I remember the BP spill – how thousands upon thousands of animal and fish suffered horrific deaths, how thousands of fishermen’s businesses and jobs were lost …. . I also remember Ed Markey, a congressman from Massachusetts, ripping into BP, willing to go toe to toe with these lying billionaires. He demanded the ‘oilcam’ be set up so people could monitor the millions of gallons of oil gushing into the ocean. That undersea camera, on 24/7, powerfully conveyed the deadly havoc humankind can wreak on the environment, all in the name of the all-mighty buck.

I was totally impressed with Markey and the way he dealt with BP. He wanted them to be fully responsible for the aquatic hell they unleashed. Tomorrow I will remember Markey’s stand for the environment when I go into the voting booth. I will vote for Ed Markey, who is also all too aware of the perils of global warming and the brash stupidity of the Keystone pipeline. America’s future, the world’s future, is inexorably tied to the health of our oceans, air, land and beautiful fauna and flora. Ed Markey gets this.

To learn more about Markey, and where he stands on other issues such as jobs, please visit his informational website www.edmarkey.com

VOTE FOR ED MARKEY TOMORROW!

He will make a great US senator. It is important to have another foward-leaning environmentalist in the senate.

Thank you!

Rosalie Tirella
InCity Times

LATEST SEASONALLY UNADJUSTED JOB AND UNEMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES FOR LOCAL LABOR MARKETS IN THE COMMONWEALTH

BOSTON – The Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development today reported that the seasonally unadjusted unemployment rates for February 2013 were down in twenty-one areas and up in one area over the month, according to data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Over the year, the rates were down in twenty areas and remained unchanged in two areas.

Statewide, the February seasonally unadjusted unemployment rate was 6.8%, down 0.6% over the month. Over the year, the statewide unadjusted rate was 0.5% below the 7.3% rate posted for February 2012.

In February 2013, over the month job gains occurred in the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, Springfield, Lowell-Billerica-Chelmsford, Brockton-Bridgewater-Easton, New Bedford, and Peabody areas. The remaining six areas all recorded a loss.

Over the year, ten of the twelve areas added jobs, with the largest percentage gains in the Barnstable, Brockton-Bridgewater-Easton, Peabody, and Haverhill-North Andover-Amesbury areas. Click to continue »

State’s most politically active labor organization will back Markey, calling him a strong ally of working families

BOSTON – The Massachusetts Service Employees International Union (SEIU) today announced their endorsement of Congressman Ed Markey in the ongoing race for Senate.

“Ed Markey will be a strong advocate for working families in Massachusetts,” said Cliff Cohn, Chair of the SEIU Massachusetts State Council. “On immigration reform, health care, the federal budget and other issues important to the 85,000 SEIU members statewide, Ed Markey will stand up for the people of Massachusetts in the Senate.”

Last Saturday, March 9, Markey and Congressmen Stephen Lynch spoke to members of the SEIU’s Locals in Massachusetts at a forum in Dorchester. Scorecards on the candidates completed by members at the forum were the primary factor in determining the SEIU State Council endorsement. Members rated both candidates highly but Markey received the highest ratings. The State Council also considered questionnaires completed by the candidates in making their endorsement.

“Throughout his career, Congressman Markey has shown consistent support for universal healthcare,” said Veronica Turner, Executive Vice President of 1199SEIU, which represents healthcare workers in Massachusetts. “Through the Senate, we know he will continue his work to guarantee access to quality affordable coverage for all Americans.”

SEIU is a member-driven union with an endorsement process driven by its members, who work as hospital employees, homecare workers, janitors, security guards, social workers, and other professions.

“Ed Markey will be a strong advocate in the Senate for commonsense immigration reform that values the contributions of aspiring citizens,” said Rocio Saenz, president of SEIU Local 615, which represents property service workers in Massachusetts. “SEIU members mobilized their communities to vote in the 2012 election and made a huge impact, and we are ready to get out the vote in those communities again for Ed Markey.”

“I am honored to receive the endorsement of the SEIU State Council and its 85,000 members,” said Congressman Markey. “SEIU is at the heart of the labor movement, fighting tirelessly to improve the lives of workers in Massachusetts and throughout the country. I have spent three decades standing up for working families and advocating for good jobs, fair wages, and quality and affordable health care. I want to bring this fight for working men and women to the Senate, and I look forward to working with SEIU to build a future that makes the American Dream achievable for all.”

The SEIU State Council is a representative body of leaders who have been democratically elected by the membership to represent their Local and workers in their respective industries.

