A week for issues concerning gays

Posted by noonante on May 11, 2012
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , . Leave a comment

First we had the disturbing news that an overwhelming percentage of those North Carolinians who voted did so to enshrine bigotry against same-sex couples in their state constitution.  While polls showed that the ballot provision would be approved, the same polls indicated that roughly the same percentage approved of civil unions but not marriage.  The approved amendment to the Constitution, of course, outlawed civil unions as well as marriage.  It is difficult to come up with a silver lining to either the approved bigotry or the awareness that voters did not know what they were voting on.

The next day, President Obama came out in support of gay and lesbian couples having the same right to marry as heterosexual couples.  Predictably, the response from the Main Stream Media and much of the blogosphere has centered on the political consequences and whether it was a moment of courage or political calculation.  Having a high regard for the President’s political skills, I think there was without doubt an element of calculation, not exactly a shocking revelation regarding an incumbent president running for reelection.  But I also think there was a moment of real leadership there.  While cynics may dispute whether he had actually “evolved” on the issue, how many of us who now support marriage equality did so even 10 years ago?

Yesterday brought us a piece by Jason Horowitz in The Washington Post about Mitt Romney’s prep school days.  In Horowitz’ article, he describes an incident in which the 18-year old Romney was offended that a schoolmate had bleached blond hair that hung down over one eye.  He assembled a posse that went to the youngster’s room, where he was tackled and subdued so Romney could cut his hair as the kid screamed and cried. Romney then led a triumphant group back to his room to celebrate.  The victim of this assault, who later came out as gay, is now deceased.  The article also cites the sources saying that Romney would shout “Atta girl” when a then-closeted gay student would speak during class.  I assume because there were five sources (four identified) for Horowitz’ article, Romney did not deny the facts of the story, but did say he did not remember them. He proceeded to issue the politician’s pro forma apology:

Back in high school, I did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize.  I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks during high school and some might have gone too far and for that, I apologize.  I certainly don’t believe that I thought the fellow was homosexual.  That was the furthest thing from our minds back in the 1960’s. 

(Emphasis added.)  Now, I have done and said more than my fair share of stupid things for which I am embarrassed, and not all of them occurred when I was a callow teenager.  But Romney and I are about the same age, and I can say authoritatively that homosexuality was something one was well aware of even back in the 60’s.  Not everyone had what we could call an enlightened view of homosexuals back then;  indeed, the opposite was more likely the norm.  That’s a far cry, however, from actively engaging in persecuting someone.  While Romney may characterize these incidents as “hijinks” or “pranks,” I think a more apt description would be “bullying.”

I do not believe Romney when he says that he does not remember these incidents.  Back in the day when I was employed gainfully, one of my responsibilities was to investigate employee misconduct.  A sure-fire indicator that someone was lying was when they did not deny a significant accusation, but instead stated “I don’t remember.”  Some of those quoted in the Horowitz article who participated with Romney in assaulting the kid not only have a vivid memory, but the appropriate level of remorse for engaging in an act of cruelty.

But let’s end on a positive note.  Here is what the President said in explaining his position on marriage equality in his interview on ABC News.  The quote is taken from Andrew Sullivan’s post on The Daily Beast.

In the end the values that I care most deeply about and [Michelle] cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.

Derby recap

Posted by noonante on May 8, 2012
Posted in: Horse Racing. Leave a comment

Some random thoughts on this year’s Kentucky Derby:

