PLANET VALENTI News and Commentary

(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, PRESIDENTS DAY, MONDAY, FEB. 20, 2012) — Back at the ranch after road time, and THE PLANET enjoys a rare day off — day off, we said, and MRS. PLANET insists, thus, we will keep this brief.

Tomorrow, we present the back-and-forth of a series of e-mails two of my Right Honorable Good Friends sent to each other following the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, also known as the Jeff Ferrin Monkey Trial.

It's President's Day, and THE PLANET is more-or-less taking this one off. As you can see, though, we still got our eye on things.

The exchange began after our coverage of the issue, when John Krol questioned Melissa Mazeo’s comments on the Ferrin matter. Krol wanted to know if THE PLANET had quoted Mazzeo accurately (we had). That began a series of back-and-forths that are revealing on several levels. Those will be presented here, in full, and exclusively, tomorrow. It’s a can’t miss.

‘Character’ Issue May Boomerang

The bitter feelings and reverberation stemming from the actions of four councilors — Jonathan Lothrup, Barry Clairmont, Christine Yon, and Paul Capitanio — have only begun to surface. It may take several more council meetings, AND PERHAPS AS LONG AS THE NEXT TWO YERAS, but the “character” issue that the Gang of Four raised in reference to Jeff Ferrin will come up again like the uncomfortable remnants of a poorly cooked meal improperly digested.

If “character” now becomes the issue with appointments but also, retroactively, to include anyone holding public office, things are going to get mighty interesting. Many sins heretofore hidden will become sins to be waved before the public. If the action is to proceed in this direction, THE PLANET suggests that councilors, in the name of We The People, start with Cliff Nilan and Carmen Massimiano.

After the dust settled, it has become clear that the pre-emptive attack on Jeff Ferrin was launched as a tacit strike against Mayor Dan Bianchi. It appears that in rejecting this otherwise solid appointment to a nondescript commission, the Gang delivered the message that the mayor is in for a struggle. If that’s what is indeed happening, we warn the Gang: Don’t attempt to derail the government for strictly political reasons. This is not a warning. This is not a threat. This is the inexorable logic of We The People, who are sick of Pittsfield’s poisonous politics and the fetid fractures it produces.

Krol-Mazzeo: Love Letters in the Sand, Hardly

We shall publish the Krol-Mazzeo message exchange in full tomorrow. We won’t pre-empt what the messages say, but we will tell you of the surprising conclusion. Mazzeo offered to discuss this issue and any others in open forum with Krol, suggesting that Dan Valenti moderate. We immediately wrote to the two councilors, extending our offer to serve as facilitator of a “public discussion” on the Ferrin issue as well as any and all others. To our delight, both immediately accepted.

It’s just a question of where and when, and not if. So be looking for this soon, on a TV set and/or computer screen near you: Krol vs. Mazzeo: A Community Discussion. We think the discussion will serve a great community purpose, and we commend our two Right Honorable Good Friends for agreeing so eagerly to share so openly, in the same room as the dreaded PLANET.



We said this would be quick. Please allow one more observation: Paul Babeau: GD Phony Bastard.

The former North Adams city councilor and Berkshire County Commissioner, who moved out to Wacko Land, Ariz., got the tight-side-walls haircut before shaving his head, and taking his plays directly from the Mein Kampf playbook, soiled the bed big time out west. Sheriff Babeau, who has made trogladyte, reactionary, rabid-right poltics his ticket to the national stage, went down in flames after his man lover and he split, and the jilted party went airborne to the press.

That Eerie, 1000-Yard Stare

In Babeau’s time as a wannabe in Berkshire County, THE PLANET did a few radio shows with him. We never felt comfortable with the guy’s manner or that eerie, 1,000-yard stare. Now this. We can share that when the Babeau for Congress brain trust began to go to work, they approached THE PLANET exploring if we were for hire to supply writing and political consultation services. We immediately and politely declined. Goes to show that often, going with your gut is the best thing to do.

We are sorry to see what has become of an apparently troubled person, who Went West, Young Man.







  1. Pittsfield Berever
    February 20, 2012 at 9:11 am #

    If anyone actually examines Mein Kampf it is anything but right wing. It is racist socialist through ang through. (see Progressive history and eugenics). Use historical references accurately please.

    • Scott
      February 20, 2012 at 9:21 am #

      Right wing politics are Republican/conservative.

      • Pittsfield Berever
        February 20, 2012 at 10:53 am #

        and your point is?

        • Scott
          February 20, 2012 at 12:46 pm #

          George Bush Jr. signed the “patriot” act into law taking away our freedoms and he used fear to do it.

          • Pittsfield Berever
            February 20, 2012 at 1:37 pm #

            Scott what freedoms did GWB take away from you? You do know that the act was approved by a democrat dominated congress?

