Lowell-linked poet Joseph Donahue and his poems are examined in a dense and cerebral essay-review by Jeanne Heuving in the Seattle-based literary magazine “Golden Handcuffs Review” (Winter-Spring 2008). Read Heuving’s take on Donahue here.
Joe has new fiction in the current issue of the magazine (Summer-Fall 2010), but unfortunately his selection is not online.
The NYTimes continues its series on the Civil War with “The Road from Secession to Sumter.” Read the latest installment here, and get the NYT if you want more.
Earlier today the Librarian of Congress announced the 2010 additions to the National Film Registry of the Library of Congress. Each year since 1989, twenty-five American films ranging from sixty-second clips to epic Hollywood productions have been inducted into the National Film Registry. This project caught my interest several years ago when Animal House was one of the inductees. Wikipedia has a list of all previously selected films and the 2010 additions are listed below. I’ve seen six: Airplane, All the President’s Men, The Empire Strikes Back, The Exorcist, The Pink Panther, and Saturday Night Fever.
Airplane! (1980)
All the President’s Men (1976)
The Bargain (1914)
Cry of Jazz (1959)
Electronic Labyrinth: THX 1138 4EB (1967)
The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
The Exorcist (1973)
The Front Page (1931)
Grey Gardens (1976)
I Am Joaquin (1969)
It’s a Gift (1934)
Let There Be Light (1946)
Lonesome (1928)
Make Way for Tomorrow (1937)
Malcolm X (1992)
McCabe and Mrs. Miller (1971)
Newark Athlete (1891)
Our Lady of the Sphere (1969)
The Pink Panther (1964)
Preservation of the Sign Language (1913)
Saturday Night Fever (1977)
Study of a River (1996)
Tarantella (1940)
A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945)
A Trip Down Market Street (1906)
Lowell resident, historian, and sometimes contributor to this site Jim Peters, sent along this essay urging readers to get behind the effort to save the Textile Avenue Bridge (formerly known as the Moody Street Bridge and now known as the University Ave Bridge) from destruction:
I have been spending a great deal of time putting together a coalition to save the University Avenue Bridge (Textile Avenue Memorial Bridge). It is important to literature, as it was the basis for most of Jack Kerouac’s adventures in his book, “Dr. Sax.” It was also memorialized in 1947 for the sixteen members of the United States Army and Navy who died in WWII from Lowell Technological Institute. That is its greatest significance.
The bridge is magnificent. From the west side of the bridge, looking east, you can immediately see its aesthetic appeal. It is a beautiful bridge with many beautiful viewing areas. I particularly like to walk the bank of the river on the north side near the North Campus of the University.
I, and members of our group of concerned citizens, want to save the bridge as a pedestrian bridge. It is too old for automobiles, but it just had a one million dollar overhaul and is good for pedestrian use, we believe. We see it as the connecting bridge to the North Campus for the East Campus students and the LeLacheur Park. Most people think of the Aiken Street bridge when they think of the LeLacheur Park, but it is just a short distance from the East Campus, where the Fox Tower is located.
We are not asking for much. We are offering a new idea, use a bridge as property. We see the bridge with active pedestrian and bicycle traffic, with kiosks selling university paraphernalia, maybe a Top Donut satellite, and perhaps an ice cream or coffee shop. I envision that these businesses, to be located on the bridge itself, would pull in business both during the school year and from tourists in the summer. We took the time to spell out on the major highways that Jack Kerouac was born here. Some of our members want to point out that he played on this bridge, too.
We are in the midst of destroying things. The mill that was supposed to be the main view of Mill View condominiums on Middlesex Street was torn down because of severe structural defects, through no one’s fault. The Omni Mills on Lawrence Street are gone. Half of the mill on Andrews Street is gone. Condos took its place. Mills are cheaper to tear down and replace with condos than save. We are a city of mills, but only one area is truly protected and that is the area near the National Park. Bridges are not protected. It is said that the brickwork on the original bridge crossing at the falls was so strong that they used dynamite to get rid of the columns. Would it not have been great to have a bridge with brickwork columns? The bridge at University Avenue does not have that, but it is the oldest bridge of its design in the area, if not in the United States of America.