  • Wow!!  That is some horse.  Not the winner, I’ll Have Another, but second-place finisher Bodemeister.  As he was carving out some of the fastest fractions in Derby history  –  22 1/5, 45 1/5, 109 4/5  –  I was thinking “he won’t be around at the end.”  At the top of the stretch as he opened a 3-length lead, I switched to “this will be one of the most impressive wins ever.”  Alas, he was caught by I’ll Have Another and the superb ride given him by first-time Derby jockey Mario Gutierrez.  I hope he doesn’t run in the Preakness.  I realize that a classic win does a lot for breeding value, but this guy is clearly the best of his generation, a potential superstar who could be Horse of the Year.  After not racing at two, and then scintillating efforts in the Arkansas and Kentucky Derbies, he could use a small break.
  • So just how good was this Derby field?  The conventional wisdom before the race was that this was one of the best fields in years.  While I thought it was one of the most competitive ones in my memory, I had serious questions about how good it was.  Only four members of the field had ever run a triple digit Beyer speed figure, with Bodemeister’s three such races equaling the total from the rest of the starters.  Only six had a last-race figure higher than 95 in their last start.  Go back to last year’s Derby and we see a remarkably similar pattern, with the sole exception being Bodemeister’s Arkansas Derby 0f 108.  Andy Beyer’s take on the 2011 field was that it “could be the worst in decades….  not one of the starters would be a serious contender in an average Derby.”  The winning number this year?  101.  And keep in mind that only one of 19 entrants could catch the enervated Bodemeister.
  • Big props to the Oaks and Derby coverage of NBCSC, formerly Versus.  I bad-mouthed the decision to go with the network when it was announced a year ago, but it was the best horse racing telecast I have seen.  Jerry Bailey is a tremendous analyst whose assessment of the trip needed by Union Rags convinced me to not wager a nickel on the horse who was the favorite almost to post-time.  I’m even reconciled to the NBC coverage.  Even though the Derby broadcast began with a half-hour of asking “celebrities” where they got their outfits, I realized that few serious bettors are tuning in right before the race goes off to get serious information.  And in what may be a first, they actually showed the turf race that precedes the Derby.
  • And speaking of the Oaks, major props to Rosie Napravnik who is the first woman rider to win the race for three-year old fillies.  She just missed winning last year, and this time brought 14-1 shot Believe You Can home, edging John Velazquez in the process.

Don’t forget to look for the Blue Ribbon Analysis on this site before the Preakness.

Stupid commercials and stupid products

Posted by noonante on May 5, 2012
Posted in: Political/Social commentary. Leave a comment

Mother’s Day cannot come soon enough.  I have commented on horrible commercials in the past.  Part of my pique is annoyance at myself because I did not make a living producing absolutely worthless dreck and getting paid handsomely for it.  But now we have one of the worst ever.  If you watch any commercial TV you have seen this one.  It is a mother and daughter crying uncontrollably because the daughter is moving (4.2 miles?) away from the mother.  I had that fingernails against the blackboard experience the first time I saw it and cannot bear to watch it any longer.  Why would anyone be moved to buy this product after suffering through this commercial?  I hope it will go away once Mother’s Day has come and gone.

On to the stupid products department.  Back in the day, if one wanted to enjoy a can of beer one needed a product known as a church key.  This enabled the thirsty consumer to punch a hole in one part of the can, and then punch a smaller hole opposite the first one to allow some air in and encourage the free flow of the liquid.  Then the pop-top was invented.  No need for said church key because the lone hole was large enough to allow in the necessary air.  Now we have the producer of a light beer touting the ability to punch a second (and unnecessary) hole in the can.  Now I can understand why makers of light beers need creative ideas to sell their product.  They are watery and tasteless, so we have one beer that markets the can turning blue so the consumer knows when the beer is cold enough.  While this benefits those who are unaware that placing the can in a refrigerator or, even better, a cooler full of ice will make the product cold, it is as useless as the second hole.  And someone got paid for both of these stupid ideas.

Mitt Romney’s “principles”: May 2 edition

Posted by noonante on May 2, 2012
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , . Leave a comment

Yesterday’s news brought us two more examples of how a Romney administration might look.

Ric Grenell, Romney’s spokesperson-to-be on foreign policy issues resigned because of a constant barrage of criticism and vitriol from Romney’s new friends on the “Christian” right.  What is his offense?  He is openly gay (or as the right might say “an avowed homosexual”) who supports equal marriage rights.  Bryan Fischer, a “family values” activist who once blamed gays for the Holocaust, described the reason for the right’s outrage:  “Given the propensity for members of the homosexual community to engage in frequent and anonymous sexual encounters, the risk to national security of having a homosexual in a high-ranking position with access to secret information is obvious.”  (From Evan McMorris-Santoro at Talking Points Memo.)  Other than the rote statement from a campaign figure, I have not seen any statement from Romney himself defending the staffer.

