Media Bias on Syria

                          

 By Reginald Johnson

    Over the past several years, traditional rules of journalistic fairness and objectivity seem to have disappeared on the subject of Syria.

  American reporters and commentators repeatedly present just one side of the conflict --- the American side --- and little else. Syrian leader Bashar al—Assad is portrayed as a demon, carrying out a brutal campaign to retain power in a fight with rebel forces, who are being aided by the United States.

  When terrible things happen in this conflict, such as civilians getting bombed or poisoned, the blame is always laid at the doorstep of the Syrian government. Claims of misdeeds by Assad’s forces are spit out almost word for word from State Department releases. There’s rarely any attempt to seek comment or get the Syrian side of the story.

  In these reports or commentaries, there’s rarely any mention of the fact that the United States has been involved in Syria for five years, first covertly aiding the anti-Assad forces, some of whom are al-Qaeda spinoffs, and now bombing areas held by the terrorist group, ISIS. There’s no mention in the reporting that the American presence is completely illegal under international law, since Syria never attacked the U.S., the United Nations never authorized any intervention, and Syria never gave permission to the Americans to conduct bombing raids against ISIS in its sovereign territory.

  The United States is simply there in Syria, along with its “NATO allies” because it thinks it has the automatic right to be there, and the terrible Mr. Assad and ISIS, must be removed.

  The New York Times on April 29 ran a piece entitled “Divided Syrian City Plunges Back Into War as Hospital Is Destroyed,” which was an example of the one-sided reporting. The story described the carnage that resulted from an air attack on the al-Quds hospital in Aleppo, which resulted in 27 deaths, including children and staff. The article, written by a reporter in Beirut, simply said that “government forces” had carried out the attack, according to “witnesses and health workers.” There was no comment from the government.

  The bombing of a hospital is certainly a terrible crime, and it is in fact a war crime. It may well be true that Assad’s forces are guilty of this horrendous attack. But isn’t it incumbent on the newspaper reporting this information to get a response from the alleged perpetrator? Just because they are likely to deny the claim doesn’t mean you don’t try to get their side.

  The article later said that “groups such as Physicians for Human Rights” maintain that they had tracked “a deliberate targeting of health services by government forces.”

   Now this is a sweeping claim, that the government is deliberately bombing health facilities, committing multiple war crimes. It cries out for additional verification, statements from other named sources, any witnesses or corroboration by an independent journalist who investigated the charges. It also demands a response from the government. But none of that was in the Times’ story.

  Also left out of this article was context. There should have been some background given --- that this is a five-year-old conflict, with rebels aided by the United States, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, attempting to overthrow Assad, and the government, aided by Russia (whose help Assad requested) and Hezbollah and Iran trying to keep Assad in power.

   Another one-sided report came surprisingly in a piece by Chris Hayes of MSNBC, on May 5.  Taking the word of the State Department that the Syrian government was responsible for the al-Quds hospital attack, Hayes blasted the Assad regime for what he said were repeated human rights violations.

   Hayes said the Syrian leader had “engaged in one of the most ghastly campaigns of slaughter and war crimes in this century and there is no just solution or any solution for the horror of Syria that does not hold him accountable.”

  Hayes' statement seemed to mirror the Obama administration's position that there could be no settlement in Syria unless Assad is removed.

   Hayes, like the Times, didn’t provide any response from a Syrian representative and failed to mention that the United States was deeply involved in the Syrian conflict, funneling arms to anti-government forces, and prolonging the war.

The MSNBC commentator noted with disgust that the Syrian government had been responsible for 183,827 deaths since the conflict began, without breaking that number down between combatants and civilians, and without giving a source.

 But a lot of other people have been killed in this conflict, also. According to the UN, about 100,000 government or pro-government fighters have been killed by the U.S.-backed forces, but that fact apparently wasn’t worth mentioning in Hayes’ report. Are members of the government military not people too?

