Host Rachel Miselman discusses the latest in Boston's politics: Recent public confrontations between Catherine Vitale and Senator Shawn Dooley, and the recent incident at a local Pro-Israel rally involving demonstrator Scott Hayes and Newton resident Caleb Gannon.
WBCA Podcasts
Bostonian Rap
Hello and welcome to Bostonian Wrap. My name is Rachel Marsman and you are listening to me on WBCA LP 102.9 FM Boston. This is Boston's Community Radio Station. As always, we are going to go to a quick disclaimer and then we're going to come right on back and start unpacking tonight's show. The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff and management of WBCA or the Boston Neighborhood Network. If you would like to express another opinion, you can address your comments to Boston Neighborhood Network 3025 Washington Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02119. To arrange a time for your own commentary, you can call WBCA at 617-708-3215 or email radio at bnnmedia.org. I would like to actually pick up where we left off two weeks ago. Last week, exceptionally, I could not be in the studio to do a live show and I couldn't tape a show either. One of my evergreen episodes was played. There was no continuity between last week's show and the week prior to that. I want to get that thread going again. I ended two weeks ago with talking about Catherine Vitaly. For the people who are less familiar with the Boston political scene or the Massachusetts political scene, I think that Catherine Vitaly has built up a name beyond Boston, but she's primarily, I think, known in Boston. But for the people who are less familiar, nonetheless, less familiar with the political terrain, Catherine is one of the people that acted up and acted out during the pandemic as we were kind of making our way through the last phase of the pandemic. She engaged in several attention-seeking stunts, and that's exactly what they were. She styled it as truth-telling. It was like a true telling tour. She was on some kind of mission to spread the truth about what was going on. Of course, only she and those who think like her were privy to this truth. She wanted to fight for medical freedom, spread awareness about medical freedom. It was just low rent, bottom of the barrel, low class, performative politics. That's all it was. And so what she and her friends would do is show up at different political events and try to disrupt them. And so one such event that she and her friends tried and failed to really kind of derail was an event for former state Rep. Sean Dooley, who was running, and this was very recently, he was running against Rebecca Roush. And it was really incredible to me to see them protest Sean, and he was a great candidate. This isn't a commentary about Rebecca Roush. I thought that Sean Dooley would have made a great state senator. And given that Catherine and her friends were particularly upset with Senator Roush, you would have thought that they would have been supportive of Sean, but instead they show up at his event, try to derail it, to get attention for themselves, and try to make a grab for power. It was a power play, really. And if it hadn't been handled deftly and quickly and appropriately by Dooley and some of his supporters there, it would have succeeded in really making Dooley look bad. And again, Catherine Vitaly and her cohorts supposedly couldn't stand, can't stand, the senator was his opponent. So it was really like, why are you doing this? Really, why? And I guess they would have responded with, well, Charlie Baker was supposed to be there, and he was, and the idea was that Charlie played such a big role necessarily because he was then the governor in their argument in making lives absolutely miserable. Now I've been very frank about how I think Charlie handled the pandemic, how he handled balanced, I should say, keeping people safe and at the same time, enabling people to live with a sense of normalcy as much as possible. I'm not going to comment further on that right here tonight because I've commented, I think, extensively, I could always pick it up at another time. What I will say is that I think that there were things that could have been handled better. And I also think, and this is a wider statement that I think many elected at every level of government and not just here in Massachusetts, thought primarily about people's physical well-being, and they didn't take into account people's emotional, mental, and financial well-being. And I'm here to tell you that they're all intertwined, right? Because if we're not doing well financially, that's going to affect us emotionally and mentally. And that is going to eventually, if the problems persist long enough, that's going to affect us physically as well. Or if we're not doing well mentally, maybe we're doing wonderfully financially, but if we're not doing well, say mentally, emotionally, that's going to eventually, again, if the issues persist, they become large enough and overwhelming enough, that's going to affect us physically. So all of these aspects, the physical, the emotional, the mental, the financial, this all contributes to this composite, if you will, this all makes up who we are and determines, I think, how healthy we truly are. And so this general statement, speaking broadly, I think that not enough attention was given throughout the pandemic to these other facets of who we are and what contributes to our well-being and health. But to the point, to get back to talking about Vitalie and her cohorts, they could argue that they wanted to speak truth to the power to Charlie Baker. They wanted him to hear directly what their grievances were. But again, if they were