Party Time

Last night I attended a blogger party graciously hosted by Miss Kelly (thanks much, lady). Two different people I met told me right away that blogging about silliness in the Boston Globe was “the easiest job in the world”.
I hate to be found out so quickly.

Today’s Globe illustrates their point. Here is one day’s gleanings:

First: The first is a good read. Jeff Jacoby hears the loud complaints about the film Fitna and asks “Where’s the outrage?” over Jihadist terror? Bob Dole didn’t get an answer to that question either.

Second: A Globe Editorial on the dysfunctional family of Liquarry Jefferson:

The boy's extended family was so well known to police in 2004 that they launched a special effort to surround the younger members with social services.…This is a smart approach that recognizes that police and state human service agencies can redeem young people despite their toxic families.

Globe editors are horrified at the alleged intolerance of a religious figure or a politician who privileges certain family structures and says that alternative family structures are not preferred and not as socially beneficial. Yet the same Globe doesn’t mind calling particular families “toxic” (an accurate term in this case, IMHO). I don’t understand the Globe’s grounds for complaint.

Third: The Department of Homeland security will bypass environmental regulations to complete construction of 670 miles of the US border fence. The predictable howl:

Wildlife groups reacted with dismay. Brian Segee, a lawyer with Defenders of Wildlife, said, "It's dangerous, it's arrogant, it's going to have pronounced environmental impacts, and it won't do a thing to address the problems of undocumented immigrants or address border security problems."

Uh huh. No follow-up questions.

Fourth: AP reports:

In New Hampshire, officials have been warning residents for weeks to prepare for the flooding after a winter that dumped more snow in some areas than has been seen in a century.

Conveniently, the story avoids making any mention of global warming. Did Al Gore spend last winter in New Hampshire?

Fifth: A Globe story about a blog post by Deval’s Chief of Staff at Blue Mass Group:

Under fire for traveling to New York for a book deal as his casino legislation was being defeated in the House, Governor Deval Patrick is now moving toward a decidedly different place: back to his base.

Deval is under fire for that? Who knew? I read the Globe, but somehow I didn’t see that story make the front page.

Sixth: They are breathing easier over at the Mass Lottery these days, and the Globe gives the Lottery a superb puff piece about their marketing prowess:

"Our mission is to raise revenue for the cities and towns," said Mark Cavanagh, the Lottery's executive director. "All of our profit goes to the cities and towns. . . . There's nobody behind the curtain. There's no casino owner taking the profits out of state. So if the players are entertained and they're playing responsibly and we have a responsible product line, we think it's our job to try to increase revenues, but do it in a responsible manner."

And later we learn one part of the Lottery’s definition of playing responsibly:

Texas has a $50 scratch ticket. (Cavanagh said the lottery has no plans to go higher than $20 because it could encourage people to gamble irresponsibly.)

The very same story reports that Mass Lottery games are specifically designed to encourage clients to play repeatedly.

The lottery sends 71 percent of its sales back to players in prizes, compared with a national average of about 57 percent, the analysis showed. Most players do not win much, but the experience of winning even a few bucks is enough to keep them playing.

So plunking $50 for one ticket is somehow not playing responsibly. But plunking down $20 3 times in a row and winning $10 is. Go figure.

Sleep well tonight, Massachusetts! Your Massachusetts State Lottery is on guard against irresponsible gambling gaming.