The Massachusetts Observer

Today it’s “Bye Bye, Miss American Pie”

2012-02-03T08:40:00.002-05:00

It was a sad day for rock and roll fans. February 3, 1959.The sad news was there in the morning paper. Dead in a plane crash: BuddyHolly, 22, J. P. “The Big Bopper” Richardson, 28, and Ritchie Valens, 17.

The music that each brought us in their all-too-short liveswas amazing and wonderful. But lots of artists were to come later. Why was thisthe day the music died?

Don McLean’s song “American Pie” has become in most people’sminds the official anthem of this incident. Its rather cryptic lyrics have beendebated many times over since McLean recorded the song in 1971. The bestexplanation is Don McLean’s lament that the end of the music of the 1950’s, themusic of the sock hops, the music you could dance to, died with Holly, the BigBopper, and Valens. Afterwards, music took off in a different direction; thefocus was on the musician, the guitar solo, for example. The rock and rollbeat, the music of teenage love and joy was dead.

“American Pie” tells the story of the state of music afterthat fateful February day.

As you probably know, the song is long. That is how itshould be. There is a lot to tell. I will not go through the lyrics andinterpretation here, but for any fan of rock and roll knowing the interpretationof "American Pie" is a must.

Here are two sites that I recommend for those who want todig deeper:

BobDearborn's American Pie Analysis and The Annotated American Pie

Hattie McDaniel

2012-02-02T08:40:00.001-05:00

Hattie McDaniel

It’s Black History Month, and I want today tospotlight one of African America’s greatest entertainers with two videos. The first is a wonderful tribute to Hattie onthe U. S. Postal Service’s selection of Hattie McDaniel as an honored subjectfor a postage stamp. The second is myown tribute to Hattie McDaniel. I hopeyou will enjoy them and celebrate Hattie McDaniel’s life and her contributionto Civil Rights in America.

Tallulah

2012-01-31T19:15:00.001-05:00

First I must say that you may have noticed that Ihave not blogged much lately. Quiteoften I write about politics. If you arelike me, you have had your fill of the political scene.

So here is something different. Each day I read Wikipedia’s day in history. Each date has a list of important events thatoccurred. There is also a list of famouspeople who were born on that day and those who have died on the date over theyears. There are many interesting peoplethat could serve as the bases of blog posts.

Today, January 31, I noticed the name TallulahBankhead. I asked a few people if theyremembered her. They did not. She was a character! I encourage you read about her.

Tallulah Bankhead

But this blog post is not about the life ofTallulah Bankhead. It is about a discoveryI made while reading about her.

Tallulah hosted a radio program called “The BigShow.” Though it received some acclaim,it lasted only a couple of seasons, a victim of technology. Television was too much of a lure to thoselooking for entertainment. Television isnow experiencing the same threat from technology.

Back to what I found. At the end of “The Big Show,” the gueststars gathered around the microphone and sang the closing number “May the GoodLord Bless and Keep You.” On the InternetArchive web site, I found a sound clip of one of these show-closers. Each person in the cast sang a line ortwo. It is the cast that is amazing.

Singing “May the Good Lord Bless and Keep You” areTallulah Bankhead, Judy Garland, Groucho Marx, Dean Martin, Jerry Lewis, GordonMacRae, Meredith Willson, Joan Davis, and The Andrews Sisters!

Feeling that this clip needs wider exposure, Imade a video using it. I think it cameout quite well, but you be the judge.

I realize that not everyone gets excited byentertainment history. I do know that Ihave some soul mates, however. This one’sfor you.

Carl Sandburg revisited

2012-01-06T07:45:00.001-05:00

I read that today (January 6^th) is thebirthday of Carl Sandburg, American poet. As an English major, I encountered the poems of Sandburg many yearsago. Sandburg was included briefly amongmany other writers in traditional survey courses. Inevitably, students encountered one poem bySandburg and then, like the fog, moved on:

Fog

The fog comes

on little cat feet.

It sits looking

over harbor and city

on silent haunches

and then moves on.

Now that I have more time to read, I havediscovered that Sandburg’s writings are far more extensive and complex. I also believe that it is necessary toseparate Sandburg’s “wheat” from his “chaff.” The “wheat” is gleaned from Sandburg’s early years when much of hispoetry spoke for the common people. Hereis a good example:

I Am the People, the Mob

I Amthe people--the mob--the crowd--the mass.

Do you know that all the great work of theworld is

done through me?

I am the workingman, the inventor, the makerof the

world's food and clothes.

I am the audience that witnesses history.The Napoleons

come from me and the Lincolns. They die. And

then I send forth more Napoleons andLincolns.

I am the seed ground. I am a prairie thatwill stand

for much plowing. Terrible storms pass over me.

I forget. The best of me is sucked out andwasted.

I forget. Everything but Death comes to meand

makes me work and give up what I have. And I

forget.

Sometimes I growl, shake myself and spattera few red

drops for history to remember. Then--Iforget.

When I, the People, learn to remember, whenI, the

People, use the lessons of yesterday and nolonger

forget who robbed me last year, who playedme for

a fool--then there will be no speaker in allthe world

say the name: 'The People,' with any fleckof a

sneer in his voice or any far-off smile ofderision.

The mob--the crowd--the mass--will arrivethen.

This poem by Sandburg is as new and as fresh aswhen it was first written in 1916. Canwe in 2012 fail to see the Occupy Movement in those words?

As one of my New Year’s resolutions, I intend torediscover the early Sandburg. Inaddition, I will test my supposition that some of Sandburg’s early works may bea good source for some enterprising musicians who want to express our currentpolitical climate in song.

Using the works of early poets as the basis forsongs has a precedent. Consider the song“Richard Corey” inspired by Edwin Arlington Robinson’s poem of the same name:

Could Sandburg, who died in 1967, see a revival? It’s too soon to tell, but perhaps so.

Never serve bananas in junior high

2012-01-02T09:26:00.000-05:00

Here is a "rerun" of a previous entry:

Anyone who has ever taught junior high school knows that there are certain irrefutable axioms. Among them, for obvious reasons, is the fast rule: Never serve bananas in junior high. If that isn’t obvious to you, then you have not been exposed to the unbridled creativity of the young adolescent male.

Teachers of junior high know that if there is a remote chance that something can be taken in more than one way, junior high kids have highly developed radar that hones in on the one that is suggestive. Like careful drivers who keep their eyes on other drivers, junior high teachers must teach defensively. The “traps” are many and often subtle. Forewarned is forearmed.

The pitfalls are particularly plentiful for the English teacher. They can appear in a grammar exercise, a word usage passage, in literature, and in students’ writings.

Some traps are as obvious as teaching the difference between the words “lie” and “lay.” Sometimes, though, they can sneak up on you in the middle of an exercise. Smart teachers read ahead so they will not be surprised by “Jim, let’s you and (I, me) grab our rods and go to the old fishing hole.”

Teachers must carefully navigate literary waters. Keep the boat (or “frigate” as Emily Dickinson terms it) safe from hiding rocks and treacherous shoals. Be prepared for every occurrence of the words “queer” and “gay”. (“My little horse must think it queer/to stop without a farmhouse near”)

Shakespeare, who is genuinely bawdy, is usually safe because, as a former principal actually told me, the students don’t understand it anyway. It was a joy working for such an enlightened leader.

That gets into the whole subject of words that mean something different today than they did when the author wrote the literary work. Edgar Allan Poe was a master at short story writing, and one piece that is taught frequently is “The Cask of Amontillado.” At the height of the action, Poe gives us this dialog:

"The Amontillado!" ejaculated my friend, not yet recovered from his astonishment.
"True," I replied; "the Amontillado."

The wise teacher reserves that section for “silent reading.”

A wonderful story is Charles Dickens’ “Oliver Twist.” As in all of Dickens’ stories, the characters are well drawn and memorable. Sometimes, though, you may wish that he withheld at least some information about some of the characters — like their names, for example. When Oliver sets out with two companions to learn the life of the London streets, Dickens gives us this:

“The three boys sallied out; the Dodger with his coat-sleeves tucked up, and his hat cocked, as usual; Master Bates sauntering along with his hands in his pockets; and Oliver between them, wondering where they were going, and what branch of manufacture he would be instructed in, first.”

If you ever find yourself teaching at a junior high, keep alert. Sometimes things can happen purely by chance. Be prepared. Two examples should suffice:
One was described to me by a colleague.

In those early days, technology was rudimentary, and the film strip was quite popular. As my colleague related it, he was observing one student threading the projector, and he looked to see that it was properly aligned. Without looking at the screen, he asked a student to begin reading what was projected. The student responded with a rather rude comment. Startled, my colleague looked toward the offending student and then at the screen. The film had been placed in backwards, and the student was reading the word “Focus.”

Finally, I remember receiving a well-written composition from a student that concerned the life of an octopus. Quite innocently the student changed the anatomy of the octopus. Instead of 8 tentacles this virile specimen sported 8 testicles! What to do? Circle the word once, write “wrong word” over it, and move on!

©2010, 2012

Please don’t become a statistic

2011-12-30T04:22:00.001-05:00

The “Funny” Drunk

Unless you grew up watching ‘60s television or have caught reruns of “The Andy Griffith Show,” you probably don’t recognize the name Otis Campbell. Played by character actor, Hal Smith, Otis was the town drunk in the little town of Mayberry. Whenever Otis would get drunk, he would let himself into his jail cell. That way Sheriff Andy Taylor would not have to chase him down to arrest him.

Otis provided comic relief. Years later, though, when the reunion show “Return to Mayberry” aired, Otis was sober and driving an ice cream truck. Why? Because society has recognized that alcoholism is really not so funny.

Many of the comedians played the “funny drunk” stock character. It was a running gag with Dean Martin. Comedian Foster Brooks always delivered his lines as the guy who had a “few too many.” Lucille Ball did a classic routine as the “Vitameatavegamin Girl.” These routines were clever and, yes, funny. But they weren’t real.

This New Year’s Eve

On New Year’s Eve, many people will celebrate by going out with friends, and alcohol consumption is often part of that celebration. If that is part of your tradition, just do as the advertisements say and “drink responsibly.”

Drinking and Driving

Please do not drink and drive. Designate a driver who will not drink any alcohol for the whole evening. If you think a friend should not drive, be a friend and insist that they don’t. Don’t ride in a car with a driver who is drunk.

Celebrate!

There are a number of places planning celebrations to ring in the New Year. Make plans to be part of one of these celebrations. Enjoy time with your friends and take “a cup o’ kindness for auld lang syne.”Start the New Year right. Make your celebration both happy and safe.

©2011

A Mysterious and Holy Night in Massachusetts

2011-12-24T15:06:00.001-05:00

Vincent van Gogh: Starry Night

I confess that there are little towns in Massachusetts withwhich I have little or no familiarity. Brant Rock is one such town. Located onthe coast, it is one of the villages of Marshfield, Massachusetts.

Our story takes place in Brant Rock. The year was 1906. Itwas December 24, Christmas Eve. An event was about to take place that had neverbefore occurred in all of history. Considering the night, it could almost beconsidered miraculous.

As always, the United States Navy was on patrol in theAtlantic, and, Christmas Eve or not, commerce continued as ships from theUnited Fruit Company carried their cargo. Radio operators were at theirstations as ships communicated with each other with the rapid DIT DAH DIT ofMorse code.

No doubt many of the crew on the ships that night had theirminds on thoughts of home and family and Christmas. One can imagine thepervasive aura of melancholy surrounding the men.

The radio operators began to notice some type ofinterference in their communications. The Morse code was being superseded byanother sound. They could not believe their ears. It was violin music! The tunewas a familiar one.

A voice was then heard along with the violin:

Peuple à genoux,
Attends ta délivrance!
Noël! Noël!
Voici le Rédempteur!
Noël! Noël!
Voici le Rédempteur!

Fall on your knees!
Oh, hear the angels' voices!
Oh night divine,
Oh night when Christ was born;
Oh night divine,
Oh night, Oh night Divine.

This was followed by spoken words: "Glory to God in thehighest — and on earth peace to men of good will. Merry Christmas.”

Then all communications returned to normal. Men in ships asfar south as Norfolk, Virginia, heard this.

On that night in the village of Brant Rock on theMassachusetts shore, Canadian Reginald Fessenden along with his wife, hissecretary, and his associate, gathered at a little radio station he had built.History was made that night. Mr. Fessenden played his violin and sang the firstChristmas carol ever broadcast.

On this Christmas Eve 2011 that same song will be sung inevery nation as a “thrill of hope” to a weary world.

Joyeux Noël!

Merry Christmas!

Can we talk?

2011-12-20T06:49:00.003-05:00

The Humorous

People familiar with comedian Joan Rivers recognize hercatch phrase, “Can we talk?” When shesaid this, the audience knew she would begin her routine based on sharinggossip with the crowd. “Can we talk?” alwaysbrought laughter as the audience anticipated what was to follow.

The Tragic (a seriesof hypothetical questions)

What if the words “Can we talk?” were uttered by a studentto a trusted teacher?

What if the school administrators ordered a teacher toanswer “no” when any student asked, “Can we talk?”

What if a teacher’s job had been threatened by schooladministrators if the teacher answered “yes” to a student who asked, “Can wetalk?”

What if answering “yes” to the student who asked, “Can wetalk?” could have revealed a serious problem the student was having?

What if the student’s problem could have been resolved?

What if the school administrators’ interference in a dialogbetween the teacher and the student left the student’s problem unresolved?

What if the student’s unresolved problem grew and compoundedover the next few years?

What if the unresolved problem ended with a heart-breakingtragedy?

What if the above is not entirely hypothetical?

When you really care

2011-12-15T09:36:00.001-05:00

That word “care” is something we throw around a lot, oftengiving it little thought. We say, “Icare” or “I don’t care” and let it stand. Those statements are meaningless, however. “Care” is an action word. You either show it or you don’t.

As a teacher for many years, I always believed that I waspart of a caring profession. It was acalling, something I was destined to be. True teachers recognize that calling. Unfortunately, schools are filled with teachers and administrators whodo not.

I remembered being thrilled when the middle schoolphilosophy emerged in education. For thefirst time, the needs of the young adolescent were being addressed. There was a declaration that middle schoolstudents were not merely older elementary students nor were they young highschool students. They had uniqueneeds. I knew this intrinsically, butit was now being advocated in educational research and experience as a way tostructure a middle school.

When I learned that my school was going to adopt the middleschool philosophy, I knew that I was in the right place. I read everything I could get my hands onabout middle school students. I studiedbooks about cognitive development and about the social and emotional needs ofthe young adolescent. I re-structured myteaching methods. I was ready.

One vital aspect to middle school teaching which has nowbeen extended to the high school level was the idea that every student in aschool must have at least one adult that they could turn to as an advocate, oneadult who cares. In fact, the middleschool structure includes an advisory program for just that purpose. Research and experience show that decisionsmade by middle school students can have a long-term effect on their learningand their well-being. Having a trustedadult to bounce ideas off or to confide in could result in averting not only immediatedifficulties but perhaps even long-term tragedy.

I embraced the advisor role. I never had to “fake” caring. Itwasn’t always easy. Sometimes kids hadbuilt up a wall. I was encouraged topress on by a poem by Edwin Markham called “Outwitted:”

“He drew a circle that shut me out —
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took him in.”

Many students sought me out as their caring adult. As one of my rougher-edged students put it,“We know you give a shit.” He was rightabout that.

It wasn’t long before the teacher became the student andwas taught a hard lesson. I learned thedifference between words and deeds. Toomany others knew the words. Deeds,however, were something else.

Leaders who proclaimed adherence to a middle schoolphilosophy were woefully ignorant of what it meant; when they saw it in action,they determined to crush it. Theseleaders had plenty of ill-informed followers. In the end, hollow words trumped deeds.

Years later, I can still recall the students who sought meout. Recently, I have learned about acouple of tragedies as well. Thoseschool leaders and followers who spoke the words without the deeds may wellbear some responsibility. Some mightcall it malpractice.

As for me, I am inspired by this poem by William ErnestHenley.

“Invictus

Out of the night that covers me,

Black as the Pit from pole to pole,

I thank whatever gods may be

For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance

I have not winced nor cried aloud.

Under the bludgeonings of chance

My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears

Looms but the Horror of the shade,

And yet the menace of the years

Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,

How charged with punishments the scroll.

I am the master of my fate:

I am the captain of my soul.”

One final thing expressed in the vernacular of that long-agorough-edged student:

I still give a shit.

My So-Called Life revisited

2011-11-28T12:51:00.001-05:00

Last year I wrote about a television program called “MySo-Called Life.” This created atremendous amount of activity for this blog. Because Hulu is once again offering the Christmas episode for free, Iwant to repeat this blog entry. I dohope that readers will take the time to view this. It is terrific!

*****

I was reading one of those “On this Day” columns that listfamous people who were born on this particular date. When I saw the name WilsonCruz, I was reminded of a very well-done TV show that lasted for just 19episodes. “My So-Called Life” starred Claire Danes, probably best known for herportrayal of Juliet opposite Leonardo DiCaprio’s Romeo. [Claire Danes iscurrently starring in Showtime’s “Homeland.”]

This was the first show that really represented teenagelife. In a TV world of “The Partridge Family” and “The Brady Bunch,” this showbroke important barriers. Of course, because of this, ABC had no idea what todo with it. In 1994, it was ahead of its time.

Today I remembered the Christmas show titled “So-CalledAngels.” I wanted to watch that again, but I figured there was no chance. I waswrong. I found the episode! I want to share it with you.

I am keeping this really short, hoping that you can take 48minutes to watch. I’d like to know if you believe that this show holds up todayas well as it did 16 years ago. I won’t describe the characters, but I thinkyou will catch on quickly. Please let me know.

No comment at the Worcester Telegram and Gazette

2011-10-29T11:42:00.003-04:00

As I write this on Saturday morning, October 29,2011, commenting on the web site of the Worcester T&G isnot possible. Potential comment posters areadvised with the message: “ServiceUnavailable.” In light of the commentmoderation on the web site as of late, this is not surprising.

This inability to comment, however, is unfortunatebecause a Letter to the Editor in today’s edition merits a response. It is titled “Republicans seek economy’sdemise” and it’s written by a Mr. Harold Swanson of Princeton, Massachusetts.

The letter to the editor can be found here: Republican's seek economy's demise

Mr. Swanson rightfully takes the editors of theT&G to task for their editorial of Sept. 27, 2011, titled “The capitalcontract” which he deems “a patchwork of half-truths and outright distortions.” Mr. Swanson refutes the editorial which healleges “tries to tarnish senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren by associatingher ideas with purported ideas from Rousseau’s ‘The Social Contract.’ “

Read the rest of Mr. Swanson’s letter for anexcellent commentary on the T&G opinion pages.

In his letter to the editor, Mr. Swanson includesthis summary: “The editorial says, ‘The underlying social contract of Americais capitalism.’ Republicans wish. Unregulated capitalism and uncontrolled greedis destructive of the American economy, which the Republican House is currentlystriving to achieve.”

Were I able to comment on the T&G site, thisis what I would have quoted and focused on.

Mr. Swanson is exactly right in his commentaryabout the editorial pages of The Worcester Telegram and Gazette. He is also right about “unregulated capitalism and uncontrolled greed.”

Recently, my attention was drawn to the followingstatistics:

Picture your annual income as astack of $100 bills.

Do you make $25,000? Your stack of $100 bills is 1inch high.
Do you make $100,000? Your stack of $100 bills is4 inches high.
Do you make $1 million? Your stack of $100 billsis 3.3 feet high.
Do you make $1 billion? Your stack of $100 billsis over ½ mile high!

From there we go to the accumulation of wealth ofthe super rich. For example, continuingwith the above set of statistics:

The top of the graph variesfrom year to year. In Bill Gates’ best year he increased his net worth by $50billion …a 30 mile high stack of $100 bills!

Is there inequity in unregulated capitalism? If you want to ask the super wealthy thisquestion, you better speak up. They are30 miles ahead of you.

The site for the above stats and the interactivechart is found at lcurve.org

Oakland, occupy, and Resurrection City

2011-10-26T21:17:00.001-04:00

Maybe this time.

The parallelism between the Occupy movement and the Civil Rights movement is striking. That's why I believe we will see confrontation ratcheting up more and more.

I remember that Martin Luther King, Jr., started to broaden the Civil Rights movement to a Poor People's Campaign for Economic Justice. He stated to his aides that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference "would have to raise nonviolence to a new level to pressure Congress into passing an Economic Bill of Rights for the nation's poor."

The plan was to march on Washington and set up tents - an area that became known as Resurrection City, a place I visited at the time.

Resurrection City was set up in May 1968, but without King. He had been assassinated a month earlier in Memphis, Tennessee, where he had gone in support of a labor strike of sanitation workers.

Those who remember 1968 know that the nation was in turmoil. First King was assassinated; then Robert Kennedy.

The Economic Bill of Rights was proposed by Franklin Roosevelt, but he died before it could become a reality.

The Economic Bill of Rights was resurrected by King, but he was killed before it could become a reality.

This Occupy movement, in my opinion, is in the beginning stages of a new campaign. "Who knows," to paraphrase the words of King, "what lies in the future?"

This could be the movement that succeeds, but "there are difficult days ahead."

© 2011

Fact checking a T&G editorial

2011-10-24T00:52:00.000-04:00

In our new technological age a new phrase hasarisen: “fact check.” This comes fromthe ability through careful internet searches to verify quickly whethersomething declared is true or not. Factchecking has been applied to political debates and speeches, as well as theprinted word – books, magazines, newspaper articles and editorials.

I have found that lots of people fail todistinguish between straight news articles and opinion pieces. I have seen criticisms, for example, in onlinereader comments toward opinion columnists because they are “biased.” Of course, opinion columnists are bydefinition biased. So, too, areeditorials.

Here is where it gets tricky. Those who write opinion pieces have a rightto their own opinions, but, as the saying goes, they do not have a right totheir own facts. That’s where factchecking becomes important.

There is an example of an editorial in Sunday’s (October 23,2011) Worcester Telegram and Gazette that doesn’t quite square with the “facts”it presents. It’s titled Pay attention to the 3percent. Read it for yourself.

The editorial states that “the 3 percent withholdingrule…created under Section 511 of the Tax Increase Prevention andReconciliation Act of 2006…will require most federal, state and local agencies— any government entity with an annual budget of $100 million or more — towithhold 3 percent of payments to independent contractors.”

The editorial further states that there is an urgencyto repeal the 3 percent withholding rule because it “will not just crimp cashflow, but may prevent smaller contractors from bidding on a wide range ofgovernment contracts.”