By Barbara Kwetz Allan

I look out my kitchen window and see another glorious, crystal-clear day in Massachusetts, yet I know from my professional life that unseen, microscopic particles of air pollution are wreaking havoc on so many with respiratory ailments and heart conditions. Most of us walk through our daily lives unaware of the price our most vulnerable – children, elderly, and others with compromised health – are paying, as air pollution irritates lung airways and infiltrates bloodstreams.

This point is not lost on my friend whose son suffers with asthma. “Most people don’t know that pollution can aggravate asthma,” she said. Having rushed her son unable to breathe to the emergency room more than once, my friend is hyperaware of the need Click to continue »

By Rosalie Tirella

OK, so state rep (Worcester District 15) hopeful Mary Keefe and I will never be best buds. And we won’t be drinking our vanilla creme Green Mountain coffee with her campaign manager Kevin Ksen any time soon. But we have to admit: We have always agreed with these two on the issues – and backed them up. Prickly personalities, aside.

Kevin Ksen and ChaCha Connor were able to run a huge piece in Incity Times on the state of our municipal pools. Cha Cha and Kevin led the charge to have our neighborhood pools fixed and even went so far as to get estimates from contractors down South. We ran EVERYTHING because 1. they worked so hard and their work deserved to be seen by the public and 2. WE AGREED WITH THEM. We wanted the city manager to get behind Kevin and all the neighborhood folks who were behind this project. That didn’t happen. The neighborhoods were betrayed. Click to continue »

.. ON the Medical Marijuana ballot question …:

By “Hungry Poet”

I can understand the concerns and hesitancy toward legalizing medical marijuana, particularly when it comes from older generations that went through years and years of Drug War propaganda.

I disagree with the idea of limiting any kind of farmers especially when it is to make way for greater Big Pharma control.

Who is more likely to produce an organic, less adulterated product – a farmer or a pharmacy? The pharmaceutical industry already has Merinol which is a pill form of THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) but of course it has a lot of additives and is virtually ineffective.

Also, allowing local growers could help spark a local (tax paying?) industry that currently does not exist.

I think it is naive to think that having certified legal growers will suddenly flood the streets with marijuana, because let’s face it, there are a huge number of folks growing the plant in high abundance already.

Sure the underground market has always and will always exist – and that may be all the more reason to begin rolling back criminalization even further.

In my opinion, the extremely harsh drug laws needn’t apply to such a harmless substance. The War on Drugs failed and only created a terrible black market and filled our prisons (one in one hundred males behind bars in this country, more than all other nations in the world COMBINED).

The battle against marijuana seems to a generational battle that is slowly easing up as younger and younger folks, unaffected by the Reagan days and Bush1 created crack epidemic, simply do not see the herb as a danger.

In fact, many are educated on the uses and benefits of all types of natural herbs and plants as alternative and preventative medicines. Particularly as an awareness of Big Pharma and the FDAs corrupt abuses of power grows.

Most young folks have had enough of the synthetic drug pushing pharmaceutical world battling against easily available (and cheap in comparison) herbal alternatives.

As a side note, if other more liberal states like CA or RI are any indication – these dispensaries and growing operations will be so tightly watched and monitored that there is very minimal significant risk either one of these industries would conduct illegal activity. Again, let’s not think that an item like marijuana is really that hard to come by or grow right now with the current laws in place.

By Steven R. Maher

On November 6, Massachusetts voters will decide whether marijuana can be prescribed for medicinal purposes. Because I believe the proposal contains a distribution flaw, I am going to vote no.

I downloaded from the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s office the ballot question. It reads in part: “This proposed law would eliminate state criminal and civil penalties for the medical use of marijuana by qualifying patients. To qualify, a patient must have been diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition, such as cancer, glaucoma, HIV-positive status or AIDS, hepatitis C, Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, ALS, or multiple sclerosis. The patient would also have to obtain a written certification, from a physician with whom the patient has a bona fide physician-patient relationship, that the patient has a specific debilitating medical condition and would likely obtain a net benefit from medical use of marijuana. “

As someone who suffers from Parkinson disease (see the InCity Times December 26, 2011), I believe patients who would obtain a “net benefit” should be allowed, with a doctor’s approval, to use medical marijuana. It is the following section that bothers me: “The proposed law would allow for non-profit medical marijuana treatment centers to grow, process and provide marijuana to patients or their caregivers.”

Under this scenario, the treatment centers that grow the marijuana would “provide” the product to the patient. There have been problems in other states using this approach. Inevitably, if Massachusetts adopts this question, there will be a seepage in the supply chain and legally produced marijuana will end up being sold by illegal drug dealers. This looks like a process that would be ripe for organized crime penetration, whether it is the traditional Mafia or one of its third world imitators.

