Connecticut

Sunday evening, I went to a planning meeting for Occupy Hartford. (For my initial thoughts about the meeting, see my #OccupyHartford blog post.)

One of the topics discussed was about whose attention are we trying to get. Is it business leaders? Is it the politicians? Is it the traditional media? Is it the general populous? Related to that, what is the message we are trying to get across and the results we are trying to accomplish.

A mailing list has been set up, and there is incredible energy on the list, as people work together to reach consensus on some of these topics.

With this being a group drawn together by some general ideas, different people will have different opinions, and many of these opinions will overlap. For example, business leaders, politicians, and journalists are all part of the general populous. So, if we try to reach the general populous, we are trying to reach business leaders as part of that.

Likewise, as we talk, we find ideas that resonate and we can speak individually about the ones that are most important to each one of us.

Since I am a social media person, this plays an important role in how I am looking at things. Years ago, I wrote about 'post-broadcast politics', a phrase I learned from a friend. Yet the post broadcast politics we talked about nearly a decade ago, really didn't take shape. Maybe, now, it really is.

The #Occupy movement, like the Arabic Spring, is powered by social media, where each one of us can have our say, and can say it socially as part of something bigger. It is the sort of direct involvement that has been so elusive for years, and many of us may still have problems tapping into it.

Instead of listening to the news to tell us what they think we need to hear, or even having to have the group agree on exactly what we are going to say, each one of us can say what is important, and the themes others pick up on end up getting the most focus.

This presents difficulties for people used to the older hierarchical broadcast style of involvement, but it is very liberating. #occupy your mind with post broadcast politics.

With this, let me share a few thoughts about what the #Occupy movement is really all about. I'm using #occupy extensively since it seems to be 'the brand', and it is a word that we can do a lot with.

What is it that #occupies your mind? Are you pre-occupied with what is being broadcast to you by the traditional media? By bloggers, and new media or social media? Is your mind occupied with searching for mindless entertainment, or simply getting the next meal? Are you pre-occupied with bread and circuses?

Is your career occupied with an effort to get ahead by taking advantage of others, or does the idea of working together to help one another out occupy a greater place in how you try to live your life?

What matters to me, is reaching the general populous and trying to get them to occupy their minds with post broadcast politics based on collaboratively seeking the common good That, it seems to me, is what is sorely needed today, and is the anti-thesis of the corporate greed where 1% take advantage of the other 99%

Sunday evening, I went to a planning meeting for Occupy Hartford. (For my initial thoughts about the meeting, see my #OccupyHartford blog post.)

One of the topics discussed was about whose attention are we trying to get. Is it business leaders? Is it the politicians? Is it the traditional media? Is it the general populous? Related to that, what is the message we are trying to get across and the results we are trying to accomplish.

A mailing list has been set up, and there is incredible energy on the list, as people work together to reach consensus on some of these topics.

With this being a group drawn together by some general ideas, different people will have different opinions, and many of these opinions will overlap. For example, business leaders, politicians, and journalists are all part of the general populous. So, if we try to reach the general populous, we are trying to reach business leaders as part of that.

Likewise, as we talk, we find ideas that resonate and we can speak individually about the ones that are most important to each one of us.

Since I am a social media person, this plays an important role in how I am looking at things. Years ago, I wrote about 'post-broadcast politics', a phrase I learned from a friend. Yet the post broadcast politics we talked about nearly a decade ago, really didn't take shape. Maybe, now, it really is.

The #Occupy movement, like the Arabic Spring, is powered by social media, where each one of us can have our say, and can say it socially as part of something bigger. It is the sort of direct involvement that has been so elusive for years, and many of us may still have problems tapping into it.

Instead of listening to the news to tell us what they think we need to hear, or even having to have the group agree on exactly what we are going to say, each one of us can say what is important, and the themes others pick up on end up getting the most focus.

This presents difficulties for people used to the older hierarchical broadcast style of involvement, but it is very liberating. #occupy your mind with post broadcast politics.

With this, let me share a few thoughts about what the #Occupy movement is really all about. I'm using #occupy extensively since it seems to be 'the brand', and it is a word that we can do a lot with.

What is it that #occupies your mind? Are you pre-occupied with what is being broadcast to you by the traditional media? By bloggers, and new media or social media? Is your mind occupied with searching for mindless entertainment, or simply getting the next meal? Are you pre-occupied with bread and circuses?

Is your career occupied with an effort to get ahead by taking advantage of others, or does the idea of working together to help one another out occupy a greater place in how you try to live your life?