The other example is from Romney’s criticism of the Obama campaign ad quoting Romney saying he would not have invested the time or money in searching for Osama bin Laden.  Romney criticized Obama for his “inappropriate” politicizing of the successful action.  Where did he make his comments about inappropriate politicizing?  At a firehouse in New York City where he and Rudy Giuliani delivered pizza.  I am not making this up.  If the right-wingers upset about a same-sex marriage proponent being a part of Romney campaign now criticize Romney for associating with a person whose own marital history is  —  shall we say  — interesting, we wonder if Romney will throw Guiliani under the next bus.  Of course that is unlikely to happen since to the “family values conservatives” it is only gays and lesbians who threaten traditional marriage and not the likes of Giuliani or Newt Gingrich.

Republicans want to talk the real issues?

Posted by noonante on April 29, 2012
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , . Leave a comment

If there is any agreement among the polarized factions in the current political spectrum, it is that this year’s crop of Republican candidates for the Presidency is one of the weakest in years.  That Mitt Romney could not immediately dispatch the likes of Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich leads one to question his strength in the general election.  Whatever you think of Barack Obama, he has demonstrated that he is one tough, savvy politician.  GOP characterizations of him as a “Chicago politician” would only seem to underscore that point.

So we should expect that the eventual GOP nominee is going to deal with an opponent who will not favor colonizing the moon, banning contraception or being able to identify agencies of the United States government or countries where American service people are involved.  It is becoming apparent that any effort by the President to raise an issue will be met by the rote response that it is not a “real issue,” an argument that may not be that far removed from the efforts to suggest that Obama is not a “real American.”  Here are some of the issues that are not “real:”

  • Rights of women:  If memory serves (and it often does not), when the “Tea Party Congress” came to office in 2011, one of their main issues was limiting the right of women to choose an abortion.  While they had not campaigned on this, preferring instead (and inconsistently) to focus on too much “big government,” abortion rights became a major matter.  We have since seen a flurry of activity on this, including the repulsively intrusive requirement that women undergo vaginal ultrasounds before exercising a Constitutionally-protected right to terminate a pregnancy.  Then there was the flap over whether an employer (not just those affiliated with a religious institution) could prevent insurance carriers from covering contraceptive services, which 98 per cent of American women of child-bearing age have received.  What was the GOP response?  John McCain, as quoted by Irin Carmom in Salon, said this “distract[s] citizens from real issues that really matter.”  Upset about vaginal intrusions?  Romney backer Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania advised women to “close your eyes.”  (From Evan McMorris-Santoro in Talking Points Memo.)
  • Fairness of tax code:  While there may be universal agreement on the need to change our tax code, there are sharp differences between the parties on the best way to do that.  The President has proposed the “Buffet rule” that would ensure that millionaires pay at least as much as middle-income tax payers now do.  When confronted on PBS’ NewsHour with the statistic that the top 400 earners in America pay an average rate of 18%  —  less than many middle-income earners  —  Republican strategist Douglas Holtz-Eakin who was a top adviser to George W. Bush and the McCain campaign  —  decried the “pointless battle about fairness.”  And let us not forget Mitt Romney’s statement that the growing inequality among Americans is a matter best discussed in “quiet rooms.”
  • Interest rates on college loans:  I found it remarkable when I learned that the total indebtedness on college loans now exceeds that of credit card obligations.  It is well-established that the unemployment rate for recent college grads exceeds that of the population in general, so the notion that interest rates would double on July 1 would seem to warrant some discussion.  Not to House Speaker John Boehner who referred to the President’s speeches at college campuses last week as a “fake fight,” “pathetic” and “beneath the dignity of the White House.”  Speaking to voters on an issue that affects them is “beneath the dignity” of the President?  Perhaps he shares Romney’s concern that such matters only be discussed in the “quiet rooms” frequented by Republican donors.

There is, of course, a raft of nonsense that passes for political discourse in our country.  While selection of Romney’s choice for the Vice-Presidency is a significant matter  —  just look at the last two Republican nominees  —  there is no news about it, just pointless speculation.  That beats, however, the complete foolishness about who will be the parties’ nominees in 2016.  Chris Matthews was positively giddy in raising the possibility that Hilary Clinton would face off with Rick Santorum.  All of this is much easier than an informed, fact-based discussion of real issues, even those Republicans would like to ignore because they are inconvenient.

Which Mitt will it be?

Posted by noonante on April 26, 2012
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: . Leave a comment

Since the general election campaign began several weeks ago following Rick Santorum’s concession to reality, the speculation has been rife over what face Mitt Romney will wear.  The answer to that question is as simple as it is obvious:  whatever it takes for him to win.