            Why didn’t Obama repeal the Patriot Act when in his first two years democrats were a majority in both Houses of Congress.

          • Nancy P. aka Molly
            February 20, 2012 at 8:14 pm #

            Scott – yes, I’d like to also know – exactly what freedoms of yours did he take away?

            Personally, I think that if you’re doing something like recruiting young men to be terrorists or plotting another attack on the USA, then you SHOULD BE listened to, followed – whatever it takes. If you’re not doing that, then no problem!!! There was a not a single thing in the Patriot Act that bothered me in the least. What was it that bothered you about it?

          • danvalenti
            February 20, 2012 at 8:42 pm #

            Well, not enough room for a history lesson, but check out House Report 109-333 USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, Sec. 605: “There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the ‘United States Secret Service Uniformed Division.'” This federal police force is “subject to the supervision of the Sec. of Homeland Security.” It can ” From writer Paul Roberts: “”make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony.”

            The new police are assigned a variety of jurisdictions, including “an event designated under section 3056(e) of title 18 as a special event of national significance” (SENS).

            “A special event of national significance” is neither defined nor does it require the presence of a “protected person” such as the president in order to trigger it. Thus, the administration, and perhaps the police themselves, can place the SENS designation on any event. Once a SENS designation is placed on an event, the new federal police are empowered to keep out and arrest people at their discretion.”

            Also, check out this link: The Patriot Act assumes that those who run the federal government will never abuse the power. Come, come: You can’t seriously believe they will throw a perfect game.

            In short, The Patriot Act is the seed of a potential (and increasingly likely) disaster. It should have been allowed to die a slow death.

          • Nancy P. aka Molly
            February 21, 2012 at 9:32 pm #

            DV – you only included the parts of Section 605 that makes it appear that there is now this “Secret Service Uniformed Division” that can just come and arrest me without a warrant because they want to. You must also read the entirety of Section 3056A, a and b and under “a”, it details out exactly what these “powers” can be used for (protection of The White House, The President, former Presidents, on and on). And to accomplish this, under “b”, it says they have the authority to make arrests without warrant, etc., etc., etc. That’s a BIG difference than what you portraying. Read the Bill:

            In addition, it states: “For any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States…” – you might want to look that up… — this is a VERY important piece of this!

            Also, a “special event” is defined under Title 18, 3056e and is as follows:

            (1) When directed by the President, the United States Secret Service is authorized to participate, under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, in the planning, coordination, and implementation of security operations at special events of national significance, as determined by the President.
            (2) At the end of each fiscal year, the President through such agency or office as the President may designate, shall report to the Congress—
            (A) what events, if any, were designated special events of national significance for security purposes under paragraph (1); and
            (B) the criteria and information used in making each designation.

          • danvalenti
            February 22, 2012 at 7:44 am #

            I admire your optimistic view of the Patriot Act, which assumes that everyone in government who CAN make use of its sweeping powers will always and forever do so in a just and righteous way. Do you actually believe at that level of government (and therefore power) we will continue to be blessed by honorable people who will never abuse the power? The point is not the Patriot Act is being abused right now, although I’m sure it has been on occasion. The point is that the sweeping powers CAN be abused by the wrong set of critters who get into office. The Patriot Act, all 7,000 pages, is chock full with undefined terms. That’s giving a blank check to a thief.

      • Pittsfield Berever
        February 20, 2012 at 10:56 am #

        • Scott
          February 20, 2012 at 12:52 pm #

          Both sides of politics share Hitlers ideals in my opinion on a lot of matters. If you think for one second they wouldn’t turn our army on Americans or certain groups of Americans at the drop of a hat you’re seriously mistaken. Look what they did to the Japanese/Americans during ww2. Look at how even children’s cartoons depicted Japanese in the 1940’s.

          • Pittsfield Berever
            February 20, 2012 at 1:33 pm #

            Democrat FDR, who is seen as a liberal saint, gave the goahead for the concentration camps for Americans whose ancestors came from Japan.

          • Pittsfield Berever
            February 20, 2012 at 1:39 pm #

            both sides of politics share Hitler’s ideals? Exactly what are those ideals and who promotes them?

          • Nancy P. aka Molly
            February 20, 2012 at 8:19 pm #

            I have absolutely no fear of our military going after Americans or even certain groups of Americans at all! None. And no, I don’t think that our government would do that, nor do I think that our military would do that.

          • danvalenti
            February 20, 2012 at 8:46 pm #

            You “don’t think that our government would do that, nor do [you] think that our military would do that.” Yes, and that’s because you are good and decent at heart. I’m curious: Have you read all 7,000 pages of the Patriot Act, as we have? Do you know realize that it creates a legislative framework for the State (cap “S”) to undermine the Bill of Rights as a threat to govt. stability. I’m not saying the present crew would abuse it this way, but with just a little help from our friends (Iran, N. Korea, Israel, you name it), the picture could change drastically and overnight.

