effect and cause

this memorial day i've dusted off my copy of gary b. nash's "the unknown american revolution", and i continue to be struck by how far from the mark our "patriotism" and "support the troops" memes continue to be to this day. the average american volunteering (VOLUNTEERING!) to fight, bleed and die for this country, from the revolutionary war to this day, is not our pat tillman/audie murphy "best and brightest" quintessence we all enjoy to see so proudly arrayed in their photographs full of dress uniforms and smartly pressed (there's a pun there--one of my better ones--don't overlook it) details, recounted in tales of glowing bravery and heroism. the average american volunteering to fight, bleed and die for this country continues to be the man almost to a man all of us prefer to walk past on the street with eyes averted and haste in our step. yes, our freedom was won, and ever since defended in largest part by none so many as the drunk and decrepit derelicts who our society shuns and marginalizes and tramples in its inexorable rush to congratulate itself for being the best that's ever been. today, tomorrow and monday, of all days, i'm going to try to remember it's important all year long to do better.

we treat PTSD and see effect of a certain cause, but how often do we pause to reflect on the greater truth, that it's often our most troubled, vulnerable and unloved citizens who somehow find the courage, strength and love for the rest of us that they will lay down their lives if called to stand up for a better way in the first place? i feel myself fortunate to have been able to trace much of my ancestry back to the american revolutionary war and beyond, and i'll tell you that the close reason myself, my sons and my daughter could not otherwise take a place among the sons and daughters of the american revolution is because the ancestors of ours who fought, bled and died for that cause were the childless uncles whose stories can only be inferred from the little record that remains. (leaving me all the more stunned and in awe of the sacrifices of the soldiers answering the call on april 19th, 1776, who were, perhaps completely unique in our history, virtually comprised of almost ALL of the men to a man, and not just the most dissolute and without their own family among them). perhaps only in world war II, when volunteerism was the rule rather than the exception, did we see a fighting force somewhat balanced among all the demographics of men in this country. (apologies for the generalization--women have been able to step up only so recently as to make historical reflection impossible, except to point out the anecdotes of molly pitcher and others to show that more would have if they could, and many still did and do anyway). but when we record the incidence of suicide and drug dependence and alcoholism among these men, do we really see?

we owe a debt here in this country that is as deep and endless as has been ever owed. in the history of the world, a government by, of and for the people is so rare as to be almost perfectly forgotten now that we have ours, and so many others have taken our example. but even more perfectly forgotten is to whom we owe this debt.

when you and i see the next veteran "down on his luck", i hope we can consider that even this dearth of good fortune is an embarrassment of riches compared to the dark and endlessly quiet hole into which so many of his friends have been buried. i'm overcome with tears every time i recall my uncle's funeral, and the silent honor guard of broken men who stood silent vigil around the edges and to the back of the crowd gathered at his graveside while his earthly remains were lowered. we had family beside us in our grief. these men, nameless to almost all but each other, one by one become dust to their dust as each salute is fired over their heads and over their broken bodies. my uncle never spoke more than an instant before he caught himself of the brothers he had to leave behind. it was almost as if it was of a quality of people he knew in his heart the rest of us--happy and healthy and safe and free--could never really know.

for how could we know? how could we know the loneliness and shame of being someone with whom no one of "polite society" prefers share shelter and table and company, and how could we know the simple courage to fight for us even so?

i feel the value of my freedom--i plan to thank a vet, and spend a quiet moment reflecting on those who did not get to come home to enjoy their part of it. i hope everyone can do that much today.

another thursday night

in my head i'm hearing both sam cooke ("another saturday night") because sam's never far from my musical mind, as well as rancid ("[another] east bay night") because this past sunday's show is still making me feel like a million, but i'm thinking that very very good things are happening here in downtown lowell lately, and just glancing at the calendar (i use howl in lowell's, how about you?) shows it to be very very true.

tonight, for starters, i think i'll opt for bob sevigny and andy sicard at life alive at 6pm for some good and healthy food for dinner and some good and healthy music for my musical soul. (i also downloaded the levelup app for my iphone, and can't wait to try it out at life alive, the coincidence of which i also found out from howl in lowell, and though i know you're not all tech geeks like me, this sort of thing is great for the local businessowners because it's cheaper for them to process than credit cards, and we all ought to be doing it). after that, it's a tossup between more-low-key (tim bergeron at fuse at 8pm) or not-so-lower-key (mike payette's soul session at the back page at 8:30pm). (apologies to the lowell spring festival people out at regatta field on pawtucket boulevard, but i've grown so spoiled walking everywhere downtown, it's just too far for me, and we're all going to have to learn to live with that). i haven't been to the greek/turkish/armenian music and bellydancing at athenian corner in forever, and that's another option, too.