sincere about replacing electeds with whom they disagreed and whom they thought were particularly cavalier about our rights, they would not have engaged in a stunt that could have very well spoiled Julie's event and embarrassed him even, right? The truth is that Catherine wanted to speak truth to the power to Charlie Baker because that would get her attention. Let me go back and say that Catherine first came into the public eye because of her antics in front of Mayor Wu's home. It wasn't so much about disagreeing with Wu as it was taking on Wu. Think about it. If I pick a fight, if I get into the face, literally or figuratively, of Joe Q. Public, is that going to get attention? Is that going to attract people to my presence online? Is that going to make them want to know who I am? Is that even going to be a blip on the radar? Unless something particularly outrageous happens, the answer is no, right? Getting in the face of the average Joe, which is what Catherine Vitali is, that's only going to maybe allow her or would allow her to rant about somebody. But it's not going to have people sit there and Google who she is. That's not going to have people look her up on social media. So the goal is to confront people who have a name. This isn't anything new. Whether we're talking about a government nation, we're talking about a group of people or an individual. If a country, a nation wants to seem, a government wants to appear more powerful than it is, it's going to take on another powerful nation, or should I say a powerful nation? It could be a powerful nation, but it wants to again appear more powerful. So it'll take on another powerful nation. And even if it's not such a powerful nation, it'll still snap at a nation, a country that is seen as having a looming presence. And what that instantly does is it raises the profile of the country that's having a swing at the other. And so groups of people, a group of people or individuals, they engage in the same tactic. If Catherine Vitali and her friends went in front of the home of Mary Jo Smith, again, that's not going to attract attention. But if Catherine Vitali or should I say when Catherine Vitali went in front of Wu's house, of course that's going to attract attention because it's the mayor. And the goal with these anti-vaxxers was to build name recognition. And that name recognition wasn't then just meant to, let's say if it were something actually tangible physical, it wasn't something that Catherine meant to put down somewhere, let's say again, tangible physical, put down somewhere and then gathered us. Now this was something that she wanted to use and convert because the idea is for Catherine to be a part of the machine that she's raging against and not to make it better. Not to speak truth to the power, not to take on the man, but to get her piece of the pie. It's another grift. It's another con job. And people shouldn't fall for it. Do I think she cares about people who suffered adverse reactions from getting the vaccine? No, I don't. Now there might be some people listening to this and saying, whoa, who exactly suffered adverse reactions? Well, I have shared on previous shows. And I'm generally a private person. I'll talk about my views all day. And I'll give my opinion about this strategy and that plan and I'll articulate my thoughts on this issue and that issue. But when it comes to me, Rachel Meiselman, I like to enjoy privacy. I am not somebody that wants to be to live in the spotlight. That is not the spotlight isn't something that nourishes me. It's never going to be something that sustains me. I really do value my privacy. But I did share because I thought it was important to share that I suffered a reaction and after our number of tests, by very well respected medical professionals, the vaccine getting the vaccine, that couldn't be ruled out as a non factor for the clot that I got in my eye. And so what I'll say is that there were different paths. I'll go off in a little bit of a tangent here. I'll reiterate, I should say that throughout the pandemic that there were different paths to staying healthy and ensuring that other people around one stayed healthy. And I don't think necessarily that the vaccine was a one size fits all. I don't think it was something that was something for everybody. And I also found out that I had an underlying blood condition that made me more susceptible to getting quads. And could that have ultimately been the reason why I got the clot? The opinion was no. But who knows, maybe it was. But what I did to respect other people's boundaries and above all, to respect the safety and the well being not only of myself, but others, I took necessary precautions. I'm sharing all this because I shared some of this with Catherine. And I'm telling you, she didn't care. And so here you have someone raging against the vaccines was very happy to wear the label of an anti-vaxxer. And then when she is met with someone who very well could have been affected adversely by the vaccine, she showed no signs of concern. There was no kind of empathy shown. And I just said, you know, this woman really, she's a fraud. But the reason why I've been talking about Catherine more recently is because she belongs to this new phenomenon of political beast or political being or political entity. For lack of a better word, let's say political being. She's not really an entity, is she? So let's say political being. And it's someone, it's an individual that is very short on ideas or actual knowledge, but it's quite long on ambition. And unfortunately, we have people like Catherine Vitale, who see politics as the golden ticket. And so if you can get in to the establishment, if