A more interesting inquiry is how the Obama campaign will seek to portray him, with there being two camps within the reelection effort.  One view is that Romney should be portrayed as an endless flip-flopper who can be expected to shake the Etch A Sketch in order to appeal to an electorate not as ideologically right-wing as the Tea Party Republicans.  The other view, championed by Bill Clinton, is to put Romney in a corner surrounded by the right-wing rhetoric from the Republican primaries.  It is interesting that Clinton, who was borderline nasty during the 2008 Democratic primaries, has emerged as Obama’s most effective surrogate and perhaps even his most valued adviser.

Romney has already started walking away from his primary positions.  After being the most strident GOP voice on immigration during the debates, he now thinks that Marco Rubio’s version of the DREAM Act is worth looking at.  When the President took to college campuses to speak out against increasing the interest rate on student loans, Romney agreed quickly even though he was opposed to such notions earlier this year.  Romney did not mention how the government should make up the $6 billion annual expense of keeping the interest rates at their current level, but we know from prior statements it will not be from increasing tax revenue or cutting defense spending.  When he does mention cutting specific programs, it has always been from small-bore items such as the National Endowment for the Arts and, of course, Planned Parenthood.

The Silly Season is upon us

Posted by noonante on April 18, 2012
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , . Leave a comment

While there are those benighted souls who think the ensuing general election campaign will be about issues such as economic policy or foreign affairs, the real campaign began last week with Hilary Rosen’s comment that Ann Romney “never worked a day in her life.”  The Romney campaign, true to its long standing policy of never letting reality get in the way of an opportune political shot, erroneously described Rosen as a Obama “advisor,” and attempted to ratchet up the debate by saying it was Obama, not the Republican Party, that had launched the real “war on women.”  Let’s set aside for a minute whether an ill-advised comment by a previously unknown Democrat is equivalent to a potential Romney Vice-Presidential candidate being in favor of mandating vaginal probes prior to a woman exercising a constitutionally protected right to an abortion, Ann Romney’s lack of work outside her home is not one of our nation’s most pressing problems.

This week brings us the next great issue.  The Daily Caller, a right-leaning site revealed the startling information that Barack Obama has eaten dog.  This revelation, jumped on with considerable gusto by the Romney campaign, is intended to deflect criticism of the Republican nominee-to-be’s driving from Boston to Canada with the family dog riding on the roof of the car.  What’s the source for this scoop?  Uhh … actually it is Obama’s book Dreams from My Father in which he described living in Indonesia as a child.  Again, setting aside the inanity of this factoid as newsworthy, why is the Romney campaign reminding (or informing) people of one of the true embarrassments from their candidate’s personal life?  Unless you are a reader of Gail Collins’ column, this is a topic you may never have encountered. And how does a meal of a child living in a foreign country equate with the actions of an adult engaging in behavior that borders on animal abuse?

Stay tuned for next week’s dramatic news story.

Derby preps wrap-up

Posted by noonante on April 10, 2012
Posted in: Horse Racing. Tagged: . Leave a comment

With the Kentucky Derby less than four weeks away, the recent round of prep races has done little to clarify a decidedly murky picture.  Only two major preps remain:  next weekend’s Arkansas Derby and the Blue Grass Stakes.  Although I have opined that the Blue Grass should no longer be considered a major prep, it has attracted Hansen, winner of the Breeders’ Cup Juvenile.  To add to the confusion, two horses that had been well-regarded before their last prep races, Mark Valeski and El Padrino, are not on the top 20 list of graded stakes earnings that will determine entry into the field if the race is oversubscribed as it undoubtedly will be.

Union Rags has long been regarded as a top contender with a record that was only a head away from being a perfect 5-for-5, the only defeat being after a difficult trip in the Breeders’ Cup Juvenile.  He had another less-than-desirable journey in the Florida Derby in running third behind Take Charge Indy and the unheralded Reveron.  If you cannot overcome difficulty in an eight horse field, how are you going to deal with the chaos that so often ensues in the 20-horse field that is the Kentucky Derby?  Add to that the fact that his Beyer top of 95 was first run in August at Saratoga (matched by the same number in the Fountain of Youth), and there are several reasons to not regard this guy as the favorite.  Take Charge Indy‘s winning figure of 95 is a tick below his career top, and he has a jockey named Calvin H. Borel as his expected rider in Louisville.  The second and fourth finishers, Reveron and  El Padrino, may also being going to Churchill Downs but will have to wait for horses above them on the graded stakes earnings list to not enter, since they are 24 and 23 on that list respectively.