Fact Check: The editorial statesthat the 3 percent withholding rule is set to begin on January 1, 2012. In fact, the implementation of the rule hasbeen delayed for a year to January 1, 2013. Further, President Obama’s Job Plan recommends delaying the withholdingrule to 2014.

The dispute, as usual, is the “pay-for.” How will the government insure that firmsdoing business with the federal government have not evaded their taxes? Instead of the 3 percent withholding rule,Republicans want to make up any tax losses from unobligated discretionaryfunds. In other words, the taxpayerswill pay if the businesses don’t. MostDemocrats and the President reject that plan.

Both Democrats and Republicans alike agree that the 3percent withholding rule needs to be repealed. Democrats want businesses to pay all their taxes; Republicans wanttaxpayers to foot the bill for those businesses that default.

It its zeal to present Massachusetts RepublicanSenator Scott Brown as job friendly as opposed to Democratic Senator JohnKerry, the editorial misrepresented the vote taken in the Senate lastThursday. According to the editorial…

“a Senate bill to repeal Section 511 was defeatedThursday. A motion to proceed gained 57 votes, including those of 10 Democrats,but needed 60 votes. Sen. Scott Brown favored repeal. Sen. John Kerry wasopposed.”

Fact Check: The vote taken was NOTto repeal the 3 percent withholding rule. It was a cloture vote, a vote to determine whether the Senate wouldclose debate and bring the bill forward immediately. That is what failed to garner 60 votes. Neither Scott Brown nor John Kerry voted foror against the repeal. Brown voted toend debate. Kerry did not. When the two sides compromise on the methodof paying for the bill, there is every expectation that both Senators will voteto repeal the 3 percent withholding rule.

The editorial ends with a caution to the readers aboutthe 2 Massachusetts Senators, one of whom, Republican Scott Brown, is runningfor re-election next year:

“In politics, talk is cheap. Voters need to examinethe voting record to understand who’s really trying to create jobs — and who’sjust creating more obstacles.”

Good advice. But it has absolutely no relevance to the editorial that precedes it.

Southbridge governs “at the people”

2011-10-18T14:22:00.001-04:00

I hope that everyone is aware of the threeadjectives Abraham Lincoln used in concluding his address at Gettysburg. They were “of,” “by,” and “for” as in “…thisnation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government ofthe people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

People have revered that concept, that ideal, forquite a while now. It seems, though,that another adjective is superseding those uttered by our 16^th president. More and more it feels as if those inauthority govern “at the people.” Thereis a certain kind of hubris among some elected officials that sends a messageto the populace: “Now that you have entrusted me with some authority, get outof the way. You are no longer needed.” To be fair, this phenomenon is not peculiarto Southbridge politics. It is, however,evident in Southbridge.

It seems to me that we, the governed, ought to beconvinced by elected officials that something is best for a community. When this happens, we have government by consensus. People follow a particular rule willinglybecause they have accepted that something is good for all citizens.

People can also be made to follow rules by coercion. The authorities say, “You will do it, or youwill be punished.” Law-abiding citizenswill do as they are told, but the process induces a seething, tacitresentment. The pot will only simmer forso long; after a while it will boil over.

The sign of an authoritative government is in theemphasis of the rules. Of course, weneed rules, but those who govern by coercion abuse the rule books. All rule books are subject to being turnedinto weapons. It is true of the Bible, “Robert’sRules of Order,” and the Southbridge Town By-Laws.

Someone, for example, can break all the rules ofthe Bible as they accurately point out someone else’s sin. “Roberts Rules of Order” can go from onemeeting to the next being ignored until someone appeals to it to stop a vote onsomething they don’t want. Then theyinsist on the rule that results in the imposition of their will.

The Southbridge Town By-Laws are filled with rulesthat are unevenly enforced. Theauthoritative government chooses from among the rules those which they want toenforce to the letter. Other rules canbe ignored until they further the cause of those who rule by coercion. Each rule becomes a weapon to beat thegoverned into submission. And they willsubmit. But not forever.

Government by coercion spends the public money toenforce its rules. They fight their “subjects”in court. The hire inspectors to forcecompliance. They use the police force tocarry out their will.

Coercive government works to inhibit free speech.

The government of Southbridge needs to turn fromthis path it is on. Consensus governmentis true democracy. Government ofcoercion is not. If we continue totravel down this road, how long will it be before the Town Council Chairpersonwill be authorized to tase a citizen who violates the 5-minute speaking rule?

The Massachusetts Observer

What Do These Occupiers Want?

2011-10-16T03:30:00.001-04:00

Read the articles in the newspapers and online. Listen to the commentators on television andradio. Finally, listen to the endlessstream of comments from the left and the right. They want to know one thing about the “occupiers.” What is their reason for occupying?

Critics from the left insist that those involved in theoccupy movement must have a unified message. How can the demonstrators hope to achieve anything without a definitelist of goals?

The right wing conservatives have concluded that the “mobs”have no goal. The protesters arewhiners. They are anti-American. They want to destroy capitalism. They are spoiled kids who are used to gettinganything they want. They need to takebaths and get jobs.

I have tried on many occasions to do what I can to answerthe critics, but there is no reasoning with those who have already formed a judgment. I have watched the media “spin.” Corporate-owned media have been persistent purveyorsof partisanship. The attempts tomarginalize the movement are evident even in their so-called straightjournalism. Lines are blurred between opinionatingand reporting.

What many of the critics and the occupiers themselves don’trealize is that the movement had a spokesman nearly 70 years ago. In 1944, the year before he died, FranklinRoosevelt spoke of a second Bill of Rights, essentially an economic Bill ofRights. The President who had given the country a New Deal and who wascurrently engaged in leading the nation through World War 2 looked from thepresent with hope for the future of America.

"I ask the Congress to explore the means for implementing this Economic Bill of Rights, for it is definitely the responsibility of the Congress so to do, and the country knows it... In the event no adequate program os progress is evolved, I am certain that the nation will be conscious of the facts."

In the present struggle to define a message, FranklinRoosevelt’s voice must become part of the dialogue. Listen to him tell it in his own words. Then, if you agree, do what was impossible inhis day. Send his message to all whoshould hear it, both in the United States of America and around the world.

Mic check.

The Massachusetts Observer

School Days

2011-10-14T04:40:00.002-04:00

I was reading awhile back about some elementary pupilsputting on a musical show for veterans. Children in grades one through threesang and danced. They wore simple but meaningful costumes. It was a rousingsuccess. It is amazing what music teachers can accomplish with the childrenthrough a great deal of patience and hard work.

Technology has changed the teaching of music. I suppose the greatestadvancements are amplification, accompaniment tracks, and the modern keyboard.Today, through technology, the young singers can have a full orchestra backingthem up. Some tracks even have background singers to fill in the harmony. Theelectronic keyboard, in the hands of a competent musician, has tremendousversatility. These wonderful additions have greatly contributed to musicalperformance.

Music education was a lot different when I attended elementary school. Theactual music teacher came to the classroom once a week. Since we were requiredto have some music every day, the classroom teacher was left with the task ofteaching music on the other four days. Even if the classroom teacher didn’tknow a quarter note from a post-it note, it was part of her job description toteach music.

The classroom teacher had three things to help her with musical instruction:the pitch pipe, a portable pump organ, and some copies of The Golden Book ofFavorite Songs.

That pump organ is what I remember most vividly. Those exercise machines seenon late night commercials and costing lots of money have nothing on the workoutthe teacher got every day by pumping air into that organ! My fourth grade classhad 40 students. The teacher, who I am sure would have made a good juggler, hadto pump the organ, haltingly read and play the music, and keep 40 rambunctiouskids not only in order but singing!

Yes, music teaching has come a long way, and we can be thankful for that. Butthere is something quite unique about a classroom full of fourth graderssinging from their GoldenBook of Favorite Songs:

School Days, School Days, Dear old Golden Rule Days...

The Massachusetts Observer

No, you can’t

2011-10-04T08:48:00.001-04:00

I suppose it’s human nature. When someone says, “No, you can’t,” we reply,“Who says?” When it’s the federalgovernment talking, people listen. Whena right is taken away and enshrined in the Constitution, people rebel.

I have been enjoying the Ken Burns’ documentary on Prohibition . This great experiment to rid the country ofdemon rum (and any other form of the devil’s brew) was decidedly afailure. As the documentary states, Prohibitionturned the United States into a nation of “scofflaws.” Many people found ways to avoid the ban. “Bootlegging,” the illegal sale of alcohol,became a thriving business, producing notorious gangsters like Al Capone. The number of prescriptions for “medicinal”alcohol sky-rocketed. Graft andcorruption abounded. The Courts weretied up with every kind of minor alcohol-related offenses. This condition went on for 13 years, from 1920through 1933.

The period of time has been referred to as theRoaring Twenties. Things looked greateconomically, and it seemed that happy days were here for good. Drinking alcohol became a large part of anycelebration. The people would not bedeterred. Prohibition be damned.

Society rebels at laws they consider ridiculous,yet in our present time some still insist on restricting rights and calling fora Constitutional Amendment to do so. These topics range from flag-burning to abortion to drugs. Restrictions against marijuana, for example, havehad the same effect on the population as prohibition of alcohol. We spend a great deal of money fighting a waron drugs. For the scofflaws, themarijuana business is lucrative. Crimeis rampant. This current-day prohibitioncan’t be enforced any better than the other one. As is so often the case, however, we fail tolearn the lessons of history.

anti-Prohibition Songs

In the days leading up to the start ofProhibition, many entertainers and song-writers expressed the attitudes of muchof the public toward the new law scheduled to come into effect. African-American entertainer Bert Williamsrecorded a song that spoke to hoarding alcohol as people prepared for a dryspell. “Everybody Wants the Key to MyCellar” was a hit, not just for Williams but for a number of other entertainersas well.

The following video is Bert William’s song. Some of the illustrations I used are from theProhibition period. As was common in hisday, Bert Williams dressed as the stereotype demanded of blackentertainers. The mood he expresses,however, crosses all racial lines.

The Massachusetts Observer

Roosevelt redux

2011-09-25T06:14:00.003-04:00

History repeats itself. No doubt you have heard that or somethingsimilar. There’s nothing newunder the sun is another one. Tothese, add another truth: people who are history illiterate can’t benefit fromits lessons. More and more people arefalling into this category.

The parallels between our current state of affairs and eraof the Great Depression are striking. Understandingthe politics that led to the Depression could help us avoid those same trapsnow. This knowledge is freely availableto everyone who seeks it.

What did Franklin Roosevelt face when he took office in1933? The bottom had fallen out of theeconomy. Banks were failing from unwisespeculation. Some people lost theirentire life’s savings. Panic causedpeople to run to their banks to withdraw any money they had. Many banks did not have the cash, and theyclosed their doors.

Manufacturers and farmers found themselves with tremendoussurpluses because they hadn’t adjusted for conditions following the First WorldWar. The over-production caused people to lose their jobs. People out of work could not afford topurchase goods. Millions lost theirhomes to foreclosure because they could not pay the mortgage.

Those who were employed saw their wages cut. Unions struck to maintain livable wages fortheir members.

Some people lived on the streets and were dependent on souplines to get enough food to stay alive. As the Depression wore on, lawlessness ensued as people began to stealto live. Rebellion was in the air. Unless something was done a full-scalenation-wide revolt was approaching fast.

Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the people of a New Deal. He spoke confidently as a leader to help calmthe fears. He let the nation know thattheir President and they were all in this together. He said it would take everyone to make thingsright. He admitted that he might makemistakes, but he promised to keep trying until things worked. He replaced a dispirited nation filled withfear to one filled with hope.

Franklin Roosevelt was a warrior for the middle workingclass, and he made that absolutely clear. There were two sides in this struggle to save a nation. There would be no compromise. His opposition despised him, and he “welcomedtheir hatred.”

Barack Obama could learn a lot from Franklin Roosevelt whoinvolved people in the struggle. Roosevelt made promises, and he worked tirelessly to keep them. He spoke plainly to people, gaining theirtrust. His policies ultimately saved anation and restored the American Dream to the working class.

Many of Franklin Roosevelt’s speeches and Fireside Chatshave been quoted. I like one that is notheard that often: Roosevelt’s Second Inaugural Address delivered on January 20,1937. He spoke of progress made duringhis first term, but he warned that with the small steps some were going back tothe old ways. Some people said thingswere good enough. Some were timid aboutthe future. Roosevelt would have none ofthat. He had a dream for America, and hecalled on people to join him in that dream. Following is an excerpt from that Second Inaugural Address:

But here is the challenge to our democracy: In thisnation I see tens of millions of its citizens—a substantial part of its wholepopulation—who at this very moment are denied the greater part of what the verylowest standards of today call the necessities of life.

I see millions of families trying to live on incomes someager that the pall of family disaster hangs over them day by day.

I see millions whose daily lives in city and on farmcontinue under conditions labeled indecent by a so-called polite society half acentury ago.

I see millions denied education, recreation, and theopportunity to better their lot and the lot of their children.

I see millions lacking the means to buy the products of farmand factory and by their poverty denying work and productiveness to many othermillions.

I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad,ill-nourished.

It is not in despair that I paint you that picture. I paintit for you in hope—because the Nation, seeing and understanding the injusticein it, proposes to paint it out. We are determined to make every Americancitizen the subject of his country's interest and concern; and we will neverregard any faithful, law-abiding group within our borders as superfluous. Thetest of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those whohave much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.

Today we reconsecrate our country to long-cherished idealsin a suddenly changed civilization. In every land there are always at workforces that drive men apart and forces that draw men together. In our personalambitions we are individualists. But in our seeking for economic and politicalprogress as a nation, we all go up, or else we all go down, as one people.

To maintain a democracy of effort requires a vast amount ofpatience in dealing with differing methods, a vast amount of humility. But outof the confusion of many voices rises an understanding of dominant public need.Then political leadership can voice common ideals, and aid in theirrealization.

In taking again the oath of office as President of the United States, I assumethe solemn obligation of leading the American people forward along the roadover which they have chosen to advance.

While this duty rests upon me I shall do my utmost to speak their purpose and todo their will, seeking Divine guidance to help us each and every one to givelight to them that sit in darkness and to guide our feet into the way of peace.

The Massachusetts Observer

Facebook tinkering

2011-09-21T10:01:00.001-04:00

I recall a house where a handyman lived. The place was beautiful except for one thing: it was never “finished.” By that I mean, the owner always seemed to have a project he was in the process of completing. As a result, the home was always under construction. It was in a constant state of disarray.

Once again, Facebook has drastically changed its presentation. Without warning, users have found themselves wandering about in confusion. The tinkerers are at it again. Their “house” never seems quite to become a “home.”

Perhaps it’s my age that makes me less adaptable to change. I certainly have less patience with it, that’s for certain. Whatever the reason, I have reached my tipping point.

So, goodbye, Facebook. It was mostly fun while it lasted.

©2012The Massachusetts Observer (www.massachusettsobserver.blogspot.com)

America, the Beautiful, Undimmed by Human Tears

2011-09-11T07:08:00.000-04:00

I don’t know why I find that phrase so powerful. I guessit’s because of the song and some memories of September 11th. I remember seeingDan Rather on the David Letterman show shortly after that terrible day. He saidthat the tragedy of September 11, 2001, brought new meaning to the words Thinealabaster cities gleam undimmed by human tears. Indeed it does.

Those words were penned by Massachusetts native KatherineLee Bates in 1893. Miss Bates graduated from Wellesley College and becameprofessor of English Literature at Wellesley for many years.

In the summer of 1893, she was a guest professor at ColoradoCollege in Colorado Springs, Colorado. It was there that she got theinspiration for her song. She stated:

One day some of the other teachers and I decided togo on a trip to 14,000-foot Pikes Peak. We hired a prairie wagon. Near the topwe had to leave the wagon and go the rest of the way on mules. I was verytired. But when I saw the view, I felt great joy. All the wonder of Americaseemed displayed there, with the sea-like expanse.

The words she jotted down that day went through a fewrevisions until it became what we are familiar with today.

O beautiful for spacious skies,

For amber waves of grain,

For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!

America! America!
God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears.

America! America!
God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood

From sea to shining sea.

There are other verses. These particularly take on a newpoignancy in our present time. Can anyone deny feeling comforted by the songsof our nation in the days following September 11th?

America is beautiful. And we will never forget those heroeswho lost their lives attempting to liberate the victims of the horrible acts ofterrorism inflicted upon our land that day. And yes many tears were shed, butthrough it all America survives from sea to shining sea.

I admit freely to feeling tremendous emotion when I hearsongs about America. It is not pride. It is a genuine appreciation I feel forbeing born in this land. What a precious gift we have received.

I looked up America, the Beautiful on YouTube. There werenearly 4000 renditions. There was the Ray Charles version, the Sinatra version,the Streisand version and many more. The one that spoke the most to me is theone I want to share with you. It was on a New York street, September 23, 2001.The singer is Bon Jovi.

The Massachusetts Observer

The crime of Social Security

2011-09-08T02:03:00.000-04:00

At his first national debate, Republican candidate Rick Perry once again made clear his opinion of Social Security. It’s a Ponzi scheme. What does that mean?

Rick Perry is accusing the United States government of perpetuating a fraud on the American people. The government, through the Social Security system, is involved in a criminal activity. Those who claim otherwise are liars, and the lie is being told by the older generation to the younger generation.

Strong language some would say. I would agree.The web site of the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission says this of Ponzi schemes:

What is a Ponzi scheme? A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors and to use for personal expenses, instead of engaging in any legitimate investment activity.

How did Ponzi schemes get their name? The schemes are named after Charles Ponzi, who duped thousands of New England residents into investing in a postage stamp speculation scheme back in the 1920s. At a time when the annual interest rate for bank accounts was five percent, Ponzi promised investors that he could provide a 50% return in just 90 days. Ponzi initially bought a small number of international mail coupons in support of his scheme, but quickly switched to using incoming funds to pay off earlier investors.

It’s important to note that a Ponzi scheme is deliberate fraud, and this is what Perry alleges of the government. The real attack is on one aspect of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal which conservatives like Perry have been trying to reverse for years.

Perry’s charge could then be laid upon the Democrats and Franklin D. Roosevelt. By creating Social Security they intentionally committed a criminal act on the American people.

People with a knowledge of history know better than Perry and his followers. Social Security is well-run and without any changes at all it will last for many more years. Could it be made stronger? Absolutely. And the fix is easy. Currently people pay Social Security tax on what they earn up to 106,800 dollars. Lots of people earn a great deal more than 106,800 dollars but pay no Social Security tax on anything above that. The solution is to raise the cap or lift it altogether. It’s that simple.

On August 14, 1935 Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law.

The attack by the corporations against Social Security came almost immediately as these words spoken by Roosevelt at a campaign speech at Madison Square Garden on October 31, 1936 indicate:

Here is an amazing paradox! The very employers and politicians and publishers who talk most loudly of class antagonism and the destruction of the American system now undermine that system by this attempt to coerce the votes of the wage earners of this country. It is the 1936 version of the old threat to close down the factory or the office if a particular candidate does not win. It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them.

Every message in a pay envelope, even if it is the truth, is a command to vote according to the will of the employer. But this propaganda is worse—it is deceit.

They tell the worker his wage will be reduced by a contribution to some vague form of old-age insurance. They carefully conceal from him the fact that for every dollar of premium he pays for that insurance, the employer pays another dollar. That omission is deceit.

They carefully conceal from him the fact that under the federal law, he receives another insurance policy to help him if he loses his job, and that the premium of that policy is paid 100 percent by the employer and not one cent by the worker. They do not tell him that the insurance policy that is bought for him is far more favorable to him than any policy that any private insurance company could afford to issue. That omission is deceit.

They imply to him that he pays all the cost of both forms of insurance. They carefully conceal from him the fact that for every dollar put up by him his employer puts up three dollars three for one. And that omission is deceit.

But they are guilty of more than deceit. When they imply that the reserves thus created against both these policies will be stolen by some future Congress, diverted to some wholly foreign purpose, they attack the integrity and honor of American Government itself. Those who suggest that, are already aliens to the spirit of American democracy. Let them emigrate and try their lot under some foreign flag in which they have more confidence.

The fraudulent nature of this attempt is well shown by the record of votes on the passage of the Social Security Act. In addition to an overwhelming majority of Democrats in both Houses, seventy-seven Republican Representatives voted for it and only eighteen against it and fifteen Republican Senators voted for it and only five against it. Where does this last-minute drive of the Republican leadership leave these Republican Representatives and Senators who helped enact this law?

I am sure the vast majority of law-abiding businessmen who are not parties to this propaganda fully appreciate the extent of the threat to honest business contained in this coercion.

I have expressed indignation at this form of campaigning and I am confident that the overwhelming majority of employers, workers and the general public share that indignation and will show it at the polls on Tuesday next.

Rick Perry and those who share his views on Social Security join others throughout history who have attempted to kill it through lies and deception. Always the voters have rejected this message. I suspect they will again.

©2011

The Massachusetts Observer

Betrayal revisited

2011-08-27T11:15:00.001-04:00

Note: Those of us who share our opinions via blogs should spend some time re-assessing positions we have taken. New information should inform our thinking. I have made it a practice to live and learn. I came across something recently that I wrote two years ago this week. I believe I was on the right track then, and I believe it more intensely now.

***

I have been doing a lot more reading than writing this past week as I have attempted to follow the health care news. There are so many competing and conflicting messages that people just choose a side to believe and go with that, or they turn away from the entire issue in disgust. You can hardly blame them.

Now, contrary to what some may think, I do not blame Republicans for the Democrats’ inability to progress on the health care front. While I deplore the right-wing’s use of scare tactics, they are clearly sending one message: No. There will be no bipartisan support for this health care bill. Each compromise, each concession, has led to demands for more compromises and more concessions. The political strategy is clear because it has been done before. The Republicans did the same thing when Hillary Clinton led the path toward health care reform in 1993. It was a flawed bill and easy to attack. Then Majority Leader Sen. George Mitchell announced that all attempts at arriving at a bipartisan bill were rejected and that the bill would have to be postponed until the next Congress. The Republicans ran with an anti-big government message for the 1994 mid-term elections, and they successfully regained majority rule in both the House and the Senate.

The situation in 2009 could not be more similar. If the Republicans can stall health care reform long enough they may be able to repeat the success of the 1994 midterm elections. The goal is to win the House and the Senate or, failing that, give the Democrats such a thin majority that any legislation can be effectively blocked. The health care “debate” is not about health care at all. It’s about returning Republicans to a majority status.

