Phoebe on path to therapy work
Phoebe is on her way to being a therapy dog.
She passed her “skills and aptitude screening” test for Pet Partners, a national registration service for animal assisted therapy and activities, last night in South Kingstown (Sept. 22). Now, Pet Partners, in Bellevue, Washington, will process the paperwork, and if all goes well, the organization should qualify her for work in places such as hospitals, nursing homes, schools and libraries that offer opportunities for therapy animals to volunteer. Phoebe’s a 5-year-old mixed breed (we think her background includes Labrador retriever, husky and maybe hound). |
Rescued as a stray puppy in Missouri, she was given up for adoption by her original owner three years ago, and we adopted her from the Potter League shelter in Middletown
Judy and I recognized immediately that she was the most gentle and social dog we’ve ever had (the vet who treated her has a puppy wrote “sweet dog” on her chart) and would be perfect for therapy work. People literally stop their cars, cross streets and rush out of stores to say “Hello”.
But it took an encouraging, gentle shove by Ann Frank, a psychologist expert in therapy dog lore and wife of fellow reporter Gerry Goldstein, to get me to actually take the necessary steps.
In August, Phoebe and I began weekly classes conducted by Kate Fantoli, lead trainer for Courteous Canine, a training service, which were held evenings at the Washington County Veterinary Hospital, in South Kingstown, with five other pooch-human teams (including Ann, and her and Gerry’s dog, “Buddy”).
Meanwhile, I was taking the Pet Partners’ online “therapy animal handler” course, which plunged deeply into what goes into therapy dog activities. I squeaked through with an 85 score Sept. 8 (passing grade 80). The live person/dog course got us ready for evaluation, which included 18 scenarios, such as walking past another person-and-dog pair without Phoebe more me making a fuss, and with Phoebe demonstrating basic obedience skills like sit, down, stay and come.
On Sept 8, Phoebe “graduated” and the following week, she passed an initial evaluation, a test earning her an AKC “Canine Good Citizen” designation. And last night, she and I went through the Pet Partners’ test, conducted by Karen Perusek, owner of Courteous Canine.
We didn’t ace the test – I still haven’t got her to walk without occasionally tugging on the leash – so we ended with a designation qualifying us for “predictable” situations, places with quite or moderate activity. The higher designation is for “complex” venues that have lots of noise, people rushing around and other distractions.
Still, it was a celebratory moment. Phoebe got an extra Milk-Bone treat, and big cheers from Judy when we arrived back in Newport. We expect the final word from Pet Partners in about four weeks. Then we’ll start looking for places where Phoebe will be of help.
One place I’m hoping we can show up is at House of Hope, the innovative organization that works to reduce homelessness at 21 sites throughout Rhode Island, including the huge overnight men’s shelter, Harrington Hall, at the state’s Pastore institutional complex in Cranston.
_ Brian C. Jones
Newport, RI
Sept. 23, 2015
Judy and I recognized immediately that she was the most gentle and social dog we’ve ever had (the vet who treated her has a puppy wrote “sweet dog” on her chart) and would be perfect for therapy work. People literally stop their cars, cross streets and rush out of stores to say “Hello”.
But it took an encouraging, gentle shove by Ann Frank, a psychologist expert in therapy dog lore and wife of fellow reporter Gerry Goldstein, to get me to actually take the necessary steps.
In August, Phoebe and I began weekly classes conducted by Kate Fantoli, lead trainer for Courteous Canine, a training service, which were held evenings at the Washington County Veterinary Hospital, in South Kingstown, with five other pooch-human teams (including Ann, and her and Gerry’s dog, “Buddy”).
Meanwhile, I was taking the Pet Partners’ online “therapy animal handler” course, which plunged deeply into what goes into therapy dog activities. I squeaked through with an 85 score Sept. 8 (passing grade 80). The live person/dog course got us ready for evaluation, which included 18 scenarios, such as walking past another person-and-dog pair without Phoebe more me making a fuss, and with Phoebe demonstrating basic obedience skills like sit, down, stay and come.
On Sept 8, Phoebe “graduated” and the following week, she passed an initial evaluation, a test earning her an AKC “Canine Good Citizen” designation. And last night, she and I went through the Pet Partners’ test, conducted by Karen Perusek, owner of Courteous Canine.
We didn’t ace the test – I still haven’t got her to walk without occasionally tugging on the leash – so we ended with a designation qualifying us for “predictable” situations, places with quite or moderate activity. The higher designation is for “complex” venues that have lots of noise, people rushing around and other distractions.
Still, it was a celebratory moment. Phoebe got an extra Milk-Bone treat, and big cheers from Judy when we arrived back in Newport. We expect the final word from Pet Partners in about four weeks. Then we’ll start looking for places where Phoebe will be of help.
One place I’m hoping we can show up is at House of Hope, the innovative organization that works to reduce homelessness at 21 sites throughout Rhode Island, including the huge overnight men’s shelter, Harrington Hall, at the state’s Pastore institutional complex in Cranston.