          • Nancy P. aka Molly
            February 21, 2012 at 9:41 pm #

            DV: Which item(s) of the “Bill of Rights”? Wiretapping, etc.? If that’s what it takes to keep us safe, then I’m all for it.

        • Pittsfield Berever
          February 21, 2012 at 6:43 am #

          Why didn’t Obama repeal the Patriot Act when in his first two years democrats were a majority in both Houses of Congress.

          • Pittsfield Berever
            February 21, 2012 at 6:46 am #

            the patriot act is troubling to many rpublicans and libertarians as well….the reason Obama and the dems didn’t repeal it is that they like it..

            the first stimilus contained anti constitutional language as did the almost 3000 page Obama care bill.

          • danvalenti
            February 21, 2012 at 7:00 am #

            Excellent question. My answer: The Dems, as well, are playing politics with the terrorism issue.

  2. Scott
    February 20, 2012 at 9:18 am #

    It is unfortunate but when you’re a public figure you have to expect this politics are dirty. Just look at the power shift that happened here during the sheriff race I bet the “alleged allegations” would have never surfaced had Carmen continued his reign and retired due to natural causes taking the position unopposed.

    • Pittsfield Berever
      February 20, 2012 at 9:22 am #

      I hope he’s not a pedofile like some sheriffs are

      • Scott
        February 20, 2012 at 12:53 pm #

        It’s a misconception that gay people like little boys most live heterosexual life’s and deny attraction to the same sex.

        • Pittsfield Berever
          February 20, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

          Who said all gay men are pedofiles?

          • Scott
            February 20, 2012 at 5:02 pm #

            come on you suggested it in your comment.

          • Pittsfield Berever
            February 20, 2012 at 5:44 pm #

            that was a shot across the bow of a local official who has that reputation not at gay people, I apoligize if anyone took it that way

          • Nancy P. aka Molly
            February 20, 2012 at 8:22 pm #

            Perhaps talking about allegations toward a former local sheriff?

  3. Ron Kitterman
    February 20, 2012 at 9:50 am #

    ” When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny ” ( Thomas Jefferson)

    • Scott
      February 20, 2012 at 12:54 pm #

      Oh they fear us still for now anyways.

  4. Wally Ballou
    February 20, 2012 at 11:25 am #

    Mein Kampf is a political screed. Contents are all over the map but many aspects of it as pure rightwing glump. Racist socialist, Bereaver says but only a small part of the book is so. Best part is the chapter on Propaganda. The priciples outlined there form the basis of modern-day advertising. Planet’s reference was accurate.
    As for the Krol-Mazzeo letters, I’m looking forward to it.

    • Scott
      February 20, 2012 at 12:45 pm #

      what’s the difference between Adolf Hitler and George Bush they both used propaganda to dehumanize an enemy for us to fear and to justify our guys slaughtering them by the thousands it’s still going on today.

      • Nancy P. aka Molly
        February 20, 2012 at 8:27 pm #

        It’s called war, Scott. And they declared war on us. Are you calling what happened on 911 to be propaganda? People had (and have) fear because it really did happen!!!

        • danvalenti
          February 20, 2012 at 8:49 pm #

          “They” declared war. Who are “they”? 911 was a handful or well-organized but otherwise bumbling fanatics who found the one vulnerable spot in the Death Star. It became the pretext for a war and Bush’s lucky day, since most everyone rallies around the Prez in the days after a declaration of war.

          • Pittsfield Berever
            February 21, 2012 at 3:33 am #

            they=a world wide network of wacko islamofascists

          • Nancy P. aka Molly
            February 21, 2012 at 9:58 pm #

            “A handful or(sic) well-organized but otherwise bumbling fanatics who found the ONE VULNERABLE SPOT IN THE DEATH STAR?” Really? A handful? I suggest you look again!! And obviously they weren’t too “bumbling” — they were able to kill over 3,000 US Citizens. And “the ONE vulnerable spot”? Really? I think you need to open your eyes a bit more… You seem to be having eye problems as of late! They utilized the very same freedoms that we hold so dear and they have such contempt for, to try to destroy us. It was way past time to tweak some things to prevent them from doing this again, without infringing upon our rights — and I think the Patriot Act, overall, did a good job of that.

            So what do you think of Osama Bin Ladin being “murdered” — that goes against our Constitution, does it not?? The US Government can’t just go and murder someone! The thought of those Navy Seals going into HIS compound without a US Warrant and not even telling the poor Pakistani Government – and just killing him — for shame, for shame…

            I never knew you were this liberal… You’re starting to sound like one of those very left-wing whacko’s! Personally, I consider myself a “Moderate” and likely lean to the right a bit. But when it comes to protecting this country from these (As Pittsfield Berever put it”) “Wacko Islamofascists”, then I want, and expect, our Government to protect us and to stop them. And am very happy that thus far, they have succeeded!