The real roadblock to health care reform comes from the Democratic Party. The concessions that have been made ostensibly to appease Republicans are actually made to appease Democrats who are in opposition. Chief among the back-peddlers is President Barack Obama. Those who supported his presidential campaign were as much voting for a philosophy as a person. What the candidate Obama said he stood for and what President Obama has done are very far apart. Under a supposed quest for bipartisanship, he has ceded many of what now more and more appear to have been talking points.

Many progressives favor a single-payer, government operated health care system. Some have called this “Medicare for all.” That option never even made it to the table. Then a compromise was proposed to offer a government option. People could choose to keep their private health insurance or choose to participate in a public plan. This appears to be at least very close to dropping off the table. In its place, health care co-ops are being proposed. These too are receiving a mixed reception.

Every proposal that has the effect of providing competition to the insurance industry is being rejected. Why? M-O-N-E-Y.

As a Progressive, I believe this whole debate has become moot. It seems as if the vox populi will never be heard unless Progressives leave the Democratic Party and form a new party that truly speaks for the people.

Republicans distrust government. Democrats distrust unregulated corporations. It used to be almost that easy, more or less.

Now, the corporations have bought enough Democrats that they have a 'majority share' of ownership of the U. S. Congress. Ordinary American citizens, who are less and less necessary and important to the corporations, are in the minority and will only receive whatever the majority allows them to.

The building up of America into a wealthy super-power was financed by the rich and achieved by the sweat of the common laborer. With globalization and innovation, American laborers have worked themselves out of a job. To those who have become rich off of their sweat, they are obsolete.

Unchecked capitalism has seen this once-proud democracy turning into a plutocracy where the wealthy rule, and the amount of wealth determines power. Instead of government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” we are more of a corporatocracy where the corporations and the banks set the agenda.

Check the campaign contributions for Democrats and Republicans and it is easy to tell who is buying influence, in effect buying a vote. Those of us who are among the ordinary citizens can never compete.

As a final thought, I leave you with this bit of irony. Printed on our money are the words “In God We Trust.” It does not, however, specify which god.

©2009, 2011

The Massachusetts Observer

Round Up the Usual Suspects

2011-08-24T04:52:00.000-04:00

I'm shocked. Shocked! Casinos in the Bay State?

You may recognize my allusion to Captain Renault in the movie "Casablanca." Whenever something happens, he begins his investigation with the words "Round up the usual suspects." And, when ordered by the German officer to shut down Sam's Nightclub, he says, "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" That fact was the worst-kept secret in all of Casablanca.

The big talk currently in our state is the push toward allowing the building of casinos. Governor Patrick strongly favors this proposal as a means of infusing the state's coffers with revenue. Opposition to this comes from churches and support groups dealing with gambling addiction.

Some History of Gambling in Massachusetts

History tells us that gambling has been part of Massachusetts since before the United States became a country. Lotteries were considered legitimate ways of raising money for particular needs. Look at these words from a wonderful old book published in 1886 called "Curiosities of the Old Lottery:"

"People of the present generation [1886] who look over files of old newspapers are filled with astonishment to see the great number of lotteries which are advertised, for many years, down to as late a period as the year 1826. The Faneuil Hall Lottery, the Harvard College Lottery, the Rhode Island College Lottery, the Massachusetts State Lottery, and lotteries for a bridge over the River Parker, for Marblehead, for the Williamstown Free school, for Episcopal and Congregational Churches, were all advertised, with numerous other projects. A lottery was proposed for the purpose of finishing Bunker Hill Monument, although the scheme was not carried out... Some of the best men in the community were interested in recommending the various schemes, and members of churches, men in high repute, bought and sold the tickets... Indeed, it was generally thought to be just as respectable to sell lottery-tickets as to sell Bibles; and we have seen them classed together in the same advertisement."

["The Olden Time Series" "Curiosities of the Old Lottery" By Henry M. Brooks: Emerson Boston Ticknor and Company 1886]

***
Horse racing as a form of gambling has been practiced for many years in the Bay State. If you were living in the 1880s, you could pick up a copy of "Wallace's Year-book of Trotting and Pacing." In it you could read about the entire horse racing that took place the previous year. Included in the information was everything a betting person would want to know including track locations. The Sturbridge Fair Grounds is among the listings.

Religious Revival in Massachusetts Leads to New Attitudes Toward Lotteries

Religious revival had a great deal to do with attitudes towards gambling. Revival was very strong here in New England in the early to mid 1800s. The book, "Historical Sketch of Sturbridge and Southbridge" by George Davis, 1856, is essentially a history book. However, when it comes to describing gambling practices of an earlier generation, it takes on a decidedly moral tone:

"A very great portion of our public houses, which were formerly numerous, had their recesses for gamblers. Gentlemen, who claimed an elevated standing, had their private retreats for gambling. Gatherings, for this purpose, were not only occasional, but almost nightly. They embraced large numbers of the legal and medical professions. After the Court had adjourned for the day, many of its ministerial officers were spell-bound to the card table during the night... Gambling was the broad road, in which many a young man, on whom rested parental affection and hopes, travelled to ruin. We have known men who have devoted their whole time to this pernicious practice, travelling even throughout the States, and rifling men of their money, whenever fit subjects to be cheated could be found. They made for a while, a display of wealth and ostentation, but most of them died in poverty. The curse of Heaven blasted their hopes. This evil was not prevalent to any considerable extent among the farming class of the community. Their exemption from it is ascribed in no small degree to their retiring and industrious habits. Gambling, cheating and excessive drinking, are generally leagued together. Such a triple alliance is always arrayed against the best interests of society. A blessed change has succeeded. Men of respectable standing who occasionally indulged in the practice, realizing its pernicious effects have entirely abandoned it. Their example has exerted a powerful influence in suppressing the evil. The practice is now almost exclusively confined to those who have no claims to respectability."

Anecdote of a Lucky Lottery Winner

Finally, there is this anecdote about a very early family in Sturbridge, the Wight family. In 1796, David Wight 2nd accompanied his father to Boston. The senior Mr. Wight was meeting a Mr. Brattle to pay the money he owed him for his Sturbridge land. The transaction was interrupted by the Revolutionary War. Before the War, Mr. Wight had moved his family from Medway to Sturbridge. He had planned to use the money from the sale of his house in Medway to pay for his Sturbridge land. With depreciation of currency after the War, Mr. Wight had lost the equivalent of two thousand dollars. Nevertheless he was going to pay his bill to Mr. Brattle in full.

While in Boston, David Wight 2nd on a hunch decided to play the Harvard College Lottery. Tickets sold for ten dollars. He was a winner. He won five thousand dollars. He gave his father two thousand dollars and with the remaining three thousand he bought more land from his father. David the 2nd was able to pay off any bills he owed and started the year 1797 debt free.

Isn't history a wonderful thing?

© 2008, 2011

The Massachusetts Observer

Mad as Hell

2011-08-18T13:14:00.011-04:00

Comments at my blog spot at The Smirking Chimp are quite different from those here. Check them out!

Brent’s Blog at The Smirking Chimp

Update:A comment on The Smirking Chimp Reminded me of this Carlin clip. He had it right.

I regularly listen to radio talk show host Norman Goldman
(www.normangoldman.com), and lately the discussions having to do with President Obama center around how Progressives can vote for him in 2012.

One caller came up with this. There are two ways of looking at a vote for Barack Obama: comparatively and objectively. In the short term, the comparative voter looks at the Republican alternative, and the ghastly choices offered up by the other side make choosing Barack Obama a no-brainer.

The objective voter sees the long-term. Even if President Obama is more or less a moderate Republican philosophically, it will be the last time voting for him. In the meantime, Progressives can focus on restoring the national Democratic Party to its traditional Democratic values, a voice for the middle class and the poor.

Well, I surely can see the logic in this, but after giving it some more thought, I sent an email to Norman Goldman:

Norm,
I have been giving this a lot of thought, and perhaps my age is making me more impatient for a return to the ideals of the Democratic Party to make me see the long picture.

Here is how I see it.

If Barack Obama does not come out swinging with specifics, if he just gives us the same old line, I will not vote for him.

I think that a Republican take-over is the only thing that will force people to take to the streets. We need a revolution. London is no fluke. It's a sign.

I'd like to know your opinion, and if you think there is any interest, the opinion of your listeners. Thanks.
Brent Abrahamson

Norm is very good about answering email, and I received this reply:

Brent: your view is the "burn down the village to save the village" argument. I believe it is flawed for some BIG reasons: It ASSUMES that people will see how horrible the 'Cons are AND FURTHER ASSUMES that Dems will put up better national candidates. Once they are back in, I believe the 'Cons will continue to tighten the noose around our necks and it will be ever harder to come back. THEY never stop fighting...why should we THROW THE GAME based on the BELIEF the American people will wake up??

norm

Of course, that does make sense, but I wonder if my thoughts are so “out there” that no one agrees. I decided to email C-Span. Washington Journal was asking Democrats whether or not they believed that the President’s 3-day bus tour did any good. Here is what I sent:

As a Democrat (Liberal and Progressive- fill in whichever label you must), I have come to believe that the biggest change the President brought to the White House is the change from candidate Obama to President Obama.

Unless the President begins to espouse traditional Democratic values, unless he lays out specific WPA-like projects to put people back to work, unless he leads the attack on the opposition instead of pleading for the base to do it, I will not vote at all.

They chose to read my email on the air this morning. (August 18, 2011)

I wish I still felt definitive in my position, but I don’t. So I ask you. What do you think?

©2011

The Massachusetts Observer

www.massachusettsobserver.blogspot.com

Brother Rick Perry

2011-08-15T17:45:00.005-04:00

Now that the Governor of Texas has entered the race for the Republican nomination, he will face the scrutiny that has been lacking heretofore. People may be quick to write him off as just another Republican right-wing radical among many who are seeking their Party’s nomination. That’s a mistake.

I believe that Perry is going to climb right to the top of the pack. Michele Bachmann’s star will begin to fade. If Perry takes the Iowa Caucus he will have the momentum. He may lose in the New Hampshire primary, but he will gain everything back in South Carolina.

Perry provides the “cover” for Evangelicals who will not vote for Romney because Romney is a Mormon. Oh, they don’t say that outright, but Evangelicals consider Mormonism a cult, and most would never vote for him. Whether that’s fair or unfair is irrelevant. It just is.

People got a glimpse of Perry’s use of religion in politics when he co-sponsored the big prayer meeting with some of the most right-wing unorthodox religion hawkers in the business. At first glance, this would seem to hurt the Governor. Dig deeper and you will find a stealthy organization that is very much in his corner.

If you are like me, you never heard of the New Apostolic Reformation Movement, but as The Texas Observer notes in a piece called Rick Perry's Army of God “A little-known movement of radical Christians and self-proclaimed prophets wants to infiltrate government, and Rick Perry might be their man.”

That a radical “Christian” group devoted to infiltrating every part of our society sees Rick Perry as their man should send just a bit of a cold shiver through your body.

It’s easy to write this off as just religious “kookiness.” That could be a big mistake.

©2011
The Massachusetts Observer

Time’s up, Mr. President

2011-08-12T15:31:00.003-04:00

I no longer recognize the man I voted for to become our President in 2008. I have felt for a while now that we have been deceived. Barack Obama said the right words during his campaign, but he has failed to live up to those words in practice. He ran as a Democrat and has led as a Republican. As a result his Administration is failing badly.

It is not entirely his fault. The Democratic Congress hasn’t helped either. The National Democratic Party has lost its way. We have been deceived.

Progressives are ready to walk. We have had enough. We expect the Republicans to be the Corporate Party. Now it appears that the Democrats are a Corporate Party as well.

We are being sold down the river. We refuse to go. We will not vote for a Democrat just because he or she is not as bad as the Republican. Forget it!

Recently I read about a resolution passed by the Progressive Caucus of California. They believe that Barack Obama should face a primary opponent. So do I. Following is the resolution they adopted. They will be contacting others around the nation to garner support.

I support this resolution. I hope it is successful.

©2011
The Massachusetts Observer

Resolution in Support of a Presidential Primary Challenge

WHEREAS, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party recognizes the challenge presented by President Obama’ s negotiating away Democratic Party principles to extremist Republicans, we are challenged by President Obama in the following ways:
■His unilateral closed-door budget offer to slash Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which endangers the New Deal and War on Poverty safety nets.
■His determination to escalate U.S. militarism through illegal secret CIA drone attacks and unauthorized wars.
■His willingness to extend the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and bail out big banks without ending the foreclosure crisis that displaces American working families.
■His insistence on pushing a health insurance bill which enriches private insurance companies while ignoring growing support for single-payer health care or robust public options.
■His continuance of President Bush’s assault on civil liberties with an extension of the repressive Patriot Act.
■His failure to restore due process, including the protection of whistleblowers and habeas corpus.
■His numerous failures to adhere to international law.
■The continuing practice of nationwide FBI raids of anti-war progressive protestors.
■His decision to increase the arrests and deportations of undocumented workers.
■His facilitation of the privatizing of the public sphere, which includes education and housing, among others.
■His disregard of his promises to the Labor movement.
■His failure to adequately protect the environment and adequately address climate change.

WHEREAS, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party recognizes the historical significance of the Eugene McCarthy/Robert F. Kennedy anti-war challenge to President Lyndon Johnson. The challenge followed President Johnson’s decision to escalate U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, betraying his campaign promise to end a war that polarized America. Similarly, we recognize the danger and betrayal that the current Grand Bargainrepresents to the legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelts signature gift to all Americans, Social Security and the New Deal, a point of pride for all Democrats.

WHEREAS, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party is committed to the understanding that an interest in a 2012 Democratic presidential primary challenge will not interfere with President Obama’s ability to govern and not limit his ability to do so in ways that include invoking Constitutional options, we recognize that this will, in fact, raise debate on important issues without risking the ability to mobilize and energize the base of the Democratic Party to elect a triumphant leader to counter the far-right agenda.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, to make our views heard, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party will begin the process of contacting other Democratic organizations, Democratic Party members and public organizations that share our views on the issues and which seek to alter the course of history by exploring other steps to effect a necessary change, including a possible primary challenge to President Obama.

Tea Party Terrorists?

2011-08-03T08:58:00.003-04:00

Poor Joe Biden. Once again he is being accused of saying the wrong thing. If you haven’t heard, it’s not because the Vice-President’s critics haven’t been busy trying to get the word out. Some have asserted that Biden referred to the Tea Party right wing conservatives as “terrorists.” Biden contends he did not. He said. She said.

Incredible! The spin machine is at full speed. Joe Biden must be chastised for his alleged comment, and anyone who uses terrorist-related jargon in describing any faction of the Tea Party is to be condemned. The ginned-up moral outrage is palpable.

I have also been pummeled on the comment pages of various newspapers for referring to the Tea Party caucus of The House of Representatives as “hostage-takers.” That’s hate speech? Baloney!

This from people who contend that all liberals, all progressives are anti-American. They are all atheistic, godless creatures. They hate the military. They hate democracy. They are enemies to capitalism. They have stolen the country.

These are the same people who have placed doubt about the President of the United States and his birthplace. These are the people who want you to believe that Barack Obama is really a closet Muslim. In fact, these people want you to tie radical Muslims to all Muslims; and maybe, just maybe our President is one of them.

During this last dreadful episode in Congress to raise the debt limit allowing the United States to continue paying its bills, the Republicans,and particularly their right-wing Tea Party faction, had some demands. As it happened these were not the demands of parties at the bargaining table. If these demands were not met, the Tea Party caucus was prepared to let the full faith and credit of the United States be in question for the first time in history. In short, they were prepared to stop the country from being able to pay its bills. Unless others agreed to cuts in spending and no revenue increases, they would crash the economy.

The Tea Party ransom was paid. The country was on edge. People were terrified of the consequences of a tapped-out treasury. Our creditors were uneasy. The whole world was watching and waiting. The government blinked and yielded to the Tea Party caucus demands.

So what do you call a faction of right-wing Representatives who make non-negotiable demands, who promise to inflict great damage if they are not met? What do you call people who cause others to be terrified of the future?

I am reminded of a scene in the award-winning movie “Stand by Me.” Two cars full of teens are on a 2-lane highway. The teen in the rear car decides to pass the one in front. He pulls into the passing lane, and a drag race ensues. Neither driver is ready to give up. A large truck carrying lumber traveling in the opposite direction appears. The teen in the passing lane continues driving at full speed. His passengers are terrified, but the driver will not be dissuaded. To avoid catastrophe, the driver of the truck veers off the road in the nick of time. The teen who has put everyone in danger declares victory, no doubt with increased confidence in future victories.

I see an analogy here. Don’t you?

©2011

The Massachusetts Observer

Lady Liberty

2011-08-01T15:18:00.002-04:00

I love America. I can say that unabashedly. As I see what is happening to her today, I worry about my country. Many years of hard-held beliefs are being challenged. I am beginning to see a country I do not recognize.

America, to me, stands for freedom; it stands for the opportunity for anyone to make it. At the same time, it stands for compassion toward those who have been dealt a lot in this life that hinders them from achieving the American dream.

I am my brother’s keeper. I do not believe that the struggling poor deserve to be discarded. I do not believe that innocent children, born into families that they did not choose, should be allowed to go hungry. I do not believe that the elderly and infirm should go begging in want for the necessities of life.

I fear that America is being held hostage by people I do not understand. These are people who seem not to care about others. As long as they are doing okay, that’s all that matters. Others, no matter what the circumstances, can just fend for themselves. It is the type of survival of the fittest we see in the animal world. Beasts of prey conquer the weak. That’s just the natural way of things.

Human nature should rise above animal nature. It seems to me that this was always a given. I have learned it is not.

I close with a view of the America I love, an America that once welcomed the tired and poor, an America that lit the way for huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The homeless, the tempest-tossed – America will not turn you away. May we someday rediscover our better nature.

©2011

The Massachusetts Observer

That’s just cold

2011-07-19T12:04:00.000-04:00

My father was a milkman for many years at the former Deary Brothers Dairy in Dudley. If you’re too young to remember, you should know that at one time milk was delivered door-to-door to your home. In Southbridge there were trucks from many dairies delivering at one time or another. I can think of Hillcrest, Sherman, and Dresser Hill dairies off hand. According to my friend Ken, there was a Brown’s Dairy. I’m sure there were even more.

Quite often I would go on the milk route with my father during summer vacation from school. He’d wake me up at a very early hour. After getting dressed and having breakfast, we’d head out the door. It was still as dark as nighttime. We would go to the truck lot and drop off the car. Then we drove the truck to the loading dock. After carefully loading the truck, there was one last stop before we left on the route—the ice house.

These trucks were not refrigerated, so to keep the milk from going sour we had to shovel lots of ice on top of the milk crates to keep the milk cold. We also took one or two larger chunks of ice. Those could be chopped up with an ice pick. The pieces were used to replace some of the melting ice or, if we knew people wouldn’t be home, the ice pieces would cover their milk bottles after they were placed in the customer’s milk box.

Lots of customers at the beginning of the route didn’t see us very often because we made the delivery long before they had gotten out of bed. As the day went on, we would meet more and more people. If it was a hot, summer day, we would be approached by lots and lots of kids. We knew what they wanted. Ice! Usually there were no kids in the hoity-toity neighborhoods. But where the “regular” people lived there were kids galore.

My father always seemed to have enough ice to go around. The kids waited patiently and were always appreciative for that chunk of cool ice.

I recall one time when we were in a neighborhood which was made up of mostly Latino families. When we drove onto the street, kids seemed to appear from everywhere, and they were running toward the truck yelling, “Hielo!” Now, what it means is “ice” but what it sounds like is “yellow.” So my father would say something like, “Who you calling ‘yellow?’ I’ll show you who’s yellow!” The kids thought this was so funny, and they’d laugh and laugh. By the time we left, all the kids had their “hielo,” and we were treated to the happy sound of kids at play and a chorus of gracias after gracias.

Stay cool.

Visit Brent Abrahamson's Website, The Massachusetts Observer.

© 2008, 2011

An adult conversation

2011-07-13T10:20:00.004-04:00

You have heard it from the Left. You have heard it from the Right. We must have an “adult conversation” about the financial plight of the country. That may be true, but I don’t think either side knows what an “adult conversation” sounds like. Fortunately, we have history to provide an example.

On October 31, 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave a campaign speech before a crowd at Madison Square Garden. He spoke plainly without equivocation. He spoke to his audience as adults.

Unless you have been paying no attention at all, you will realize that the words he spoke could be uttered in our present time.

I have edited this just over 30-minute speech down to less than 10 minutes to provide highlights. We need this kind of leadership today. Following the video is a transcript of it.

Here is what an “adult conversation” sounds like:

Franklin D. Roosevelt -Speech at Madison Square Garden (October 31, 1936)

Excerpts

For twelve years our Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to that Government , but that Government looked away; and my friends, powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent to mankind.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. And we know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.

And my friends, and my friends, the American people know from a four-year record that today there is only one entrance to the White House and that’s by the front door. Since March 4, 1933, there has been only one pass-key to the White House, and I have carried that key in my own pocket. It’s there tonight, and so long as I am President, it’s going to remain in my pocket.

But, those who used to have pass-keys are not happy. Some of them indeed are desperate. Only desperate men with their backs to the wall would descend so far below the level of decent citizenship as to foster the current pay-envelope campaign against America's working people. Only reckless men, heedless of consequences, would risk the disruption of the hope for a new peace between worker and employer by returning to the tactics of the labor spy.

And, here is an amazing paradox! The very employers and politicians and newspapers who talk most loudly of class antagonism and the destruction of the American system now undermine that system by this attempt to coerce the votes of the wage earners of this country. It is the 1936 version of the old threat to close down the factory or the office if a particular candidate does not win. It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them.

But they are guilty of more than deceit. When they imply that the reserves thus created against both these policies will be stolen, they attack the integrity and the honor of American Government itself. Those who suggest that are already aliens to the spirit of American democracy. Let them emigrate and try their lot under some foreign flag in which they have more confidence.

And, our vision for the future contains more than promises.

Of course we will continue to seek to improve working conditions for the workers of America—to reduce hours that are over-long, to increase wages that spell starvation, to end the labor of children, and to wipe out sweatshops. Of course we will continue every effort to end monopoly in business, to support collective bargaining, to stop unfair competition, and to abolish dishonorable trade practices.

Of course we will continue to work for better and cheaper transportation, for low interest rates, for sounder home financing, for better banking, for the regulation of security issues, for reciprocal trade among nations, and for the wiping out of slums.