when you can have all this walking (and almost walking) distance from your home on a thursday night, you're a pretty lucky guy.

yes i am.

getting promoted

i find it ironic that folks in brazil and elsewhere are so worked up by the catholic church's excommunication of the mother and doctor of the 9 year old girl whose pregnancy via rape by her stepfather was terminated in order to save her life. (uk independent story here).

isn't this a better situation for them, as opposed to continuing to have to live beneath the subjugation of an authority who self-admittedly decides that "the abortion, the elimination of an innocent life, was more serious" than the 3-years and counting repetitive rape of what was once an innocent six year old girl by someone whom the church continues to prefer as a congregant than a mother and doctor who would act to save that now-9-year-old girl's life.

the "will of god" is a dangerous thing to try to declare. some, like the catholic bishops insisting that pedophile rapists are more worthy in the eyes of their religion than mothers who would do whatever needed to be done to save the life of their innocent 9 year old child, seem to be without doubt. others, like the doctor who feels himself called by his faith, his training and his skill, to act to save the life of one of god's innocents, see things just a little bit more three-dimensionally. and i say thank god for them that they do.

whichever way it is, i can't help but feel that the doctor and the mother and everyone else who believes as they do that the life of this nine year old girl is their responsibility and privilege (brother/sister/daughter's keeper and all that) to serve their idea of god to save is far better off expelled from such a church than remaining part of it, and, through being that part of it, complicit in the dogmatic math that would side with pedophile rapists ahead of the children they defile.

watch the news for the next shoe, as "one of the doctors involved in the abortion, rivaldo albuquerque, has raised the prospect of public clashes at his local church, telling globo, the nation's main tv network, that he would keep going to mass there, regardless of the archbishop's order".

i respect his stand, but i surely feel that he and everyone else would be better off simply taking the invitation to leave, and, by example, leading others of like mind to do the same. maybe then these corrupt and evil men, who wink at pedophilia and rape while persecuting those who would save the life of one of their victims, might lose the standing by which they afflict this world with their craven depravity.

booker him, danno

the mittster scored big points with me for renouncing the bogus pac cabal plan to jeremiah wright the upcoming elections, but his use of cory booker's equally appropriate remarks that fair-handed discussions be maintained about capitalism just erased every last one of them.

which is it, mitt?

do we focus on the issues, or don't we?

cory says issues.

you used to say issues. now you say he-said-she-said.

gutless.

i've never been so loathe to say nice things about both coincident major parties' nominees in my life. on the one hand we have the profound gutting of our constitution by a man otherwise sworn to uphold it (he says he can assassinate you if he pleases, and eavesdrop on your conversations whenever and as long as he needs to decide--and you're ok with that???) who has coincidentally presided over our utter financial ruin (and puh-leeze spare me the "but georgie started it" back seat rant or everyone's going to be grounded) who is joking on fallon about doing "a little blow" while his feds incarcerate otherwise innocent people at historically unprecedented rates for doing the EXACT SAME THING. on the other hand you have a slick-to-the-point-of-greasy say-anything-to-get-elected scion of privilege who can't be trusted to do a damn thing he says, or even the same thing tomorrow as he chooses by whim to do today, who wants to tough-love the country into prosperity, the same way he tough-loves corporations to prosperity, which would be by firing the weakest and leaving them to fend for themselves. (sure hope me and mine aren't in line for one of his pink slips).

are we supposed to be ok with a majority eeking out a living on the backs of the abuse of others, to the enrichment of the ones who already own a higher concentration of wealth than ever before in the history of this country? is that it, mitt?

color me disgusted.

on the "good news" front, ron paul just came down from minnesota with a few more republican national convention delegates.

if only...

where does the time go?

