RichardHowe.com – Voices from Lowell & Beyond

Kerouac Connections: Meet Cousin Herve

Kerouac Connections – Meet Cousin Hervé – (PIP #43)

By Louise Peloquin

     “Leo with Louis at L’Etoile, 3rd peek into the past, posted on October 5, 2023, presented Jack’s father. See the link.

This October, let’s meet Jack’s 1st cousin Hervé – another French-speaking Franco-American from Lowell, an adventurer, a brave man with a radiant smile and ties with St. Jean-Baptiste Church.

L’Etoile, July 13, 1944 

Hervé Kérouac is in France (1)

     Yesterday, Mrs. Léontine Kérouac, 86 School Street, received the second letter from her son, soldier Hervé Kérouac since his arrival in France on June 20th. In his last missive, he does not specify which French villages he visited but he says that “not for all the gold in the world” would he exchange his experience.

     The only member of his regiment to speak French, soldier Kérouac is very happy with the services he can render to his superiors and with the friendships brought about by the knowledge of his mother tongue.

     In the army since October 14th 1943, he completed his preliminary military training at Camp Croft in South Carolina then at Fort Meade, Maryland. He spent two months in England before crossing over into Normandy.

L’Etoile, October 26, 1944

Decoration for Soldier Kérouac

     The Bronze Medal with honorable mention was awarded to soldier first class Hervé Kérouac, member of the United States infantry, for heroism in action “somewhere” in France. Soldier Kérouac received this important decoration at the beginning of October but was not free to reveal the acts which distinguished him in combat.

     This young soldier, son of Mrs. Léontine Kérouac, 86 School Street, went to France on June 20th and arrived in Normandy. In his letters, he mentions many important cities visited during the course of his expeditions, among them Le Mans, Alençon, Coutouche, Reims. However, he only saw this city’s imposing cathedral from a distance.

Hervé enrolled in October 1943 and completed his training at Camp Croft, South Carolina and then went to Fort Meade, Maryland before crossing over to England. He is a former student of our parochial schools and ex-cantor of the Great Choir of Saint-Jean-Baptiste where he was popular.

L’Etoile, November 28, 1944

Soldier First Class Hervé Kérouac, wounded in action in France

     Mrs. Léontine Kérouac, 86 School Street, has just learned by telegram that her son, soldier first class Hervé Kérouac, received minor woulds in combat in France on November 12th.

     Soldier Kérouac enrolled in October 1943, completed his training at Camp Croft, South Carolina and at Fort Meade Maryland. Last month, he was awarded the Bronze Medal for bravery in action. (2)

****

1. The articles in L’Etoile print Kérouac with an accent.
2. Translations by Louise Peloquin.

New damning evidence against private citizen Trump by Marjorie Arons-Barron

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

Donald Trump may claim he’s immune to prosecution for multiple crimes to overturn the 2020 election results, but you can read the Government’s just-released response to federal District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan showing why he acted as a private citizen and must be held accountable. Trump’s trial should have started last spring but was upended by the Supreme Court’s long-delayed landmark ruling that a President is immune for crimes charged if they are committed as part of his official duties. Special Counsel Jack Smith has demonstrated in a riveting 165-page response why Trump was acting as a private citizen, committing crimes as a candidate for office, not in his public capacity, and only to further his own private interests.

There were, of course, multiple crimes “to disrupt through fraud and deceit the government function by which votes are collected and counted – a function in which the defendant, as President, had no official role.” In short, Trump was acting as an office seeker not as an office holder. The details of what Trump and his co-conspirators did are voluminously laid out: the decision made in advance of the 2020 election to claim he had won; the multiple charges of election fraud debunked in more than 60 court cases; the evidence that his private advisors had told him his claims were false; candidate Trump’s repeated pressures on targeted state officials (all Republicans who resisted his false claims); the widespread conspiracy with his private lawyers and staffers to create false slates of electors; the heavy-duty campaign to pressure Mike Pence, as Senate president charged with counting the electoral votes; his incitement to violence by MAGA supporters at the private rally on January 6th; and his disregard for the officials whose lives were endangered by the pattern of lies he created out of whole cloth.

