jackiedoherty.org

The school committee will hold budget hearings tonight at 5:30 pm and tomorrow morning, 9:00 am, in city council chambers.  It is vital that parents and concerned citizens be on hand to see where the inevitable cuts will be made.  Chapter 70 funds (the money that the State allocates for education) for Lowell are being increased by less than 1% over the current budget.  Dr. Baehr’s budget of $136,961,454 calls for 61.5 positions to be eliminated and one school, the Varnum Elementary, to be closed.  Everyone knows we are in tough fiscal times, but these cuts will surely be detrimental to the progress our schools have made and everyone should be aware of what we stand to lose. I’ve been going to budget hearings and speaking out at city council meetings in support of school funding since 2003, and while we have seen our school system improve dramatically under Dr. Baehr’s leadership, it has been in the teeth of constant funding shortfalls.  I still regret the programs and services lost in 2003 that were never replaced – things like preschool transportation, enrichment classes at the middle schools, and science teachers at the elementary schools.  In fact, the Lowell Public schools have eliminated 300 teaching, support and administrative positions since 2002!  So, let’s be informed about the budget process, let’s be aware of what is being lost and ask ourselves as a community what we are willing to pay for.

Not having much time for novels lately, I’ve read some great short stories, all in The New Yorker, and wanted to pass along these gems to interested readers.  Raj, Bohemian by Hari Kunzru starts out like all the other postmodern, plotless stories that seem to emerge from a void to which they return with barely a ripple.  We meet a group of young people living a seemingly idealistic and artfully managed (though silly) existence.  They have parties, they hang out, etc. The narrator is one of the group and quite pleased their collective lifestlyle. Scoffing at, yet somehow buying into this picture, the reader (at least this reader) is as shocked as the hero by the actual reality of his friends’ lives, only revealed because of Raj, a newcomer and a ‘wheeler-dealer.’  Only after the sordid reality is unveiled does one look back and question, what was Constantine doing in Sunita’s apartment?  How did these people live? And when the narrator sees the truth and goes on his mission of revenge it is chilling, like Raskilnikov bent on murder in Crime and Punishment.  I liked it a lot.  The Bellringer, by John Burnside is a quiet story with an edge.  As in William Trevor, ordinary lives are revealed, simple events unfold, a life is being lived.  Burnside doesn’t quite have Trevor’s mastery of the form, but this was a good story.  (Speaking of Trevor, he was mentioned in the Globe Ideas section today, a passing reference in a book review by Richard Eder, comparing him to the American short story writer Tobias Wolff, who in the end falls a little short, for “Trevor’s blade can barely seem to move as it draws heart’s blood.”  Well said!)  Finally, I was floored by Jeffrey Eugenides’ Great Experiment.  As an indictment of both intellectualism and capitalism, as a sorrowful rumination upon our natures, our illusions and our history, it reminded me of Steinbeck’s The Winter of our Dicontent.  So, three great stories, my pantheon of writers of short fiction enlarged by two, and I think I might try something by Wolff who is, according to Eder, ‘the closest we have to William Trevor.’ 

As you might recall, the motion to require that city employees be residents of Lowell was sent to subcommittee (see previous rant).  We heard from City Councilor, Kevin Broderick, who is chair of the Personnel Subcommittee, that they will meet next Tuesday, March 26, at 6:O0 pm, in the council chambers (thanks for the prompt reply, Kevin!).  They will be discussing the residency issue at that time. The meeting will be broadcast live on Channel 10, so tune in or show up to find out what the subcommittee will decide.  Speaking of the city council, a motion came up last night to reduce the council schedule by half, that is to meet every other week instead of weekly.  This was also sent to subcommittee (Rules, chaired by Councilor Milinazzo), but it appears to have majority support (see Dick’s post).  Since I didn’t watch the meeting (I do have a life; I was busy watching the video of the superintendent interviews on LTC), I’m not sure what the rationale is for the motion.   I certainly don’t recall any talk of either of these issues during the campaign last fall.  It would be interesting to track peoples’ campaign rhetoric to their actual actions on the council; it might bridge the reality gap between what is said to attract voters and what the candidate really cares about. But, like I said, I have a life….

