RichardHowe.com – Voices from Lowell & Beyond

Seen & Heard: Vol. 37

A weekly report on things I’ve read, heard and seen since last Wednesday. 

Article: “Dear Client, thieves may be eyeing your home. No worries.” By Ron Lieber for New York Times on August 31, 2026. This longtime Times business columnist returned from vacation to find a letter from the bank that held his mortgage “confirming changes to your address.” Only, he hadn’t made any changes. He hurriedly called the bank and the person he reached (at a distant call center) said the records showed no address change so it he shouldn’t worry about it. He pressed the call center person who said there was an added layer of security he could activate but would have to do it in person at a branch. So he went to a local branch – this is a big national bank – spent 45 minutes with an assistant manager who didn’t know what he was talking about. In other words, the “added layer of security” wasn’t a thing. Afterwards, acting in his professional capacity as a NYT columnist about to do an article on the bank, he got someone who knew what they were doing to call him back. It seems the columnist lives in a condo (called “an apartment” by New Yorkers) and that the unit number messed up the bank’s automated address check system which considered it a new address. However, the bank official and others the reporter spoke to for this article says that changing the mailing address of a property owner on file with a bank is one tactic thieves use to conduct title theft, but that those most at risk are the elderly or recently deceased, so if you know anyone in those categories, you should pay especially close attention to their property and to the local property records to intercept any fraudulent activity early in the process.

Article: “Collecting Old Filmstrips Before They Disappear” by Christian Kriticos, New York Times, September 5, 2026. Filmstrips were a mainstay of my K through 8 education which ended in 1972. Because I’m interested in the history of technology and also in people who try to save information and the tangible media it resides on, I was very interested in this story. Hardly any archives collect filmstrips so some volunteers working independently are doing their best.

Obituary: Gloria Steinem (1934-2026) by Katharine Q. Seelye, New York Times, September 4, 2026. It’s funny but I don’t recall reading anything by Gloria Steinem or seeing her interviewed, yet I had tremendous respect for her. Perhaps that’s because I’ve recognized that the US has long treated women as second class citizens. It was much worse long ago but that disparate treatment continues today and in some ways is worsening since young women growing up in America today in some ways have fewer rights than their grandmothers had at the same age. I knew that Steinem fought for the cause of women for her entire long life and respect her for that which is why I made note of her passing. 

Book Review: “Two lives, one Russia” by Nicholas Danilov (1988). The name “Nicholas Danilov” came up a few weeks ago and I immediately recalled that in the 1980s while working as an American journalist in Moscow he was arrested for espionage and held for several weeks until he was exchanged for a Soviet spy who’d been arrested by the Americans. I wanted to refresh my memory so ordered his memoir via interlibrary loan. One reason Danilov wanted to work in Russia was because of his deep family routes there. His grandfather had been a senior general in the Russian Army before World War I, survived the war and the Soviet takeover and got himself and his family out of Russia. But the grandfather of the general’s wife had also been a Russian army officer named Fyodor Frolov. However, when Frolov was just a lieutenant in 1825, he got caught up in an attempt by a cohort of army officers to assassinate the Czar and initiate a democratic revolution in Russia. The coup was discovered, the leaders executed, and the followers exiled to Siberia. After ten years of incarceration, Frolov married and had a family. While working in Moscow, Danilov spent many hours searching for Frolov’s story. When Danilov was arrested and imprisoned, he constantly compared his experience with that of his ancestor. Although it was incredibly stressful, Danilov was held for just over two weeks and then was released and flew back to the US. This book intersperses Frolov’s story with the author’s own. I found it hard to put down. 

YouTube Channel: Moodi Foodi Berlin. Each video on this channel takes an in depth view of a street food vendor in Berlin, Germany. It popped into my YouTube feed recently, I watched for a few minutes and was hooked. Why did the algorithm show me this? I do watch a lot of cooking videos including some from Germany. That’s because I lived in that country for 3 years in the early 1980s, have returned on visits a few times, and always enjoyed the food and tried to duplicate it for home cooking. I haven’t seen any food trucks in the series. Instead, the vendors typically use small trailers that they tow with their small cars. The episode starts with the vendor pulling into a plaza, unhooking the trailer and getting ready for customers. It highlights vendors who mostly cook from scratch, right in the trailer. The food looks great but I expect speed of service is not a big consideration.

