Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
PAYT saves municipal dollars
Responsible fiscal management includes making necessary changes wherever possible as this article highlights. With little effort, that's a pretty impressive savings.
The program so far has saved the city upwards of $1 million in disposal fees, and has increased recycling four-fold since the program was implemented,
PAYT reduced per-household trash costs in Malden by $41.93, and saved the city about $800,000 in disposal fees, based on figures from the first five months of the program’s implementation.
Malden officials on pay-as-you throw panel reignites old fight
By Matt Byrne, Town Correspondent
As a handful of city officials are expected to praise pay-as-you-throw trash disposal at a panel discussion for waste industry professionals later this month, a group of Malden taxpayers have continued to fight the measure, which they say was implemented at the 11th hour and without the necessary citizen input.
Robert Miller, founder of Malden Taxpayers for Accountability, a nonprofit watchdog group that attempted unsuccessfully to repeal the trash program with a November 2009 ballot question, said the program amounts to an end-run around a long-standing state law against raising property taxes.
“We’re not against recycling, what we’re against is the way it was implemented,” said Miller in a telephone interview. “And a lot of my people still believe it’s an override of proposition 2 ½.”
"We put in place a program that is recommended by the DEP and EPA," said Mayor Richard Howard, of the continuing criticism of the PAYT program. The program so far has saved the city upwards of $1 million in disposal fees, and has increased recycling four-fold since the program was implemented, he said.
"As for the legitimacy, they can argue that same point in the 200-some other communities where they have similar programs. I think that argument falls on deaf ears, to some degree," Howard said.
Judi Bucci, city councilor for Ward 8, said she agrees that how the program was first implemented could have been better, but those criticisms are in the past.
“I think that clearly we have heard the message from the public that the way in which the program came to fruition as policy was not done as transparent as folks would have liked to have seen it,” Bucci said in telephone interview. “That was three years ago. I think we all need to move on from it. And I think all of the work we have been doing since then, all of the budget deliberations, have been in adherence with what the taxpayers have said they want to see.”
Pay-as-you-throw charges Malden residents $20 or $10 for official city bags to dispose of household waste. Under the program, recycling is free and is encouraged. According to a 2009 Environmental Protection Agency bulletin, PAYT reduced per-household trash costs in Malden by $41.93, and saved the city about $800,000 in disposal fees, based on figures from the first five months of the program’s implementation. Those savings have since increased, according to Howard.
Scheduled to speak at the conference Aug. 15-17 in Boston are Charlie Toomajian, special assistant to the mayor; Deborah Burke, Malden project director; Jeff Manship, Malden Director of Public Works; and Bob Knox, Malden compliance supervisor.
The panel discussion is part of the Solid Waste Association of North America’s annual convention
Toomajian, Burke, Manship, and Knox were not available for comment.
A representative for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection said that PAYT is an effective way for communities to significantly reduce their recycling costs statewide.
“In these tight fiscal times, any costs saved at landfills or waste disposal plants can really help community budgets,” said Joe Ferson, spokesman for the Massachusetts DEP. “The department supports and [PAYT has] shown to improve our recycling by 15 to 25 percent, and decreased the amount of solid waste disposal by about 25 to 40 percent.”
Also scheduled to speak at the convention is Mark Dancy, president and CEO of Waste Zero, a South Carolina company contracted by Malden through the state to produce and stock the official bags. Dancy said that initial resistance to PAYT can be sizable, but residents often eventually see the long-term benefits.
“It takes a while for people to come around to understand that if each individual person is more responsible, it helps reduce cost,” Dancy said.
The program so far has saved the city upwards of $1 million in disposal fees, and has increased recycling four-fold since the program was implemented,
PAYT reduced per-household trash costs in Malden by $41.93, and saved the city about $800,000 in disposal fees, based on figures from the first five months of the program’s implementation.
Malden officials on pay-as-you throw panel reignites old fight
By Matt Byrne, Town Correspondent
As a handful of city officials are expected to praise pay-as-you-throw trash disposal at a panel discussion for waste industry professionals later this month, a group of Malden taxpayers have continued to fight the measure, which they say was implemented at the 11th hour and without the necessary citizen input.
