To My Flock,

What a waste of time and money. The only thing green about this initiative is the large number of dollar bills that will be poured down a rat hole. Consider the Commonwealth's record on the 'green economy'...

Beacon Power - bankrupt

Evergreen Solar - bankrupt

Cape Wind - big electric rate increases looming

Now Eldridge and Smizik want to create an Office of Clean Technology. Just what we need, another useless state bureaucracy filled with expensive hacks and hackettes. In case these two characters haven't noticed Massachusetts is losing population and congressional seats to states that don't tolerate this foolishness.

This kind of political naivety is disappointing... even in Massachusetts. Eldridge and Smizik should try to be productive instead - reducing taxes and the burden of the public sector.

Your spiritual advisor,
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

Though I disagree with everything "Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III" says, my comment is actually this: a writer weighing in on issues with use of a fake identity/name strikes me as either cowardly or so manifestly cynical that his cynicism precludes rational analysis — or perhaps the writer has tongue planted firmly in cheek. (Somehow I doubt this last.)

And for the record, the creation of a Green Economy Caucus in our MA Legislature is all to the good. Eldridge and Smizik are savvy legislators who understand that a greener economy is the only possible economy if we are to leave anything habitable to subsequent generations. What is so difficult about the concept of investment in our common "public sector"? Such investment is not a burden, but the common cost of preserving resources, infrastructure, and possibility. None of us would find any measure of material "success" without prior generations having provided same for us. Paying it forward is — and should be — real.

Sister Debra wrote,

"...if we are to leave anything habitable to subsequent generations."

I could hear the music in the background and almost broke into tears on reading this line. Having said that, let us agree to disagree. I can't help you. Your writing illustrates a level of naivety that I would not be able to influence. Let me congratulate you on having the perfect profile for a liberal Democrat... no doubt you vote the straight Democrat ballot and contribute lots of money to the Party. Or perhaps it is taken directly from your union dues.

The tradition of anonymous writers and pamphleteers dates back hundreds of years. The Federalist Papers were published anonymously by 'Publius'. The Economist magazine publishes without bylines. Many major newspaper editorials are anonymous including the beloved Boston Globe. If used with care, anonymity is a tool that allows one to speak freely and ask important questions, "Is the emperor wearing clothes?" "Will an Office of Clean Technology come to any good?"

Your spiritual advisor,
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

1. Why can't one speak freely and ask important questions without hiding behind a fake identity?
2. The snarky tone is unfortunate ("I could hear the music . . . almost broke into tears"; and "a level of naivety [sic] that I would not be able to influence"). I may have launched it with "cowardly or so manifestly cynical" . . . and shouldn't have. Apologies there. But I do wish you'd just speak as a real person who's consonant and comfortable with his opinions. And jettison the sarcastic ad hominen comments.
3. I don't belong to a union and therefore don't pay union dues. My voting record is, of course, my business, but let's just say your supposition is incorrect. And I don't contribute lots of money to the Democratic Party; I sometimes contribute modestly to a particular candidate if I support her/him. If I had lots of money, I'd be more likely to give it to nonprofits who do good work.
4. Let's agree to end this distracting exchange. It's more important that people talk about the issues at hand.

Professional politicians such as Jamie Eldridge are always trying to grow their business by creating new "Offices" and "Commissions" (read his proposed S152 Act ...) which create a new bureaucracy which, in turn, justifies its existence by issuing rules and regulations that, of course, require additional people to enforce. Those are the jobs that Jamie's proposal would create, adding to the cost of state government. How much will this add to the state budget ? Nobody knows, that is never part of the process of passing this kind of legislation.

We already have sufficient laws to protect the environment. There is absolutely no need for this new Office, this is just more "green" hype, we have seen the results of state and federal government wasting billions of dollars in just the last three years to subsidize "clean energy" companies such as Solyndra, Fisker Karma, Ener1, Evergreen Energy, Amonix and more. I do not think that Jamie wil ever agree that the best thing the state (and federal) government can do to help the talented entrepreneurial new technology businesses is to leave them alone.

Charlie Kadlec
Acton

Charlie,

Regarding Jamie..."If you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

High wind warning today... is Jamie Eldredge speaking somewhere close?

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III