had a wedding, a week's business trip, the usual soccer (both kids and old man versions) and a whole bunch of music packed into the last couple of weeks, and it's exhausting to be back. (you should see the inbox). but it's good, too. very, very good. lowell rocks. as for the music, among a bunch of awesome local stuff, there was van halen last week and rancid last night, and some observations screaming to be made:

first off, i'll try not to make despairing about david lee roth's geriatric decline the focus of this first part, because the van halen show was eddie and his titanium hip ripping the skin right off everyone's faces for over two straight hours. i've seen eddie play i don't know how many times in the past 35 years, and i've never gotten through a show without being knocked to the ground by everything new that he continues to do. amazing. guys have made entire careers out of one good guitar stunt, but eddie keeps throwing away and forgetting more good ones than i could name, and packing in more even better ones than i can believe. this last time it was standing on the whammy bar and i don't know what other little gizmo he has packed onto his setup to the point where the entire string went slack and he could growl it at almost sub-sonic levels and at will. and he can still bring it. runnin with the devil, the first of the first, was first. we also got you really got me, (eruption included), ain't talkin bout love, and ice cream man out of the debut record, dance the night away, beautiful girls from the second, and you name it they played it out of all the rest. wow.

but, all credit to eddie single-handedly ripping it arena-style, there still is nothing like rancid in a music hall with 3000 screaming punks.

we took the decidedly non-punk option of the "foundation room" access for the show, which costs an additional $20 a head, but which also affords you an entire bar with REAL bartenders (and real beer!!!) just steps from the good seats that opens two hours before the rest of the joint AND which sports real top-shelf bathrooms without any sort of line at all. (this is a must-do investment for any house of blues show!) i know it's not rock and roll, let alone punk, but it's pretty damn sweet.

which still would have all been for nothing, except that, 20 years down, lars and tim and matt and STILL the top dogs (last one to die!) and branden steineckert is, for my money, the hottest hardest-hitting sticks man in the business. they mined out come the wolves almost in its entirety in addition to gems from the first record and standards from the last (last one to die!) and it is the same cathartic and sheer joy to sign along as it ever is. the sound was INCREDIBLE, (even if it's NEVER loud enough), and they had it ALL going on. (not enough capital letters on the keyboard to do it justice).

look for me soon in my rancid hooligans soccer jersey

wake still da man

i wear my navy blue tim wakefield replica game jersey around town a lot. most take it to simply be an expression of olde towne team allegiance based on the bright red city name on the front, but more than a few point their attention to the bright red name and #49 on the back. those folks generally make their comments to the effect that it's an awfully odd choice in player homages given his statistical mediocrity over his last couple of seasons, and all the other red sox luminaries from which there are to choose.

this inevitably leads to me citing all the trivial stuff like "third most wins in red sox history" and etc., but, no, it's really not at all about that.

wake da man.

through 19 major league baseball seasons--17 of them with the boston red sox--tim wakefield defined professionalism in a way that few other baseball players in history have ever been able. his peers are not steroid-addled assholes like roger clemens, whom he trails by a paltry 6 wins for the second-best win mark in red sox team history, (#1 will always be cy young, and i don't care what anybody else says about it), but workhorse players like cal ripken, who, as we all remember, set a consecutive game streak that may never be equaled.

tim wakefield took the ball whenever and wherever his manager gave it to him. he started. he came in in relief. he ASKED FOR the ball in a blowout playoff loss to the new york yankees in 2004 when no one else in the clubhouse would touch it with a 45-foot pesky pole and the series, the season, and the team were all but done, and somebody, SOMEBODY, had to be the first to step up and play like a professional, let alone a champion. yeah, yeah, papi came through in games 4 and 5 and 6, and schilling put on that sock a couple days later and made some history, but think about it--it's game 3. you're going down 3 games to zero and there's no miracle about that. the yankees have 10 runs before there's even two outs in the 4th inning, and somebody's got to come in and take the collar for two more outs in the 4th, and the entire rest of innings 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.

