A Severin-Scot Summit?

It’s time for Jay Severin and Scot Lehigh to settle things once and for all.

The libertarian Boston talk-radio star and the center-left Boston Globe columnist have been feuding for the last half-decade, with no end in sight. Lehigh, who has strongly criticized Severin for his statements about America’s efforts to stop terrorism and has raised questions about the WTKK-FM broadcaster’s biographical claims, is now involved in a new endeavor known as “Jay Watch.” Lehigh says this is “…an effort to assist WTKK’s putatively penitent p.m. host as he tries to clean up his act” (Severin recently returned to the airwaves after a month-long suspension for using excessive rhetorical force in describing Mexico’s role in the recent swine flu scare.) “…Jay Watch will focus on utterances that debase the dialogue, like Jay’s recent comments about Mexicans. Declarations that this group or that person should be killed also qualify. So, too, do the misogynistic terms that Jay applies to women he disdains. I know that the odds against success are long. Still, elementary civility is worth the effort. So let’s try to help Jay with his resolution to stop polluting our airwaves.”

Lehigh probably shouldn’t waste his time on “Jay Watch.” This initiative will only result in more hostile e-mails in Lehigh’s in-box and a furtherance of the perception that Lehigh and the Globe have an ideological axe to grind with the main promoter of “Extreme Games.” Instead, how about Lehigh and Severin resolving their differences on-air?

A conversation between Severin and Lehigh would not only make for great radio, it would also heal whatever damage both men’s images have suffered in the eyes of their philosophical opponents. Let’s face it: the average Lehigh fan regards Severin as a right-wing reactionary, and the average Severin fan regards Lehigh as a member of the self-righteous elite liberal media. If both men had a civil conversation on WTKK, it might shatter both stereotypes.

Severin would be able to answer the questions Lehigh has raised about his biographical claims and incendiary language. In addition, Lehigh could respond to the constant claims by members of Severin’s hardcore fan base that he would like nothing more than to drive Severin and other non-liberals off the air.

Severin is big on apologies these days. Wouldn’t it be something if he apologized to the man he once characterized as a “pant-load?” Wouldn’t it be fascinating to hear these two rhetorical rivals attempt to find common ground?

“I’ve long been a critic of Severin’s crude, bombastic, xenophobic discourse,” Lehigh wrote last month. “Over the years, I have highlighted a few of his more blatant lies, outrages, and inventions because I thought his listeners should know what a bigot and a fraud he was.” Hearing Severin directly respond to Lehigh’s claims would allow other Severin skeptics to gain new insight into the controversial commentator.

Lehigh would also change a few minds. Lehigh is the E. J. Dionne of the Globe, a clear thinker who can challenge conservatives without furthering the degeneration of discourse. Say what you will about Lehigh’s perspective, but he wasn’t the one who compared climate-change skeptics to Holocaust deniers.

Severin should ask Lehigh to walk over to the WTKK studios and finally put this dispute behind them. Hearing Severin and Lehigh discuss their grievances would be good for ratings, good for radio, good for rationality. Both men have something to contribute to the public square. Neither man should remain the other’s villain.

UPDATE: More from WGBH.

“…we’re in a fiscal crisis and they’re lucky to be employed.”

According to a Boston Globe story reported by Andrea Estes, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick wants a “do-over”. Specifically:

Governor Deval Patrick in recent weeks approved state union contracts that grant 7 percent raises to tens of thousands of employees over the next three years, but, with the ink barely dry, the deteriorating economic forecast has already forced him to seek concessions.

Those of you living and working in the private sector probably wonder how the state could afford these raises to begin with. Good question. A&F secretary Leslie Kirwan says that it is “unprecedented” for state workers to go without raises in a given year. Again, the private sector denizens wonder why since they frequently do without raises in a given year.

“We would be adamantly opposed to giving up any of the contract increases,” said David Holway, president of the National Association of Government Employees, which represents 10,000 state workers. “They’re slim enough.”

Huh??? Aren’t we all in this together Mr. Holway; are you paying attention to the world around you? Apparently not; or perhaps the only world he cares about involves sucking on the public teat.