Of course we will continue our efforts. We will persist in successful action for better land use, for reforestation, for the conservation of water all the way from its source to the sea, for drought control and flood control, for better marketing facilities for farm commodities.

Of course we will provide useful work for the needy unemployed because we prefer useful work to the pauperism of a dole.

And here and now I want to make myself clear about those who disparage their fellow citizens on the relief rolls. They say that those on relief are not merely jobless, they say that they are worthless. Their solution for the relief problem is to end relief—to purge the rolls by starvation, but you and I will continue to refuse to accept that estimate of our unemployed fellow Americans. Your Government is still on the same side of the street with the Good Samaritan and not with those who pass by on the other side.

Of course we will continue our efforts for young men and women so that they may obtain an education and an opportunity to put it to use. Of course we will continue our help for the crippled, for the blind, for the mothers, our insurance for the unemployed, our security for the aged.

And for these things, too, and for a multitude of things like them, we have only just begun to fight.

©2011

The Massachusetts Observer

Classic TV: the Crime Fighters

2011-07-08T07:58:00.003-04:00

There was a time when The Untouchables actually referred to an elite group of crime fighters going after law-breakers during the Prohibition. More and more today it seems as if “the untouchables” are the Wall Street white collar criminals and others who rob from the poor and give to the rich.

Classic TV crime shows had no such ambiguity. The law was clear, and those who broke it were found out and punished. The police, the FBI, private detectives, public defenders — all were devoted to ferreting out the guilty and protecting the innocent. At the end of each program there was a clear message: crime does not pay. How far we have fallen!

Classic TV, I believe, can give us a glimpse of something that at least we strove to be as a people. Of course, there is artistic license. Of course, some fiction supersedes fact. All of that is a given. But there is a sense that an anchor held the ship of state that now seems more and more adrift.

There are many examples of crime fighter shows from Classic TV. Some are available for free viewing on the internet. Others are on DVD. All are worth the time.

Take a few moments to sample some of these in the compilation video that follows. Rediscover Boston Blackie, Richard Diamond, Dick Tracy, Mr. & Mrs. North, Sherlock Holmes, Peter Gunn, and Martin Kane. Check out the Public Defender, Dangerous Assignment, Man with a Camera and Follow that Man. What is Code 3? Who are the Decoys? Take a look at Gangbusters the Racket Squad, and Dragnet. What were The Lawless Years and how were lawbreakers brought to justice?

Above all, enjoy a few moments with Classic TV Crime Fighters.

©2011

The Massachusetts Observer

Those classic TV westerns

2011-07-04T07:05:00.008-04:00

They are the stuff of legends, those old westerns. I have been rediscovering them as of late both through the internet, where classic TV shows are plentiful and free books abound, and also the Encore Western channel.

People who grew up with television as I did recognized immediately which legend of the Old West was being portrayed the moment we heard the theme song of the program.

We were assured that Wyatt Earp was “brave, courageous, and bold.” We learned that Maverick had luck as his companion from Natchez to New Orleans. Paladin informed us that he had a gun and for the right price was willing to travel anywhere to use it. Roy Rogers and Gene Autry added singing to their adventures. Matt Dillon kept the law in Dodge City and Marshal Dan Troop did the same in Laramie. Judge Roy Bean was the law west of the Pecos.

To be sure these classic shows are legendary and are not meant to be a reliable source of history. They are, however, reliable in other ways. Right always prevails over wrong. There are bad guys and good guys. The good guys always win. Always. In our present society, this is not the case.

I fully recommend to anyone who feels hopelessly jaded by current events a trip back in time. Everyone needs encounters with order amidst the chaos. Rediscovering the classic westerns is my prescription. I believe old Doc Adams would agree.

The following is a video I pieced together to whet your appetite. If you are inspired to experience more, follow the link to my web site, The Massachusetts Observer. See you down the trail.

©2011

The Massachusetts Observer

Classic TV

2011-07-01T07:55:00.005-04:00

I can remember my parents talking about radio programs that they grew up listening to. They were part of the radio generation. Now that I am older, I look back at classic television. I was raised with television. In a sense, we grew up together.

Lately, I have been rediscovering some of the early TV programs of the 1950s and 1960s. The internet as well as the vast selection of television channels has provided new life to these classic programs. Those who take the time to sample them will not be disappointed.

Of course, all classic shows are not gems. Some have not stood the test of time. Some use stereotypes that not appropriate in our modern society. The gems, though, far outshine the duds.

Recently I came across a wonderful web site that organizes these old shows. Those who are looking for some entertaining diversion will find much here to delight them. Here are some of the genres to explore:

Funny Guys, Whacky Dames, Westerns, Kids’ Shows, Variety Shows, TV Detectives and Crime Dramas, Historical Drama, Family Comedies and Dramas, Sci-Fi Fantasy and Horror, Game Shows, Musical Programs, Documentary and Reality Shows, Action and Adventure.

The web site is called Uncle Earl’s Classic TV Channel. Give it a look.

Fourth of July with Popeye

Here is a classic cartoon I found through Uncle Earl’s web site. Its theme of fireworks safety is pertinent to current events.

Enjoy this Popeye cartoon now. Happy viewing of more classic TV in the future!

©2011

The Massachusetts Observer

Gunsmoke

2011-06-21T15:16:00.005-04:00

I’ve been spending a lot of time in Dodge City lately. You know some of the people there; Matt Dillon, Kitty Russell, Doc Adams, Chester Goode, Festus Haggen, and Sam, the bartender. It’s a place of rugged individualism and open spaces where a man can breathe. Problems arise, but none so complex that they can’t be settled one way or another in an hour. Minus commercials.

Yep, I’ve taken a breather from politics for a couple of months now. I’ve foregone lots of stuff I could have blogged about from predictions about the end of the world to the end of Anthony Weiner’s political career. We are still recovering from weather calamities and are in the grips of a local government that is also calamitous. Both are destructive.

The United States is still involved in seemingly endless wars (or “conflicts” or whatever euphemism Congress can use to shirk its responsibilities). So it’s been good to spend some hours immersed in tightly-controlled fictional plot. There is something satisfying about a beginning, a middle, and an end.

My “trip” to Dodge and Deputy Chester Goode reminded me of a movie from 1971 starring Dennis Weaver. This western-sounding film is called “Duel.” It’s no gunfight. But there is quite a duel.

I won’t give away the plot, but I will do something better. What follows is the entire movie. If you need a genre, call it a psychological thriller. Enjoy the exposition (setting the scene). Thrill to the rising action with all of its twists and turns. Appreciate the height of the action, the climactic moment. Experience the satisfying denouement.

You won’t regret the 2 hours it takes for this wonderful ride.

©2011 The Massachusetts Observer

Recipe for a Republican victory

2011-05-13T13:31:00.004-04:00

Well, the race for the 6th Worcester District representative is over. Republican Peter Durant beat incumbent Democrat Geraldo Alicea by 56 votes. Lots of superficial analysis is taking place, but the real reasons may lie in a recent study done by the Pew Research Center called “Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology.”

We have come to believe that people align themselves politically into three categories: Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. The Pew study challenges this simple classification, particularly regarding the so called moderate Independents. The political ideological divide in the United States, and indeed in the 6th Worcester District, is far more complicated. I believe this was evident in Tuesday’s election.

The Pew study lists 9 typologies: Staunch Conservatives, Main Street Republicans, Libertarians, Disaffecteds, Post-Moderns, New Coalition Democrats, Hard-Pressed Democrats, Solid Liberals, and Bystanders.

Two of these typologies are automatically bases for Republican candidates, and I am sure that was the case in the 6th District race. The Pew study gives several characteristics for these groups.

Staunch Conservatives:
What They Believe
•Extremely critical of the federal government
•Favor an assertive foreign policy
•Pro-business; against stricter environmental laws and regulations
•Strongly opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage
•Convinced the 2010 health care law will be bad for the country
•View immigrants as a threat to traditional American customs and values

Who They Are
•84% are Republicans
•72% agree with the Tea Party
•More than nine-in-ten are non-Hispanic white
•The oldest typology group (61% are age 50 and older)
•56% are male; most are married and financially comfortable
•57% own guns and 57% attend church every week
•54% regularly watch Fox News
•More watch Glenn Beck and listen to Rush Limbaugh than any other group

Main Street Republicans
What They Believe
•Highly critical of government
•Strongly opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage
•Less enamored of business than the Staunch Conservatives
•Generally negative about immigrants
•Mostly opposed to social welfare programs
•Confident that hard work pays off
•Supportive of government efforts to protect the environment

Who They Are
•76% are Republicans
•Most are homeowners (84%); 51% have a gun in the household
•Predominately non-Hispanic white (88%)
•Highly religious (91% say religion is a very important part of their lives)
•Concentrated in the South and Midwest
•Nearly one-quarter (24%) follow NASCAR racing
•Most say they have enough income to lead the life they want

These two groups are formidable, but they are not enough to secure a Republican victory. Fortunately for the Durant campaign there is another group among the Democrats, and undoubtedly they are present in the poorest town in the District, Southbridge. These are the Hard-Pressed Democrats.

Hard-Pressed Democrats
What They Believe
•Very cynical about government
•Critical of business
•Supportive of the social safety net
•View immigrants as an economic burden and a cultural threat
•Supportive of environmental protection, but concerned about its economic impact
•Pessimistic about their future finances
•Socially conservative and very religious

Who They Are
•84% are Democrats
•More than six-in-ten are female
•Largely blue collar; about two-thirds have no formal education beyond high school
•One of two groups with a sizeable concentration of African Americans (35%)
•Nearly half live in the South (48%), with many others in the Midwest (23%)
•More than four-in-ten describe their household as struggling
•61% regularly watch network evening news and 44% watch CNN
•23% follow NASCAR racing

The problem becomes how to reach this constituency without losing the Republican base. That can be done by emphasizing a commonality – something that binds these typologies together. And here it is.

Staunch Conservatives - View immigrants as a threat to traditional American customs and values
Main Street Republicans - Generally negative about immigrants
Hard-Pressed Democrats - View immigrants as an economic burden and a cultural threat

Enter the attack on Southbridge. The Durant camp raised the specter of the voting process in Southbridge. Southbridge could not be trusted to hold a fair election. Lots of people in the town can’t even speak English. Brown people might be voting two or three times. True, most of the brown people are not technically immigrants, but that is a minor technicality. With the help of the Tea Party affiliated Voter ID groups, a wink was given to those who hold racist views among the Staunch Conservatives, Main Street Republicans, and Hard-Pressed Democrats.

Unleashing and legitimizing the racist elements among these three groups may have been the tipping point to turn the election.

Or, maybe not.

The win was sure, and as long as the economy is bad and Republicans encourage people to turn on one another as the cause, it can work; but I have to ask – What price victory?

©2011
The Massachusetts Observer

Blogger mail

2011-05-08T08:55:00.006-04:00

As someone who has blogged for several years now, I have received my share of mail, both electronically and through the postal service. My views, decidedly liberal, have at times evoked negative responses from readers, and some have sought to have their dissatisfaction known to me.

Occasionally, someone will write a comment on my blog page taking me to task. By far, the comments, besides their angry tone, have one thing in common — they are anonymous. It’s amazing how free people feel to be critical when they do not have to take any personal responsibility for their words. Nevertheless, I do welcome anonymous comments. They reveal so much about the way people think about the issues of our time.

E-mails are another source of criticism. Some people take great pains to detail what is wrong with my thinking. Others are succinct: “Your a moron.” “You’re” is inevitably spelled wrong. Again, these are mostly anonymous, but I welcome them.

I have also had a number of pieces of mail taking issue with something I’ve written delivered to my home. These mailings almost always contain photocopied pages from right wing publications. The senders take pains to highlight sections that show the error of my ways. They are all anonymous, and all contain a suggestion that they cannot believe that I can be so ignorant as to not “get it.”

Recently, a different type of item arrived in my mailbox. This time it was a Christian tract titled “Vintage Jesus.” If you have never seen these, they are small evangelical pamphlets urging the recipient to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Does someone consider me a lost soul? Is it based on my writing?

This tract, unlike other mailings I have received, has a name attached, Dennis Spinney. After a Google search, I discovered that Mr. Spinney is the pastor of The Bible Fellowship Church in Quinebaug, Connecticut, just a few miles away from where I live in Massachusetts. While I was still online, I decided to check out the church’s web site.

The web site declares the church to be Bible believing. As is the case with all fundamentalist churches, the way to salvation is through acceptance of Jesus Christ. This church also believes that God has elected some to receive salvation. Others are consigned to eternal hell fire.

I discovered that if I accepted this church’s version of Jesus, I would then get 104 “Biblical Principles for Living.” Each of the 104 principles contains sub-principles, so there are far more than 104 ways to prove you are living a Christian life. If I drop the crippling laws of the Old Testament and accept the free gift of salvation of the New, I must spend the rest of my life proving myself saved by adopting a new set of laws. Somewhere I read that Jesus said that His yoke was easy and his burden was light. I wonder what that really means.

Now, I unequivocally believe that The Bible Fellowship Church in Quinebaug, Connecticut, and all other such churches have every right to believe what they wish to believe. I further believe that the tract was not sent to me by the pastor. Its Central Massachusetts postmark and its script suggest that a member grabbed a tract off a church table and sent it to me.

I am not naïve in the ways that some “Christians” operate. Take the prayer circle, for example. Jean calls Joan and tells her we must pray for Jane. Joan asks for the reason and Jean begins: “Didn’t you hear? Well …” And the gossip begins.

The same can be said when you send someone a Biblical tract. On the one hand, someone may be truly concerned about your soul. On the other hand, someone may delight in pointing out that you are destined for everlasting torment in the fires of hell. It’s a double edged sword.

I wonder which edge of the sword my tract-mailer had in mind for me.

©2011
The Massachusetts Observer

Who needs Republicans when Democrats will do?

2011-04-29T07:53:00.003-04:00

How do you explain the actions of the Democrats in the Massachusetts House of Representatives? In a state that many claim is a liberal bastion, why have Democrats suddenly started behaving like Republicans? Lots of people would like an answer.

In state after state across the country, the assault on labor, particularly those belonging to public sector unions, is being carried out methodically by Republican governors and legislatures. No stone is left unturned in an attempt to weaken if not kill unions. Collective bargaining, equal representation at the negotiating table, is a particular target. The unions represent public school teachers, police officers, and fire fighters. Traditionally, these unions have been the most major contributors to the Democrats. That explains why Republicans want to silence them.

In Massachusetts this week, a game-changer occurred. The attack on the public sector unions came, not from Republicans, though they concurred, but from Democrats who hold an overwhelming majority in the House. Massachusetts has a Democratic governor as well.

The vote to end collective bargaining on health care issues passed the Democratically-controlled Massachusetts House of Representatives 113 to 42. Twenty-nine of 31 House Republicans voted with the majority. The Bill next goes to the Democratically-controlled Senate and, if it passes, it gets sent to Democratic Governor Deval Patrick to be signed into law.

Why is this Bill needed? The explanation sounds very Wisconsin-like. The state is broke. Local cities and towns are broke. City and town managers need to cut costs to save jobs. There is another Wisconsin similarity as well. Just as public sector unions there stipulated the necessity of cutting costs, so too have unions agreed to the budgetary cuts needed in Massachusetts. Nevertheless, the Bill is still moving forward with the language to kill collective bargaining.

The search for a reason why Democrats in Massachusetts would turn against a major constituency continues. We know why Republicans in the red states with their Republican governors have gone after public sector unions. They are being backed financially by large corporations.

Public sector unions have been the major source of funding for Democratic campaigns. Corporate donors, no friends of unions, have been given through recent court decisions even greater power to infuse money into political campaigns. The corporate pockets are far deeper than any public sector unions, and they are parting with lots of cash.

Could it be that the majority of the Massachusetts Democratic legislators have sold themselves to the highest bidder? Time will tell.

©2011
The Massachusetts Observer

Progressive pundits aren't all alike

2011-04-20T03:01:00.009-04:00

If you are a progressive, a liberal if you will, you recognize that there is a paucity of progressive political pundits on the radio dial. On television, most people look to the MSNBC night-time line-up for a liberal perspective. They are not all “created equal.”

People who listen to conservative talk exercise little discernment. The message is so controlled that they all play exactly the same drumbeat over and over.

I have listened to quite a number of progressive political pundits, and I believe that they can be broadly divided into two categories, the water-carriers and the non-water carriers. I have no use for the former.

Here are the water-carriers. Among these are the left’s corporate lackeys and Democratic Party cheerleaders. I would not give any of them much if any of my time:

Randy Rhodes, Bill Press, Stephanie Miller, Chris Matthews, Lawrence O’Donnell, and Ed Schultz.

There are certain progressive talkers that I listen to often. These are the people who clearly could not sleep at night if they had to limit or shade their views to please corporations or the Democratic Party. I strongly recommend that you listen to them:

Rachel Maddow
Mike Malloy
Thom Hartmann and
Norman Goldman

Now, progressives, I realize that my list is far from exhaustive, and I further realize that you may disagree with my characterizations. If you have any suggestions for additions or changes to either list, speak up. Maybe we can end up with an outline for perfect progressive programming.

©2011
The Massachusetts Observer

That “lifetime” teaching certificate

2011-04-16T22:54:00.003-04:00

As far back as I can remember, I wanted to be a teacher. I still recall the day in 1975 when I received my teaching certificate from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. There was the card with my name and the declaration that I was a teacher. I was certified “for life.”

There are certain concessions one makes when working in the public sector. There are the “tradeoffs.” I would be making about $10,000 a year, not that much for the mid 1970s but not bad either. In exchange for making less money than I might in the private sector, I had good job security. With a lifetime certificate, the future was less uncertain, and complete devotion to a career could be realized. In 1976, I began what was to be 31 years as a public school teacher.

In 1993, Massachusetts began “reforming” education. I had been teaching for 17 years. I had kept up my studies as my contract demanded and had earned a Masters degree 10 years earlier by attending night classes and summer classes. In that year I was informed, along with all of my fellow teachers in Massachusetts, that our “lifetime” certificates had been revoked. Just like that. No, there would be no “grandfathering.” That guarantee you had been relying on was void. That “lifetime” certificate was worthless. If I wanted to continue to teach, I would have to recertify every five years or lose my teaching license.

Now, I belonged to all the necessary unions —the National Education Association, The Massachusetts Teachers’ Association, and my local teachers’ union — none of that supposed clout mattered. The lifetime teaching certificate was gone.

I fully realize that some people might think that the requirement for recertification every five years is a good thing, and I agree with that. But that’s missing the point. A simple vote of the legislature declared that any past promises they had made to me didn’t count any more.

As I watch the battles taking place in places like Wisconsin where teachers and unions are being vilified and rights earned through collective bargaining are being taken away, I have to wonder how secure I am in my retirement.

I do not qualify for Social Security. As a teacher, I was prohibited from participating in the program. I receive a pension which I paid in to significantly during my active teaching years. I will not qualify for Medicare. I am covered with health insurance with other retirees from my school system. I pay 50% of the premium.

How secure am I? Now that I am older I rely on my pension, and I rely on my health insurance. If the government should decide that they can no longer keep their pact with me, what really can stop them from passing legislation that voids any obligation they have to me?

Chances are pretty good that the state and local governments will not legislate away the deal that we struck so many years ago. At least I hope not. I’m betting my life on it.

©2011
The Massachusetts Observer

The Massachusetts Observer

I believe; help thou my unbelief

2011-04-14T02:10:00.003-04:00

There’s a Bible story concerning a man who sought healing for his child. Desperate, and aware that any doubt might prevent his son’s recovery, the man prayed for faith: “I believe; help thou my unbelief.” Perhaps the man was hoping against hope, but he was willing to take that chance.

I thought of that verse as I listened to President Obama’s speech on Wednesday at George Washington University. At long last the president was speaking the words many of us on the liberal side wanted to hear. I found myself in the Amen corner affirming the words of the President preacher.

“…there has always been another thread running throughout our history – a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves.”

“Amen! I believe; help thou my unbelief.”

"Part of this American belief that we are all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff, may strike any one of us. 'There but for the grace of God go I,' we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities. We are a better country because of these commitments. I'll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments.”

“Amen! I believe; help thou my unbelief.”

Think about it. In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working Americans actually declined. The top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. And that's who needs to pay less taxes? They want to give people like me a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that's paid for by asking thirty three seniors to each pay six thousand dollars more in health costs? That's not right, and it's not going to happen as long as I'm President.

“Amen! I believe; help thou my unbelief.”

The America I know is generous and compassionate; a land of opportunity and optimism. We take responsibility for ourselves and each other; for the country we want and the future we share. We are the nation that built a railroad across a continent and brought light to communities shrouded in darkness. We sent a generation to college on the GI bill and saved millions of seniors from poverty with Social Security and Medicare. We have led the world in scientific research and technological breakthroughs that have transformed millions of lives.

“Amen! I believe; help thou my unbelief.”

But let me be absolutely clear: I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations. That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security.

“Amen! I believe; help thou my unbelief.”

I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again.

“Amen! I believe; help thou my unbelief.”

Well, Mr. President, you have clearly contrasted two views of America, and you have promises to keep. Unfortunately, we have heard promises before and have seen you break these promises. Will your actions match your words, or will your promises fade into compromises?

“I believe; help thou my unbelief.”

©2011
The Massachusetts Observer

Backroom budget talks

2011-04-10T15:19:00.004-04:00

For Your Eyes Only

Gentlemen, thank you for joining me here today. For obvious reasons, I must ask that no notes of any kind be taken during our discussions. Recording devices of any kind are prohibited. Before you leave, you will pass through a scanner to ascertain that you have complied with our requests. Cell phones, of course, were to have been left outside this boardroom. Any questions before we begin? Good.

Now, Gentlemen, we know the problem. Our laboring class only has a certain number of productive years. Beyond that, they become a burden. As we plan for the future, we must capitalize on labor’s productive years while reducing each laborer’s longevity. Only then can we realize the maximum profits our shareholders demand.

Fortunately, we have greatly improved the landscape with our Tea Party promotions. This was a brilliant idea. Through strategic financing we have created what appears to be a grass roots movement from among the laboring class itself. There has been some minor vocal opposition, but this can be handled. Our advertizing folks tell us that just a bit of tweaking will make the Tea Partiers emerge as the voices of reason, the voices of morality, the voices of fiscal restraint, and the voices of patriotism. This is perfect.

It is therefore imperative, Gentlemen, that every proposal have those four elements. Each proposal must be seen as being reasonable, moral, fiscally responsible, and patriotic. And from our point of view, Gentlemen, each proposal must raise labor’s productivity while reducing labor’s longevity. When Wall Street teams up with Madison Avenue, nothing is impossible.

