David Remnick in The New Yorker: “Putin is no enemy of free speech,” Ksenia Ponomareva, who worked on his first Presidential campaign, told the St. Petersburg Times. “He simply finds absurd the idea that somebody has the right to criticize him publicly.”
NYT on Verizon’s decision not to make their mobile network available for a text-messaging program run by Naral Pro-Choice America: Timothy Wu, a law professor at Columbia, said it was possible to find
analogies to Verizon’s decision abroad. “Another entity that controls
mass text messages is the Chinese government,” Professor Wu said.
Umair Haque on the Success of Times Select: The real problem with lying is that it simply never provides the incentives for people to embrace failure – and keep failing.
Ryan Lizza quoting Bill Clinton in The New Yorker: “When you grow a big pumpkin or you’re in a watermelon contest, if you
give it too much water and the skin breaks, you’re eliminated. And if
you give it too little somebody else beats you, because they got a
bigger melon or a bigger pumpkin. So it’s like, at the end, and in very
tense circumstances, there are these constant judgment calls. You know,
it’s kind of like being President—you want to make it as big as you can
without breaking the skin.” With that, Bill Clinton may have aptly
described his role in his wife’s campaign.
This is why I’ve stopped reading unsigned editorials.
The upcoming special State Senate election in Middlesex, Essex and Suffolk counties is an interesting, close race. Voters
have a tough decision, mainly between an effective, experienced
candidate with several DUIs (Anthony Galluccio) and a well-spoken,
DUI-free prosecutor who seems thin on issues other than crime (Tim
The Globe parachutes into the race this morning with a few paragraphs
that read like a coloring book — they pick a template and fill in some
They endorse Flaherty because he has "the right mix of energy,
agility, and experience to serve the district." They suggest his
background will be useful in sections of the district with serious
drug problems and in areas "where major [real estate] developments are
now in play."
Maybe, but in both of the debates that I went to, Galluccio was the only
one able to speak deeply and intelligently about real estate development and
community approaches to fighting crime. Flaherty mostly harped on his
experience as a prosecutor and assorted cliches that everybody voting
next Tuesday agrees on.
I get the impression that the Globe editorial was written by somebody
who hasn’t followed the race. They read a few articles, had a few of
the candidates stop by the office, then picked one because an editorial
had to be written.
I could easily be wrong. It’s possible the piece was written by
somebody who knows the race intimately — somebody who has a far better
sense of the candidates than I do and sees a side of Flaherty that I
But since the piece is unsigned, and lacks any context or voice,
there’s no way to tell. So I’ll probably end up voting for Galluccio.