Check out the city council meeting tonight (6:30 pm on Channel 10) to see how our elected officials vote on the residency requirement.  I have an instinctive dislike of such a motion; it seems xenophobic and petty to me, and I have a few questions about it.  First of all, why are we even wasting time on this?  I don’t recall this coming up on any councilor’s campaign platform.  I don’t think it has much to do with economic development, neighborhood improvement plans, or ‘giving back to the city.’  As someone who is very concerned about our public school system, I am glad to know that teachers (and all union employees) are exempt from such a requirement.  It’s my understanding that whatever the council decides tonight will not impact school hiring, even for non-union employees.  I want to know that our schools can hire the best and most qualified candidates for the job, regardless of where they live.  Why shouldn’t that be the most important requirement for any city job?

It’s funny, but there was a motion to have a residency requirement for the superintendent search committee that failed with very little support.  Mayor Caulfield spoke out vehemently against it, asking why we should deny ourselves the services of a CEO of a company who might live in Andover or why we should restrict Chancellor Marty Meehan from choosing the most qualified person from his staff to be on the committee, someone who might not live in Lowell.  The same logic should apply to hiring anyone who works for the city. (To see what Councilor Caulfield had to say on the residency requirement when it was debated back in 1994, see this interesting post by Dick Howe.)

 I’ll certainly be watching to see how the Mayor (and the rest of the council) votes tonight!

Media ink swirled around last Saturday’s quad wrestling match as area newspapers pitched different views regarding whether Lowell High School’s wrestling team actually won the meet or simply tied against Timberlane. Prior to Saturday’s meet, both teams were undefeated, Division I champions for their states: Red Raiders in Massachusetts and Timberlane Owls in New Hampshire. After both soundly won against the other two participants in the four-way competition (Connecticut teams from Ledyard and Berlin), the two champions faced each other in a grueling competition that ended with a 27-27 score—and that’s where the controversy begins. According to MIAA rules used in Massachusetts’ wrestling competitions (but not followed in other states apparently), a tie score remains that for both teams. By Federation standards, the final outcome of a tie score is determined by gaining points for the number of additional pins a team gets. Since the Red Raiders had pins by James Downing and Victor DeJesus, and the Owls only had one by Dylan Lockard, the Lowell team picked up another point, winning the meet 28-27. What the Lowell Sun termed a “gutsy victory” was portrayed in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune as “Owls settle for apparent tie; Lowell claims win.” The Boston Globe also mentioned the meet, calling it a win for the Red Raiders with “strong performances” by Lowell students. Obviously, it would have been better if the coaches discussed the specific rules prior to the meet, but according to the Tribune: “Steve Tassini, a MIAA wrestling commissioner, claims that it should only remain a tie if both schools are MIAA schools,” which, of course, wasn’t the case since Timberlane is in New Hampshire. I’m happy to claim it a Lowell win, the first against Timberlane since 2003. For more discussion on the meet and all things wrestling, check out this blog.

At the time, piling all the “scary campaign stuff” into one day seemed to make sense:  Get it over with and move on.  In hindsight, it was a huge mistake—certainly not in the same league as running over the family pet—but one which I hope to never repeat again. Monday, Oct. 15, was my day to be interviewed by the editorial board of the Lowell Sun regarding their candidate endorsements, do my three-minute video to be aired on LTC cable television, and participate in a live televised debate with the Citywide Parent Council. (Note: I had control of the scheduling of the Sun and LTC events.) The result of all this pressure in one day was that I was an emotional wreck who found it difficult to stay focused on which priority needed my attention most. In the end, I think the three-minute video turned out well, primarily because my daughter did a great 45-second pitch for her mother, and my friend Martha Jussaume Patz (a LHS and Emerson College alumna) got me through my performance anxiety. At the televised debate that night, however, I was disappointed in myself. I had focused so much on organizing my facts that when it came time to speak them, I couldn’t seem to make the important points within the allotted time. In fact, some of those questions and the answers I should have given continue to haunt me, two days later, so expect a future post on some of those issues. In the end, I comfort myself with the advice I’ve given countless past students and my own children: even a mistake can be a good thing when we learn from it.