Here’s an example. Think tobacco. Think smoking. We need to reverse our policies here. We know, Gentlemen, that cigarette smoking can reduce the lifespan of the participant; yet public money is spent trying to get people to quit smoking. This works at cross-purposes with our goal, Gentlemen. The good news is that we can reverse this.

First, we must drop all taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products. This will be seen as a victory for freedom. Then we must subsidize our tobacco industry so that buying a pack of cigarettes will be possible for even the poorest laborer. We must eliminate any age restriction on its purchase and use. And, Gentlemen, we must repeal restrictions on where the product may be used. It must be welcomed in restaurants and bars and clubs. Faculty rooms, break rooms. Anywhere people gather. Now some of you Gentlemen may be objecting that you might be subject to this second-hand smoke. Think about it for a moment, Gentlemen. You aren’t going to be going to those places and the places that you do frequent are out of labor’s price range.

We must allow for free enterprise by removing all restrictions on advertising cigarettes. Smoking must be “sold” in a variety of ways. It’s fun. It’s sexy. It’s macho. It’s for the modern woman. Above all, it is patriotic. Americans will be supporting an American industry.

People who are anti-smoking are anti-American. No public funds may be expended to determine health effects because we have already settled the case. Smoking is American. It’s cheap. It’s a way to help your country while helping yourself.

Don’t you see, Gentlemen, how perfect this is? When we couple this with no access to real health care, we can’t lose. (note: We need to allow free access to euthanasia. We must sell this option as “patriotic” and as a “family value.” “Lingering on robs your kids”).

This is only one example of so much more we can do, Gentlemen. I hope you great thinkers will get things rolling. The time to strike is now. Here’s a toast, Gentlemen. Long live our class.

Dirty little secrets in Massachusetts public schools

2011-04-01T06:32:00.003-04:00

If you believe the leaders and former leaders at the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, you may have also believed Captain Louis Renault in the movie “Casablanca” who was “shocked, shocked” that gambling was taking place in the back room of Rick's Café Américain. The gambling at Rick’s was as known to the citizens of Casablanca as the abuse of the waiver process is known to those who spend time in our state’s public schools. The “wink wink” waiver process is not news.

The issue has made headlines in the past, making a splash that reduces to a ripple as attention turns elsewhere. Right now, this issue is alive again as a recent article in The Worcester Telegram and Gazette shows. The headline reads “Waivers on autopilot: Computer allows unlicensed officials to work.” See the article in the T&G. The article concerns a lawsuit filed by Paul C. Nordberg against the “Massachusetts Department of Education, Commonwealth of Massachusetts and David P. Driscoll, commissioner.” Lower courts have not dismissed the case which is now pending in Superior Court.

Mr. Nordberg’s experience with Superintendents of Schools
Paul C. Nordberg followed the rules. Wanting to become a school business administrator, he completed the required course work and earned his Massachusetts license. When he sought to practice under that license, he came face-to-face with the world of nepotism, cronyism, and favoritism, all made possible by the state’s auto-pilot waiver process.

Massachusetts schools bending the rules

In relating his experiences, Mr. Nordberg names several school systems where he was overlooked in favor of unlicensed or unqualified candidates. Among these school systems are Bay Path Regional Vocational Technical High School in Charlton, the Tantasqua Regional School District, the Sutton public schools, the Northboro-Southboro Regional School District, the Uxbridge public schools, and the Berlin-Boylston School District. Despite the specific instructions that “Under the ELAR [automated] system, a superintendent submits a request that certifies a hardship would exist for the district if the unlicensed applicant were not hired, that a good-faith effort was made to find a licensed candidate and the district was ‘unable to find them,’” several superintendents of schools applied for waivers as if Mr. Nordberg did not even exist. So he’s suing. Good for him.

A secret? I have been writing about this for two years.
In September 2010, I wrote to Southbridge Superintendent of Schools Eric Ely requesting that names of any school personnel who were working under a waiver and/or critical shortage waiver. Mr. Ely supplied a list of 10 names that fit that category.

But there’s more. Much more. And I have previously pointed this out. You can read about that here: More hiring abuse in local public schools

Hold the superintendents responsible
Mr. Nordberg wants the state to eliminate the automated waiver-granting system used by the state’s Department of Education. That’s good, but it’s not enough. Each waiver granted, automated or not, represents a superintendent of schools personally certifying that he or she has followed the rules. Obviously in far too many cases they have not. The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education should immediately request the documentation from any school superintendents who have requested a waiver for the past five years or so. If that documentation is not forthcoming, there must be punitive action. There must be some penalty for such blatant misrepresentation. Lying is not okay.

Just what is Facebook for anyway?

2011-03-30T08:32:00.004-04:00

Having spent some time on Facebook, I think it’s reasonable to ask the question: What is its purpose? This is not an easy question, and it surely evokes a number of responses.

Recently I was involved in an exchange that became a bit nettlesome, annoying both to myself and another person involved. I had made a comment based on someone’s status update, and this person reacted, critical of my posting. That, to me, is an invitation to a discussion. Not argument. Discussion. That was not the intent, however. It was an interjection on the third person’s part meant to go unchallenged. My response caused annoyance.

I was informed that Facebook discussions were basically BS, and that Facebook is a diversion from real life, serious life. And I believe that this view is a prominent one. Facebook as a place for any serious discussion is rejected by most who use it, it seems. More’s the pity.

But what do we make of this posting by a Facebook friend? Facebook starts to suck right after you check all your updates and messages and friend requests. Unless your friends have something cool posted on the news feed it really is just a [expletive] website. Is this a wish for more substance?

And what about those status updates? Why are they made in the first place? Is there an expectation that someone will read them? Is there an expectation that someone will respond? Or is it something that you are meant to read and then tacitly affirm?

Some status updates are clearly meant to be funny, and they often result in good-natured dialog. I often get involved in this type of exchange. Trading witticisms, even when they can get a bit bawdy, is fun.

Other status updates involve songs. Some involve quotes. Status updates can reveal a temporary state of mind, i.e., happy, sad, angry, frustrated, etc. Do people expect any response to these? If a “friend” posts something, is it wrong to respond with an empathetic comment? Or do we just uncaringly “pass by?” Is it okay to respond when someone posts a favorite song? If someone posts a quote that you either agree with or disagree with what’s the Facebook protocol? Only respond if you agree?

I understand the view that Facebook is a distraction, both in the negative and positive senses of the term. If that is the end-all, however, then Facebook is virtually worthless. Unless it has more potential, why bother?

Facebook is a gathering of people who choose to be together as a group. For what purpose? To what end? Are these people all meant to be carbon copies of one another? Or is it enough that they care about one another?

In many ways, Facebook is like a classroom of students with the teacher out of the room. This is a good thing. We have the bold, the shy, the class clowns; we have the serious, the silly, the rebels; They are unrestrained, and at one time or another any of us may belong to any of these categories.

If, however, we reject the Facebook potential as a meeting ground for an exchange of ideas, we have severely restricted its potential as a place of free speech in an open society. If we discourage this type of discussion here, do we encourage it anywhere else?

One final thought: In most not-so-futuristic dystopian novels such as Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, Huxley’s Brave New World, or Orwell’s 1984, the totalitarian regimes recognize the advantage of providing diversions for the population. Thinking is not encouraged. Those who attempt something as dangerous as free thought are dealt with by the state.

In an increasingly controlled society, Facebook can also be a tool to weed out malcontents. If we begin to believe that Facebook is just a diversion, if we accept that Big Brother might be watching, if we reject any serious discourse, then we have not had our rights taken from us. We have given them away.

©2011
The Massachusetts Observer

Fear and race: two of the most powerful cards in the deck

2011-03-29T17:33:00.003-04:00

If you want to win the game, play the fear card or the race card. If you can play both cards, you can’t lose. Others will concede the victory.

Those who are attuned to politics on the national scene can’t miss the exploitation of fear and race. Those who would resort to such measures hit the jackpot when the country elected an African American as President of the United States. Those who are in a position to command the attention of the American people constantly use fear and race as stumbling blocks to progress.

It is not a current propaganda agenda, however, that is my motivation for writing about this topic. It is an article that appeared Saturday, July 24, 2010, on the telegram.com web site. Titled VA easing rules for medical marijuana users, it states that “The Department of Veterans Affairs will formally allow patients treated at its hospitals and clinics to use medical marijuana in states where it is legal…”

How did it become illegal? The campaign against marijuana exploited fear and race even as it purported to be purely altruistic.

To understand how marijuana became demonized, we must be familiar with the names William Randolph Hearst, famed newspaper publisher and the DuPont family, owners of DuPont Chemicals.

Hearst and DuPont started the fear campaign in the mid to late 1930s. The claim was made that marijuana had severe effects on the user and that the youth of America were being exploited by sellers of marijuana. It was pointed out that jazz musicians (who were mostly African-American) used marijuana heavily. The Mexicans, they claimed, were enabling the marijuana trade.

Politicians who were favorites of big business, got into the game with such quotes as

*“When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff… he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies.”

*“All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy.”

*“Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men’s shadows and look at a white woman twice.”

The constant barrage along with the making of a drug exploitation film in 1936, “Reefer Madness,” led the United States Congress to pass the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 leading to the criminalization of marijuana.

It turns out, though, that saving the public from the horrible weed was not the real purpose of this anti-marijuana crusade. No, it was business, money, and greed.

The cannabis plant is also the source of industrial strength hemp, a very useful raw material that has multiple uses among which is the making of paper and plastics. William Randolph Hearst had significant financial interests in the timber industry, and in 1938, DuPont patented the processes for creating plastics from coal and oil and a new process for creating paper from wood pulp.

Thus Hearst, DuPont, and their friends in government created a fear of marijuana in order to carry out their real motive: to crush the hemp industry, their competition. That it was an effective campaign is clear. Hemp and marijuana carry the same manufactured stigma today.

***
When Hearst and DuPont decided to carry out their fear campaign against marijuana, jazz musicians unwittingly aided them. The subject of marijuana was often the topic of a song. The following video, which I produced, presents a typical song of an earlier time.

The Massachusetts Observer

©2010, 2011

I prevented Geraldo Alicea’s re-election

2011-03-24T10:48:00.003-04:00

I’m quite a powerful guy. I have the ability to decide elections. If I sound like a hot-air gas bag, overly imbued with feelings of self-importance, keep in mind that I can prove my claim. See, at the last election for state representative for the 6th Worcester District, I declared my own independence. I did not vote.

The race ended in a tie. No one won. No one lost. But Alicea’s political career is on hold. I did that.

If I had voted, I would have marked my ballot for Representative Alicea. My vote would have prevented a tie. My decision not to vote prevented Geraldo Alicea’s re-election. That’s the bad news.

I could go into a long explanation regarding my decision to sit out the last election. My total disgust with national politics, and, perhaps to a somewhat lesser extent my disgust with town politics, have been the subjects of previous blog entries. I stand by those, and my skepticism has only increased.

But this is different. The state representative is the person who speaks directly for me. He listens to my concerns and fights through that crazy Boston political maze to make sure my voice is heard. And there is no one who works harder at doing just that than Geraldo Alicea. I know that, and I’m sure you do too.

Here’s the good news. It is not often in life that we get a re-do for a mistake we have made. This time we do. I can redeem myself. Those of you who see yourself in my story, those who also neglected to vote for Geraldo Alicea the first time around, have another opportunity.

Our first step in our redemption is to vote in the Primary on Tuesday, April 12th 2011. Mr. Alicea has a challenger from the Democratic Party, Joanne Powell of Charlton. I will not attempt to characterize Ms Powell. I don’t know much about her. I do know this, however. When a member of a party challenges an incumbent of her own party, there should be a compelling reason. I see no evidence of that. (On a side note: This may be a bit petty on my part, but Ms Powell’s political literature which I received in the mail contains this sentence: “The Democrat primary is open to Democrat and Unenrolled voters.” The ungrammatical use of the word “Democrat” in place of the word “Democratic” where appropriate is a deliberate tactic employed by the Republican Party to try to convince people that “Democratic” is not the opposite of “Republican.” Ms Powell should be aware of this nuance).

After Mr. Alicea wins the Democratic Primary, there is one more step for us to take. We must go to the polls and cast our ballots for Geraldo Alicea on Election Day, May 10th 2011. Mr. Alicea will be facing 3 challengers in the election, one Republican and two who are running as independents. Even though this number of names on the ballot should favor Geraldo Alicea, I’m not taking any chances. I am going to vote.

I am going to take advantage of this re-do opportunity, and this time I am going to do the right thing and support Geraldo Alicea. How about you?

©2011
The Massachusetts Observer
****
Read more about Geraldo Alicea at his web site: Elect Geraldo Alicea

A one-man think tank

2011-03-20T18:22:00.003-04:00

Whenever things start hopping, we hear from the so-called “think tanks.” These are assemblages of people from the left or the right who frame the news for us. They are the self-recognized experts, the intellectual giants. They have greater power to think things through than the rest of us hoi polloi.

Well, I say, “Nonsense.” I can also declare myself a one-man think tank, and, since this is my blog, I can be equally authoritative as I express my own view of current events. To wit:

The Deity of the United States is as it has always been purported to be a Master whose name consists of 3 letters. No, not G-o-d, but O-i-l. Corporate America, which is to say the United States Government, serves Oil, and as such, assures that all of its subjects do the same. The Corporatocracy will do anything it needs to bring the people in line. The Government will turn on its own people, perhaps not as overtly as some Libyan dictator, but in many ways just as viciously.

The greatest way in which the American Corporatocracy exercises its power is through the control of the media. All major U. S. media outlets are corporate -owned. As such, they can control the news cycles. They can and do determine which stories get “top billing.” Let’s just look at a recent example.

Not long ago, the Republican Governor of Wisconsin was at the top of the news cycle. Why? Because he was taking on the public Unions – teachers, police, firefighters, etc. These are the greatest foes of Corporate America. Many of the media outlets were working around the clock to villanize the public sector. They were able to portray the union members as lazy, selfish, leeches, who only take from the public dole.

A few things began to go awry. Governor Scott Walker was recorded in a telephone conversation with an imposter who portrayed himself as a well-known corporatist. Walker showed himself to be in the pocket of and a stooge for corporate America. Additionally, lots of people in Wisconsin and around the nation began to balk at the tactics of the Governor. It was shown that corporate muscle was also being flexed against the populace in several other states. Something would have to be done to get the people’s minds off of this. This time fate dealt Corporate America a lucky hand.

An earthquake and a subsequent tsunami in Japan was just what the U. S. C. A. (United States of Corporate America) needed to get people’s focus away from Wisconsin. Madison was swapped for Tokyo instantaneously. But then trouble came. Some would believe that the trouble came with the earthquake and the tsunami, but a corporatocracy doesn’t see it that way. A corporatocracy is unconcerned with the loss of human life unless it can be exploited for other goals.

All was well for a while until reports started coming in about the nuclear power plants. They were failing. A disaster was in the making. The power plants were of an American design. The United States has several plants of the same vintage and construction. People started talking about the dangers of nuclear energy. This was the Japanese disaster for the corporatists. The focus had to be drawn away from Japan and the discussion of nuclear power. Nature was not being cooperative.

Libya would be the distraction. The madman in charge was in a war against those who would depose him. Corporate America could insert itself into that struggle diverting the attention of the world away from Japan.

The Corporatocracy is seen as a friend of Libyan freedom fighters even as it drops the bombs on Libyan soil. Not coincidentally, Libya is an oil-rich nation. He who controls the country controls the oil fields. Not a bad deal.

Corporatists know what we don’t know: You can serve God (OIL) and mammon (money).

©2011
The Massachusetts Observer

Goodbye, my Son

2011-03-16T11:54:00.004-04:00

This is the story as I imagine it to be.

It was a day that fervent prayer could not prevent. With the current state of affairs, with the turmoil and turbulence of war, all young men were being called to fight. Her boy, her own son, would have to answer. “War and hell,” she thought, “must be kin.”

She had spent the entire night lost in memory. She recalled all of the boyish scrapes and bruises; the skinned knees. She remembered the time when she almost lost him to a sickness that seemed fatal. She would not give up. She sat by his bedside, refusing to let him go. She placed the cool cloth upon his fevered brow. She sang him soothing songs, happy songs, hopeful songs. He made it through. He had more growing to do, more life to celebrate.

She remembered the times he would come to her in tears, heart-broken over some youthful disappointment. She recalled a black eye or two and his insistence that she “should have seen the other guy.” This young man, this beautiful spirit, was her boy. And they were calling him away to God knows where to face God knows what. “It just isn’t fair,” she thought. “They can’t have my boy.” But then the night was through.

The day arrived as she knew it must. She had kept a secret from her son. Danny did not know that she was dying. He did not know that this parting could very likely be the last they would ever see one another in this world; he did not know that her heart ached as she tried to believe all that her faith had assured her — that one day heaven would bring loved ones back together. She had to believe that.

She knew that she must keep up a brave front. In the early morning hours she put pen to paper as her son, her Danny boy, slept.

Oh, Danny boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling
From glen to glen, and down the mountainside.
The summer's gone, and all the roses falling.
It’s you, it’s you must go and I must bide.
But come ye back when summer's in the meadow
Or when the valley's hushed and white with snow.
It’s I'll be here, in sunshine or in shadow,
Oh, Danny boy, oh, Danny boy, I love you so.

But when ye come, and all the flow’rs are dying.
If I am dead, as dead I well may be,
Ye'll come and find the place where I am lying
And kneel and say an "Ave" there for me.
And I shall hear, tho' soft you tread above me,
And, all my grave will warmer, sweeter be,
For you will bend and tell me that you love me,
And I shall sleep in peace until you come to me.

©2011
The Massachusetts Observer

They were right about Obama

2011-03-11T10:21:00.015-05:00

Well, we can’t say we weren’t warned. They told us if we elected Barack Obama we would see an immense redistribution of wealth, and we are. The wealth of a nation is being transferred to what George W. Bush once called his base: “the haves and the have mores.”

Of course, the warning could also have applied to John McCain or to anyone who ascended to the role of President of the United States. This redistribution of wealth has been going on for a very long time. Who occupies the White House is irrelevant. The die was cast long ago. Exactly when this inevitability was made certain is open to interpretation.

Personally, I believe it started with the Reagan Administration. The “Great Communicator” had this to say about government: "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."

This kind of talk won him the election with a great deal of help from that era’s incarnation of the Tea Partiers, the Reagan Democrats.

I believe that Ronald Reagan was not the evil man that some try to make him out to be. I do believe, though, that he was a tool of the rich and powerful elite. He was, at long last, their anti-Roosevelt. His Presidency began the dismantling of the New Deal.

Anti-government and anti-public unionism go hand in hand, and these two converged neatly in Ronald Reagan’s firing of over 11,000 striking air traffic controllers in 1981 during the first year of his Presidency. Anti-unionism goes back much farther than the Reagan Administration, at least to the anti-union laws following World War 2. Reagan used the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 as his authority.

No one believed that a President would fire such a large number of people, and when he did, he secured his place among the government-haters, the Reagan Democrats, and the anti-unionists. Hidden among these groups was a minority that held more power than all the others combined: the rich and powerful elite who saw and still see themselves as the legitimate ruling class.

The Presidential elections ever since have been controlled by this covert but powerful few. There have been a couple of mistakes along the way, but nothing that could not be fixed.

George H. W. Bush was the natural successor to Ronald Reagan. He had everything needed to serve the wealthy corporatists, but he slipped up. Despite his call to read his lips — “No new taxes” — he raised them, and he was gone after one term.

Bill Clinton was perfect for the corporate elite. He could make it clear that he could feel your pain and hide the fact that he was helping to cause it. He was not wealthy, so the rich found him to be both buyable and pliable. He was granted 8 years.

With George W. Bush, the rich and powerful nearly made a mistake. They underestimated Democratic candidate Al Gore. Gore had been the vice-President and a United States Senator. He grew up as the son of a U. S. Senator. He was neither naïve nor poor. They couldn’t buy him. They couldn’t ply him. When it came down to a decision in only one place, the state of Florida, the rich and powerful nearly had to blow their cover when they elicited the aid of The United States Supreme Court to get their man into the Oval Office.

George W. Bush proved to be the perfect stooge for his “base,” “the haves and the have mores.” He was granted 8 years.

Barack Obama has the same qualities that Bill Clinton brought to the White House. As long as he stays the course he has been on, the rich and powerful will keep him. He will be a two-term President.

On Wisconsin

We do not have to look to the past to see political gamesmanship. It is present in Wisconsin and in several other Republican-governed states today. These newly elected governors are seeking their “Reagan moment.” They are taking on the public unions. They want to strip them of any power they have. Make no mistake. The politically ambitious like Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker would like nothing more than a strike among the public unions. He will fire them to the outward cheers of the hopelessly duped and the inward cheers of the rich and powerful corporate elite.

Governor Scott Walker and other devoted minions of the moneyed elite may succeed in delivering a final blow to public unions. When this happens, the mask will come off. The elite class will continue in their ascent to their perceived rightful place. The public treasury will be seen as rightfully theirs. They will rule as they see fit.

I do hope they remember to thank all of the little people who helped them along the way.

©2011

The Massachusetts Observer

Let me try again

2011-03-07T10:28:00.004-05:00

Here is a topic I have addressed before, but, as a former teacher, I reluctantly have to admit I have failed to make the point I have been trying to get across. Let me try again with a simple test question about classifying.

1. To which of the following groups does the word hemp belong?
a. marijuana, cocaine, heroine
b. cotton, flax, jute

I have been trying to get people to understand that b is the correct answer, but many people insist that the answer is a. The difficulty is in trying to combat decades of propaganda that have been successful in convincing people that hemp is drug-related as opposed to what it actually is, a textile plant.

A leap of faith

Here is where I ask you, the reader, to suspend all your prior understanding about hemp as a drug-related term and think of it as a raw material, a plant such as cotton, for example, that can be used in the manufacture of goods to be sold.

A Vision for the Eye of the Commonwealth: a capitalist solution for the economy of Southbridge

Just as eyeglasses and the development of the optical industry provided a healthy economy for the citizens of Southbridge in previous generations, hemp can be the impetus for a new generation of economic growth. Southbridge has everything that is needed to begin this fledgling industry. But I’m getting ahead of myself perhaps. You may be asking, “What’s so good about hemp? What can be done with it?” These are excellent questions.

Let me start with a spectacular example from a well-known capitalist, Henry Ford.

