The Red Sox are the defending World Series champions and remain in that position until proven otherwise. Why is it that there doesn't appear to be a great deal of enthusiasm about the possibility of their retaining that crown?
It could be anger over what could have been. Manny Ramirez might have proven he had a gram of integrity by having his torrid September in a Boston uniform but no, he is busy winning over followers of the junior varsity in Los Angeles. However, let's leave any residual antipathy towards that dog behind and focus on the team that is going to the tournament.
They have lost a big bat but they are arguably a better ball club defensively and in the club house. Certainly Jason Bay is a significant upgrade in left field and the other outfield positions are even stronger with Ellsbury improving daily and both Coco Crisp and J.D. Drew proven defenders.
The infield is basically improved by subtraction. Julio Lugo was not contributing either in the field or at the bat and Jed Lowrie has proven to be a more than adequate replacement in both categories. Both Pedroia and Youkilis are having career years and either could win the MVP award. When you get 211 hits and a .493 slugging percentage out of a middle infielder you know you have something very special. The kicker with Pedroia is that he just turned 25 years old. Youkilis has filled in admirably in the clean up spot with 29 home runs and 115 RBI.
Third base would normally be well staffed but apparently Mike Lowell re-injured his hip last night and at this point may be a question mark for the playoffs. The Sox are strong on the bench however and his absence could be filled by moving Youkilis to third and putting Casey on first. The injury bug may also affect the outfield as Drew is just back from a disc injury and we will not know for a while if he is at peak efficiency.
The catching department is solid with Varitek and Cash. They aren't hitting for average but there is power there and the game calling and defensive experience of Varitek is a definite advantage. The middle of the batting order is filled with David Ortiz and as long as he is breathing, opposing pitchers will have fear in their hearts and the Boston fans will have hope.
Starting pitching would appear to be the Sox biggest advantage. The big three of Beckett, Matsusaka and Lester is better than anyone else is throwing and until someone proves differently, Beckett is the reigning World Series stud. Pitcher number four is up in the air at the moment but Paul Byrd or Tim Wakefield are seasoned performers.
The bull pen would seem to be a bit of a question mark. Papelbon is nearly a sure thing but getting to him has been a bit spotty. Okajima is merely mortal this year as opposed to last and Manny Delcarmen has not yet achieved lights out status. Justin Masterson has proven to be a solid set up man but as a rookie has not been on the very big stage.
So the defense of the crown begins on Wednesday against the Angels in L.A.. We have faced them a number of times in the past and handled them however, they are a bit retooled this year and own the American League's best record. It is a good match up for us but if Lowell, who was last year's Series MVP and Drew are lost for the series it might be a difference maker in a series of evenly matched clubs.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Still No Strategy
The selectmen's meeting Monday night was illuminating more for what didn't take place than what did. For the first time in many many years the subject of the Cummings property was on the agenda. The Friends of Mary Cummings Park came to explain elements of the complaint that had been made to the attorney generals office regarding Boston's breach of trust in their responsibility as trustee. The second part of the meeting revolved around asking the board to cast a vote in favor of supporting the complaint.
Two things that would be obvious to the casual observer was that the board had already made a decision not to support the complaint. This was obvious because the chairman announced before any discussion even took place what the board's position would be. This was rather strange since no motion was made on the subject during the course of the discussion.
The other thing that was obvious is that very little examination was done by the members of the complaint itself. Rather than address the content of the complaint, one selectman was more concerned about the facial expressions of one of the Friend's representatives.
The selectmen comments revolved chiefly around town counsel's opinion as well as "supporting the intent of the trust." When responding that they would not support sale of the property it became apparent that they had no idea what the main intent of the trust is nor were they aware of the substantial assets in the trust for its maintenance and upkeep. When informed what the intent of the trust actually was, they declined to take any action in supporting the "intent of the trust."
Town counsel's opinion was not to support the complaint for fear of sparking legal action by Boston against the town. This assertion is absurd on its face and I would challenge counsel to put such an opinion on paper. The Friend's complaint is a request to the chief legal officer of the state to examine Boston trustee performance. Is town counsel suggesting that we could be sued for that?
