Smear campaign against Jack Hart and James Rooney?
Jonathan Kamens
4493, which you can read at
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/ht04/ht04493.htm. The message
claimed that the bill was going to be passed "tomorrow" and that I
should call the backer of the bill (Senator Jack Hart) and the
director of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (James
Rooney) to complain. The message directed me to visit the site
mccabillexposed.com for additional information. But something's not
right about this.
Here's why:
1. The legislature's formal session for 2006 ended at midnight on
July 31.
2. Rules prohibit the legislature from passing laws after July 31
in an election year.
3. Judging from the URL of the bill on the legislature's Web site,
it appears to be from last year's session. This seems to be
further supported by the fact that when you try to look up the
history of the bill, you get a message telling you that the
histories of bills from the 2004-5 session have been removed
from the site.
4. The prerecorded phone message I listened to didn't identify
who's behind it.
5. The Web site doesn't identify who's behind it. If you do a
"whois" lookup on the domain, you discover that there's no
information about the owner of the domain.
6. Comments posted on the Web site are moderated, and not a single
comment has been posted.
7. It seems odd for whoever is behind this to claim that the driver
for a bill in the House is actually a Senator.
It looks to me like somebody's trying to do a smear job on Hart or
Rooney. I wonder who's behind it. Any ideas?
--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/
John F. Carr
Jonathan Kamens <j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us> wrote:
>I just got a phone call with a prerecorded message about House Bill
>4493, which you can read at
>http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/ht04/ht04493.htm. The message
>claimed that the bill was going to be passed "tomorrow" and that I
>should call the backer of the bill (Senator Jack Hart) and the
>director of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (James
>Rooney) to complain. The message directed me to visit the site
>mccabillexposed.com for additional information. But something's not
>right about this.
>
>Here's why:
>
> 1. The legislature's formal session for 2006 ended at midnight on
> July 31.
I've heard of automated notification systems being late.
> 2. Rules prohibit the legislature from passing laws after July 31
> in an election year.
But the rules can be, and often are, waived by consent
of everybody who is paying attention.
> 3. Judging from the URL of the bill on the legislature's Web site,
> it appears to be from last year's session. This seems to be
> further supported by the fact that when you try to look up the
> history of the bill, you get a message telling you that the
> histories of bills from the 2004-5 session have been removed
> from the site.
For about a decade bills have been filed for a two lear
legislative session instead of for a calendar year. When
a bill is rewritten in committee and assigned a new tracking
number the web site sometimes mistakenly reports the new
number as invalid and beloning to a previous session.
Here are the history pages for H4493 and its predecessor H4153:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/184history/h04493.htm
http://www.mass.gov/legis/184history/h04153.htm
> 5. The Web site doesn't identify who's behind it. If you do a
> "whois" lookup on the domain, you discover that there's no
> information about the owner of the domain.
Anonymity is a service provided by network registrars.
> 7. It seems odd for whoever is behind this to claim that the driver
> for a bill in the House is actually a Senator.
The House gave final approval last year. It still needs to
pass the Senate, or needed to pass when the web site was
last updated, and only Senators can block it.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Jonathan Kamens
>> 1. The legislature's formal session for 2006 ended at midnight on
>> July 31.
>
>I've heard of automated notification systems being late.
The call was clearly intended to come today. The first posting on the
Web site is dated today.
>> 2. Rules prohibit the legislature from passing laws after July 31
>> in an election year.
>
>But the rules can be, and often are, waived by consent
>of everybody who is paying attention.
So you're saying that the backers of this bill are waiting until the
legislative session has ended so that they can force it through during
an informal session, right after Sal DiMasi refused the governor's
request to call the Senate back into session to consider important
bills.
I suppose that's possible, but it seems like a sure thing that the
governor'll veto the bill if they try that stunt, and they can't
override his veto without a roll call in a formal session, and I doubt
they'll call the Senate back into formal session just to override his
veto of this bill.
>> 5. The Web site doesn't identify who's behind it. If you do a
>> "whois" lookup on the domain, you discover that there's no
>> information about the owner of the domain.
