Last week the Coalition for Social Justice and other organizations held a rally at the Ash Street Jail to protest Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson’s plan to charge inmates $5 per day and to offer up volunteer inmates to build Trump’s wall. It was a good turnout for the organizers, but what exactly did they accomplish? We covered the rally live and you can participate in the discussion here:

There was some entertainment at the rally. A Trump supporter did run past the protestors waving a “Make America Great Again” flag.

What I find perplexing is that Sheriff Hodgson ran unopposed just two months earlier and was re-elected to another 6 year term. That’s correct, a Republican Sheriff that is a staunch Trump supporter ran unopposed in a deep blue state. To be fair, it’s extremely common for politicians to run unopposed in Massachusetts. Voter apathy shots are part of the immunization regimen you get as a child in Massachusetts and it’s a lot of work getting 50 signatures to run for local office. It is much easier to be an activist on social media and once and a while come together to give speeches than to run for office. 

Out of 14 Sheriffs in Massachusetts only 6 faced opposition and 8 were elected to a 6-year term without opposition. Guess what? Sheriffs wield a lot of power and since they are elected, report to the people, not a governor. Massachusetts is also the only state that elects sheriffs to 6 year terms, the vast majority of states elect their sheriffs to a 2-year term. 

While at the rally, I heard people chanting “recall” and saw signs saying the same thing. Recalling an elected official that ran unopposed just two months earlier is absurd.  You want to spend 100’s of thousands of dollars, if not millions, recalling a person that you could run against for free?

It’s not like Sheriff Hodgson just started talking about these issues. Between 2002 and 2004, the sheriff generated $750,000 by charging inmates $5 per day. People have known about his policies for well over a decade. Unless you are a professional protester, it makes no sense to allow him to run unopposed. 

My message to the protesters would be to keep up the good fight, but you have 6 years to prepare to challenge Sheriff Hodgson. If you feel that you can do a better job – then take his job. Come up with your own policies, throw your hat in the ring and let the voters decide. Protesting is great for self esteem, but does little for changing policy or minds, especially for a man you allowed to run unopposed.

Take a ride through New Bedford and chances are you’ll pass a few panhandlers with signs asking for money. They seem to be standing on every busy intersection in the city. The most lucrative spots even cause turf wars with panhandlers assaulting each other, sometimes with a weapon. The number of panhandlers in New Bedford have grown in number because word spreads and a migration of sorts occurs, drawing more of them into the city. The reverse is possible. 

Last year I wrote an article, Don’t blame the panhandlers, blame the people that give to them. If everyone suddenly stopped giving panhandlers money, they number of panhandlers in New Bedford would be significantly reduced or eliminated. Or do you think they would just hang out at a busy intersection with nothing to show for it?

The reality is, while some use the money to survive, many, if not most, use the money for drugs and alcohol. The increase in panhandlers coming to New Bedford is likely a contributing factor to the 75% increase in drug overdoses the city in 2016. 

While people that give to panhandlers have good intentions, there is a good chance they are simply enabling addiction and attracting more panhandlers to New Bedford. How would you feel if you bought the heroin that caused the overdose death of a panhandler? 

There is an alternative to make sure your funds goes to food and housing: donation machines. 

The City, or a non-profit organization, should set up donation machines at key spots throughout New Bedford. These machines are like parking/change machines, but the funds go to services for the poor. They could be set up so those donating could select where their money goes – a pantry, a homeless shelter, a transition house or service. 

See a panhandler and feel bad? Pull over, give some money to the machine and the funds will go to a local charity. This will ensure that you are contributing to feeding, clothing or housing people, not feeding their addiction. 

In Spain, charities installed solidarity machines to boost food bank donations with great results. These machines can get food and services to those most in need while reducing the number of panhandlers. The panhandlers who are truly in need of services will get help and those just looking to feed their habit will move on.

It’s time to try something different because the growing panhandling numbers are not subsiding. When you give to a panhandler you do not know where the money goes, but with these machines you will. 

In preparation for snow storms the City of New Bedford institutes a citywide parking ban so their plow drivers can easily access the streets. Over 2,000 tickets have been issued during the four parking bans in New Bedford this year bringing the total money raised to $100,000. With late fees the money could be much higher. The city does offers 39 alternate parking areas and plenty of notice, so there is no excuse. Plus unless you are new to New Bedford, you can anticipate a parking ban for every major storm. What should this money be used for?

Over 50,000 people died from heroin overdoses last year – a 23% increase in one year and cause of more deaths than guns (36,252) or car accidents (37,757). At this rate, heroin deaths will kill more people than cars and guns in three years.  