Counsel's opinion on another matter related to the Cumming's land is rather interesting and in direct contrast to the board's current position. According to the town administrator, Boston has assured him that they will not attempt to sell the land. But listen to town counsel's opinion related to the upcoming attempt by Paul Raymond to re-zone the park to "open space."
Counsel warns of "significant legal fees" if the town rezones the property. "If the City, for example, were able to obtain a court order on a cy pres petition to the Probate court, permitting the city to sell the land, perhaps subject to a covenant that the proceeds of the sale be used for park purposes within the City , it is possible that the City might seek to invalidate the rezoning, arguing that the rezoning of the land for Open Space uses has no rational basis and constitutes a regulatory taking."
Boston has attempted just such a filing for cy pres in the past. They have also had the property appraised for sale and in a proposed lease agreement with the town for construction of a ball field, they insisted on an out clause in the event of sale of the property.
On one hand counsel advises the selectmen not to support the Friend's complaint which seeks to prevent Boston from ever having the opportunity to sell the property and on the other hand he is warning town meeting not to take any action because Boston might sell the land. Who the Hell are they working for, us or Boston?
In the end it really didn't matter what the selectmen had to say. True, it might have helped at the AG's office if they had submitted a note of support but based on what little knowledge they seem to have on the subject and the fact that they are content to support a failed strategy that is 25 years old, their involvement might do more harm than good.
Two things that would be obvious to the casual observer was that the board had already made a decision not to support the complaint. This was obvious because the chairman announced before any discussion even took place what the board's position would be. This was rather strange since no motion was made on the subject during the course of the discussion.
The other thing that was obvious is that very little examination was done by the members of the complaint itself. Rather than address the content of the complaint, one selectman was more concerned about the facial expressions of one of the Friend's representatives.
The selectmen comments revolved chiefly around town counsel's opinion as well as "supporting the intent of the trust." When responding that they would not support sale of the property it became apparent that they had no idea what the main intent of the trust is nor were they aware of the substantial assets in the trust for its maintenance and upkeep. When informed what the intent of the trust actually was, they declined to take any action in supporting the "intent of the trust."
Town counsel's opinion was not to support the complaint for fear of sparking legal action by Boston against the town. This assertion is absurd on its face and I would challenge counsel to put such an opinion on paper. The Friend's complaint is a request to the chief legal officer of the state to examine Boston trustee performance. Is town counsel suggesting that we could be sued for that?
Counsel's opinion on another matter related to the Cumming's land is rather interesting and in direct contrast to the board's current position. According to the town administrator, Boston has assured him that they will not attempt to sell the land. But listen to town counsel's opinion related to the upcoming attempt by Paul Raymond to re-zone the park to "open space."
Counsel warns of "significant legal fees" if the town rezones the property. "If the City, for example, were able to obtain a court order on a cy pres petition to the Probate court, permitting the city to sell the land, perhaps subject to a covenant that the proceeds of the sale be used for park purposes within the City , it is possible that the City might seek to invalidate the rezoning, arguing that the rezoning of the land for Open Space uses has no rational basis and constitutes a regulatory taking."
Boston has attempted just such a filing for cy pres in the past. They have also had the property appraised for sale and in a proposed lease agreement with the town for construction of a ball field, they insisted on an out clause in the event of sale of the property.
On one hand counsel advises the selectmen not to support the Friend's complaint which seeks to prevent Boston from ever having the opportunity to sell the property and on the other hand he is warning town meeting not to take any action because Boston might sell the land. Who the Hell are they working for, us or Boston?
In the end it really didn't matter what the selectmen had to say. True, it might have helped at the AG's office if they had submitted a note of support but based on what little knowledge they seem to have on the subject and the fact that they are content to support a failed strategy that is 25 years old, their involvement might do more harm than good.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Ridiculing Palin
If ridicule is the strategy that Democrats are intending to use as a cudgel against the opposition party nominee for vice president then they better rethink it very quickly.
All the usual suspects in representing the Left in the media have been quick to use derision in their commentary. Eleanor Clift, ( dumb as a rock) Sally Quinn, Maureen Dowd and Campbell Brown among others all think that women won't fall in line behind the Alaskan hick with "extremist" views and a very thin resume.
