give up its beloved church building. These drifts have to do with human sexuality, abortion and universalism vs. a need to come to Christ as Savior and Lord. The two priests were removed and the churchs vestry was replaced after the congregation withheld payments to the Diocese for three consecutive years after they had seceded. The dissidents believed that they had a right to keep their building because ECUSA had departed from the doctrine and worship to which the parish was committed when the church opened its doors in 1882. They claim that the Diocese resorted to outrageous tactics, including baseless charges against the rector. This legal battle is still going on. Homosexuality One of the battles is what would an AMiA priest tell a gay person who comes to him for counseling? The homosexual community doesnt like to hear this, but there is a Biblical standard for sexual intimacy and it is between a husband and wife, period, Rodgers tells MassNews. We [Christians] have done a poor job of welcoming people with a different orientation, but we need to make it clear that we expect the same thing from them that we expect of a heterosexual single person, and that is to live within the bounds of Gods revealed will. Rodgers contends that most denominations have adopted a dont ask, dont tell attitude, but that ECUSA has been most affirming of those with a gay lifestyle, because this is the tide in which the culture is moving. Women as Priests The AMiA has not yet taken a stand officially regarding the ordination of women, because there are people on both sides of that issue within its fold. AMiA is conducting a study, to be completed within the next few months, in which Rodgers hopes that the views of those holding both positions will be well represented. Were in a moratorium until weve completed the study, he says. The members of St. Pauls Anglican Parish are firmly against the ordination of women. Rodgers tells MassNews that there are two reasons for this, the first regarding Biblical references to the male headship of the family... male-female references in Scripture throughout, and the symbolic connection of the priesthood with the revelation of God Himself. ... Obviously, God has both male and female attributes, but in Scripture, its always He. Rodgers says that many Anglicans feel that the ordination of women was adopted by ECUSA not because of any concern for Biblical faithfulness, but rather because of social pressure from an increasingly decadent society. Abortion Does the Bible have anything specific to say about abortion? Yes! The unborn is always considered a human person in Scripture, maintains Rodgers, citing the dialogue between Mary and Elizabeth at the beginning of Lukes Gospel, the call of Jeremiah (While you were in your mothers womb, I knew you....) and several other examples. He recommends the book God and Caesar, by Christian lawyer and clergyman John Eidsmoe, for a thorough treatment of this issue. Rodgers believes that the crisis in the Anglican Communion came about largely because, We have tried so hard not to be fundamentalists that in many instances the Bible came to be interpreted according to secular and enlightenment presuppositions, with the presuppositions themselves given more weight than serious scholarship. This has left many people rudderless. Rodgers quotes Anglican philosopher J.V. Langmeade Casserley: We have discovered ways of studying the Word of God by which no word from God can ever come. Rodgers tells MassNews that the problem was epitomized at one of ECUSAs General Conventions, during which a bishop declared: Lets face it - we no longer take Scripture as our norm. The new organization, AMiA, came about, according to Bishop Rodgers, when it became clear that there are two religions existing within the same denomination, the first, orthodox, Scriptural, and traditional, and the second informed by a school of thought which maintains that God updates His revelation from time to time, usually in conformity with the direction in which the secular culture is going. Not all dioceses have moved in a revisionist direction, but the vast majority have, he says. After the Lambeth Conference [a gathering of the Anglican Communion in England] in 1998, a bunch of us went out to talk to the primates to find out how to minister to dioceses that wanted to remain orthodox, Rodgers tells MassNews. The decisions at the 1998 Lambeth Conference were wonderful and we were encouraged by this Biblical faithfulness. Late in 1998 in Singapore, we met with six archbishops to see what could be done, he says. If conservative bishops cross diocesan boundaries [to serve orthodox congregations] they can be defrocked, he says. They wrote letters to Bishop Frank Griswold [head of ECUSA] and to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Then we met in Africa with eight archbishops, and they wrote more letters.... We needed to take action. Finally Chuck Murphy [Rt. Rev. Charles Hurt Murphy III] and I were made missionary bishops to hold these parishes together until the primates could work this out. Bishop Rodgers says there are three reasons why more parishes have not seceded from the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts: One, there arent very many strongly orthodox congregations in New England; most of them are more institutional and more liberal. Two, its not an easy path. Almost all of the parishes have lost their buildings, and three, a lot of congregations pull their heads in. There are bishops who hold way out positions, but some are more aggressive than others. They dont all force their positions on individual parishes, so that the bishops can make their occasional visits, but the parishes dont pay much attention to the Diocese. Different bishops and clergy deal with it in a variety of ways. Rev. Canon Dr. Michael Green, Senior Advisor to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Evangelism, writes: The AMiA came into being reluctantly: none of its leaders wanted to leave the Episcopal Church, USA. But because they believe the gospel of Jesus Christ is revealed in the New Testament, they have in some dioceses of the ECUSA become targets for revisionist bishops. They have found it impossible to stay within an ECUSA that seems to be moving further and further away from New Testament norms in belief and behavior. And yet they have determined to remain Anglicans. ... Its members are not schismatic. They are not a denomination. They are a mission, and they owe allegiance to the Archbishops of Rwanda and South East Asia respectively, by whom their bishops have been consecrated to further the cause of the New Testament gospel throughout the United States. When ECUSA returns to its Biblical roots, there will be no further need for the AMiA, but until then, it is an authentic and vigorous expression of Anglican Christianity in the USA. Bishop Rodgers is a retired professor at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in Ambridge, Pennsylvania of which he is one of the founders. The seminary was our first attempt to stop the secular stampede of the Church, he says, but were only one of eleven seminaries. Rodgers is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy. He has the highest regard for Rev. James Hiles, who holds a doctorate from St. Andrews University in Scotland. Rodgers told MassNews that the question dividing the Episcopal Church is wherein does one find the anchor to ones faith? In the 39 Articles [a historic church document found in The Book of Common Prayer] it is stated that you cannot ordain anything contrary to Scripture.... There is a perceived collusion between ECUSA and the secular culture. There is a serious gap between official pronouncements by ECUSA and Scripture.... This is the cultural captivity of the church. For more information about St. Pauls Anglican Parish, write to St. Pauls Parish, P.O. Box 456, W. Bridgewater, MA 02379. Sidebar: News Analysis Mass. Episcopalian Bishops Condemn Catholic Church; Problems Faced by St. Pauls Are Clearly Seen by MassNews Staff Last months example of the condemnation of the Catholic church by the Mass. Episcopalian church highlighted the serious problems which faced the former priests and members of St. Pauls Church. Last months condemnation of the Catholics and the large headlines which resulted from it were the result of a decision by only three people at the Episcopal diocese. According to the Dec. 10 Boston Globe, these three bishops believe the danger to gays and lesbians is so great [as a result of the Catholic church failing to ordain active homosexuals] that they feel compelled to speak out. They believe the danger to be so imminent that the three did so despite their reservations about wading into another denominations controversy. The chief bishop and a woman are both married, and the other is a celibate monk. The three Bishops expressed concern, according to the Globe, that a steady stream of comments by Vatican officials critical of gays in the priesthood could lead to hate crimes in the United States. The three Bishops are M. Thomas Shaw, his suffragan, Assistant Bishop Roy F. Cederholm, Jr. and Bishop-Elect Gayle Elizabeth Harris. They got the publicity they were seeking when a prominent box was placed on the front page of the Globe, telling readers about this important story inside the front section. The issue of homosexuality is just one example how the three Episcopalian bishops are forcing their views on the entire church in Massachusetts. This, say the priests and members of St. Pauls, is what caused them to be driven out of their church. Observers point out that the evidence of hate crimes against homosexuals is so low that the activists had to manufacture a lie about the killing of Matthew Shepard by drunken robbers in Wyoming. This was fully documented in the May 2002 issue of MassNews, which can be found in the online archives by searching for, The Propaganda of Matthew Shepard. Bishop Shaw mentioned Shepard and said he was an Episcopalian. Both the Globe and the New York Times were instrumental in the original Matthew Shepard story and continue to repeat it at every opportunity as evidenced in the MassNews story last May. The Globe reported in last months story that Shaw said he was particularly upset by a report from Rome last week that a Vatican cardinal, Jorge Arturo Medina Estevez, said, a homosexual person is not suitable to receive the sacrament of holy orders. Lower down in the story, the Globe revealed that the worldwide Anglican church is itself divided whether to ordain gay and lesbian priests and not all American Bishops will do so. But Shaw has been doing that since his election as Bishop in 1994. Shaw said, Suggestions that gays molest children lead to homophobia and create a dangerous atmosphere in which hate crimes flourish. He said he is aware of only two instances of priests of his diocese sexually abusing minors in recent history and both were heterosexuals. But observers say that if he really believes that his church is free of molestation by homosexuals, then he isnt looking very hard and is following exactly the same pattern that Cardinal Law did back in the 1990s. As for his suggestion that the priests who assaulted the children in the Catholic church were not homosexuals, this would be argued strenuously by most people. This is not a new problem. The publisher of MassNews, J. Edward Pawlick, reports that when he was a young Boy Scout in 1940, the scoutmaster, who was in his twenties and well liked by everyone, was molesting a scout in his troop. Pawlicks father was in charge of the Troop Committee. The Scoutmaster was quickly dismissed but as far as Pawlick remembers, it was not made a big deal by anyone and he doubts that any criminal charges were pressed. Caption 1: The priests and members of St. Pauls Episcopal church in Brocktonwere driven out by the Mass. bishops in 1996, but theyre now building their own church. They report that this building is now practically empty, but the bishops disagree. Caption 2: Three people in the Mass. Episcopal church decided that the Catholic church is a threat to our society. This is a recent example why a whole congregation has left the Episcopal church. Massachusetts Congressmen Push Special Rights for Homosexuals By Geraldine A. Hawkins Abill, which is sponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy and the entire Massachusetts delegation, would give special rights to homosexuals across the entire country. This proposed legislation is causing grave concern among employers at small businesses and at religious organizations. The stated purpose of ENDA, the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, is to provide meaningful and effective remedies for employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But Rich Tafel of Log Cabin Republicans, a homosexual group, quoted a release from the leading homosexual organization in the country, Human Rights Campaign, which claims that 85% of the American public believe its wrong to fire someone because theyre gay. (He says thats up from 56% in 1977.) The question is whats the goal of ENDA, says Tafel. Only 15% of Americans claim they would want to discriminate against a gay employee. And the business community is way ahead of the government on diversity and freedom. So, why all this energy on a bill that wont really change the lives of gay Americans? As the voice of gay conservatives, Tafel proposes a free-market solution for those homosexuals, who do, perhaps, just want to be left alone. As gay Republicans, might we commit to creating a national job bank network for people who are fired because