Robert Miller, founder of Malden Taxpayers for Accountability, a nonprofit watchdog group that attempted unsuccessfully to repeal the trash program with a November 2009 ballot question, said the program amounts to an end-run around a long-standing state law against raising property taxes.
“We’re not against recycling, what we’re against is the way it was implemented,” said Miller in a telephone interview. “And a lot of my people still believe it’s an override of proposition 2 ½.”
"We put in place a program that is recommended by the DEP and EPA," said Mayor Richard Howard, of the continuing criticism of the PAYT program. The program so far has saved the city upwards of $1 million in disposal fees, and has increased recycling four-fold since the program was implemented, he said.
"As for the legitimacy, they can argue that same point in the 200-some other communities where they have similar programs. I think that argument falls on deaf ears, to some degree," Howard said.
Judi Bucci, city councilor for Ward 8, said she agrees that how the program was first implemented could have been better, but those criticisms are in the past.
“I think that clearly we have heard the message from the public that the way in which the program came to fruition as policy was not done as transparent as folks would have liked to have seen it,” Bucci said in telephone interview. “That was three years ago. I think we all need to move on from it. And I think all of the work we have been doing since then, all of the budget deliberations, have been in adherence with what the taxpayers have said they want to see.”
Pay-as-you-throw charges Malden residents $20 or $10 for official city bags to dispose of household waste. Under the program, recycling is free and is encouraged. According to a 2009 Environmental Protection Agency bulletin, PAYT reduced per-household trash costs in Malden by $41.93, and saved the city about $800,000 in disposal fees, based on figures from the first five months of the program’s implementation. Those savings have since increased, according to Howard.
Scheduled to speak at the conference Aug. 15-17 in Boston are Charlie Toomajian, special assistant to the mayor; Deborah Burke, Malden project director; Jeff Manship, Malden Director of Public Works; and Bob Knox, Malden compliance supervisor.
The panel discussion is part of the Solid Waste Association of North America’s annual convention
Toomajian, Burke, Manship, and Knox were not available for comment.
A representative for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection said that PAYT is an effective way for communities to significantly reduce their recycling costs statewide.
“In these tight fiscal times, any costs saved at landfills or waste disposal plants can really help community budgets,” said Joe Ferson, spokesman for the Massachusetts DEP. “The department supports and [PAYT has] shown to improve our recycling by 15 to 25 percent, and decreased the amount of solid waste disposal by about 25 to 40 percent.”
Also scheduled to speak at the convention is Mark Dancy, president and CEO of Waste Zero, a South Carolina company contracted by Malden through the state to produce and stock the official bags. Dancy said that initial resistance to PAYT can be sizable, but residents often eventually see the long-term benefits.
“It takes a while for people to come around to understand that if each individual person is more responsible, it helps reduce cost,” Dancy said.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Where is the Outrage.....
Where is the Outrage that those whose policies and actions were most responsible for America’s worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, have spent the past 20 months blocking virtually every job creation bill, business development bill, and economic stimulus bill intended to speed The Recovery?
Where is the Outrage that they repeatedly said: “No”, “No”, “No” – while over 10,000,000 Americans lost their homes, their jobs, their life savings?
Where is the Outrage that they chose to spend their time trying to make America’s President fail, instead of spending their time trying to make America succeed?
Where is the Outrage that instead of using their influence to help Americans get out from beneath the crushing weight of the economic collapse, they used it to block The Recovery – for fear that a recovery credited to the Democrats would spell political devastation for the Republican Party for years to come?
Where is the Outrage that they deliberately lied, distorted the truth and misrepresented the facts on issue after issue – for the benefit of their own political interests – and the detriment of ordinary Americans?
Where is the Outrage that their leaders promoted fear . . . anger . . . hatred . . . and divisiveness – instead of offering solutions?
Where is the Outrage that in a time of severe economic crisis for the American people, they decided that it was better to rip this country in two – turning neighbor against neighbor; sister against brother; American against American – rather than bring us together?
