Fang calling the kettle glitzy

In his op-ed, “In glitzy shadows, a health reform foe lurks” (12/6/09) Lee Fang makes unfounded insinuations about a connection between David Koch and the John Birch Society, and attempts to create a conspiracy theory about right-wing billionaires “lurking in the shadows” attempting to influence policy. Does Fang think no one would notice that his employer, the Center for American Progress, was founded with seed money and is funded in part by left-wing billionaire activist George Soros?

Denying Climategate

Ellen Goodman’s main contribution to the global warming debate was her statement in a 2007 column that “global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.” Unfortunately this defamatory word “denier” has become the accepted term for skeptic. Consider how nasty this accusation is. Climate scientists who question the political arguments of the IPCC, and ordinary people who are skeptical of the accuracy of 100-year weather forecasts are on a par with Nazi sympathizers and deniers of 6 million murders? The comparison is nonsensical as well. Denying a projected future event is not comparable to denying history.

The damaging Climategate emails have not settled the debate, but it is now impossible to claim, as Goodman did in 2007, that the science is “unequivocal.” One might hope for an apology from Goodman. Rather, in today’s “Facts, and Figures, Myths and Mantras,” she offers up a self-righteous defense of her journalistic integrity which continues the Globe’s news black-out of any mention of the Hadley scandal. Although Goodman touts her diligent fact-checking career, she admits, “I hold the lack of these truths to be self-evident.” Precisely. A journalist concerned with facts doesn’t make a lazy assumption like this.

The Moral of Fort Hood: watch out for those Christians

The Globe’s willful blindness toward Major Hasan’s ties to Islamic terrorism was disturbing. Today’s editorial “Welcome all faiths in uniform” (11/23/09) pushes the envelope of sanity; the lesson we are to learn from the Fort Hood massacre apparently is not a heightened awareness of the potential for violence from radicalized American Muslims. Rather we need to be on the watch for 1) “acts of intolerance” against Muslims and 2) “the proselytizing of service members by evangelical Christians.” When the media and General Casey communicate to the military that a “Team Jesus” banner in the locker room is a greater danger than a terrorist mass murderer in their midst, the result will be more murders of innocent people.

Shut up, he explained

Globe letter writer A. Dutton believes that it is “well-known” that President Obama is “willing to listen to others…almost to a fault.” Is she referring to the man who told Obamacare critics, “The time for bickering is over”? Who said, “I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking.” When has the President ever listened to others?

Playground socialism

Steve Almond describes in the Globe how as a father he must teach his daughter to share the limited resources of the playground, and he concludes that playground rules about sharing have an “adult name: socialism.” What he describes however is not socialism but a benign monarchy, where a disinterested adult dictates behavior to his at times unruly subjects. A socialist playground would be one where a committee of children has the power to allocate swing and sandbox use. Utopians might imagine that such a place would be administered justly, and that the children’s central committee would not abuse its power. Those with a more realistic view of human nature would expect a re-enactment of Lord of the Flies.
Mr. Almond has it exactly backwards when he asserts that capitalism concentrates power among elites; resources do not redistribute themselves without human agency, which by necessity concentrates power in the hands of an elite that rarely can repulse the corruption of power.
The rare successful societies like Sweden that call themselves socialist are far outnumbered by socialism’s nightmarish failures: the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Cambodia, etc. Socialism is the road to serfdom.

Hallelujah, it’s finally open!

RIght View:

“This new library is the community's gift to itself. Come enjoy what you have built!” -- Library Director Susan Flannery

By coincidence, the new Cambridge Main Library opened to the public on November 9, 2009, on the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. I visited the library to get a copy of Animal Farm to commemorate both events.

Entering the new “Glass” building has a very high wow factor. You could set up a high wire act in the main floor space. In a word, spectacular.

The modern library emphasizes its role as social center as much as quiet reading room. Whenever I visit the Watertown Library teen center it’s full of chattering teens, and the Cambridge architects have provided many public gathering places. The spaces are gorgeous--provided they are used to their full potential. It’s now the challenge of the library staff to justify our state-of-the-art 100-seat theatre two stories below ground by filling it with frequent events.

