Hello hello! Happy Black History Month to all who celebrate! And to those who don’t—who may in this incredibly dumb cultural moment be saying what about White History Month?! with renewed gusto, may I suggest opening up a calendar and thumbing over to the month of July. There it is. Now stop recording your little video in your big lifted truck and try putting on “For Whom The Bell Tolls” instead. There, don’t you feel better now? Like it or not time marches on. Even for the politically incorrect and other such tactical operators in the war on woke. Even the tier 1 guys, I regret to say, report directly to time. Even they march on.
I’m in a cool little reading group with some local professors and organizers and such, digging into the type of material that’d get you blacklisted from Hollywood back when America was Great. Just so happens the current book is Angela Davis’ Women, Race & Class. This morning I read the following:
Two years after the Seneca Falls Convention, the first National Convention on Women's Rights was held in Worcester, Massachusetts. Whether she was actually invited or came on her own initiative, Sojourner Truth was among the participants. Her presence there and the speeches she delivered at subsequent women's rights meetings symbolized Black women's solidarity with the new cause. They aspired to be free not only from racist oppression but also from sexist domination.
The Worcester Convention, as Davis tells it, was the start of a tour of sorts for Truth, imposing herself on what were predominantly and at times fiercely guarded white spaces of the nascent women’s rights movement. To simply have been in attendance at the Worcester convention was a profoundly political act. In Akron, Ohio some months later, she upped the ante, rising up to directly counter some “disruptive jeers of hostile men.” This was the iconic “Ain’t I A Woman?” speech. One of the jeers apparently had to do with puddles, and how women need help walking over them.
Truth, who had been enslaved, began her argument by simply pointing out that no one’s ever helped her over any puddle. Then she rolled up her sleeve and flexed her powerful bicep—can you imagine the segment Jesse Watters would do on that alone?—and she said “ain’t I a woman” then she let it rip.
I have ploughed, and planted, and gathered into barns and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man—when I could get it—and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children and seen them most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?
The year was 1851. In the intervening 174 years the question of whether Black women are women has been mostly settled, though we and the white supremacists still have our minor disagreements, and they still tend to revolve around muscular arms. But ‘Ain’t I A Woman?’ unfortunately remains a necessary question—one that’s shifted from the arena of race to gender. Having mostly lost on the race question, the disruptively jeering hostile men that Truth confronted still exist, still carry the same banner of patriarchal white supremacy. Now they do it on the TV stations they own, the social media platforms they own, the White House, the Supreme Court, Congress, etc etc. And they have a new target. When a trans woman today asks “Ain't I A Woman?” the question is just as provocative, just as confrontational, the answer just as unsettled, as it was for Truth when she first raised it.

But today the question needs a slight augmentation: “Ain’t I A Person?” That is the true disagreement we’re currently having with the jeering white supremacists of our time. Are our trans, non-binary, gender-fluid neighbors human beings, same as everyone else? Or are we going to deny that humanity based on the complications presented to the agreed-upon sex definitions we see as central to the smooth functioning of a patriarchal order, and thus cling to out of the fear of it eroding?
When Candy Mero-Carlson called Thu Nguyen “it,”1 she let us know which side of this argument she was on—the side that’s fearful and clinging and lashing out. The Trump side.
We had Josh Croke on Outdoor Cats a few days ago and they captured this side of the argument well:
And so the fact that the current president, in his inauguration speech, felt that it was important to take up talk space by saying that the federal government will only recognize two genders is wild. The fact that there are so many issues that are facing our nation, and he takes up a minute of what is like a 45 minute speech to dehumanize other and separate people is incredibly, incredibly scary. And it is a tactic of fascism. I'm just going to say that.
An attempt to deny humanity in broad strokes, using the national pulpit of the presidency. He signed an executive order on the two gender thing. Day One! He was not only allowed to do it but cheered on by at least half the country.
At the same time, locally, we have a sitting councilor in this Democratic city in this Democratic state, doing the exact same thing, directly to a colleague she happens to personally dislike. That is the reason why I’ve decided to dedicate so much time and energy to this one story. What is at stake here is which side of the “Aint I A Person?” question this city falls down on.