_ Brian C. Jones
Newport, RI
Sept. 23, 2015
Amazon gets a pass from media critics;
The New York Times isn't so lucky
WHEN I READ the New York Times story Aug. 15 about Amazon, the giant online retailer I was appalled at the savage employment conditions the article described. (Ironically, I read the digital version on my Kindle Fire, Amazon’s low-cost tablet). I was just as surprised - and disturbed - by the reaction of some press and industry analysts, who
focused their dismay on the Times, rather than Amazon – including the Times’ own ombudsman, Margaret Sullivan.
"No serious questions (to my knowledge) have arisen about the hard facts," Sullivan wrote in her public editor's column Aug. 18. "That's to The Times's credit. But that may partly be because the article was drive less by irrefutable proof than by generalization and anecdote. |
Dan Kennedy Replies
"... neither Adam Reilly nor I said we thought the Times' reporting had been affected by the paper's rivalry with The Washington Post. Rather, we said it seemed likely that folks at the Times were deriving a little extra enjoyment from the fact that they were zinging the man who owns the Post. What we said was pure opinion." Read Dan Kennedy's full comment at the end of the column |
For such a damning result, presented with so much drama, that doesn’t seem like quite enough.”
There was worse to come. Last Friday, Aug. 21, the excellent media criticism forum at Boston's Channel 2, "Beat the Press," delivered a mean-spirited and unfair whipping, with several panelists committing the sort of journalistic
There was worse to come. Last Friday, Aug. 21, the excellent media criticism forum at Boston's Channel 2, "Beat the Press," delivered a mean-spirited and unfair whipping, with several panelists committing the sort of journalistic
Marble Steps Stories
A Website by Brian C. Jones WHY THIS WEB SITE? I'm trying to learn how to create and manage a Website, using Weebly.com formats and software. So far, it contains a basic design theme from the Weebly family of formats, various text and photos (some of which expand when clicked), page and article links within the site, a blog, a recording, and embedded Word documents. THE SITE'S NAME comes from my house in Newport, which happens to have five marble steps, although not of the quality to be found at the more famous and more frequently visited Marble House mansion a few blocks away on Belleuve Avenue. The just-delivered newspaper in the photo (not staged) is a reminder of my 35 years as a reporter for the Providence Journal. Stories are what matter. I will add the ones I've written and think worked as I get the chance. THE SITE GUIDELINES reflect my misgivings about the Internet. Mostly, it's about me and my writing. Occasionally, members of my family slip in. And there's stuff about pets. Can't help it. Featured below, Phoebe, an exceptionally gentle Yellow Lab/ Husky/hound mix. The Marble Steps BlogI try to have at least one thought a day, and if I manage to write one down (which isn't often), it starts here on home page, then migrates to the blog. Guest opinions are welcome and may be featured.
Turning Seventy
In which a writer gets to wear stupid hats, dwell on a big number and consider the future, while Margarita, the cat, heads for the exit.
THE CAT, Margarita, is dying today, June 10, 2012, which happens to be my 70th birthday.The cat stopped eating about a week ago and now manages only to stare into her water dish. She’s been lying on and underneath the chaise lounge on the back deck, one of her favorite spots, where she listens to the birds and takes in the smells and warmth of late spring.
More at the blog |
sins they said undermined the Times article.
The effect was to tarnish the Times piece, which I felt deserved praise for its unsettling disclosures about maltreatment of white collar workers at Amazon, and the implications for the evolving nature of work during the high-tech era. I think the critics, especially the “Beat the Press” panelists, have some accounting to do. "BEAT THE PRESS" got off to a bad start by entitling its nearly six-minute segment, “Below the belt? The NY Times takes down Amazon.” That’s the kind loaded question that suggests someone already knows the answer. Indeed, panel host Adam Reilly began the discussion by decrying “the kind of sneering tone that the authors had towards Amazon’s whole enterprise,” adding that “I had the impression that they were sitting in judgment throughout.” And as he wrapped up the discussion, Reilly slipped in a sneer of his own, suggesting the article was colored by the Times’ rivalry with the Washington Post, which is owned by Jeff Bezos, the founder and CEO of Amazon. “I wouldn’t be surprised if someone in the Times newsroom got a little extra satisfaction out of going after the company owned by the guy who also owns the Washington Post,” said Reilly, as other panelists laughed, with Dan Kennedy, a Northeastern University journalism professor, chiming in: “I’m glad you made that point.” Nowhere did Reilly or Kennedy – who usually are topnotch reporters and reliable press critics – back up that assertion by offering any proof that the piece was anything other than a newspaper’s determination to learn about the inside operations of one of the country’s top corporations. Reilly, Kennedy and other panelists seemed unconcerned with what the Times reported about Bezos, including the fact that the executive had refused to talk to the Times reporters while they were putting the story together – strange behavior for a man who owns a newspaper and should be willing to take as good as he gives. Nor was there much discussion of one of the most disturbing disclosures in the Times piece, that the harsh working conditions could be traced to cult-like leadership principles governing the company, 14 rules based on Bezos’ business philosophy and printed on laminated cards carried by Amazon employees. Instead, the “Beat the Press” critics focused on the Times’ reliance on individual testimony from current and former Amazon workers, saying that the paper failed to put the Amazon work practices “in context” with conditions at other companies. " TOO ANECDOTAL," said Callie Crossley, a WGBH staffer and panelist, who said that a paper of the Times stature should “document” this kind of story beyond individual accounts. Crossley did not explain what kind of documentation she had in mind. Dan Kennedy said that among the story’s other flaws was the likelihood that Amazon office workers, unlike blue collar types, aren’t trapped in their jobs and can go elsewhere; and that Amazon’s culture may not be that much different from other tech firms – as if any of that makes the mistreatment of any worker, at Amazon or elsewhere, less concerning. And while not doubting the accuracy of the worker anecdotes, Kennedy said, “there was something fundamentally not quite true about it (the story).” That’s a pretty devastating assertion to make without backing it up, and Kennedy didn’t. THE QUESTION that “Beat the Press” should have addressed is not whether the Amazon story was “below the belt,” but whether the story was “fair.” And how does a reader decide that? One way to tell if a story is fair is by looking closely at the piece itself. And a good measure of fairness is whether a story genuinely includes contrary viewpoints. I think one of the outstanding features of the Times piece was that it presented positive, enthusiastic comments from some Amazon workers, as well as the negative points from others. |
THUS - ALONG WITH assertions that employees work grueling hours, that they seem on-call 24-7 through e-mail and text, that they are encouraged to rat out one another by reporting each other’s shortcomings, that employees lose points for spending time with their families or having medical crises, and that one estimate of the median tenure of an Amazon worker is one year - the article contains numerous instances of praise for the Amazon culture.
“Some said they thrived at Amazon precisely because it pushed them past what they thought were there limits,” the Times wrote. Even some workers who had left the company said they relished the experience.
Sometimes, news stories provide a disingenuous balance to stories, tossing in a rebuttal or two, just to show they gave “the other side” its due. That’s not my sense in reading the Times piece: I felt that the reporters constantly challenged their own conclusions about the toxicity of the Amazon work place and faithfully reported counterpoints.
I TRIED TO MEASURE the relative balance of the story another way: I printed a hard copy and marked each paragraph as to whether it was negative to Amazon, positive, a blend of both or simply neutral.
I counted 42 positive paragraphs, 42 negative ones and 12 neutral or blends. It’s an imperfect way to assess fairness; and my judgments are subjective. But the exercise does give me a sense of the article’s proportionality.
Another fairness test is deciding how deeply a story has been reported.
Reporters mainly get material for their stories by talking to people, and the Times reporters, Jodi Kantor and David Streitfeld, wrote that they talked to more than 100 Amazon workers, past and present. Was that enough? Should they have talked to 200? One-thousand?
I think that 100 is a lot, especially because getting workers to talk about where they work is really hard, not only because some, like those at Amazon, sign confidentiality agreements, but because workers always risk their livelihoods when they talk cWandidly and without authorization to the media.
Another fairness measure is a story’s reliance on anonymous sources. People are often reluctant to be quoted by name and for good cause: to protect their lives, jobs or privacy. But anonymous sources are suspect, for obvious reasons. I counted 29 on-the-record sources, versus 15 who were nameless.
Not everyone on the “Beat the Press” panel was hostile. Justin Ellis, of the Nieman journalism lab, said he found the article in line with other topnotch Times pieces on working conditions, and Jon Keller, of WBZ-TV, said he agreed with much that Kennedy said, but that he didn’t buy the theory about the Times’ slant against the Post and Bezos.
But the most vocal commentators, Reilly, Kennedy and Crossley, gave the piece a terrible and flawed review.
WHY DOES IT MATTER? After all, we’re talking about only a little less than six minutes of TV chatter, and no one is required to agree with critics.
It matters because journalism is in a fragile state. Newspapers, with their once-robust newsrooms, are withering, and it’s not clear that digital operations can take their place. Trust in all institutions, including news outlets, is low.
The Times is on trial every day, because it’s the outfit that still seems to be doing the most in-depth journalism, the kind that is labor-intensive, gutsy and confronts the issues that affect all of us, including where we, our children and grandchildren, will work.
And if people whose judgment you generally admire, like I do the “Beat the Press” crowd, trash a superior story like the Amazon article, and create doubt about a paper as important, but imperiled as the Times, it matters.
It matters if we can trust the Times. And its critics.
Newport, RI Aug 25, 2015
[email protected]
“Some said they thrived at Amazon precisely because it pushed them past what they thought were there limits,” the Times wrote. Even some workers who had left the company said they relished the experience.
Sometimes, news stories provide a disingenuous balance to stories, tossing in a rebuttal or two, just to show they gave “the other side” its due. That’s not my sense in reading the Times piece: I felt that the reporters constantly challenged their own conclusions about the toxicity of the Amazon work place and faithfully reported counterpoints.