Where is the Outrage that they played politics with people’s lives?
Unlike their attempts to hijack public forums by encouraging followers to shout, scream and brandish weapons to intimidate those with opposing viewpoints – there is only one suitable way for you and I to express OUR outrage – and that’s at the voting booth on Tuesday, November 2nd.
Tell them how outraged you are that they chose to ignore the pleas and cries of their fellow Americans in order to further their own political goals.
Tell them with your vote.
Where is the Outrage that they repeatedly said: “No”, “No”, “No” – while over 10,000,000 Americans lost their homes, their jobs, their life savings?
Where is the Outrage that they chose to spend their time trying to make America’s President fail, instead of spending their time trying to make America succeed?
Where is the Outrage that instead of using their influence to help Americans get out from beneath the crushing weight of the economic collapse, they used it to block The Recovery – for fear that a recovery credited to the Democrats would spell political devastation for the Republican Party for years to come?
Where is the Outrage that they deliberately lied, distorted the truth and misrepresented the facts on issue after issue – for the benefit of their own political interests – and the detriment of ordinary Americans?
Where is the Outrage that their leaders promoted fear . . . anger . . . hatred . . . and divisiveness – instead of offering solutions?
Where is the Outrage that in a time of severe economic crisis for the American people, they decided that it was better to rip this country in two – turning neighbor against neighbor; sister against brother; American against American – rather than bring us together?
Where is the Outrage that they played politics with people’s lives?
Unlike their attempts to hijack public forums by encouraging followers to shout, scream and brandish weapons to intimidate those with opposing viewpoints – there is only one suitable way for you and I to express OUR outrage – and that’s at the voting booth on Tuesday, November 2nd.
Tell them how outraged you are that they chose to ignore the pleas and cries of their fellow Americans in order to further their own political goals.
Tell them with your vote.
Talking Trash
There are certain things that can be accomplished to reduce your carbon footprint, or put another way, reduce what you schlep to the curb and pay for with you tax dollars.
Personally, we're not there yet, but had additional lazy motives for pursuing the issues.
Why should I have to take plastic shopping bags either to the 'curb' or in my case, down a 1500 foot driveway?
There's also my pet peeve - JUNK MAIL that filled my mailbox, invaded my home, and forced me to remove my identifying information to discard or shred. Another 'laziness' project ensued. Why should I have to take this unwanted crap into my house, invest my time to dispose of it? It was a lengthy project to reduce the volume and succeeded, except for the volume originating from Sean Bielat.
OK! So, it began with laziness, not solely environmental responsibility.
If there's another simple way, why not consider it?
Looking around at the mounds of trash put out each week, it's pretty astounding.
For awhile, we 'recycled' our plastic bags which meant remembering to take them next trip to the supermarket. Another project tackled from laziness.
And then I looked up the cost of municipal trash collection in the Annual Town Report and it seemed a 'no brainer' to reduce our contribution.
Frankly, it's disappointing that no active campaign has ever been conducted in Middleboro, but the Town Fathers/Mothers have enough difficulty addressing a Town Hall that consumes 5 times what other comparable buildings do. Not so enlightened, this crew! As former members of the Committee to Design the Camel, I hold out little hope.
In the MASSPIRG newsletter (worth reading in its entirety), the following was included:
"Zero Waste" Plan Needs Work
Forty years after the first Earth Day, we are still burying or burning more than half our waste. MASSPIRG has been urging the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to adopt a solid waste plan that emphasizes recycling and strives for a goal of zero waste. And, on July 2, the DEP released the draft Solid Waste Master Plan, the state’s blueprint for dealing with waste for the next decade.
The draft, called “The Pathway to Zero Waste,” certainly pursues zero waste in name, but does not move quickly enough to address our trash problem. The plan has set a goal of 80 percent reduction in waste by 2050, which is about 20 years too long. Plus, the draft includes loopholes that permit certain types of waste burning in a statewide ban on new incineration.