Candy has had weeks now to own up to and apologize for what she did. Instead, she’s denied it and attempted to center herself as the victim. The mayor and the city manager have run cover for her—which I’ll touch on in two separate sections of today’s post. In doing so, they all show themselves to be on a certain side.
The queer community has watched this all transpire. They’ve seen city hall do less than nothing. They are angry, and they are set on making Mero-Carlson and everyone in her corner pay. If the mayor doesn’t do what we all know he has to do, and cut Candy loose, this will be an albatross around the neck of his mayoral campaign. As it will be for every council candidate who’s unwilling to publicly condemn Candy.
In a more normal, well adjusted city, she’d already have been run out of town. When we call for her resignation, and organize around her opponent to level political consequences, our sights are set wider than this one little cog in this one little backwater of a political machine. Our sights are set on our ability to exact our will on city hall, to demand it come down on the right side of the fundamental question of our times.
In short: Candy is nothing. But our ability to make Candy pay is everything.
With that in mind, much to get to today. This one is long but it’s all in keeping with a theme. Don’t feel like you have to bite it all off at once. That’s what this table of contents is for. In the browser version, they hyperlink you straight to the section.
The same old dirty trick—a $500,000 question—can the HRC make statements?—What is it even allowed to do?—Murray’s political necromancy—odds and ends
They pulled the same old dirt trick
Fitting this post is coming out on Groundhog Day because we are very much stuck in a loop. The city’s political class keeps pulling the same moves over and over and over.
Here’s what I had written for the lede of this section before 4 p.m. Friday, when the agenda for Tuesday’s council meeting became public.
To investigate or not investigate? That is the question now posed to Mayor Joe Petty after a late night, last minute item (almost) filed by Etel Haxhiaj. Will he initiate a council-led investigation into Candy Mero-Carlson’s behavior—the transphobic slur against Nguyen and the denigrating of Haxhiaj’s refugee status—or won’t he?
Before the agenda was released, I was all but certain there would be a petition from a community member on the Tuesday agenda asking the council to initiate such an investigation. But folks, I regret to inform you they pulled the same old rotten no good dirty trick they pulled with the Gaza ceasefire petition back in October. They surreptitiously and at the last minute removed it. Petty has apparently not learned any lesson at all. When matters of any significance find themselves at odds with the will of the mayor, they just so happen to fall off the agenda.
Here’s what happened in a paragraph:
Haxhaij at the meeting on Tuesday attempted to make a motion to have the mayor initiate a council-led investigation into Candy Mero-Carlson’s use of a slur and other over-the-line behavior. The mayor waffled. The council hemmed and hawed. Haxhiaj said okay whatever I’ll put an order on next week. The queer community stepped up to file that order on Haxhiaj’s behalf. The law department found no issue with it. The city clerk’s office then denied it on legal grounds. It did not appear on the agenda. Organizers were notified of that after the agenda was published. But another order from the very same queer community was allowed onto the agenda. It’s a good item: requesting the council adopt a resolution declaring Worcester a sanctuary city for transgender and gender diverse people. Same as the last two weeks, dozens of people are expected to show up and speak about the necessity of it. But now, because of the clerk’s meddling (which, we learned from the Gaza ceasefire ordeal, tends to come as a top-down order from the mayor), this queer community—heading into Round Three of demanding the council does something—now has demonstrably clear evidence of a backdoor effort to ensure the council does fucking nothing.
Now here’s what happened in detail:
In the “under suspension” section at the end of the last meeting, where new concerns are typically raised for discussion, Haxhiaj brought up the confusion around what is and isn’t getting investigated. She got City Manager Eric Batista to confirm that his office is only looking into a complaint against Mero-Carlson from a staff member. “I have no authority to investigate a councilor complaint against another councilor. It is outside of my jurisdiction.” Then she turned the question onto the mayor.
“So Mr. Chair, would you be willing to call for the hiring of a third party investigator as the chair of the city council to investigate the two complaints filed by council and myself regarding the allegations of the use of a slur as well as statements made about myself and my family.”
