richardhowe.com

I am a big admirer of Tom Friedman’s thinking and writing, so I was glad to see his column in this morning’s NY Times in which he takes on the divisiveness that is shredding the national social fabric. I must note, however, that Friedman’s commentary arrives some days after this blog took up the national nastiness topic. Read Tom Friedman’s column here.

6 Comments »

The Herald has a story today about a new kind of  “on demand” service. It’s not by Comcast or by Verizon/FIOs. This is “books on demand” brought to us by the Harvard Book Store and it’s $100,000 Epresso Book Machine. In four minutes or less any one of about 3.6 million books can be printed out fully bound for an eager book buyer willing to pay the cost of about $8. Known in Cambridge as The Gutenborg, the first book printed “expresso style” yesterday was a paean to history. The first book printed in what is now the United States was the “Bay Psalms Book” (The Whole Booke of Psalmes) - produced locally in 1640 by another Cambridge printer Stephen Daye. This 21st Century process offers all kinds of possibilities for book lovers - especially in gaining access to out-of-print books. Mmmm, I wonder if we could expresso “Cotton Was King” - an important local history.

There are few rare copies of the Bay Psalms Book still in existence - including at the Library of Congress, Brown University, Yale University and the Boston Public Library. Minister John Eliot -preacher and missionary to the Indians at Wamesit - as well as Richard Mather and John Cotton are said to be among the contributing translators to this poetic version of scripture. 

I’ll be following the use of this “expresso” book printing machine and hoping for its success. For now it’s back to my own book reading - James Rollins “The Doomsday Key” - on loan to me from the Haverhill Public Library though the Merrimack Valley Library Consortium using my Tewksbury library card with a pick-up at the Pollard Memorial Library in Lowell. Support your public library - I certainly do!

7 Comments »

Despite our current fiscal crisis, the high cost of living, and all the other challenges we hear about far too often, I must say that I’m proud to be from Massachusetts.  Time and again, this state is at the forefront of social change, a position that, in the short run, is often controversial but, in the long run, is proven by history to have been the right thing to do.

I was reminded of this while reading a story in yesterday’s New York Times about efforts underway in state legislatures around the country to enact (state) constitutional bans on mandatory health insurance for citizens.  Banning health insurance?  That sounds awfully irrational to me.  Surprisingly, the motivation for these efforts is not President Obama’s stated determination to enact sweeping health care reform.  These efforts began well before Obama’s election.  So who’s to blame?  Massachusetts, according to the Times story:

Proposed constitutional amendments began cropping up after 2006, when Massachusetts enacted a sweeping state measure meant to create nearly universal health coverage for residents. Elsewhere, some leaders — opposed to the possibility of insurance mandates or government-run systems — began suggesting constitutional amendments to block such measures from their own states.

Back in 2003 when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same sex partners had a constitutional right to marry, the country went into convulsions.  Nationwide opposition to the idea of same sex marriage played a major role in the 2004 election, perhaps costing John Kerry the presidency.  But when’s the last time you heard or read anything about gay marriage?  Today, just five years later, it’s a non-issue.  In fact, a story in today’s Globe even suggests that the highest ranks of the military, the last bastion of opposition to civil rights for gay Americans, are signaling that they are ready to dump the 1993 “don’t ask don’t tell” policy. 

Just a few weeks ago I wrote a post about Lowell’s Chauncey Knapp and his role in the pre-Civil War abolitionist movement.  On the issue of the abolition of slavery – an institution that any rational human being of today sees only as a complete abomination – Massachusetts was on the right side of history.  Same thing in 1775 – it’s no coincidence that the Revolutionary War began only a few miles from where I now write.  So don’t be too down on our state – we have our problems, sure, but we’re usually on the right side of history.

7 Comments »

Many of our readers have sought elective office themselves or have been deeply involved in the campaigns of others, so collectively we could put together a pretty comprehensive list of things you should and should not do if you ever plan to be a candidate.  I’ll start, but please submit your advice via the comment section:

If you’re going to run for elective office, be sure to have voted in previous elections.

Senate candidate Steve Pagliuca has discovered this rule a bit late.  The Globe reports that through the years he has only voted in one-third of the elections in which he was eligible to vote.  Showing up on election day isn’t all that burdensome, so failing to participate and a regular basis demonstrates a kind of disdain for our system of democracy which is OK if you just want to live your life in relative anonymity – that’s your choice – just don’t run for office and expect to get elected.

Of course Pagliuca is a pillar of civic virtue compared to Meg Whitman, the former eBay CEO who is now a (Republican) candidate for governor of California.  In 28 years, she never voted in a single election.  Here’s a commercial being run by her opponent:

3 Comments »

I received an email the other day from Mr. Gerry Nicosia who wrote at the suggestion of someone who is a regular reader of this site.  Nicosia has organized a “book party and celebration” for “Jan Kerouac: A Life in Memory” which is the first biography of the daughter of Jack Kerouac.  The event is this Saturday, October 3, 2009 at St Anne’s Church at 10 Kirk Street in Lowell.  It is free and open to the public. 

3 Comments »

As readers have seen, Marcel’s First Rule is “There are always more outsiders than insiders.”

Marcel’s Second Rule of Politics is “Everyone should take a turn (or at least try to take a turn).”

Marcel believed in civic participation in whatever form was the best fit for somebody, whether it is serving as clerk for the troop of Boy Scouts in the local parish or taking a leadership position in a union, both of which he did. He didn’t think someone should hold a U.S. Senate seat for 47 years—no offense to the late EMK.