I TRIED TO MEASURE the relative balance of the story another way: I printed a hard copy and marked each paragraph as to whether it was negative to Amazon, positive, a blend of both or simply neutral.
I counted 42 positive paragraphs, 42 negative ones and 12 neutral or blends. It’s an imperfect way to assess fairness; and my judgments are subjective. But the exercise does give me a sense of the article’s proportionality.
Another fairness test is deciding how deeply a story has been reported.
Reporters mainly get material for their stories by talking to people, and the Times reporters, Jodi Kantor and David Streitfeld, wrote that they talked to more than 100 Amazon workers, past and present. Was that enough? Should they have talked to 200? One-thousand?
I think that 100 is a lot, especially because getting workers to talk about where they work is really hard, not only because some, like those at Amazon, sign confidentiality agreements, but because workers always risk their livelihoods when they talk cWandidly and without authorization to the media.
Another fairness measure is a story’s reliance on anonymous sources. People are often reluctant to be quoted by name and for good cause: to protect their lives, jobs or privacy. But anonymous sources are suspect, for obvious reasons. I counted 29 on-the-record sources, versus 15 who were nameless.
Not everyone on the “Beat the Press” panel was hostile. Justin Ellis, of the Nieman journalism lab, said he found the article in line with other topnotch Times pieces on working conditions, and Jon Keller, of WBZ-TV, said he agreed with much that Kennedy said, but that he didn’t buy the theory about the Times’ slant against the Post and Bezos.
But the most vocal commentators, Reilly, Kennedy and Crossley, gave the piece a terrible and flawed review.
WHY DOES IT MATTER? After all, we’re talking about only a little less than six minutes of TV chatter, and no one is required to agree with critics.
It matters because journalism is in a fragile state. Newspapers, with their once-robust newsrooms, are withering, and it’s not clear that digital operations can take their place. Trust in all institutions, including news outlets, is low.
The Times is on trial every day, because it’s the outfit that still seems to be doing the most in-depth journalism, the kind that is labor-intensive, gutsy and confronts the issues that affect all of us, including where we, our children and grandchildren, will work.
And if people whose judgment you generally admire, like I do the “Beat the Press” crowd, trash a superior story like the Amazon article, and create doubt about a paper as important, but imperiled as the Times, it matters.
It matters if we can trust the Times. And its critics.
Newport, RI Aug 25, 2015
[email protected]
Dan Kennedy Replies
Thank you for such a long, thoughtful analysis of The New York Times' story on Amazon's toxic workplace culture and our discussion of it on "Beat the Press." It's good to know that someone is paying such close attention to what we say. I would like to push back on a few points.
First, neither Adam Reilly nor I said we thought the Times' reporting had been affected by the paper's rivalry with The Washington Post. Rather, we said it seemed likely that folks at the Times were deriving a little extra enjoyment from the fact that they were zinging the man who owns the Post. What we said was pure opinion. But I will point out that media observer Jeff Jarvis has criticized the Times for not disclosing more forthrightly that the Post under Bezos represents a threat to the Times the likes of which it has not had to contend in many years. I agree with Jarvis that fuller disclosure should have been offered.
Second, in saying that I thought the Times' reporting was accurate (I have little doubt about that) but in some fundamental way not true, I was offering analysis and opinion based on well-established facts. If Amazon's culture is not fundamentally different from that of Apple under Steve Jobs, Microsoft under Steve Ballmer or any one of a number of other examples, that is important and relevant information. And as Mathew Ingram wrote at Fortune.com, "To take just one example, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs’ treatment of his staff makes anything that Amazon has done (or likely ever will do) seem like a day at the beach."
Like Ingram, I also found the Times' article occasionally veered into a sneering tone that Amazon is engaged in mere retail (not even true), whereas Apple, as Ingram puts it, "is making magical products to improve people’s lives or fill them with joy.... The implication is that selling things somehow isn’t a worthwhile goal."
Third, I thought the Times' entire presentation — most definitely including its length and prominence — was designed to send a clear message that Amazon is a horrible place at which to work. Within that context, those who criticized Amazon came off as truth-tellers and those who defended the company were cast as corporate stooges. Again, this is subjective. I believe you have to analyze such things holistically, and yes, offer your opinion. I don't think it's the sort of thing that can be done by counting paragraphs.
Would I want to work at Amazon? Hell no. I also wouldn't want to work in one of Amazon's warehouses, or as a retail clerk at Wal-Mart, or as a farm laborer in California, or as a newly minted lawyer in a high-powered law firm. The people portrayed by the Times all have more choices (maybe not the lawyer, who has law-school debts to pay off). I thought the Times' story, overall, was damned interesting, and I learned a lot. But it was not without its flaws, and I've tried to point some of those out.
For those who are interested, I also wrote about the Times' story here and here.
Thank you for such a long, thoughtful analysis of The New York Times' story on Amazon's toxic workplace culture and our discussion of it on "Beat the Press." It's good to know that someone is paying such close attention to what we say. I would like to push back on a few points.