  CNN has often presented a slanted view on foreign affairs, and their Syrian coverage has fit the pattern. The network has consistently aired reports giving a pro-America, rebel perspective, while casting Assad and his allies, like Russia, in a negative light.

  Just last week Wolf Blitzer ran a segment on Russia’s continuing involvement in Syria, months after Russian President Vladimir Putin said his nation was going to withdraw some of its forces. While showing a video captioned “Russia still has a strong military presence in Syria,” a reporter said that “Violence still rages in most of the countryside. Conciliation seems nowhere in sight and neither is an end to Russia's involvement in the conflict.”

   Neither the reporter nor Blitzer bothered to note America’s continuing involvement in Syria --- that U.S. planes have been bombing the Syrian countryside since last fall, that 250 special forces were recently sent to Syria allegedly to fight ISIS, and that U.S. proxies Turkey and Saudi Arabia have been giving weaponry to the anti-Assad forces for years.

  I’m wondering if CNN will ever run a news video with the caption “America still bombing Syria.”

   I don’t think so.

 

 

 

 

Freedom of Speech and Donald Trump

                 

                      

By Reginald Johnson

   Does Donald Trump have freedom of speech like all other Americans?

  Yes, unfortunately he does.

 Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our system, stemming from the very first amendment to the Constitution, which bars Congress from passing any law which would abridge that right.

  In the U.S., you can pretty much say or write anything, unless you’re advocating something illegal.

This separates our system from a lot of other places, where if you criticize the government or some high official too much, you could wind up in jail or worse.

  It’s very important to protect the first amendment. Without it, our constitutional system is shot.

  That’s why it’s a bit concerning that some protesters have gotten it into their heads that the best way to combat Trump and his offensive views is by showing up at his rallies and either shouting him down or interrupting him so many times that he can’t effectively communicate.

   The New York Times reported that at a recent event in New Orleans, Trump’s speech was interrupted repeatedly. The Times wrote “an almost continual stream of protesters interrupted a Trump event, sometimes dropping to the ground to make guards drag them out, or heckling back at Mr. Trump’s supporters with their own crude language and gestures.”

  Other campaign events by Trump have also been interrupted on multiple occasions.

  Some protesters said after the aborted Trump rally in Chicago that they had successfully “shut down” Trump’s appearance, set for an arena at the University of Illinois. The rally had drawn hundreds of protesters inside the arena, and the Trump campaign cancelled the event just after the candidate was scheduled to speak. The event descended into chaos after the announcement, with Trump supporters and protesters yelling at each other and exchanging punches.

  “Shutting down” free speech is not a good thing, no matter what you think of the person doing the speaking.

  Anyone running for office has a right to make their case. People who don’t like their views don’t have the right to prevent that.

  Let me say right here I do not like Donald Trump. He's shown himself to be bigoted, denigrating Mexican and Muslim immigrants and hesitating at one point to repudiate KKK leader David Duke. Except for a few remarks he’s made about the need to avoid overseas interventions and his opposition to trade treaties (not expressed very coherently), I have no use for this man.

   He’s also made irresponsible remarks about protesters, saying he wouldn’t care if they got punched out or remarking that “in the old days” they’d take demonstrators “out on a stretcher.”

  He also said he would pay the legal fees for anyone who beat up a protester who was “getting ready to throw a tomato.”

  These inflammatory remarks may well have fueled some incidents of violence, notably the sucker-punching of a demonstrator by a Trump supporter as the protester was being removed from a rally. Trump said last weekend that he didn’t want to see any violence at his events, but he refused to criticize the man who threw the punch.

  For his views and his incendiary remarks, Trump deserves to be condemned. The question is where and when.

 If a candidate from any party has obtained a hall or space to hold a campaign rally and make his or her pitch on why they should be elected, that person and his supporters should not be subjected to protests in the same area.