Campaign Builds Momentum
During the last year, MASSPIRG has collected and delivered 15,000 signatures to DEP Commissioner Laurie Burt asking for a Master Plan that firmly sets the Commonwealth on the road to zero waste.
In response to the draft plan issued on July 2, we have ramped up our campaign to educate the public about the plan’s contents—both its strengths and weaknesses—and encourage people to participate in the public hearings, outline our concerns to DEP as they consider public input, and generate media attention for an issue that affects every citizen in the Commonwealth for the next 10 years and beyond. To that end, we held a press event with members of HealthLink in Saugus on July 26 in front of one of the bigger incinerators in the state.
The event was attended by state Sen. Sal DiDomenico, who represents the area. The event preceded the public hearing held the next day in Boston, at which many MASSPIRG staff and volunteers testified. In addition, activists held a press event at the public hearing in Worcester on July 27 that drew local media.
To me, what seemed like a "no brainer" sure didn't seem like a Right Wing Pro-Trash Vulture endeaver.
That is, until I found Jeff Jacoby's propaganda! Phwew!
Get excited about recycling? Not me
By Jeff Jacoby
‘GET EXCITED about Single Stream!’’ trills the flyer that comes from Brookline Town Hall. A letter from the commissioner of public works hails the “exciting change’’ beginning next month, when town residents will no longer be required to sort their recyclable trash into separate blue bins — one for paper, the other for cans, bottles, and plastic containers. Instead recyclables will all go into 64-gallon “toters,’’ which will be emptied at curbside on trash day.
But the excitement of this eludes me, so I turn to the enclosed information sheet. A list of “frequently asked questions’’ and a letter from the town’s Solid Waste Advisory Committee — and what would town life be without one of those? — assures me that single stream does away with “guesswork,’’ making trash-disposal easier than ever. “By eliminating sorting,’’ it reports, the new system may boost recycling rates by 30 percent or more. In large boldface print, it urges: “Get Excited!’’
I gaze at the brightly colored “Single-Stream Recycling Guide,’’ with its illustrated array of trash items that can all go in the “toter’’ without sorting. There are pictures of bottle caps and egg cartons, books and tin cans, plastic jugs and newspapers. “All Together Now!’’ the leaflet proclaims.
Then I start reading the fine print. It turns out that when the town says it is “eliminating sorting,’’ what it means is that glass bottles and jars can be recycled, but not drinking glasses or window glass. It means plastic tubs are OK to toss in the toter, but plastic bags aren’t. It means that while cardboard boxes must be flattened, milk and juice cartons must not be flattened. Reams of office paper are fine, but not the wrappers they came in. Tinfoil should be crushed into balls of 2 inches or larger; tin cans shouldn’t be crushed at all. I don’t think the green police will haul me off in handcuffs if I try to recycle an ice cream carton or a pizza box, but the town has warned that “there will be fines’’ for residents whose “recycling protocols’’ don’t measure up to “basic community standards.’’
Excited? Not.
To be fair, things could be worse. Clevelanders will soon have to use recycling carts equipped with radio-frequency ID chips, the Plain Dealer reported last month. These will enable the city to remotely monitor residents’ compliance with recycling regulations. “If a chip shows a recyclable cart hasn’t been brought to the curb in weeks, a trash supervisor will sort through the trash for recyclables. Trash carts containing more than 10 percent recyclable material could lead to a $100 fine.’’ In Britain, where a similar system is already in place, fines can reach as high as $1,500.
San Franciscans, meanwhile, must sort their garbage into three color-coded bins — blue for recycling, green for compost, and black for trash — and scofflaws who pitch teabags or coffee grounds into the wrong bin can be fined. In other cities, residents must bag their trash in clear plastic, lest they be tempted to toss recyclables out with the garbage.
Does any of this make sense? It certainly isn’t economically rational. Unlike commercial and industrial recycling — a thriving voluntary market that annually salvages tens of millions of tons of metal, paper, glass, and plastic — mandatory household recycling is a money loser. Cost studies show that curbside recycling can cost, on average, 60 percent more per ton than conventional garbage disposal. In 2004, an analysis by New York’s Independent Budget Office concluded, according to The New York Times, that “it cost anywhere from $34 to $48 a ton more to recycle material, than to send it off to landfills or incinerators.’’