3 Comments »

Last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court invalidated the portion of the city of Lowell’s juvenile curfew ordinance that imposed a criminal penalty on violators.  In Commonwealth v Weston W, a juvenile – SJC-10299, the court held that the Massachusetts Constitution contains a “fundamental right of movement” meaning that inhabitants of the Commonwealth have the basic right to go where they want, when they want and that any restrictions on movement must be “the least restrictive means possible” to achieve the legitimate governmental goals. 

While the SJC praised the city of Lowell for the thoroughness and thoughtfulness of its ordinance, it nevertheless held that the criminal penalty – a fine of up to $500 and a finding of delinquency (all violators would be minors and therefore not subject to a “guilty” finding) was not the “least restrictive means” of accomplishing the government’s objective.  The court pointed to the civil penalty – a $50 fine and notification of parents – as a less burdensome restriction.  Since, according to the court, there was no evidence in the record that the civil penalty alone would be insufficient to accomplish the goals of the ordinance, namely to protect juveniles. 

This was actually two cases, both of which were heard at the Lowell Juvenile Court in the fall of 2004.  The Juvenile Court judge actually ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutional and forwarded several questions to the Supreme Judicial Court for its opinion.  (This is a rare process that the SJC uses in cases where there is a serious and previously unanswered Constitutional issue). 

While the Lowell ordinance is still intact, its effectiveness is probably greatly diminished as a practical matter.  To impose the civil penalty, the only recourse left to the police is to issue a citation to the juvenile at the time and place of infraction.  If the juvenile, who probably carries no identification, chooses to give a false name, there’s probably not a lot the police can do.  Under the prior procedure, when the juvenile was arrested, he would at least be transported to the police station, fingerprinted and photographed, thereby increasing the chances of obtaining an accurate identification.  Still, it’s difficult to predict what effect, if any, this decision will have on late night law enforcement in Lowell.

No Comments »

Did you ever slip up and wish you could take it back, but you couldn’t?…You can bet Saturday Night Live’s newest cast member Jenny Slate feels that way this morning. While making her first appearance on the show that launched the careers of so many comedic icons, Jenny slipped up, big time. Poor Jenny Slate… during one skit she played the host of a cable TV show called Biker Chick Chat. The dialogue required her to use the word “frickin” numerous times (I mean, like every third word or so). Unfortunately, about a minute into the skit the newbie goofed and said the actual “f” word on live national TV . The audience seemed to pick it up on the “f” bomb and reacted with a mild groan of surprise, but Slate continued on unflustered. All reports agree, the slip up was just that, a slip up and completely unintentional on Slate’s part. Several years earlier another new cast member named Charles Rocket also unintentional used the real “f” word on his first appearance on Saturday Night Live. Who’s Charles Rocket you ask? Exactly! NBC fired him the next week. It will be interesting to see what happens some 25 years later.

And of course the entire skit (in the raw as they say) is available on YouTube

3 Comments »

The local newspaper published its annual “Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation” in today’s paper.  The “average number of copies of each issue during the preceding 12 months” is reported as 42,518.  Last year’s report (September 29, 2008) gave that number as 46,445.  That represents a decline of 8.5%.  This year, the “annual subscription price” is listed as $208.  Last year, that amount was $117.  That’s an increase of 78%.

2 Comments »

The political action committee, Move Lowell Forward, has endorsed nine candidates for Lowell City Council including three incumbents and six challengers.  The following is from the group’s press release:

The local political action committee, Move Lowell Forward, has officially announced their endorsements for the Lowell City Council. The slate  consists of nine candidates, the full number of open seats on the Council.

They have endorsed incumbents Kevin Broderick, William Martin, and James Milinazzo, along with challengers Franky Descoteaux, David Koch, Joseph Mendonça, Patrick Murphy, Ben Opara, and Raymond Weicker for City Council.

The endorsements come after a rigorous review of returned Move Lowell Forward questionnaires, the voting history of incumbents, and of all candidates’ campaigns, backgrounds, and past experience.

“We wanted the best, most impartial outcome possible,” says Cliff Krieger, chair of the PAC. “We took our evaluation of the candidates very seriously.” Questionnaires were at the heart of the process, he said. “We wanted to know what ideas the candidates were bringing to the table on the issues facing Lowell. Though we have a stated commitment to supporting professional city government, we created a process to be as fair as possible to any and all who took the time to answer our questions.”

Topics for the questionnaire ranged from ones regarding professionalism in city government, to quality of life, to inquiries on affordable housing, transportation, the proposed 0.75% local meals tax increase, and the Hamilton Canal District project, among others.

“We are proud to endorse these candidates, though it was difficult to narrow it down,” said Pat Vondal, a member of Move Lowell Forward. “There were a high number of deserving candidates and we appreciate all the participation we had. We’re very lucky to have such a great array of candidates vying for our Council vote this November.”

The PAC hopes that by carefully selecting a slate of candidates, it will give voters one more tool to use when deciding on their nine City Council votes this November, and that it will result in better turnout.  They encourage voters to ask themselves which of the many candidates will best ensure professional city management, stable and efficient government services, better schools, high quality of life, and sound economic development and planning.  They feel that it is the individual voter who must take the decision to vote and who to vote for, but it’s difficult for voters to spend exhaustive hours doing research, which is where Move Lowell Forward feels they can contribute.

6 Comments »