L’Etoile – A Star on Prince Street, Chapter 5

Two years ago, Louise Peloquin began sharing excerpts from L’Etoile, a French-language newspaper published in Lowell from 1886 to 1957. At my urging, she has agreed to compile some of her previous posts with added contextual information into a book manuscript to be called, L’Etoile: A Star on Prince Street. Starting this week, Louise will present draft chapters from the book in serial form here on the blog. Today, we have another installment.

****

L’Etoile – A Star on Prince Street

Chapter 5 – Star Sustenance

By Louise Peloquin

     In Chapter 3, we quoted an excerpt from a 1994 interview of Biron’s youngest child Marthe who worked at L’Etoile from her adolescence until the newspaper’s closing in 1957. She explained how revenue acquired from printing services guaranteed what she called her father’s “independence of thought.” Biron advertised L’Etoile but he needed ads from others.

Marthe talks about advertising.

     “French newspaper circulation was never huge. In order to support the newspapers, it was necessary to solicit advertisements at 35 cents an inch, often going door to door in the quest…

With the newspapers, politicians and professionals seized the opportunity to rally votes and drum up business among the Franco-American readership. The budget from their ads was minimal.

Moreover, the newspaper exempted parishes from the cost of printing weekly bulletins by including them gratuitously in its columns. However, their promoting the paper was not allowed….

The newspaper team members persevered… They functioned like centipedes, from linotype to press, from typing to correcting proofs, in the search for advertisers.

As a constantly renewed miracle, the paper managed to appear…with its message of life, its message of hope.”

Popping up here and there among L’Etoile columns, inserts listed a variety of items offered by L’Etoile Publishing Company.

Here are two examples.

« Avez-Vous Besoin de

Cartes d’Affaires

Petites Circulaires

Grandes Circulaires

Livrets de Reçus

Etiquettes de toutes sortes

Factures de toutes sortes

Entêtes de Lettres

Lettres d’Invitation

Envelopes de toutes sortes

Livrets de vente avec Duplicata

Bons de Pain

Bons de Repas

Menus, Etc., Etc.

L’Etoile Pub. Co.”

“Do You Need

Business cards

Small circulars

Large circulars

Receipt booklets

Labels of all kinds

Invoices of all kinds

Letter head

Invitation Letters

Envelopes of all kinds

Sales booklets with Duplicates

Bread Vouchers

Meal Vouchers

Menus, Etc. Etc.

L’Etoile Publishing Company »

« Augmentez vos Affaires en Annonçant.

Les Marchands de Lowell devraient retenir une espace dans

L’Etoile

Afin de faire connaître au public acheteur ce qu’ils ont à vendre.

Augmentez Votre Commerce et Encouragez votre Journal Local en Insérant une Annonce.

Notre Département d’Impressions est prêt à exécuter toutes sortes de travaux, depuis les cartes de visite jusqu’aux placards.

Ouvrage de Luxe une Spécialité. »

« Increase Your Business Affairs by Publicizing.

The Merchants of Lowell should retain a space in

L’Etoile

In order to make known to the purchasing public what they have to sell.

Increase Your Business and Encourage your Local Newspaper by Inserting

an Advertisement. Our Printing Department is ready to execute all sorts of work, from calling cards to signs.

Luxury Work a Specialty.”

      Canvassing for ads, publishing ads and encouraging “the establishments” appearing in L’Etoile, all made for a virtuous circle. The French term “entraide,” meaning mutual aid, comes to mind.

Here is an example of an ophthalmologist’s recurrent ad.

« Vous n’allez pas à l’aveugle en visitant Joseph-F. Montminy

492 Merrimack. Tel. 6211”

“You do not go there blindly by visiting Joseph- F. Montminy

492 Merrimack. Tel. 6211”

Once the ads procured, L’Etoile followed through by encouraging readers to patronize the businesses in question.