First, neither Adam Reilly nor I said we thought the Times' reporting had been affected by the paper's rivalry with The Washington Post. Rather, we said it seemed likely that folks at the Times were deriving a little extra enjoyment from the fact that they were zinging the man who owns the Post. What we said was pure opinion. But I will point out that media observer Jeff Jarvis has criticized the Times for not disclosing more forthrightly that the Post under Bezos represents a threat to the Times the likes of which it has not had to contend in many years. I agree with Jarvis that fuller disclosure should have been offered.
Second, in saying that I thought the Times' reporting was accurate (I have little doubt about that) but in some fundamental way not true, I was offering analysis and opinion based on well-established facts. If Amazon's culture is not fundamentally different from that of Apple under Steve Jobs, Microsoft under Steve Ballmer or any one of a number of other examples, that is important and relevant information. And as Mathew Ingram wrote at Fortune.com, "To take just one example, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs’ treatment of his staff makes anything that Amazon has done (or likely ever will do) seem like a day at the beach."
Like Ingram, I also found the Times' article occasionally veered into a sneering tone that Amazon is engaged in mere retail (not even true), whereas Apple, as Ingram puts it, "is making magical products to improve people’s lives or fill them with joy.... The implication is that selling things somehow isn’t a worthwhile goal."
Third, I thought the Times' entire presentation — most definitely including its length and prominence — was designed to send a clear message that Amazon is a horrible place at which to work. Within that context, those who criticized Amazon came off as truth-tellers and those who defended the company were cast as corporate stooges. Again, this is subjective. I believe you have to analyze such things holistically, and yes, offer your opinion. I don't think it's the sort of thing that can be done by counting paragraphs.
Would I want to work at Amazon? Hell no. I also wouldn't want to work in one of Amazon's warehouses, or as a retail clerk at Wal-Mart, or as a farm laborer in California, or as a newly minted lawyer in a high-powered law firm. The people portrayed by the Times all have more choices (maybe not the lawyer, who has law-school debts to pay off). I thought the Times' story, overall, was damned interesting, and I learned a lot. But it was not without its flaws, and I've tried to point some of those out.
For those who are interested, I also wrote about the Times' story here and here.
ELECTION DAY - NOV. 4, 2014
Wednesday, Nov. 5
The rest of Election Day, I cleaned the house. Made and took cookies to Judy and her colleagues, made Italian bread for the first time, and studiously maintained the Total News Blackout. I also lost interest in the blog. But I sent the following on the day after. Hi Friends Near & Far, Contrary to my congenital pessimism, yesterday’s election produced a Wonderful Wednesday* – but with an important asterisk: And that * (asterisk) is: - To feel “good” about the election - if you lean liberal – you have to live in Rhode Island or move here. Indeed, the forces of progressivism in Rhode Island won big in the country’s smallest state * Elorza defeats Cianci: Yes! The prospect of a return to office by Vincent “Buddy” Cianci, the entertaining but frightening, twice convicted former mayor of Providence was vanquished by a strong win by political newcomer, Jorge O. Elorza, a housing court judge, who won 53 percent to 44 percent. |
This was no accident or lucky break. When Cianci’s comeback attempt seemed credible, many, many people rallied to make a difference. I’d cite my former Providence Journal colleague, retired columnist M. Charles Bakst, for taking an activist role, and reformers Phil West (former Common Cause chief) and his wife, Anne Grant, feminist and children’s rights activist, along with a number of unions, for making sure democracy was not hijacked by cynicism and defeatism.
* Raimondo wins. State Treasurer Gina Raimondo overcame the controversy of her role in engineering state worker pension changes to become the first woman elected Rhode Island governor and the first Democrat in many years to win the governorship in one of the country’s bluest states. She defeated Cranston Mayor Allan Fung 40 to 36 percent. Fung, who had seemed to surge at the end, gave a touching and plainspoken concession speech.
* Casino expansion loses. Newport voters convincingly defeated expanded gambling at the city’s slot-machine parlor – 57 to 43 percent. The referendum question won statewide, but the local veto trumps that. I voted reluctantly for the expansion, because the state is so reliant on gambling revenues, and the slots jobs pay living wages. But I hate gambling as a state-sponsored source of revenue.
* Reed wins. U.S. Sen. Jack Reed, who is universally regarded as a hardworking progressive who has not forgotten his humble roots growing up in Cranston, won as expected with an astounding 70.4 percent of the vote, and the two Congresspeople – David Cicilline (59 percent) and Jim Langevin (62 percent) were reelected. Along with the outspoken and forceful Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island has one of the best congressional delegations in the country* (*If you are a liberal). So on a terrible morning-after for Democrats nationally, Rhode Island remains an oasis. There are two more asterisks:
* Robert Healey, a long-time anti-government mischief-maker – whose long beard and hair makes him seem a cross between a Muppet and Charlie Manson – ran as a last minute substitute for the Independent Party in the governor’s race and got a huge 22 percent of the vote. It was clearly a none-of-the-above choice and although Healey probably took more votes from the Republicans, Democrats should be equally startled by this immense nihilistic vote.
