Taxes and Fees part 1

The governor of Massachusetts and the president of Umass must have each other listed as their emergency contacts. Why else would their plans to generate revenue be so similar. Governor Patrick wants to raise taxes and Umass President Jack Wilson wants to raise fees.

Governor Patrick wants to raise gas tax by 19 cents while getting rid of tolls on the Massachusetts turnpike. I can't fathom why you would get rid of 1 source of revenue and make another one so extravagant. Lately the turnpike has been making less money, which means less revenue.

from the Boston Globe:

Nancy Singer, an FHWA [Federal Highway Administration] spokeswoman, said federal officials don’t really know why driving has been dropping.

Initially, some were blaming the high price of gas for the decline in driving. But Singer said, “In recent months the price of gas has actually gone downward … This has not been reflected in miles driven.”

This is an excerpt from the February 19 article. Umm. Nancy? Do you guys think less people are driving because jobs are in decline and those people who have jobs are trying to conserve money? Quite possibly drivers are taking back roads instead.

Not to mention getting rid of tolls means more people losing their jobs. Why not put tolls on busy areas such as Route 128. Since it's a major if not the biggest road for commuting to Boston, why not collect some revenue from people using it. And let Boston alone keep the money they get. Maybe then Boston can pay for its own fiscal deliquentcey and the excess can eventually help the people inside the city that have needed help for decades.

Back to the gas tax, which was originally proposed at 27 cents in a possible "vision of grandiose" moment by the governor. Why are you taxing our gas in Western Massachusetts? We don't have adequate public transportation.

A response:

He [Governor Patrick]also said it would make the transportation system more environmentally responsible through steps such as increased investment in public transportation outside Boston and adopting various standard to build and buy in environmentally friendly ways.

-Doubtful. Who is going to be able to invest in public transportation, the already wealthy Boston firms? I can't wait to be just another piece of revenue.
You will only cripple those who are barely scrapping by now. I say you because the governor needs to take responsibility for his actions.

Also this proposed idea of putting a chip in my car so that the state can tax me mile by mile is atrocious. Again Western Massachusetts has no viable public transportation. The serfdom of Western, MA is being brutalized again by the lords in Boston.

A Sad Day for Animals

The Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals announced last week the closing of three adoption centers. The Springfield, Massachusetts center is slated for closing on March 31. The MSPCA states on their website the closings are due to the current economic climate.

It is a sad day for the future of animals in the greater Springfield area as their will not be any shelters with the capacity the MSPCA has had. The Republican newspaper has a good article on the concerns of animal activists with the closing of the area center. The concerns surround what will happen to the animals in the shelter and what people may do with unwanted animals, which is a statistic that usually rises with a worsening economy.

The MSPCA writes on its website:

We will work with local animal rescue organizations and shelters, as well as our remaining four adoption centers, to ensure the placement of the remaining homeless animals in our care at the three closing facilities. We will also do the best we can to find alternatives to our services as well as to provide guidance for people to help animals in those areas that must now be without us.

The closing of the Springfield location leaves a huge strain on other facilities in Western Massachusetts. There is no other facility that can singularly take in the 6000 animals that yearly pass through the Springfield MSPCA. I'm sure they will try, but it will be a daunting task.

Here is a list of area facilities for animals. (Some are no kill shelters, some are breed only, or cat or dog only facilities.):

Dakin Pioneer Valley Humane Society
Cat Pack Adoptions and Rescues, Inc
Dog Adoption Network
Southwick Animal Shelter (not sure if this is no-kill)

I Still Despise Broccoli

The latest in what is becoming a long line of banned superbowl commercials (think GoDaddy.com) is by PETA. The commercial consists of women in lingerie licking and stroking various vegetables. see it for yourself:



First off, the commercial is over the top, which is a PETA trademark in its advertising, however it has nothing to do with treating animals ethically (most PETA commercials do not). Will it really get anyone who watches the superbowl to throw down their chicken wings covered in assorted flavors like tangy barbecue or triple hot kamikaze devil's goatee sauce or mild. (some people want to actually taste what their eating).

Are men going to really see this commercial and think, "yes, I am gonna eat that broccoli and arugula and have better sex?" Nope. They are going to think things like, "I wish I was that asparagus or I wonder what she's gonna do next with that pumpkin."

Peta is not alone in its vegetarian through sexism logic. Look at all the female contestants in GoVeg.com's sexiest vegetarian contest.

In short it's a bad commercial that perpetuates stereotypes and tries to use sex to sell abstaining from animal consumption in our diets. In spirit PETA is a good organization; in its dissemination of its information it fails miserably. Perhaps, this is a reason for the ill will towards PETA and its public image of a radical organization. Without fixing its persona, sexy vegetable adds will not help its tarnished image nor get its message across.

PETA could have discussed the environmental impact of reducing the consumption of meat. The environment being a well known topic of discussion, but I guess when you take the vegetables out of the bedroom they're not sexy enough to put in a superbowl ad.