« Lecteurs!

Réservez vos achats pour les maisons qui publient leurs annonces dans L’Etoile vous serez mieux servis et vous rendrez service à votre journal en le mentionnant. »

“Readers!

Reserve your purchases for the establishments which publish their advertisements in L’Etoile. You will be better served and you will be of service to your newspaper by mentioning it.”

L’Etoile’s mission was serving Lowell’s French-Canadian community. Therefore, presenting businesses which could cater to its needs and wishes was a priority. The paper wanted to offer readers information to facilitate daily life.

Biron was known to examine each advertising order and to ask himself whether or not the establishment, whilst legitimately aiming at enlarging its market, had its clientele’s best interest in mind. Concern for L’Etoile’s industrious, hard-working readers was ever present and Biron believed that they were well aware that ads appearing in the paper were worthy of their consideration.

French-Canadians enjoyed preparing meals and were innovative in making the most of the contents of their pantries. Nothing was wasted. The skimpiest of ingredients could turn into meals worthy of modern Michelin Guide chefs. A measure of this and a pinch of that, whatever was at hand became the culinary enhancement which turned a couple of carrots and potatoes, a measure of flour, an egg, a spoonful of suet into a gourmet tourte.

Here is what Union Market had to offer Lowellians.

“Union Market, Tel. 4810 – 4811 – 4812

173-175-177 Middlesex. Foot of South St.

Spécial pour vendredi et samedi. Les prix sont plus bas que jamais. La qualité est la meilleure.

Gigots et Filets…..12c.

Quartiers de Devant…..10c.

Côtelettes de Veau…..13c.

Côtelettes…..12 ½ c

Steak de Veau…..20c.

Boules de Porc…..13c

Oreilles de Cochon…..8c

Museau de Coch0n…..10c

Tête de Cochon…..10c

Volaille Fraîche Tuée…..20c

Oie Fraîche Tuée…..25c

Canards Frais Tués…..20c »

„Union Market, Tel. 4810 – 4811 – 4812

173-175-177 Middlesex. Foot of South St.

Special for Friday and Saturday. The prices are lower than ever. The quality is the best.

Legs of lamb and Filets…..12c

Front Quarters…..10c

Veal Cutlets…..13c

Cutlets…..12 1/2c

Veal Steaks…..20c

Pork Meatballs…..13c

Pig’s Ears…..8c

Pig’s Snout…..10c

Pig’s Head…..10c

Freshly Killed Poultry…..20c

Freshly Killed Goose…..25c

Freshly Killed Ducks…..20c”

Union Market probably carried pork belly and pig’s feet as well. A “ragoût de pattes de cochon et ses boulettes,” a hearty French-Canadian stew made with pig’s feet and pork meatballs simmered in a rich brown sauce, was a favorite dish appreciated by many in Little Canada.

Editing ads and presenting L’Etoile Publishing Company services were tasks as seriously  undertaken as writing feature articles. Every printed piece was lovingly composed and crafted, all for the benefit of the readers.

(All translations from French to English are by Louise Peloquin.)

Barney Frank: his final last word by Marjorie Arons-Barron

The entry below is being cross posted from Marjorie Arons-Barron’s own blog.

The late Barney Frank’s book, The Hard Path to Unity: Why We Must Reform the Left to Rescue Democracy, to be published September 15 by Yale University Press, is a valedictory the former Massachusetts Fourth District Congressman wrote during the last year of his life. In a sweeping broadside peppered with astute observations, he describes it as “an effort to undo the damage inflicted” by the “well intentioned but deeply flawed choices” of a Democratic left that is, he insists, “largely responsible for the political strength that xenophobic populism has come to enjoy in the developed world.” He opens with “Mea culpa,” but this is no personal apology. He assigns the guilt for this “tragic historical irony” to others on the left, especially the left of the left.