you can get elected, then all kinds of goodies come your way. And for people that are workshop like Catherine Vitale and some of her friends, the idea of working, working, air quotes, for a handsome salary with all kinds of perks and benefits, that's it. That's the goal. That's divine. The idea of talking and having people listen to you, even if you don't know what you're talking about, but just because you're an elected, oh my goodness gracious. So that satisfies the narcissism that seems to be pretty prevalent among this particular segment of the population. But I think that above all, what really bothers me about Vitale is that as often as she ensures that she stays in the public eye by engaging in numerous antics, I mean honestly, the, her phone is her best friend, it's, it's this unrelenting, unflinching desire. She's got this incredible ability. She just swim in the filth, this, this, this never ending quest to dive down a rabbit hole, any rabbit hole will do to this never ending race to the bottom where there's no bottom in sight. It's disgusting. And so now we have people like Vitale and, and apparently she's now a Republican. So she hasn't always been a Republican. In fact, when she ran for the Boston City Council in 20, what was it? It was in 2023 when she ran the Boston City Council, she was, she was an unenrolled voter. And let me just, I'm going to just go off in a brief little tangent here, because I think this is important. When, when people hear unenrolled, and this isn't, this isn't a slight, this is just, this is part of my, you know, I have some kind of some overall goals with the show. It's, it's not just to get in front of a mic or get in front of a camera and just rant. I do hope in my own way to whatever extent I can contribute to discussion, fruitful discussions, substantive discussions. But I also hope to encourage people to be better informed about their respective communities. And as always, I encourage people to vote thoughtfully and, and just be overall well informed about how things work in our constitutional republic. And it is still a respect for democracy, democratic ideals, you know, it's about the rule of the people. It all starts and ends with the people. Some people, if you say unenrolled voter, they'll say, oh, no, no, I'm registered to vote. And when you are an unenrolled voter, you are, of course, registered to vote. That's absolutely correct. But unenrolled just simply means that you're not registered with a particular party. You have decided not to check off when you, when you registered to vote, you decided not to check off the box that says democratic or the box that says republican or the box that says libertarian or the box that says, you still have a green rainbow party, but you, you decided not to affiliate with any party. So you're unenrolled with, you're unenrolled with a party, you're not enrolled with any party. That's what it means. Sometimes unenrolled voters are also referred to as independent voters, right? And so a quick word about that too, because sometimes you'll meet people who might be registered Democrats. If you look them up, there's a D next to their name. When they register to vote, they check the democratic, democratic box. So they are a member, they're registered with a democratic party. But they'll say, oh, well, I'm, yes, I'm an independent. I like to think for myself, I like to think of the candidates platform before I think of the candidates party. And that's all fine and well. But if you're registered with a democratic party or the republican party or the libertarian party, you can be an independent minded Democrat or an independent minded Republican or an independent minded libertarian. But you're still going to get the ballot. If you're registered with one of these parties, you're still going to get the ballot for that particular party. So I just wanted to kind of throw that out there. So if you're an unenrolled voter, also referred to, I think maybe more colloquially as an independent voter, that means you're not, you didn't register with any party. So that when you go to vote, if it's a partisan race, so if it's, if you're in Boston, if it's a city council race, there is, it's non-partisan. So that means, I mean, people might say that they're Democrat or they might say that they're Republican, but it doesn't matter because if you're a registered voter, you can vote for anybody. And if you're a candidate running for the Boston City Council, you can appeal to any registered voter in Boston. But if it's a partisan race, like, you know, state rep or state senator, or one of the constitutional races, you know, governor, lieutenant governor, state treasurer, state auditor, attorney general, or if it's a US rep or US senator, then what party you belong to matters in September. Right? And then in November, it's whoever won from, you know, the two major political parties. So I just want to kind of throw that out there because it's important. I want people to be informed. And I myself work at it. I try to be informed as informed as I possibly can. And it's not always easy, but it's important because I always like to remind people and myself that there are many people throughout the history of our great country, our great nation, that fought and even died so that the right to vote would be just that. So the back to Vitaly, so Catherine Vitaly was an unenrolled or independent voter in 2023. Now she's saying that she's a Republican. So presumably she changed. She changed, you know, she changed on her voter registration. She went, it's in, it's super easy to do. So she's now affiliated as opposed to unaffiliated. She's affiliated with the Republican