Those women aren't the ones that would be independent in this election anyway. They aren't on the fence. However, a good many in middle America that are on the fence in swing states are going to bother to take a look at this very intriguing young woman.
Even a short and shallow examination shows a woman of substance in the political arena. Forget the fact that she rose to the occasion with flying colors in the biggest public event of her life. Simply take a look at her experience in public and private sector management. The fact is that she has more hands on government experience than everyone else on both tickets. City council, mayor and governor are all on her resume compared to her running mate and opponents who have experience in the windy halls of the senate but not much else in the way of managing anything beyond a small senate staff.
The Boston Globe did a quick trashing of her college credentials. They aren't Ivy League but they apparently weren't filled with proven accusations of plagiarism as Biden's record contains.
She has been a governor for only two years however in that two years she has negotiated what appears to be the largest single construction project in the history of the United States. To give you an idea just how big, the total money spent will be three or four times as large as our Big Dig public swindle here in Massachusetts.
Her approval rating in her home state is the highest of any governor in the country and apparently her peers in Alaska thought enough of her to elect her President of Alaska Conference of Mayors.
So there is comparable if not superior substance to this woman against her male counterparts. Add to that a good deal of superficial stuff like beautiful faces on her and her family as well as the ability to generate a good deal of excitement when she speaks and you have what turns out to be an asset for McCain. She simply is everything that McCain is not. The difference between her and Joe Biden is just as stark.
Other derisive strategies that will not work against her involve her role as a mom. All the feminists who have championed the breaking of the glass ceiling for women cannot send this woman home to mind her kids. In this day and age there is no reason why the husband can't take on a good deal of the weight. All over America it is being done, and besides, being vice president is likely to be more of a vacation than being a working governor.
Yes, McCain has the democrats very worried about this woman. You can see that illustrated in our own home town rag. This week American forces handed over Anbar Province to the Iraqi military. You would think that this would merit some sort of notice by the Boston Globe. But guess what was on the front page below the fold on that day? A story about Palin's 17 year old daughter being pregnant. This is the same paper that completely ignored the John Edwards pregnancy story until almost every other outlet in the union had printed it.
By this time next week McCain will be even or perhaps ahead in polls. This is going to be a horse race and is likely to hinge on a single gaffe by one of the participants. If you are wagering it might be Sarah Palin that stumbles, don't put the house on it.
All the usual suspects in representing the Left in the media have been quick to use derision in their commentary. Eleanor Clift, ( dumb as a rock) Sally Quinn, Maureen Dowd and Campbell Brown among others all think that women won't fall in line behind the Alaskan hick with "extremist" views and a very thin resume.
Those women aren't the ones that would be independent in this election anyway. They aren't on the fence. However, a good many in middle America that are on the fence in swing states are going to bother to take a look at this very intriguing young woman.
Even a short and shallow examination shows a woman of substance in the political arena. Forget the fact that she rose to the occasion with flying colors in the biggest public event of her life. Simply take a look at her experience in public and private sector management. The fact is that she has more hands on government experience than everyone else on both tickets. City council, mayor and governor are all on her resume compared to her running mate and opponents who have experience in the windy halls of the senate but not much else in the way of managing anything beyond a small senate staff.
The Boston Globe did a quick trashing of her college credentials. They aren't Ivy League but they apparently weren't filled with proven accusations of plagiarism as Biden's record contains.
She has been a governor for only two years however in that two years she has negotiated what appears to be the largest single construction project in the history of the United States. To give you an idea just how big, the total money spent will be three or four times as large as our Big Dig public swindle here in Massachusetts.
Her approval rating in her home state is the highest of any governor in the country and apparently her peers in Alaska thought enough of her to elect her President of Alaska Conference of Mayors.
So there is comparable if not superior substance to this woman against her male counterparts. Add to that a good deal of superficial stuff like beautiful faces on her and her family as well as the ability to generate a good deal of excitement when she speaks and you have what turns out to be an asset for McCain. She simply is everything that McCain is not. The difference between her and Joe Biden is just as stark.