When it comes to heroin deaths, Massachusetts is leading the way. The state with the best education seems to be excelling at heroin overdoses. According to Mass.gov, 2014 marked the first year that the fatal overdose rate in Massachusetts was more than double the national average.

Why does Massachusetts fail so miserably when it comes to preventing heroin deaths? There is no one answer, but one can look at the legislators lack of willingness to be tough on the problem and not making it a priority. It is nearly impossible to Section someone (force them into treatment) who is abusing heroin. Police, fire, EMS and hospital personnel really have no power to hold a person that has overdosed unless they are in the emergency room. Even then, the lack of beds seems to be a major issue. 

Earlier this week, a 47-year old New Bedford woman overdosed on heroin twice in a 24-hour period. Narcan, stabilize, release and repeat. Finding addicts that have overdosed multiple times is becoming commonplace in Massachusetts, but Narcan seems to just be making the road to death a little longer.

Here’s a recent example of a man in a homeless encampment overdosing, getting revived and then running away from EMS and fire personnel. 

In mid-March of 2016, Governor Baker signed the “Opioid Bill” to help fight the opioid title wave hammering Massachusetts, but legislators diluted most of Baker’s initiatives that could have made a difference. One key provision that was removed was the ability to detain an addict for 3 days. 

According to the Boston Globe:

Baker had originally proposed allowing hospitals to hold addicts who pose a danger to themselves or others against their will for three days, evaluate them, and decide whether to seek legal permission for longer commitments.

The idea was to divert people who might leave the hospital and immediately start using drugs again and allow them to break the cycle of addiction. But the Legislature balked at the provision, instead putting forward the more modest emergency room substance-abuse evaluation requirement that is now law.

Baker’s idea was aggressive and aggressive action is what we need, but the legislators that led Massachusetts into a heroin epidemic that is killing twice as many people as the national average derailed Baker’s plan.

Our state is leading the nation in heroin overdoses because our legislators feel it’s your freedom to kill yourself and it would be too costly to house so many addicts. We only have a record number of addicts and strained resources because of the lack of leadership over the past few decades. Imagine the cost in money and lives if this crisis continues to grow for another decade?

We have amazing police, fire and medical professionals locally and statewide that are savings lives every day, but they are really only there to “Narcan, stabilize and release” while our dealers and legislators help with the repeat.

Don’t agree? Then how do you explain Massachusetts having twice as many heroin overdose deaths as the national average? Post a comment!  

I am contacting you hoping you will follow up on this piece of information that I have about the Special Education Department in New Bedford Public School System.

As you may or may not know the Pulaski School has a program that helps kids with behavior problems. Recently they were investigated by the Department for Children and Families (DCF) for a 51a that had been filed in regards to use of poor techniques when working with these elementary students.

I wanted to bring to your attention that there is also a continuation of that program at the middle schools. The middle school behavior program class size has been over capacity since the start of the school year. This may seem like a common problem but it is actually against the law because these students are in special education. The staff that work in the program have made many formal and informal attempts to remedy the problem but have been ignored.

The behavior classrooms are overcrowded and are breaking the law in regards to student and teacher ratio. The supervisor for special education and the executive director have not addressed or remedied the issue despite several complaints. In fact, they continue to make it worse by sending middle school behavior staff to the Pulaski school behavior classrooms in hopes of rehabilitating the Pulaski program.

Due to the aggressive nature of some of these students this decision making is not only dangerous to the school and its students but is also against the law (Massachusetts Educational Law 603 CMR 28.06(6d)).

I have purposely kept myself anonymous even though I no longer work for the district because I still fear future repercussions in my career.

While I know anonymous sources are often not considered legitimate, I urge you to look into this and you will find that a great injustice is occurring with our students who suffer from emotional problems.

By Emma Crosby

America is currently in the grips of an opioid epidemic. Opioids are a group of drugs that contain many frequently prescribed pain relievers, such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, morphine, and codeine. The illegal drug heroin is also a form of opioid. It is estimated that 2.1 million people in the United States are currently suffering from substance use disorders related to the use and misuse of prescription opioid pain relievers.

This epidemic has been driven by the overuse and the over prescription of prescription pain relief by medical professionals: a common scenario is that individual patients were given opioid pain relief for a genuine reason (such as a sports injury or twisted limb) and then develop an addiction: this addiction was supported by their medical physicians who continued to supply the pain relief they needed, and by unscrupulous physicians supplementing their income by giving prescription pain relief to addicts.