* Prayers or their equivalent for the “winners.” If you are a humanist or a kindly person, Raimondo and Elorza deserve your sympathy. Rhode Island and Providence are economic basket cases. I have no idea how the new governor and mayor are going to succeed. I end with this iPhone picture of a cheerful Judy Jones, who worked as a city polling place clerk for more than 15 hours yesterday:
Brian
3:30 p.m.
Scott MacKay had asked me about Newport turnout, so I sent him some notes from the polling place at which I voted and Judy was serving as a volunteer city canvassing worker. Here's what he wrote on the Rhode Island Public Radio political blog:
* Raimondo wins. State Treasurer Gina Raimondo overcame the controversy of her role in engineering state worker pension changes to become the first woman elected Rhode Island governor and the first Democrat in many years to win the governorship in one of the country’s bluest states. She defeated Cranston Mayor Allan Fung 40 to 36 percent. Fung, who had seemed to surge at the end, gave a touching and plainspoken concession speech.
* Casino expansion loses. Newport voters convincingly defeated expanded gambling at the city’s slot-machine parlor – 57 to 43 percent. The referendum question won statewide, but the local veto trumps that. I voted reluctantly for the expansion, because the state is so reliant on gambling revenues, and the slots jobs pay living wages. But I hate gambling as a state-sponsored source of revenue.
* Reed wins. U.S. Sen. Jack Reed, who is universally regarded as a hardworking progressive who has not forgotten his humble roots growing up in Cranston, won as expected with an astounding 70.4 percent of the vote, and the two Congresspeople – David Cicilline (59 percent) and Jim Langevin (62 percent) were reelected. Along with the outspoken and forceful Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island has one of the best congressional delegations in the country* (*If you are a liberal). So on a terrible morning-after for Democrats nationally, Rhode Island remains an oasis. There are two more asterisks:
* Robert Healey, a long-time anti-government mischief-maker – whose long beard and hair makes him seem a cross between a Muppet and Charlie Manson – ran as a last minute substitute for the Independent Party in the governor’s race and got a huge 22 percent of the vote. It was clearly a none-of-the-above choice and although Healey probably took more votes from the Republicans, Democrats should be equally startled by this immense nihilistic vote.
* Prayers or their equivalent for the “winners.” If you are a humanist or a kindly person, Raimondo and Elorza deserve your sympathy. Rhode Island and Providence are economic basket cases. I have no idea how the new governor and mayor are going to succeed. I end with this iPhone picture of a cheerful Judy Jones, who worked as a city polling place clerk for more than 15 hours yesterday:
Brian
3:30 p.m.
Scott MacKay had asked me about Newport turnout, so I sent him some notes from the polling place at which I voted and Judy was serving as a volunteer city canvassing worker. Here's what he wrote on the Rhode Island Public Radio political blog:
Voter turnout high in Newport's 5th Ward polling place
Share Tweet E-mail 0 Comments By Scott MacKay Newport voter turnout, likely driven by the casino referendum at Newport Grand, is high. That report comes from old friend and former great ProJo reporter Brian C. Jones. As of 3:30 about 820 of the estimated 2,200 voters eligible to cast ballots at the city’s `Fifth Ward’ polling place at Rogers High School had voted. Election officials said that there have been a steady stream of voters all day. As the late U.S. House Speaker Tip O’Neill so famously said, ``All politics is local.’' |
10:27 a.m.
Dispatched an agony e-mail to Friends Far and Near. Heard back from practical, hardworking forces for good in Providence that Buddy is toast. Bonekemper says VA will jettison conservative governor. Jean Johnson doesn't want to hear mood-spoilers. Maria Johnson good enough not to point out wrong spelling on "losers," as in "loosers."
Dispatched an agony e-mail to Friends Far and Near. Heard back from practical, hardworking forces for good in Providence that Buddy is toast. Bonekemper says VA will jettison conservative governor. Jean Johnson doesn't want to hear mood-spoilers. Maria Johnson good enough not to point out wrong spelling on "losers," as in "loosers."
NOON
I've received lots of replies to the agony e-mail. It's refreshing to know just how engaged are friends are. Here's a sampling: don't be blue … here's the scenario … gop wins the senate … ted cruse and others make a mess of things, creating problems even for mitch mcconnel … americans in next presidential aelection pick hillary and dems retake the senate (with a lot more GOP seats at stake and voters (fickle) getting tired of republicans …. justice ruth ginsburg hangs on two more years and president hillary finds suitable replacement …. all i really want out of tonight is for walker to lose in wisconsin and democrats to come close, winning in n.h. and n.c., and independent winning in kansas, so that challenge won't be so great in winning back the senate in 2016 …. so there: that should cheer you up, eh? … dirk * * * Saving these to see whether the desires of the heart are a better guide than the wisdom of the head. Otherwise, I've crawled into my cave, installed the anti-news filter and am crouched by the fire awaiting a better day… Candy * * * Brian and Judy—We’re hoping to knock off a conservative Republican (redundant) governor here today. Best—Ed & Sue Edward H. (Ed) Bonekemper, III Civil War Author and Speaker Book Review Editor, CIVIL WAR NEWS 814 Willow Valley Lakes Drive Willow Street, PA 17584 717-464-4936 (home and fax) 703-403-9345 (cell) * * * |
I’m
rooting for the Heart too! Yesterday was a very good day. I’d like to
hold on to my good mood for just a little bit longer!!!!