The Government’s document (superseding the indictment that was issued prior to the Supreme Court’s case-interrupting immunity decision) outlines the legal framework for establishing why none of the allegations and evidence are protected by presidential by immunity. The document goes state by state, crime by crime, in staggering detail. It includes a trail of emails and tweets between and among Trump and numerous co-conspirators. It cites both a plethora of witness statements from those inside and outside Trump’s circle and also videotape evidence of Trump’s illegal incitements and fraudulent claims. (The Washington Post has identified the key co-conspirators whose names were redacted.)

One of the most significant takeaways for me was Vice President Mike Pence’s heroism under repeated attacks by Donald Trump trying to force him to break the law. Despite four years spent largely as Trump’s lap dog, Pence refused to bow to Trump’s unyielding pressure on him to accept to accept slates of fake electors or otherwise delay the certification of the 2020 electoral vote. Even with his life endangered by Trump’s explicit threats and his inciting the insurrection terrorists to do citizen Trump’s dirty work, Mike Pence bravely stood firm. It is not hyperbole to say that, on January 6, 2021, Mike Pence – with backup from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi – saved our democracy. (Pence showed far more spine than the craven GOP members of Congress who today privately disparage Trump but publicly continue to enable him.)

Trump continues to prove in many ways that he is unfit to be President of the United States. He has made clear that whatever illegal and norm-busting actions he took during his first term are just a lukewarm hint of what he has in mind if he has a second term. That’s why, despite their policy differences with Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, a host of prominent courageous Republicans – including Liz Cheney, Jeff Flake, Nancy Kassebaum, Mickey Edwards, and Adam Kinzinger – are actively supporting her. More than 100 former members of Congress and national security officials from Republican administrations (Reagan, H.W. Bush, W. Bush and Trump) have signed a letter outlining why Donald Trump is “unfit to serve again.” Other letters have some 200 signatories including those who have worked for previous Republican nominees, including Mitt Romney. Romney has declined to come out publicly for Harris out of fear, he says, for his family’s safety. Pence himself now says that “anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States.”

Now, a month from the 2024 elections and before a repeatedly Trump-delayed trial can commence, it’s up to the voters to save our democracy. Given how close the race is, it’s not enough for never-Trumpers to abstain, vote for a third party candidate, or write in a symbolic protest vote. Whatever their policy differences with Kamala Harris, they need to acknowledge that policy differences can be debated and changed. Ceding the election to a would-be authoritarian dictator is a challenge that can’t be easily overcome. Not to decide is to decide.

Lowell Politics: Oct 13, 2024

Ballots for those who will vote by mail are beginning to arrive at the homes of Lowell residents this week. Besides all the elected offices, there are also five referendum questions on this ballot. They haven’t received a lot of attention so I’ll start with a quick synopsis of each:

Question 1 – State Auditor’s Authority to Audit the Legislature

A YES vote would specify that the State Auditor has the authority to audit the Legislature.

A NO vote would leave current law as is (which is, the Auditor does not have that authority).

The argument for YES is that the State Auditor is independently elected by voters and currently audits every other office of state government. Permitting the Auditor to audit the legislature will provide “much needed transparency” of the legislature which has been ranked as one of the least transparent legislatures in the country.

The argument for NO is that the State Auditor is an executive branch officer and the separation of powers required by the Massachusetts Constitution would be violated by granting a member of the executive branch such authority over the legislative branch. Additionally, performing audits of the legislature would turn the State Auditor into an overtly political office holder and would jeopardize the office’s independence in its other duties.

Question 2 – Elimination of MCAS as High School Graduation Requirement

A YES vote would eliminate the requirement that a high school student pass MCAS to graduate.

A NO vote would retain the existing requirement that a high school student pass MCAS to graduate.

The argument for YES is that MCAS is a one-size-fits all exam that fails to measure grades, course work, and teacher assessments in determining if a student is allowed to graduate. Eliminating the MCAS requirement will allow teachers to stop “teaching to the test” and will relieve students of the stress of a high stake “make or break” test.

The argument for NO is that without any statewide assessment, school districts will just define down what constitutes success and will allow students who have not mastered the material to graduate which is unfair to the students. The NO argument also maintains that major changes in educational policy should be made after careful study and analysis, not based on a ballot referendum.