“There is not a community curbside recycling program in the United States that covers its cost,’’ says Jay Lehr, science director at the Heartland Institute and author of a handbook on environmental science. They exist primarily to make people “feel warm and fuzzy about what they are doing for the environment.’’
But if recycling household trash makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy, why does it have to be compulsory? Mandatory recycling programs “force people to squander valuable resources in a quixotic quest to save what they would sensibly discard,’’ writes Clemson University economist Daniel K. Benjamin. “On balance, recycling programs lower our wealth.’’ Now whose idea of exciting is that?
Although Jacoby's comments are straight from a Right Wing Think Tank Handbook, what is disheartening is continued reliance on Heartland Institute. Next thing, he'll resume the arguments presented by Big Tobacco and their paid scientists to tell us smoking is really good for us.
Are we willing to allow Big Corporations to dictate sensible policies and govern our future? Beacon Hill has bottled up an expanded Bottle Bill because of Big Corporations. When do we resume that "Government for the people...." thing?
Isn't that what Tuesday's vote is about?
Personally, we're not there yet, but had additional lazy motives for pursuing the issues.
Why should I have to take plastic shopping bags either to the 'curb' or in my case, down a 1500 foot driveway?
There's also my pet peeve - JUNK MAIL that filled my mailbox, invaded my home, and forced me to remove my identifying information to discard or shred. Another 'laziness' project ensued. Why should I have to take this unwanted crap into my house, invest my time to dispose of it? It was a lengthy project to reduce the volume and succeeded, except for the volume originating from Sean Bielat.
OK! So, it began with laziness, not solely environmental responsibility.
If there's another simple way, why not consider it?
Looking around at the mounds of trash put out each week, it's pretty astounding.
For awhile, we 'recycled' our plastic bags which meant remembering to take them next trip to the supermarket. Another project tackled from laziness.
And then I looked up the cost of municipal trash collection in the Annual Town Report and it seemed a 'no brainer' to reduce our contribution.
Frankly, it's disappointing that no active campaign has ever been conducted in Middleboro, but the Town Fathers/Mothers have enough difficulty addressing a Town Hall that consumes 5 times what other comparable buildings do. Not so enlightened, this crew! As former members of the Committee to Design the Camel, I hold out little hope.
In the MASSPIRG newsletter (worth reading in its entirety), the following was included:
"Zero Waste" Plan Needs Work
Forty years after the first Earth Day, we are still burying or burning more than half our waste. MASSPIRG has been urging the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to adopt a solid waste plan that emphasizes recycling and strives for a goal of zero waste. And, on July 2, the DEP released the draft Solid Waste Master Plan, the state’s blueprint for dealing with waste for the next decade.
The draft, called “The Pathway to Zero Waste,” certainly pursues zero waste in name, but does not move quickly enough to address our trash problem. The plan has set a goal of 80 percent reduction in waste by 2050, which is about 20 years too long. Plus, the draft includes loopholes that permit certain types of waste burning in a statewide ban on new incineration.
Campaign Builds Momentum
During the last year, MASSPIRG has collected and delivered 15,000 signatures to DEP Commissioner Laurie Burt asking for a Master Plan that firmly sets the Commonwealth on the road to zero waste.
In response to the draft plan issued on July 2, we have ramped up our campaign to educate the public about the plan’s contents—both its strengths and weaknesses—and encourage people to participate in the public hearings, outline our concerns to DEP as they consider public input, and generate media attention for an issue that affects every citizen in the Commonwealth for the next 10 years and beyond. To that end, we held a press event with members of HealthLink in Saugus on July 26 in front of one of the bigger incinerators in the state.
The event was attended by state Sen. Sal DiDomenico, who represents the area. The event preceded the public hearing held the next day in Boston, at which many MASSPIRG staff and volunteers testified. In addition, activists held a press event at the public hearing in Worcester on July 27 that drew local media.