          • danvalenti
            February 22, 2012 at 7:39 am #

            Ah, Babe, try as you may to make a silk purse out of the burlap of “W”‘s foreign policy adventurism, you cannot do it. You don’t seem to realize that you’ve been duped! The same way Colin Powell now admits HE was duped when he was sent to the UN with a stack of lies to make the case for a preventive war on an autonomous foreign country that posed no threat to our national security. As for my politics, I am neither liberal, conservative, or moderate. I am Pedestrian. My agenda consists of crossing the street safely. I also do not view the world through lenses tinted with political extremism. Thought you’d like the eye reference!

        • Scott
          February 21, 2012 at 5:06 am #

          Our intelligence agency knew it was going to happen and let it. Out of all the people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan Nancy the civilians men, woman and children just like you and I died. If they want to hunt down terrorist torture and kill them fine but imposing our military force on a country was wrong. We could have killed Saddam with out all the collateral damage.

          • Nancy P. aka Molly
            February 21, 2012 at 10:22 pm #

            And Afghanistan and Iraq weren’t filled with Al Queda? There’s even an organization called “AQI” (Al Qaeda In Iraq). This organization is 90% Iraqi. And you don’t think that they were (are) in Afghanistan, either? Personally, I don’t think that there’s any way for us to win the war in Afghanistan, but as for Iraq – we did win the war! And they now have a democratic society where they can vote their leader into, and out of, power. Have you ever read what Saddam actually did to his people? They lived in total fear, all the time! His actions were attrocious!

            As for the “collateral damage”, that’s always the worst part of war and yes, it bothers me a lot as well. But you can’t think that our military intentionally killed innocent children in Iraq?! Try the IED’s that Al Qaeda and the radical Islamists put everywhere (that they got from Iran!). How much money have WE spent in rebuilding Iraq? Lots! Tons! Brand new schools, Mosques, you name it – we’re building it.

        • Scott
          February 21, 2012 at 5:15 am #

          Also you must have bought into the propaganda because the people who crashed the planes were affiliated with Bin Laden and member’s of Al Qaeda. GW used the scare tactics and fear of terrorism fresh in our minds from 911 to push us into a war with a country based on the premises that they had WMD’s and another terrorist attack was inevitable.

    • Pittsfield Berever
      February 20, 2012 at 1:58 pm #

      When did you read it Wally?

      • Wally Ballou
        February 20, 2012 at 3:02 pm #

        In college and once again a few years ago.

    • Pittsfield Berever
      February 20, 2012 at 4:33 pm #

      looking forward to yje letters as well,,,,but wondering how you and the planet see a connection with Babeau and Shickelgruber

      • danvalenti
        February 20, 2012 at 7:14 pm #

        Our mention of “Mein Kampf” was not meant to be literal.

        • Nancy P. aka Molly
          February 20, 2012 at 7:38 pm #

          Can you explain, then, how it was meant to be taken?

          “…got the tight-side-walls haircut before shaving his head and taking his plays directly from the Mein Kampf playbook…”

          I don’t see how else could this be taken… Thanks in advance for your explanation.

          • danvalenti
            February 20, 2012 at 8:33 pm #

            The explanation is there, as you wrote it. Think, Nancy. Observe the words, then think.

          • Nancy P. aka Molly
            February 21, 2012 at 10:33 pm #

            I disagree with the connection you have dreamed up to Mein Kampf. But if Babs did threaten his boyfriend with deportation, then he should be punished, for sure but that’s going to be mighty hard to prove. And I agree that he was very “two faced” as well. And I agree that he was merely looking for more power by regurgitating to the very right-wing radical wing nuts what he knew they wanted to hear. He likely would’ve been elected to Congress as the people there loved him! So for that, it’s good he got stopped.

            What I don’t like are all of the harsh words about him because he was such a “right-winger” but was gay! I don’t care what people do in their own lives – that’s up to them! So why the big deal from the press (and you) on this – because he was Republican and gay? That’s wrong.

        • Pittsfield Berever
          February 21, 2012 at 3:34 am #

          violation of Goodwin’s law

          • Nancy P. aka Molly
            February 21, 2012 at 10:37 pm #

            Godwin’s Law — you may be right!!! Good one!

  5. Steve wade
    February 20, 2012 at 12:02 pm #

    Babeau showed his true colors. He was a right wing religous phoney . I wonder what his crazy father thinks of him coming out of the closet? How many of these religous right wing anti gay preachers end up getting caught either {wide stepping in a mens room} or getting outed by the spurned boy toy?

    • Pittsfield Berever
      February 20, 2012 at 1:50 pm #

      Has Babeau ever made any anti gay statements? Is it important what his father thinks? Is it important that Obamas father was a drunk who first lost his legs while drunk driving then lost his life after another bender? Maybe it’s only important on Winesap Ave.