Question 3 – Unionization for Transportation Network Drivers

A YES vote would allow “transportation network drivers” (people who drive for Uber or Lyft) to form unions to collectively bargain with “transportation network companies” for wages, benefits and terms of employment.

A NO vote would make no change to existing law.

The argument for YES is that most workers have the right to join a union but drivers for Uber and Lyft do not. Allowing them to unionize will permit them to collectively bargain for wages and benefits while maintaining driver flexibility and independence.

The argument for NO is that such drivers in Massachusetts already receive market-rate salaries and benefits and that allowing them to unionize will only divert money that would otherwise go to drivers to go towards union dues without any measurable benefits flowing to the drivers.

Question 4 – Limited Legalization and Regulation of Certain Natural Psychedelic Substances

A YES vote would allow people over 21 to use certain psychedelic substances (mushrooms, mescaline, etc.) under licensed supervision and to grow a limited amount in their home.

A NO vote would make no change to existing law.

The argument for YES is that these medicines show promise in treating conditions such as PTSD, anxiety and depression. Research at leading medical institutions has shown the potential benefits of these substances, and many medical professionals support this change to the law.

The argument for NO is that legalizing psychedelics would increase the incidence of drugged driving; would elevate the risk of life-threatening adverse reactions; would make accidental consumption by children and pets more likely; and would likely create a black market for such products.

Question 5 – Minimum Wage for Tipped workers

A YES vote would gradually increase the minimum wage of tipped workers over five years to the full state minimum wage after which employers would be required to pool all tips and distribute them equally to all non-management employees.

A NO vote would make no change to existing law.

The argument for YES is that tipped workers, who now are paid just $6.75 per hour plus tips, deserve the full minimum wage with tips on top. Many small businesses already pay their employees the full minimum wage so the current law makes tips a subsidy for low wages paid by large corporations rather than a reward for good service.

The argument for NO is that most tipped employees believe they make more under the current system than they would with a higher minimum wage and that implementing this law would force some restaurants out of business and raise prices for consumers.

****

As for the offices on the ballot, here are the candidates as they appear on my ballot:

Electors of President and Vice President

Ayyadurai and Ellis – Independent
De La Cruz and Garcia – Socialism and Liberation
Harris and Walz – Democratic
Oliver and Ter Maat – Libertarian
Stein and Caballero-Roca – Green-Rainbow Party
Trump and Vance – Republican

Senator in Congress

Elizabeth Ann Warren of Cambridge – Democratic – candidate for re-election
John Deaton of Swansea – Republican

Representative in Congress

Lori Loureiro Trahan of Westford – Democratic – candidate for re-election (unopposed)

(Governor’s) Councillor

Anne M. Manning-Martin of Peabody – Republican
Eunice Delice Zeigler of Methuen – Democratic
Jody A Elliott of Salem – Independent

Senator in General Court (First Middlesex)

Edward J Kennedy Jr of Lowell – Democratic – candidate for re-election
Karla J Miller of Lowell – Republican

Representative in General Court (Eighteenth Middlesex)

Tara Hong of Lowell – Democratic
David Michael Ouellette of Lowell – Unenrolled

Clerk of Courts

Michael A Sullivan of Cambridge – Democratic – candidate for re-election (unopposed)

Register of Deeds

Karen M. Cassella of Lowell – Democratic – (unopposed)

****

Also on Lowell ballots this November are seats on the Greater Lowell Vocational School Committee. There are two seats from Lowell and one seat from Dracut, however, everyone in the Vocational School District – meaning voters from Lowell, Dracut, Tyngsborough, and Dunstable – will be voting for all of those committee members.

On my ballot, first comes the Dracut seat, with one candidate, Paul E. Morin, who is a candidate for reelection. Then come the two seats from Lowell. The candidates are Lee Gitschier and Curtis J. LeMay, both candidates for reelection.

To review, this process came about several years ago when the prior method of electing vocational school committee members was challenged because it gave greater weight to the votes of residents of the three towns in the district than it did voters in the city of Lowell. Under the old system, only Lowell voters voted for the Lowell representatives; only Dracut voters voted for the Dracut representative; and so on.