they are gay? If a gay person is working for the 15% who support firing gays, chances are they dont want to win in court. They want a new job where they can be themselves. When Tafel first proposed his idea for a job bank, people [in the gay community] kind of mocked it, saying it was a cover up, Tafel tells MassNews. But it is an informal reality. If a person is fired because he is homosexual, people would send an e-mail around, saying this person needs a job. It happens very rarely that a gay person is fired because of discrimination, Tafel says, but when it does, people definitely jump in and start working on it. It rarely happens to people at the top of the totem pole. Its usually someone in their twenties whos just starting out. Tafel, who is from Massachusetts and worked as an aide to Bill Weld, cited the case of a restaurant chain in the South called Cracker Barrel, which had a policy of firing people because they were homosexual. Even they have developed a non-discrimination policy, Tafel tells MassNews, reinforcing his contention that ENDA is unnecessary, indeed counterproductive. ENDA is seen as a measure of success in the gay community, because non-discrimination laws are sacrosanct, Tafel tells MassNews, but where non-discrimination laws are in place, employers are afraid to hire gay people, because if it doesnt work out, they are afraid to fire them. Its scary for employers. If youre an anti-gay employer, you weed people out before you hire them. The bill would forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, defined as homosexuality, bisexuality, or heterosexuality whether real or perceived. The legislation applies also to ones associates, and is meant to cover both reality and perception. It is S1284. In addition to millions of government employees in thousands of offices across the country, ENDA would also apply to 94 million private-sector employees who work for 866,000 companies in about 2.2 million places of business. warns the U.S. Senates Republican Policy Committee. In a study entitled, The ENDA-Scope, the Senates Committee asks some tough questions about Sen. Kennedys pet project: Must every employer who has religious or moral scruples about homosexuality treat the promiscuous homosexual exactly the same as the celibate or continent homosexual? Would a willingness to hire the continent but not the promiscuous be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of ENDA? They both have the same orientation; it is the behavior that the employer finds relevant. Does it matter that some heterosexuals are not married and their disability must be based on something more than their heterosexuality, and that some homosexuals are married so that they have no disability under the rule irrespective of their homosexuality? According to the homosexual Human Rights Campaign, the ACLU has a list of horror stories of employees who have been fired because they were perceived as being homosexual. However, Rich Tafel raised some eyebrows in his community when he wrote in a Capitol Briefing last May: I can tell you anecdotally that as I travel all over the country, I almost never hear from anyone who was fired because they were gay. In fact, I hear almost every other issue being passionately argued but that one. As gay Republicans, this might be a chance to show where the free market is ahead of big government. Every Massachusetts Congressman co-sponsored ENDA. For the record, they are John Olver (Dem., 1st), Richard Neal (Dem., 2nd), James McGovern (Dem., 3rd) Barney Frank (Dem., 4th), Martin Meehan (Dem., 5th), John Tierney (Dem., 6th), Edward Markey (Dem., 7th) Michael Capuano (Dem., 8th), Stephen Lynch (Dem., 9th), and William Delahunt (Dem., 10th). Senator Kennedy has been the primary spokesman for ENDA for ten years. Two weeks after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Kennedys press secretary, Jim Manley, said that Kennedy was not going to get sidetracked from his ENDAs passage by unexpected national security issues. But others were quick to counter. Im surprised that anyone would have the audacity to try to play on the emotions of the American public, to play on the compromised situation and schedules of members of Congress in order to try to move legislation like this, said Stephanie Mollins of the Family Research Council at that time. There has been an unspoken understanding among members of Congress, among leaders on [Capitol] Hill, that they would not bring forward or push any legislation that was of particular contention and controversy during the congressional session as they are dealing with these difficult issues of terrorism, of national security and so forth. According to an Oct. 1988 study by Simmons Market Research Bureau, homosexuals do not qualify as a disadvantaged minority group, because on the whole their earnings are substantially higher than those of heterosexuals. This was disputed by some in the homosexual community, including the Human Rights Campaign, which claims: The problem with the data is that the values quoted for homosexuals are in no way representative of the average gay and lesbian; they are for homosexuals who subscribe to one of 8 leading gay newspapers; they thus belong to a select group within the gay/les community. But a spokesman for the American Family Association, Ed Vitagliano, says, Homosexuals may or may not earn more or less than most straight people, but most married people have to be thinking about children, responsibilities, college. The point is that gay people, as a group, have more disposable income, and this undermines their position that ENDA is necessary. If the homosexual community is wealthier than the general population, they fail one of the Supreme Courts own criteria as a disadvantaged class and a target for discrimination. A couple of studies have come out since then that at least cloud the issue, Vitagliano tells MassNews. As a community, gay people are going to have more disposable income. They travel more, they go to the movies more often, they take more vacations. Corporate America is seeing them as a target, a niche market. This is why many corporations are willing to advertise in The Advocate and Out magazines; they are willing to sponsor Gay Pride, domestic partner benefits (even though most gay people dont take advantage of it). Setting aside all the problems it would cause for religious organizations and small businesses, as well as clogging the courts, it is increasingly unnecessary, Vitagliano tells MassNews. What company will risk the wrath of the homosexual community? They are reaching almost favored status. Even Andrew Sullivan [homosexual journalist and activist] says theres no need for ENDA. One could argue about whether or not homosexuals should have some protected status, he continued, but when nearly half the Fortune 500 companies come out [with gay-friendly official statements], that nullifies the need for ENDA. The Human Rights Campaign lists their sponsors as American Airlines, Mitchell Gold Company, Cingular Wireless, Nike, Olivia Cruises and Resorts, RSVP Vacations, BoxOfficeTickets.com, Beaulieu Vineyard and Centaur, among others. If you look at states like Massachusetts that have ENDA-type laws, you will find that there are not a lot of complaints filed with state employment agencies, he says. The proof of the danger of these kinds of laws is New Jersey, where they took that law and went after the Boy Scouts. The intent of these laws is to go after organizations that disagree with them to force a wholesale change in our cultures view of sexuality, marriage and family, he tells MassNews. They try to persuade, to win the hearts and minds, and when that doesnt happen, they coerce, go after intransigent organizations like the Boy Scouts that you know arent going to come around voluntarily. Vitagliano says, All you need is one activist and one lawyer to go after one Christian day care center or the Boy Scouts. Activists are very shrewd in convincing people like Governor Bill Weld that homosexual kids have to be safe, and that opens the door to Fistgate at Tufts [where students were instructed in performing homosexual acts]. Theyre after wholesale cultural change. They get their foot in the door with a law, and thats their beachhead, Vitagliano contends. They insist that the culture change its views; they dont just want to be left alone, he says. They will take something that was passed to mean one thing, like housing discrimination and they will broaden it to include marriage, he claims. The core of the homosexual movement is rebellion. They think, the only way we are going to have full freedom is for society to agree with us. Take Mothers Day in New York. They claim that it is a heterosexist institution, and they decide, We have to change society and change their minds. A place where homosexuality is considered abnormal (like a Christian day care center) has got to go. They decide, We have to make an example of them so that Christian day cares are thumped into submission along with everybody else until, say in 30 years, everybody thinks homosexuality is an approved lifestyle. Caption: Senator Ted Kennedy has been advocating for ENDA legislation for over a decade. Many employers express reservations about its impact on their businesses. (AP Photo/Patricia McDonnell) Sidebar: Massachusetts Experience Shows How Terrible ENDA Would Be In the first ruling of its kind in Massachusetts, Superior Court Justice Linda Giles upheld the claim of a former man to unlawful discrimination in his/her lawsuit against Sky Publishing Corporation. Allie Lie is a transgender who was born a man, but assumed a womans identity. He took a job as editorial assistant with the astronomy journal Sky in 1994 as Robert Lie. But by May 1998, he was coming to work dressed as a woman. Management met with Lie and told him it was inappropriate to come to work dressed in womens clothes. They told Lie that they did not want to fire him. They told him to dress in accord with reasonable policy. Lie continued to dress as a woman. Lie was diagnosed with gender dysphoria, the medical term for individuals seeking a sex change. Lie was undergoing psychotherapy as well as hormone treatments to change the composition of his body. Lie filed a complaint with the Cambridge Human Rights Commission and soon afterward received a written request from Sky Publishing demanding that he dress in male attire. It threatened termination if he did not comply. Lie then filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD). Two weeks later, Sky Publishing fired him. When the MCAD case came to nothing, Lie withdrew it and turned to the Massachusetts Superior Court in July 2001, where on October 7 Judge Giles ruled that Lie could indeed claim discrimination on account of sex and disability. Wait until the case comes to trial, Susan Lit, President of Sky Publishing, tells MassNews. She maintains that Judge Giless decision means only that they are moving the case along. Skys position was that Lie was not discharged for cross-dressing, writes Robert S. Leonard in Gay City News (Nov. 15, 2002), but rather for sending a nasty, insubordinate e-mail to two supervisors in July 1998, using hostile and disrespectful language. This employee was fired for cause, Lit assures MassNews, not because she was transgendered. But this is not a suit that any company can win, lawyers tell MassNews. Even if they do win, no business can afford this type of harassment and legal expenses for very long, they say. In the end, most companies are advised to just settle a suit of this type because it is easier and cheaper than fighting it. They say that it is only small companies like Sky Publishing that litigate a claim of this type. The more sophisticated companies just write it off as an extra cost of doing business in Massachusetts. If Senator Kennedys ENDA passes, they say, more American companies will just move overseas. WWII Veteran Gets Purple Heart Again By Geraldine A. Hawkins When Andrew Comita, Jr., private in the U.S. Army from Winchester, was told by his commander in 1944 that he was going to receive the Purple Heart, he asked, Why? Just because I got hurt? He still seems surprised, 58 years later. But he was even more surprised to have the medal pinned on him a second time. In the late 1960s, Comitas home was burglarized and his medals were stolen. He petitioned the government at the time to have his medals replaced, but met with so much red tape and institutional disorganization that he eventually gave up. Thanks to the efforts of Middlesex County Sheriff James V. DiPaola, Comita finally has another Purple Heart, presented to him in the Senate Chamber of the Massachusetts State House on Nov. 21. Comita served with the Seventh Division Combat Engineers and was injured in the Philippines during the invasion of Leyte, shortly after the Battle of Leyte Gulf. We worked for five days straight unloading supplies on the beach, Comita tells MassNews. We worked around the clock bringing supplies to the infantry. The commander wouldnt put the lights out, until we could hear the planes. It was pitch dark. Naturally, I dove into a foxhole. (We had built foxholes in the soft sand). Suddenly, I felt myself flying through the air! When I landed, I felt the sand coming down like grain, he says. The concussion was so strong, I can see where it would tear you to shreds if it hit you just right. I must have blacked out. When I woke up, it was daylight on a Navy ship, and they were checking me out. My ears were bleeding, he tells MassNews. Maybe thats why I wear a hearing aid now. I dont know. They sent me to the field hospital. I was