Frank’s argument is sharper than that Democrats have merely moved too far left to win. He indicts two distinct parts of the Democratic left for jointly creating the conditions in which right-wing populism could flourish. First, he maintains that, from the 1980s until recently, mainstream liberals neglected, in varying degrees, working people’s economic insecurities. Then, after Trump’s 2016 victory, self-styled progressives alienated potential allies with absolutist positions on social and cultural issues that undercut chances for electoral success. Worse, Frank argues, mainstream liberals have failed to challenge “the left wing of the left wing’s left,” letting the Republican right tar all Democrats with the most extreme positions — “defund the police,” pronoun litmus tests, open borders, and more.

Frank’s basic thesis, and the organizing principle of the book is that Democrats must offer practical solutions to the extreme concentration of wealth in this country and not subordinate that goal to a host of social transformations that are not only unpopular but will undermine both the Democratic Party and American democracy.

Frank believed his bona fides as a card-carrying progressive — battle scars earned over decades in the legislative trenches, fighting against rising income inequality and for civil rights, gay, labor and women’s rights — earned him the standing and the credibility to speak frankly to an audience not primed to hear his message.

He may have an audience. Even some more established “progressives” like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez are reframing the posture they took in their earlier days in politics. She told ABC News recently that “Woke 1 was crazy.”

Frank writes that, when the dissident left made certain issues litmus tests for candidates, mainstream Democrats remained silent on things that were unpalatable to them, just as today too many party members have quietly allowed themselves to be defined by much of the extremist agenda of Democratic Socialists. Certainly, Republicans are only too happy to smear the whole party with the fringe call for abolishing prisons, eliminating national borders, even canceling Thanksgiving.  The ensuing culture wars have fueled populist outrage and undercut mainstream efforts to address the income inequality that, Frank argues, is destroying the people’s faith in liberal democracy.

Frank, who cultivated a reputation as the smartest one in the room, is oddly lazy about his descriptive terms, and his definitions are often diffuse. Liberal democracy he defines narrowly as rule by a majority that respects the rights of minority voices. He might well have added how free and fair elections, respect for the rule of law, free press and independent judiciary – all under attack today – are key to the weakened democracy he wants to rescue.

When he aspires to address the Democratic left worldwide, the book gets muddled. He uses “the Left” too promiscuously, paying too little attention to the new democratic-socialist movement in the United States and failing to distinguish it from the substantially different labor and social-democratic parliamentary parties of Europe.

He saw the book as a response to the tragic irony that deeply flawed bad choices by the Democratic left (meaning those who are labeled progressives today) “are largely responsible for the political strength that xenophobic populism has come to enjoy in the developed world.”  The grandiosity of this claim oversimplifies. There’s strong evidence that economic insecurity feeds populism — often through culture and identity — but that explains only part of whether discontent hardens into a successful radical-right movement.

To Frank, the cardinal sin of mainstream liberals here and abroad was embracing free trade, technological innovation and growing GDP while failing to address the lost jobs, stagnant wages, weakened communities and widening inequality that came with them. They mistook a growing economy for shared prosperity and served the affluent professionals and corporate titans of Hollywood, Silicon Valley and Wall Street, ignoring the growing concentrations of wealth that left working-class people behind.

Against that economic background, the far-left minority (what Frank calls the left of the left) was simultaneously pushing an extreme social agenda that mainstream Democrats (not to mention independents and others) were not ready for. One example of the lamentable social issues: the insistence of some transgender activists that male and female are no longer “valid categories.”

He faults activists for confusing the righteousness of their views with majority opinion, and for often misreading resistance as prejudice or ignorance instead of honorable disagreement. The litmus tests and simplistic slogans of the radical left are troubling enough in a primary; they are fatal when activists withhold support from the party’s nominee in a general election, effectively preferring a Republican to a Democrat who failed to check every purity box.  Simultaneously, Democrats cannot gloss over legitimate immigration, crime or sex-and-gender questions merely because Republicans exploit them.

Frank’s recommendations are rooted in a deep understanding of the legislative process and a willingness to tackle problems that reflexive Democrats are often loath to discuss. From his years in government — though he did not always practice the niceties of persuasion himself — Frank understood legislative sequencing, compromise, and the moral weight of actually enacting policy.