In 2015 the Government cracked down on the illegal distribution of prescription opioids, and made it much harder for physicians to continually fill repeat prescriptions. Unfortunately this crack down lead many individuals already addicted to legal opioids to turn to more harmful illegal heroin in order to get the relief they needed. As a result, the number of heroin users in the country has more than doubled in the past decade, and we have been left with huge numbers of normal everyday people who are struggling with an addiction to prescription drugs.

Opioid Addiction in New Bedford
Drug abuse is currently rampant in Massachusetts, and New Bedford is also struggling with the epidemic: in 2014 the city famously experienced 15 drug overdoses in a 24 hour period. In January 2016, the University of Massachusetts saw a fatal drug overdose take place and, as a result, a huge number of young people in the local community came forward seeking treatment and support for their own addictions. Drug addiction and abuse is a real problem that is hurting many people in our city, and taking far too many lives. As a result of drug abuse and the need to secure drugs, New Bedford has the highest crime rate in Massachusetts, with a crime rate of 48 per thousand residents: in fact, New Boston has been listed as one of the top 100 most dangerous communities within the United States.

Targeting drug use, and drug-related crime, by offering those with addictions support is a tangible way in which we can help to lower these statistics.

Seeking Local Help and Support
Making the decision to seek treatment and support for your opioid addiction is one of the bravest decisions you can make. Many individuals find it very difficult to admit they have a weakness, and societal judgments can often amplify feelings of shame and embarrassment. Taking that first step and entering rehabilitation or a support group could be the first day of the rest of your life. Continuing sobriety can be just as difficult, particularly in a world where prescription drugs are so easy to access, which is why healthcare professionals recommended treatment and support become a lifelong commitment. There are two useful support groups in the New Bedford area both for opioid addicts looking for support, as well as for their family members, who often suffer in conjunction with their loved one.

Help with Opioid Addiction meets every Wednesday from 7-9 p.m.
Where? First floor conference room at Lowell General Hospital Saints Campus, 1 Hospital Dr., Lowell.
What? The group is run as a collaboration between Bedford Police and Bedford Youth and Family Services. The aim of the group is to will reach out to Bedford residents who are struggling with an opioid addiction and their families, and to provide access to vital resources. Family and loved ones can be enrolled onto a peer-led support which will teach them coping strategies, whilst addicts can be trained to administer Narcan: a drug designed to relieve the symptoms of withdrawal. Participants receive two doses of Narcan free at their first meeting as well as assistance with any detox problems. For information: 508-801-3247.

Bedford Al-Anon Parents’ Group meets every Tuesday from 7.30-8.30pm
Where? Room 204, First Parish Church on the Common, 75 Great Road.
This is a support group for friends and family members who are affected by a loved one’s alcohol or drug use. They aim of the group is to teach strategies for self-care in a welcoming group. For information: 781-275-0540 or 781-275-7994.

Three New Bedford city councilors are pushing to add undocumented workers (or “illegals” as they have called them) to a protected class when it comes to discrimination. This seems to be the beginning steps of making New Bedford an official sanctuary city and risking a confrontation with a President-elect Trump who has promised to cut of federal funding to sanctuary cities. 

When it comes to legislation and motions every word matters. On Tuesday, November 22, 2016, Councillors Coelho, Oliveira and Rebeiro are scheduled to put forward this motion:

“WRITTEN MOTION, Councillors Coelho, Oliveira and Rebeiro, requesting, that our State Legislative Delegation join us and other communities across the Country and not deport masses of illegals in order to insure harmony and safety in our community and to not discriminate against a group of people.”

In their words, they want our State legislators to call it discrimination to deport someone living in New Bedford illegally. This doesn’t seem to be sitting well with many people. Most people on our Facebook discussion thread seem to oppose this and on our Twitter poll nearly 70% oppose it.

Why would something so unpopular be pushed officially in the New Bedford City Council chambers?

The most obvious reason is that Donald Trump was elected President and this is a clear knee jerk political reaction against his potential immigration policy. Across the country Hillary Clinton supporters are holding anti-Trump protests, hosting high school and college walk outs and politicians are pushing to protect residents in America “illegally” by creating sanctuary cities. 

A sanctuary city is a designation given to cities that adopt a policy of protecting undocumented immigrants by not prosecuting them for violating federal immigration laws. Some 32 American cities have pushed for this designation to include Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Minneapolis and Seattle.

New Bedford has always quietly been an unofficial sanctuary city. Walk into any seafood processing plant on the New Bedford waterfront and you’ll see evidence of this claim. Scallops are being processed by some of the hardest working men and women in America, here legally and illegally. 