there for a week and a half, but the Japanese were strafing the hospital, and I thought, Ive got to get out of here! Without permission, Comita walked out of the hospital and went back into the jungle to find his unit. I never went back to the hospital, he says. But I found my unit. I recognized a mail clerk coming onto the beach in a jeep. He said, Comita! We thought you were dead! You were half-buried. We had to dig you out. Comita went on to Okinawa, where he participated in one of the bloodiest engagements of the war. I never had a furlough, he says. Sheriff Di Paola has been a customer at Andys Service Center, the Comitas family-owned service station on Lebanon Street in Malden for many years. About six months ago, he noticed a license plate with the Military Order of the Purple Heart. He asked Comita, who was pumping gasoline, the identity of the Purple Heart recipient, and was surprised to learn that it was Comita himself. When he told me his medal was stolen, I said, Get me a copy of your discharge papers. I cant promise anything. Three generations have owned the gas station, Sheriff DiPaola tells MassNews. I live around the corner. I asked, Whose Purple Heart license plate? I thought it was a customers. Nobody could find the records. We worked through Congressman Markeys office and with Congressman Meehan, who is on the Armed Services Committee. Comita comes from a family with 12 children. His brother Frank, was a corporal in the Army during World War II. When youre in the service, it makes you feel so proud of yourself because you served your country, he tells MassNews. Andy never talked about the war. Our older brother, Hugo, was with the 100th Division and he was a prisoner of war in Germany. He went through hell, but he lived into his 80s. Andrew Comita lives in Winchester where he was born and went to school, although he lived in Somerville for 51 years. He has a son, Andrew III (although they claim the name Andrew goes back many generations), and a daughter who is deceased. He has four grandchildren and one great grandchild. That first medal was pinned on me by a three-star general. I dont remember his name, Comita told MassNews. When my commander told me to go to such and such a place, that I was getting a Purple Heart, I asked him, Why? He told me, You deserve it! Im 80 years old. I never thought Id see that medal replaced. Sidebar: Purple Heart Originated with George Washington Toward the end of the Revolutionary War, General George Washington devised the Badge of Military Merit, the figure of a heart in purple cloth or silk edged with narrow lace or binding. To be presented for any singularly meritorious action. After the Revolution, there were no recipients of the Badge of Military Merit. It was not until 1927 that General Charles P. Summerall, Army Chief of Staff, directed a bill to be sent to Congress to revive the Badge of Military Merit. The bill was dormant until 1931 when General Douglas MacArthur, Summeralls successor, got the case reopened with the intent of issuing a new medal on the bicentennial of the birth of George Washington. The War Department announced the creation of the new medal on February 22, 1932. The Purple Heart is different from other military medals in that the individual is not recommended for its reception. A person becomes entitled to the decoration upon receiving a wound which necessitates treatment by a medical officer and which is received in action with an enemy, if this wound may in the judgment of the commander authorized to make the award be construed as resulting from a singularly meritorious act of essential service. For ten years, the Navy Department was not authorized to issue the Purple Heart, but with an eerie sense of timing, President Franklin D. Roosevelt changed that on December 6, 1941. A few years later, President Harry S. Truman made qualification for the award retroactive by extending its eligibility to veterans of the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard back to April 5, 1917. Caption1: Andrew Comita was presented the Purple Heart in the Senate Chamber of the Massachusetts State House Nov. 21. Caption 2: We worked for five days straight unloading supplies on the beach. We worked around the clock bringing supplies to the infantry. The commander wouldnt put the lights out, until we could hear the planes. Andrew Comita, Jr. Plymouth Parade Celebrates Thankfulness By Ed Oliver Young and old turned out on a chilly Saturday morning in Plymouth. to enjoy an old-fashioned Thanksgiving Parade, which had as its theme, America Gives Thanks Through the Years. The hour-long parade on Plymouth's historic waterfront featured a chronological unfolding of events in American history that gave rise to national thankfulness, and was the highlight of Plymouths Thanksgiving Celebration, which included Friday and Saturday night concerts at Memorial Hall featuring patriotic music. Many were thankful that leftist protesters did not ruin this years celebration as they have in the past. Priest Discusses Ethics of Embryo Research And Cloning By Ed Oliver Is it ethical to create and then destroy human embryos in a quest to cure disease? When is an embryo a person? Exploring these questions, Father Tadeuz Pacholczyk, Ph.D., lectured at Holy Cross College last fall on the subject of Human Embryos: Science, Ethics, and the Cloning Debate. In order to help his audience understand the science surrounding the debate, Father Tad, who is a doctor of neuroscience and a priest in the Diocese of Fall River, began with a basic scientific discussion. Stem cells are cells that are unspecialized and can renew themselves indefinitely and then develop into more mature, specialized cells such as a heart or a liver cell. Scientists say they are interested in stem cells harvested from embryos because they appear able to develop into any type of cell in the body. Using these stem cells from embryos, they hope someday to be able to grow new tissue in order to repair diseased organs. Harvesting these cells, however, necessitates destroying the living embryo. Even if they successfully generate new tissue from stem cells that are harvested from an embryo, the body tends to reject transplanted foreign tissue, so scientists are researching ways to take cells from the sick persons own body and fuse it with a donated human egg (with the nucleus removed). In this way, the donated egg is tricked into thinking it is fertilized. The resulting embryo is a cloned identical twin of the sick person. After a week or so, the embryo is destroyed and the stem cells harvested. This is called therapeutic cloning. If the embryo is not destroyed and left alone to grow, it will be born as a cloned human being (if human cloning is ever perfected and not outlawed). This is called reproductive cloning. Most people have rejected the idea of reproductive cloning and seek to outlaw it, but many still cling to the idea of so-called therapeutic cloning, which is the same procedure, said Father Tad, except the identical twin is killed after a week or two and its cells harvested. The media, he said, creates the impression that this is very different from reproductive cloning. This raises moral and ethical concerns, said Father Tad. They are making human life in order to exploit and destroy it. There are 18 ways to make a baby now, he said. Ethics are behind science. There is a business side to human reproductive technology. Big money influences the debate. Some companies are even attempting to secure royalties from original stem cell lines. Father Tad said that despite the fixation of some on embryonic stem cells, the adult stem cell field is 15 years ahead of the embryonic one and there are already some therapies derived from it. Father Tad said there are two principal threats to human dignity in this area of science: Moving the creation of life from the loving embrace to the laboratory bench. Exploitation of human beings. The task is to reap the benefits of science without losing human dignity, he said. In Vitro (in glass) Fertilization is a technology where eggs are fertilized outside a womans body. This was an important precursor to cloning, said Father Tad. The immorality of IVF is that it turns the gift of life into mass production, he said. Arguments that IVF is immoral parallel those for cloning. Children are not intended to be manufactured products. They have a right to have real parents and to be conceived as the fruit of marital love. This fosters the eugenic temptation. Not only the Hitlerian, Aryan race type imposed from without, but the consumer driven, everyone-wants-a-perfect-baby version. It creates undue power over children. Why do scientists advocate so vociferously for this research, asked Father Tad? Because the jury is still out about which stem cells are the best to use. Because science can do it, and they do not want any interference. The allure of the power of embryonic cells. They feel they are close to the tree of life. The abortion debate. They want no restrictions. Father Tad said that proponents of this research use several morally irrelevant distinctions to dehumanize the embryos: The first morally irrelevant distinction is that researchers proclaim that the embryos are not human, but merely cellular life. You wouldnt eat a Blastocyst as you would eat Caviar, said Father Tad, because you know it is human. The second morally irrelevant distinction is that of the womb vs. the test tube. This argument seeks to dehumanize an embryo by implying that the location of the embryo changes the nature of the embryo itself. The test tube does not make it less human, he said. The third morally irrelevant distinction is the consent of the donors. According to the Nuremburg Code of Consent, said Tad, the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. Parents cannot validly give consent aimed at the destruction of their own progeny. It was a smokescreen, said Tad, when President Bush announced government money would go only to research on existing cell lines that were derived with the consent of donors. After Bushs announcement, Joseph Fiorenza, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the decision was unacceptable. The federal government, for the first time in history, will support research that relies on the destruction of some defenseless human beings, said Fiorenza. The fourth morally irrelevant distinction is embryo vs. person. This argument says if the embryo is too small, that somehow changes what it is, or in other words, it cannot be a person if it is that small (A Blastocyst can fit on the point of a pin). The timing of personhood or ensoulment is not essential to the moral question, said Father Tad. Philosophers will always debate that question. It does not matter if personhood occurs at two weeks or two months. The Catholic Church never declared it occurs at conception. The church says it should nevertheless be treated as a human being, because it is on the path to personhood. Human life begins at conception is incorrect, said Father Tad. It is a scientific fact that human life can be seen in the egg and the sperm. It is also a scientific declaration, not a religious one that human beings always begin at conception. The fact that ensoulment or personhood may come later does not take away the fact that it is already human. Personhood debates cannot be at the heart of this issue, said Father Tad. There are no solid criteria. God has entrusted into our hands human life to safeguard. Being a human being is not negotiable, it is a scientific given. It is the real criteria to use. The church has shown great wisdom in this matter. People often ask the church what should be done with the frozen embryos we already have. That is sort of an unfair question, said Father Tad, because the church has always been against this. But people have backed themselves into a corner and now we have hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos. The church has not come down on it, said Tad, but one view is that we try to adopt out the embryos and have technicians impregnate women with them, but that has its own set of moral problems. Another view is to look at the embryos maintained in nitrogen as analogous to persons at the very end of their life, being artificially supported by all sorts of instrumentation and apparatuses. We are not morally obliged to provide extraordinary interventions to support those individuals. In a sense, the liquid nitrogen is an extraordinary support to maintain the embryos in a deep freeze. In this view, we should allow the liquid nitrogen to evaporate, let the embryos die a natural death, and insist that no more of them be made. Caption: It was a smokescreen, said Tad, when President Bush announced government money would go only to research on existing cell lines that were derived with the consent of donors. Father Tadeuz Republicans Give Thanks Kinnaman Hints at Another Congressional Run By Curt Lovelace Democrats have long been known for their unity breakfasts after they suffered through a bruising primary. Now, as the Commonwealths majority party is squabbling over what went wrong in the most recent general election, Republicans have taken a page from their playbook. Sponsored by the Baystate Republican Council, Republicans from all over the state came together in Chicopee shortly after the election to thank all Republican candidates who, in the words of Council President Marshall Moriarty, had the courage to run as Republicans in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. More than twenty recent candidates, both successful and defeated, assembled along with party activists to