Yes! Henry Ford developed an automobile made primarily from hemp in 1941. Additionally, he developed hemp-based fuel to run it.

Here are just some of the uses for hemp: It can fuel our vehicles with no effect on the environment. It can be used for clothing, in foods (including healthy recipes), in medicines, in cosmetics, in building materials; in short, it is one of the most versatile of plants. It far exceeds the utility and eco-friendliness of its greatest rival— petroleum-based products.

Many uses for industrial strength hemp

That brings us to the reason why hemp is restricted in the United States. Political influence has succeeded in placing hemp on the list of controlled substances in the United States. Bi-partisan attempts have been made to remove it from this list, most recently by Ron Paul (R-TX) and Barney Frank (D-MA). Here is their Dear Colleague letter:

Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009

Special interests have kept the Bill from advancing.

Do we have the vision?

If we have the vision and the leadership, Southbridge could embark upon a prosperous future. We have everything we need – except organization. Surely there are some capitalists out there with vision. Look what one kid did with Facebook!

We need entrepreneurs to “catch the dream.” We need lawyers to guide us through the process. We need people with business acumen. We need farmers, tool makers, merchants, machinists, laborers, salespersons, shop owners, etc.

Southbridge has farmland. Southbridge has people with business know-how. We have lawyers. We have other resources. We have a business college just down the road (Nichols). We have Quinsigamond Community College soon to be followed by Westfield State University. We have idle factory space. We have a Main Street with real estate available. We have a willing and able workforce. C’mon, Southbridge, it’s time to think out of the box.

Where do we start? It starts with a conversation. What do you say?

©2011
The Massachusetts Observer

Where is the Southbridge News?

2011-03-04T07:45:00.004-05:00

I go back a long way with my hometown newspaper, The Southbridge Evening News. When I was growing up, it was always present in my home. When I was 10 years old, I “inherited” my paper route from my brother, and I delivered the newspaper for several years thereafter. At one time I wrote a weekly column for The Southbridge Evening News, and I still subscribe to the online edition. With all that, I still have to ask, “Where is the Southbridge News?”

I can’t imagine anything more misnamed than The Southbridge Evening News. Oh, yes, it is printed in Southbridge. More about that later. But evening? Unless you get a night delivery from the U. S. Postal Service, there is nothing evening about the newspaper, and if you are seeking to buy the paper from a vending machine or a newsstand, you can usually find it around mid-morning at the latest. The online edition is available quite early in the day as well.

The news part of The Southbridge Evening News is also a misnomer, at least in any traditional sense. By the time the paper arrives, most of the “news” is not at all new.

So it is not unreasonable to wonder why it is fiscally prudent to subscribe to the newspaper at all. The paper itself attempts to answer the question:

Why read the Southbridge Evening News? Quite simply because you won’t find a bigger concentration of local news — your news — anywhere else. Period. If it matters to you, you’re going to find it here. The News. Your news. Every day!

Well, that certainly sounds good. But is it true?

First, let’s consider the parent company of The Southbridge Evening News, Stonebridge Press. The company produces, aside from the 5-days-a-week Southbridge newspaper, 12 weekly newspapers. The weekly newspapers are free of charge and are available through the mail and in many community locations. The only newspaper for which a subscription is charged is The Southbridge Evening News. Is it worth it?

Recently I looked at a week’s worth of The Southbridge Evening News, from Monday, February 21, 2011 through Friday, February 25, 2011. During the entire week, there were 9 front-page stories about the town of Southbridge. Not all of the 9 were exclusively about Southbridge, but at least Southbridge was part of the story.

The opinion pages for the week of February 21 through 25 had only one writer from Southbridge, Mark Ashton. Most other writers are those who appear in the Putnam Villager weekly or some of the other free weekly publications. On two days, there was an editorial cartoon by Southbridge artist Marketti. In that same spot on the other three days, there was a courtesy picture of a dumpster fire at Rosemeade Apartments in Southbridge and two pictures from Thompson, Connecticut, one of a dog in the snow and one of kids making snow angels.

In the editorial spot, Monday had a standard appeal soliciting contributions from readers, Tuesday had a financial column, Wednesday had an editorial about Sen. Scott Brown’s courage, Thursday had a guest column by state Senator Richard T. Moore, and Friday contained an editorial about Sturbridge schools.

Virtually all of the material used to make up the subscription-paid Southbridge Evening News is available for free in the other Stonebridge Press publications. Content not included in The Southbridge Evening News is also available for free.

Southbridge, with its ethnically diverse population of around 17,500, is by far the largest town in the area, yet the Southbridge Evening News devotes the least amount of space to news about Southbridge.

Unless someone can show me otherwise, and I sincerely hope you can, one must conclude that the only thing the subscription rate for The Southbridge Evening News does is subsidize the free newspapers for all the other towns served by Stonebridge Press. And why should we be doing that?

©2011
The Massachusetts Observer

To be a teacher

2011-02-25T06:12:00.004-05:00

When I retired from teaching, I discovered blogging. To me, blogging is a way of stating my view on many topics, and I have covered quite a number of different subjects over the years. One subject that I write a great deal about is politics. My stance is decidedly liberal. I do not claim to be in the middle, and I do not see all viewpoints as equally valid. I have, however, always welcomed participation from those with whom I don’t agree, and I have been persuaded to change my stand when a cogent and well-referenced counterargument is offered. I try to base my opinions on facts that can be checked, and that is the type of opposing argument that I greatly respect.

From the start, I decided to blog using my real name. In my profile, I have always included the fact that I was a public school teacher for 31 years. I am proud of my teaching career and, though I have had my critics, I always gave it my all. Any true teacher knows beyond the shadow of a doubt that he or she is engaged in something beyond a profession. It is no less than an altruistic calling to serve others. True teachers must teach. To be sure not everyone in the profession has been “called” to be there, and some should not be. But that’s for other columns.

Here is something that may surprise people. I have known teachers who avoid telling others what they do for a living. It’s not so surprising when you find out why. The acrimonious epithets that some people freely hurl toward teachers are all too well known: “Those who can’t do, teach.” Teachers only work 6 hours a day. Teachers have all those snow days. Teachers have all those vacations. Teachers are lazy. Teachers get paid too much. Lousy teachers fill the classrooms. Schools are failing because teachers are incompetent. Teachers have “cushy” jobs. It goes on and on.

Until recently, any negative comments I have received on my blog have been confined to my ideas. Since the demonstrations by the public sector unions in Madison, Wisconsin, which include teachers’ unions, I have been attacked not only for my views, but also for my teaching career. Here is a good example:

Anonymous said...
BRENT, YOU ARE A POSTER CHILD FOR THE WOES THAT THE LIBERAL ELITE HAVE BROUGHT UPON THIS ONCE FINE COUNTRY. TO THINK YOU WERE ALLOWED TO MOLD THE MINDS OF OUR YOUTH TRULY SICKENS ME. YOUR MY WAY OUR NO WAY SIMPLETON LOGIC IS AMAZING. WITH ONE FOOT IN THE GRAVE ID ASSUME YOUD HAVE LEARNED A BIT OF HUMILITY BY NOW. HEY BRENT BOY, HOW ABOUT A SIMPLE DARE, WHY NOT SCAN A COPY OF YOUR PENSION CHECK AND LET THE TAXPAYERS SNEAK A PEEK AT WHAT KIND OF A DEAL YOU RODE OFF WITH. YOU POMPOUS BAG OF LIBERAL DREDGE, YOU WOULD NEVER HAVE THE GUTS. THANK GOD YOU ARE A HAS BEEN.

This could be dismissed as a fluke had not similar remarks been made towards me in the comment section of the Worcester Telegram:

* your bizarre view of the future of this country makes me glad you are not still teaching our youth.

* It's sad that he is actually willing to post his name and even more sad that he was once a teacher.

* to Brent and the others who seem to regard these jobs in the same light as sweatshops, mills and mines. For somebody who was supposed to be a teacher his apparent ignorance is alarming, but it would account for the pervasive ignorance we find among the masses who have been moulded by the educational system.

There are many more examples, but you get the picture. It’s open season on teachers.

I could avoid this, of course, by simply removing from my blog the fact that I was a teacher, but I will not do that. One thing that has kept me going are the supportive comments from others, most recently from “A Friend,” “A Reader,” and “Maple Leaf.”

“A Reader,” along with a much-appreciated comment, included a link to a video that just made my day. I am happy to pass it along here. May it encourage other teachers, and may it serve as a reminder to those who wonder just what teachers do to earn their pay.

©2011
The Massachusetts Observer

What real Democratic Presidential Leadership looks like

2011-02-20T17:16:00.004-05:00

I will make this short, hoping that you will agree to spend some time listening to someone else. I have spent the day battling the union-bashers and historical revisionists. Among those commenting about the present demonstrations by the union in Madison, Wisconsin, and spreading elsewhere, are people who are attempting to put words into the mouth of one of the Democratic heroes of the 20th century, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Fortunately we don’t have to guess about FDR because so many of his speeches were taped. Before a crowd at Madison Square Garden in 1936, Franklin Roosevelt, a candidate for re-election to the Presidency of the United States delivered a speech that defined the moment in time. It is so much like our present time it is eerie.

Listen to the words of FDR, Democrats. Listen to the words of FDR, all Americans. Listen to the words of FDR, President Barack Obama.

©2011

The Massachusetts Observer

At Tantasqua, it’s summer reading in February

2011-02-18T14:52:00.002-05:00

An article in the February 17, 2011, edition of The Southbridge Evening News by news staff writer Kevin Flanders caught my eye. A report of the latest meeting of the Tantasqua Regional School Committee had this bit of information:

After the approval of the budget, members of the committee discussed several aspects of Tantasqua Regional High School’s summer reading program, including book selection and methods of assessment.

Some members of the committee felt that books should be chosen by teachers at the high school who develop the curriculum, while others argued that members of the TRS Committee should ultimately be responsible for selecting summer reading books. Moreover, there was additional discussion about whether summer reading should be a school-wide event, or if individual grades should read different books.

“Oh, yeah,” I thought with my most sarcastic-sounding inner voice. “There’s a good idea.” I mean, it’s worked so well in the past, you know. I don’t know who on the Committee wanted to select the books for summer reading, but I can guess. The suggestion most likely came from people who believe that everything taught in the school must reflect their world view. The conservative Christians want only their values expressed; the neo-con Republicans insist on their narrow perspective. And they all argue that they are saving young minds from being corrupted. May I say with all the respect that is due these people — “Bull!” You want control over what other people are allowed to think. People of your ilk are represented on every school committee; usually you are in a fringe minority, and your demands are quickly dismissed by the higher IQs on the Committees. I trust that the Tantasqua Committee will act appropriately.

Not long ago, I mentioned my own experience with a book that I used in my classroom at a local junior high school. A principal was concerned with some of the language in the novel “West Side Story.” As the discussion progressed, I mentioned that “Romeo and Juliet,” which was also taught at the same grade level, had far more “earthy” things in it than “West Side Story.” The principal responded that with “Romeo and Juliet” students don’t understand what’s being said, so it’s okay! Incredible!

When someone responding to whether or not the “Romeo and Juliet” v “West Side Story” incident would happen even today in the classroom, I told about an anecdote at this very same junior high. The school committee met regularly in the library of the junior high. One evening, a school committee person saw a book on display with the word “suck” in the title. It was a science book and, yes the title was meant to attract the attention of a junior high – age student. The school committee member expressed his view to the principal that such a book had no place in the library. The next day the principal ordered the librarian to remove the book, not only from display, but from the library altogether. This was done, proving that some people believe you can tell a book by its cover.

Nothing but the Truth

Here is another true story of my teaching days at that very same junior high school. Once again, the story involves a book and a principal. This was many years after my “West Side Story” incident.

Nothing but the Truth is a book written in 1991 by Avi, a popular author of books for young adults. I had been to a conference sponsored by the Worcester Alliance for Education, and the book was required reading. We teachers at the conference were encouraged to consider it for use as a classroom novel. I read it, and I loved it. I began using it in the classroom.

Nothing but the Truth is often referred to as a documentary novel. The reader sifts through “evidence” such as newspaper clippings, telephone conversations, diary entries, classroom discussions, radio transcripts, etc., to determine the real story of an event that has happened in the novel.

I have always believed that part of the teaching of English must be to show how people use it and sometimes abuse it. For example, of the many things that I taught through a unit on advertising, the way in which words are used to get to the buyer is an important part. Nothing but the Truth shows deft language manipulation; the expertly-worded “cover your ass” memos are nearly works of art. I felt that this tool was important so that when students got out into the “real” world, they would not so easily fall for crafty language. This manipulation is so prevalent in today’s society I hope many of my former students can draw upon this past knowledge.

Here is where I ran into some trouble with yet another principal at the very same junior high. Nothing but the Truth involves an incident that happened at a junior high school, so many of the characters are kids, teachers, and administrators. On this particular day, I received an unexpected visit from my principal. We were reading aloud fromNothing but the Truth. At this particular point in the novel, a conversation was taking place between as I recall the principal and the assistant principal. The dialogue at that point did not put the character of the school principal in a good light.

After class, my own rather irate principal demanded to know everything about the book I was teaching. I explained to him how I came to select it. He then stated his objection outright. “A school principal would not act like the one in the book did.” I’m not sure if my jaw dropped, but I managed to say something like, “I think some of them might.” What I was actually thinking was “Pal, this stuff could have come right out of your biography.”

“What did my junior high school principal do next?” you ask. The very next day he set out a decree. From that time forth, no novel would see the light of day in a classroom until it passed through a book selection committee. He would head that committee, of course.

That ends another day in my life as a junior high English teacher. Strange, but true.

©2011

The Massachusetts Observer

On Wisconsin

2011-02-17T08:32:00.003-05:00

The lack of press coverage of this story is both distressing and predictable.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Thousands of people have taken to the streets to protect their rights and their jobs from a Republican governor who is determined to break the unions and who has threatened to call out the National Guard against our fellow citizens. The usual union haters are being heard from, and Fox News is devoted to demonizing the demonstrators.

People who hate the unions owe much to them; living wages, 40-hour work week, pensions, work place safety, etc. etc.

The Republican Party (with much help from a virtually mute Democratic Party)is determined to reverse all gains made by labor. They are committed to killing any remnants of the New Deal.

We look at the happenings in Egypt as somehow a vague representation of our own nation's past. It may actually represent, along with Wisconsin, a vision of the future as people become madder and madder as hell.

©2011
The Massachusetts Observer

From field hollers to hip hop

2011-02-10T22:45:00.000-05:00

Bert Williams

Black History Month provides many opportunities to spotlight contributions that African Americans have made to the culture of The United States. Some time ago, I wrote some pieces about the evolution of African American music, truly the most genuinely American music there is. Every genre popular in the United States today can trace its origin through a timeline of the music of Black America. Here is a very brief description of the development of African American music. I have used the Old Testament "begats" format:

The field hollers and shouts from the African slaves begat songs with religious themes (sometimes with dual messages.) The religious field song begat written music such as spirituals and hymns which we call Gospel music.

The hard-times Gospel message begat a secular component call “the blues.” Rhythm was added to the blues which begat rhythm and blues and jazz. Rhythm and blues begat rock and roll. Here there is a split between “black music” and “white music.” White music built on its African-American roots and begat the various forms of hard rock we have today. “Black music” branched into doo-wop to disco and begat soul music. Disco begat hip hop.

Okay, I know that some would argue with my timeline, and it’s true that there are genres and sub-genres that are important. But the point, I believe, has been made. The origin of truly American music is the Black community.

Lots of people represent the various transitions in African-American music, and many of them had to overcome tremendous hardships and prejudices. Two people I want to spotlight now are from different eras, but both had to work within the constraints of white-imposed stereotypes. Both of these people represent “firsts.” Bert Williams was the first African-American to make his living as an entertainer. Hattie McDaniel was the first African-American to win an Oscar. Both received criticism from the black community at the time for “selling out.” The persistence and bravery of both Bert Williams and Hattie McDaniel opened doors for subsequent generations of African-Americans. All Americans owe them a debt of gratitude.

Bert Williams (November 12, 1874 – March 4, 1922) was a song and dance man. He wrote a lot of the music he performed. In his time, black-face and minstrel shows were popular, and he had to perform according to stereotype. He was so good that other entertainers would not appear with him. That made each of his performances a solo act, which served to give him greater exposure. His signature song was “Nobody.” I like it particularly because I believe it shows a brave defiance.

Hattie McDaniel(June 10, 1895 – October 26, 1952) played the stereotypical maid. If she wanted to work, that was her only way to do it. Within those constraints, she was able to transform the “know nothing” maid into a wise character, often smarter than the white people she worked for. She so stretched this part that she became the first African-American to win an Oscar for her role in “Gone with the Wind.”

Enjoy these performances.

©2010, 2011

Why is marijuana illegal in the United States?

2011-02-08T21:35:00.005-05:00

There was a time, at least I think there was, when a question concerning a law in the United States had a simple answer. Something is legal or illegal according to the will of the people. After all, isn’t that what the “demo” part of democracy is all about? The People? That “will of the people” answer may have sufficed at one time, and indeed it still is sufficient for those who can only see red, white and blue but not green. Can the rest of us agree though that a new paradigm is in order now that the United States is in a post-Democracy era?

If the United States is no longer a Democracy, then we have to replace the “Demo” with something else. I will suggest, in fact I will insist, that the form of government under which the United States operates presently is a Corporatocracy, whereby corporations own the government and rule in the best interest of the corporations. No individual holds power unless the elite of corporate America allow that they will. Henceforth, any textbook referring to the United States as a “democracy” is outdated.

Oh, I can hear the protests already. “But we have elections. We have political parties.” On and on ad nauseum. Be assured that never, never, never will the nomenclature of democracy be replaced. The illusion must remain just as surely as no future leader will be referred to as “Big Brother” and this current economic catastrophe we are in will never be called a Depression. The mind game is a vital component of the Corporatocracy.

This brings us back to the original question: Why is marijuana illegal in the United States? The answer: because the Corporatocracy wills it to be so.

I have written extensively on this before, so allow me to condense it somewhat here. Think of the cannabis plant. Depending on the cultivation, you can get hemp or you can get marijuana. The culprit for corporate America is hemp, not marijuana. Keep that in mind.

Enter newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst and the DuPont chemical company. It’s mid to late 1930’s and great strides are being made in the manufacturing of products made from hemp. Many of these products would compete with wood pulp based products and oil based products. Hearst had extensive holdings in the timber industry and DuPont held patents to produce oil based products. So here is how they “killed” the competition:

Hearst et al made certain that people would see cannabis not as hemp or marijuana but as marijuana only. By going after marijuana, they destroyed the hemp industry as well. They went after it in a big way. There were scare tactics galore. There was the film “Reefer Madness.” The purveyors of pot were going after our kids. The drug was used by the Darkies in ghettos. It caused Negro men to lust after white women.

Did it work? You bet it did. It’s still working. Marijuana still is illegal, and it will continue to be. It has nothing to do with the health of the population. Corporatocracies don’t care about that. Marijuana will remain illegal because it would re-open the door to hemp production. The growing and manufacturing of hemp-based products is still banned in the United States despite the fact that in other countries it is a billion-dollar industry. And the final irony: despite the fact that hemp cultivation and manufacture in the United States is illegal, the use of hemp-based products is not. The United States is the largest importer of hemp-based products in the world!

Before marijuana was illegal, it was a popular subject for jazz musicians. Here is an example:

©2011

The Massachusetts Observer

Don’t “ass” don’t tell

2011-02-07T00:02:00.005-05:00

This is a believe-it-or-not moment in my teaching career; but you’d better believe it because it is absolutely true.

Years ago I taught grade 9 at a local junior high school. At the time I was using the novelization of the play “West Side Story” in my classes. One day I received a visit in my classroom from the school principal. He had some concerns about the novel. Among them was the use of certain language.

Early on in the novel, a character named Riff, a member of the Jets Gang, states that he has to get the Jets off their “ass.” I was pretty sure that he wasn’t objecting to the fact that the word “ass” should be plural. No, the objection was to the use of the word “ass” itself.

I reminded the principal that “West Side Story” was really an updated version of “Romeo and Juliet” and that the Jets and the Sharks were essentially the Capulets and the Montagues. Tony was Romeo and Maria was Juliet, and instead of being star-crossed lovers, they had the misfortune of each being born into a different race. Besides, I pressed on, there are far more “objectionable” things in “Romeo and Juliet” than in “West Side Story.” The principal conceded that possibility, and then added, "but they don’t understand them in “Romeo and Juliet.”

As comedian Jack Paar would say, “I kid you not.” Thus the title of this piece: Don’t “ass” (Don’t read “West Side Story”) don’t tell (read “Romeo and Juliet” but don’t tell students what it means). What an inspiring leader! What a pedagogical paragon! On the whole, I recognized the real ass in the room. (I have hidden my own double-entendre in the previous sentence, relying, in part, on the use of a homonym.)

If “Romeo and Juliet” is to be taught as part of the English curriculum, it should not be with the hope that students won’t “get” the fact that Shakespeare is often bawdy. Part of Shakespeare’s genius, the reason he is worth studying, was his ability to write on several different levels. If that is not part of the teaching justification, leave him out of it.

There have been attempts over the years to “tone down” Shakespeare. The most noted was the effort of Thomas Bowdler, who began publishing “The Family Shakespeare” in 1807. The idea was to purge Shakespeare’s works of anything that might be unsuitable to the sensitivities of women and children. He was quite successful at this and his name even became a word associated with censorship: bowdlerized. If you read a “bowdlerized” work, someone has “cleaned” it up for you.

If a school system is going to make “Romeo and Juliet” part of their curriculum, and if they are concerned that kids might actually understand that Shakespeare’s words are sometimes raunchy, then find a bowdlerized version of the play. Don’t make Shakespeare out to be the bore that so many kids think he is by failing to point out his genius.

I’ll conclude with this. Shakespeare wrote because he was inspired and all that stuff, of course. But — bottom line he wrote to make money. He had to consider his audience which consisted of classes of people, the Groundlings at the bottom of the class structure all the way to the aristocracy at the top. One way to keep them both interested was to use double-entendre; this way his characters could say things that were quite proper on the one hand and downright dirty funny on the other. Groundlings could hear the words and roar with laughter. The aristocracy could hear the same line as perfectly respectable (laughing uproariously on the inside because there is a bit of the Groundling in all of us).

One example from “Romeo and Juliet” should suffice. In Act I Scene I we meet two characters, Sampson and Gregory from the House of Capulet. These two young men are itching for a fight, bragging what they would do if they met up with any Montagues. During this exchange, Sampson brags about his prowess with the women when he says “'tis known I am a pretty piece of flesh.”