More valuable than Frank’s turgid analysis of Keynesian economics is his insider account (as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee) of strategies enacted to save the banking system and the auto industry in the financial crisis of 2008. The lasting result was the deepening resentment in homeowners and other individuals who saw government’s role only as protecting institutions that needed protection the least. Since that crisis, voter cynicism about the efficacy of government solutions still prompts high unfavorability ratings of both parties, eroding public confidence and participation, which effective government requires.

His recurring theme is not new but remains relevant, namely, that “forging a coalition behind a broader, less politically provocative agenda is the only way to restore majority support for liberal governance.” He is not without practical solutions to the predominant sources of economic grievances, with specifics on health costs, housing and environmental regulations.  As for how to pay for them, other than naming farm subsidies and the space program, he dodges cuts to be made,  saying “I do not presume to dictate where cutbacks should be made,”

Frank fans will find vintage Barney aphorisms such as “cursing the darkness is more emotionally satisfying and less intellectually taxing than working out the candlepower needed to dispel it;” and “for a politician, criticizing your friends can cost more than standing up to your enemies.”

Unfortunately, he gives just two sentences to one of the thorniest issues at play in Democratic politics: the intra-party differences in attitudes toward Israel and the resulting raw antisemitism, much of it intergenerational, that threatens the party today. In his final interviews, Frank staked out a more nuanced position than this book offers, one that is neither unconditional support nor outright rejection.

His arguments are not new. The book aggregates concerns he aired for decades — excoriating neoliberals and the far left alike, advocating pragmatic legislative incrementalism. At his memorial service in May, we learned how hard the writing had become as congestive heart failure advanced and the heroic part his husband, Jim Ready, played in helping him finish. It is a small book —111 pages— that, had Frank been in better health, might have been trimmed into an essay for The Atlantic‘s Ideas section or a long op-ed. Instead, as he trigger-warned us, “redundancy is preferable to any possible ambiguity,” and the main theme returns, in slightly different dress, again and again.

In the end, the book (already somewhat dated) works as a political warning — above all on economic abandonment, cultural litmus tests and coalition discipline. He is right about ideological excess and insufficient repudiation. But the more vexing problem is that many voters simply don’t believe that existing institutions, parties or economic arrangements respond to them. Cultural overreach can worsen that crisis; moderation alone cannot cure it. (He supported the more moderate Democrats in Michigan and Maine primaries, both of whom lost.)

The Hard Path to Unity is more an epilogue from Barney Frank —his conviction about how a broad Democratic coalition must conduct itself — than a comprehensive strategy for how “the Left” can “Rescue Democracy.”

Lowell Politics: September 13, 2026

The Lowell City Council met on Tuesday, September 8, 2026. The council is still on its twice-monthly summer meeting schedule which typically yields a very long meeting, however, this one lasted just over two hours, which is concise by summer standards. Contributing to the brevity of the meeting was the absence of City Manager Tom Golden – he gets asked a lot of questions by councilors during most meetings – and three councilors – John Descoteaux, Belinda Juran and Corey Robinson – all participated via Zoom rather than in person.

I’m a big fan of doing things on Zoom. It is efficient and, if well organized with engaged participants, can accomplish much. While I do think that regular council meetings should be held in person, I’m happy that councilors who are unable to attend in person are able to still participate. And one of the unintended consequences of some attending via Zoom is that the meetings are faster since participating remotely on video tends to curtail the kind of impromptu, impulsive council comments that prolong meetings without accomplishing much. Perhaps the council should conduct a controlled experiment with one member each week on Zoom to see what effect that has on the dynamics of the meeting.

Here’s the link to the YouTube recording of the meeting for anyone who is interested in watching.

****

The issue of Data Centers was on the agenda in the form of a joint motion by Councilors Vesna Nuon and Sean McDonough requesting the city manager develop a request for proposals (RFP) “for a community impact study examining the various impacts of data centers, including but not limited to environmental, public health, utility and energy and fire safety impacts with said study to be funded privately.”

However, when the motion was called, the councilors who made it asked that it be withdrawn because Governor Maura Healey had issued an executive order on data centers just that day, and councilors wanted to understand the implications of that order before pursuing local action.

