Fast turnaround (Joys of dealing with the Private Sector)

A week from dirt to pavement, not bad.

Last week

Sotomayor & Me

Top row: Nunchakus, brass knuckle knife, push dagger
Middle row: Ninja claw, throwing stars
Bottom row: Balisong Philippine knife, and my favorite: a razor sharp double-edged dagger made from plastic rather than metal so you could easily sneak it aboard commercial airplanes.

Sotomayor on martial arts weapons

While I don’t agree with Ms. Sotomayor playing the race/gender card or her ruling upholding reverse discrimination in the Connecticut firefighter case (recently overturned by the Supreme Court) we wholeheartedly agree about Martial Arts weapons.

Back in the mid-1970’s (yeah, well before that tank ride with goofy oversized helmet) Governor Mike Dukakis signed "emergency legislation" outlawing double-edged knives, samurai swords, throwing stars, nunchakus and such because they were being used against Boston Police trying to keep order during the tumultuous busing crisis.

A very sad use of the American flag

After I first opened a Karate school in the early 1980’s we did an anonymous survey of what else could we offer to customers, and a bunch of responses craved “weapons classes”. We could tell by the handwriting they came from young children.

I then discovered lots of kids were getting their naïve little hands on dangerous mail-order martial arts weapons. Because, after all, the mail carrier does not check I.D’s. “Latchkey kids” could order anything and monitor the mailbox over the next month before Mom or Dad returned home.

The martial arts industry went from the Bruce Lee era (mid 1970’s) to the Ninja mania craze in the early 1980’s. Now it is of course the Mixed Martial Arts which has better staying power then either of the previous fads (although to this day they don’t come any better than Bruce Lee.)

Ninja’s were Japanese assassins who would kill their grandmother in her sleep if the price were right; not something you want American kids worshipping. And of course they used all sorts of nasty weapons to achieve that ignoble end.

The martial arts media hyped it because they sold advertising and magazines. And the weapons dealers loved it because they sold tons of cheap weapons.

So around 1984 in the middle of my five year run as Top Ten nationally ranked tournament karate competition (and professional writer for the national karate magazines) I started my crusade against mail-order martial weapons into states—like Massachusetts and New York—who had declared them illegal.

My theory was the Federal Government should not overrule state government especially on this public safety issue.

And precisely because of my use of the term “states rights” in a cover letter to all US Senators containing a throwing star with the tag line "illegal weapon legally enclosed" on the outside of the envelope, southern Senator Strom Thurmond (Judiciary Chair) co-sponsored legislation with northern Senator Edward Kennedy. Yikes!

At that point even a novice like me could get the Daily Hampshire Gazette, Springfield Union, Boston Globe and Boston Herald, New York Times and NY Post, and finally LA times and LA Herald (where the karate magazines were based) to do editorials supporting the Kennedy/Thurmond bill.

The Senate Bill 1363 passed the Judiciary Committee 11-1 with only Arlen Specter dissenting. Although Orrin Hatch (grilling Sotomayor on nunchakus yesterday) was a Judiciary member back then, he did not show up to vote that morning.

The bill never made it before the full Congress and thus died. But because of all the national press the industry started to police itself (using the disclaimer “will not ship to where prohibited by law” and something about only “adults” can order.)

I never wrote another word for the martial arts media; and I was blackballed on the national karate tournament circuit. A small price to pay.

The Christian Science Monitor reported (way back then):

Typical ads circa 1985 (click to enlarge)

UPDATE: Thursday 11:40 AM

AOL main page is doing an interesting "poll" about Sotomayor: So far 57% do NOT want her approved but (Question #2) 84% think she "will win" approval. Politically speaking is it a BIG enough deal (I would guess not) for those unhappy campers to vote against their Senator in the next election who approved Sotomayor.

Inside baseball (of the Gay variety)

So that disembodied voice you hear responding, “No, I was hoping the Select Board would comment, so I have no comment,” was indeed me. I had emailed the entire Select Board earlier that morning suggesting they make a (brief) public statement in support of Massachusetts State Senator Stan Rosenberg, who ever so casually mentioned in a Daily Hampshire Gazette July 4th column that he was, gasp, gay.