Under the current system, all voters in the district vote for the representatives of each community in the district. The retention of the community representatives is a key aspect of the new system, since if all candidates were lumped into the same electoral pool regardless of their town of residence, it’s likely that the top vote getters would always be Lowell candidates given the population disparity in favor of the city.

To illustrate how this works, let’s change the facts that exist this year. Instead of two candidates from Lowell and one candidate from Dracut running to fill three seats, let’s assume there were four candidates from Lowell and just the one from Dracut. Given the number of voters in Lowell relative to the number in Dracut, and the likelihood that voters from Lowell would vote for candidates from Lowell, the Lowell candidates would likely be the top vote getters. In a winner-take-all system that ignores town of residence, that would mean the three seats would be filled by Lowell candidates.

To prevent that outcome, the current system slots the candidates by town. As I mention above, this year the ballot grouping has the two Lowell candidates running for two seats while another grouping has the one Dracut candidate running for the one seat. It’s as if they are entirely separate offices.

In any case, there is no drama to this race since the number of candidates equals the number of seats on the ballot. This is part of a larger trend we saw last year in the Lowell School Committee race where a majority of the seats were uncontested.

****

Occasionally in past issues I’ve mentioned the MBTA Communities Law which is a state program designed to create more housing in the vicinity of mass transit opportunities. Every municipality serviced by the MBTA, including commuter rail, or adjacent to a municipality serviced by the MBTA, is required by the law to amend its local zoning ordinance to allow for and remove obstacles to denser housing.

Lowell rapidly and without controversy adopted the provisions of the MBTA Communities law, mostly because the areas of the city where the changes would occur were already densely packed with existing multifamily housing. But in other communities, mostly those predominantly composed of single-family neighborhoods, the resistance to multifamily housing has been intense.

This past week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard oral arguments in a case brought by the town of Milton that challenges the legality of the MBTA Communities law. I won’t get into the details of the argument but will say that the outcome of this case has major implications beyond the MBTA Communities law. The decision will go to the heart of which entity has legal supremacy, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or its cities and towns. How might this affect Lowell? Well even though the city adopted the MBTA law without controversy, the same passivity is unlikely in the face of the recently passed State Housing bill that mandates the allowance of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in all single-family neighborhoods. Last year, after an intense political struggle, the Lowell City Council rejected the concept of ADUs; now, state law will require that they be allowed. Will Lowell comply? The intensity of past opposition suggests not willingly, if at all. This recent SJC case may have a substantial bearing on the ultimate answer to that question. The decision is not expected for at least a month, but as soon as it is announced, I’ll report on the holding and its implications.

****

There was a Lowell City Council meeting last Tuesday. One motion that generated comment and discussion was by Erik Gitschier asking that the proper department “offer services, notify and removal all individuals tenting, sleeping, and tarping around the South Common by October 29, 2024.” Councilor Vesna Nuon made a substitute motion that would leave it to the City Manager’s discretion and judgment to implement these things, however, that motion failed with only Nuon and Wayne Jenness voting for it. Then the primary motion passed unanimously although the deadline was extended to mid-November. The reason for that was to synchronize it with the forthcoming ordinance that would ban overnight camping within a certain distance of a school.

Certainly, camping on the South Common is a big problem, one that essentially makes this vital public park unusable to everyone else. Still, experience has shown that displacing campers from that site will just move them elsewhere and won’t begin to solve the underlying causes of the problem.

****

The Council also continued the public hearing on the possible taking and demolition of four residences in the city. The City Solicitor reported that people responsible for two of those properties have taken steps to get them into compliance with all codes and up to date on their taxes; and that the city has yet been unsuccessful in “serving” those responsible for the other two. Without service in the legal and procedural sense, the city could not go forward with these hearings.  For that reason, and because several other properties might be added to the demolition hearing, the Solicitor asked that the public hearing be continued to October 29, 2024, which the council did.

****

Today at 11am is the official unveiling of the Jack Kerouac Mural that has been painted on the side of the former St. Jean Baptiste Church on upper Merrimack Street. The church is the future home of the Kerouac Center and the unveiling and related events at the site are part of this year’s Lowell Celebrates Kerouac Weekend. Today’s event is free and open to the public.