Now a footnote could read “Sampson says women find him handsome.” Shakespeare, however, won’t let the editors off so easily because he carries this metaphor further by having Gregory utter, “Draw thy tool! Here comes two of the house of the Montagues.” Sampson assures Gregory that “My naked weapon is out.” The Groundlings have no problem recognizing the play on words.

Shakespeare knew how to play to an audience, and the elements he includes in “Romeo and Juliet” worked as well then as they do now: Love, sex, violence, and drugs. Trying to pretend that any of these elements doesn’t exist in Shakespeare’s works diminishes his genius and ruins the story. If teachers won’t or can’t teach the story of “Romeo and Juliet” and all of its elements, they really should just skip it altogether and leave it to a more capable and honest educator.

©2011

The Massachusetts Observer

PS:
One of the joys of teaching “West Side Story” was also looking at some parts of the movie. The wonderful musical numbers, written by Massachusetts native Leonard Bernstein, are masterpieces all. Here is a terrific example:

Random Ruminations.

2011-02-06T16:35:00.000-05:00

Note: I found this in my "vault" from three years ago. The date was also February 6th when this was first published. Perhaps some people today could use a "diversion."
***
I know, I know. It's Super Bowl Sunday. I'll have to admit it here and now. The sports gene was never part of my make-up. I look ridiculous in a baseball cap. A whistle hanging around my neck looks as if it has lost its way. I would never think to utter the words, "Listen up!" Those of you looking to read tales of athletic prowess should opt for one of the hundred or so articles dealing with the subject.

Here we have Random Ruminations.

Does anyone remember Flav-R Straws? When I was in kindergarten, I hated milk. Apparently other kids did too because Flav-R Straws were popular. They were bendable straws that had a filter inside that was either strawberry flavored or chocolate flavored. In theory, if you sucked the milk through the straw past the filter, plain old milk would become a delicious, frothy chocolate or strawberry flavored treat. In fact, the milk did turn sort of brown and sort of red from a healthy dose of food coloring on the filter. What secret combination of chemicals was used to treat the filter is anybody's guess. Ultimately the only real taste that could be had was by ripping open the straw and chewing on the filter.

Wax Bottles was another youthful delicacy. These are tiny wax soda bottles filled with a sweet liquid. You bite the head off the bottle and drink the liquid. As a bonus, you could chew the bottle.

Remember when the word "sugar" was actually part of the name of the cereal? They weren't Corn Pops. They were Sugar Corn Pops. "Kellogg's Sugar Corn Pops, Sugar Pops are tops."

The terms nickel bag and dime bag referred to the cost of potato chips. The best potato chips were Stateline which were made in Wilbraham. You could buy a five cent bag or a ten cent bag as a snack.

Everyone knows about Kool Aid, but who remembers Zarex?

The tobacco industry inspired candy makers as well. There were candy cigarettes, chocolate cigarettes, bubble gum cigarettes, and pink and blue bubble gum cigars. There were Puff Cigarettes as well. These weren't a food product, but they looked like cigarettes and were filled with powder. If you blew on them, powder would come out, and you were supposed to look as if you were really smoking.

Candy buttons are these small pieces of candy stuck to a piece of paper. I remember eating my share of paper that stuck to the back of the candy!

I have reached an age where I have to keep my sweet tooth in check. Still it is fun to remember some of the joys of being a kid. While you think of your favorite candy from childhood, help yourself to a Necco wafer.

©2008,2011

Random, if not rambling, thoughts

2011-02-05T15:37:00.008-05:00

Generally, it has been my practice when writing a blog entry to keep it tightly constructed, informative, researched, and I hope, at least somewhat interesting. This one may be any or all or none of these. As the title suggests, this could be a winding road. Lately, I have been doing sort of a self-assessment. That, for better or worse, is what the rest of this blog entry is all about.

Politics

It probably will come as no surprise to people who have read these pages before that I am a member of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. What people may not know is that I have also been Un-enrolled and a member of the Republican Party for a time as well. These changes have represented both a growth in my own views and a shift in what the political parties have traditionally stood for. I have come to the point in my life where I don’t believe that there is a damn bit of difference in the parties except in their rhetoric. When I get around to it, I will drop my Party affiliation. My voting days are over, and here is why.

Democracy, Representative Democracy, Republic

If you gave me a multiple choice test and I had to choose one of the above as the ruling philosophy of the United States, I would skip that question or insist on being able to answer “none of the above.” Speaking of which…

Political talk radio and TV

I have sworn off it, cold turkey. They are all for ratings, form over substance. I am certain that I could do one of these shows with little knowledge and no preparation. All you need is a “hook” and contrived anger and indignation. Recently two of the radio talk shows on the left, The Bill Press Show and the Norman Goldman Show discussed the appointment of Jeffrey Immelt of General Electric to a new Board set up by Barack Obama to oversee business opportunities in the United States. I sent information to both of them showing that Immelt had been advising the President for a couple of years. General Electric has been very much involved in outsourcing jobs from the United States to places like India and China. I had the documents and even 2 interviews with Immelt by the foreign press to prove it. They acknowledged receipt of the materials in emails, but that served to alter the discussion not one iota. I telephoned each of their shows to discuss the firing of Keith Olbermann from MSNBC which was clearly a result of media giant Comcast merging with the network. It made for a good sound bite, but had no effect on the further discussion. Keith Olbermann’s firing, in my view, shows him to be an honorable man. He refused to be told what to say. The ones who stayed clearly are operating within corporate dictates.

Facebook and me

I often question whether or not I should be on Facebook. I have cancelled my account once, and I have several times erased all of my information. The vast majority of my “friends” on Facebook are former students, and though I thoroughly enjoy interacting with them, I feel definitely out of place, as if I am imposing on their lives. I haven’t resolved this entirely, but I do know why I am on there. When I was teaching, my students were more than just names on a roster or bodies occupying seats. I genuinely enjoyed being with them, and I cared about them. I still do, even though most of them are all grown up, and I haven’t seen them in years. Sometimes they post about some problem that they are experiencing, and I can’t resist offering some words of understanding and advice. Still I have to wonder if I belong there.

Painfully shy

This is something people will find hard to believe, but I am shy, very uncomfortable around crowds. I have one of the biggest inferiority complexes you’ve ever seen. In my younger days, I handled party time by consuming massive quantities of potent potables. Now, I am pretty much a recluse, which is okay, but it can get quite lonely at times.

Hatred

I can say with all honesty that I never truly hated anyone. I have always tried to see the good in people; this was true of students I taught and any adults with which I came into contact. It took until the last two or so years of my teaching career to realize that I was capable of hating anyone. I worked among and for some of the most evil people I have ever known.

Captain Black and a corn cob pipe

I find it pleasurable to relax smoking a corn cob pipe with my favorite brand of tobacco, Captain Black in the white package or can. I did smoke cigarettes for a number of years but kicked that habit. I do know that if I had one cigarette, I would be hopelessly hooked again in no time. Alcohol of any type is in the past for me. Any experiences I had with marijuana were decades ago. So I don’t think my pipe smoking is too bad a habit. Anyway, at my age, I am not about to quit.

Language

I have to admit that my language has slipped as of late. Many of the colorful 4 letter choices that we as English speakers have at our disposal seem to be just right for some things I want to say, and sometimes the right tool to use with a particular audience. This has concerned me at times — but usually I don’t give a shit!

Resolve

I must admit that I have thought of going back to the complete recluse state by cutting off the Facebook account and ending my blog. For now, though, I will keep both. What I resolve to do is to continue to write about things I am passionate about. I will always back up my opinions with examples and facts. I will always stand to be corrected by readers who often offer much more to the conversation than I ever could. I will end by saying that I hope those who have found this blog informative or entertaining or enjoyable will keep coming back. One thing is certain though: you can never be certain what the topic might be on any given day.

To those who made it this far in this column, thanks for coming along. “See” you again soon.

Brent

©2011

The Massachusetts Observer

The day the music died

2011-02-02T22:36:00.010-05:00

I spent many a cold February day delivering newspapers when I was growing up, so I can relate to the scene Don McLean describes early on in his song, “American Pie.” He’s a 14-year-old kid who no doubt thinks it sucks being a paperboy, but a guy’s gotta earn some money. He dreams, as lots of kids do, about his future. He lives and breathes Rock ‘n’ Roll, and he is going to play, there is no doubt. He was certain, given the chance, that he could make the people dance; make them happy for a while. Because that’s the magic of Rock ‘n’ Roll: it is the abandonment of care into the realm of pure unadulterated joy. He would join many of his idols in bringing that joy to the people.

Don McLean’s thoughts of future fame were interrupted that morning of February 3, 1959, as he routinely placed yet another newspaper on yet another doorstep. This time the headline caught his eye: “Plane Crash Kills 3 Rock ‘n’ Roll Idols.” Horror-stricken, he read the names: Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and J. P. "The Big Bopper" Richardson. Richardson was 28, Holly was 22, and Valens was 17. Three guys he idolized — guys who were already doing what he aspired to do — were gone. Just like that.

Now, here is a point I want to make very clear. Don McLean did not state then and there as a 14-year-old kid that music was dead. Too many careless readers make that ridiculous leap. Let’s dispel that criticism right away by quoting the first 5 words of “American Pie:” “A long, long time ago…”

“American Pie” is written from the perspective of a decade later. The entire 1960s had taken place. In retrospect, McLean could pinpoint a date when everything began to change. It died on February 3, 1959, just as surely as did Richardson, Valens, and Holly.

Now, I’m going to give you a link to the best analysis that there is of the song “American Pie.” There is little point in my recreating that here. People who are intellectually curious will go to that source. I will place the lyrics here as well as embed a video with Don McLean singing “American Pie.”

I conclude, though, with my own brief thoughts. In the days before 1960, Rock ‘n’ Roll was fun. It was youthful exuberance. It was possible to sing about “a white sports coat and a pink carnation.” It was crazy fast dances and slow dances for lovers. It was singable, danceable joy.

Through major players and transitional personalities, Rock ‘n’ Roll became something different. It didn’t have a dancing beat. It became social commentary. It continues to evolve, or, as I think McLean would have it, devolve. I have to agree. The message is not so much even social commentary as it is rebellious shock speech. There has been no rising level of artistry. The musicianship among the modern “idols” is no better than any bass guitarist playing a Rockabilly tune. In fact, technology today often masks mediocre musicianship.

McLean not only regrets the loss, he shows when and where and how and why it happened. I’m convinced. Are you?

A long, long time ago...
I can still remember
How that music used to make me smile.
And I knew if I had my chance
That I could make those people dance
And, maybe, they'd be happy for a while.

But February made me shiver
With every paper I'd deliver.
Bad news on the doorstep;
I couldn't take one more step.

I can't remember if I cried
When I read about his widowed bride,
But something touched me deep inside
The day the music died.

So bye-bye, Miss American Pie.
Drove my Chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
And them good old boys were drinkin' whiskey and rye
Singin', "This'll be the day that I die.
"This’ll be the day that I die."

Did you write the book of love,
And do you have faith in God above,
If the Bible tells you so?
Do you believe in rock 'n roll,
Can music save your mortal soul,
And can you teach me how to dance real slow?

Well, I know that you're in love with him
`cause I saw you dancin' in the gym.
You both kicked off your shoes.
Man, I dig those rhythm and blues.

I was a lonely teenage broncin' buck
With a pink carnation and a pickup truck,
But I knew I was out of luck
The day the music died.

I started singin',
"bye-bye, Miss American Pie."
Drove my Chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
Them good old boys were drinkin' whiskey and rye
And singin', "This’ll be the day that I die.
"This’ll be the day that I die."

Now for ten years we've been on our own
And moss grows fat on a rollin' stone,
But that's not how it used to be.
When the jester sang for the king and queen,
In a coat he borrowed from James Dean
And a voice that came from you and me,

Oh, and while the king was looking down,
The jester stole his thorny crown.
The courtroom was adjourned;
No verdict was returned.
And while Lennon read a book on Marx,
The quartet practiced in the park,
And we sang dirges in the dark
The day the music died.

We were singing,
"bye-bye, Miss American Pie."
Drove my Chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
Them good old boys were drinkin' whiskey and rye
And singin', "This’ll be the day that I die.
"This’ll be the day that I die."

Helter skelter in a summer swelter.
The birds flew off with a fallout shelter,
Eight miles high and falling fast.
It landed foul on the grass.
The players tried for a forward pass,
With the jester on the sidelines in a cast.

Now the half-time air was sweet perfume
While the sergeants played a marching tune.
We all got up to dance,
Oh, but we never got the chance!
`cause the players tried to take the field;
The marching band refused to yield.
Do you recall what was revealed
The day the music died?

We started singing,
"Bye-bye, Miss American Pie."
Drove my Chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
Them good old boys were drinkin' whiskey and rye
And singin', "This’ll be the day that I die.
"This’ll be the day that I die."

Oh, and there we were all in one place,
A generation lost in space
With no time left to start again.
So come on: Jack be nimble, Jack be quick!
Jack flash sat on a candlestick
‘Cause fire is the Devil's only friend.

Oh, and as I watched him on the stage
My hands were clenched in fists of rage.
No angel born in hell
Could break that Satan’s spell.
And as the flames climbed high into the night
To light the sacrificial rite,
I saw Satan laughing with delight
The day the music died

He was singing,
"bye-bye, Miss American Pie."
Drove my Chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
Them good old boys were drinkin' whiskey and rye
And singin', "This’ll be the day that I die.
"This’ll be the day that I die."

I met a girl who sang the blues
And I asked her for some happy news,
But she just smiled and turned away.
I went down to the sacred store
Where I'd heard the music years before,
But the man there said the music wouldn't play.

And in the streets: the children screamed,
The lovers cried, and the poets dreamed.
But not a word was spoken;
The church bells all were broken.
And the three men I admire most:
The father, son, and the holy ghost,
They caught the last train for the coast
The day the music died.

And they were singing,
"bye-bye, Miss American Pie."
Drove my Chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
And them good old boys were drinkin' whiskey and rye
Singin', "This'll be the day that I die.
"This’ll be the day that I die."

They were singing,
"bye-bye, Miss American Pie."
Drove my Chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
Them good old boys were drinkin' whiskey and rye
Singin', "This'll be the day that I die."

©2011
The Massachusetts Observer

Facebook: a few hundred close friends

2011-02-01T10:49:00.004-05:00

Social networking sites like Facebook are probably here to stay for a very long time, so this may be as good a time as any to ask a question: What is a friend? And can you really have hundreds of them?

When I was growing up, I never had more than 2 or 3 close friends. As I head toward age 60 at an increasingly accelerated pace, I am aware that I don’t even have the 2or 3. Genuine friendship is quite rare.

I was never an athlete, so I did not gain friends in that way. I wasn’t a joiner, so there were no scout friends for example. I had my first job delivering newspapers at age 10; that was 6 days a week at the time. The Saturday activities that lots of kids could engage in happened at the same time I needed to be delivering newspapers. The same was true with after-school activities.

When college came around, I commuted from home. Worcester State College (now University) had no dormitories back then, so everyone commuted. Again, there was no opportunity to forge new friendships. I also continued to work six days a week.

Moving on; during my 31 years as a teacher, I met thousands of students. These students spend 10 months of the school year in their classes, so teachers and students have time to get to know each other. It is not unusual, then, that when I first went on to Facebook after I retired, I would be recognized and “friended” by many former students. That has been one of the nicest surprises of Facebook for me.

Something happened recently that caused me to look over my list of friends. Someone on my friends’ list posted a quotation. As is often the case, I sometimes respond to these quotations either in agreement with them or in pointing out some way or another in which I disagree. In this instance, the “friend,” a former student and now a college student I think, posted a quote, and I responded with a “but what if…” retort. I was hoping, as often happens, that an intellectual discussion would ensue. Instead, my comment was deleted. When I asked why my comment was deleted, I was deleted. I was “unfriended” and blocked. So much for intellectual discussion. It hardly bodes well for the future when a college student hasn’t the intellectual capacity to defend a quotation!

The former student who banished me did me a favor. I looked more closely at those who are my friends. I made some decisions that caused me to “unfriend” several names for reasons I will share with you:

First, among my friends are two nieces and a nephew. I love them, and they will always be on any list of my friends.

Second, I did not want any intellectual pygmies among my friends, and that helped me to narrow my “friend” list. Does that mean that everyone remaining on my “friends” list is an Einstein? No. If it did, I would have to take myself off the list because I’m no Einstein. No, these are people who can and do teach me things, and they can speak intelligently and argue passionately on things that they believe in. By the way, many of these people weren’t the honor roll kids. (In fact, some of the honor roll students made my intellectual pygmies list.)

Third, people who remain on my friends list understand my sense of humor. They “get” me.

Fourth, there are some people on my “friends” list who fit a very special category. They are former students, and I am certain they know who they are, who experienced some crises during the time I was their teacher, and they found in me someone they could turn to. Some of these same students had my back when they observed the terrible treatment I received from some school administrators and counselors who at best could be described as engaging in malpractice. This group of students will forever be listed among my friends.

Fifth, there are some people among my friends whom I have never met. They became friends through their association with other friends. Before they became my friends, I looked at friends we had in common. That told me a lot about who they are. I have had some tremendous intellectual discussions with some of these people.

While we’re on this subject of discussion, I also “unfriended” some people who were rude enough to ignore me. For instance, they make a comment. Then I respond to the comment. Then someone else responds. They respond to the second person, completely ignoring the fact that I have even been there. I kicked those people out of my “house.”

Finally, I have one friend on my list whom I “met” solely through my blog writing. I have never met her otherwise. She is clearly one of the kindest, smartest friends I have NEVER known.

©2011
The Massachusetts Observer

P.S. As I “surf” around Facebook, I see many former students. So often their names trigger memories of specific years in my teaching career. I look at their lists of friends and am delighted with the nostalgia I feel. I have a policy of letting others “friend” me first, so I don’t feel like an intruder. Let me assure you, if you are a former student, I will remember you, and I am honored if you “friend” me.

Black history ain’t smack history

2011-01-30T15:49:00.002-05:00

Here’s a fact. Whenever I write about black history, even the modest readership I have declines. The usual objections are heard. As my title piece for this implies, some people just don’t believe there is a significant, separate history that is unique to an African American experience, even if all they know about it is “Lincoln freed the slaves” or that George Washington Carver was some sort of a peanut guru.

If I mention that February is Black History Month, there is retort that will come without fail: Hah, when is white history month? The fact that our mostly Euro-centric American history curriculum in our schools insures that every month is white history month seems to be lost on those who question the need to set aside even a little time to focus on other cultures.

I am no expert on Black history; truth be told, I’m not sure I rise even to the rank of amateur. Anyone looking in this spot for exhaustive, scholarly research would be wise to seek out other sources. I do have some thoughts I want to share though.

I come now to one of the hardest things with which I personally have to grapple. I refer to the use of the “n” word, and I am compelled to drop the euphemism. I hate the word “nigger.” It is so rife with hate-filled history that I feel ill even typing it out. But not addressing it head on is misplaced sensitivity. Avoiding it, keeps the wounds it inflicts festering.

Not long ago, I put the word “nigger” into a search engine. One link, close to the top, was to a site run by a segment of the Ku Klux Klan. The site contained Klan history, a seemingly endless supply of vile “nigger” jokes, and Klan clothing, some of it modeled by children.

Most standard dictionaries list the word “nigger” as offensive and derogatory toward African Americans. Its history goes back to at least the 17th century.

Mixed in among the definitions is this usage for the word. Sometimes the word has been used as a vicious insult and at other times casually owing to the belief of the inferiority of the race.

In order to get some other perspective, I checked the youth-oriented “bible,” the Urban Dictionary. There are scores of pages on the word “nigger” and its various forms and the definitions are as widely diverse as anywhere else. In short, there is no agreement among youth as to the definition or the acceptability of the use of the word.

But then, there is black comedian and activist Dick Gregory who titled his autobiography “Nigger.” There are the black comedians who use the word constantly in their routines. And, there is a seemingly innumerable number of rap/hip hop artists who use the word “nigger” and the variants such as“nigga” and other constructs as a necessary staple of any work they produce.

This last use among current musical artists and their use of “nigger” and its variants is something I am particularly interested in because I have some former students who are now friends on Facebook who use these terms regularly. It is jarring, and I have told them so. I also know, however, that they are good guys, so I owe it to them to try to understand why they use a word that most of society finds offensive. I will end with my theory.

The young men (and the phenomenon seems to be mostly a male thing) among my Facebook friends who use the term “nigger” or any one of its various forms are not thinking in racial terms. It is a term of endearment, a term of love. It is deeper than love of family, and indeed may be a replacement for familial love. The term when applied to one another is stronger emotionally than brother, sister, mom, or dad. It is not unlike a gang that becomes a family unit, caring for one another and watching out for one another.

It is a good thing, this love. I only hope that time and experience will give them a better name to express it.

©2011

Stop the goddamned wars

2011-01-26T13:40:00.003-05:00

If you think this title is jarring or provocative or sacrilegious, good. If you think war is god-sanctioned or god-blessed, then it’s time you snapped out of that stupor you are in. English poet and First World War casualty Wilfred Owen spoke to us from the grave in a poem published posthumously, Dulce et Decorum est. In it he tells us to stop telling kids that dying for one’s country is “sweet and fitting.” If Owen could, he would grab us by the shirts and shake us, I’m sure. He would ask, as he did in his poem, if we had ever watched a young soldier die. Then he would give a graphic and horrific and accurate description of a combat soldier’s death. He would say something like “That’s what dying for your country looks like, goddamnit! Stop lying to your kids!”

Well, these days we don’t so much lie to our kids as much as we allow them to be lied to. We are guilty, not of the sins of commission, but of the sins of omission. We let the politicians and their corporate bosses spin their webs; we allow them to ensnare our young with promises of glory and job training and life-time benefits.

Each Sunday “This Week” with Christiane Amanpour airs a segment called “In Memoriam” in which they name famous people who have died the previous week. At the end of that segment, they show the names of the latest war casualties released by the Pentagon. In a few seconds it’s over. It’s time for a commercial break followed by the “Funnies,” clever things the late show comedians have said. Then the show is over. It may not be much, but it’s more than any other program is doing.

As a teacher for over 30 years, I watch those names of the soldiers who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I notice their ages. So many of them are 18, 19, and in their 20s. I think, as I see the names and ages, of my 3 nieces and my nephew. I have not been so blessed in life to have children of my own, but as a teacher I have had hundreds of children. I think of them as the names of the fallen are displayed on the TV screen. And it makes me furious because of the waste.