What matters to me, is reaching the general populous and trying to get them to occupy their minds with post broadcast politics based on collaboratively seeking the common good That, it seems to me, is what is sorely needed today, and is the anti-thesis of the corporate greed where 1% take advantage of the other 99%

I arrived at the Charter Oak Community Center in Hartford Sunday evening at 5 PM. There was a circle of chairs in the downstairs room, which was being expanded as I arrived. There were about thirty five people there and more were arriving. People were scurrying around to find more chairs, and some people started bringing cushions to put on the floor for people to sit on. I chatted with a couple people and looked around to see who else was there.

It was a mixed crowd, with kids still in college to people who had been in Haight Ashbury in the sixties. One person took the lead to act as facilitator. A note taker was selected as well as a person to keep track of whose turn it was to speak.

One of the first people to speak was from Tunisia. He was very excited to be there and was warmly welcomed. Others had been down at the demonstrations in New York and brought back various reports. There was some discussion about the goals and the near term plans.

As a very broad based group, there were many ideas expressed, from universal health care and bringing the troops home, to challenging corporate personhood and the detrimental effect it is having on our political process.

There was strong support voiced for some sort of direct action, such as occupying Bushnell Park, an abandoned building, and various other locations.

In terms of messaging, the key idea of representing the 99% that hasn't prospered while the richest 1% have received strong support.

I tweeted various parts of the meeting, and shared one picture, although from where I was sitting, the lighting wasn't all that good. I had to leave early to call into Fiona's Radio Show and to get home to wrap up the day. The meeting was only half over, so I look forward to receiving an email with additional notes from the meeting.

There was a lot of support and energy behind the meeting and it will be interesting to see how Occupy Together comes together in Hartford, and the rest of Connecticut.

Friday evening, after work, I headed over to the grand opening of the Chris Donovan for Congress campaign office opening. I was running a little bit late so I couldn’t even get into the room where Chris was speaking. Hence, I’m writing more about the people that were there.

They say you can tell a lot about a person by the friends they keep, and perhaps this is a good way to look at the event. As the Connecticut Speaker of the House, Chris attracted a large number of legislators and their staff, many of whom I’ve gotten to know through various campaigns or advocacy, and it was great to reconnect with many of them after a long and difficult summer.

I also saw a bunch of old friends from the labor movement and listened to some discussions about internal union politics.

Another group that I’m more recently spending more time with is the non-profit community, especially those that care for the underserved and underprivileged communities. There were several new friends from this group there.

The bottom line was that this was a large crowd of people who work hard to help the people around them. It wasn’t the high dollar group that is conservative in showing compassion.

Besides being a group people that work hard for what they believe in, it was also a group of people that enjoy being together, and unlike so many campaign events where the crowds quickly disperse after the speeches are made and the appropriate hands shaken, this was a group that continued to hang out later into the evening. Of course it helped that there was pizza, beer and wine, but what helped most was that they were people you want to hang out with.

The other day, I heard a person call into Colin McEnroe’s show who mentioned HR 5368, An Act Extending Certain Pet Shop Licensee Requirements to Persons and Organizations That Import Animals for Adoption. Essentially, the bill would require that any person importing dogs or cats from out of state, register with the Department of Agriculture. The registration would cost $100, and there would be a yearly $100 fee. It requires ten days notice before any animal is brought into the state at a public location. This is addressed at transports coming into the state, where people pick up the dogs or cats from the transports.

Various organizations, such as the Connecticut Dog Federation, the Connecticut Veterinary Medical Association, and the Department of Agriculture support this bill, and the intent of the bill is clearly laudable. Specifically, the concerns are that various organizations and transports bring unhealthy dogs into the state. This presents a risk to other dogs in the state, unnecessary financial burdens on the new pet owners and may discourage people from adopting animals in Connecticut’s shelters.

While I haven’t looked at recent numbers, the average number of animals killed in municipal shelters in Connecticut over the past few years has been running in the two to three thousand animals per year. It is worth noting that some southern states have kill rates approaching 100,000 dogs per state per year.

There are some who say that making it more difficult to adopt rescues from out of state will reduce the number of Connecticut dogs that get killed each year. Others maintain that many of the dogs in Connecticut shelters are ‘bully breed’ dogs, especially pit bulls, that are hard to get adopted. They also maintain that a dog adopted is a dog adopted, it doesn’t matter whether you are saving the life of a dog from Connecticut or a dog from Georgia.

There are lots of things that can be done to address these problems; raising awareness of the kill rate in municipalities in Connecticut, making sure dogs are spayed or neutered, and getting people to recognize that bully breed dogs, and particularly pit bulls, can make wonderful pets are important steps.

Meanwhile, quite a battle is developing online about HR 5368. It can perhaps best be seen in messages from the Federation of Responsible Rescues and the Connecticut Dog Federation. The early battle lines can be found in the public testimony about the bill where pet shop owners applauded the bill, but wanted to make sure it didn’t apply to their sources, and CT Votes for Animals opposition to the bill.

