Time for Fernandes Anderson to do the ‘right thing'
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
4 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Politics doesn't belong in the pulpit. Neither does the IRS.
Critics have Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up The IRS's shift is significant as a matter of policy, but in practical terms little is likely to change. Advertisement In all the decades since the Johnson Amendment was enacted, it has been successfully deployed just once to Advertisement That is as it should be. Don't misunderstand me. As a personal matter, I am staunchly against letting politics infect religious services. If the rabbi of my synagogue began using his pulpit to lobby for or against political candidates, or even to take sides generally in partisan battles, I would find a new congregation. When I go to synagogue, I am there to pray, to reflect, and to learn — not to be lobbied on behalf of a politician or party. Count me among the millions of Americans who believe that a house of worship is no place for politics, and that it trivializes the word of God to try and make it fit a partisan template. The teachings of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism are Advertisement Communities of the faithful ought to transcend the hostility and divisiveness of electoral contests, not wallow in it. The more faith entangles itself with electoral politics, the less effective it will be at conveying the timeless truths that religion exists to transmit, and the more likely that its transcendent values will be All the same, as a matter of fundamental constitutional law, the government has no business dictating what may or may not be preached from a church's pulpit or taught in a synagogue's sanctuary. Clergy and congregations have the right to decide for themselves — free of IRS influence — whether to speak about politics and elections. There will always be a tension between the freedom to speak and the prudence to know when to remain silent. If you ask me, it is never wise for clergy to turn the sanctuary into a campaign platform. But the First Amendment doesn't exist to guarantee wisdom, and liberty is not the government's to bestow or deny. The Johnson Amendment has always been problematic. Bravo to the IRS for acknowledging at last what should have been obvious all along. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
Boston Globe
4 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's new list of enemy countries could be a self-fulfilling prophecy
'The world has changed; we don't want an emperor,' he said at a press conference. 'This is a set of countries that wants to find another way of organizing the world.' Advertisement Trump replied by threatening Brazil with a 50 percent tariff if its courts do not drop charges against former president Jair Bolsonaro, who is one of his leading supporters in Latin America. Bolsonaro is charged with offenses stemming from a 2023 riot staged by his supporters in an effort to block certification of Lula's victory at the polls. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Trump's threat brought another response from Lula: 'Brazil is a sovereign nation with independent institutions that will not accept outside meddling.' At this month's summit, leaders of BRICS countries declared that their goal is 'reforming and improving global governance by promoting a more just, equitable, agile, effective, efficient, responsive, representative, legitimate, democratic, and accountable international and multilateral system.' In Moscow, a government spokesman insisted that 'BRICS has never been, and will never be, directed against any third countries.' Advertisement The Kremlin doth protest too much. BRICS wants to change the balance of world power. Since the United States is at the top of the global food chain, any change would necessarily mean a reduction in American power. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has warned that BRICS members are planning 'to do trade in their own currencies and get right around the dollar. They're creating a secondary economy in the world totally independent of the United States.' Trump is determined to prevent that. Instead of trying to engage with BRICS, he is treating it as a hostile force. The bloc Trump is now threatening was founded as BRIC in 2001 by four countries — Brazil, Russia, India, and China — that were seeking to escape from America's global influence. It was rechristened BRICS after South Africa joined in 2010. Since then, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, the United Arab Emirates, and Indonesia have joined. These 11 countries represent about 45 percent of the world's population and one-third of the global economy. This burgeoning US-BRICS confrontation is part of a larger one. The central challenge in today's world could be stated in a single profound question: Can the United States accept a world that it does not dominate? Trump evidently believes it cannot. Heads of state who gathered for this month's BRICS summit rejected Trump's threats. Intimidation from Washington, however, has inevitable effects. The country with the most difficult decision to make is Mexico. It has expressed interest in joining BRICS, and the Mexican foreign minister attended the recent summit as an 'observer.' Mexico's national consciousness is still scarred by memories of past American invasions and interventions. Yet its economy is deeply integrated with the American economy. A 2020 trade agreement known as USMCA binds the United States, Mexico, and Canada in a close economic partnership that brings benefits to all three countries. If Mexico joins BRICS, Trump might expel it from that partnership, which could severely harm its economy. Advertisement Under the 2020 