I think we have to tell the greedy and corrupt corporatists and the paid-off politicians that enough is enough. You can make life impossibly hard for us. You can take our jobs. You can take our health care. You can take our social security. You can take our homes and our dignity, but, goddamnit, you can’t take our kids. When you have succeeded in taking all we have, you will find us on the streets alongside our children fighting the real battle that is happening right here in this country.

So how do we begin the battle to save our kids from the corporate clutches? We must stop them from burying the truth. It is time to stop the glossing over of the horrors of war that the government has engaged in. It is time for the press to do its job. It is time once again for all of us to see the flag-draped coffins containing the lifeless bodies of our offspring.

We are quite powerless to change the dialog but we are not completely without options. I propose that we begin by making sure that people know that soldiers continue to die in Iraq and Afghanistan. Did you know, for example, that as of January 20, 2011, twenty-five American soldiers have lost their lives, 18 in Afghanistan, six in Iraq, with one other body being recovered in the Gulf of Oman? We need to remember, as an old Civil War song states, that each of these 25 was “somebody’s darling.” If we can just begin to get that message across, I believe we can change people’s perceptions and attitudes. That will the opening salvo of a battle for hearts and minds. What do you think?

©2011

The Massachusetts Observer

Olbermann isn’t over, man

2011-01-24T10:22:00.002-05:00

I started this day by calling The Bill Press radio show. It is not something I frequently do, but I feel so strongly about the firing of Keith Olbermann that I knew I must weigh in.

I will start by conceding some of the charges that are being made against Keith Olbermann. First, I have no doubt that he can be a pain in the ass to those for whom he works. Perhaps it’s a manifestation of a super-sized ego, I don’t know. He may well be difficult, but it does not necessarily have to be ego-driven. Keith Olbermann is very good at what he does. I am guessing that he does not suffer fools lightly. Personally, I don’t either.

Keith Olbermann’s “agenda” was to do an informative, intelligent, and uncompromising program. Corporatists, those for whom Olbermann worked, don’t give a damn about the “intelligence” component, but they surely do want to have the final say on the information and compromise components. Keeping the upper echelons happy means glossing over some things and, if necessary, avoiding some things entirely. People with integrity can’t abide that.

Again, I can relate to Olbermann’s plight. He insisted that MSNBC let him do the job he was hired to do and allow him to do it with the expertise he possesses. He has had to fight to maintain the very things that brought success not only to him but to MSNBC as well. MSNBC did not “make” Keith Olbermann. Keith Olbermann “made” MSNBC.

It is not a well-kept secret that media giant Comcast, who will be merging with NBC Universal of which MSNBC is a part, is a proponent of Republican conservatism. Keith Olbermann is anathema to their corporate philosophy. On Tuesday, January 18, 2011, Comcast received government approval to merge with NBC Universal. By Friday, January 21, 2011, Keith Olbermann was out of a job.

Rumor has it that part of the deal between Comcast and NBC was to get rid of Olbermann before the actual merger occurred. This wasn’t written down anywhere, of course. Comcast is able to maintain plausible deniability in the firing of a popular MSNBC host by claiming that it had been done prior to its taking over. Very neatly done. Most people will buy that story. Those who have closely watched the situation unfold will not.

In the final analysis though, who is more harmed by the firing of Keith Olbermann, Olbermann himself or MSNBC? If Olbermann’s job termination has come about because of his refusal to avoid certain stories or to compromise on integrity, what does that say about those who are left working for MSNBC? Rightly or wrongly it suggests that those hosts who remain in the MSNBC nightly line-up (Lawrence O’Donnell, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz) have made the choices and compromises required to keep their jobs. In fact, now all MSNBC hosts and all pundits who appear on MSNBC can be suspected as having made the acceptable compromises with the corporate bosses to allow them to keep working.

In closing, if you think Keith Olbermann is through, then you have no idea how determined to rebound from a blow a person with uncompromising integrity can be. Olbermann, I am sure, has already picked himself up off the ground and is moving on up again. Those of us who believe in Keith Olbermann are watching and waiting.

©2011

The Massachusetts Observer

A gay dilemma

2011-01-23T09:09:00.009-05:00

UPDATE

I want to welcome members of the Glee Forum who found us and linked to us. I appreciate hearing from you and encourage Massachusetts Observer readers to visit the Glee Forum:

*****
Let me state as plainly as I can right here at the beginning: I am unequivocal in my support of gay rights. I am proud to live in Massachusetts, the first state in our country to recognize gay marriage. I don’t believe the government has any business telling two adults whether or not their love for one another is socially acceptable.

I have observed the struggle for gay rights for many years now. Progress has been made, but it is slow and precarious. The venom spewed by the haters of “fags” and “queers” is still strong among certain groups. The stigma is still so prevalent that I have noticed on Facebook a caveat that some guys add if they ever suggest any affection for another guy: “no homo.” Astonishing — and entirely understandable.

My Dilemma

Often on Facebook (and probably to the annoyance of some of my Facebook friends) I will post a song that I like; it may be in celebration of a celebrity’s birthday or it may be a song that reflects my mood at the moment. Sometimes I will use a song to illustrate a joke I want to tell. That was the case this morning.

I looked at the thermometer when I got up very early this morning and it read something like 5 below zero. I thought, “Oh, baby, it’s cold outside.” That reminded me of the old song “Baby, It’s Cold Outside.” There was a particular version I remembered that I especially liked by Leon Redbone. My plan was to post the video on Facebook with the words, “Today’s weather forecast is brought to you by Leon Redbone.” Easy, right? At least a little funny, right?

As I searched YouTube for the song, “Baby, It’s Cold Outside,” I found that it has been recorded many times by many musicians. One of the versions caught my eye because it said it was from the popular TV show Glee. I have never seen the show, but I have read several discussions about it on Facebook. It is quite popular. I decided to look at the video, and I was surprised – not shocked mind you, just surprised. It was being sung by to gay guys to each other!

Now, I liked the song, and I liked the way these two guys sang it, but I thought, “I could never post that on Facebook. What would people think?” This has bothered me right up until the present time. What kind of man am I if I could be such a hypocrite?

I have decided to end the dilemma. To put it plainly, and my real friends will understand, I don’t give a shit what others think. So here is the video from “Glee” that to me is neat and kind of sweet. If I lose your friendship because of it, well then it really wasn’t a true friendship anyway, was it?

©2011
The Massachusetts Observer

Trap Rap

2011-01-21T06:00:00.004-05:00

Recently I have been exploring types of music with which I have little familiarity. The whole hip hop rap culture and style is certainly foreign to me. On Facebook I have many former students as friends, and their interests cover a wide spectrum. I have always had an interest in music, and because of that I minored in it in college. During my 31 years as a teacher in Massachusetts I held a certificate in music, licensing me to teach it in grades k-12. As an English major, I always taught strictly English, mostly in grades 7-9, so I never taught a music class. I did, however, incorporate music into the teaching of English whenever possible.

Many in my generation have little to no knowledge of rap or hip hop music, and from the little we have heard, we have no interest in finding out more. If we do pursue some knowledge, we are met at once with a major obstacle -- there are so many variations in the genre, it's hard to know where to begin. Here is what Wikipedia says:

Hip hop music is a musical genre that developed as part of hip hop culture, and is defined by four key stylistic elements: rapping, DJing/scratching, sampling (or synthesis), and beatboxing. Hip hop began in the South Bronx of New York City in the 1970s. The term rap is often used synonymously with hip hop, but hip hop also denotes the practices of an entire subculture.

Okay... so what are the variations? Again, from Wikipedia:

Alternative hip hop - Turntablism - Acid rap - Christian hip hop - Conscious hip hop - Freestyle rap - Gangsta rap - Homo hop - Hardcore hip hop - Horrorcore - Instrumental hip hop - Mafioso rap - Nerdcore hip hop - Political hip hop - Baltimore club - Bounce music - Brick city club - Chicano rap - Native American hip hop - Jerkin' -Country-rap -Australian Hip Hop - Hip hop soul - Hip house - Crunk/Hyphy - Jazz rap - Merenrap - Neo soul - Nu metal - Hip pop - Ragga - Rap opera - Rap rock - Rapcore - Rap metal - Cumbia rap - Merenrap - Hip life - Low Bap - Glitch hop - Wonky - Industrial hip hop - New jack swing - Electro hop-East Coast hip hop - West Coast hip hop - Southern hip hop - Midwest hip hop - Southwest Hip Hop.

I'm no kid, and I could spend the rest of my life studying one musical genre, its basic styles, and its variations. That's not going to happen. So when I discovered that Facebook friend and former student Kyle was in to Trap Rap, I asked him why. I got the "generational answer," unstated but certainly implied, that I would never "get it." Kyle was not showing me disrespect, simply stating what he believes to be true. (When I was Kyle's age, the mantra was "Don't trust anyone over 30." I believe that's been revised several times to accommodate those of us in the Baby Boomer generation.)

Well, this old dog can certainly learn a few more tricks, so I set out to learn about Trap Rap. I discovered that Radric Davis, known professionally as Gucci Mane, is one of Trap Rap's biggest celebrities. Take a look at the interviews with Gucci Mane on YouTube. Listen to one of his songs, and come back and rap about it if you'd like. Just a word of warning: Gucci Mane knows the language likely to cause offense, and he leaves no *%@#! unused.

Gucci Mane interviews on YouTube

©2011

The Massachusetts Observer

Why the hell should I care?

2011-01-18T04:56:00.008-05:00

No, this is not one of those cheap rhetorical devices where I ask a provocative question in the title and then go on to answer it. Why the hell should I care? I have truly been struggling with that thought, and I haven’t yet arrived at a satisfactory answer.

I guess you’d call it soul-searching or perhaps taking stock. Maybe it’s just something someone does when age 60 is just around the corner.

Recently I woke up and found myself on the floor of my living room. I had no idea how long I had been there or how I got there. Did I fall? I tried to get up once, then again, and finally made it, as the poet would say, bloodied but unbowed. It was still early morning, perhaps 2 or 3 a.m. I’m not sure. I did get myself to the hospital emergency room.

I did not have to worry about health care. I have a good plan, and I received excellent care. After a couple of days in the hospital, I was discharged, and I continue to receive the best of follow-up care. Why should I concern myself with someone else? I have what I need.

All of my life, it seems, I have believed that we are all brothers and sisters. If someone is hurting, that hurts me. I am my brothers’ keeper. I am my sisters’ keeper. I guess that’s why I was drawn to the helpful profession of teaching. As a very old song goes, “If I can help somebody as I pass along, then my living will not be in vain.” This philosophy has become quaint, a thing of the past. I have become an anachronism, out of place in this current time.

I have spent a couple of years now writing about a dead philosophy. The old notion of “we” has become the new mantra of “me.” I can’t sing that new song.

So I am left with the same question with which I started. “Why the hell should I care?” I could spend my time more enjoyably and less futilely. I could focus solely on me. I could stop trying to persuade people of things they just don’t care about. I could recognize that damn few people will read anything this long any more. It may be time once and for all to abandon a hopeful idealism in favor of a practical realism.

I have no answer with which to conclude. But with age 60 in clear view up ahead, I may finally be asking the right question.

©2011

The Massachusetts Observer

Difficult days ahead

2011-01-15T06:49:00.004-05:00

UPDATE: A comment about this blog entry was posted at the Worcester Telegram and Gazette site:

Brent:

Thanks for this posting.

I recently finished reading "The Warmth Of Other Suns" by Isabel Wilkerson (Random House, 2010). Here in New England, it should be required reading for all high school seniors. I dare say, adults who have little or no exposure to life in the Jim Crow south should put it on their reading list.

Posted by RPB on Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 11:48 AM

I recently watched a CSpan video with two authors discussing their books, and Isabel Wilkerson was one of them. Perhaps you will be inspired, as I was, to read their books. Follow the link:

C-Span Interviews
***

I had a conversation yesterday with someone who is involved in a local school system. The person was saddened that the school had absolutely no mention of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday despite the fact that schools would be closed on Monday to honor his birthday. I share that sadness, and I suspect that many schools simply avoided the topic. More is the pity.

With this observance coming so close to the tragic events in Arizona, the teaching opportunities are many. What a lost opportunity to relate current events to history! As a teacher for over 30 years, I can assure you I would have seized at such an opportunity.

The topic of how we treat one another deserves comparison. What indignities daily awaited those who struggled for racial equality? What kinds of hate speech were hurled at our African American brothers and sisters? How was the assassin James Earl Ray influenced by what he heard coming from the George Wallace Presidential campaign of 1968? What kinds of signs were being held at those rallies? What did the pro-Wallace media have to say?

Teachers could address the topic of civics with their students. What is the cost of holding a conviction and working toward the fruition of a dream? Why do leaders place themselves in harm’s way? Despite all the assassinations and assassination attempts in our history, why has the speech on the town square endured? Why do some people think that the risk is worth it in order to preserve our free and open society?

Well, there is a great deal more I can say, but I have learned that many people in our time won’t read anything if it looks too long. So I will end with a clip from Dr. King’s final speech delivered at a rally in Memphis, Tennessee, on April 3, 1968. He had been scheduled to leave earlier, but authorities had received word from someone claiming a bomb had been placed aboard his plane. Amidst this dangerous backdrop, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., gave a speech that was both eloquent and prophetic. The next day Dr. King’s life was ended by an assassin’s bullet.

I say to everyone, and particularly to students, watch this clip of Dr. King. Perhaps you will agree with me in saying, “There was a man!”

We've got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land! And so I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!

©2011
The Massachusetts Observer

I know you are, but what am I?

2011-01-13T04:33:00.004-05:00

If you have been a kid, then you know how kids argue. “I’m rubber, you’re glue; everything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.” Follow that up with sticking out your tongue, and the “debate” is over.

When adults argue like children, it’s just plain silly. If you want to know what that looks like, listen to the right-wing personalities, pundits, and apologists as they desperately try to distance themselves from Jared L. Loughner, the gunman in the Arizona massacre of January 8, 2011. Why, none of the free speech rhetoric they engage in could ever lead someone to do such a thing. Besides, they contend, Loughner is insane, and clearly he is a pot-smoking lefty anyway.

Though I am not a doctor, I have no trouble concluding that Loughner is mentally deranged. I also don’t accept that any one comment by any one person resulted in his killing spree. His increasingly bizarre behavior over months and years has been an unfolding story.

When a call goes out for dialog about the effects of vitriolic speech, the right-wing recoils. For the pundits and the politicians, this is their bread and butter. Vitriol equals money. And their supporters love it. There is no other way to explain Glenn Beck, for instance, or many Republican politicians in Washington. Over-the-top crazy talk fills the coffers; and an army of their obedient supporters march onward as to war helping to spread their “gospel” message.

It is not enough, though, for the right-wing hate merchants simply to deny any culpability for inciting violent acts; they must prove that the left has been equally culpable. They desperately search for incidents of the same type of speech by the left; and as icing on the cake so to speak, they try to prove that any crazed person carrying out such atrocities was a motivated albeit delusional liberal. I could give hundreds of examples from multiple right-wing pundits and politicians, but I will conclude with three from right-wing media star, Rush Limbaugh. Here is how Limbaugh commented on three similar high profile cases from our recent past. The following is from Media Matters for America .

* Fort Hood shooting

Limbaugh claimed Fort Hood shooter and "radical imam" are "just like Obama" and Jeremiah Wright. Following the shooting at the Fort Hood military base in Texas, Limbaugh said Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged gunman, spent "time in a mosque, a church, and there's a radical preacher in there, radical imam -- imam is preacher, pastor, minister -- and this guy is just raising hell in there, I mean, so much so that these 9-11 hijackers in there are probably getting their motivation and inspiration from this wacked-out imam. And guess what? This Hasan guy happens to be in there." Limbaugh continued: "If we're gonna ask why did he do it, knowing full well that he's in the same mosque in 2001 with the radical preacher going nuts, we're going to also have to believe that the guy was just like Obama and didn't hear Reverend Wright's words when he was in his church."

* Virginia Tech shooting

Limbaugh: Virginia Tech shooter "had to be a liberal." On the April 19, 2007, broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh declared that the perpetrator of the Virginia Tech shootings a few days earlier "had to be a liberal," adding: "You start railing against the rich, and all this other -- this guy's a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it's a liberal that committed this act."

* Holocaust museum shooting

Limbaugh: Obama "thrives and needs chaos"; people on the left "excited" by Holocaust museum shooting. Talking about the June 2009 shooting at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., Limbaugh accused the "left in this country" of "creating a very dangerous climate" and said Obama "thrives and needs chaos and unrest." Limbaugh continued: "An incident like this yesterday, I dare say, had people on the left applauding inside their hearts for the purposes of advancing their political agenda. And yes, I mean to say that." He added: "And you can tell with the eagerness that the left and its cohorts in the media went to television last night to try to make this a political thing, they are excited. This is a great political opportunity for them. That's the first emotion that they felt."

Limbaugh on Holocaust museum shooter: "This guy is a leftist if anything." Referring to the Holocaust museum shooting, Limbaugh asserted, "Very predictably, the media, the American left is trying to score some political points as a result of this tragedy." Limbaugh also stated of the gunman: "This guy is a leftist, if anything. This guy's beliefs, this guy's hate stems from influence that you find on the left, not on the right."

***

Well, there you have it. Oh, and by the way, Limbaugh makes about one million dollars a week just for his radio show. He must be doing something — right.

©2011
The Massachusetts Observer

The rights questions

2011-01-08T18:38:00.004-05:00

As I was reading at my computer today, emails from the various news sources began arriving announcing the terrible news of a tragedy in Arizona. I did what I hope everyone does. I turned to the free press to learn what was going on. Bloggers, such as I, can give our opinions, but the news gathering is the work of professionals.

Even as I write, the news gathering is ongoing, with some updates and corrections; career journalists will be going on with this for quite some time.

I had never heard of U. S. Representative from Arizona Gabrielle Giffords before today, so I consulted a very valuable resource, The C-Span Video Library. I learned that Rep. Giffords took part in the reading of the United States Constitution on the floor of the House of Representatives last Thursday. I was curious about the part the Representative Giffords had read. The video showed that her turn called for her to read the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Call it what you want — coincidental, eerie, — whatever; but in fact, several citizens including the Congresswoman were severely hurt, some critically, because they were exercising their Constitutional right “peaceably to assemble.”

How were they hurt? Well, the next reading on the House floor, the Second Amendment provides the information:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I expect in the next few days there will be a great deal of talk about this tragedy. There will be discussion, and there should be, about how we keep our elected officials safe and how we keep our fellow citizens safe at public gatherings.

I trust and hope that there will also be a serious discussion about gun control as it relates to the citizens’ safety. Which right begs for more regulation, the freedom of assembly or the right to bear arms?

Any thinking person should have no difficulty arriving at the reasonable choice.

Watch the lobbyists try to convince us otherwise.

©2011 The Massachusetts Observer

This way to Agitation Nation

2011-01-07T10:45:00.003-05:00

Well, Progressives, have you had enough yet? Then you are not alone. There are lots of us who are fed up with being taken for granted, with being ignored, and, worse, with being vilified by our own Democratic Party. Some of the very people who attained office through our tireless efforts have now decided that reviling the Progressive wing of the Party will win favor with Independents, helping to ensure their re-election. President Barack Obama has shown himself to be firmly in the camp of other corporate Democrats.

The fight is on for the soul of the Democratic Party. Progressives believe in a traditional Democratic Party that is the voice of the people. The Democratic Party has been the defender of the middle class. It has been the voice of the working man and woman. It has insisted on a fair wage for a fair day’s work. It has declared that achieving the American Dream must be available to all. Traditional Democrats have believed in good health care for all citizens. Traditional Democrats believe in public education. Traditional Democrats believe that no one should be left behind.

Which kind of Democrat are you — a corporate Democrat who works for Wall Street or a traditional Democrat who works for Main Street? If you are the latter, there is something you can do.

This is a brand new opportunity, and forward-looking Democrats are invited to get in on the ground floor. All ages can participate — young men and women, senior citizens, gay, straight, white, black, brown, and any other color. You may be a white-collar worker or a blue-collar worker. You may be rich or poor. All that is required is that you believe that America can do better.

This effort is being spear-headed by radio talk show host, Norman Goldman. On January 3, 2011, Norman declared that his radio program would be brought to a new level. Its success depends on you. Here it is in Norman’s own words: A whole new level. Norm is not shy. Here he further fleshes out his plan: Redefining The Center!

Again, you are needed. Listen to him. Call him up. E-mail him. Ask about Agitation Nation. Norm’s program is live each day from Los Angeles from 3-6 pm Pacific, 6-9 pm Eastern over many fine radio stations. If a local station is not available to you, just do as I do: listen to the live stream program on Norm’s website: The Norman Goldman Show. If you can’t listen to a live broadcast, podcasts are available for free at Norm’s site.

Let’s reclaim the Democratic Party.

©2011 The Massachusetts Observer

Here is some proof that I am doing my best to “walk the walk.”

The Tea Party’s upcoming epiphany

2011-01-04T10:53:00.005-05:00

January 6 is a very important day. It marks that often-misunderstood “Twelfth Day of Christmas.” It is the Christian Day of the Epiphany. And in this year of 2011 it is the day when the United States Constitution will be read into the record of the United States House of Representatives. How Divine! How perfect!

People unfamiliar with the term “Epiphany” generally are aware of the story it represents. Think of the Christmas carol, “We Three Kings.” The narrative tells us that the travelers were following a star in the heavens. That star was their burst of light, the sudden revelation that the Christ child had come into the world. They had, in our common vernacular, seen the light.

Using this story of The Epiphany in secular writing, authors such as James Joyce developed it into a literary device. The literary epiphany has come to symbolize any sudden burst of insight, any occasion when an individual can say, “Oh, now I see. I get it. I see the light.”

This is what makes January 6, 2011 so important. Those whose message has been “Repent and believe the Constitution” will see it in focus, as clearly visible as that Star of Bethlehem of old. They will have the opportunity to point and say, “Behold, there it is.”

Perhaps, as the Constitution is being read, the Tea Partiers and other Republicans and Independents who have thought of themselves as voices in the wilderness will be open to further revelations. Perhaps this may become their “Road to Damascus” moment and, like the Apostle Paul, will be changed from persecutors to protectors. Is it still the season of miracles?

January 6, 2011 — what will it bring?

©2011
***
There have been a number of examples of epiphanies recently. One involved Tea Party Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell of Delaware. CNN provides a look back at some campaign moments.