 However, it is entirely appropriate to hold demonstrations or protests outside the hall or space. Opponents of Trump should hold mass demonstrations outside the venues where Trump is going to speak. Protest rallies with hundreds or thousands of people will get press attention.  Critics can set up soft picket lines outside Trump events, carry placards, hand out leaflets and try to buttonhole event-goers and tell them why Trump is not a good candidate.

 Opponents can also take out ads in the paper, write letters, and write op-eds criticizing Trump.

  There’s plenty of ways to show opposition to candidates besides engaging in blocking tactics at campaign rallies.

  Should anti-Trump protesters continue their efforts at interrupting speeches, it is likely that opponents of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders will decide to return the favor and show up at rallies for those candidates and disrupt their speeches. Campaign rallies could degenerate into circuses, which is not fair to either to the candidates trying to make their case or the people who came to hear what they have to say.

 

   

 

  

              

Raise Taxes on Corporations and the Wealthy

                             

By Reginald Johnson

  There’s a sorry spectacle going on right now in Connecticut, the wealthiest state in the nation.

   The state’s governor and some mayors are going around like paupers, hat in hand, saying they’re broke and can’t pay the bills.

  Gov. Dannel P. Malloy told the legislature that revenues are down this year, and as a result there needs to be $570 million cut in the state’s two-budget. Malloy is proposing to lay off 1,000 people from the state workforce, and has told agency heads to come up with ways to cut their budgets by over 5 percent.  The governor also said higher education has to be cut by $40 million.

   In the state’s largest city, Bridgeport, Mayor Joseph P. Ganim said the city is facing a $20 million budget deficit. Ganim is hinting that union contracts may have to be “restructured” --- meaning wages and benefits will have to slashed.

   Bridgeport schools --- which are funded with both city and state money --- are also facing a financial crisis. Schools Superintendent Fran Rabinowitz said the system has a $15 million budget deficit.

  You would think that in a state like Connecticut, you wouldn’t hear these cries of poverty. Connecticut has a lot of wealth.  The state is number one among all states in per capita income. It is ranked one of the highest in median household income. It is the home of many billionaires, some multi-billionaires.

  The state is home to many Fortune 500 corporations which enjoy substantial profits.

   All that personal and corporate wealth could be taxed a lot more, but it's not.

   Right now, corporations pay at a modest 9 percent rate on their income. Taxes from corporations account for just 4.6 percent of the state's revenue.

   For wealthy residents of the state, Connecticut's income tax is really not much of a worry. The top income tax rate for the state's highest earners is 6.7 percent.

 

A mansion in Southport. Connecticut has the highest per capita income in the nation.

  Politics has a lot to do with why the rich and big corporations aren’t taxed more. Large companies and the wealthy spread their money around for political candidates, and those who benefit are averse to raising taxes on their donors. The attitude is, don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

   Corporations and wealthy individuals also scare state officials by talking about leaving Connecticut if taxes are raised.

   Citing the decision by General Electric to pull its headquarters out of Fairfield and relocate to Boston --- a decision company officials said was driven in part by the lure of a better tax deal in Massachusetts --- Gov. Malloy said the state must avoid raising corporate taxes and keep Connecticut ‘business friendly.’

  It is true that in some cases big corporations and a few very wealthy people will leave Connecticut if their taxes go up. There’s no question that corporations around the country for years have played the game of “hopscotch” --- jumping from one state to another, or even leaving the U.S. altogether, to go where there’s a better tax deal, or where wages are lower.  Corporations hold states hostage with their threats to leave if taxes are raised.

  It’s going to take some changes on the federal level to start restricting the ability of corporations ---  those that are profitable and employ a lot of people --- to just up and leave a state and go somewhere else simply to make more money. What’s needed is a law that provides for a stiff financial penalty to be levied on a corporation that wants to leave. One idea is to pass a law which requires corporations to pay a 40 percent charge on profits to the states they're exiting.