party. And honestly, it's a super bad look for the Republican party because we don't need people like her in the party. We don't need people who are engaged in conspiracy theories, people who are racist or anti-Semitic, and she's both. And so for people who want to maybe say, how is she anti-Semitic? Well, she doesn't believe that the Holocaust existed. So it's, I mean, already we're talking about someone that is just really engaged in the business of pedaling and just swimming in conspiracy theories, swimming in filth, really, as you know, as I said earlier, we don't need someone like that. And you know, her latest thing, you know, someone who wants to stay in the spotlight, they're just going to jump on whatever they can. So, you know, certainly Catherine wasn't talking about bike lanes, but now she's talking about bike lanes because that's a big thing. And, you know, people are going to want to say, yes, bike lanes are no bike lanes. It's, it's incredible how heated this issue has become, but it has been. And I think that that's because of the way the who administration has handled things. And I say that respectfully, because I think that in a lot of instances, even if Michelle has a good idea, Madam Mayor has a good idea, I think that she needs to listen to more people. I think her people need to listen more people. And I think that before you execute an idea, it's imperative. And I say this not just for Wu and her, you know, and her, her staff, but it's advice that I do my utmost to take myself. An idea has to fit the situation. An idea has to fit a context. Right? So, the idea of riding a bicycle is awesome. And I've said this many times before, I've been very emphatic about my love of riding a bicycle. When I lived in one of, and I've shared this before, when I lived in one of Boston's sister cities, Skazmug, which is in France, La France, I rode a bicycle. That was my way of getting around. I absolutely adored it. And I rented a bicycle for the school year. And it was just, it was great. And it's fun. It's, it's a wonderful form of exercise. You don't even realize, I didn't even realize I was getting all this exercise, but you are. And it was just, it was, it was an enjoyable way to get around. But Skazmug is laid out very differently than Boston. And so, am I saying, as I've said before, and by saying that Boston, riding a bicycle should not be encouraged, of course not. What I'm saying is it shouldn't be encouraged as a feasible mode of transportation for the entirety of Boston. Like, so for instance, if you live in East Boston, you can't just ride straight into Boston. You cannot do that. If you live, I mean, I can pick other examples too, but it's just the way the city is designed, it's just not conducive for riding a bicycle. So it can maybe work depending on where you live and work, but to push it as a mode of transportation, a viable feasible mode of transportation for everybody. And again, you know, I'm repeating myself, it's just not realistic and it's not pragmatic, right? And apparently this hasn't really like sunk all the way in with Michelle. And again, I say this all respectfully. I don't dislike Michelle. I just don't agree with her on, you know, there are a number of issues. Is it possible for me to see eye to eye with her? Absolutely. Absolutely. But on this, I think that I don't just, I don't see it as a pragmatic exercise. I don't see it as a pragmatic agenda. Okay. And because of the side effects, if you will, of the implementation of this agenda, creating this network of bike lanes throughout the city, people have gotten annoyed, frustrated, even angry. And so that opens up an avenue for like, the, the opportunists, like Catherine Vitaly, Liz gives her something to rant and rave about 15 minutes ago, she had nothing to say about bike lanes. Now it's like bike lanes, this bike lanes that she's going to pick a fight with someone who's on a bike, and she's going to turn her camera on. And then and it's just, it's just relentless. I mean, honestly, if I want to be entertained, if I want, you know, to to tune into what so and so will do next, instead of watching Catherine Vitaly engage in her various antics, I'm going to just get a subscription to Hulu. Okay. I'd rather watch and I've never sat through an entire episode of keeping up with the Kardashians. I'd rather watch that than listen to Catherine Vitaly or watch Catherine Vitaly engage in another round of nonsense. We're seriously, seriously. So there's that. And then she's also, all of a sudden she's like, maga, maga, make America great again and kag, kaga, keep America great, kag, I guess it's, you know, keep America great. And again, it's, you know, 15 minutes ago, she wasn't readily identifiable as a Trump supporter. But again, these are just different ways for Catherine Vitaly to keep her name out there, right? Because that's all she has. She doesn't have a platform. She doesn't have any ideas. She doesn't have any insight. She doesn't have any knowledge of what is actually going on. And I remember when she first started making a name for herself for being a nuisance, the ideas that she was throwing out were the ideas that I had when I was running for Congress in 2020. And I said, well, wait a minute. You were pretty critical of me after a certain point in my campaign. But fast forward two, three years. And now you're recycling my ideas from this campaign that again, you were critical of. I don't think so. So we have everything here, except everything I just said. And we just, we don't need that. On a last note, what I'll say is about Catherine. And I do think that she deserves a fair amount of attention. And so far as this kind of