"give me the ball, skip--i'll do it".

of those 17 outs, tim wakefield, first into the valley, riding against certain defeat, got the lion's share (10) of them. somebody had to step up. somebody had to do it.

remember game 5? it's still yankees leading the series 3 games to 2, and it's the end of the 11th inning and the game is tied 4-4. the red sox bullpen is EMPTY. timlin and foulke were used up in the 8th and 9th (pitching on consecutive days, too). otherwise starter bronson arroyo came in on a day's rest for the 10th, (though, to be fair, he only lasted 2 innings during his start two days before, so it's not like he wasn't reasonably fresh), and it took both myers and embree (also pitching on consecutive days) to escape the 11th. game 4 winner, curtis leskanic and his 10.13 series ERA had gone the day before, and he was NOBODY's idea of an option. remember those three and a third that wakefield ate two days before so that all those arms would have even a prayer of limping through these past twenty-three innings of games 4 and 5? the innings he put in in excess of any other pitcher not named martinez or lowe (i wonder where i've heard that name before... oh, yeah, could it be he was last night's winning pitcher to add to the irony?) on the entire team over those tumultuous three days?

"give me the ball, skip. i'll do it."

tony clark? whiff.
miguel cairo? single to left.
derek jeter? fly out.
alex rodriguez? fly out.

that was the 12th. on to the 13th.

tony sheffield? whiff.
but tek passes the ball and now he's on first. none out.
hideki matsui? ground out, erasing sheff at second. man on first, one out.
bernie williams? fly out.
tek drops another one, and matsui is now on second with two outs.
jorge posada is then intentionally walked. first and second, two outs, and...
tek drops ANOTHER one. now matsui is on third, the proverbial 90 feet away, and posada is on second, and it's sierra at the plate.

think about it. THREE PASSED BALLS in one inning. there's already been three outs, and a pitcher on a day's rest is following up three and a third with another three, and there are runners on second and third in a tied extra-inning game, with the entire series on the line. there is NOBODY else left in the pen. it's wake or done.

what happens next? reuben sierra is struck out. SWINGING. by one of the only two capable pitchers on either bench and in the entire american league who is left standing.

and STILL the sox can't score in the bottom of the 13th. (they go down 1-2-3 to add insult to injury, and good on loaiza for at least having two innings of good stuff at the absolute bottom of the yankees' pen).

so it's clark, cairo and jeter again. strikeout, fly out, ground out. 1-2-3. the kind of emphatic point that a professional and a leader and a winner puts on his example, in order to say, though he can't swing the bat himself, let's do this, guys. let's do this.

on to the bottom of the 14th.

yes, wakefield has pulled yet another gritty, gutsy miracle out of his fluttering flopping and floundering knuckleball, and a fastball that barely wakes up the radar gun, let alone registers anything out of the 60's. he has stood 60 feet away in front of the best lineup baseball has ever compiled since murderer's row--200 million dollars worth of ball-pounding monstrosity--and he has gone full around it and then some, surviving three passed balls (in one inning!) and giving up only one single solitary hit, all while throwing three (THREE!) shutout extra-inning innings while his team has produced absolutely nothing at the plate.

bellhorn strikes out. (yeah, he does that a little). damon walks. cabrera strikes out. ramirez walks. first and second, and, then, finally, papi comes again to the plate.

he is, bar none and hands down, the greatest clutch hitter in major league baseball. he won the game the night before with a walk-off extra inning home run. he's big papi. but he never gets to the dish without wake. no one on that team gets anywhere unless wake takes that bitter pill in the fourth inning of game 3 and guts out and gets ten outs. and then no one on that team gets anywhere unless wake throws three of the most glittering extra playoff innings to that point anyone had ever seen, (getting around THREE passed balls in one inning to gild the lily), and THE three most glittering extra playoff innings in his team's history.

wake da man.

so roger clemens didn't like to carry his own luggage. jonny lester and company liked to drink beer and eat fried chicken while their team went down to the worst collapse in pennant race history. josh beckett thinks that, at almost half a million dollars per start, that it's no big deal that he prefers to skip one and play golf instead. (none of our business, yo).

not one of these guys is worthy to pick up and carry tim wakefield's jock strap, and you can tell them all i said so.

there's an example to follow in the dugout this year. AN example. dustin pedroia. for the past 17 seasons there has been another one, and, not for nothing, but the disintegration of things in botox bobby v's little prima donna circus is not a coincidence when you realize that the team management and ownership told both wake and tek and any semblance of a championship to take a hike.

no, wake's stats weren't gonna wake the ghost of cy young.

but wake's professionalism is so stark in its absence that i have no idea how any of these people in the organization, from larry lucchino on down, are allowed to keep their jobs.

wake da man.

are you kidding?

now today, the smoking liberal gun is a washington post story about mittington romney the thirty-third's prep school behavior vis-a-vis a possibly-homosexual classmate. (he's dead now some years, and not available to comment). seems that my inbox would want me to believe that this represents inexcusable anti-gay bullying behavior, and quod erat demonstrandum "proves" that the man is unfit for the nation's highest office.

mind you, these are the same people who, some years ago, were vituperative to the point of hysteria that ken starr's little vituperative and hysterical witch hunt based on the trifecta of cheating on ones wife, sexually abusing an intern, and then lying about the whole thing under oath, was irrelevant, since such "character" issues were irrelevant to the prosecution of the duties of the president of the united states.

so, which is it?