have dinner, listen to some Irish music and rally the troops for 2004. Candidates and activists came from as far as East Boston to attend this first-of-its-kind event. In welcoming the attendees to the 1st Annual Republican Fellowship Dinner, Moriarty told the candidates in attendance, As President of the Baystate Republican Council, Im sure Im joined by thousands of others in the state when I ask you to please run again. The mood was festive. Mayor Richard Kos of Chicopee did nothing to dispel that mood when he proclaimed, There is excitement in the air. He went on to urge candidates to make sure that they stand for something. He added, If you stand for nothing, people will fear that youll fall for anything. Decrying government waste and the emphasis on bringing home the pork, the four-term Republican Mayor, proclaimed, What we dont need in government is more waste. What we dont need in government is old ideas. The highlight of the evening for many was the speech of Matt Kinnaman, who lost in the 1st Congressional District to incumbent John Olver. But Kinnaman was sounding very much like a candidate as he implored the crowd to seize the historic moment just as Massachusetts citizens had done more than 200 years ago when they started the Revolution. He said that Democrats contravened against the people of Massachusetts when they eliminated the voter-approved tax break and when they took away the charitable deduction which the people had approved. The Democratic Party and its loyal media still talk about being the party of the people, while the Republicans are characterized as the party of the rich. Theyve got it exactly backwards, Kinnaman declared, adding, We are the party of compassion. We are the party of generosity. We are the party of the people. Not content with the idea that Republicans want to return the Commonwealth to bi-partisan parity, Kinnaman said, We need to do more than that. We need to lead the conversation. He reminded his now-rapt audience that Massachusetts had been a Republican state for more than 80 years. He called for each person in the room to work to return the minority party to its rightful status as majority party. When MassNews asked Kinnaman if his speech could be considered an announcement that he is definitely in the race for the 1st Congressional District in the next election, he demurred. He did, however, declare, The mission continues. Most in the room were hopeful and encouraged about another run at Olver, who needed to spend about $500,000 to defeat Kinnaman. Some even considered it an omen that when the raffle tickets were drawn, Matt Kinnaman was one of the winners. The Baystate Republican Council was formed in December 2001. Its primary focus is, To promote the election of Republicans to local, statewide, and federal office, by organizing Republican activists on the grass-roots level and by helping activists obtain the tools, resources, and support they need to assure the victory for Republican candidates. An unabashedly conservative organization, the BRC includes in its Mission Statement the notion that, Our nation was founded on faith in God, in family, in country and in freedom for all. Membership in the BRC is open to all Republicans. The mailing address is 1756 Boston Road, Springfield, MA. Marshall Moriarty can be reached at 413-827-0777 or 413-283-2170. His email address is  HYPERLINK mailto:mmoriarty@moriarty-connor.com mmoriarty@moriarty-connor.com. Caption: We are the party of the people. Matt Kinnaman Attorney Who Represents Fathers Attends Meeting of Probate Judges An attorney who represents fathers, Rinaldo Del Gallo, attended a meeting of all the Probate Judges in Western Massachusetts at the end of the year and filed this report with the members of the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition, which he heads. I went to listen to a panel of all the Probate Court Judges of Western Massachusetts today. It was run by Western Mass. Pro Bono, a group of people that dont discriminate against men, they just represent the custodial parent, which 99.9% of the time is the mother. (O.K., its probably like 97% of the time.) Still it was a learning experience and it is always helpful to hear how the judges think. The event was at the luxurious and colonial North Hampton Inn, just across the street from the Court House, in Northampton, Massachusetts. It is a magnificent edifice, unlike the Probate Court across the street, which is a basically a box designed by an architect that had a T-square and three minutes. I have seen porta-potties with more style than North Hamptons Probate Court. So much for the tall, marble centerpiece of town of our forefathers. Some General Points. Divorced fathers, unlike non-divorced fathers, under the present statute will almost always have to pay for college expenses. Maybe forcing Dads to pay for college is not a bad thing. But why not force all Dads? Why just divorced ones? And, shouldnt people be able to make sure they dont die in an alley before they dump $100,000 into their childs education? Anyone ever heard of state school? You should love your mother. You shouldnt pass a law to make me love my mother. Some things should be just left to the heart and whether to pay for college is one of them. Yes, there is case law that holds that somehow this does not violate the equal protection clause. (Please dont ask for the case. I know its out there.) One judge talked about how it is a myth that 209A restraining orders are loosely and freely given. All you Dads out there are so mistaken. After all, the judge pointed out, the women have to show reasonable fear. Isnt that a great safeguard? Seriously, all of you know they always claim fear and they are always believed. Anyone who is dumb enough to ask for a restraining order because he seems strange or quirky probably isnt worth protecting anyhow. There was some discussion about the role of temporary orders you have to give some out the wait is often too long. So when you men filed a complaint for a modification, which will take many, many, many months, you might want to file a motion for a temporary order in the mean time. (This is good for those Dads that lost their jobs and need immediate relief from child support.) On other fronts, Judge Gail Perlman said to make sure that when you are seeking a motion for reconsideration (after you naturally lost your custody case), make sure you comply with the standing orders they dont want to read more than 5 pages. Lots of stress on the point that if the woman commits adultery and generally acts like a jerk, it will not affect alimony. Judge Marie Lyons went over the Blitz case. In Blitz, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that even though the United States Court decided in Troxel v. Granville that you cant get grandparent visitation simply because a court deems it to be in the childs best interest, a Massachusetts statute that held that you can have grandparent visitation if it is in the childs best interest was constitutional. Go figure. Judge Lyons didnt mention the dissent: my opinion, IF IF IF this case gets certiorari by the United States Supreme Court, it gets overturned. Also and my clients are so poor that this is usually not an issue Massachusetts is not a 50/50 alimony state (like most) and we are one of 15 that has equitable distribution. This basically means, since mom got the kids and child support, it is only equitable that she gets the house to raise the kids. On an encouraging note . . . just kidding . . . there was no encouraging note. Interesting note. 20 years ago the court was 60% probate, 40% family law. Now it is 60% family law, 40% probate. (Probate is wills and estates, for those that do not know.) Yes, instead of shared parenting to reduce litigation you guessed it they want more money. Oh, I had pause to consider the great mystery of life. Why is Northampton one word and East Hampton two? Why not North Hampton or Easthampton? Dr. Diggs Goes to Wellesley College Information That Affects Womens Health Is Repressed By Ed Oliver The message delivered to female students at Wellesley College in a recent lecture was worthy of headlines in the feminist Boston Globe: Sexism in Public Health Information That Disproportionately Affects Women Is Being Repressed. The reason the Globe wont print those headlines, however, is because the lecture was about a true case of sexism perpetrated by liberals and the messenger was John Diggs, Jr. M.D., a frequent commentator on health and human sexuality from a pro-abstinence, pro-life viewpoint. Some examples of womens health issues that are downplayed or repressed, according to Diggs: Relationships between STDs and cervical cancer. Risks of contraceptives. Relationships between abortion and breast cancer. Risks of abortion compared to childbirth. Why Is Diggs Interested? How did Dr. Diggs, a specialist in internal medicine, become interested in this topic? He told the women he realized something was wrong when patients who were raised on the idea of safe sex were having problems that indicated to him there wasnt much safe about what they were doing. Diggs did some research and found that while public health sources were a good repository of data, those same sources recommended that condoms and birth control pills were the way to make all sex-related problems suddenly disappear. My own eyes were telling me this wasnt true, said Diggs. He wanted to find out why things werent happening the way public health sources predicted. The data from those sources was good, the recommendations were bankrupt, he realized. According to him, promiscuity has more serious effects on women than men, yet public health officials encourage promiscuity by recommending contraception and abortion while repressing vital information about the side effects of those prescribed remedies. Sacrificing womens health to political correctness is sexism, said Diggs. Predatory males couldnt have designed it better, he said. Men have always been asking for sex, and women have always said, No, not without a commitment. The doctor says we have made sex recreational and we expect women to be more like men by suppressing their natural instincts against promiscuousness. Women pay the price. When you put this whole picture together, he says, you have a system that has consistently and repeatedly played down the risks involved in sex for women while at the same time telling women that, We are looking out for your own good. Condoms Dont Stop Sexual Virus Infecting Millions Theres a sexually transmitted disease that kills more women than AIDS, said Diggs. Its called cervical cancer, which is essentially a complication of a sexually transmitted disease. Almost all cervical cancer victims have the human papilloma virus (HPV), which is the most common sexually transmitted disease in the country, bar none, he said. Every year in the U.S., 15,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer and approximately 5000 die of the disease. In the meantime, 3500 women die from AIDS annually. You know everything there is to know about HIV, most students know nothing about HPV, said Diggs. Not a whole lot of men get cervical cancer, a whole lot of men get HIV. There are thousands of women across the country that have been treated for cervical cancer and have never been told this is essentially a complication from a sexually transmitted disease. They dont know. To me, this represents sexism. You are treating the lives of men as if theyre more valuable than the lives of women. Millions of women are infected with HPV each year. It is highly contagious. Symptoms may not show until years later. A woman finds out that she has HPV when her doctor reports an abnormal Pap smear. Usually there is a 7- to 20-year gap between HPV infection and cervical cancer, but it is not unheard of for 18-year-olds to get cervical cancer. Pap smears are a common screening tool for women, but HPV is sexually transmitted by both men and women so only half the population is getting screened. It Gets Worse, Said Diggs. Science shows HPV is not stopped by condoms. Weve been pushing condoms around the world for the last twenty years as a way to stop STDs, he said. A cigarette pack warns you that smoking can cause cancer. Yet, a friend from Oklahoma, who is a general practitioner and was a Congressman for six years, introduced a bill in congress about three years ago to put a simple warning on condom boxes saying condoms do not stop HPV, which causes cervical cancer. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology opposed the labeling bill. They see themselves as the protectors of the basic health of women. Something is wrong here, Diggs said. So, looking at the picture as a whole, we have just this one sexually transmitted disease that Im talking about, which disproportionately affects women and causes cervical cancer which men dont get. It kills more women than HIV does. HIV gets all the attention, all the money for research, and we wont as much as label condoms so that when student health centers say, If youre going to have sex, you need some of these, women will know that condoms will not stop this disease. Diggs said he cannot get much attention from student health centers. They want to keep on feeling good about handing out condoms, he said. So you take the condoms because you dont want to get pregnant, said Diggs. You get your degree, get married and settle down at thirty years old because youve already sown your wild oats, and then you have an abnormal Pap smear. That school health nurse from ten or twelve years ago doesnt have the foggiest idea that what she recommended to you led to your current predicament. How does this work? Condom distribution affects peoples behavior. If you think something is safe, or causes an inherently dangerous thing to become safe, you are more likely to do the dangerous thing, said Diggs. You think you are home-free until you turn thirty and get that abnormal Pap smear. The National Institute for Health released a study two years ago that found no evidence of condom effectiveness against six diseases, said Diggs. One of those diseases, Chlamydia, causes sterility in women even if treated, while a male who gets treated will be fine. Shouldnt women know about this? Isnt it only fair that women know about this? That seems pretty basic to me. I dont think I am asking a whole lot. Conception vs. Contraception There has been an attempt to redefine conception in the last ten or fifteen years to say that conception happens not at fertilization, but ten days to two weeks later, when the embryo implants in the uterus, says Dr. Diggs. Because, said Diggs, methods we call contraceptive in many cases work as abortifacients after conception. Even birth control pills work this way an indeterminate number of times. They abort an already conceived 46-chromosome human being. Shouldnt women who might have moral objections to abortion at least be told about this, he asked? A sperm and egg each has 23 chromosomes, explained Diggs. Human beings have 46 chromosomes at conception when the egg is fertilized. After that, no other information is added. That separate and unique set of 46 chromosomes never existed before and will never exist again. If that were all, at least it is something you cant see and you can call it theoretical, said Diggs. But there is more. Depo-Provera Depo-Provera, sometimes called The Shot, was one of many long-acting contraceptives designed to deal with the problem of people who miss taking their birth-control pill. At this point it is specifically targeted at young inner city black and Hispanic women. If they miss taking the pill, you cant do anything about that, but if they dont keep their appointment for the shot, its not too late to call them up and have them come in. Planned Parenthood is very proud of having increased the rates of Depo-Provera use, said Diggs, but there is a serious problem with the drug: The rate of breast cancer is doubled in women who take the Depo-Provera shot. Depo-Provera has an R.R. of 2.0 in regards to breast cancer, according to the Physicians Desk Reference (PDR). The initials R.R. mean relative risk. A relative risk of 2.0 means the experimental group has twice the rate of the control group. Diggs said he has a problem with releasing a drug on the market that doubles the risk of breast cancer. He said he cant picture a mens drug being released if it knowingly doubled the risk of cancer. But that is not all. Women are not told that Depo-Provera will double their chances of breast cancer, said Diggs. What about the basic medical ethic of informed consent? Diggs said it is unconscionable to give dangerous drugs to healthy women and at the very least they should be informed of what is happening. Ironically, at the same time that The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology puts up pink ribbons on their website for breast cancer, they are pushing Depo-Provera, said Diggs. Hey, either way, they get paid. Diggs made the observation that we think it is wrong for boys to use dangerous steroids to make themselves more attractive to the opposite sex, yet we say its okay for girls to take steroids to make themselves more attractive through sexual availability. ABC: Abortion = Breast Cancer Dr. Diggs said scientific data published around the world suggests there is a 50 to 100 percent increase in the rates of breast cancer for women who abort their first child. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology wants to deny this. The National Cancer Institute had it on their website that this is likely to happen, and then they removed it. The American Cancer Society denies it altogether, despite the fact that 28 out of 35 studies done worldwide support this. The New England Journal of Medicine used a flawed study from Denmark to deny that this occurs, said Diggs. The study diluted statistics by mixing younger women with older women as subjects. If a woman gets an abortion at twenty, said Diggs, she will not get breast cancer when she is 25 years-old, she will get it at 40 or 45 or later. The study also lumped together women who had abortions with those who had miscarriages. Diggs said the mechanism that causes increased breast cancer from abortion appears to be that when a woman gets pregnant, certain hormone levels go up that cause an increase and growth of breast tissue cells. Inducing an abortion cuts off the hormone supply that allows those cells to continue to mature. Cells that are immature are more likely to become cancerous. A miscarriage does not have the same effect because there are fewer hormones and other abnormalities in those circumstances. At the least, said Diggs, women seeking abortions should be told by doctors that they think there is a problem down the road with breast cancer. Abortion Safer Than Childbirth? What about the claim that abortion is safer than childbirth? How do we know what is safe? In the 1940s, people used to x-ray their feet to fit themselves for shoes. Now we know x-rays cause cancer, so no more unnecessary x-rays. While there are more maternal deaths during childbirth, you dont just determine the safety of something by its immediate impact on you, said Diggs. Many more women are dead from abortion a year later, he said. They die from suicides and accidents related to post-abortion stress syndrome. Diggs marveled how abortion is not held to common medical standards. People whove had abortions come to him a day or two later with medical problems related to their abortion. Why are they coming to me? he said. If you have your appendix taken out and you have a problem, you call up your surgeon. Why dont women who have abortions call the abortionist? Because they are always told if there is any problem, go to the emergency room or to a nearby clinic. They dont follow the very standard behavior that every physician will perform thats doing surgery. Why arent abortion clinics regulated? Why dont they have Joint Commission (one of the regulatory agencies) inspections to make sure they are using correct sterile equipment and correct procedures? They are not required to. If this is truly a womens health issue, if this is truly an issue of public health, why would you lower the standard for something that specifically and uniquely affects women, rather than raise it? This is the height of sexism in public health. What to Do About Sexism in Public Health Can something be done about it? Yes. By spreading information, which is available from a variety of sources. My sources are top notch sources. The Journal of the American Medical Association, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Health, and all I did was take their very same information and come to very different conclusions. To me the most important person that Im taking care of as I do my work is the person sitting in front of me. Not some theoretical the public, its the person sitting in front of me. And very often, if you take care of the person, its going to have the desired effect on the public. Caption 1: Theres a sexually transmitted disease that kills more women than AIDS, said Diggs. Its called cervical cancer, which is essentially a complication of a sexually transmitted disease. John Diggs, Jr. M.D. Caption 2: The women at Wellesley College heard a point of view they probably never heard before when addressed by Dr. John Diggs. Callout: At the least, said Diggs, women seeking abortions should be told by doctors that they think there is a problem down the road with breast cancer. John Diggs, Jr. M.D. Sidebar: Politically Correct Disease Spawns Safe Sex Dr. Diggs calls the years 1960 to 1975 the Golden Age of Sex, when people felt safe in the knowledge that antibiotics and birth control pills were the cure to any sex-related consequences. Then in 1975, incurable sexually transmittable diseases began to be discoveredHerpes, Human Pappiloma Virus, and HIV (AIDS). HIV was predominately a homosexual disease for many years, said Diggs. Homosexual men with simple infections were dying. These were men who by the time they were 25 years old had sex with 2000 people. The disease was called G.R.I.D. at first (Gay Related Immune Deficiency) until the name was changed because it was not politically correct. Even though it was known to be blood related, we did not tell homosexual men to refrain from donating blood because of political correctness, What they did do was say we need safe sex, said Diggs. This is where the term safe sex came from. It did not come because somebody at the CDC was trying to protect college girls or boys from STDs that they pass to each other. This came about because they were trying to come up with a name or a methodology by which people who were HIV positive could continue to participate in sex. Safe sex at first consisted of dry kissing, walks in the park, cuddling and other things along those lines, said Diggs. It had nothing to do with what we call sex. The term eventually morphed into meaning sexual intercourse with a latex condom. Diggs said although AIDS was a uniformly fatal, sexually-transmitted disease, we did not have the public health chutzpah to close bathhouses where people went for promiscuous sex. This was done for a variety of other STDs, he said, and even during a measles epidemic you could be quarantined. Even I as a physician exposed to patients blood would not be able to test a person to find out if I was going to get AIDS, because it was treated as a political issue rather than a public health one.. Boston Has Competitive Advantages For Business, Says Study Taxes and Cost of Living Are Fly In Ointment By Ed Oliver The Boston metro area ranks third in the nation in its ability to attract new businesses and sustain the growth of existing firms, according to a study released on Tuesday by the Beacon Hill Institute. It measured the competitiveness of fifty of the largest metro areas in the country by looking at several economic variables. Only Seattle and San Francisco came out ahead of Boston. Boston leads the country in human resources and technology. The disadvantages are government and fiscal policy and the high cost of living. Boston scored well in human resources because of a high level of readily-available, skilled labor that is not too expensive. A widespread commitment to education, training and health care were also a hallmark of the region. In technology, Boston is a leader with strong universities, research funding, patents issued, the proportion of scientists and engineers in the labor force and the importance of high tech companies. Other competitive advantages for Boston were low crime rates and availability of mass transit. Boston scored poorly, however, on government and fiscal policy because it lacks moderate tax rates and clear evidence of fiscal discipline as measured by state and municipal bond ratings. Workers compensation collections and high unemployment benefits were also taken into consideration. Other negatives included high cost of living such as housing and electricity. The geographical area under study extended to southern New Hampshire, as far west as Worcester and as far south as New Bedford. What This Study Means to Man-on-the-Street? Christopher Anderson, President of the Massachusetts High Technology Council and moderator of a panel discussion about the study which was held at Suffolk University, told MassNews: Anderson: I think the guy in the street is interested in one area of weakness that this study identifies. That is the fiscal policy of the state or the city. This study doesnt even reflect the fact that we had over a billion dollars of tax increases just six months ago. So if I were on the street, I would be saying, Hmm, how can Romney succeed in getting control of the budget without going through another round of new taxes, because doing so would further decrease our states competitiveness or regional competitiveness. So I think that is the most direct connection. The other connection is, if were going to lose competitiveness, is my job future less secure? Is my employer likely to make some shifts, or if Im unemployed, is it going to be more difficult to find a new job? I think that is where it connects on the street. MassNews: What do you recommend we do to stay competitive? Anderson: If you look at how good we are doing generally based on this report, the weakest link is the role of the state, or our state/regional fiscal policy. If we could actually turn the state into a partner, so that the state doesnt view with arrogance this employer community, lets say the bio-tech industry in Cambridge. If they dont look with arrogance on that community but rather as a partner and help grow it, the less likely to have the first option be taxes as opposed to some other option that preserves jobs or makes it more likely that jobs wont be cut here. MassNews: How does the state look on the employer community with arrogance? Anderson: By saying, Were doing so well we can raise taxes and the industry wont leave. Thats arrogant. Or by saying, This report further shows that, you know what, we can afford to raise taxes because were still highly competitive. Youve got to look at it in terms of what the other states are doing. Its like a horse race. If the other states have a fresh jockey with a