But now three New Bedford City Councilors seem to be pushing towards an official designation by going on record. That wouldn’t mean much under President Obama, but could hurt New Bedford under a Trump administration.  New Bedford relies on state and federal grants for our schools, historic park, fire department personnel and a lot of construction projects. President-elect Trump has already stated that he would block federal funding for sanctuary cities.

I’m not pushing a message for or against New Bedford being a sanctuary city. We have been an unoffical sanctuary city for decades and I know our fishing industry relies on hard working undocumented workers. But why get Trump’s attention? Why not continue to fly under the radar? Why play political chicken with a President Trump? 

Regardless if you are for or against calling for “illegals” to be protected against deportation, your voice can be heard at the New Bedford City Council chambers on Tuesday, November 22nd, or you can call or email your City Council members here. 

Compelling reasons to halt charter school expansion existed long before Massachusetts citizens delivered a resounding no vote at the ballot box November 8.

Pro-charter wonks received their comeuppance in two significant ways; first, learning that an informed electorate can see beyond the hype, no matter how hard it’s driven and second, that millions of “dark money” dollars from out of state donors can’t trump facts once the public recognizes them.

In its rejection of lifting the cap on charter schools in a landslide 62%-38% tally, the electorate, also, served to pull back the cellophane curtain to illuminate the genre’s obvious flaws.

Unfortunately, the campaign to enlighten voters on charter school shortcomings did not come from the big city daily newspapers who promoted a yes vote on the referendum- right up to election day.

Print media, especially, flooded newsstands with editorials, op-eds and implicit bias- all in a last-ditch effort to inflate charter school’ dubious claims to being “game changers” and “innovation engineers” in public education.

But, oddly, once votes were tabulated and an overwhelming verdict against charter school expansion was known, the Boston Globe still skewed the result as it featured a cut line, stating “A Win for Teachers Unions.”

A more apt cut line would have been “A Win for Public Schools” because 96% of all Massachusetts public school children will benefit from the stifling of charter school growth. Beyond the dollars charters would have drained from district school coffers, a more significant firewall, relative to the charter school genre is their exclusionary practice of “one size fits all.”

As educators, Pedagogy 101 trained us to teach the “whole child,” to recognize and champion individual differences , to implement learning strategies – one student at a time. Conversely, charter schools prefer the “funnel” approach, featuring draconian discipline codes which yield some of the commonwealth’s highest rates of out of school suspension; ostensibly negating its grandiose claims of fostering inclusion.

The question remains, therefore, why has the print media staunchly refused to report on charter school suspensions or to reveal false, misleading numbers behind its graduation and attrition rates? Is it merely blithe ignorance of such damaging metrics, relating to charter schools? Or is it a conscious, rabid fixation with doing everything possible to derail teachers unions which it consistently scapegoats as public education’s prime bogeyman?

A viewpoint that highlighted the downside of the charter school expansion came from former Governor of the Commonwealth, Michael Dukakis, 83, patriarch of Massachusetts politics and 1988 Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

Dukakis, in a Globe report written by Jeremy C. Fox just before the election, said pro charter forces are “part of a… movement to break up, to privatize… badly harm what is a very important relationship between people and their schools.”

Meanwhile, in his post mortem comments, current Massachusetts Governor, Charlie Baker, who either did not envision the impending landslide against the charter school expansion or merely, decided to back entities like his former employer, the Pioneer Institute , Great Schools of Massachusetts and members of the Billionaire Boys Club (Michael Bloomberg, Sam Walton, et al) who contributed megabucks to the Vote Yes to Charter Schools initiative.

In his remarks to the Globe, Baker played the self-righteous card, and claiming pride,” in a worthwhile campaign to provide more education choices for students stuck in struggling districts…”

Obviously, in retrospect, Baker expended immense political capital in a doomed effort to expand the growth of charter schools, that was roundly rejected by the electorate. Baker, too, received his comeuppance, so he should be well advised that when he seeks another term as Governor in 2018, the electorate is not likely to forget how strongly Baker opposed the best interests of public education with his support for raising the cap on charter schools.

Sincerely yours:
Bruce C. Ditata
(retired special education teacher)

New Bedford once again is the nation’s most-valued fishery with a total catch worth $322 million. In fact we’ve finished number one for over a decade. That’s 124 million pounds of seafood that our hard working fishermen pulled from the sea in 2015. 

Some questions come to mind after hearing the news; how much of that money flows into New Bedford? How much tax revenue does the city get and how many of the best paying fishing jobs are filled by New Bedford residents? How many residents own the companies? 

In the same week another article came out that provided some insight.