I imagined I would claim a cozy nook where I could curl up, but if you want cozy, you’re better off in the H.H. Richardson-inspired “Stone” building or in one of the branch libraries. Perhaps our homes fulfill the need for cozy spaces; we’re no longer escaping crowded tenement living to the quiet of a library.

What about the library’s cost? The final bill came in above $90 million or $900 a square foot for the 100,000 square foot building. Somehow the foxes guarding the henhouse allowed a 50% cost overrun above the 2006 estimate of $60 million. Is $900/sq. ft. expensive? Yes, it’s four and half times the average cost (around $200/sq. ft.) for college buildings in Boston in 2009, according to R.S. Means Construction Data.

The Chronicle quotes Councilor Ken Reeves, “it’s better than Newton’s library, which was the goal.” The Newton Free Library was completed in 1991 for $15.3 million, or $168 a square foot for its 91,000 square feet. Prices certainly have gone up since 1991, but 535 percent? Cambridge taxpayers should expect a better library for the money we spent, but is it better? I’m not sure how one would judge such a thing. Cambridge loses on one criterion: Newton has 578,000 volumes, Cambridge a mere 177,000. You do in fact sense this on walking in—great space, but where do they keep the books?

Was there ever any discussion of whether green LEED certification was worth the added cost? Using paint and non-toxic glues that don’t outgas volatile organic compounds is certainly worth the marginally higher cost for the materials. But did we spend money on non-essential items simply to be able to claim that we have a green building?

And even if the price is high, can we afford it? The price tag works out to $900 per Cambridge resident. For a family of four, that’s $3,600, or $180 a year over 20 years. Cambridge businesses will pick up part of the tab, and the State of Massachusetts kicked in $10 million. $180 a year isn’t enough by itself to bankrupt anyone. But then there’s that $120 million renovation of Rindge and Latin on the horizon. And Other Post Employment Benefits. Etc. Maybe it would have been wiser to buy the Ford Taurus, but the City Council bought the shiny new Mercedes, so we might as well take it for a drive.

We also have to pay to operate the place. The Main Branch budget is $5.5 million for FY2010, or $55 for every Cambridge resident. Not a bad deal, even for a small government conservative. Still, it’s worth pointing out that since 2008, the library budget has increased by $1.3 million, a rise of 32%. The increase is entirely in the “library-as-social-center” areas; while expenditures for Reference and Circulation (i.e., books) have remained flat, “Public Services” is up 90%, “Supportive Services” up 105% and “Computer tech services,” up 100%.

Which brings me to Animal Farm. The CPL has an amazing service that allows you to download audiobooks over the Internet, but after an hour on the Library website I had not downloaded a byte of Animal Farm. I went to the Reference desk for help where they told me they didn’t support Macintosh computers (not accurate). I was then told I was using the wrong browser (also incorrect—the wireless internet was down). In the end I gave up on the public option and paid $7.49 to Audiobooks. Did I mention—what a remarkable book!

Good old-fashioned freedom of speech

Steve Almond’s lack of self-awareness is truly staggering. On the one hand he seethes with ignorant rage and hatred for Rush Limbaugh and talk radio. His op-ed, with the snarky title, “Who’s afraid of big bad Fairness Doctrine” begins, “Of all the lies told by the pooh-bahs of talk radio…” and goes downhill from there. Other samples: “Talk radio hosts foment ignorant rage”; they are “extremists who broadcast inflammatory lies,” “fraudulent moralists” and “bullies.”

On the other hand Almond presents himself as an advocate of “good, old-fashioned freedom of speech.” The Fairness Doctrine simply seeks, he claims, “to force [talk radio hosts] to share their microphones with those who beg to differ, in reasoned tones, who recognize that the crises of any age warrant mature debate, not childish forms of denial.” (Exactly, I might add—when you “force” speech, it’s no longer free.)

I don’t see much “mature debate” is Steve Almond’s writing. But then again we shouldn’t expect much from the guy who quit his teaching job at Boston College when his protests failed to shut down the speech of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Sorry, Steve, someone who tries to shut up the people he disagrees with is a totalitarian, not a free speech advocate.