Other derisive strategies that will not work against her involve her role as a mom. All the feminists who have championed the breaking of the glass ceiling for women cannot send this woman home to mind her kids. In this day and age there is no reason why the husband can't take on a good deal of the weight. All over America it is being done, and besides, being vice president is likely to be more of a vacation than being a working governor.
Yes, McCain has the democrats very worried about this woman. You can see that illustrated in our own home town rag. This week American forces handed over Anbar Province to the Iraqi military. You would think that this would merit some sort of notice by the Boston Globe. But guess what was on the front page below the fold on that day? A story about Palin's 17 year old daughter being pregnant. This is the same paper that completely ignored the John Edwards pregnancy story until almost every other outlet in the union had printed it.
By this time next week McCain will be even or perhaps ahead in polls. This is going to be a horse race and is likely to hinge on a single gaffe by one of the participants. If you are wagering it might be Sarah Palin that stumbles, don't put the house on it.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way
In a front page article in the Daily Times July 29th edition, Burlington Town Administrator Robert Mercier was quoted as saying that “Burlington Town officials do not endorse” the Friends of Mary Cummings Park’s complaint against Boston for breach of trust in any way. He went on to say “Burlington will take no part in the Friend’s complaint.”
The authority to make such a statement resides with the Burlington Board of Selectmen, which is the executive authority in such matters. No such item has previously appeared on the board’s agenda nor has a vote been taking to ratify such a position.
According to the article, Lisa Signori of the Boston trust department “assured us they will maintain the spirit of the trust." That is just the crux of the argument of the Friend’s complaint. Boston has done nothing to maintain the spirit of the trust and in fact is in breach of trust. The facts in the complaint are indisputable.
Mr. Mercier also goes on to say that the Woburn, Burlington and Boston are striving to reach a resolution of the issue. How, exactly has the town been striving for a resolution? Mr. Mercier says “there are a lot of different options there.” What exactly are those options and why isn’t one of them Boston being forced to uphold its fiduciary duty as the trustee?
Four years ago a presentation was made to the board in executive session regarding a breach of trust action by myself, the then Mayor of Woburn, John Curran and a member of the Cummings descendants. The board failed to even respond to the presentation. Two years ago the board indicated that a position on the property would be forth coming yet still the issue has been met with silence. What conversations have been had with Boston and why haven’t they been made public?
The essence of the Friend’s complaint and Boston’s breach of trust can be illustrated to town resident in a very simple way. The Town of Burlington is the beneficiary of a similar trust donated by Marshall Simonds.
That trust includes the town common and Simonds Park. Please compare the performance of the trustees of the Simonds Trust versus that of the trustees of Mary Cummings Park. Simonds Park and the town common are a wonderful vibrant area enjoyed by every member of the community at every age level and has been for many years.
Contrast that with the Mary Cummings Park. Mary Cummings Trustees have left the property abandoned, decrepit and trash strewn with no trespassing signs on it. While the park is left in disrepair, substantial moneys left in the will for its care and upkeep have been squandered.
What would the reaction be from the community if Simonds Park and the common had no trespassing signs posted on it? How would they feel if the trustees had made plans to sell the common? Would the public and the board clamor for trustee responsibility?
The complaint by the Friends of Mary Cumming Park is the first positive action taken on this issue in the past 30 years and finally brings us to a cross roads. It is time for the leadership of the community to stand up and take a position on this issue.
To Chairwoman Rollins credit, the Burlington Board of Selectman has scheduled a public hearing on this subject on Monday September 8. Residents should request that the board record member votes on a simple question. Do they support the complaint to the Attorney General that Boston is in breach of trust or don’t they? If town counsel opposes this action then let counsel provide specific reasoning why.
It is time for the board to stop dodging this issue and draw a line in the sand. This is more than just a park land issue for the benefit of residents in the region. This is a matter of principle. Mary Cummings bequest of this property “to hold and keep the same forever as a public pleasure ground, and to maintain and care for the same in a suitable manner,” was a magnificent philanthropic gesture. The City of Boston for too long has badly mistreated the will of the donor. It is time that this injustice was rectified for the benefit of Mrs. Cummings and the residents of the region in general.