fresh pair of legs and were still riding a horse that doesnt know where the finish line is, how long do you think it will take before we are now no longer near the leader of the pack? MassNews: So, this study should not be spun into a call for more spending and programs? Anderson: No, I think it is a call for more efficient, more competitive relationship with state government. We do a lot of things well without the state. Its almost like the state has been a passive bystander to our success. Lets get the state to be an active advocate and participant along the lines of, for example, Colorado and North Carolina, where they work with the employer to build a new site, to find housing for the employees, to recruit and retrain employees. Its all done very easily. So, if you want to build a facility like BioGen in Cambridge built their facility in North Carolina, it took about a third of the time it would have taken here in Massachusetts just to get through the permitting process. State government was a partner every step of the way. They didnt cut corners, they didnt sacrifice the environment, they had a very pro-employer, team-building atmosphere to help make that project happen there. It would be very difficult to make it happen here. MassNews: Does this study say that we do well despite state government? Anderson: Yes, despite the lack of support that we get from state government we continue to do well, because of what I call our natural resources. The high concentration of both public and private higher education institutions, concentrated venture capital community, those and a pretty rich health care system albeit very expensive and in need of repair itself. But we have a lot of natural resources that are going to produce spin-offs, new jobs. The question is where do we keep them? If those companies migrate after they learn to walk, to some other part of the country, then that underscores, Gee we could really improve our position if we had a better relationship with the public policy part. Caption: If we dont get control of our taxes we will do serious harm to our states competitiveness, says President of the Massachusetts High Technology Council, Christopher Anderson. Sightings Rep. Fagan Screams at Sally Pawlick in State House When Sally Pawlick walks around the State House, shes greeted cordially with a smile by most people that she meets, even those opposed to the Protection of Marriage Amendment. Thats why she and onlookers were startled by a screaming tirade she was subjected to for well over a minute last month by Rep. James Fagan (D) of Taunton in the reception area of the suite he shares with many colleagues. Im a lawyer! Theres going to be a lawsuit about this! Youre Nazis! Youre full of hate! he yelled. The diatribe followed for what seemed an eternity to the attractive, pleasant grandmother. Apparently Fagan is hearing from his constituents about his vote to violate the Constitution and not take a vote on the Marriage Amendment. One of the sad things that Pawlick encounters is that many at the State House are not impressed to hear that the Legislature broke the law. Oh, that happens all the time, they say, as they summarily dismiss that news. But Pawlick believes that it is an obvious sign of a decaying culture. She doesn't agree that it's too late to change ours. She says she also sees a lot of good people who do care. She had heard from many of Fagans constituents last summer that he is a good man and they couldn't believe he voted the way he did on the Amendment. She understands why Fagan lost his cool when Mass. Citizens for Marriage sent a factual mailing throughout his district telling the truth about his vote. She hopes that he calms down soon and apologizes for his intemperate behavior. Can Romney Tame $9.5 Billion 'Health and Human Services' Dept.? Charles Baker has a plan for taming the state's $9.5 Billion Health and Human Services Department. Currently the President of Harvard Pilgrim Health, he's a member of Gov. Romneys transition team. He wants to take advantage of new technology and data management techniques. Although it sounds boring to most people, there was seating for 300 when he presented his plan at the Pioneer Institute on Dec. 12. But that wasn't enough chairs. They had to add 50 more to hold the crowd at the Parker House in Boston. Most of those present appeared to be members of the fifteen agencies that Baker is talking about. Not only is it the largest secretariat in state government, it has been growing faster than all other secretariats combined. Baker was head of Health and Human Services under Gov. Weld and later served as his Secretary of Administration and Finance. So he is familiar with the department and with state government in general. He calls for a radical restructuring of the fifteen agencies that manage the delivery of health care, rehabilitation, social, juvenile justice and family services to the citizens of the Commonwealth. This is not a new concept to people in the private sector. Many businesses and, in fact, entire industries, have undergone similar reorganizations over the past two decades. Whether everyone gets on board for this effort remains to be seen. Many of those in attendance were skeptical. Some were concerned about job security and rightly so. This promises to be one of the major battlegrounds in the next budget and a key test of Romneys ability to rein in the state bureaucracy. Stay tuned! The white paper report is entitled Rationalizing Health and Human Services and was prepared under the sponsorship of the Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research. It is available on-line at www.pioneerinstitute.org. Globe Continues to Advocate Violation of Constitution The Boston Globe advocates that our Governor continue to violate the state Constitution on the Protection of Marriage Amendment. They published a letter last month with the headline, Stand your ground, governor. It came from a woman in Cambridge who said, Under the rules, she [the Governor] is not obligated to recall the Legislature. Whose rules is the writer referring to? To those of the Boston Globe? Most of us are not following the rules of the Boston Globe, but the rules of our state Constitution. Maybe some day, someone at the New York-based headquarters of the Globe will stop urging people to defy our Constitution up here in Massachusetts. Sen. Harriette Chandler Is Laughable A statement from Sen. Harriette Chandler to the Associated Press was laughable, says Sarah Ann Pawlick, President of Mass. Citizens for Marriage. A.P. wrote, Sen. Harriett L. Chandler, D-Worcester, an opponent of the amendment, argues that the Legislature did take action on the amendment by voting to adjourn. I think that the Legislature voted and its pretty clear what the vote was, Chandler said. It wasnt even close. But Pawlick responds, Chandler graduated two years after me from Wellesley College, but I dont know how she made it if she believes they had a vote on the Amendment. She thinks that the Legislature voted? Everyone except her knows that they never voted. What an embarrassment she is to Wellesley College and to women in general, to be making such foolish, untrue statements. We all thought that getting women into politics was going to improve things, but she is making it worse, not better. Associated Press Gives Credit to MCM for Swifts Action The Associated Press gave credit to Mass. Citizens for Marriage in its story on Dec. 3 about Gov. Jane Swift seeking advice from the Supreme Judicial Court. It said she was finally thinking about calling the Legislature for a vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment because she was under pressure from Mass. Citizens for Marriage. According to A.P., MCM had fiercely campaigned for legislative action [and] had been actively lobbying Swift to step in. The story continued with a quote from an MCM spokesman: In our humble opinion, the Constitution is very clear. She is required to call them in until they do what their oath and constitutional responsibility is. MassNews had Polled the Voters MCM said that one of the reasons they know that a large majority of the citizens want Jane Swift to call the Legislature back for a vote is because MassNews conducted a poll of 500 likely voters, which was done for them by The Tarrance Group on October 6-8, 2002. Some 64% of the voters favor a recall with only 14% opposing and 22% unsure. Only a small number of voters at the time of the poll, 23%, had seen, read or heard about the conduct of Senate President Tom Birmingham, who ended the Constitutional Convention without allowing a vote on the Amendment as he was required to do under the state Constitution. But due to their efforts, more and more people are hearing about this. They say that the number of people who are outraged is increasing dramatically. The surprising part about the support for a special session is that it reaches across the entire spectrum with even a majority of Democrats (65%) and self-described liberals (60%) supporting a special session. Some 61% of men favored the recall, while 67% of women did. In fact, a majority of likely voters in every major demographic group supports a special session to vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment. Those who knew about Birminghams illegal actions favored a recall by 69% while those who had to be told were only at 63%, which means that as more and more people learn what happened, it is likely that even more voters are going to favor a recall by the Governor. Only 19% agreed with Birmingham's decision not to hold a vote. Alan Keyes To Headline Pro-Life Event In Boston Alan Keyes will be the keynote speaker at the 30th Annual Interfaith Assembly for Life to be held at Bostons Faneuil Hall on Sunday, January 19, from 2 to 4 PM. The last memorable visit by Keyes to Boston was two years ago when the State House reverberated with his voice of moral authority in condemnation of the Fistgate scandal and his unabashed expression of solidarity with the Parents Rights Coalition, who exposed it. As a former Reagan administration official and Presidential candidate who consistently wins presidential debates, Keyes reputation for eloquence and steadfast adherence to principal is legendary among social conservatives and a thorn in the side of moderates in the Republican Party. The Interfaith Assembly for Life is held annually on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade as a way for pro-lifers of different creeds to come together in solidarity with the unborn. Sponsored by Mass. Citizens for Life, this years Assembly will emphasize the connection between patriotism and the pro-life movement freedom and virtue. The Assembly will be enlivened by patriotic music and a speech by MCFLs Don Feder, on Why Should God Bless America? The gathering will also include comments by leaders of MCFLs college chapters and perhaps a surprise speaker or two of note. Choice on Earth, Says Planned Parenthood Holiday Card Planned Parenthood has raised more than one eyebrow this year by issuing a holiday card that proclaims, Choice on Earth. Their advertising says, Spread the holiday spirit with these fun and festive cards. Some, however, find the card, which reads: Warmest wishes for a peaceful holiday season, anything but fun, festive, warm or peaceful. Planned Parenthood likes to portray itself as a tolerant organization constantly searching for diversity, says Jim Sedlak of American Life League. But this blatant attack on Christian values and Christ Himself is just another demonstration of the truly bigoted nature of Planned Parenthood. Rachel Russell of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts tells MassNews, Who owns the phrase Peace on Earth is a question. We [League of Massachusetts] are not technically selling those cards. This card is not funded with any federal money. We dont even receive any federal money. However, the national director of Stop Planned Parenthood, Edward Szymkowiak, disputes this. Look at the GuideStar 2002 Nonprofit Compensation Report, he suggests, referring to a document issued by the National Database of Nonprofit Organizations. It is very clear that the federal government is giving Planned Parenthood money. He tells MassNews that line 1C of the document would seem to back Russells claim because the reference is only to government grants. But look at line 93G, which refers to fees and contracts, and you will see that between July 1, 2000 and June 30, 2001, Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts received $477,593 from government grants and contracts. A spokesperson for Rachels Vineyard, Clarissa Cincotta, tells MassNews: The reason for the season is the birth of a baby. How desperate Planned Parenthood must be to change it to a season of death! When will Planned Parenthood wake up and really start caring about women? The reason for Cincottas passion is because they hold weekend programs, dedicated to the healing of those suffering from the pain of abortion, at retreat centers around the nation. Currently, there is no Massachusetts representative for Rachels Vineyard, so Cincotta, who lives in Bridgeport, Connecticut, deals with applicants from Massachusetts. Women have an innate maternal instinct and because of this, thousands of women are attending Rachels Vineyard Retreats to heal from the emotional scars of their abortions, Cincotta says. Thousands of women are connecting symptoms like depression, alcohol and drug dependency, bouts of crying, nightmares, etc. to their abortions, reports Cincotta. Post-Abortion Syndrome is now being associated