The story isn’t entirely bad; out of pocket health contributions for state employees are going to increase, as they should. After all, the benefit accrues to the individual employee, doesn’t it?

Administration officials also pointed out that health costs are likely to increase for almost all state employees starting next year. Patrick proposed increasing their 15 percent contributions to 20 percent or 25 percent, depending on their salaries.

Let it never be forgotten however, that the Public Employee Union tail wags the public policy/tax payer dog.

Stephen F. Lynch – A Profile in Leadership

From an editorial standpoint, we here at Massachusetts NewsPlatoon wholeheartedly support the principles of modest and efficient government, personal responsibility, individual liberty, and self-reliance. History shows that these principles have demonstrable utility, therefore it is our considered judgement that societies whose public policies hew most closely to the aforementioned ideals will succeed in providing the greatest good to the greatest number of individuals living within those societies. Unfortunately, the Massachusetts Congressional delegation, taken as a whole, promotes an expansionist central bureaucracy that is immeasurably at odds with the advance of individual liberty and prosperity.

Occasionally however a clear voice arises from the political clamor and this time it belongs to Stephen F. Lynch, whose soundings of late come as a pleasant surprise. Lynch began his federal congressional career in 2001, representing Massachusetts’ 9th Congressional district,  and on more than one occasion since that time has demonstrated a level of wisdom and sound judgement that is both refreshing and rare amongst the modern-day cabal dominating political discourse.

A notable case in point is Lynch’s strident vote against the initial Wall Street bailout, a difficult and seemingly unpopular position to take given the considerable pressure to hew the party line (party in this case meaning bailout). While America’s financial markets were roiling under the weight of previously misguided public policy decisions, Lynch rose above the fear-mongering to oppose Treasury Secretary Paulson’s overwrought proposal. To his everlasting credit, Lynch twice declined to support the Emergency Stabilization Act of 2008, one of only two Massachusetts congressmen to do so. He wisely based his opposition on an aversion to placing taxpayer dollars at risk for the “sins” of others and a lingering concern that the “cure” might ultimately prove more harmful than the problem itself.  We wish that Senator John McCain (R,AZ) had demonstrated a similar degree of leadership and foresight, but that’s an issue for another day.

Lynch’s latest act of grace under fire concerns the fate of The Boston Globe, an institution literally near (the Globe resides in his district) the his  heart. On April 24, 2009, the Massachusetts Congressional delegation (House and Senate), in yet another dubious exercise, endorsed a letter to Globe parent/owner Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr., requesting that he keep the paper open. While all nine Democrats signed the letter without reservation, Lynch declined to follow, wisely citing “conflict of interest” concerns. Such concerns should be obvious to all thinking men and women: there MUST be a wall of separation between elected officials and the journalists and publications who cover them.

The skeptics among us, never in short supply, might attribute Lynch’s decision-making to naked self interest. He has truthfully signaled his intentions to become the next U.S. Senator from Massachusetts. To bolster his resume, he has added a healthy dose of foreign travel, including visits to Iraq, India, Syria and Morocco. These expeditions certainly won’t diminish his Senatorial ambitions. Neither will establishing a record of independence, courage, integrity and good judgement. The Massachusetts Congressional delegation has survived in large part on an unhealthy diet of group think and stale paradigms. Lynch’s ability to break out of this mindset is welcome, and we encourage more of the same.

Revenue problem or….SPENDING problem?

According to this Boston Globe article, “Political momentum builds for state sales tax increase”. Indeed; and so the Massachusetts Welfare State continues its efforts to stave off a death it well deserves, the talk turns toward tax increases, again. No talk of meaningful spending reforms that will address the inherent STRUCTURAL inefficiencies characteristic of most government/state bureaucracies. These reforms include Pacheco Law repeal, Project Labor Agreement termination, and sale of the MBTA (rife with corruption and inefficiency) for starters. It goes without saying that the public employee pension gravy train has run its course. Time for these folks to get off the dole and try living in the real world, where pensions are largely a relic of the past. In its essence, Massachusetts has a spending  problem and not a revenue problem. Let genuine reform begin before anyone searches for “new” revenue.