Petty murmured something about not knowing whether he could do that. It’s no wonder that, minutes earlier, he tried especially hard to conclude the meeting before anyone could bring anything up “under suspension.” Why he asked for two roll call votes to “go under suspension” when typically it’s a routine thing no one ever thinks about. He may well have had a sense Haxhiaj was headed this direction, and was doing all he could to nip it in the bud. It didn’t work. But it did tip his hand: bringing the council to commission such an investigation is the last thing Petty wants to do. It is also the morally correct and professionally responsible course to take when a member of the board has been alleged to be so abusive and villainous to her colleagues.
The back-and-forth between Haxhiaj, pushing for action, and Petty, desperately avoiding it, came to a head when Haxhiaj made the request “in the form of a motion”—a move that forces each councilor to vote it up or down. “The motion would be for the chair to call for a third party investigator to investigate the two complaints made by Council Nguyen and myself.”
The council was coming dangerously close to taking a consequential vote on moral grounds for the benefit of the community that had just spent hours lobbying them. Can’t have that. So Moe Bergman stood up to throw water on the idea. Isn’t “under suspension” supposed to be for items that are “reasonably unanticipated,” he asked, rhetorically, quoting the rule book.
“This is not something that's reasonably unanticipated. This has been going on for weeks and this could be brought up at another time. So I certainly am not supportive of voting on anything right now that the public hasn't been notified of.”
Right... the public is his concern. Sure thing.
Cue a thumbing of the rule book from the council. A prolonged and awkward stalemate. It broke when Haxhiaj threw her hands up in the air and said (my words) fuck it fine I’ll file this as an order next week. Bergman’s brilliant legal strategy backfired. Instead of avoiding the vote, he made the vote much more consequential, much more high profile, and cause for Round Three of the city’s queer community showing up to berate the council for two hours straight—a ritual that may well become weekly unless Petty wises up and realizes his only way out is to buck up and actually punish Mero-Carlson for her behavior.
Good job, Bergman! For someone so obviously uncomfortable and angry whenever the public shows up to a council meeting—cue Exhibit A...
...in which Bergman debuts his new way of sneaky texting through public comment by pulling out his desk drawer—you used your lawyerly rulebook thumbing to guarantee it all happens again.
You know you can just quit, right? Think about it... please.
The week went on, and the queer community stepped up on Thursday to file the motion for Haxhiajl, in the form of a public petition.
Request the City Council work with the Queer Residents of Worcester & Our Allies to hire a third party with LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC expertise and lens to investigate Councilor Nguyen and Councilor Haxhiaj's concerns regarding transphobia, discrimination, and toxic council culture.
Notice the word “request” at the beginning and keep that in back of mind for what follows.
On Thursday, the petition was sent to the clerk. Later that day, the assistant clerk says “Both items are under review, and we will follow up with you as soon as possible once the review is complete.”
At 4:10 p.m. Friday, the assistant clerk writes back saying yes to the petition regarding the sanctuary city for trans and other gender diverse people, but an emphatic no for the one concerning the investigation.
Your second item, relative to a request for the City Council hiring a third party to investigate Councilor Nguyen and Councilor Haxhiaj’s concerns cannot be placed on the agenda. As it was explained to the City Council during its January 28, 2025, meeting by the City Solicitor, only the City Council itself has the authority to initiate an investigation on its members. This determination by the City Solicitor was confirmed today once again, when she gave us the below information:
“This parliamentary procedure and authority rests with the council body. In Turner v. City of Boston, the court opined, ‘This court has held previously that the elected municipal board or council is the appropriate body to enforce the provisions of § 23 in relation to the conduct of one of its members.’”
The agenda was posted at 4:36 p.m., leaving no time for a counter argument, not that it would have mattered.
The argument is, at best, misleading, and is more likely an attempt to pass the buck on to the city solicitor. I’m not buying it. The public petition was a request that the “council body” do the thing this deputy clerk is saying it has the sole legal authority to do! That’s how all public petitions work! To say that the public cannot petition the city council to do something solely within the council’s authority throws the whole premise of public petitions into question. Why even have them? You could make this argument about literally anything that appears as a public petition. (This argument from the clerk is remarkably similar to the argument Moe Bergman made at the last meeting, which we’ll get to.)
So the question then becomes, why make this argument on this particular public petition?
The answer lies in Joe Petty. Quite clearly. But first, the deputy clerk continues in that email:
That being said, Councilor Haxhiaj did state during that same January 28, 2025, meeting that she would be filing an item similar to that petition at the next agenda that includes City Council items, which is slated for February 11, 2025. We would suggest you follow up with her to determine if that is still her intent!