Even earlier that morning, finishing up a bike ride, I ran into (almost literally) former SB Chair Gerry Weiss and pitched the idea face to face. When I got home two minutes later I emailed the entire Select Board.

From a PR perspective I can see Princess Stephanie’s point (play-it-safe, keep silent), as back when she actually worked for a living as a flak in the Detroit car industry (obviously W-A-Y back in the good old days) you let a negative lie low (or is it lay?) and blow over. Don’t address it because it simply feeds the news cycle. But my theory is that Stan’s being gay is not a negative

And today’s crusty Daily Hampshire Gazette editorial demonstrates (better late than never)they agree with me: What Stan did was pretty damn courageous and should be publicly applauded; while what the Amherst Select Board did was pretty damn cowardly.

Of course the little old Gazette is happy Stan Rosenberg did it on their editorial page rather than their competition the BIG city Springfield Republican. Although I couldn’t help note that when the AP picked up the story they did so from the Springfield Republican's article a few days later and not the Gazette.




Today's Gazette editorial:

Worth noting: Sen. Rosenberg's news

We have to admire the courage of convictions, no matter what they are or how they are demonstrated. It is why State Sen. Stan Rosenberg's disclosure that he is gay generated a bit of news, after it appeared as a brief mention in a guest column on this page.

We live in a time when, right or wrong, we want to know about our elected leaders' private lives, as well as their public pronouncements. Rosenberg, 59, the Amherst Democrat, widely known as a hard worker, good listener and a consensus builder, is not one to speak in sound bites. He didn't do that this time either.

His 750-word column published July 4th spoke to the historical reasons Massachusetts is considered in the vanguard when it comes to tolerance, equal rights and social justice. Halfway through, he offered this insight into how his own political views were shaped: "As a foster child growing up as a ward of the state, as a gay man, as a Jew, I understand what it's like to be cast as ¿the other.' "

It made perfect sense that he would include these pieces of information about who he is to explain a belief system he holds dear.

Perhaps to explain why he has never come out as a gay man before, Rosenberg said he doesn't practice "identity politics" - and indeed the fact that he is gay, Jewish, and was a foster child, does not make him a spokesman for the gay community, the Jewish community or adopted people.

It does, however, make him sensitive to their issues. That's not identity politics, that is simply letting all of who you are guide you in the opinions you hold and the decisions you make.

It is also letting the public you serve know you more fully.

Since the column was published, Rosenberg has declined requests for interviews. Since he does not practice identity politics, we suspect he does not want his hard work on policy and legislation to get derailed by this news.

It is his choice to make such a statement and then move on, especially considering that the only reaction to the column and the news from his constituents has been positive. That may well be because Stan Rosenberg has a distinguished political career of 22 years on Beacon Hill. He served in the state House of Representatives from 1987 to 1991; and in the Senate since then. People see him doing the job they elected him for, and that's what counts.

So, bravo, Stan Rosenberg, for making this announcement and doing it in the way that felt right to you. Your constituents are glad to get to know you a little better.

-----Original Message-----
From: amherstac@aol.com
To: selectboard@amherstma.gov
Sent: Wed, Jul 8, 2009 10:45 am
Subject: A vote of support for you know who.

I hope the Select Board will take a moment at tonight's meeting to remind the general public that the town of Amherst is an "equal opportunity employer" and does not discriminate based on race, creed, color, religion, gender, transgender, sexual persuasion or political affiliation (although the last one I'm not so sure about.)


Larry K

What you lookin at

You can run, but...

After a year of waiting 2 new Dodge Chargers are, finally, here. Six cylinders rather than eight so they will get a bit better mileage than the Crown Victoria’s. Although some Town Meeting members wanted the Chief to purchase "hybrid vehicles" for even less of a carbon impact.

Country road

Let the sun shine

So the Town Manager wants to experiment with two photovoltaic solar panels, one on the DPW and another at the transfer station at a cost of $24,000 but will produce twice that amount in savings over the five year buy-out period.

Almost sounds too good to be true.

But I can’t help but wonder if the Town Manager went before the Planning Board, Zoning Board, Design Review Board and Historical Commission to get approval for the placement on the roof of the DPW building, which was originally the turn-of-the-century main Trolley station.

The Springfield Republican reports