We are looking for people who want to save a bridge. If you can help, email me at jimpeters1954@yahoo.com. History is something that we all absorb around Lowell. It oozes out of every pore in the city. Let us save it.
I really don’t know what to make of these two YouTube videos about Lowell posted by THEREALKING40…is the intent to be humorous, satirical, sincere or all these things…you decide.
Yesterday’s Washington Post had a story about Amazon.com applying for a patent on a process to improve the experience of receiving a gift. When a person purchases an item through Amazon and identifies it as a gift to be delivered to another person, Amazon will electronically notify the recipient of the gift of its identity before the item is shipped. If the recipient would prefer something else, he can so notify Amazon which will ship the desired item or a gift card in the same value. The system even generates a thank you note from the recipient back to the donor for the original gift (with no mention of the substitution).
From Amazon’s perspective, this would be huge. Shipping accounts for a huge chunk of the company’s operating costs and a good piece of that is spent on returned or exchanged items, so anything that can increase the efficiency of delivery is most desirable for Amazon. Still, part of the pleasure of receiving a gift is the mystery of opening an unidentified package, an experience that would be lost under this new system.
The entry below is being cross posted from Marjorie Arons-Barron’s own blog. Be sure to visit it also.
President Obama’s “end-of-life plan” is all about The Conversation, but, for it to make sense, he has to shape the dialogue. What’s important is the language. What’s regrettable is that the NY Times headline today heralded “Obama Institutes End-of-Life Plan that Caused Stir.”
The opening of the article refers to the infamous “death panels” that caused a firestorm and nearly derailed the health reform law earlier this year. The notion of death panels is a huge distortion. The proposed reimbursement regulations are not talking about death panels, and the Obama Administration can’t let critics control the public debate, as it did before .
Health reimbursement practices have always paid doctors for procedures, but, especially in the case of primary care physicians, not enough for extended, thoughtful conversations. What the administration intends to do is pay them for the extra time they would spend on The Conversation that each and every one of us would do well to have with our doctors as well as our families.
The Conversation should be part of our wellness care, a routine part of health planning. The Conversation may indicate that, if we are terminal and on life support, we don’t want our lives artificially prolonged by modern technology. Or maybe, for a variety of reasons, we do want to be sustained indefinitely on a breathing machine, hovering between life and death. Having The Conversation is all about making our wishes known while we are mentally and physically able to make those decisions for ourselves. We need information from our doctors if we are to make informed choices and help shape our own medical outcomes.
Maybe we want to write a living will. Maybe we want to know what’s involved in organ donation. Maybe we want to learn more about designating a health proxy. Maybe we’ve already executed such documents but haven’t talked about them with our loved ones or with our doctors. Health experts indicate that more people have spoken with their loved ones about this than with their doctors.
But doctors need to hear our wishes as well. After all, for most doctors, the mission is to save lives, to try absolutely everything, even if the likelihood of a positive outcome is slim to none. The more experienced and thoughtful ones know that part of their mission needs to be explaining to patients what things will look like if life is artificially sustained, and what a “good death” can be with the options of hospice, pain medication, and other palliative care. This isn’t about the government deciding who shall live and who shall die, but our taking charge of our care, deciding, as patients, what we want for ourselves under different circumstances.
Studies show that, while 70 percent of patients say they want to die at home, fully 70 percent in fact die in the hospital, often in the Intensive Care Unit. For survivors, that can translate into guilt and depression. How much better to be able to say, in our grief over a loved one’s passing, that that loved one had the death he or she wanted. Those who have studied this area tell us that sometimes patients who choose palliative rather than aggressive care enjoy a better quality of life at the very end.
Aetna Insurance has experimented with a “compassionate care” program, letting patients with life expectancy of a year have hospice care without having to give up other, curative care. In the program, the percentage of patients choosing hospice care nearly tripled. People want to be able to choose how they’re cared for once they know what the different possible outcomes are. That’s what The Conversation with doctors is all about, and why it should be part of the ongoing care that doctors provide, an important regular conversation that health care reimbursement plans take into account. The Obama administration should keep focused on that and not lose control of the public dialogue. And media headline writers should resist the temptation to exploit the political extremes that grab attention but undermine the public good.
Please let me know your thoughts in the Comments section below.
Recent Comments