Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
Before the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush’s campaign Web site had a biography of the candidate so thorough that it included the names of his pets, Barney, India, Cowboy and Spot, but not his place of birth, New Haven, Conn. “He was born in 1946 and grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas,†according to the official biography.
The candidate’s handlers apparently believed his image as an aw-shucks Texan wouldn’t be enhanced by his eastern roots and New Haven didn’t make its appearance in the official biography until after the election. Even then, on his first visit to Connecticut as president in April 2001, Bush neglected to mention he was born in the state.
Since then, I’ve been interested in what other candidates fail to tell us about themselves in these affectionate biographies, because what they don’t say about themselves sometimes says a lot about them. With that in mind, I checked out the campaign Web site of the least conventional U.S. Senate candidate, Linda McMahon, to see what she might not want to discuss.
u u u
At Linda2010, McMahon readily admits to being born and raised in New Bern, N.C., but there was one rather glaring omission:
Wrestling.
On the home page of Linda2010, a richly detailed biography begins by telling us, “Linda E. McMahon recently stepped down as the chief executive officer of the WWE, a publicly traded company in Stamford, Conn., that is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Linda helped grow the company from a modest 13-person operation to a publicly traded, global enterprise with over 500 employees and offices in New York, Los Angeles, Orlando, London, Ontario, Shanghai and Tokyo.â€
Although we are reminded three times WWE is publicly traded, we are never told what WWE means, that it is an acronym for World Wrestling Entertainment. With its offices in Shanghai and Tokyo, WWE could just as well be the Worldwide Wonton Exchange.
Wrestling, the source of the fortune that has allowed McMahon to run for the Senate, is never mentioned, except in a couple of news stories reprinted way back on the site’s news page. There is no mention of wrestling in the thousands of words produced by the campaign.
McMahon, of course, has reason to be shy about her former profession. Soon after she announced her candidacy, the Internet showcased videos of WWE television exhibitions that included simulated sex and other activities not usually associated with a race for the United States Senate. As the CEO, McMahon was a hands-on executive, making appearances in the ring with some of her colorful employees.
The Senate hopeful has also been reluctant to get specific about election issues, letting visitors to the Web site know nice things about her, like being “a fighter who hates to lose.â€
u u u
Last month, The Hartford Courant did print a very modest compilation of McMahon on the issues that revealed she thinks the stimulus money was misspent, believes any overhaul of health care “must address rising costs†and finds “evidence to the positive and to the contrary about global warming.â€
McMahon calls herself pro-choice but “with a caveat because I’ve never had to make that decision for myself.†She doesn’t want to see “another multiyear escalation of conflict in Afghanistan†and hopes “the troops come home safely as soon as possible … responsibly and in victory, not defeat.†And that’s about it.
Despite all of the above, there is a real danger of McMahon becoming the Republican Party’s senatorial candidate. With the Republicans’ chances of victory severely reduced by the departure of Chris Dodd and the emergence of Dick Blumenthal, the party will turn to the candidate who can pay her own way, and that’s the lady from WWE, a publicly traded company.
Dick Ahles is a retired journalist from Simsbury. E-mail him at dahles@hotmail.com.
Related Stories
Get Local News Delivered To Your Inbox
Subscribe to receive stories reported for, by, and about our neighbors, on the issues affecting you.
By signing up you agree to our
privacy policy
.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.