To me, what seemed like a "no brainer" sure didn't seem like a Right Wing Pro-Trash Vulture endeaver.
That is, until I found Jeff Jacoby's propaganda! Phwew!
Get excited about recycling? Not me
By Jeff Jacoby
‘GET EXCITED about Single Stream!’’ trills the flyer that comes from Brookline Town Hall. A letter from the commissioner of public works hails the “exciting change’’ beginning next month, when town residents will no longer be required to sort their recyclable trash into separate blue bins — one for paper, the other for cans, bottles, and plastic containers. Instead recyclables will all go into 64-gallon “toters,’’ which will be emptied at curbside on trash day.
But the excitement of this eludes me, so I turn to the enclosed information sheet. A list of “frequently asked questions’’ and a letter from the town’s Solid Waste Advisory Committee — and what would town life be without one of those? — assures me that single stream does away with “guesswork,’’ making trash-disposal easier than ever. “By eliminating sorting,’’ it reports, the new system may boost recycling rates by 30 percent or more. In large boldface print, it urges: “Get Excited!’’
I gaze at the brightly colored “Single-Stream Recycling Guide,’’ with its illustrated array of trash items that can all go in the “toter’’ without sorting. There are pictures of bottle caps and egg cartons, books and tin cans, plastic jugs and newspapers. “All Together Now!’’ the leaflet proclaims.
Then I start reading the fine print. It turns out that when the town says it is “eliminating sorting,’’ what it means is that glass bottles and jars can be recycled, but not drinking glasses or window glass. It means plastic tubs are OK to toss in the toter, but plastic bags aren’t. It means that while cardboard boxes must be flattened, milk and juice cartons must not be flattened. Reams of office paper are fine, but not the wrappers they came in. Tinfoil should be crushed into balls of 2 inches or larger; tin cans shouldn’t be crushed at all. I don’t think the green police will haul me off in handcuffs if I try to recycle an ice cream carton or a pizza box, but the town has warned that “there will be fines’’ for residents whose “recycling protocols’’ don’t measure up to “basic community standards.’’
Excited? Not.
To be fair, things could be worse. Clevelanders will soon have to use recycling carts equipped with radio-frequency ID chips, the Plain Dealer reported last month. These will enable the city to remotely monitor residents’ compliance with recycling regulations. “If a chip shows a recyclable cart hasn’t been brought to the curb in weeks, a trash supervisor will sort through the trash for recyclables. Trash carts containing more than 10 percent recyclable material could lead to a $100 fine.’’ In Britain, where a similar system is already in place, fines can reach as high as $1,500.
San Franciscans, meanwhile, must sort their garbage into three color-coded bins — blue for recycling, green for compost, and black for trash — and scofflaws who pitch teabags or coffee grounds into the wrong bin can be fined. In other cities, residents must bag their trash in clear plastic, lest they be tempted to toss recyclables out with the garbage.
Does any of this make sense? It certainly isn’t economically rational. Unlike commercial and industrial recycling — a thriving voluntary market that annually salvages tens of millions of tons of metal, paper, glass, and plastic — mandatory household recycling is a money loser. Cost studies show that curbside recycling can cost, on average, 60 percent more per ton than conventional garbage disposal. In 2004, an analysis by New York’s Independent Budget Office concluded, according to The New York Times, that “it cost anywhere from $34 to $48 a ton more to recycle material, than to send it off to landfills or incinerators.’’
“There is not a community curbside recycling program in the United States that covers its cost,’’ says Jay Lehr, science director at the Heartland Institute and author of a handbook on environmental science. They exist primarily to make people “feel warm and fuzzy about what they are doing for the environment.’’
But if recycling household trash makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy, why does it have to be compulsory? Mandatory recycling programs “force people to squander valuable resources in a quixotic quest to save what they would sensibly discard,’’ writes Clemson University economist Daniel K. Benjamin. “On balance, recycling programs lower our wealth.’’ Now whose idea of exciting is that?