"teenage hijinks are inexcusable"? or, "hey, who cares where you stick your dick, or lie to about it, as long as you do a good job running the country"?

i'm having trouble keeping track which way i'm supposed to go on this one.

(in the interest of disclosure, i should say that i thought ken starr's little circus was an embarrassment to this nation, and a travesty, and, not to mention, a complete and utter waste of taxpayer money, and i suppose i should also say that my reasons for not voting for mitt romney, were or will they be to develop, will be completely unrelated to what an asshole he was at prep school).

don't we already know that all prep school kids are assholes???

;-)

why people hate liberals

my inbox and facebook news feed is clogged today with invective spewed towards the people and state of north carolina for amending their constitution to make same-sex marriage illegal. the contributors there are using words like bigotry and hatred to describe the situation, and in some of their most colorful and strident posts, add a picture of the 1875 version of the north carolina state constitution that forbids marriage between people of different races. (where negro descent is deemed only to have been sufficiently diluted to allow marriage until after three generations, and, no, you can't make this stuff up).

*sigh*

even i hate these kinds of liberals this morning.

i made the mistake of suggesting in one conversation that some respect and peaceful rapprochement might be in order to more quickly arrive us at the world that i and they would envision for all, but i was quickly rebutted by a swarm of angry pro-gay-marriage folks who adamantly refuse to retain any respect at all for those opposed to their opinions. (that's exactly the words they used to insist i shut up and change my opinion--"i refuse to respect..." etc.) these people, high-minded and oh-so-right as they have congratulated themselves, are insisting that hating people who hate is perfectly legitimate, and, even, necessary for us to move forward. the fact that i would want to retain respect for the opposing belief, even while otherwise agreeing that people of all genders and orientations should be afforded the same rights under the law, regarding marriage and everything else, makes me, in these particular liberal eyes, guilty guilty guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy.

*sigh*

i think i was five or six when tom lehrer released his "that was the year that was" LP, and the line which has stuck with me most determinedly from it is something to the effect that "i know there are people in this world who do not love their fellow man, and i hate people like that". (yup, tom lehrer was a genius). and, yes, it would seem that certain liberals, in their zeal to love everybody, are ready with torch and pitchfork to burn down the house and home of anyone who opposes them, and they (apparently) find it perfectly legitimate to fight rhetorical fire with rhetorical fire in the misguided presumption that they can beat their opponents into submission, and, even, lynch them if necessary, to achieve their goals.

*sigh*

one of them, to my complete laugh-out-loud amusement, professed his adamant belief that using the supreme court as a cudgel was the right way to put these people in their place, without one nanosecond's awareness of the irony that he would do exactly what he is so upset that others have presumed to do, which is, let's face it, legislate morality.

marvin gaye wrote a song as least as indelible to me as lehrer's, and in it he paraphrased another great human being (who seems to be quoted profusely on both sides of this marriage argument) to observe that "only love can conquer hate". i'm guessing marvin would be on the other end of the liberal pitchfork, too, this morning, and that's more the pity. it's no wonder to me these people who fear too much change too quickly are so quick to go to the mattresses and the state constitutions to oppose anything and everything the liberals would prescribe for them. i'm feeling like i understand the very legitimate reasons that they do. because these people are assholes and very dangerous ones at that.