The link needs to broken between the legal medical marijuana producer and the patient. If marijuana is going to be prescribed as a medication, it should be processed through a pharmacy like any other medication. Medical treatment centers should market their marijuana to retailers, not medically stricken patients. The doctor can write a prescription, the patient can take it to the local CVS, Walgreen’s or other pharmacy, and get it filled. A pharmacist should process prescriptions, not farmers or treatment centers.

BOSTON – The Committee Against Physician Assisted Suicide today announced that Rosanne Bacon Meade, former president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association and progressive activist, would chair its efforts to defeat the ballot initiative legalizing assisted suicide in the Commonwealth.   The initiative petition will appear on the November Massachusetts ballot (Question 2).   If approved, it would become law on January 1, 2013. 

 “Given my personal involvement in end-of-life care for both my mother and mother in-law, I am honored to lead the effort to defeat Question 2,” said Meade.  “No matter your philosophical views on end of life decision-making, this initiative petition is poorly written, confusing, and flawed.  With Massachusetts as the center of modern medical advances and treatment for those who are seriously ill, we can do better than pass a ballot question that would take us backward, not forward, in how we deal with end-of-life treatments.”  

 Meade said the Committee, which has already attracted the support of doctors, nurses, hospice workers, and religious leaders, will launch a vigorous campaign to defeat the measure.

“This ballot question allows a patient to obtain a lethal prescription without a mental health evaluation, without a consultation with a palliative care expert, and without family involvement,” said Meade.  “A person could act on their own at a terribly vulnerable moment, without the help and support they need.”

“An initiative petition is the worst possible way to decide end-of- life treatment options,” Meade said. “But, the proponents put this issue on the ballot instead of asking the legislature to bring healthcare experts together to thoughtfully advise state policy makers.  We will do whatever we can to help voters understand the ballot questions shortcomings and lack of effective safeguards.”

Many of the leading local and national health organizations, including the Massachusetts Medical Society, the Hospice & Palliative Care Federation of Massachusetts, the American Medical Association, and the American College of Physicians oppose physician assisted suicide.

“Patients don’t need to commit suicide to achieve peace and dignity,” said Dr. Alexandra Cist, a physician and clinical ethics consultant at Massachusetts General Hospital and a Harvard Medical School faculty member.  “Instead, they need better advance care planning and increased early entry into palliative care and hospice so a patient can benefit profoundly from the right treatment and support.”

 The Vote No on Question 2 Coalition already includes doctors, nurses, members of the disability community and religious leaders from all faiths.

 “Jewish leaders, ethicists, and rabbis have advocated on behalf of ever more effective palliative care because they recognize the ethical and practical dangers of permitting assisted suicide,” said Rabbi David Meyer of Marblehead. 

Meade said the coalition plans to continue expanding its membership and its fundraising base in the next several weeks.   

“I am struck by how many people have no idea this question is on the ballot,” she noted.  “We need to make people aware that Question 2 is seriously flawed and deserves a no vote on November 6^th.”  

 In addition to serving as MTA president, Meade was also a member of the National Education Association’s executive committee.  Over a 38-year career, Meade taught middle school English.  She also ran the Teach Boston Program in the Boston Public Schools and taught in the Graduate School of Education at Cambridge College.   In addition to her role as educator, she has helped spearhead a number of progressive causes in Massachusetts over the past three decades.  

 To find out more, please visit www.stopassistedsuicide.org. On social media, also visit http://www.facebook.com/StopPhysicianAssistedSuicide on Facebook or @stopasstsuicide on Twitter.

By Jason A. Stephany, MassUniting

At a noon press conference in Randolph on Tuesday, US Senator Scott Brown delivered what his office claimed would be a “major policy speech” on taxes. To the surprise of few in Massachusetts, Brown’s remarks turned out to be nothing more than the stereotypical, failed tax rhetoric of his Republican colleagues in Washington. More telling were the facts Brown failed to mention about his voting record on taxes. Here are five true statements we didn’t hear from the junior senator in Randolph:

1. “I voted to give tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas.”

Scott Brown voted to filibuster the Creating American Jobs & Ending Offshoring Act, a bill would have ended tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs or build plants and offices offshore to replace American facilities. The vote came as thousands of American workers face impending layoffs while training their replacements from China, India, and elsewhere. (US Senate roll call vote #242, 9/28/10)

2. “I gave $24 billion of your tax dollars to Big Oil.”