The UAE Derby was run the same day as the Florida event, and produced the highest speed figure run by any Derby hopeful.  Daddy Long Legs earned a Racing Post Rating of 117 which, by my calculation, is the equivalent of a 105 Beyer.  Despite this win, he is unlikely to be viewed as a leading Derby contender since the Dubai race, now run on a synthetic surface, has never produced a top Derby finisher.  More to the point, in the colt’s only dirt race, he finished 12th by almost 20 lengths in last year’s Juvenile at Churchill Downs.

On the following day, Hero of Order upset the Louisiana Derby at odds of 109-1, beating the well-regarded Mark Valeski who finished second.  It was not, however, as much of an upset as it appeared.  Yes, the winner had a career record of only one win and one second in 13 career starts, but his Beyer top of 87 in the Risen Star stakes fit in with this largely mediocre group.  Mark Valeski had earned a 98 in the Risen Star, beating the fourth-place finisher Hero of Order by six lengths, but that race looks like a negative key race given that the winner, El Padrino, showed nothing in the Florida Derby.  The winning Louisiana Derby Beyer of 90 suggests that the Kentucky Derby winner will not be coming out of this group.

Last weekend we saw the Wood Memorial, Santa Anita Derby and the Illinois Derby.  The mid-Western race is only considered a prep because the winner came back and won at Churchill in 2002.  Other than that, I think the race has a record similar to that of the UAE Derby.  This year’s version was won by Done Talking, a colt who finished 20 lengths behind Hansen in the Remsen.  His winning Beyer of 86 was better than the last race Beyer of any entrant save one, and is unlikely to produce much of a bandwagon going to Louisville.

The other two races were unique in this season of preps in that the top two choices in each race ran to form, producing exciting finishes.  The still undefeated Gemologist held off Godolphin’s Alpha in winning Aqueduct’s Wood Memorial.  His winning Beyer of 98 is near the top for this year’s final prep races.  At Santa Anita, I’ll Have Another, a 43-1 winner in his prior start, held off Creative Cause, the winner of three graded stakes and third-place finisher in the Breeders’ Cup Juvenile.  The winning Beyer of 94 was below the figs run by this pair in their last outing.

Random thoughts

Posted by noonante on March 30, 2012
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

How does the killing of a 17-year old become a partisan issue?  I have thought for some time that the hyper-partisanship that infects our nation’s politics is the biggest problem facing our country, and I am not exempting either the Democrats or the Republicans from this assessment.  As I understand the Trayvon Martin killing, the following facts are not in dispute:

  • Trayvon Martin was not armed
  • Trayvon’s killer, George Zimmerman, telephoned the police to report that Trayvon was a suspicious person
  • Zimmerman did not inform the police that Martin was engaged in illegal behavior
  • The 911 operator directed Zimmerman to not follow Martin
  • Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon
  • Zimmerman killed Martin with a handgun that he was licensed to carry
  • Zimmerman claims that Martin surprised him by jumping out from a concealed location and assaulted him

So what we have is someone being followed at night and, if we accept Zimmerman’s explanation, assaulting his follower.  Florida has a “Stand Your Ground” law which does not require, as many states do, that if someone feels threatened they must retreat if they can do so safely.  Rather, they are permitted to use force. Again, accepting Zimmerman’s account, is that not what Trayvon Martin was doing?

Has Florida become a state where it is permissible to provoke a confrontation and then use deadly force to end it?  More significantly, why would Republicans want to turn this tragedy into a partisan issue?  Both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have criticized Barack Obama’s comments on this even though any reasonable person would see Obama’s response as that of a parent?

And what in the name of God was Spike Lee thinking?  He tweeted the address of what he thought was George Zimmerman to his 250,000 followers.  It was not Zimmerman’s address and the elderly couple subsequently barraged with news people and threats were forced to leave their home.  While Lee apologized for transmitting the wrong address, he said nothing about the act of encouraging vigilantes to enact their own version of justice.  What a nitwit.