Having read through the bill, the testimony, and the Fiscal Notes, I while I like various provisions, I generally oppose this bill and have contacted Gov. Malloy to veto it. While the goals are laudable, the bill does not really do anything to achieve the goals. In fact, the bill has many negative unintended consequences. As an example, if my elderly mother, living in Massachusetts gets to the point where she can no longer care for her pet cats, the way the law is written, if I go to her house, pick them up, and bring them home, without registering with the Department of Agriculture, I am in violation of the act and can be fined $500. That just doesn’t make any sense.

Yet the bigger concern is how this act gets carried out. The fiscal note talks only about possible revenue from the licenses and fines. There is no financial information about costs to the state of implementing, tracking, or enforcing the licensing. This became a concern to me a few years ago, when I tried to get information from the Department of Agriculture about the licensing of pet shops. There was no automated system for accessing this information. At the time, it sounded as if the reports were faxed in, and thrown into a box somewhere without any tracking or organization of the information. Without funding to the Department of Agriculture, I fear the same thing will happen again.

With the lack of funding to properly maintain this, I fear that larger, unscrupulous operations may continue to skirt the intent of the law, and smaller, more responsible organizations may be forced to stop importing dogs.

Currently, we have a dog that was imported from Tennessee by a member of the Federation of Responsible Rescues. While there were some problems and confusion with the transport, the dog had been properly cared for before the trip north and has proven to be a wonderful pet. It is my hope that experiences like ours will not be curtailed by an ineffective effort to curtail some of the less scrupulous importers.

Mostly, I stayed out of the 2010 election cycle. While I supported the Democrats across the board in the general election, the primaries were more difficult. I was good friends with many of the candidates running against one another and I just didn’t want to get into it.

2012 is a different cycle. With Chris Murphy running for U.S. Senate in Connecticut, his congressional seat will be open. Already there are three Democrats running for the nomination, Chris Donovan, Dan Roberti, and Elizabeth Etsy. I don’t really know Dan or Elizabeth, and I’m sure that they would be find candidates if they win the nomination. However, I have known Chris Donovan for about eight years. He is currently the Speaker of the Connecticut House. I suspect that if I dug back through his legislative history, I could find something that he has done that I disagree with. That’s the way it is with just about every politician. However, I can’t recall any thing off the top of my head that I’ve disagreed with him on. Instead, on just about every issue I can think of, he’s been a great State Representative. He has stood up for the people, against special interests on issue after issue.

So, when my wife and I received a phone call the other night from Chris asking for our support, I was glad to give it. I encourage you to do the same thing. I’ve set up an ActBlue contribution page for Chris’ campaign. Please, join me in supporting and contributing to Chris Donovan’s campaign.

Today’s Hartford Courant Daily Buzz asks the question:

Which Republican candidate has a shot at beating President Obama?

As of around 7:30 PM, Ron Paul is leading with 50% of the votes. Michele Bachmann is coming in second with 18% of the votes, followed closely by ‘none of them’.

With that, it looks like Republicans may have difficulties finding a candidate that can take on President Obama.

Meanwhile, over on CTNewsJunkie, there is a lot of discussion about a campaign for GOP Chairman in Connecticut. Former Senator Bill Aniskovich is rumored to be considering running for GOP Chair as we wait to hear if current chairman Chris Healy will run for re-election. It seems as if Democrats and comedians are almost as excited about Healy remaining GOP Chair in Connecticut as they are about Michele Bachmann running for President. Then it struck me, what we really need is Chris Healy to run for President in 2012. Will you join with me in a Draft Chris Healy for President in 2012? Healy-Bachmann, because one nutcase is not enough.

Why are our schools failing? It is a popular question these days and too often people point at the teachers. They too rarely look at school administrators and I think the whole #teamtate fiasco is a good illustration of where administrators are failing.

Let me start off by laying out the story, at least as I understand it. James Tate, a senior at Shelton High School came up with a great way of asking a girl to the prom. He posted giant cardboard letters on the school. At least as I am hearing the story from the school administration’s perspective, this involved trespassing on school property after dark. This was grounds for a one day suspension, and any student who has been suspended cannot participate in other school activities. The rules are very clear. James Tate cannot go to the prom.

The rules are there for a reason and should not be altered, the argument goes. Else, you may head down a slippery slope. Someone else might do something destructive and since the rules were bent once would argue they should be bent again. It all makes perfect sense in a black and white world with no room for shades of grey, let alone anything colorful.

It may be that we are moving towards such a world. It turns school administrators into automatons applying the rules, without any critical thinking. Yet isn’t critical thinking an important skill our schools are supposed to be teaching? Is critical thinking something taught by rote? Learn the rules. Apply them. Do not attempt to be creative.

No, if our schools are going to stop failing, they need to move away from this black and white thinking. They need to celebrate creativity.