   Such a penalty would make some corporations think twice about leaving, or if they still wanted to move, it would at least give the state they were leaving some compensation for the economic hardship the company was causing

  Unfortunately, that type of penalty is not in place yet. Hopefully, penalties or other restrictions on corporate activity will be put into effect as more and more people see the harm that corporations cause through relocations.

  But right now Connecticut has to deal with the cards it’s been dealt. Even though it’s a risk, I believe corporations should be made to pay more. Surely, it would not be that onerous that companies pay another 1 percent, boosting the corporate income tax rate to 10 percent.

  And wealthy individuals can certainly pay more than 6.7 percent on their state income tax bill. A 10 percent rate would be appropriate. A person making say $5 million in a year, and there’s plenty of those here, would pay $500,000 to the state. I think that person would still have a lot left over, even after paying federal taxes.

 The need to raise additional revenue from corporations and the wealthy is a moral issue as well as a practical one. Those who are able to pay more should pay more, simply because there’s less hardship for them to do so.

People waiting for food donations in Bridgeport. The city has high social service costs and a weak tax base.

  

  Ideas being tossed around now like raising the sales tax rate, bringing tolls back, or increasing various use taxes to close the budget deficit only penalize the middle class and poor --- those least able to pay.

   Another key step has to be taken to raise more money for government operations, particularly on the local level. Tax exemptions have to be ended for private universities or colleges that are financially well-off.  The tax exempt status for churches and houses of worship also has to end.

   Cities like Bridgeport and New Haven are losing huge amounts of money due to tax exemptions. Yale University in New Haven, which is very well endowed, is a prime example of a tax exempt institution that is getting nearly a free ride in terms of paying for both local and state services.

   Yale has an endowment of $25.6 billion. The college also has.$2.5 billion worth of properties throughout New Haven, according to city officials. But the university doesn’t pay a dime in local property tax.

  While Yale does make voluntary payments to the city for police and fire services, that amount is far less than what they would pay in property taxes if the college was not tax exempt. (Educational institutions are tax exempt under state law).

  All in all, Connecticut has the potential to garner a lot more revenue to fund needed government operations. The political will has to be summoned to make the needed legal changes to do this.

  The mantra you hear from leaders like Gov. Malloy that somehow a well-off state like Connecticut "can't afford" to pay for higher ed and needed social services is completely wrong.

  People should not stand for it.

  

 

  

 

 

 

 

Sanders Confounds Skeptics

By Reginald Johnson




                  That was a very impressive showing by Bernie Sanders in Iowa.

                  A man who just six months ago was thought to have little or no chance of winning Iowa against the much better known establishment candidate Hillary Clinton, came within an eyelash of pulling off the upset. Sanders finished with 49.5 percent of the vote, to Clinton's 49.9 percent.

            While Clinton technically won the caucus in Iowa, Sanders also won, in that he proved he is very much a viable candidate to win the Democratic Party nomination and that his message of bringing fundamental change to the American economy is resonating with thousands of voters, young and old, men and women.

          He moves on to New Hampshire, where he is way ahead in the polls. If the Vermont senator scores a resounding victory there, he may well have the momentum to go to South Carolina and again, do much better than expected in that state's primary. Given that many in South Carolina's large African-American population favor Clinton, this will be a challenge for Sanders. But he's shown already he has the ability to win people over with his message about economic equality, and I think he can start gaining support among black voters in the South.

       When Bernie Sanders first announced his candidacy for president in April of last year, he stood at only 3 percent nationally among Democrats who said they would for him. Today, his level of support has shot up to over 36 percent.

     In Iowa, the Democratic Socialist started his campaign a full 40 points behind Hillary Clinton in the polls. But with a relentless campaign in which he repeatedly drew huge crowds, Sanders completely closed the gap, and finished in a "virtual tie" as he called it, in the state's caucus.