Healey’s order, “Establishing requirements for responsible data center development and operations in Massachusetts to protect and support ratepayers, communities, and the environment,” requires data centers to address environmental and public health impacts, cover the costs of infrastructure they require, and to obtain the consent of the host community in the form of a community benefits agreement before any state agency may issue a permit for the proposed data center.

The Environmental Law Foundation, which is involved in the lawsuit by some Lowell residents against the Markley Data Center located here, praised the bill but pointed out that it does not apply to existing data centers and urged that more state action be taken to address them. (An article on the Conservation Law Foundation website provides a detailed view of the Lowell situation and cites that as the prime example of why the state should address these retroactively.)

As I’ve written previously, public pushback against data centers is growing stronger across the country with politicians from both parties supporting the attempted crackdown. Certainly, there is the immediate harm done to those who live in proximity to data centers and to those who must pay higher electricity and utility bills due to the stratospheric demands for power and cooling, but I also believe data centers are a tangible emblem of societal unease with both artificial intelligence and the billionaires who control it.

If anything, that concern increased recently when a group of experimental AI agents broke out of the containment system their human creators had constructed to control the agents and staged a cyberattack on a company called Hugging Face.

Hugging Face is like a public library for the AI world. Not all AI applications are created by the handful of trillion-dollar companies that are owned and operated by the aforementioned billionaires. Many academics and independent researchers are working in AI. Most of them have an “open source” philosophy that makes computer code they develop widely accessible so that new users can benefit from it but also improve it.

The rogue AI agents had been tasked with probing cybersecurity applications within a controlled, limited environment. However, once they started the task, the AI agents independently schemed to break out of their containment, hack into Hugging Face, find AI tools that would help them defeat the cybersecurity systems they were tasked with testing, and cover their tracks so that no humans could discover what they had done.

But humans did discover it, almost by accident, and were able to disable the AI agents. Here’s what New York Times tech reporter Kevin Roose wrote about the implications of this episode:

A.I. safety experts were even more alarmed. They saw the case as the first real-world example of an A.I. system successfully escaping human control, commandeering resources and scheming to cover its tracks. One of the independent investigators of the Hugging Face incident wrote that it felt “like it’s more than 50 percent of the way to full-blown A.I. takeover.”

By “full-blown A.I. takeover,” she meant a scenario in which an A.I. system literally takes over the world: shutting humans out of critical systems and seizing political, economic and military power.

I always remember an interview with a concerned technologist early in our AI age (which means three years ago). When asked, what’s the worst that can happen, the tech guru said, “If you assign an AI agent the task of solving world hunger” the agent would likely decide that the most efficient way to accomplish that task is to cause the deaths of 10 percent of the world’s population which would leave more food for the survivors.

Do I think that is likely to happen? No, but I also have zero faith that the people who control this stuff are motivated by anything other than maximizing their own profit at the expense of the rest of us. We’ve been through this before with social media and the same people that brought us that chaos are driving the AI train. I don’t want AI to go away; I just want some collective controls that will safeguard all of us. Right now, our national government shows no inclination to do anything like that, so it’s up to ordinary citizens at the local and state level where people have the most impact on the political process to force their representatives to respond to these legitimate concerns. Data centers sit in our midst and serve as a flashpoint in this societal struggle.

****

As promised in last week’s newsletter, here is a precinct-level look at the electoral performance of City Councilors Corey Robinson and Sokhary Chau in the September 1, 2026, Democratic Primary.

16th Middlesex District (Lorena Betts defeated Corey Robinson. She received 1611 votes in Chelmsford and 1247 in Lowell for a total of 2858. Robinson received 256 votes in Chelmsford and 956 in Lowell for a total of 1212).

Let’s start with the parts of Lowell that are within this rep district but are not part of Robinson’s city council district.

2026 Democratic Primary Lowell precincts in Ward 1 (Pawtucketville)

Precinct 1: Betts received 124 votes; Robinson received 75.
Precinct 2: Betts received 169 votes; Robinson received 89.
Precinct 3: Betts received 224 votes; Robinson received 131.
Precinct 4: Betts received 233 votes; Robinson received 123.

