Time for Fernandes Anderson to do the ‘right thing'
Advertisement
And she remains a source of embarrassment to at least some of her council colleagues, who have attempted to encourage her departure with a
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
After all, what kind of 'credibility' is there for a councilor who
At the time of Fernandes Anderson's
Advertisement
Under a 2012
Fernandes Anderson's sentencing is set for
Meanwhile, Councilors Erin Murphy and Ed Flynn have tried repeatedly to have council members at least pass a resolution expressing their own ethical concerns about Fernandes Anderson's continued presence on the council. But they can't even get a vote on the matter.
'The resolution I filed with Councilor Flynn isn't about forcing anyone out — it's about taking a stand,'
Why indeed. There is something to be said for public shaming, which is essentially what Murphy and Flynn are proposing.
And if Fernandes Anderson needs a reminder of just how egregious her conduct was and why her presence on the council ought to be a continuing source of embarrassment to all, there was the rather candid assessment offered by
'Councilor Fernandes Anderson abused her position of trust for personal gain and turned a public checkbook into her own private slush fund. Her constituents deserve better than this. They deserve a city representative who respects the role of public service and does not use the power and position to line her own pockets.'
Advertisement
It's time for Fernandes Anderson to do the right thing.
Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
17 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Brick thrown at Brookline kosher grocery store highlights antisemitism's rise
This act was, simply, antisemitic in the way it blamed a Jewish individual in America for the actions of the Jewish state in Israel. Advertisement As a state that values every resident, we must emphasize clearly that antisemitism is wrong and antisemitic actions can't be tolerated. We must work to change a culture where slogans that can be perceived as violent threats against the Jewish people — like 'globalize the intifada,' a reference to the often violent uprisings by Palestinians in Israel — are considered acceptable discourse. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up While the brick was thrown when the store was closed, any attack on a Jewish individual can spark fear across the entire Jewish community. That is especially true after two lethal attacks recently. In Washington, D.C., two Israeli embassy staffers Advertisement Earlier this month, an Egyptian man was charged with Attacks against Jews are nothing new in the Boston area. In 2021, a man was The The Massachusetts Legislature formed the Commission cochair state Senator John Velis (D-Westfield) says one challenge is the tendency to see antisemitism as someone else's problem. 'People on the left see it on the right, people on the right see it on the left,' Velis said. 'Antisemitism today shape-shifts, it mutates, it's ubiquitous. It's moved away from being only on the right or left, it's everywhere.' Advertisement Jeremy Burton, CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston, attributed antisemitism's rise to a culture that lets progressive groups conflate criticism of Israel with language that demonizes Jews. 'The use of Zionists as a slur has been normalized,' Burton said. 'There is this willingness to absolve and minimize a rhetoric which tolerates, if not promotes, violence against Jews anywhere, as if no harm might come from that.' There are real debates about the distinctions between anti-Zionism — opposing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state — and antisemitism. Activists have every right to criticize Israel, its government, and its military. A robust debate about Israel's prolonged and deadly military campaign against Hamas in Gaza is warranted. But the Butcherie is not a political institution; it's a store that sells food to Jews who adhere to religious dietary laws. The brick was thrown through a window displaying a winery map of Israel that depicted the disputed West Bank as part of Israel. But holding a Jewish-owned store responsible for actions of the Israeli government has no justification. It would strike most people as obviously bigoted — and ridiculous — to protest for a 'free Tibet' by throwing a brick through the window of a Chinese grocery store, even if it displayed a map that included Tibet. Yet too many Americans can't bring themselves to understand that it's just as wrong to inflict violence on Jews or Jewish institutions to protest Israel. Advertisement Brandeis University Professor of American Jewish History Jonathan Sarna said historically, domestic antisemitism rises when tensions rise between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Sarna said what struck him was the premeditation involved in writing a message on the brick, which implies not sudden anger but a statement of power. 'This incident, in addition to trying to make Jews fearful … is also about an expression of power, a reminder to Jews that we, whoever the people are who threw the rock, are stronger or at least are able to inflict lots of fear upon you,' Sarna said. That's a message our society cannot accept. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Boston Globe
18 hours ago
- Boston Globe
The guy helping to ‘bring hell' to Boston? He's from Boston.