Carbon Copy (or, Stop the Presses!)

There are a number of obvious downsides to the idea of the Boston Globe following in the footsteps of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and going to an online-only format. However, there would be one obvious upside: it would be so much better for the environment.

A carbon-neutral Globe would be a less hypocritical Globe, would it not? The paper is clearly on the side of the environmentalist left: one star Globe columnist, Ellen Goodman, infamously wrote two years ago that “…we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”

Presumably, Goodman is somewhat troubled by the amount of resources that must be consumed by the Globe in order to distribute her words of wisdom to the masses. So why not ease Goodman’s conscience? The environmentalist left would applaud the Globe if it decided to go online-only.

The Globe shouldn’t be alone in this effort to go carbon-neutral. Imagine how many physical resources could be saved if the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today became online-only operations. Despite the failure of the Times‘ TimesSelect concept a few years back, these entities could develop an effective way to charge for content: I’d certainly pay to read David Brooks and Jeff Jacoby.

From a certain perspective, the American newspaper industry has been one of the most irresponsible business entities around with regard to its treatment of the environment. Once the Internet became popular in earnest, why didn’t these media entities consider moving to an online-only format in the name of protecting the environment? At least a decade’s worth of resource consumption could have been avoided. The newspaper business should have been more proactive on this issue in the late-1990s; perhaps the industry would have avoided some of the perils it is currently experiencing.

Consider the activism of another liberal-leaning industry on environmental issues. For the last few years Hollywood has made an effort to reduce the number of natural resources consumed by film and television productions. The television show 24 and the 2008 films The Incredible Hulk and the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still are prominent examples of productions where efforts were made to limit resource consumption.

Hollywood understood that there’s nothing more important than putting one’s money where one’s mouth is in terms of environmental consciousness. Wouldn’t it be something if the Globe and other major newspapers did the same?

Yes, if the Globe went online-only it would be a break with tradition. So what? We break with tradition all the time in this society because we determine that there are certain values more important than tradition. The concept of same-sex marriage, for example, is a break with tradition, but the Boston Globe itself has advocated this concept, on the grounds that equal treatment under the law for gays and lesbians is a more important value than tradition.

If going online-only is too radical of a change right now, perhaps the Globe should just gradually reduce the number of papers the company prints daily until enough Bay Staters have become accustomed to going to the website first. Incrementalism is the coin of the realm for the left, no? Perhaps incrementalism could work in this case.

An eventual movement to an online-only format wouldn’t really be a burden for most Bay Staters, would it? How many Massachusetts residents already use Boston.com to read the paper instead of buying the physical copy? Heck, how many Massachusetts residents already think of the Boston Globe as an online-only operation?

If the Boston Globe really wants to save the planet, it should seriously consider moving to an online-only format. The nation’s other major newspapers should also think about being effective stewards of the environment in this manner.

Dump Deval – One More Reason

As we have said before, Grace Ross would make a more appealing governor than the current occupant. Deval Patrick has been and is an abject failure as a governor. With the notable exception of auto insurance competition, Patrick’s tenure has been devoid of substantive policy initiatives. He has abrogated and/or ignored many of the themes and principles on which his candidacy was established. Essentially, he has become the thing he once claimed to abhor: A Beacon Hill insider. From the ridiculous (the Cadillac, the drapes, the furniture) to the seedy (Aloisi, the book deal, the “trivial” remark, the trip to Jamaica, Marian Walsh), the Governor is one of the most maladroit, tone deaf and insolent individuals ever to inhabit the political realm. And in Massachusetts, that’s saying a LOT. Now we have l’affair Marian Walsh, and a new set of adjectives to ascribe to the Patrick administration: prevaricators, fabricators, dissemblers. We can only hope that the administrations travails and subsequent collapse in public support comes not too soon for there is one more adjective to be added: “EX Governor Deval Patrick”. The sooner the better.