An extremely important question emerges here. If Haxhiaj can do it, why can’t the community? The factual answer is they can both do it. The realpolitik answer is that Joe Petty has an easier time instructing the clerk to block a petition from the community than he does an order from a sitting councilor.
Some of you may be saying well hey it’s the city clerk saying this. What’s Joe got to do with it? To which I say we have to shirk off a certain naivete that the rules matter to this political class. In October, Petty similarly threw the clerk under the bus regarding the Gaza petition.
It was his call. Petty has created a situation here where not only does Round Three become all the more heated, he provoked a Round Four. On Tuesday, dozens of people are likely to speak at public comment about the fact the second petition was taken off the agenda. Then that same item is going on, by way of Haxhiaj—a way specifically sanctioned by the deputy clerk in that email I quoted—at the meeting following. How could Petty have thought that blocking this petition would quell the controversy? It has obviously prolonged it.
He knows there’s only one way out of this, and it’s the thing he doesn’t want to do. He knows, I know, everyone with access to the inside baseball knows that Candy did the things. He knows that Candy needs to resign. He is desperately floundering to avoid going down that road, and in doing so he is repeatedly violating the community’s trust. And, more importantly, he is showing himself to stand with a bigot, and against a victim of bigotry. In doing so he brings a great shame on the city. So if we need to schlep down to city hall every single week, we’ll do so. And we’ll make a party of it. And for Joe and the rest of the cranks it’ll be pure punishment. Well deserved.
Hell of a way to start a campaign season, Joe.
It leaves us with a final question, really: What exactly is it about Candy Mero-Carlson that’s worth it for him? What does she have, exactly, that he’d lose if he did the morally correct thing? What power is she holding over him?
A good question to ask at public comment this coming Tuesday night!
See you there! And as always we’ll be streaming it on WCT3k and I’ll be playing the role of live correspondent.
What an investment in this outlet gets you!
Time to put on my ill fitting suit and stand out by the wacky flailing inflatable tube men in the lot and talk about how I’d do anything—and I mean an-nee-thing—to get your keister into one of my Toyotas.
Venmo a tip / Paypal a Tip / Send a tip on Ko-Fi / Merch Store
I got this wonderful note from a reader on a tip they sent via PayPal:
Just a small thanks for all the work you are doing. May I suggest you allow substack subscribers to pay $10/mo as an alternative to the regular $5/mo? You are putting out so much work (posts, wps, podcasts, twitch, etc), I feel like it deserves more.
While it could be way more intuitive, you actually can do this. The “Founding Member” option allows you to pay what you want, to an extent. It just has to be more than the annual option of $69. So you go to the page for subscription options and punch in what you want (like $120, which would be the equivalent of $10 monthly).
There’s no monthly pay-what-you-want option, which is less than ideal, but put it on the list. (I will eventually move this newsletter off Substack to another service, it’s just a massive suck on time I’d rather spend doing the journalism you pay me to do!) In any case every paid subscription option gets you 20 percent off anything on the merch store.
And also I deeply appreciate the reader acknowledging there’s a lot more to this local journalism thing than my weekly written posts. For instance this week I did two live streams, recorded, edited, posted a podcast, edited and posted WPS in Brief. I didn’t have a moment to sit down and turn my notes into this post until Friday night, really. Of course if I’m not doing this full time, none of those things would have happened. A paid subscription is an investment in someone—hopefully one day multiple people—having the time and energy to do as much local journalism as they can, across as many different forms.
The time I reserve for writing is sacred and writing is still my main focus. As my media empire grows, so does my ability to pay other people to do the other things so I have more time to sit at the desk.
A $500,000 question
Despite some serious wriggling from Moe Bergman and Donna Colorio, a public petition to have the manager commit $500,000 to LGBTQIA causes in the city passed the city council with little opposition at the last meeting. Interestingly, Moe Bergman’s argument against it is pretty much the same argument the assistant clerk used to block the petition to call for an investigation. He took issue with the word “commit,” saying the city council can’t directly instruct the manager to “commit” the money.