      Does it matter that left wing democrat Al Sharpton called ancient Greeks a bunch of Greek Homos?

      Does it matter that California democrats voted down gay marriage? That’s right the state that went overwhlemingly for Obama voted against same sex marriage.

      • Nancy P. aka Molly
        February 20, 2012 at 7:41 pm #

        Excellent reply. Obama himself is NOT for same sex marriage. He’s “still trying to figure out where he stands with that…”. Really? That says to me that he just didn’t want to have his far left-wingers go against him.

        • Scott
          February 21, 2012 at 5:21 am #

          This is what I think and I am not a religious person I mean I have beliefs based on Christianity but I’m open. If the church says marriage is between a man and a woman then they should not be forced to marry same sex couples in their buildings and accept it. Same sex couples should be allowed the same protection by law as Married couple’s of the opposite sex for insurance and other legal purposes. My personal belief is we’re here to pro create so what’s the point it goes against humanity and our goals to continue populating the earth I most likely wouldn’t even answer the question on the ballot sheet.

          • Pittsfield Berever
            February 21, 2012 at 6:51 am #

            I would be very curious where you get your ideas and information Scott.

    • Pittsfield Berever
      February 20, 2012 at 1:54 pm #

      What about Barney Franks boy toy running an escort service out of Franks basement? Why is it a big deal when a republican is gay but not when a democrat is gay?

      • Scott
        February 20, 2012 at 5:13 pm #

        Because democrats are liberal and accept gays so a conservative gay is against conservative values. These values are set by them just my understanding I’m not just saying it. You have to open to the idea that there is something wrong with both sides one is not better then the other most of them are crooks and liars. To answer your question from above think of a world where there is gov’t who live a lavish lifestyle the working poor and the imprisoned. I believe that’s the agenda does it remind you of anyone? The patriot act took away the basic right to privacy and they did it with the fear of terrorism. Most people will say I”m not a terrorist so I don’t care if the gov’t listens to my phone or reads my email” this is a dangerous way to think.

        • Pittsfield Berever
          February 20, 2012 at 5:40 pm #

          OK Scott, same sex marriage was voted down in Ca where the voters are by a vast majority democrats.

          Most people I know, Republicans and democrats do NOT care what consenting adults do. But I do know folks from both parties who object to homosexual relationships.

          Like most Republicans I believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

          The fact that you think gays can’t be Republicans is ridiculous.

          If Babeau made hypocritical anti gay statements or if he threatened his boyfriend then that is troubling. But to engage in gay bashing because the gay person is a republican is wrong. Maybe DV has evidence that Babeau is a no good SOB but until that evidence is presented and verified back off.

          • Scott
            February 20, 2012 at 6:14 pm #

            Yes I agree Conservatives generally believe less gov’t in peoples lives I’ll give you that. Like I said it’s my understanding I can be wrong that’s always a possibility but I don’t think politics is as black and white as you extreme one sided people think it is. I have things I like about both sides.

          • danvalenti
            February 20, 2012 at 7:09 pm #

            Politics can be as black and white as alternating piano keys, but it shouldn’t be. Life isn’t like that, and when politics is “wither/or,” that’s when irrationality, partisanship, and hatred enter. The only way it could be either/or is if “either” or “or” exclusively possessed the answers. They don’t. Extremism is almost never a virtue.

      • Nancy P. aka Molly
        February 20, 2012 at 7:50 pm #

        It shouldn’t be a big deal if anyone is gay. But you’re right – being against gay marriage is always put to just the Republicans when in fact it’s a lot of Democrats, including Obama.

        And you’re right – Barney Frank’s boyfriend running an escort service out of Barney’s basement (along with all the pot plants that were found there that Barney didn’t know were pot – yeah right!) was barely a mention on the news. Why is this such a huge deal? Why did you even find it newsworthy enough (or scandelous enough) to write about it, Dan?

        • danvalenti
          February 20, 2012 at 8:34 pm #

          Huh? You lost me on that one, babe.

          • Nancy P. aka Molly
            February 21, 2012 at 10:49 pm #

            Babe??? LOL

            The issue, as I see it, is that when, for example, Barney Frank (gay and a Democrat) boyfriend was found to be running an escort service, the media didn’t deem this to be “news worthy” and barely reported on it. But when a Republican was found to be gay, it’s on every news channel constantly and a big part of the “mainstream media”. Why is there such a difference if he’s a gay democrat or a gay republican? Who cares if he’s gay? Why is this such a “news worthy topic”? And why did you find it to be so? Did he ever come out and ridicule gays? If so, I haven’t heard that or seen any proof of that…

            Did I explain that well enough that now “The Babe” found you again? 😉

  6. Jeff Ferrin
    February 20, 2012 at 12:08 pm #


    As wonderful as this is that such a topic as my employment record is to be toiled with in yet another public forum, I sure do hope that since I have not been privy to any of the conversations regardless of who the councilors are that I be given notice to attend as well if it is I whom this discussion is about. At some point I would like to defend myself and my character. I have not in any way been in contact with either councilor since the so called dubbed Valentines Day Massacre (Thanks Ron LOL) took place. I will say that it is a sad day in this city when this is what we have come to over an appointment. Where is the accountability and the truth.