agreement, Mexican goods enjoy priority treatment at US borders. Millions of Mexicans work making components for automobiles and electronic devices that are shipped to American factories. Americans buy vast amounts of Mexican products, from beer to avocados. The United States is Mexico's largest foreign market. A break is all but inconceivable. Attorney General Pam Bondi told a congressional hearing last month that the United States considers Mexico a 'foreign adversary' along with Iran, Russia, and China. Other officials in the Trump administration have raised the possibility of American military attacks on Mexico to destroy drug laboratories. Indiscriminate deportation campaigns have also raised anger in Mexico. President Claudia Sheinbaum must balance her people's natural resentment of the United States against the enormous importance of her country's cross-border trade. It is Mexico's central conundrum, eloquently phrased more than a century ago by President Porfirio Díaz: 'Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States!' Russia's ambassador to Mexico said he believes the United States 'won't allow' Mexico to join the new bloc. 'It is optimal for Mexico to join BRICS, but they are not going to let it happen,' he said. 'I am being realistic here; on paper I think it would be great.' The BRICS coalition does not yet wield the global power its members hope to accumulate. They have arguments among themselves. Rebelling against American power is dangerous. Trump's threats may slow the rise of BRICS. They could also, however, have the opposite effect. Advertisement Trump is angering many countries. Most would like to stay in America's good graces if possible. The more he torments them, however, the more attractive BRICS will become. It is not yet an 'anti-American' bloc. If Trump continues dealing with the world through threats, insults, and tariff demands, however, BRICS could become the enemy he fears. Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University.
Boston Globe
4 hours ago
- Boston Globe
The Trump administration is showing us its white nationalism
It should shock no one that such a post comes from an administration that has spent the months since President Trump's second inauguration touting its use of draconian immigration tactics. What else would you expect from an administration that is asking DHS's Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to conduct widespread raids, building concentration camp-like detention facilities like the so-called Alligator Alcatraz in the Florida Everglades, and swiftly whisking immigrants — many who have lived, worked, and helped build communities in the country for years — off to countries where they have no connection or where they face deadly threats? Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up And yet media coverage of these atrocities, as well as policy discussions and advocacy calls to action, often avoid saying the not-at-all-quiet part out loud: In the eyes of this administration, being a non-white person, whether or not you were born on US soil but particularly if you or your parents were not, renders you presumptively un-American. So why aren't we just calling this what it is? Advertisement I suspect it has a lot to do with this country's long and tortured history on race relations, and discussions thereof. My 52 years of being Black in America have taught me that few things make Americans, particularly white Americans, more uncomfortable than talking plainly about racism in America and the forces that advance it — especially when those forces include the government. Advertisement Yes, we can dismiss social media posts like this as tone-deaf or ahistorical, as many comments on the post have, and just move on. But closing our eyes and ears to the administration's white nationalist agenda won't make it go away. Especially not when the agenda is being put on full display. The post itself is like historical Wite-Out, erasing the complex, difficult, and brutal truth of western expansion. Nowhere does it acknowledge the It also conveniently omits the Black Americans who enlisted in Buffalo Soldier regiments, often as an escape from enslavement and post-Civil War brutality in the South, only to find themselves engaged in bloody battles — all in the name of protecting white frontiersmen and their ill-gotten gains. And that is not even to speak of others, like Advertisement The post reminds me of the many Confederate monuments that are still found across the nation. They are hailed, falsely, as an homage to history. But they really are a warning for those in the present: This country has a long history of deciding who the real Americans are, and if you are Black, brown, or from a predominately Black or brown country, that doesn't include you. Remember when The post, perhaps by no coincidence, came as DHS touted the recently passed budget's infusion of cash into draconian immigration efforts, including plans to replicate Alligator Alcatraz in other states, and an announcement that detained immigrants will no longer be granted bond hearings. Anyone not seeing the connection by this point is being willfully blind. But who is speaking truth to this in a clear way? Democrats? No. Most of mainstream media? Uh-uh. Even academics who are otherwise dissenting to every aspect of the administration? Haven't seen it. But you can. To your lawmakers. To your neighbors. To your local news organizations in op-eds and letters to the editor. To your neighbors and family. To anyone who will listen. Complacency and silence create fertile ground for white nationalism. Be clear about what the administration is sowing, and do all you can to spoil the crop. Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a columnist for the Globe. She may be reached at