I apologize if you are one of the people experiencing problems with logging on or making comments on this blog. The last few days have been especially difficult. Co-author Margaret and I have had our own share of frustrations. (Imagine writing a post, doing the links, and then not being able to publish it.) Please don’t give up on us, know we are working to address these issues, and try back later if you can’t get on at a certain time. Meanwhile, we will continue working with the human we located at the other end of that cyberspace vacuum (thankfully!) and writing for future posts. 

I’ve always hated phrases such as “throws like a girl” and “girl pushups” because they indicate something presumably not as good as the male counterpart. As a lifelong feminist in the best sense of the word, this bothers me on two levels—first because being a girl is obviously not less than being a boy, and second because the phrase is used to mean not as good as how a boy does it— and even I can’t escape feeling that way about the phrase. For instance, I was not thrilled when I met a reader from Dracut last week, who told me he had been enjoying my blog all summer, which made me happy, until he added: “Kind of a girly blog, huh?” Girly blog? Me!? When I expressed my dismay, he defended his word choice by noting previous posts about flowers. We had published those posts, as well as others that could be considered girly if you prescribe certain aspects of life to one gender or another. (Men can’t like gardens? Women can’t enjoy sports?) In its purest sense, this is the whole point of feminism: to define interests and identity beyond the confines of gender. On the other hand, I feel compelled to admit that as a young mother, I was surprised when my toddler son was absolutely ecstatic by the weekly arrival of the garbage truck while his younger sister had a strong affinity for dolls. I have since recognized there are innate differences in many of us—my children included, but I spent my youth trying NOT to be confined by those roles. (I was the adolescent girl who wanted to play football rather than bake cookies despite my mother’s pleading.) At this point in my life, I surrender to the culture, genes, and tradition that make it so, but I will not yield on this universal truth: We are comprised of many facets that incorporate traditionally defined notions of masculine and feminine. I happen to throw a football well and can do a fair number of full push-ups. I also cry at sad movies and love to dance. As far as my blog, I make no apologies for the varied interests expressed here and only hope that you too are able to define yourself beyond gender.

We’ve been hearing some disturbing accounts from people who occasionally have trouble accessing our blog. This is not good!  We are trying to understand if the problem has something to do with the configuration of our blog and need help in documenting these incidents.  In order to help us talk to the techies, please let us know if you have had this type of problem.  Any error messages, special circumstances or other information would be helpful. Thank you for your help!

On this day, August 25, my husband and I celebrate 22 years of marriage. The years, which have gone quickly (I never thought I would get this old so fast), have not always been easy. For one thing, it has not been the happily-ever-after story I heard about growing up. There have been hard times. We have disappointed, hurt, and angered each other more often than I care to admit. We have also laughed, danced, and shared the most incredible moments of our lives. We buried our parents—each one an almost unbearable loss. We created two healthy children—amazing gifts. And through it all, we have learned that being persistent (aka stubborn) in our focus to make it work has its own rewards. I guess I’m no Hallmark sentimentalist: I don’t believe storybook romances or love at first sight lasts—at least not in the real world. When it comes to romance, eventually real life intrudes with the daily-ness of bed head, bad moods, and work to be done. But real life is also laughing at late-night comics, singing a favorite tune together, smiling at sleeping cats, and watching your children grow. In the end, it is simply that life is better together; so you stay and compromise, you work on kindness and forgiveness—and you try always to love each other.  As Yeats said, “How many loved your moments of glad grace, and loved your beauty with love false or true; But one man loved the pilgrim soul in you, and loved the sorrows of your changing face.” For this I am most grateful.