    I met with councilor Clairmont today and whether I like or dislike him he took the time to ask questions and to educate himself on what I had. He did not rush me nor turn away. He made eye conact and was direct as was I. He took the time to listen to my side of the issues and admitted that the whole story is not in that document. He took time to read some of the documents. He was candid and open about his opinions as he always is. We agreed that many times even before the campaigns that we did not see eye to eye on many things but did have respectful dalogue and felt that knowing how passionate I am when I have something to say that there was more to the story then was being told. He admitted he had read about this stuff when it came out in the Eagle after it was left on doorsteps by Cappy’s supporters but had forgotten about it until Lothrup brought it out. He appologized for not reaching out and asking questions before just going on the response of Lothrup’s statement. He admitted that the way this whole thing has played out from the moment Jonathan opened his mouth with that statement until the voting to table took place was inappropriate He was honest when he said that he may or may not support me, but that seeing for himself made it easier to understand and make the dicision when the time comes.

    I will be meeting with councilor Siminelli and then Councilor Yon as they have also reached out to me.

    I am meeting with one councilor at a time to prevent any open dialogue that could be misconstrued and to prevent any questions of open meeting law violations.

    The only question I have is. Have any other nominees had to go through all this to serve there community that had worked for the city? My guess is “NO”

    I have not heard from councilor Krol as of yet to see if he is willing to meet and already know councilor Mazzeo is aware of what is there because she reached out early on.

    It is hard to believe that one person can cause such a division for such a role of advising and yet there is no questions or arguments about being qualified to do so. Just a question of, Were the choices I made as an employee to stand up and fight correct. There appears to be no arguemnt regarding my qualifications in any way. This is simply about my work record that is skued and my chracter according to two. One of whom has reached out to me since and appologized.

    I think we need to have a job description made up for every single possible appointee for any board or commission ,council seat etc and then go off that and require a full background check of employment HX, ethics issues, qualifications, and cory check before one can be considered. Oh wait that means nobody would be qualified for city council, a board or commision, mayor, Police officer, FF, and so on because most everyone will have some sort of history somewhere.

    Instead it was about whether or not I have character and lets make a dicision before we look at everything. I do believe that this may also have been a way to say to Mayor Bianchi, we are still in control here and you will not stop us from having who we want serve.

    It is no wonder so many stay away from serving there communities when they see this sort of thing.

    This whole issue has created more of a divide than a $130 MIL budget did and almost as much as the school issue. WOW.
    I sure hope that is not a sign of the direction we are headed in. We won’t have anyone to serve we the people because we will have all been condemned for having a history that is not up to par and character.

    Thanks Dan

    Jeff Ferrin

    • Mike Ward
      February 20, 2012 at 2:07 pm #

      Jeff, meeting with the council individually for the purpose of deliberation (discussing your appointment) still qualifies as an open meeting violation. If you meet with only five of them you’re in compliance. Check with the Solicitor.

      • Jeff Ferrin
        February 20, 2012 at 2:21 pm #

        Will do Mike Thank you sir. It is the deliberation issue we want to avoid at all cost. I will contact her tomorrow morning first thing.

      • Jeff Ferrin
        February 20, 2012 at 2:23 pm #

        Will do Mike thank you sir. Always want to be in compliance as you know. I will stop by in the morning.

      • Nancy P. aka Molly
        February 21, 2012 at 10:50 pm #

        Why aren’t the Councilors concerned about this as well?

    • Joetaxpayer
      February 20, 2012 at 3:47 pm #

      Jeff,Found it funny that Clairmont would not commit one way or the other after meeting with you.He must have to ask the others in his group how to vote.

      • Nancy P. aka Molly
        February 20, 2012 at 7:53 pm #

        Of course he has to ask the others! Especially after Melissa’s statement of it’s now open season on checking on everyone’s background that is on a City Board!!!! That put what the vote will be all up in the air, I’m sure!

  7. Dusty
    February 20, 2012 at 1:07 pm #

    This was a sad day for Pittsfield for sure. But when you consider the perps, should anyone really be surprised? And as someone pointed out, it drew a chalk line around the core council GOB and Lothrop can take credit for that himself. Lothrop is too dense to learn from this experience but others may, so there may be a silver lining somewhere in the whole mess.

  8. pjmh
    February 20, 2012 at 1:37 pm #

    DV, keep pushing.