My Back Pages and Dermot’s Theory

My Back Pages and Dermot’s Theory

By Stephen O’Connor

In the winter of 1985, I was 29 years old. The snows melted away, and so did my time in that golden decade. As I approached my thirtieth birthday, people said to me, “So, how does it feel? The big 3-0 is coming!” I suppose I sighed as if I felt the weight of senescence, or as if I were suddenly becoming wise. The truth is, the big 3-0 was no big deal. I found that at thirty years old, I could still run the field with the twenty-year-olds. I could read the fine print without glasses. I had no aches and pains; I bounded out of bed like the fabled Nemean lion, and on occasion, I may have even roared. And if, on St. Patrick’s Day, I had a pint or two too many, I could swig a cup of coffee in the morning, and I was as right as rain. The thirties were not so bad. I even managed to insinuate myself into the company of a lovely woman and get her to marry me in my thirties; how bad is that?

In the winter of 1995, my fortieth birthday was looming. I prayed that no one would stick a photo of my third-grade mug in the newspaper with the caption, “Lordy, Lordy, look who’s forty.” The day came, and I survived. People said, “You don’t look forty.”  I said, “Thank you.”  I had no gray hair; no reading glasses were perched on my nose. The wrinkles around my eyes were only visible when I smiled, and since I never smile at myself in the mirror, I had the impression that I was still young.

I was “drafted” onto the Pepperell over-forty soccer team. The terms of my contract were that I had to buy my uniform and take my turn bringing the post-game beer. I could still sprint down a field without fear of pulling a muscle, though it seemed my lungs had begun to shrink just a little bit. A teammate explained to me that the human heart pumps blood at a rate of so many times per minute—minus your age, so the older you get, the less capable the pump is of keeping up with your exertions.

I adjusted and got used to sucking wind through a ninety-minute game with an overworked pump. By the fall of 2004, at the age of 49, I began to notice that my hamstrings were sore after the game, and a former track coach said to me, “You’re old now; you need to stretch out for a half hour before the game.” I understood how Carlos Carvalho felt when he limped off the field one day. “What muscle did you pull?” I asked. He responded, “All of them.”

The winter of 2006, and I turned 51. In the spring, I joined the Westford over 50 soccer team. Have you seen those guys? Picture Ebenezer Scrooge in shorts. I tried very hard to tell myself that fifty is not old, but a glance at my teammates stripped me of that illusion. And I fit right in. This can’t be! I was young very recently, or so it seemed. Why did Bob the mailman keep sticking those AARP applications in my mailbox?

An Irish relative, Dermot O’Connor, came to visit us over the Christmas holidays. He was 52 or 53 at the time. I hadn’t seen him since 1980 in Dublin. The black beard I remembered was a grizzled silver; his thick mane of dark hair—a smooth dome. However, as we reflected over a glass of twelve-year-old Redbreast on the fleeting nature of time, he assured me that he was not in the least concerned about aging. With confident if mystifying Irish logic, he explained that as long as you could put your socks on standing up, you were not old, and that was a scientific fact. His teeth might fall out, and his back bend like a willow in a gale, but by God he would manage somehow to get his socks on standing up and so convince himself that he was still a young buck.

My Colombian mother-in-law stayed with us over the holidays, too. I explained Dermot’s Ponce de León socks theory to her. She laughed and said, “No, Steve, you’re young as long as you have dreams.” I liked this philosophy, because it implied that not only can you stay young by clinging to your dreams, but conceivably, if you should become more of a dreamer as you get older, you might actually become younger. Perhaps therein lies the key to the baffling lines in Bob Dylan’s “My Back Pages,” in which he claims to be much younger than he used to be.

The years rolled on as they do. I played my last soccer game at 62 with the Dirty Groton Scoundrels. Recently, I got an invitation to join a “walking soccer team.” I cried.

Walk with a soccer ball? At least trot for God’s sake! Keep struggling against the inevitable you “heroic hearts!” Remember Tennyson: To seek, to strive … something something  …  “And not to yield!” Ignore that young waitress at Dunkin Donuts who looks you up and down and asks, “Would you like the senior citizen discount?” She probably needs glasses herself. But take the discount—what the hell. And if some rainy morning, you should fall and bang your head on the bedpost while you’re trying to put your socks on standing up, for God’s sake, remember, as you lie there in your underwear on the floor with one sock half on—you still have dreams.