   When Sanders began his national campaign for president --- amid widespread doubt that he could make any headway at all --- he cautioned, "don't underestimate me."

   I don't think anyone is underestimating Bernie Sanders now.

    

       

   



        .

        

John F. Kennedy --- A Martyr for Peace?

           By Reginald Johnson

                In the most memorable speech of his presidency, John F. Kennedy told the graduates of American University in June of 1963 that America had to build a peace that would not just provide security for our nation, but for all of mankind.

            “What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace --- the kind of peace that makes life worth living  --- the kind that enables man and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children’ --- not merely peace for Americans, but peace for all men and women --- not merely peace in our time, but peace for all time.”

    In that speech as well, Kennedy talked of U.S. negotiations with the Soviet Union to achieve controls on nuclear weapons and their testing. He announced a unilateral suspension of nuclear tests in the atmosphere, so as to promote “our primary long-range interests” and a “general and complete disarmament.”

  Essentially, the speech was a repudiation of the Cold War.

   Five months later,  on November 22^nd --- 52 years ago this Sunday --- President Kennedy was assassinated, gunned own in a hail of bullets as his motorcade drove through Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas.

   A later investigation by the Warren Commission held that one man, and one man only ---- Lee Harvey Oswald --- was the killer. Oswald was portrayed as a lonely drifter, alienated from society and pro-communist.

   But in the book “JFK and the Unspeakable --- Why He Died, and Why It Matters,” author James. W. Douglass maintains that elements of the U.S. military and intelligence establishment --- enraged over Kennedy’s less aggressive approach to dealing with Cuba and Vietnam and his push for peaceful relations with the Soviet Union --- had him murdered. Oswald was only a scapegoat in a plot carried out by other people.

   Douglass, a peace activist and Christian theologian who studied the Kennedy assassination for years, writes that Kennedy ran afoul of high military officials and the Central Intelligence Agency in the early 1960s, with a series of foreign policy decisions.

  The first was when Kennedy prevented direct American assistance in the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles aimed at overthrowing communist dictator Fidel Castro, an invasion which was repelled by Castro’s forces. The second was in October, 1962 when Kennedy, in the eyes of the military, made too many concessions to Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev during negotiations to settle the confrontation with Russia over Soviet missile installations in Cuba. Kennedy rejected a plan by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to launch a preemptive attack against Cuba (a step which would likely have triggered a nuclear war).

  The third was Kennedy’s push for a nuclear test ban; and the fourth was JFK’s order that the U.S. slow its involvement in Vietnam, and bring all troops home by 1965.

   After that, Douglass contends, Kennedy was a “marked man.”

  Douglass shows in the book how Lee Harvey Oswald, contrary to the myth spun by the Warren Commission, was actually an intelligence asset, a person manipulated by the CIA and made to look like some kooky pro-communist sympathizer who hated the United States and hated Kennedy. The perfect fall guy.

  The author writes that while it is clear Kennedy entered his presidency with a reputation as a Cold War hardliner, his attitudes began to change, especially after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the world came perilously close to World War 111.

   “John Kennedy was no saint. Nor was he an apostle of non-violence. However, as we are called to do, he was turning. Teshuvah, “turning,” the rabbinic word for repentance, is the explanation for Kennedy’s short-lived, contradictory journey towards peace. He was turning from what would have been the worst violence in history, toward a new, more peaceful possibility in his and our lives,” Douglass wrote.

    As his administration progressed, Kennedy knew he was out of step with the views of the military, CIA and national security team. Increasingly, he felt isolated, Douglass writes. The author maintains that Kennedy was aware of the possibility of a coup d’etat, and that his life might be in danger.

    Nonetheless, Kennedy was determined to move away from the prevailing Cold War ideology of “defeating the enemy,” and towards dialogue. Douglass reports that Kennedy set up back-door channels of communication with both Khrushchev and Fidel Castro, trying to achieve détente.