with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder because many women experience the trauma of their abortions years later. Where is Planned Parenthood when these women are wishing they had never done this? Where is Planned Parenthood when women are sitting in therapists offices trying to figure out what is wrong with their life? Wishing everyone choice on earth? The only way we will have peace on earth is when all killing stops. When Planned Parenthood starts caring about women instead of caring about making money, is when our world will be a better place to live. Peace on earth, peace in womens hearts. A new babe is born! For more information about Rachels Vineyard, call (866) 272-2435. Letters Stop Using HATE to Create FEAR Once again taxes were due, so as a dutiful citizen, I traveled to Quincy City Hall for payment. To my dismay I walked in the front door, to be greeted by a large sign on the wall just behind the information desk. This is no place for a HATE community with HATE in the boldest of lettering. What is the purpose of this sign? Who is the target? From the very prominent placement its obvious someone at city hall believes the citizens of Quincy really need to see this message. I wonder who that could be? Living in Quincy for 10 years I've been to city hall on numerous occasions and never encountered anything in the nature of hate. Nor have I ever heard or read of a hate rampage in the city. When questioned about the sign the response of city officials was that the poster was presented by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and that the basic message was we shouldnt hate anyone. Of course who could disagree with that, but it seems to me there surely must be another motive to the campaign. Otherwise, if the display of such signs is the new policy, on my next trip to city hall I can imagine the wall full of such messages; No place for murder, No place for stealing, No place for breaking window. Recently, in getting together with a few friends, one of them was wearing a button with the same slogan, No place for HATE; her son is a homosexual. And having some knowledge of ADL from reliable sources, I am concerned that there is a connection. My experience and that of close friends is that, in this campaign, HATE rhetoric is used to create fear. It is intended to intimidate people from discussing important issues. In which case not only is this sign insulting, its dangerous to citizens of Quincy. I have an idea for a new sign. STOP USING HATE TO CREATE FEAR. James Rickert Quincy Voice of the Faithful After reading the MassNews story about the formation of a Voice of the Faithful chapter in Worcester, I was rather surprised to read about your publications background on your Web site. I was surprised to discover that you accept advertising and subscriptions, because this suggests youre not fully funded by the Catholic Church. Surely, I thought, this must be a Vatican-sponsored publication, an advocacy newsletter, not one for mainstream readers expecting a balanced perspective. I worked as a reporter for twelve years. My editor would never, in a million years, have let that story see the light of day without my giving Voice of the Faithful representatives a chance to rebut the charges against them. Perhaps you would consider my editor a little strict. Allyson LaBorde Los Angeles, CA Editors Comment: This was an update on a continuing story. We cannot reprint everything that you have missed. In addition, the Boston Globe prints everything, and more, that the VOF wants to say, but nothing from the other side. If you doubt that, see their December 12th issue with the large story on the front page, Lay Group Votes to Seek Cardinals Ouster. Dems Lose Blue Collar Seniors Traditionally, the party that holds the presidency loses seats in off-year Congressional elections. This years results stunned the liberal Democrats. The Democrats offered no compelling alternatives. Bills to create homeland security were stalled in the Senate. An energy bill that would have provided 100,000 blue-collar hardhat jobs in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge in Alaska was defeated. The Democrats have sold out their labor base and completely surrendered to the environmental extremists that have proved to be labors greatest enemy. The scare tactics on seniors always employed by Dems are no longer effective because seniors now know why their Social Security benefits are subject to taxation and they know that it was the Clinton/Gore administration that did them in. In what had to be the biggest blow to the Dems in this election was the fact the Republicans carried the senior vote most likely for the first time. That had to send a strong message that the Dem base can no longer be taken for granted. In another aid to American labor by President Bush was his recent signing of a terrorist insurance bill that will now open up thousands of construction jobs that had been on hold because construction companies could not get terror insurance. Underwriting terror insurance was essential to our economy, and already the usual critics are on the attack. Life goes on, and these construction projects are expected to contribute $30 to $40 billion to the economy. President Bush put his prestige on the line when he campaigned all over the nation for candidates that would support the war on terror and the issues he felt were necessary to enhance the economy. The campaign was a tremendous success. As a result, even some Democrats joined Republicans to pass the homeland security and the terror insurance bills. Both should be positive for America in providing for national security and the economy. Edward P. Shallow Dorchester Sen. Barrios Is Wrong I sent the following letter to Rep. Jarrett Barrios about the upcoming hearing for the protection of marriage amendment. My letter follows his response. In all fairness, he gave an immediate reply even though I am not in his district. While I understand your concern, having personally witnessed paid signature gatherers misrepresenting the nature of their ballot (telling people it was to ban horsemeat) I have grave concerns about this proposal, and voted to adjourn therefore. Jarrett T. Barrios Dear Rep. Barrios; I am writing to express my concern about the ballot question to amend the State Constitution that would define marriage between a man and a woman. What happened at both Constitutional Conventions earlier this year was a travesty and undemocratic. Regardless of ones opinion of the definition of marriage, the issue should have been brought up for discussion. Instead, the meeting was adjourned, thus denying any kind of discussion and a vote. Therefore, 130,000 Massachusetts citizens who signed the petitions to get the question on the ballot were denied their right to see the referendum process followed through. However, it finally appears certain that a vote will be held on the Protection of Marriage Amendment now that Senate President Tom Birmingham has followed the lead of Gov. Jane Swift and asked the Supreme Judicial Court for guidance in his role during an expected vote in the next few weeks. With that being the case, I encourage you to vote in favor of allowing the marriage amendment question to be placed on the next ballot when the issue comes up for a vote in the House. I personally feel that it is important that marriage be defined once and for all as the sacred bond between a man and a woman. The 130,000 citizens (I, personally was one) who legally signed the petition in the first place deserve an open and honest debate by our elected representatives instead of the cowardly adjournment that occurred earlier this year. The House and Senate are bound by our state Constitution to hear and debate a referendum question. The SJC said it this way in 1982, The one-fourth vote requirement applicable to initiative amendments was intended as a legislative minority check on initiative amendments to the Constitution. Its purpose is to ensure that initiative amendments submitted to the people for approval have at least a reasonable amount of public support, as reflected by the favorable votes of at least one-fourth of the legislators elected to the General Court. If this referendum issue is not resolved, any lack of action by the Legislature isnt only breaking the law, but it also sets a bad precedence for future ballot questions. The publics trust in state government will also be undermined. In closing, I encourage you not only to participate in the Marriage Amendment debate, but to also support it. Peter Brown Hanson Editors Comment: With due deference to soon-to-be Senator Barrios, we must note that the paid signature gatherers he refers to were hired only because the safety of the volunteers became a concern after they and the voters were harassed at every mall by in-your-face blockers who were trained by the ACLU. The paid signature gatherers who were then hired by MCM were already in the state working for Carla Howell and the horse people. The marriage people attempted to cooperate with anyone who made a claim of being tricked but they were totally rebuffed. As we have reported many times, they were rebuffed because the majority of the claims only five people were ever identified as those who claimed they were tricked were a fraud used only in an attempt to damage the Amendment. But you have to give him credit. Sen. Barrios never gives up. No Right to Have False Records Expunged In July 2000, a 15-year-old boy was walking through a parking lot in Saugus, when he became the victim of an assault. Little did he know that he would also become a victim of the Massachusetts Justice system. He was arrested. When the trial day came around, the witnesses did not show up. The case was dismissed without prejudice, though the victim protested the judges decision. Two weeks later, the assault victim petitioned to have the false arrest record expunged from the files. In December 2001, the court ordered the expungement of the false arrest record. The Commissioner of Probation appealed the decision.In August 2002, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in the case Commonwealth v. Gavin G. a juvenile, SJC. 08672 (2002), gave the decision, denying expungement of the false and unproven arrest records, for there is no law enacted by the Great and General Court, that acknowledges the right of a citizens, not to have a false and unproven arrest record on file! For the rest of his life, this victim of a crime will be victimized by the Massachusetts Justice system by having on record, the data of his false arrest, which will always be there to dishonor his good name, and no one cares. Only in Massachusetts. Don Schwarz Stoughton Editors Comments: There were two dissenters to that opinion written by Justice Martha Sosman, where the Court said they could do nothing because the Legislature had not given them the power to expunge records. The dissenters were Justices John Greaney and Roderick Ireland (who wrote the dissent) who said there was no indication in the statute of an intent to limit judges in the use of their powers to achieve justice. Their opinion continued, I believe the unique history, goals, and policies of the juvenile justice system provide the Juvenile Court judge with the inherent power to order expungement. It is only common sense. I would suggest you get to your state Senator and Rep and see that the law is changed immediately to correct this unfortunate result. Please let us know how you make out. Abortion, the American Holocaust Holocaust is a word that means the mass slaughter of people. What then is abortion? Eleven years ago I stood in line with a number of different women. It was like an assembly line with each of us waiting to enter the infirmary. I remember the girl behind me. She must have been at least six months pregnant because her belly was very large. I kept saying to myself, why did she wait so late? She is killing her baby, not realizing that though my stomach was flat, I was doing the same. I remember a women smiling in my face after I woke up and taking me to a room where I sat and had a cup of tea and two Tylenol. She said it would help with my pain. Today I ask myself which pain, the emotional pain I have suffered once I realized I took my baby to be slaughtered or the physical pain I have suffered from infertility and now breast cancer. Funny how I have lost a baby, an ovary and now a breast. Abortion has nothing to do with womens health, power or choice. It is a complete loss of humanity. We pride ourselves on a Constitution that vows everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, yet we allow our laws to protect the same acts and cruelty of Hitler. Every time you see an advertisement for abortion, know that that is an advertisement for the slaughter of people. If there is any question that a child in the womb is not yet a person look at the evidence, look at yourself. Charnette Messe Groton, CT Lack of a Baby Safe Haven Brings a Year of Tragedies Jean Morrisey and her husband, Michael, of Lexington, have lobbied for one year for a Baby Safe Haven law to pass in Massachusetts following the burial of Baby Rebecca Mary in St. Marys Cemetery in Dorchester on November 27, 2001. In a year following the burial of Baby Rebecca Mary, the newborn baby found dead of exposure in the St. Marys Cemetery in Dorchester, I regret but two things. First is that with my own hands, I should have lowered her tiny white coffin into the ground. Second, that Massachusetts in the following year has not seen fit to pass and enact a Baby Safe Haven law so that the tragedies that have followed with three more newborns found