behavior we need to stand up and say, enough is enough. That this race to the bottom, it's got to stop. That if you or anyone else like you wants to be a political candidate, have at it, but you need to stand up, understand the nuts and bolts, have a platform that's feasible, viable, and just know what's going on. Otherwise, sit down, like have a seat. It's just unreal. The last point I want to make about her and then we're going to go to a quick break and then we're going to pivot and talk about something else. She was recently, she with her, her buddy Sean Nelson, one of, you know, her fellow anti-vaxxers, and he too will be running for the city council again, presumably in 2025. They had a standout Newton. I don't know why they went to Newton, but they were there. And I wish that some of the people involved with the Trump campaign in Massachusetts I wish they were a little bit more, I'm thinking of one or two individuals. I wish they clearly want their titles, right? And they want to be, you know, known as big shots and it's like, okay, well, then you need to do your job. And so there are people kind of popping up and having these Trump standouts. And it's, anyone can really do it, right? I mean, you just, you, you get signs, you can get signs or to them, you know, get three, four people together and, you know, there you go. But again, it's, it's not a good look. And, and, you know, for my friends on the left are saying, whoa, boy, you Republicans have problems, you know, cool your jets, because there's plenty of issues on the left too, you know, in different parts of the political left. But I'm just trying to be fair and be appropriately swivel-headed, not swivel-headed, just, you know, so I get, you know, the label of, oh, you're a good Republican. No, I try to be a good person, a decent person. And I try to be objective. And if I'm going to say things about people on the political left, I try to be even handed and, and look at what's not going right on the political right. So really, we just, we don't need people like her. Catherine Vitale, we don't need people like her being perceived as representative of Trump supporters or representative of, of Republicans. And that's what I'll say about that. And I think that was enough of tonight's show. But I'll certainly keep on talking about this because I think in many ways, I hope that this is a takeaway for people. We have an issue, and I think it's particularly prevalent on the political right, where people just stand up and they're like these shock jocks, and they're running for office, or they're, you know, they're political, self-sought political activists or campaigners that whatever that organizes, whatever the heck you want to call it. And it's just we have to, as Republicans, make it clear about who we are and what we're about, so that opportunists can't slip right on in and take advantage of any void political void that there may be. Let's go to a quick break. When I come back, like I said, like I promised, we're going to do a pivot, but let's go to that break first. Again, here's that song again for the hundredth time today. Here's that song again. It's going to be stuck in your head all day. Here's that song again. It will make you cray-cray. You love your kids enough to watch that TV show a budgillion times. Love them enough to make sure they're in the right car seat for their age and size. Show them you love them. Keep them safe. Visit nhtsa.gov/therightseat, brought to you by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Ad Council. The impact of a meal goes well beyond feeding our bodies, because when people don't have to worry about where their next meal is coming from, they can truly thrive, like Marta. And now we'll hear from our class, valedictorian, who with our hard work never ceases to amaze us. Please welcome Marta Moreno. And Alex. Hey Alex, how did the interview go? I did it. I got the job. I can't believe it. I knew it. Let's meet up later to celebrate. And Diego. Mom, I got first place at the Science Fair with my volcano project. That's amazing, sweetie. Congratulations. Because when people are fed, futures are nourished and everyone deserves to live a full life. Join the movement to end hunger at feedingamerica.org/actnow. Feedingamerica.org/actnow. A public service announcement brought to you by Feeding America and the Ad Council. Hello, welcome back to Bostonian Wrap. I am Rachel Meiselman and you have been listening to me on WBCALP 102.9 FM Boston. This is of course Boston's community radio station. So the pivot, the promise pivot. So I want to talk about an individual name Scott Hayes. Now let me preface my discussion about Scott Hayes by saying that it has been an extremely and incredibly trying time for the Jewish community. Now I'm acutely aware that there are Jews that are very critical of Israel and they proclaim strong support for the Palestinians. And I just want to push back on that because I have always identified as a Zionist Jew, but that doesn't mean that I don't want to see a Palestinian state. I have people in my family, and again, I said that I'm a private person, but I am going to share this because I do think it's relevant to the views that I have. And it helps explain, clarify, and really kind of allow people to situate me appropriately in any discussion in which I may engage on this issue, right? So I have members of my family, they're members of my family who have Americans that have become Israeli. So you know, they have the dual citizenship. And I have family that has grown up in Israel. I have a relative from from the northern part of Africa, the northeastern part of Africa, and shortly after his birth, he and his