Jean M. Johnson Executive Director House of Hope CDC
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter". Martin Luther King, Jr.
* * *
Leith even vetoed gathering up our usual array of vegan appetizers to nosh on while watching the returns: too celebratory for the circumstances.
Sent from my iPhone
(Maria Miro Johnson)
* * *
I , for one, have always admired your heart more than your bald head :-)) So here's hoping...
Best, PP (Peter Perl)
Sent from my iPhone
* * *
your hear(t) will prevail in the mayor's race the unions that support Jorge have been working very hard in all the right places
George H. Nee
Rhode Island AFL-CIO
It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life-the children; those who are in the twilight of life-the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life-the sick, the needy and the handicapped.
- Hubert h. Humphrey
6:17 .a.m.
Newport, R.I.
ELECTION DAY THOUGHTS
I've been dreading this day for most of the year, so I thought I'd keep a personal journal, something I don't believe in, starting with any writing that begins with "I" and its variations. So much for principles.
JUDY JONES got up super early, 4:30 a.m. - as in the old "working" days - because she's a polling place worker for the Newport city board of canvassers, checking in voters at our neighborhood polling place at Rogers High School, which is a couple of blocks away from our house. She's been doing this for the past several years, and I have a lot of admiration for her efforts. Most people won't, in part because it's a super long day that's not really compensated by the "perks," a $150 stipend and three meals, during a day that begins about 6 a.m. and runs through at least 9 p.m. But its democracy, and she's playing her part.
PREDICTIONS:
Part 1 - From the Heart
Part 3 - From the National Weather Service for Newport:
ELECTION DAY GROUND RULES:
* First-ever news black out at Marble Steps. Not going to subject myself to meaningless stories on TV and radio about something that nobody knows, or is allowed to say, until 8 p.m. I've changed my Internet homepage from the usual AP newsfeed, to this blog. The stereo system, usually streaming NPR day and night, is broadcasting podcasts of "Mountain Stage," plus our own CD collection.
* Agenda: a mix of yardwork, housework, office work and cooking up raisin oatmeal cookies for Judy and her fellow poll workers, plus the usual outings for Phoebe.
Jean M. Johnson Executive Director House of Hope CDC
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter". Martin Luther King, Jr.
* * *
Leith even vetoed gathering up our usual array of vegan appetizers to nosh on while watching the returns: too celebratory for the circumstances.
Sent from my iPhone
(Maria Miro Johnson)
* * *
I , for one, have always admired your heart more than your bald head :-)) So here's hoping...
Best, PP (Peter Perl)
Sent from my iPhone
* * *
your hear(t) will prevail in the mayor's race the unions that support Jorge have been working very hard in all the right places
George H. Nee
Rhode Island AFL-CIO
It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life-the children; those who are in the twilight of life-the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life-the sick, the needy and the handicapped.
- Hubert h. Humphrey
6:17 .a.m.
Newport, R.I.
ELECTION DAY THOUGHTS
I've been dreading this day for most of the year, so I thought I'd keep a personal journal, something I don't believe in, starting with any writing that begins with "I" and its variations. So much for principles.
JUDY JONES got up super early, 4:30 a.m. - as in the old "working" days - because she's a polling place worker for the Newport city board of canvassers, checking in voters at our neighborhood polling place at Rogers High School, which is a couple of blocks away from our house. She's been doing this for the past several years, and I have a lot of admiration for her efforts. Most people won't, in part because it's a super long day that's not really compensated by the "perks," a $150 stipend and three meals, during a day that begins about 6 a.m. and runs through at least 9 p.m. But its democracy, and she's playing her part.
PREDICTIONS:
Part 1 - From the Heart
- Buddy Cianci looses his comeback bid for mayor of Providence, and by a comfortable margin.
- Gina Raimondo wins the Rhode Island governorship, also by a comfortable margin, moving up from state treasurer to become the first woman in state history to hold the office.
- Democrats hold the U.S. Senate by more than enough seats.
- The casino questions on the R.I. and Newport ballots pass on election night, but await a count of absentee ballots
- Rhode Island voters approve holding of a constitutional convention.
- Jack Reed wins reelection as the "senior" U.S. Senator from Rhode Island, which has the best Senate delegation in the country.