dead need not have happened. The first I cannot change, the second I must and will do as soon as possible before more moments-old babies perish because their scared and secretive mothers decide that hiding their newborns through death and disposal is their only option. In 42 states the options are to bring their babies to a Safe Haven, a hospital, a fire station or a police station and, with no questions asked, hand their precious secret to the safety of a caretaker. I cannot understand why Massachusetts hasnt passed this statute to save lives instead of expending political gamesmanship over tiny newborn citizens of the Commonwealth. They have no political standing whatsoever, I guess. A version of the Safe Haven bill had been in the Legislature for 19 months before I became involved, and over three-quarters of the country had seen passage within their states. Now, ninety percent of Americans are covered by state statutes. I lobbied hard; I called and wrote of the successes of saving lives from Connecticut to California. The miracle at the Bay State Medical Center happened on February 8, 2001. A TV show that I appeared on with the countrys top experts on Safe Haven laws and programs was watched by a couple who brought a three-and-a-half pound preemie to the emergency room, the young man leaving the tiny foundling for safe keeping in the Bay State Medical Center. Can our Legislature get it now, the law worked right here in the Commonwealth! But the Massachusetts Families for Kids had other ideas, we stole that babys ancestry, its medical records vanished, along with its parents. To them this was a worse tragedy than being stolen from death, the only supposed crime I guess. Life begins with opportunity and ends when death steals all opportunity from us. Imagine having all your opportunities and losing them within minutes, then being a political tool because of a loss of heritage or medical recording and substantiation. Its now one year to the day since the last flower was placed on Baby Rebeccas coffin, and the earth covered your heritage and history. The lobbying continues in your name and Im joined by all of the gubernatorial candidates, pro-choice and pro-life groups, many more legislators who sponsored bills that became law in other states, then saved lives. An Emmy Award winning TV actress, Patricia Heaton, filmed public service announcements for Massachusetts and many other states to use, but we cannot show them without a law. If our legislature stalls one more day, one more week, it certainly becomes one more month, then two, and more. Well awake one day to the tragic news of a newborn found dead and abandoned. Only then we may act, but the toll for politics of this type is a tragic legacy that will only end with a Baby Safe Haven law. Jean Morrisey Lexington A Letter to Senator Kerry Dear Senator: Our legal system has made some very creative decisions. For example a woman successfully sued McDonalds after accidentally spilling hot coffee on herself while riding in a car. I dont understand the thought process that found McDonalds liable. Imagine the possibilities if we had a law where the decision-making process didnt have to start with any facts. Instead judgments could be made on factors that are either real or merely perceived, whether or not that perception is correct. As an example, consider what could happen if laws like this apply to bank robbery. You could be found guilty of robbing a bank even though no robbery had occurred but someone thought that one of your friends looked like someone who might rob a bank. Problem: Someone might notice the government crime statistics list 10,000 people convicted of robbing banks when only 100 bank robberies occurred. Something doesnt seem right. Easy Solution: Simply add a provision to the law that expressly prohibits the collection of related statistics so there can be no accountability and people wont be able to find out whats really going on. Would you vote for a law like this? Apparently the answer is yes, because a couple sources list you as a supporter of S1284/HR2692. Lurking behind the innocent sounding Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), is a wolf in sheeps clothing. The Senate Committees report is quite long so I can understand why many would just read the summary and not notice the hidden dangers. Here are some of the interesting parts: Facts dont matter. According to the act, judgments would be made on a characteristic that is either real or perceived. (Section 3) Footnote 9 clarifies the definition of perceived to include cases whether or not that presumption is correct. Guilt by association; the bill also allows claims to be based on characteristics (real or perceived) of someone with whom an employee associates. (Section 4) Accountability; It expressly prohibits the collection of statistics. (Section 7) Estimated cost for implementation; (Part IV) about $5,000,000/year-Federal government (60-90 additional staff) would not exceed $58,000,000/ year for state & local governments. Probably would not exceed $115,000,000/year for the private sector. The basic goal is good; we should treat everyone equally and fairly instead of categorizing people and applying different rules to different groups. However, this proposed law is just plain lunacy because it is so vague and subjective. A couple lists indicate that about 48 Senators have already jumped on this bandwagon. Did they bother to check where the driver is really taking them? John Langner Chelmsford c15=7=xP{Puowo[ jYZddĹ宣壓shJvh-~v0JB*ph$jhJvh-~vB*UphjhJvh-~vB*UphhJvh-~vB*phh'h-~vB*phhPZ0h-~vB*phhYh-~vB*phh\h-~vB*phhYh-~vB*phh-~vhiyh-~vB*phhCh-~vB*ph()y } X W+ ?!]"d]"#$&&*&H&u&&&&&&&j' (()*[,U-.,/;0<0c1d1e11 &d P 11*2;334m5+77799;;5=6=7=`=a== ?A=CDGIxM$PxP &d P xPyPzP{PPP[QQhR SSTVVVWXSYZ [[\Y^n`o``babTcc &d P cefhhi5kk=llnnnnnuovowoxoooopq>qrrst &d P tvwxyzz|}~ւZ[\ }ۆ2܉݊37M &d P M׏ !&QӓOPtݗ/@ &d P @A͝V [ a ,->4I ˱Ǵ &d P ǴdWU>?efGH@ &d P KMQZ,-634l &d P ;)5EF b}sun w  f  c  &d P c 2lwhi>['6 7 R>>>:@@@[A\ACDDEEFFFF G GJLLiLjLMM]M^MNOPPPP|R}RFSGSTWWWWX X Zn[\\o\p\\\\\"]#]]].^/^+_,_` b.cdddddeeff1g2gViWijj]l+m,mgmhmJnKnnnnnooo-p.p>p?p2r3rjrjrkrsstttttuuu wxyy<{={}}5634   LMdePQ'(:;dexytu[\n+!"ŕ bc՘vwqrx~[\Ƞɠrs  #$pqΣϣ{|ª78֭׭|}ͮ%[[ жɸ\.m"#`aklPQ\EFFijw W`qJK@[6RSe(^+g(()4"#./()AV8   b  Oij &d P AIJ|q "!$ %%'()*+----......//0w1@234?5A667999'9(9@9):'<<=>>?X@@ABBC &d P CDD^EFH]I^IgIIJwKLUN OOOOGPHPSP2Q3Q4Q5Q]Q^QkQR &d P R^SSSSTTTT0UVVV:WX%ZZZ\]^^:_Z___Q``uab &d P bDbbb$cccc.de"f=ggvhijkl+n,nUop,r-r6rrrrs &d P s;sdAIB`BBYEFF'F|FHJK8L9LqLYM(OPQSSTVXYZZZ5ZCZ;[(]]^%`Kaa?bb4c!ddddd/ =!"#$%DyK mmoriarty@moriarty-connor.comyK Jmailto:mmoriarty@moriarty-connor.comH@H Normal CJOJPJQJ_HmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List 0U@0 Hyperlink>*B*\()y}XW +?]*Huj !"[$U%&,';(<(c)d)e)))**;++,m-+///1133556575`5a55 79=;<?AxE$HxHyHzH{HHH[IIhJ KKLNNVOPSQR SSTYVnXoXXbYZT[[]^``a5cc=ddfffffugvgwgxgggghi>ijjklnopqrrtuvwxyzZ{[{\{{{ |}}~2܁݂37Mׇ !&QӋOPtݏ/@A͕V [ a ,->4I ˩ǬdWU>?efGH@KMQZ,-634l;)5EF b}sunwfc2l  w hi>['67<=S U!V!{"|"$n%'''')))),-/F1G1 22J45Q6R666:888[9\9;<<=>>>> ? ?BDDiDjDEE]E^EFGHHHH|J}JFKGKLOOOP P RnSTToTpTTTTT"U#UUU.V/V+W,WX Z.[\\\\\]^^1_2_VaWabb]d+e,egeheJfKfffffggg-h.h>h?h2j3jjjkjkklllllmmm opqq@]A^AgAABwCDUF GGGGGHHHSH2I3I4I5I]I^IkIJ^KKKKLLLL0MNNN:OP%RRZTUVV:WZWWWQXXuYZDZZZ$[[[[.\]"^=__v`abcd+f,fUgh,j-j6jjjjk;k>'>|>@BC8D9DqDYE(GHIKLNPQRRR5RCR;S(UUV%XKYY?ZZ4[!\\\\\000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000d]"1xPctM@Ǵc /EWejr [F(/CRbsvn#+$9SddY{{{\XOG,ȽH,˿I,<̿J,TȿK,ʽL,$˿M,LN, O,P,Q,LR, S,T,U,LV, W,X,Y,Z,Ԍ[,\,T],^,ԋ_,`,Ta,b,Ԋc,d,Te,/f,/g,L/h, /i,.j,.k,L.l, .m,$Un,To,Tp,dTq,4 r, s, t,du,$v,w,x,$y,dz,{,|,$},d~,,,$,d,,,$,d,,,,Ƚ,ŷ,ȿ,䏽,\ŷ,Ͻ,},4,ͽ,|.,.,.,Ľ,$Ž,dŽ,ɽ,\ɽ,ɽ,ɽ,ʽ,\ʽ,,D,,,,D,,,½,,,<,|,<,|,,,',4(,t(,(,(,4),t),),),4*,t*,*,*,4+,t+,+,+,4,,,-,D-,-,-,.,D.,.,.,/,D/,/,/, ,L,,,L,,,L,, ,L,,, ,L,,, ,L,,, ,L,,, ,L,,, ,L,,, ,L,,, ,L,,, ,L,,, ,L,[,[, \-L\-\-\- ]-L]-]-]- ^-L^ -^ -^ - _ -L_ -_-_- `-L`-`-`- a-La-a-a- b-Lb-b-b- c-Lc-c-c- d -Ld!-d"-d#- e$-Le%-e&-e'- f(-Lf)-f*-f+- g,-Lg--g.-g/- h0-Lh1-h2-h3- i4-Li5- 6-L 7- 8- !9-!:-!;- "<-L"=-">-"?- #@-L#A-#B-#C- $D-L$E-$F-$G- %H-L%I-%J-%K- &L-L&M-&N-&O- 'P-L'Q-'R-'S- (T-L(U-(V-(W- )X-L)Y-)Z-)[- *\-L*]-*^-*_- +`-L+a-+b-+c- ,d-L,e-,f-,g- -h-L-i--j--k- .l-L.m- n-L o- p- q- !r-L!s-!t-!u- "v-L"w-"x-"y- #z-L#{-#|-#}- $~-L$-$-$- %-L%-%-%- &-L&-&-&- '-L'-'-'- (-L(-(-(- )-L)-)-)- *-L*-*-*- +-L+-+-+- ,-,-,- --L------ .-L.- -L - - - !-L!-!-!- "-L"-"-"- #-L#-#-L$-$- %-L%-%-%- &-L&-&-&- '-L'-'-'- (-L(-(-(- )-L)-)-)- *-L*-*-*- +-L+-+-+- ,-L,-,-,- --L------ .-L.-.-.- /-L/-/--- -L--- -L--- -L - - - !-L!-!-!- "-L"-"-"- #-L#-#-#- $-L$-$-$. %.L%.%.%. &.L&.&.&. ' .L' .' .' . ( .L(.(.(. ).L).).). *.L*.*.*. +.L+.+.+. ,.L,.,., . -!.L-".-#.-$. .%.L.&..'..(.).*.,+.l,.-...,/.l0.1.2.,3.l4.5.6.,7.l8.9.:., ;. <. =.,!>.l!?.!@.!A.,"B.l"C."D.,#E.#F.#G.,$H.l$I.$J.l%K.%L.%M.,&N.l&O.&P.&Q.,'R.l'S.'T.'U.,(V.l(W.(X.(Y.,)Z.l)[.)\.)].,*^.l*_.*`.*a.,+b.l+c.+d.+e.,,f.l,g.,h.,i.,-j.l-k.-l.-m.,.n.l.o.qp.rq.Trr.rs.rt.su.Tsv.sw.sx.ty.Ttz.t{.t|.u}.Tu~.u.u.v.v.v.w.Tw.w.w.x.Tx.x.x.y.Ty.y.y.z.z.z.{.T{.{.{99]]ii  [[jjJJ]]**!!""-#-#..X5X55555f6f6888999999;;;)<)<==/=/=Y=Y=>>n?n?V@V@BBBBEEEEGGMWccPdPd>h>hLzLz!!( &ɣɣؤؤ j33;;ddcc??CC>>  ""##%%,a-n0n066{8{8?????P~QRRRRRSbb==\\jj  ll##*  ۸%99Ciit  ))eeLLqqiit [[guuvv66NNHHEEII_OOCCuu   $ $&&&&-00w1w1w4w449L:L:T:::::>>??W?W?DFG5I5IIIllqmqmmpnoorr?s?suuzzzz|_}##0\\ss@@00Ictt%++""+EEO00""**cclltTT==~~ggddKKTTMM  JJuu[[e>>~^ o   FF  xxHH   %%'&&*&*++55=6=6 8 899Q:Q:::;;,D,D4DDDDD8EFEEeFeFHHKKKK/K/K3K9KAKTKmPmPRR\\\      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123465789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXZY[_\]^`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$(%&')*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^`_abcdefghijklmnopqrstvuwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0213456789:;<=>?@ABFCDEGHIJKLMNFFddqqhhnn0WWee22!!""7#7#.._5_55555s6s6888#9#9B9B9;;;0<0<==3=3=d=d=>>u?u?^@^@BBBBEEEE$G$G_Wcc]d]dThThVzVz'22Ŏ2֣֣  n@@HHzzhh('IIIIEE    %""##%%,g-u0u06688???@@PQRRRRRSbbDDccnn  ss  )22$//BJJr~~  ̾̾11kkVVttoo  ,,fqq}}~~>>[[!!PPLLMMfWWHH$$&&''-00114449S:Z:Z:::::>>??a?a?D GG=I=IIIll}mmm{noorrLsLsuuzz{{|t}.==iiMM;;Up$,,//*22NVV66((00pps~~]]EEppllQQZZZZRR~dll.DDj |   ))SS~~QQ     %%1&3*3*++55J6J6-8-899^:^:::;;2D6D6DDDDDBEWEErFrF I I K KKK2K8K@KGKGKdKzPzPRR\\\  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123465789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXZY[]^_\`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$&'(%)*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^`_abcdefghijklmnopqrstvuwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0213456789:;<=>?@ABDEFCGHIJKLMN 9O*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace=L*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName=K*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType8>*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdate;3*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsaddress8G*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9N*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsStateB*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region:2*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsStreet8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagstime>*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PostalCode  01101112141516171917193219412200020012002222729330456789DayHourMinuteMonthYearONOLKONOGOGONONON>ONONONOGOG32OGOGOGOGOGOGOGONOOGONOGOLKOGOOOGOGOONOGOGOGOGON>ONON32OGOLK32GNOG> OG32ONOOONOOOOONONOOOGOGON32OG>ON>>OONOGOGOOONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONOOOOOOOOKLONOOGNOLKOOOOOLKOOLKOGNOONOGOGOOLLKOGOGOGOGONOGONOGOOOOOOOOOOGNOLLKOLKOOGOG32GNONOGOGOGOOONOGONOGOOGONONONONONOONONONONON>ONOGOOOOLK32OGOOGOG>  > > OGOGOGOKLOOGONONON32GNOOOGNOON3232ONOGOOOGOLKOLKOOLKOLKOOLKOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGONOGOGOLKOGOGOGOGOGONONOGONONOGOGOGOGONOGOGOLKOLK32>OGOGOGOGOO> >ONOGNONOLKOGOGOGOGOGOGNONOOON32OGON32ONONOGOOGNOGONO>OONONONONOKKLK> ONOGOG  b h o w tz w{y ~ ##))')/)7*7_7e777< <J<O<O>R>,A1AAAEEEEGHII+P3PRRW"W{XXl^t^cc^ihi:jAjmmesms:vAvEyJy\{d{{{}}MT&.6;ɀ܁")6>ltBH8=AF-4js '}jrw pxckt| %        ow7?CKfmV!^!""''''))))G1O122R6Z66688b9j9<<>%>>>??D!DpDxDE'EdElEHHHH}JJMKUKOO&P.PTTvT~TTTU U#U+UUU/V7V2W:W\\] ]^^8_@_Wa_abb,e4eneveKfSfffff gg.h6hEhMh3j;jqjyjllllmmm"mqqCsKs6y>y:zBz{{||}}~~M~U~k~s~QY"Ƃ΂.6AIem u}#bj(0%iq&}#+rz'bjɗϘטs{ *2qy՛ݛ|ƞ¢ʢ>FץߥӦۦ LT_dGO<D%-#CH|iqNU%&/aeKR (EL]a9>V^MVnzAFhm"'bgjov~<AHPO T <ADJDNU]fn  !!\"f")),,r.z.....L1R1223333'4-44444 555"5p7x7l8r8G9M999%:':`:g:;;;;H<O<V<^<^=d==>E>??w@}@@@CCCCCCGG&I,ILLLLYY\\`` aaaa1b;bddjjkkplxl0o8oooqq/r4r:rBrttouwuvvvvwwx xZxbxxx{{Q|X|!̆ӆˆ  M[Zb]c# .5#bk7>   Z`S[t ~       ! )     |  !!7777886;<;;;2===CCCCvD~DR R\\\;*+HNuxQ+[+445Q6Y6????A!BoNyNYY\\]]^^cc.d1d=dldgg{{||ӋՋkrA\dKgnlx1:%/l}nY\%&,&')-)N//Y Y]] a"acch,h%j1j>koknnCtt   ؄ڄʖϖWn.1 ɿ̿'4ADSU/5djSY6oK P uy#$X+_+115566==IIKK[[!k(ktqyq[}f}~~1uv!!m~oxJQvzʶ)uCp{v+-26DaLT!;=HL5 ? %3-5-U6\6I:_:<<E<tAACCRR9UFUZZ\3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333332I:`:?=Y=\\\\ Karen Shue Kelly Levan  \PZ0Jv-~viy'\8Co:YY} +a(2 I{|"&5n6d9I:`:!\\\@c)55Xie)e)\P@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial3z Times"qh[l&[lF\{X{X$24d[[H(?: Karen Shue Kelly LevanOh+'0X    ,8@HPss Karen ShueareNormalh Kelly Levan7llMicrosoft Word 10.0@(`T@R1@`{X՜.+,D՜.+,4 hp   Mass Newso[A  Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSA.X%mailto:mmoriarty@moriarty-connor.com  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{}~Root Entry F0T8Data 1Table!WordDocumentSummaryInformation(|DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q