    I watched the meeting. Not surprised at all. Yon and Cap, really? How articulate… wtf?

    Good for MM to step up – how ironic that “character” is all of the sudden a concern.

  9. ambrose
    February 20, 2012 at 1:37 pm #

    Ambulance Review Committee meets at 4:00 PM TBA. don’t know when they met last or when they meet again. Wish hizhonor appointed him to Remo’s board where deanna ruffus holds court, then we could have some fun. Does anyone know if local cable tapes their meetings.

  10. Silence Dogood
    February 20, 2012 at 2:01 pm #

    If they were aired they are still available through the Pittsfield Community TV website where all shows are available on demand 24/7 some going back over a year.

  11. tito
    February 20, 2012 at 4:10 pm #

    Nothin against Sturgeon’s boy, Paul Babyblew, but if he was keeping an immigrantfor hiimself and lying about it, then he really is the truest of phonies and a dirtbag.

    • Pittsfield Berever
      February 20, 2012 at 5:58 pm #

      the guy was in the country with a visa so who has a problem with people from Mexico who had a visa. Babeau seems to take a stance against illeagle immigrants.

      • danvalenti
        February 20, 2012 at 7:11 pm #

        Bab’s jilted lover is charging that Paul’s lawyer threatened him with deportation if he (the lover) revealed anything about their one-year affair. Babs has denied these charges but admitted he’s gay.

        • Nancy P. aka Molly
          February 20, 2012 at 7:58 pm #

          And no one finds this threat to be suspect considering it’s obviously not a “friendly break-up”? I know it sounds like I’m sticking up for “Babs”, but only because what is being said here seems so absurd.

          Again – why did you even need to “report” this – because it’s scandelous?

          • danvalenti
            February 20, 2012 at 8:36 pm #

            We wrote on this because we have had professional relations with Babeau in the past, when he ran for office and was a Berkshire County politician. So the answer to your leading question is, “No. We didn’t write about it because it is scandalous.”

        • Pittsfield Berever
          February 21, 2012 at 3:25 am #

          Maybe the Babeau camp made these threats and maybe they didn’t. Maybe the jilted lover is bing coached by a David Axel type.

          I’m still not gettting the hair cut thing. How would that diffe3r from any other cop?

          • ambrose
            February 21, 2012 at 6:19 am #

            If valenti was a real investigative reporter he’d delve deeper into babeau and find that he only scratched the surface on this Bircher. He’s everything dan said he is and a hell of a lot more.

          • danvalenti
            February 21, 2012 at 7:05 am #

            First, invent a way that will give me 48 hours in a day and maybe I consider what you propose. But given normal time constraints, we won’t spend our time and resources on a story that can be handled elsewhere, in the national press.

          • Pittsfield Berever
            February 21, 2012 at 6:34 am #

            ambrose you and DV think he is a SOB….I never met the guy….so what’s the proof?

          • danvalenti
            February 21, 2012 at 7:02 am #

            To be clear, I don’t think he is an SOB. I’m sharing my experiences with him, from many years ago: There was a troubling aspect to his demeanor, as if he what he was projecting as his “core” was actually a front, meant to wallpaper over something underneath, that he wanted hidden. At minimum, his admission that he is gay would explain that. At maximum, if the allegations are true that he abused his power to harass a jilted lover, then it means his actions are those of an SOB. I find it wise to separate a person from the person’s actions.

  12. tito
    February 20, 2012 at 4:24 pm #

    Lothrop has served his usefulness and must be discarded along with yesterday’s trash.

    • Dog Whisperer
      February 20, 2012 at 4:34 pm #


      If you need help dragging him to the curb on pickup day, I’ll give you a hand.

    • Steve wade
      February 20, 2012 at 5:20 pm #

      You guys keep saying that Lothrop is a good old boy. He ran against Joe Breault. Who do you guys think was behind Joe? How about Gerry Doyle? So why do you think Lothrop is a GOB? Because he gets along with Ruberto? Come on.

      • Nancy P. aka Molly
        February 20, 2012 at 8:00 pm #

        Finally a post from Steve Wade that I can’t disagree with!

    • Scott
      February 20, 2012 at 6:15 pm #

      apparently the voters didn’t think so.

  13. tito
    February 20, 2012 at 5:12 pm #

    Eventually he’ll do it himself, it’s inevitable.

  14. rick
    February 20, 2012 at 5:49 pm #

    steve your right on with that one, so i would put lothrup as a gob wanna be. or a gob in waiting.

  15. Bonnie
    February 20, 2012 at 6:22 pm #

    Tito and dog whisper… Totally agree. He has some dirt he needs to keep hidden along with Cap. They should tred carefully as they have a few skeletons they do not want to have unburied. Pittsfield is getting really tired of their shenanigans. Time for them to step away or be forced if they wish.