>
>Anonymity is a service provided by network registrars.
And people who engage in political attacks of this sort behind a veil
of anonymity usually have something to hide.
John S
> j...@mit.edu (John F. Carr) writes:
> >> 1. The legislature's formal session for 2006 ended at midnight on
> >> July 31.
> >
> >I've heard of automated notification systems being late.
>
> The call was clearly intended to come today. The first posting on the
> Web site is dated today.
I heard reports of political auto telemarketing urging support of the Mass
Tax Free holiday on Wednesday. I believe by then the governor had already
signed the bill.
Hugo S. Cunningham
(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
>I just got a phone call with a prerecorded message about House Bill
>4493, which you can read at
>http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/ht04/ht04493.htm. The message
>claimed that the bill was going to be passed "tomorrow" and that I
>should call the backer of the bill (Senator Jack Hart) and the
>director of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (James
>Rooney) to complain. The message directed me to visit the site
>mccabillexposed.com for additional information.
[...]
>It looks to me like somebody's trying to do a smear job on Hart or
>Rooney. I wonder who's behind it. Any ideas?
The "Boston Globe" ran an article on it today 5 Aug Saturday:
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/08/05/union_dispute_may_be_behind_stealth_attack/
Quoted text copyright (c) 2006 by the "Boston Globe."
"Union dispute may be behind stealth attack
"By Peter J. Howe, Globe Staff | August 5, 2006, Saturday
"A bill allowing ``gate shows" to move from the Bayside Exposition
Center to the South Boston convention center has come under attack at
the last minute from a stealthy, high-tech campaign.
[...]
[Calls] "directed recipients to a website, mccabillexposed.com, for
more information.
"The site listed no sponsors. And late last night the address was
changed so that it no longer took visitors to the website but instead
to the state government's homepage.
[...]
"But mccabillexposed.com may have been connected to Local 103 of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers because some items on
the site linked to the union's Web address, ibew103.com.
[...]
"It couldn't be determined why Local 103 would be involved, but there
has been a long-running dispute between the two-year-old MCCA and the
union. The group unsuccessfully sought to be the union local
representing electricians at the 500,000-square-foot convention hall.
Local 3 of the National Conference of Firemen & Oilers , a Service
Employees International Union affiliate, represents BCEC
electricians."
[end of quotes from "Globe" article]
--posted by Hugo S. Cunningham
John S
> (Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
>
> >It looks to me like somebody's trying to do a smear job on Hart or
> >Rooney. I wonder who's behind it. Any ideas?
>
> http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/08/05/union_dispute_may_be_behind_stealth_attack/
> "Union dispute may be behind stealth attack
>
> "But mccabillexposed.com may have been connected to Local 103 of the
> International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers because some items on
> the site linked to the union's Web address, ibew103.com.
>
> "It couldn't be determined why Local 103 would be involved, but there
> has been a long-running dispute between the two-year-old MCCA and the
> union. The group unsuccessfully sought to be the union local
> representing electricians at the 500,000-square-foot convention hall.
> Local 3 of the National Conference of Firemen & Oilers , a Service
> Employees International Union affiliate, represents BCEC
> electricians."
The IBEW union isn't on the up-and-up? Say it's not true! Why they're the finest professionals
you could find anywhere! Why wouldn't you want a fine group of gentleman like this to work on
your property and entrust with your electricity?
"Thursday night, right in the midst of the dinnertime rush at one of the city's fanciest
steakhouses, The Capital Grille on Newbury Street, a local labor leader allegedly walked into the
dining room, opened a white shopping bag, and let three white rats loose.
A commotion ensued as the varmints scurried about and diners slicing $40 cuts of dry aged sirloin
and other succulent entrees scattered. Out the door, police say, ran Louis J. Antonellis, a
business agent for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 103, pursued by the
restaurant's manager and a parking valet.
Officers caught Antonellis a few blocks away and marched him back to the restaurant, where
employees identified him as the man who had released the rodents. A police report suggested that
Antonellis's motive had nothing to do with the food, which diners often rank among the best in
Boston."