family, they have been living in this part of Africa, in this country, in Africa for generations. And with the creation of the Israeli state, the creation of the state of Israel, they had to flee this country. And so he grew up this relative in Israel. Not once have I heard a nasty thing, not once about the Palestinian people. So I want to, I want to put that out there. I also want to say that being able to express support for Israel should not result in verbal, let alone physical abuse. And so when I see such abuse happening, or I hear about it, even just the verbal, I find that extremely disturbing. I find that incredibly disturbing because almost in every instance, the negative reactions that Zionists are met with are coming from people that don't spare a thought about what's happening in other parts of the world. It really is incredible. And so there's this expression that some of you listeners, dear listeners might have heard, no Jews, no news. So, in other words, if we're not talking about the Jewish people, if we're not talking about Israel, okay, well, you know, it's, you know, things happen. So for instance, Venezuela, Maduro, Nicaragua, Maduro is a horrible, vicious dictator. And the Venezuelans right now are desperately fighting to see a new leader who won the election. They're desperately fighting for him to take his rightful place. And Maduro is doing everything he can to deny that. And that's the mark of a dictator, to be sure. But when you really sit down and think, well, what does that mean? What is being a dictator mean? This is just, it's incredible. It's the oppression, the terror, yet you don't see people mobilize and rant and organize and pontificate the way they do with Israel. It's really incredible. So recently, there was a pro-Israel rally that was organized by Scott Hayes and some others, and Scott Hayes is a Massachusetts man, and he's lovely. I say that because I know him personally. And I'll be honest, he's a hero for a number of Jewish people because we're just so unbelievably grateful for people who are going to stand side to side, shoulder to shoulder with us, and these incredibly trying, dark times. And I've been at a rally that Scott has organized, that he's helped organize, and he has made an incredible effort to prevent violence of any kind. I remember one rally, one stand-up, and he was very critical. He shut down someone who was, you know, get a little vocal with someone from the other side. This is someone who wants to keep the peace. This is someone who has tried to engage with people on the other side to kind of build a bridge, some kind of bridge of understanding. This is not someone who's violent, and I appreciate that, you know, that both sides, you know, people of, you know, dug through social media. But I'm telling you that I know Scott personally, and, you know, for the people who don't know, the reason why I'm mentioning all this is because on September 12, there was a rally, and there was some words exchanged, and it wasn't, I don't think too much said, but there was someone who was particularly agitated. Again, this was in Newton on September 12th, someone who was particularly agitated by the site of this pro-resurial rally, and he came running across the street. He tackled Scott Hays, and he had his hands around his neck, and I mean, that's terrifying, and so Scott was arrested on charges of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon because there was a struggle, and Scott shot the attacker, Kayla Baganin, and Scott Hays, his lawyer, is saying that it was self-defense, and, you know, there's a video that's making its way around the net, and it's just, it's really, it's disturbing because we're talking about a situation where it's difficult to be Jewish, and now it's even difficult to show support for the Jewish community and for Israel. We can't have that, and so I need to wrap up, but I did really want to talk about that, and just really kind of say for the people who want to talk about, you know, the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms, this isn't what this is about, and Scott, by the way, he, he didn't have, you know, he's just not packing a gun and running around a cowboy. That's not who Scott is. He has, he has the license to carry. We're talking about the sacrosaint, that was a word that was used, and I like that. It's a sacred right to be able to gather peacefully, peaceful assembly. That's what's at issue, and when we can't do that, we have a serious problem, and so I'm happy to say that there's been a goal of raising $270,000, you know, an illegal fund for Scott, and he's already raised 210,000. I will say that I'll echo JCRC, regardless of the intent of the attacker, Caleb Gannon, and I guess his father has said that he is unstable, but we can't just keep on saying, well, this person has mental issues. At some point, there has to be some kind of accountability, and we certainly can have people attacking other people like that, but I can talk about this more at another time. What I will say is that I do hope that Caleb Gannon recovers fully, and he is expected to survive, but this is, this is a disturbing issue, and we'll talk about it more. Thank you so much for listening, and I look forward to hanging out with you next week. The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff and management of WBCA or the Boston Neighborhood Network. If you would like to express another opinion, you can address your comments to Boston Neighborhood Network 3025 Washington Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02119. To arrange a time for your own commentary, you can call WBCA at 617-708-3215 or email radio at bnnmedia.org.