Although Jacoby's comments are straight from a Right Wing Think Tank Handbook, what is disheartening is continued reliance on Heartland Institute. Next thing, he'll resume the arguments presented by Big Tobacco and their paid scientists to tell us smoking is really good for us.
Are we willing to allow Big Corporations to dictate sensible policies and govern our future? Beacon Hill has bottled up an expanded Bottle Bill because of Big Corporations. When do we resume that "Government for the people...." thing?
Isn't that what Tuesday's vote is about?
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Damn you, Sean!
Sean, I'm making a contribution to Congressman Frank campaign each time I receive your glossy brochure or a phone call from you.
Damn you, Sean!
I can't afford this!
I received yet another misleading Tea Party propaganda flyer today.
Do you have too much money? Where's it coming from? How expensive are those mailings?
We recycle as much as we can and we can't even recycle the crap you're sending.
Sean, when will it stop?
We've already determined that you're incapable of discussing the issues other than repeating mindless pap.
We watched you on Braude. You looked like an uninformed snot-nosed kid.
Damn you, Sean!
I can't afford this!
I received yet another misleading Tea Party propaganda flyer today.
Do you have too much money? Where's it coming from? How expensive are those mailings?
We recycle as much as we can and we can't even recycle the crap you're sending.
Sean, when will it stop?
We've already determined that you're incapable of discussing the issues other than repeating mindless pap.
We watched you on Braude. You looked like an uninformed snot-nosed kid.
Sean: You're Cute!
but cute doesn't cut it when it comes to my vote and the issues.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Indecision 2010 - Revenge of the Fallen - Sean Bielat & Ken Buck | ||||
| ||||
We attended the forum at Taunton High School at which President Clinton spoke, raised many salient economic issues....well, like he left office with a budget surplus, businesses are currently holding $1 Trillion in cash, banks are currently holding almost $ 2 Trillion in cash - there's our recovery.
And much else.
Your handful of 'supporters' were disruptive, rude, boarding on threatening and unacceptable in my opinion.
As a candidate, YOU set the tone.
Sorry, Sean! I've gone door to door in hostile neighborhoods and been respectful. It's the American Way.
You stood on the Taunton Green with....was it 6 supporters?
Over the years, lest you believe I am similar to your uninformed followers, I have watched Congressman Frank's vote via megavote. There have been issues that I have questioned and invariably, I have received a timely response/explanation.
Over the years, I've needed federal reports and information and assistance.
When Tip O'Neill (you've heard of him, right?) said all politics is local, that was an understatement.
Congressman Frank's Office is unparalleled when it comes to constituent services.
Congressman Frank has always supported important environmental issues.
You might not believe it's important, but when the Corporate Thugs destroy the environment, what have we?
Now, that brings me to you.
You've never held office. You're unknown and I won't hold big ears against you (no pun intended) since you don't have a problem with "short."
But, Sean, you've filled my mailbox with expensive glossy brochures, sometimes more than one in a day.
Who is paying for those, Sean? Those glossy brochures are filled with inflammatory drivel that misinforms.
I can't wait for the campaign filings!
You've harassed me with phone calls - yes, Sean, I know political calls don't count.
Today, Sean was the FINAL STRAW!
Another call!
Melissa was very nice and I replied very politely that you have provoked me to make another contribution to Congressman Frank's campaign.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Support Big Bird!
The extremists have ceased the opportunity to destroy one of the few media outlets not relegated to rants and sound-bytes.
Please sign the petition below --
It's frightening how quickly the call to defund NPR moved from ranting on Fox News Channel to proposed legislation that would eliminate funding for all public broadcasting. Thankfully, tens of thousands of people are standing up for NPR and PBS against such extreme measures.
Already, more than 40,000 people have joined our mass action to protect funding for public media. Can you help us reach our goal of 60,000 by taking action today? Don't let political extremists destroy public media.
Thank you — Josh
Yesterday, Sarah Palin called on Congress to cut all funds for National Public Radio. Palin wrote that we should "defund" NPR after it fired news analyst Juan Williams for comments he made on Fox News Channel disparaging Muslims.