*sigh*

first and foremost, i believe the government has no business being in this business.

but second and more importantly, i realize that backing someone into a corner is NOT the fastest and best way to convince them of the merits of your argument.

i, obviously, am not really a liberal...

cluelessness of the most dangerous kind

if coverage of inane quotes from inane area legislators is any calling, then the sun's role in the community is safe again for another day. to wit: today's front page features one of the most misguided and dangerous rants i've read in a long time. (and please don't misunderstand--the inanity is no fault of the sun's, and they're to be applauded for illuminating its existence--good one for the home broadsheet).

anyway, it would appear that state rep colleen garry thinks that parents of capable children should not be capable of "sending" them to area vocational schools, so that parents of incapable children should be able to send theirs there instead.

this is so many layers of wrong i don't know where to begin...

i've written before how frustrated it makes me to read that area public schools are upset that area vocational schools might now exist to recruit students from among "their" populations. years ago, when vocational schools were first chartered, public schools were only too happy to ship all their least and dimmest down the potholed path to a trade education, saving themselves what they perceived to only be a behavioral problem they had with kids unwilling or unable to sit still through their "education". somewhere between then and now, it has turned out that vocational schools have not only been able to provide meaningful education to even those the public schools found unfit to educate, but they've also been able to do such a good job of it that the world is starting to beat a path to their door for it.

and now, just like the clueless and proven-incompetent-via-poor-results public school administrators she inadvertently coddles, colleen garry wants to shut that door again, lest it be fairly available to all.

unbelievable.

rep garry says "these kids are taking the spots of kids who really need to learn a trade and are not going to go to college", as if kids going to college these days really don't need to learn a trade. and i know she likely grew up in an era when a bland and otherwise empty liberal arts education was all one needed to get along, but someone really ought to explain to her about the "education bubble", grade inflation, and the crushing combination of overextended student load debt piled on top of the inability of today's college graduates to find meaningful and sufficiently-paying jobs for the joint reasons of there not really being many around unrelated to an actual (aka "trade") education, on top of their being functionally illiterate, innumerate, and unqualified for much beyond flipping burgers.

the solution, ms garry, if your liberal arts education isn't sufficient for you to reason it, is to make meaningful education available to all--not to ration it in favor of those who don't even work hard enough to earn it. (not for nothing, but two thirds of vocational entrance standards are attendance and disciplinary records over and above grade achievements, and if working hard enough by simply showing up and staying out of trouble can't be used as a standard, then we're really in trouble here).

some stats provided by the sun which are important to consider: 96% of voke students passed MCAS, as opposed to 94% of others. 91% of voke students graduate, as opposed to 82% of others. less than 1% of area voke students dropped out last year. statewide, other schools lose 2.7%. i'm sure this is interpreted by ms garry and other area "educators" to suggest it's easier to get through a voke school, and, thus, most appropriate for those that are having trouble getting through their public schools. but as the parent of a voke student majoring in robotics, (which includes electrical engineering, materials science and structural engineering, computer chip design and software programming), i'm with the various voke principals quoted as saying things like "it's a misnomer that many people feel students who can't make it academically should be in a regional technical school", and that it's impossible to succeed in many of the trades offered without strong math, communication and computer skills. (aka the core of any "liberal arts" education).

a voke education has become the REAL education. (i have no idea what to call what's going on in the public schools these days). my middle son, previously poorly served in the public shooles, aces his math and english curriculums today not because they're easier in the voke environment, but because they're APPLIED in the voke environment. (aka relevant). my daughter, the "promising" one, as older her brothers tease her, literally sleeps through her public school classes, (i know, because i receive the behavioral reports), yet can't be touched for a discipline problem or dinged on her grades because she aces all the tests anyway. the oldest, away at liberal arts college, discussing with me how his classes are really just repeats of his senior year in high school? he's going back to work at dunkin donuts for the summer to earn spending money for next year.

i ask you--who is being better educated?

and i ask you, why should we be shunting our best and our brightest into this "college track" to nowhere, and penalize them for being bright enough to want what the vokes are selling?

yeah, colleen, i agree, the education offered by vokes should be available to those you're complaining can't get in. it's just that you and me disagree COMPLETELY on the circumstances. i say the education offered by vokes should be available to ALL, not just some bizarrely-privileged subset of kids who don't bother showing up for school every day, and are disruptive when they do.

we're committing societal suicide if we don't.