    February 20, 2012 at 7:54 pm #

    This blog should be for justice etc. However after reading most of the above ones is getting to be just a vent to crap around. Also who cares about a no body in Az.

    • Nancy P. aka Molly
      February 20, 2012 at 8:03 pm #

      Thank You! Totally agree! It’s gotten to be anything that is considered scandelous, or that will generate a “hoopla”.

    • danvalenti
      February 20, 2012 at 8:34 pm #

      This blog is for whatever we decide it is. We are the sole owners and producers.

        February 21, 2012 at 6:43 am #

        Dan Wasn’t saying anything about you or most of the good people on here. Just saying yesterday’s comments for the most part were crap. Also just my comment “who cares about a nobody in Az.”

        • danvalenti
          February 21, 2012 at 6:59 am #

          Many thanks, brother.

  17. Jonathan Melle
    February 20, 2012 at 8:41 pm #

    Paul Babeu wants a seat in U.S. Congress, but he had to step-down from his volunteer post with Willard Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign over his homosexual relationship controversy. It doesn’t seem that Babeu has a chance to win a seat in U.S. Congress now. Like Willard Mitt Romney, Paul Babeu is a moral hypocrite. We should be tolerant of homosexuality, and the Republican Party is not.

    • Pittsfield Berever
      February 21, 2012 at 3:17 am #

      I think you watch too much MSLSD and the BB too much

    • Joetaxpayer
      February 21, 2012 at 5:55 am #

      The fact that he is Gay is not the issue,to me.It is he used his power to threaten his ex-boyfriends family.To me that is not a honorably person and should not be a member of Congress.We already have enough scumbags in Goverment.

      • Pittsfield Berever
        February 21, 2012 at 6:31 am #

        good point if that proves to be the case I agree with you

      • danvalenti
        February 21, 2012 at 7:05 am #

        Well put!

  18. Sandy
    February 20, 2012 at 9:40 pm #

    A lot of people in Berkshire County remember and voted for Paul, when he lived in the Berkshires. I see no reason not to discuss him in here. He was discussed on many shows tonight on Cable News, so he has made national news. He was co-chairman of Romney’s campaign in AZ and he is from N. Adams

  19. Pittsfield Berever
    February 21, 2012 at 3:38 am #

    extereme one sided person? because I accept the founding documents? scott you are confused.

    • Scott
      February 21, 2012 at 5:11 am #

      anything’s possible.

  20. Scott
    February 21, 2012 at 5:25 am #

    “both sides of politics share Hitler’s ideals? Exactly what are those ideals and who promotes them?”

    Where do you think Hitler got his understanding on ugenics? The whole concept was born in America.

    • danvalenti
      February 21, 2012 at 7:07 am #

      Also, Schiklegruber’s discussion of propaganda in “Mein Kampf” is a classic. The principles he articulated have been adopted and employed by politicians, ad men, sales people, and marketeers ever since to sell everything from waterboarding to soap subs.

  21. Scott
    February 21, 2012 at 5:28 am #

    as far as the modern research at the time goes anyways.

  22. GMHeller
    February 21, 2012 at 8:09 am #

    Mr. Valenti,
    So lemme see if I got this right.
    Pina County Sheriff Paul Babeu is running for Congress as a Conservative Republican and up to just a couple days ago had an excellent chance of winning.
    Babeu gets into a tiff with his ex-lover and in retaliation the ex-lover brings up dirt to harm Babeu’s campaign.
    Now, Dan Valenti slimes Conservative candidate Babeu because of the ex-lover’s unproven allegations.
    Mr. Valenti, remind us when you ever slimed Liberal Democrat Bill Clinton after Juanita Broaddrick’s more than convincing allegations of being raped and beat up by Bill when he was Arkansas AG?
    And remind us when you slimed Liberal Democrat Teddy Kennedy after he did literally nothing to stop Mary Jo Kopechne from drowning?
    How many Democrat House Speakers have been indicted in Massachusetts of late and when was the last time you slimed any one of them?
    Admit it, Mr. Valenti, you’ve slimed and pronounced Babeu guilty because you don’t like his politics.
    If Babeu were a Liberal Democrat, would you even have mentioned any of this, and would the story even have made the news in Arizona?

    • danvalenti
      February 21, 2012 at 12:45 pm #

      Woah, boy. Get your rabid right leanings more to the center here or your draw and quarter yourself. THE PLANET didn’t have his blog prior to Sept. 30, 2010. Even as YOU know time, it would be impossible for us to comment on anything that happened prior to that date. We love it. The rabid right and the looney left both think we are against them. In a sense, they are correct, but it has nothing to do with political leanings. We select pros and cons by the issues and the information, not because we see situations and people through the pre-colored lenses of a partisan closed mind. That works for you, Heller, but not here at THE PLANET.

      • Scott
        February 22, 2012 at 2:23 pm #

        Very well put Dan!