“The issue I have is I think an easy one to overcome is it's worded in a way that some of us have learned over time to try to avoid, commit to. So my motion would be just to simply say for the manager to consider working both (the petitions),” Bergman said.
Petty’s response is very interesting.
“All the stuff that goes to the manager, the word ‘consider’ is always part of that,” he said. Meaning, you don’t have to have the word in the text for everyone involved to understand it’s a recommendation and not a mandate.
But now Petty’s saying, via his clerk, that the petition for an investigation can’t go on the agenda because the public can’t ask the council to consider doing such a thing. Hm. Almost like they’re making it up as they go.
Anywho the petition passed 9-1, Colorio opposed (even Bergman wasn’t stupid enough to vote no on that one). It goes now to the city manager, who takes it as a suggestion, like every other thing the city council puts on his plate. That it’s just a suggestion was reinforced by the city’s spokesman in a statement provided to Spectrum News. “A spokesperson with the City Manager's office said of the council vote, "the (resilience fund) order is for him (City Manager Eric Batista) to consider so no decision yet."
No decision yet! Not personally holding my breath.
We spent a good portion of our interview with Josh discussing this very quirk of the city’s political system. We need a sustained pressure on the city manager directly if this $500,000 will ever come to pass. They said about eight minutes in:
I was surprised we only had one naysayer on the council. It was great. I think it was a great show of intention. We'll see what the actual follow through looks like. And that's where me personally, I'm going to be really dedicated to knocking on or pounding on the city manager's door to make this happen.
They compared it to the current situation with the human rights commission:
I think the Human Rights Commission just was featured in an article talking about how they feel that they are being either completely ignored or totally overlooked in the recommendations that they are making to the city. Yeah, this is on our agenda to talk about, actually.
Which is a great transition to the next section wow look at that.
“Why don’t we test out the new process?”
At the HRC meeting Monday, there were two threads worth our attention. The first, quickly, is that they showed solidarity with Thu Nguyen, motioning to support Nguyen and condemn the bigoted remarks, if they prove true. The motion, made by Ellen Shemitz, the board’s chair, read in part:
The allegations of misgendering raised by Councillor Nguyen, if confirmed in the (Executive Office of Diversity & Inclusion) investigation would be a profound act of transphobia and discrimination that violate the explicit human rights policy of our city. Such actions should have immediate consequences that one, make real Worcester stated commitment to diversity equity inclusion. Two, assure accountability for acts of hate and discrimination. And three, ensure our government becomes more inclusive and equitable in practice and not just in policy.
It passed unanimously, as it would on any reasonable body. Keep in mind this was on Monday—before we learned for sure on Tuesday that the DEI office would not be investigating the concerns raised by Nguyen. But the point stands, and it’s easy to imagine support of outside investigation chartered by the council itself would pass with the same unanimity.
That motion wasn’t just to make the declaration at the meeting. Rather it was the text of an official statement from the HRC on the matter. Time was, they could just do that. They could vote on a statement and put it out. But the city manager decided recently to change the rules. (That decision came after the HRC tried to issue a statement about a Nazi graffiti incident, for what it’s worth.) Now, all statements from boards and commissions must be cleared by his office.
After the motion, the board’s staff liaison Patricia LaFore said “Why don't we test out the new process? You get me the statement and we'll push it up the ladder.”
As of my writing this specific section, it’s Friday night. A whole five days later. The city manager has not approved the statement. It’s nowhere to be found.
The new process is broken, it turns out. Kidding. It’s working exactly as it should. Just as Petty used his influence over the clerk, Batista has found his mechanism here to run cover for Candy Mero-Carlson. Again—why?
What is the HRC allowed to even do?
Keep that in mind as we move to thread number two, which is much more convoluted, with much more history.
With the DOJ’s report on the WPD, and our city manager’s apparent commitment in the wake of it to proposing a civilian review board, the HRC’s frustrating and as-of-yet fruitless battle for meaningful oversight of the police department becomes important—mostly because the antagonist seems to be Batista and Batista alone. No Joe Petty involved in this story.
The same person who’s suggesting a new oversight board is stonewalling our current one. It calls into serious question whether Batista’s forthcoming review board proposal is, well, serious.
Too much to get into here but back in the day (1971) the HRC’s formation was itself a compromise offering to community members who demanded a civilian review board. It started with subpoena powers, which it used. But over time it was increasingly defanged.