Palin set off a firestorm that spread from extreme right-wing blogs to Bill O'Reilly to Capitol Hill. Later today, South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint plans to introduce legislation that would slash all funds to one of the last, best sources of journalism we have in America.
This is crazy. But with your help, we can stop it in its tracks.
Calling for Congress to defund NPR is nothing more than political opportunism by public figures who have built a career on such shenanigans. Regardless of what you think about Juan Williams' dismissal, calling for the defunding of NPR as a result is like asking for the death penalty in small claims court.
NPR plays a crucial role in America, providing original, in-depth journalism and educational programming. With commercial newspapers, radio and television stations cutting staff and scaling back on original reporting, the need for a robust public media system has never been greater.
People everywhere need to take a stand and tell our leaders to stop playing politics with our nation's public media system:
Take Action: Don't Let Sarah Palin Destroy Public Media
The United States already has one of the lowest levels of federal funding of public media in the developed world — at just $1.43 per capita. Yet surveys show that the public considers NPR and PBS not just our most trusted news sources, but the most valued public institutions we have.
Please take a moment and join tens of thousands of others who are defending NPR and standing up to Sarah Palin and extremists. Sign our public letter to Congress and forward this e-mail to all of your friends.
Thank you,
Josh Silver
President and CEO
Free Press Action Fund
1. "NPR Axes, Fox Defends Williams over Muslim Remarks": http://act2.freepress.net/go/475?akid=1887.9235348.1oP3d9&t=11
2. "Sarah Palin, Jim Demint Take Aim at NPR Funding": http://act2.freepress.net/go/476?akid=1887.9235348.1oP3d9&t=13
Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Learn more at www.freepress.net
Please sign the petition below --
It's frightening how quickly the call to defund NPR moved from ranting on Fox News Channel to proposed legislation that would eliminate funding for all public broadcasting. Thankfully, tens of thousands of people are standing up for NPR and PBS against such extreme measures.
Already, more than 40,000 people have joined our mass action to protect funding for public media. Can you help us reach our goal of 60,000 by taking action today? Don't let political extremists destroy public media.
Thank you — Josh
Yesterday, Sarah Palin called on Congress to cut all funds for National Public Radio. Palin wrote that we should "defund" NPR after it fired news analyst Juan Williams for comments he made on Fox News Channel disparaging Muslims.
Palin set off a firestorm that spread from extreme right-wing blogs to Bill O'Reilly to Capitol Hill. Later today, South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint plans to introduce legislation that would slash all funds to one of the last, best sources of journalism we have in America.
This is crazy. But with your help, we can stop it in its tracks.
Calling for Congress to defund NPR is nothing more than political opportunism by public figures who have built a career on such shenanigans. Regardless of what you think about Juan Williams' dismissal, calling for the defunding of NPR as a result is like asking for the death penalty in small claims court.
NPR plays a crucial role in America, providing original, in-depth journalism and educational programming. With commercial newspapers, radio and television stations cutting staff and scaling back on original reporting, the need for a robust public media system has never been greater.
People everywhere need to take a stand and tell our leaders to stop playing politics with our nation's public media system:
Take Action: Don't Let Sarah Palin Destroy Public Media
The United States already has one of the lowest levels of federal funding of public media in the developed world — at just $1.43 per capita. Yet surveys show that the public considers NPR and PBS not just our most trusted news sources, but the most valued public institutions we have.
Please take a moment and join tens of thousands of others who are defending NPR and standing up to Sarah Palin and extremists. Sign our public letter to Congress and forward this e-mail to all of your friends.
Thank you,
Josh Silver
President and CEO
Free Press Action Fund
1. "NPR Axes, Fox Defends Williams over Muslim Remarks": http://act2.freepress.net/go/475?akid=1887.9235348.1oP3d9&t=11
2. "Sarah Palin, Jim Demint Take Aim at NPR Funding": http://act2.freepress.net/go/476?akid=1887.9235348.1oP3d9&t=13
Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Learn more at www.freepress.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