In the face of drastic budget cuts, Scott Brown voted three times to give more than $24 billion in taxpayer funds to the oil industry over the next decade. The top five Big Oil companies – BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell – are amongst the most profitable corporations in the world, posting $137 billion in profits in 2011 alone. (US Senate roll call votes #187 6/15/10; #72, 5/17/11; #63, 3/29/12)

3. “I’d really like to take more money out of your paycheck.”

Scott Brown voted to filibuster legislation to extend the payroll tax cut for working families – holding low and middle income workers hostage to shield the wealthiest Americans from a small surtax on income over $1 million. In effect, Brown cast a deciding vote to raise taxes on 113 million working families. In Massachusetts, the surtax would have affected just 0.6% of taxpayers with an average income of more than $2 million. (US Senate roll call vote #219, 12/1/11)

4. “I support tax breaks for millionaires…just not middle class or low-income families.”

Three times in 2010 and again in 2012, Scott Brown voted to kill measures that would extend tax cuts for the middle class. Like his vote for payroll tax hikes, Brown used the same rationale to justify his votes to raise taxes on middle and low-income families: those making $250,000 to $1 million or more each year shouldn’t have to pay their fair share like the rest of his Massachusetts constituents. (US Senate roll call votes #258 & #259, 12/4/10; #275, 12/15/10; #184, 7/25/12)

5. “I filibustered tax credits and loans that help small businesses grow and create jobs.”

Despite his claims of supporting job creators, Scott Brown repeatedly filibustered and opposed major legislation that helps small businesses grown and create jobs. Brown twice voted to filibuster the Small Business Jobs & Credit Act – a bill that connected growing small businesses to credit through community banks and offered significant tax credits to small firms that create American jobs. When his filibuster failed, Brown voted again to kill the legislation. The Massachusetts Bankers Association stated that failure to act on the bill “would be a missed opportunity that our struggling economy cannot afford.” (US Senate roll call votes #218 & #221, 7/29/10; #237, 9/14/10)

Per usual, Senator Brown took no questions from constituents or reporters, ducking out a back door immediately following his speech. But anyone who takes issue with Brown’s out-of-step voting record on taxes – or any other issue, for that matter – may contact his office at (617) 565-3170.

By Steven R. Maher

“It was once said that the moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.” – Hubert H. Humphrey.

Assisting the elderly, the sick, the needy and the handicapped to kill themselves is not what Hubert Humphrey had in mind as a moral government.

A question on the November 2012 ballot would legalize suicide in Massachusetts, in which a physician would prescribe a drug whose sole purpose is to kill someone. It is opposed by the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, and the Massachusetts Medical Society.

Under the act, two witnesses will say the patient is capable, acting voluntarily, and not being coerced. Two doctors will certify that the person has been diagnosed with a terminal illness and is expected to die within six months. After a 15 day waiting period, the patient will communicate a second time their desire to commit suicide. Then the doctor will be allowed to prescribe drugs to the patient, who must ingest this poison voluntarily without assistance. “The death certificate would list the underlying terminal illness as the cause of death,” says the act.

Deep flaws

This law has several deep flaws. In several instances, what it doesn’t say is more important than what it does say. Some highlights:

• Family members need not be consulted. Two strangers will suffice under this act to witness the patient’s request to commit suicide. If you’re the parents, spouse, sibling, or children of the patient, they can kill themselves without you being informed, and because the death certificate will list the underlying terminal disease as the cause of death, you’ll never know your loved one killed themselves – or be given a chance to stop it.

• The law does not mention medical proxies. The person you have deemed – presumably when you were of sound mind – most suitable to make your medical decisions when you are emotionally or physically incapacitated, need not be consulted under the act.

• Beneficiaries of the suicidal person’s estate are specifically allowed to be one of the two witnesses under the act. There will undoubtedly be cases of “assisted murder” where an estate beneficiary will pressure a medically weakened patient to “end their pain and suffering” – and then help themselves to the decedent’s assets. Undoubtedly, there will be cases where a witness will be motivated by greed, not love for the person whose suicide they are authorizing.

• What if the medical diagnosis is incorrect? Well, that will just be too bad for the dead person and their loved ones. The law immunizes those involved in helping a person kill themselves “for actions that comply with the law, including actions taken in good faith that substantially comply.”

The act specifically bans euthanasia, the intentional medical ending of a life by a third party. But once we start down the slippery slope of allowing a person diagnosed as terminally ill to get permission to kill themselves, euthanasia is where we’re heading as a society. This act allows the patient to request suicide.

After we’re used to that, the next act will allow family members to get doctor’s permission to medically end their relative’s life. Then the final act will be to allow the medical establishment to make the decision on their own.

This wasn’t Hubert Humphrey’s vision of a moral government.

Is it yours?