(and props to chris camire of the sun for the well-written and compelling story!)

and another thing

this one is sticking in my craw but good:

i hate the thursday "stepping out" section in the sun. it's printed and folded the wrong way so is a royal pain in the ass to have to peel out from amidst the other broadsheet pages for one thing. it contains almost next to nothing of reading value for another thing. but this week it contained a "seven shows in seven days" music blurb that burned as it went down.

seven shows in seven days, huh. exactly how many of these do you think they could find in the city of lowell? if you guessed none, you're actually technically correct, but they claim that ballroom dancing at the lowell memorial auditorium this coming tuesday is a legit option, so if you guessed one, you can also take some credit.

i happened to have been among those at the standing-room-only peter lavender and the limbo souls cd release concert at the back page right here downtown in kearney square, and anyone who might not have been there who might be interested in a taste should tune in to mike flynn's 'cap coffee break this morning for some tastes. (he and the station not only broadcast the show live this past friday night, but they recorded it as well). the sun's take? apparently, it never happened...

frank morey at the back page on saturday night? never happened...

everything else that's going on live right here in the fair city of lowell? yeah, if you read the lowell sun, it's a fair bet that it never apparently happened...

legal notices

reading emperor kendall wallace in this weekend's sun you'd think the mayor had just knocked over his grandson's ice cream cone. the proposal to publish legal notices in some other way besides the local dinosaur (which fewer than half the city now reads) has struck the dinosaur's apprentices as a direct assault on their livelihood, and i guess that's pretty much predictable.

my thoughts?

reading a week's worth of suns this past weekend (left over from my being away the week before) left me with a feeling not of having ice cream ruined, but of having my wallet stolen. (further insult to injury, i just burned well over $200 on my annual subscription renewal the week before, and it's a bitter taste of my own stupidity in my mouth under the heading of "fool me twice shame on me"). i won't bore you with the details, but the overriding impressions of being screwed begin with the profound almost-complete-absence of local news, continue through the bizarre "i hate 'em but i can't write about anything else" anti-everything-dem rantings of the loco-emotive, and are crowned by the realization that i'm the one, via my own subscription, who is guilty, guilty, guilty, and not anyone else.

but let's leave my own self-loathing alone for a second, shall we, and talk about legal notices.

not for nothing, but emperor wallace's rant (where are the mr mill city boys when you need them) contained not one shred of reasonable support for his beyond-vehemently held position. fewer than half the city reads the paper--in what universe does this constitute what dick howe so aptly questioned in his recent blog post due legal process of notification?--and the instant you get into "but they can read a free copy at the library anytime", you get into the obvious point that you can read free copies of stuff off the internet at the library anytime, too, with the added benefit that such distribution of information (the internet kind) is FREE to the city, not at a cost which (to my mind anyway) unfairly subsidizes one party to free and fair business competition (aka the sun) and none others (which would be any and all other media vehicles and outlets).

my feelings are complicated. to rebut any and all of the sun's purely selfish and self-serving arguments (where are their adamant insistences that ad revenue be fairly shared with other newspapers so the ostensible result is not racketeering and collusion?) i would start with their having failed to reach even a simple majority of the necessary constituency, and finish with a pointed "why do you feel that you and only you are entitled to dig your filthy hands into the public trough and take food out of the mouths of others in the same way you are screaming at the mayor for taking food out of yours?"

myself, i'm not satisfied that internet distribution of notices is exactly and completely fair, either. the object is to make access fair and easy, and clearly the net is superior to every other method in that regard, given the ubiquitous prevalence of smartphones, internet-connected home computers, and free internet access at the public library. however, clearly, a significant portion of the citizenry do not perhaps even know the first thing about how to connect themselves to the internet, and i'm willing to bet that the venn diagram depicting those people superimposed over the bubble of non-anachronists using the web pretty much looks like the proverbial binocular view that would encompass virtually the whole 100% of the city who would care. (you can't do anything about people who don't want to know what is happening in the world, so let's not worry about them).

so where is the fair and reasonable suggestion that BOTH communication channels be exploited?

not for nothing, but the remaining question then would be why one channel (the local fish wrapper) should cost the city so much money, and so unfairly benefit one for-profit business at the expense of both taxpayers and all other competitors, but perhaps kendall wallace will write about that subject NEXT saturday with as much vehemence, vim and vigor as he did his grandson's ice cream cone being knocked to the floor this saturday.

in any case, count me among those who feel it's good for hizzonah the mayor to have opened the discussion. public legal notices should not be costing the city so much money to post. (and, in case someone at the newspaper then would argue that it's not so much money, then i would ask why they might be so upset about it not being given to them).