Residents can finally bring about realization of Mrs. Cummings wishes. Attend the selectmen’s meeting and ask them to stand on the side of fair play.
Please write your elected representatives and urge them to support the complaint. Attorney General Coakley will be soon rendering a decision. She can be reached at the Massachusetts Attorney’s General Office at One Ashburton Place, Boston Mass. 02108. Let her know that it is time for responsible action.
If the integrity of the Cumming’s will and trust is not upheld what effect will that have on other philanthropic giving to communities in the commonwealth? Does the word Trust no longer have any meaning?
The authority to make such a statement resides with the Burlington Board of Selectmen, which is the executive authority in such matters. No such item has previously appeared on the board’s agenda nor has a vote been taking to ratify such a position.
According to the article, Lisa Signori of the Boston trust department “assured us they will maintain the spirit of the trust." That is just the crux of the argument of the Friend’s complaint. Boston has done nothing to maintain the spirit of the trust and in fact is in breach of trust. The facts in the complaint are indisputable.
Mr. Mercier also goes on to say that the Woburn, Burlington and Boston are striving to reach a resolution of the issue. How, exactly has the town been striving for a resolution? Mr. Mercier says “there are a lot of different options there.” What exactly are those options and why isn’t one of them Boston being forced to uphold its fiduciary duty as the trustee?
Four years ago a presentation was made to the board in executive session regarding a breach of trust action by myself, the then Mayor of Woburn, John Curran and a member of the Cummings descendants. The board failed to even respond to the presentation. Two years ago the board indicated that a position on the property would be forth coming yet still the issue has been met with silence. What conversations have been had with Boston and why haven’t they been made public?
The essence of the Friend’s complaint and Boston’s breach of trust can be illustrated to town resident in a very simple way. The Town of Burlington is the beneficiary of a similar trust donated by Marshall Simonds.
That trust includes the town common and Simonds Park. Please compare the performance of the trustees of the Simonds Trust versus that of the trustees of Mary Cummings Park. Simonds Park and the town common are a wonderful vibrant area enjoyed by every member of the community at every age level and has been for many years.
Contrast that with the Mary Cummings Park. Mary Cummings Trustees have left the property abandoned, decrepit and trash strewn with no trespassing signs on it. While the park is left in disrepair, substantial moneys left in the will for its care and upkeep have been squandered.
What would the reaction be from the community if Simonds Park and the common had no trespassing signs posted on it? How would they feel if the trustees had made plans to sell the common? Would the public and the board clamor for trustee responsibility?
The complaint by the Friends of Mary Cumming Park is the first positive action taken on this issue in the past 30 years and finally brings us to a cross roads. It is time for the leadership of the community to stand up and take a position on this issue.
To Chairwoman Rollins credit, the Burlington Board of Selectman has scheduled a public hearing on this subject on Monday September 8. Residents should request that the board record member votes on a simple question. Do they support the complaint to the Attorney General that Boston is in breach of trust or don’t they? If town counsel opposes this action then let counsel provide specific reasoning why.
It is time for the board to stop dodging this issue and draw a line in the sand. This is more than just a park land issue for the benefit of residents in the region. This is a matter of principle. Mary Cummings bequest of this property “to hold and keep the same forever as a public pleasure ground, and to maintain and care for the same in a suitable manner,” was a magnificent philanthropic gesture. The City of Boston for too long has badly mistreated the will of the donor. It is time that this injustice was rectified for the benefit of Mrs. Cummings and the residents of the region in general.
Residents can finally bring about realization of Mrs. Cummings wishes. Attend the selectmen’s meeting and ask them to stand on the side of fair play.
Please write your elected representatives and urge them to support the complaint. Attorney General Coakley will be soon rendering a decision. She can be reached at the Massachusetts Attorney’s General Office at One Ashburton Place, Boston Mass. 02108. Let her know that it is time for responsible action.
If the integrity of the Cumming’s will and trust is not upheld what effect will that have on other philanthropic giving to communities in the commonwealth? Does the word Trust no longer have any meaning?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)