In 2015, the council spiked a motion to explore a civilian review board. Petty voted against, and is on record at the time saying the HRC already does what a civilian review board would. “We’re on the right track,” he said, nine years before the DOJ would release a report proving otherwise. Moe Bergman stood up for the police unions. A civilian review board would be a “change of work conditions” he said AKA another reason to give more money to the cops via collective bargaining.
"Whether you support or don't support the items, we are going down a road we can't go down," Mr. Bergman said. "It would constitute a change in working conditions for the Police Department. The rank-and-file would have to agree to allow such a change in their working conditions. Legally, we can't do this."
Just read this Telegram story from back then, man. These people are one-trick ponies. They’ve been pulling the same bullshit moves over and over for decades. Bergman making a crazy legal argument that amounts to boot licking. Petty saying “we’re doin’ pretty good already” in a way that amounts to boot licking. Both of them are on record pulling these exact moves in both this post and the 2015 Telegram story.
I’m sure if I went further down the rabbit hole I’d find all sorts of promises from our local political class about all the wonderful police reforms the HRC would bring about. Perhaps for a different time.
Instead, fast forward to the present. This past Monday. HRC members expressed a bunch of frustration and passed a ton of motions acting on the feeling, all of them unanimous. The consensus is that they’re being denied their legal right to provide oversight of the police department.
I’m already running long so I won’t delve too deeply into the specifics. We’ll save that for another time too. Instead, this quote from member Jacqueline Yang sums it up.
I've been on this commission for a very long time and I feel like we're just going round and round and round and round and round and it's extremely frustrating to be a member of this commission and we keep filing motions and nothing gets resolved or we don't get what we're requesting.
A sentiment surely shared by the people demanding real consequences for Mero-Carlson’s bigotry.
Election Watch
Frickin’ grim on this front lately.
State Sen. Peter Durant (R-McMansion) is thinking about governor next year. Which means we have two local MAGA psychos in the mix between him and Sheriff Lew Evangelidis. If either of them proves serious (still way too early to tell) things are bound to get extremely annoying around here.
On the city council front, Tim Murray appears to have made a major breakthrough in the arcane discipline of political necromancy. Knowledge previously lost must surely have re-emerged. Perhaps Murray unearthed some forgotten tome? Found it lying next to a skeleton chained to the wall of some keep? In some far-off tower? Or perhaps he found that wizened prisoner alive, just barely, and made with him some unholy covenant.... knowledge for freedom... ‘you give me that little book of spells and I break these iron chains that bind you’...
How else are we to explain the re-emergence lately of cronies-past? John Fresolo (*Trump voice* “Mr. PeePee Man”), Rob Pezzella (Buster to Binienda’s Lucille), Tony Economou (“I’m with you fellas”), and, most recently, Wayne Griff—sorry, Jose Rivera. Wayne Griffin is not associated with the Rivera Campaign in any way, shape, or definitely proveable form.
Losers, all of them. All of them announcing council campaigns in rapid succession. Murray’s reanimated gladiators throwing themselves in the same arena, all vying for that $30,000-a-year deed of lordship that is a seat on the Worcester city council. That which grants them property and title over the city’s customer service department. Dukes of Road Repaving. So long as they never challenge the authority of King Murray, nor concern themselves too intimately with the vague assemblage of monied associates passing through the king’s High Court, these dukes are free to act as villainously as they like to their serfs.
Surely that’s the compact Murray’s made with his new roster of ghouls. I don’t think there’s any other explanation but if so I’d love to hear it.
In positive news, it looks like former school committee member Jermoh Kamara is either highly considering or has definitely decided to run in District 3. Really really hope Kamara or someone like her steps up to that plate and captures the progressive vote while Pezzella and Fresolo fight for Murray’s scraps.
This is another thing we talked about on the podcast (45:00-1:00:00).
Odds and ends
One more pitch for the road. And don’t forget about that founding member thing, which you’ll find if you smash the button below!