Over the past weeks, many Americans have taken to the streets to protest the deportation of coworkers, family, schoolmates, and neighbors — and in some cases to protest the existence of ICE. At the same time, Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up For Lyons, the mission remains simple: enforce immigration law. Advertisement While criminals are the priority, 'everything's on the table,' he told me in a conference room at ICE headquarters in Washington, D.C., this week. And it appears he means it. From The agency is acting more broadly than it did under President Joe Biden, who banned collateral arrests — detaining illegal immigrants who were found while in pursuit of migrants with criminal records. 'If more agencies had just turned people over in a confined setting [law enforcement custody], we wouldn't be out in the community. We're going to bump into more people. We can't walk away from them,' Lyons said. That was the same justification ICE used last month when its agents Advertisement Trump officials have zeroed in on progressive-led places like Boston and Massachusetts in an effort that partially feels like political retribution for sanctuary policies. The president's border czar, Tom Homan, threatened to But Lyons, who worked in immigration enforcement in Boston for four years, sees the pressure less as political, and more as self-inflicted. Massachusetts often releases immigrants charged or convicted with serious crimes instead of handing them over to ICE, authorities often But that isn't Lyons' only gripe. 'Lunn just says you can't hold anybody on our detainers,' he said. 'But that doesn't mean the Mass. State Police can't pick up the phone and say, 'Hey, we got this guy on the side of the road.'' Advertisement He claimed that some of the state's political leaders obstruct this cooperation. But sometimes police unofficially give ICE their support. He gave an example from Joint Base Cape Cod, which served as a temporary migrant shelter. Lyons said that a State Police official claimed they found a 'guy that's wanted for murder in Venezuela,' but that they weren't allowed to turn him over to ICE. But a law enforcement official told him: 'If you magically show up at the front gate, we'll give him to you.' Other local police departments have quietly reached out for help, he says, leaving ICE to take the heat when they detain people. That is what Lyons told me happened during Martha's Vineyard has six different police departments, and doesn't have one police chief. The county sheriff Robert Ogden told me that he didn't have any prior knowledge of the recent operation. I reached out to Lyons after the interview and was told that some police departments on the Vineyard 'cooperate, a few don't.' The ability to cooperate with local officials to track down criminals is personal for Lyons. He says he lost a family member some years back to a fentanyl overdose. When investigators tried to pinpoint the source, it was 'tracked to a Dominican drug dealer that had been previously deported from my office,' he said. 'Night after night after night, Lawrence PD, Lowell PD, Methuen, Boston, have [custody of] these fentanyl dealers, three or four times,' Lyons contends, and many of them have reentered the country after deportation. Advertisement Can this system that both parties claim to hate be fixed? Any ICE director 'would say we are totally open to congressional rewrites of the law,' he said, and that streamlining would make it easier to focus on criminals. Too many Biden-era migrants were promised a chance at asylum – which he called a 'false hope' because many are in a state of legal limbo. A better system would allow some migrants to apply for asylum from their home country rather than making the dangerous trek to the US, then waiting years in immigration court. But until reform comes, Lyons is sticking to the law. He gave an example from his time as a police officer in Florida: Stopping a dad on the way to work with a busted taillight only to find he also had a warrant on him for being delinquent on child support payments. 'You feel bad for that person, but it's still a law,' he told me. 'That's kind of the predicament I'm in.' Carine Hajjar is a Globe Opinion writer. She can be reached at
USA Today
a day ago
- USA Today
Potential 2028 Dems quiet after Supreme Court upholds ban on care for some transgender minors
Potential 2028 Dems quiet after Supreme Court upholds ban on care for some transgender minors Show Caption Hide Caption Activists react to SCOTUS ruling gender-affirming care ban for minors Transgender activists are reacting to a new SCOTUS ruling upholding Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The Supreme Court's conservative-leaning justices this week upheld a Tennessee ban on some gender-affirming care for youths, prompting immediate criticism from their liberal-leaning colleagues. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent that 'the court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.' But one group on the left has been quiet since the ruling sent shockwaves: Democratic leaders across the country eyed as potential 2028 White House picks. The lack of response to the 6-3 ruling underscores what some political observers have called the party's continued nervousness over how to address an issue that became pivotal in the 2024 election. It also shows how fraught the topic may remain heading into the 2026 midterms that will decide control of Congress. President Donald Trump campaigned heavily on a promise to ban gender-affirming care for youth and prevent transgender athletes from competing – and he's taken several executive actions impacting transgender Americans since the start of his second term. Here's what to know about how prominent Democrats responded to the Supreme Court's ruling. What happened? The decision, in which the court said preventing minors from using puberty blockers and hormone therapy does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, was immediately criticized by liberal and progressive groups, like Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group. The court's ruling comes after Trump and Republicans made transgender rights a key part of the final weeks of the 2024 campaign. "Kamala supports tax-payer funded sex changes for prisoners," one of Trump's campaign ads alleged about then-Vice President Kamala Harris. "Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you." Some Democrats called the ads among the most effective of the campaign, according to multiple reports last year. And in recent months some Democrats have worked to separate their party from elements of transgender rights efforts. For example, California Gov. Gavin Newsom made headlines in March when he suggested transgender athletes' participation in women's sports was 'deeply unfair' and acknowledged the campaign ad was "devastating." Since taking office in January, Trump has signed executive orders to ban transgender athletes from girls' and women's sports, end federal support for gender-affirming care and prevent transgender people from serving openly in the military. Trump also signed on his first day back in office an order declaring that the government recognizes only two sexes, male and female. Governors quiet Newsom of California, Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, and Gov. Wes Moore of Maryland, the three governors considered leading contenders to run for president in 2028, all kept quiet after the Supreme Court's decision this week. Most forthcoming of the party's potential 2028 contenders was Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois, who has a transgender cousin, and who wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, that Illinois has protections to "meet this very moment.' 'In a time of increasing overreach and hateful rhetoric, it's more important than ever to reaffirm our commitment to the rights and dignity of the LGBTQ+ community,' he added. 'You have a home here always.' Rank and file Reaction among Democrats on Capitol Hill was largely quiet as well, though several members of Congress did make statements. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York denounced the decision on the Senate floor as part of a 'cruel crusade against trans Americans.' On social media he called it a distraction from issues impacting all people, regardless of gender identity. His counterpart in the House, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York did not mention it in a news release or on social media. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Massachusetts, pointed out in a statement that 24 other states have similar laws blocking some gender-affirming care for transgender youths. "Today, hate won," he said, alleging the Supreme Court's conservative-leaning justices "endorsed hate and discrimination by delivering a win for Republicans who have relentlessly and cruelly attacked transgender Americans for years." 'Once again, politicians and judges are inserting themselves in exam rooms,' Rep. Sarah McBride, D-Delaware, the nation's first openly transgender member of Congress, said Wednesday on X, formerly called Twitter. 'This ruling undermines doctors in delivering care to some of the most vulnerable patients in our country.'