  The secret communications between Kennedy and these leaders were facilitated by different people, including journalists. In fact, at the moment Kennedy was shot in Dallas, French journalist Jean Daniel, who had previously interviewed Kennedy, was interviewing Castro in Havana, and getting his response to Kennedy’s openness to improving relations between the two countries.

   Douglass raises the possibility that Kennedy willingly put his life on the line for peace.

   “Was John F. Kennedy a martyr, one who in spite of his contradictions, gave his life as witness to a new, more peaceful humanity?” he asks. Douglass doesn’t answer that question, instead saying, “let the reader decide.”

Douglass intersperses his writing about Kennedy and the plot to kill him, with a discussion of the views of the Trappist monk, Thomas Merton. The connection is that Merton, a noted Catholic theologian in the 1950s and 1960s, was writing considerably at the time Kennedy took office about the pressing need for more dialogue between the nuclear superpowers and a move toward disarmament, in order to avoid a nuclear holocaust. He expressed his concerns in letters sent to a number of major public figures of the day, including Kennedy’s sister-in-law, Ethel Kennedy.

  Merton wrote that while he was skeptical about whether Kennedy had enough character to move away from the Cold War mindset and towards peace, he hoped he would. It’s not known whether any of Merton’s letters reached JFK himself.

  Douglass based part of his book title on a term that Merton coined in the mid-sixties --- “The Unspeakable.”  Merton came up with the term as the nation was rocked by the assassinations of Kennedy, his brother Robert, Martin Luther King and the mounting death toll in Vietnam.

  “The Unspeakable” referred to a moral depravity on the part of many of the nation’s leaders and individuals who are part of the secretive intelligence/national security apparatus. Put in another way, Merton felt there was a moral void on the part of people in power, a void which allows them to perpetrate massive crimes, such as assassinations, wanton bombing of other countries and torture, with no accountability.

  But The Unspeakable affects the nation’s citizens as well, Merton said. Lulled to sleep by a media which rarely asks government leaders about what’s really going on and always paints a positive picture about the country's actions abroad, people live in a “climate of denial” about the possibility that terrible things are being done to maintain American power.

   “JFK and the Unspeakable” is a remarkable book that I recommend to everyone. While I have already read quite a bit about the Kennedy assassination, this book gave me even more information and perspective. The book brought home again the power and ruthlessness of our national security state.

    I was particularly moved by Douglass’s writing on John Kennedy’s transformation from Cold War hardliner to peace advocate.

  I agree with Douglass’s assertion that we owe a debt of gratitude to John Kennedy, and his partner in peacemaking, Nikita Khrushchev, for taking steps to create a more peaceful relationship between the two superpowers and for pulling the world back from nuclear annihilation.

 

  

 

       

.

Stop World War III

      By Reginald Johnson

  

             

     NEW HAVEN ---- As the nation paused this week to honor the veterans of wars past and present, a group of peace activists gathered here to demand that the United States stop trying to “provoke” so much conflict around the world.

            Holding placards saying “Honor Vets, Stop Wars” and “Lower Military Budget, Raise Minimum Wage” members of the Greater New Haven Peace Council and others held a protest called “Veterans Day Vigil to Stop World War 111” to underscore the urgent need for a change in American foreign policy.

       “We’re calling for support of veterans, putting resources into veterans, not ignoring the needs of vets, addressing the medical needs of vets, but at the same time, honoring veterans by stopping wars,” said Henry Lowendorf, a spokesman for the council.

      Lowendorf said the Obama administration has to begin de-esclating the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine, which the U.S. had a key role in creating in the first place.  America, he said, has to “stop provoking the Russians, the Chinese, the Syrians and other people and other governments.”

 

Peace activists demand that U.S. military interventions around the world must end.

    Unless there is a real change in U.S. policy --- turning towards diplomacy as a means of resolving problems and away from military intervention --- the chance of a global catastrophe is real, Lowendorf and others said.