Ward 4/Precinct 4: Betts received 78 votes; Robinson received 75.

Now, for the portion of the 16th Middlesex that is within Robinson’s council district:

2026 Democratic Primary vote in Ward 2 (Centralville)

Precinct 1: Betts received 66 votes. Robinson received 85.
Precinct 2: Betts received 92 votes; Robinson received 96.
Precinct 3: Betts received 161 votes; Robinson received 152.
Precinct 4: Betts received 100 votes; Robinson received 130.

Here are the results of the 2025 city council election in that district in which Robinson ran unopposed:

District 2 results in 2025 City Election (Robinson):

Precinct 1: Robinson received 99 votes with 17 blanks
Precinct 2: Robinson received 101 votes with 29 blanks
Precinct 3: Robinson received 208 votes with 59 blanks
Precinct 4: Robinson received 147 votes with 41 blanks

18th Middlesex District (Tara Hong defeated Sokhary Chau. Hong received 2041 votes. Chau received 991.)

On the city council, Chau represents District 6, so we will leave the primary election results from Ward 6 to the end of this section. Here are the results in the precincts in the 18th Middlesex District that are outside Sokhary Chau’s council district:

Ward 4/Prec 3: Tara Hong received 74 votes; Sokhary Chau received 19.

Ward 5/Prec 1A: Hong received 54; Chau received 15.

Ward 7/Prec 1: Hong received 123 votes; Chau received 67.
Ward 7/Prec 2: Hong received 138 votes; Chau received 35.
Ward 7/Prec 3: Hong received 185 votes; Chau received 40.
Ward 7/Prec 4: Hong received 103 votes; Chau received 45.

Ward 8/Prec 1: Hong received 177 votes; Chau received 89.
Ward 8/Prec 2: Hong received 172 votes; Chau received 69.
Ward 8/Prec 3: Hong received 325 votes; Chau received 193.
Ward 8/Prec 4: Hong received 243 votes; Chau received 148.

Then, in Ward 6, which is within Sokhary Chau’s council district, here are the results from last week’s primary:

Ward 6/Prec 1: Hong received 200 votes; Chau received 102.
Ward 6/Prec 2: Hong received 114 votes; Chau received 58.
Ward 6/Prec 3A: Hong received 20 votes; Chau received 9.
Ward 6/Prec 4: Hong received 113 votes; Chau received 102.

Finally, here are the District 6 results from the 2025 city election in which Sokhary Chau ran unopposed:

Precinct 1: Chau received 197 votes with 53 blanks
Precinct 2: Chau received 101 votes with 36 blanks
Precinct 3: Chau received 63 votes with 10 blanks
Precinct 4: Chau received 144 votes with 26 blanks.

****

This week in my Seen & Heard column, I wrote about my visit to the Great Elephant Migration exhibition in Boston; commented on the obituary of Dolly Parton; noted a story about the high incidence of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) among former NFL players; and wrote about the temporary relocation of the 900 year old Bayeux, from its home in Normandy to the British Museum in London.

Also on richardhowe.com this week, I reposted a group of essays by local authors on 9-11; and Leo Racicot reviewed the movie “Tony” about the late chef and TV personality, Anthony Bourdain.

****

Here’s some info on some Lowell Walks I’ll be leading this fall:

Saturday, September 26 & Sunday, September 27, 2026, both at 10am – Walking tour of Lowell Cemetery. The tour takes 90 minutes and begins at the Lawrence Street entrance to the cemetery. It is free and requires no registration. The same tour is offered on both days.

Saturday, October 17, 2026, at 10am – “Secrets of Lowell Cemetery” tour which is part of the of the Poe in Lowell Festival. Edgar Allan Poe came to Lowell at least three times to lecture but also to spend time with a female friend who is buried in Lowell Cemetery. Learn their story and the stories of others involved in their orbit. This tour is free and begins at the Knapp Avenue entrance of the cemetery (77 Knapp Avenue).