Venmo a tip / Paypal a Tip / Send a tip on Ko-Fi / Merch Store
Proud of my friend Meg Dube for standing strong against the classically Massachusetts corruption and dysfunction going on at the Cannabis Control Commission—which, remember, is headquartered in our opulent and empty train station for reasons just as Mass-coded. Meg blew the whistle on a particularly toxic employee and the failure of the commission to do anything about it. For doing so, she got suspended. Good write up from the WBJ’s Eric Casey, who’s probably the best cannabis industry reporter in the state. He’s all over that beat like kief on the teeth of a grinder. “CCC suspends whistleblower who brought attention to cannabis agency’s dysfunction.”
If you have an idea of someone who should be nominated to the WBJ’s 2025 Power 100 let editor Brad Kane know!
WBJ is now soliciting ideas from readers on who to include in the Power 100 for 2025. Email those ideas to Editor Brad Kane at bkane@wbjournal.com by Feb. 28. Include the person’s name, title, company, and why you believe they are an influential professional in the region.
I’m a 2022 recipient myself hehe remember that? There’s real power in talking shit at a local level and I appreciate the WBJ recognizing that.
This morning I read a short story by Aaron Thorpe called DREAMING OF EUROPA in the lit mag Apocalypse Confidential and was really inspired by it.
Boredom was the mood of the times. The first half of the 21st century, with its dizzying technological advances and worldwide political upheaval playing out against the quiet horror of ecological collapse, had worn people out. Widespread anxiety over the future was sublimated into apathy for the present. The terror had been normalized, mass produced, sold at clearance. Not even the discovery of life lurking in the global ocean beneath the cross-hatched surface of the icy Galilean moon Europa was enough to bring people out of their ultramodern ennui.
If you’re a fan of near future sci-fi and/or speculative fiction and/or Ballard rip-offs like I am—trust me, you’ll enjoy this one.
I have a piece of short fiction like this in the nascent “idea” stage and might decide one day to just throw it up on this newsletter. Why not!
The shooting of a border patrol agent in Vermont recently is such a bizarre story. A Washington State native and a German national driving around the New England woods in a Prius loaded with, quoting the Boston Globe, “a ballistic helmet; a night vision monocular device; a tactical belt with holster; a magazine loaded with cartridges; two full-face respirators; 48 rounds of .380-caliber, hollow-point ammunition; a package of shooting range targets, some already used, the affidavit said.”
It’s weird enough TrueAnon has already done a whole episode about it. Haven’t listened, very excited. Something potent going on here: the high weirdness of the West Coast meets the bucolic pines of the Northeast Kingdom. Reverse Twin Peaks, sorta? What a world in any case.
Anyone feel the earthquake? I didn’t.
Anyone forget that an outside investigator is still—supposedly—looking into the boxing match killing of state police recruit Enrique Delgado Garcia? I almost did. Until I saw Kevin Ksen tweet about it the other day: “It's been over 4 months. It will soon be 5 months. Enrique's family, friends and our community deserve answers and justice now. No more waiting.” Inexcusable.
The WooSox are opening up a new members-only lounge at Polar Park called “The Royal Wooters Club” which to be perfectly frank and honest with you sounds more like the nickname for a Civil War-era pedophile ring.
Ok on that note... toodles!
Allegedly, though confirmed enough ways that I feel comfortable saying it happened. Legally though it’s alleged, pending the results of an investigation that may or may not happen, as there’s currently a concerted effort to supress it.
Thanks, Bill! There's obviously a lot going on, so sometimes I feel like I'm shouting into the void with the CCC stuff despite its importance. I'm glad some people are noticing.
Happy Black History month. I think it's important to recognize that the anti trans hatred is closely linked to misogyny and misogynoir-- the misogynist white supremacists are still fighting on the race and gender front, and they are using anti trans violence and dehumanization to bolster the idea that women are weak, in need of protection, and primarily defined by the ability to bear children, and that one would never *choose* to be a woman. They're also using it to question the humanity of women and trans people of color in particular and elevate whiteness as essential to womanhood (Castor Semanya is the immediate example that comes to mind. That boxer at the Olympics, as well) Meanwhile they appoint racists to powerful positions, gut title 9, end protection for pregnant students, end funding and information about women's health care... Etc.
Anyway. You know.
For Black History month I also wanted to share this info about Sojourner Truth's speech. The part that you quoted was likely a "folksified" retelling from a white woman.
https://www.thesojournertruthproject.com/