      About a dozen people showed up for the protest, held in a drizzly rain on the corner of Chapel and College streets, in the heart of the city’s downtown.

   The demonstrators held up their signs to the cars going by, and a number of drivers honked their approval.

Mary Compton (center) and Susan Klein (left) say no to war.

     A flyer passed out by the group said: “Our world is at a critically dangerous juncture: there is the possibility of a military, even a thermonuclear, confrontation between NATO, led by the United States, and Russia. These nations each possess thousands of nuclear missiles aimed at each other on hair trigger alert. The militaries of the two superpowers are again facing each other, this time in Eastern Europe, especially in Ukraine, and in Syria. And tensions are increasing each passing day."

   The group demanded immediate diplomatic negotiations to end the conflict in Syria, involving all interested parties, including the Syrian government; removal of all NATO forces from the states bordering Russia; dismantle NATO; remove all foreign troops from Afghanistan; and end the U.S. strategy for global domination.

 

Ganim is back, and so is Testa

                    

   By Reginald Johnson                  

               

      BRIDGEPORT ---- Fascinating piece recently in the Connecticut Post about the city’s resident kingmaker, Mario Testa.

        At the election-night victory party for Joe Ganim --- who had just completed a remarkable political comeback by winning the mayoral election in Connecticut's largest city --- reporter Brian Lockhart got Testa, the chairman of the Democratic Town Committee, to open up about his long-standing support for Ganim, and how he (Testa) sees a rather large role for himself in running city government.

       When I read the comments by Testa,  the word “hubris” kept coming to mind.

   Testa revealed that despite his public claims about being neutral during the 2015 mayoral campaign, he was working behind the scenes for a full two years to bring Ganim back and unseat incumbent Mayor Bill Finch.

     Ganim had been mayor from 1991 to 2003, before leaving the mayor’s office in disgrace after the FBI found out he was running a wide-ranging corruption scheme. Following his conviction on 16 felony counts, Ganim served seven years in prison, and was released in 2010.

   It’s unusual and not exactly kosher for a town committee chairman to be working secretly to undo the top elected official in the city, a person who is from the same political party.  The actions by Testa are all the more brazen when one considers that he was trying to replace a mayor who was basically pointing the city in the right direction with someone who had been involved in a major corruption scandal and went to prison for it.

   But Mario Testa apparently doesn’t care. He has always believed he has a lot of power, and also believes he can do things other people dare not to.

  Testa maintained that he turned on Finch because the mayor and his staff were not consulting him enough on political matters.

   “If Bill Finch would have respect for the chairman, he would still be the mayor,” Testa said in the Post interview.

   Testa also said he urged Finch to reach out to the minority community more, to party district leaders in black and Latino neighborhoods, and that wasn’t done.

   Testa has a point here; the administration could have reached out more to minorities, and Finch in the end paid a price. Ganim got strong support from blacks and Latinos in the primary election, when Ganim upset Finch.

 

   But the Post story indicated the town committee boss wants to be heard not just on political matters, but on City Hall policy issues as well. This was apparently another source of friction with Finch.

   This is a key point. I know that going back to the years of  Ganim’s first administration, there were a number of people who said privately that Testa was included in a lot of key decisions, including who to hire and who to appoint.

  Testa will surely regain this important behind-the-scenes role now that Ganim is back at the helm in City Hall. Since Testa played a central role in helping Ganim mount his comeback, it’s highly unlikely Ganim would now suddenly keep Testa out of the loop on key matters.

   So what you have here is a man who wields a tremendous amount of influence in how the city is run, although he never got this power through a public election or appointment. And Testa doesn’t have to answer to the public for anything he does. There’s no accountability.

    This is a very troubling situation and one which a lot of people in this city have wanted to change for some time.

   Now, it looks like they’re going to have to wait some more before this situation changes.

  Ganim will be sworn in as mayor on Dec. 1, and has a four-year term.