- Cianci wins: Providence voters disgrace themselves and their state by returning Buddy Cianci to City Hall, and his third rounds as the capital city's major, rejecting the lessons of two successful felony prosecutions by the government and years of reporting by my colleagues at the Providence Journal that documented decades of corruption and bullying. My disappointment, shared by many in the state, is not only voters' careless stewardship of democracy by indulging yet another entertaining rogue politician, but because Rhode Island's major challenge is not its sick economy, but its centuries of corrupt politics.
- Fung wins: Cranston Mayor Allan Fung, a real Republican and a mediocre mayor of Cranston, becomes the first Asian-American to win the Rhode Island governorship. The upside: Rhode Islanders have gone along way in recent years to reject ethnic and other stereotypes, electing Jews and gays, to high office. The downside: Fung is a real Republican, and will continue Rhode Island's move away from its historic progressive social agenda. It also shows the self-defeating obstancy of union members who would rather punish Raimondo for state pension system change than vote their self interest by rejecting a man who admits to backing right-to-work laws.
- Republicans sweep into commanding control of the U.S. Senate. All the forecasts were correct and more so. The Democrats, having fled like cowards from Obama and the many gains of first six years, deserved to lose. But the rest of us do not deserve what the next two years - and perhaps many more - will bring from lunk-headed, anti-science, anti-humanist Republican and conservative "policies."
- Casinos win: Expanded gambling in Newport win the required local and statewide votes, but most of the bad things opponents predict, that casinos will damage Newport's tourist economy, prove wrong.
- Reed wins: Rhode Island still has a lot going for it. Reed is admired and for good reason
Part 3 - From the National Weather Service for Newport:
- Today Mostly sunny, with a high near 59. Northwest wind 5 to 9 mph becoming southwest in the afternoon.
- Tonight Partly cloudy, with a low around 52. Southwest wind around 9 mph, with gusts as high as 20 mph.
ELECTION DAY GROUND RULES:
* First-ever news black out at Marble Steps. Not going to subject myself to meaningless stories on TV and radio about something that nobody knows, or is allowed to say, until 8 p.m. I've changed my Internet homepage from the usual AP newsfeed, to this blog. The stereo system, usually streaming NPR day and night, is broadcasting podcasts of "Mountain Stage," plus our own CD collection.
* Agenda: a mix of yardwork, housework, office work and cooking up raisin oatmeal cookies for Judy and her fellow poll workers, plus the usual outings for Phoebe.
Bad Days @ The Providence Journal
Friends of the Journal,
Just a note to recount some of the remarkable events of the past week: The Providence Journal on Tuesday canned scores of people, reporters as well as others, as the A.H. Belo company “completed” the paper’s sale to GateHouse. Many of these people will suffer immensely as they try to find a job in a troubled economy, and especially in the collapsing newspaper business. Further, in a negative portent for a paper already crippled by previous layoffs and cutbacks – which long ago resulted in the shuttering of the paper’s vaunted suburban news bureau system – the old/new owners fired star columnist Bob Kerr. It’s really not clear why. Was it pure corporate economizing? Did someone have a grudge? Was there a coin toss? In any case, Rhode Island Public Radio quickly, and with spot-on news judgment, picked up on the Kerr dismissal as a signature event. RIPR reported the details of his and the other layoffs. The station also had an on-air interview with Bob. And, finally, the NPR outlet invited Bob to broadcast the final column that he would have written had he not been hurried out of the building after a perfunctory dismissal meeting with officials, who outlined severance provisions and said little else. In the farewell column, elegant as those he has written over the decades since he took over the column in 1994, Bob recalled Editor Joel Rawson’s initial instruction that he should reflect the voices of Rhode Islanders. |
He remembered some of the people he had met, and thanked his readers and the paper for giving him an opportunity of a lifetime. (The man also has an excellent radio presence, along with his other talents). It was a spare, true and gracious statement, without venom or recrimination. And it was proof, were any needed, that a paper now struggling for its very survival, has just cast off one of its most prized “assets,” to use a word from the purchase-and-sale documents. Shameful human relations; really stupid business move. On Friday night, the excellent “Beat the Press” program of Boston's Channel 2-WGBH - a weekly critique of local and national media - gave a good summary of the Kerr incident. Dan Kennedy, a Northeastern University journalism professor and former Boston Phoenix media writer, noted the firing and the airing of the “final” column, in a crisp re-telling during the programs “Rants and Raves” segment. It is difficult for many of us, who spent lifetimes at the Journal in what some regarded as a crusade for excellent journalism, to now witness the paper’s disintegration. But our pain, experienced from afar, is nothing compared to what our laid-off colleagues are confronting; nor what the remaining staff will go through – nor, in the long run, the peril that Rhode Island now faces as a state without a paper of the old Journal’s caliber. - Brian C. Jones Sept. 5, 2014 |
MARBLE STEPS STORIESWhen it's your name on the bridge, do you pay the toll?
Read At a Rhode Island crossroads, life, death and helping hands.
Read |
BiographyBrian C. Jones has been a reporter for nearly a half-century, including 35 years with the Providence Journal. He most recently wrote a history of The Miriam Hospital in Providence.
More |