How bad was the defense of Obamacare in the Supreme Court?  The immediate (and continuing) reaction of the punditocracy has been that Solicitor General Donald Verrilli completely blew the opportunity to explain the individual mandate to the nine justices.  They cite his opening remarks and the “necessity” of liberal justices bailing him out.  Verrilli’s opening has actually been made into a Republican campaign ad.  I listened to the early part of his presentation  (courtesy of WGBH in Boston) and thought the opening was not the result of utter incompetence, but possibly one of those moments when we have trouble speaking because of a minor throat issue.  I was embarrassed as he recovered and began to respond to questions from the justices.  But it was the Court for whom I felt the embarrassment.  One of the most significant pieces of legislation in our nation’s recent history was reduced to whether the government could require citizens to buy cell phones, burial insurance, automobiles and broccoli.  Yes, broccoli.  The justices asking such inane hypotheticals were from the conservative end of the spectrum.  I thought Verrilli answered such foolishness as best he could and kept to his main arguments.

Speaking of WGBH…  GBH has the strongest NPR signal emanating from Boston and is to be commended for carrying the recording of the entire argument before the Supreme Court with insightful commentary from a law professor at Suffolk University.  They also have a noontime program hosted by Emily Rooney, who has to be one of the dimmest bulbs in the public radio universe.  Two of her guests following one day of argument were authors of amicus curiae briefs.  Her assessment?  The briefs were “cute” and “a little bigger than Readers Digest.”  Now that’s the elite media we heard about from Republican candidates.  Rooney reminds one of the Fred Willard character from Best in Show.

Sinking even deeper into the mundane … I am a big fan of March Madness and watch as many games as I can.  When I say “I can,” I lack the stamina to stay up late and watch all 16 games on each of the first two days and limit myself to 8 games [sic] each day.  My observations from this year’s tournament:

  • It has been one of the least interesting ones in memory.  Aside from two 15-seeds beating 2-seeds and the referees robbing UNC-Asheville of a much-deserved victory over 1-seed Syracuse, there isn’t much to commend this year’s version.
  • My enjoyment of the tournament has increased significantly since I stopped doing brackets.  I have actually won these in the past, but hate to be in a position to be rooting for Duke over Lehigh because I have them going to the final four.
  • Why do the major programs have at least as many coaches as players on the court?  Five appears to be de riguer, but I have seen some sixes.

Speaking of basketball, how about that Barack Obama?  One of many lowlights in covering the Republican debates was one of the Saturday night ones where the question to the candidates was what they would be doing that night if not debating.  Rick Perry said he would be on the shooting range  —  on a Saturday night.  One said he would be watching the basketball championship.  Since the debate was on January 7 and the basketball championship will be next Monday, that would be quite a feat.  Two others said they would be watching the football championship.  At least they had the right month, but these regular guys, as they tried to appear, were not aware that the game would not be until two nights later.  Now one of the only things this group of candidates cannot say about the President is that he doesn’t legitimately follow sports  —  which is not to say that Mitt Romney will not try to make that case.  Obama was interviewed by Bill Simmons at the White House.  The interview, for which there is a podcast as well as a transcript was quite entertaining.

What is it about housing authorities?  Two of my favorite cities have recently dealt with significant problems with local housing authorities.  In the Boston area, the Chelsea Housing Authority had an Executive Director who was secretly paid an exorbitant amount of money ($360K), wrote himself an exorbitant “vacation and sick leave buyout” (over $200K) after quickly resigning, gave much-desired apartments to staff members, and took frequent business trips with a female assistant even though he is (or perhaps was) married.  In Saratoga Springs, the Executive Director was paid an exorbitant amount of money ($152K), and hired family members.  The Board “overseeing” his contract signed a five-year contract that renews automatically every year unless the automatic extension is terminated.  While they terminated the automatic extension following reports in The Saratogian, it appears to mean he has four years to go on his contract.  The SSHA gained fame most recently because they down-played a bedbug infestation that turned out to be as serious as residents claimed.  Yesterday’s Saratogian reports that a board meeting was just conducted in apparent contravention of the Open Meeting law.  Homelessness is, obviously, one of our society’s most significant problems and, in Massachusetts at least, one of its more intractable.  These housing authority issues indicate that a government model in which there is federal, state (or, in Saratoga’s case, city) and local housing authority is not a model that serves either residents or taxpayers.