So, perhaps the students at Shelton High School need to study The Merchant of Venice. Perhaps they could even stage an adaptation with Shelton High School Headmaster Beth Smith taking the role of Shylock, James Tate taking the role of Antonio, and Sonali Rodrigues playing the role of Portia.

Yes, Shylock Smith is entitled to take a pound of flesh from Antonio Tate.

but, in the cutting it, if she dost shed
One drop of Tate’s blood, her lands and goods
Are, by the laws of Connecticut, confiscate
Unto the state of Connecticut.

Already the Mayor of Shelton and the Governor of Connecticut have lined up on the side of Tate and if we read The Merchant of Venice further, we will see that perhaps Shylock Smith will need to be seeking mercy from Duke Dannell. Will someone find such a creative solution to this current mess to help Shelton and Connecticut recover from the damage that Shylock Smith is doing to the city and the state? Let us hope so. Let us hope that this can be a reminder to all of us about the importance of celebrating creativity, even if it requires rethinking and even bending rules sometimes.

When I first heard about the unresolved bullying in Middletown, CT, a couple thoughts came to mind. One was about what literature I would recommend to students dealing with bullying. There are a couple obvious choices, a few less obvious, and many more that I probably should have thought of but haven’t.

Heading off the list is Lord of the Flies. It is pretty obvious and I would be remiss not to include a quote from that great book.

Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man's heart, and the fall through the air of the true, wise friend called Piggy

Another book that came to my mind was The Scarlet Letter. The reason it came to mind is perhaps less obvious. I have a tendency to look at things from a systems sort of viewpoint. I suspect that bullying is rarely simply a few kids being mean to a few other kids. Instead, I suspect that it often reflects something else going on in the culture, some hidden sin.

Is there something like this taking place in Middletown? Is it playing itself out, not only in the battles with the Board of Education to get Monique a proper and safe education, but also in other aspects of Middletown, with concerns misappropriation of funds, battles between the Mayor’s office and the Board of Education, conflicts over the chief of police, and perhaps other unnamed battles?

Then, last week, there was a fatal shooting. Some have suggested that it has to do with other unresolved issues of bullying in the schools and perhaps in the town.

When I read about this, my mind went to another story people struggling with bullying should consider, Romeo and Juliet.

In the final scene, the Prince proclaims:

And I for winking at your discords too
Have lost a brace of kinsmen: all are punish'd.

I fear that until those in power stop winking at the discords in town, there will be more sadness to come.

A glooming peace this morning with it brings;
The sun, for sorrow, will not show his head:
Go hence, to have more talk of these sad things;
Some shall be pardon'd, and some punished:

It has always been a tenet of American Education that students deserve a safe and appropriate educational environment, independent of any special needs that a student might have and there are various rules in place to protect this right. Yet sometimes these rules have to be used in new and creative ways to assure that a student gets the educational opportunity they deserve.

The first creative use of these rules was when a woman I knew who had a child with severe peanut allergies tried to get the school to make accommodations. The school balked and stonewalled until the woman brought in a disabilities act lawyer and the school came to understand that it would be much easier to comply than to fight. The school made some simple changes to its policies and the child managed to get an appropriate and safe education.

I’m now told that a similar legal maneuver might be taking place in a notorious bullying case here in Connecticut. In this case, the school district may be seeking to have the bullied student placed in special education. On the surface, this sounds offensive, especially from a school district that claims to have a zero tolerance for bullying. Requiring a safe classroom, free from bullying, shouldn’t be considered a special need. It is a need of all students. Suggesting that it is a special need seems to be an admission that the school is failing in its basic responsibilities to provide a safe, bullying-free environment.

On the other hand, it might also be an attempt to save face. By claiming that the student has a special need for a safe bullying-free environment, the administrators may be trying to assert that their environment is, in their minds, and perhaps even for most of the students, safe and bullying-free, while for the student in question, it is not.

Whether this is an admission of failure or an attempt to save face, there is a bigger issue, will the student get the education she needs and deserves? Given the actions of the school up to now, it would be easy to imagine that attempting to put the child in a special education setting might be seen as punishment. It may in fact be the case, if the school is saying that there are other special needs, beside protection from bullying. Yet one of the goals of special education these days is to ‘mainstream’ special needs students. This means having the students involved in as close to normal an education setting as possible.

If the school district can accomplish this, what they will essentially be doing is placing the student in a school where bullying is not an issue and where the same educational opportunities exist. It seems like that has been the goal of the family of the bullied student all along. If that is what the school district is seeking to do, then my thought is let them try to save face that way. Each one of us will decide whether we believe that the need to be in a bully-free environment is a special situation for the student or an admission of failure by the school district.

If, on the other hand, there is any whiff of a punitive approach where the student is not getting the same educational opportunities, then it would seem that the school district is acting in a foolhardy manner that will just end up increasing their legal fees and liabilities.