The Boston Globe reported that in 2015, the same year New Bedford hauled in $322 million in fishing revenue, more than 15,000 Massachusetts residents made more than $1 million in income. One would think that with New Bedford raking in $322 million in fishing revenue, that we would have a lot of million dollar incomes, right?

Wrong.

Boston topped the list with 2,031 people with an income of $1 million or more. Newton had 1,284 and locally, Dartmouth had 52. How many did the city with the number one port in America with a population of 100,000 people have?

Four.

Even the town of Fairhaven with 1/7th of the population had 9 people make over $1 million. Acushnet with 10,000 people had 4. 

Obviously, this million dollar income statistic doesn’t come close to telling the full story, but it does tell you that the people making the most money from the fishing industry don’t live in New Bedford. 

How can the city with the #1 fishing revenue in America for over a decade be one of the poorest cities in Massachusetts? New Bedford income per capita is $21,343 and the median household income for New Bedford is $36,789, or almost half the state average. 21% of New Bedford residents make less than $15,000. It’s hard to imagine a lot of that $322 million staying in New Bedford with such depressing income levels. 

New Bedford is grateful for all the jobs and tax revenue created by the fishing industry, but the city should do a study on how much the fishing industry profits flow into the resident’s pockets. Find out why New Bedford residents don’t seem to get the highest paying jobs let alone own the comapnies. Are there training programs that can be offered? Incentives that can be provided? 

Try doing some research and you’ll find that there really isn’t much data or studies performed on the New Bedford fishing industry when it comes to cash staying in the city or how many jobs are New Bedford jobs.

Sure, the Port of New Bedford website will tell you New Bedford’s Fishing port created 4,000 jobs, but not how many of the best jobs are filled by New Bedford residents? The site will also let you know that,”New Bedford is the number one value fishing port in the nation generating economic activity in excess of $1 billion.” $1 billion? Then how is New Bedford one of the poorest cities in Massachusetts? Other comparable cities like Fall River don’t have the #1 fishing port in the country for over a decade – so why are we in the same league when it comes to income levles? 

New Bedford has missed the boat on the billion dollar casino and seems to be passing on marijuana dispensaries, but the city still has the #1 fishing port in the nation. It’s important that New Bedford’s leaders conduct studies that help to understand how much of the fishing profits head out of the city and how we can keep the money here. With City elections coming in 2017, a smart candidate would make this an issue. 

The Internet and Social Media have provided humankind with the tools to be the most informed and connected generation that has ever lived. At a moment’s notice, a person can access the whole of humanity’s intellectual achievements, speak directly to another individual across the world, and then watch a video on YouTube of cats playing piano.

In the halls of cyberspace people can improve themselves in just about every conceivable way, or they can—as T.S. Eliot phrased it— be “distracted from distraction by distraction.” Yet, this virtual community has not produced the sort of E-utopia that one might expect would arise from limitless knowledge, communication, and interconnectivity. In fact, it seems to have produced the opposite. In a world with everything at our fingertips, we’re finding ways to keep civil discourse and all manner of progress at arm’s reach.

One of the key features of social media is its customizability. One can build their own virtual space, replete with their favorite websites, preferred channels, and select friends. There is almost total autonomy in the content that passes across the computer screen. Naturally, people choose what is most familiar and comfortable. From an ideological standpoint, they will furnish their cyber dwelling with likeminded news outlets. On sites like Facebook many people will either delete or unfollow friends and acquaintances with divergent points of view (all too often people will denigrate the close-mindedness of, say, Trump supporters in a post where they declare that they will unfriend anyone who supports him. Irony can be difficult to detect for some).

The problem with this selectivity is a person creates a cocoon for themselves, in which they only encounter safe and agreeable content. The news outlets will share similar posts, as will friends and family, thereby cementing their preconceived notions and offering no challenges whatsoever. They, in effect, create a sterile groupthink, devoid of any contention. This is not a good way to develop a well-rounded view of the world or current events.

Over time, the bias becomes calcified to the point where the appearance of a different opinion seems perverse or absurd. This phenomenon runs both ways and drives apart the political poles, producing opinions that are beyond the pale and certainly beyond compromise.

For example, conservatives might have a feed comprising Alex Jones and Breitbart-esque commentary on how Hillary Clinton is the Devil Incarnate and belongs in a maximum security prison. Liberals scroll past link upon link documenting Trump’s many off-color remarks and have him pegged as a one-dimensional villain.

In that scenario, any valid points or policy prescriptions from either candidate are drowned by the partisan white noise that pervades these websites. Instead, people will linger in the intellectual prisons of their own creation. This makes a change of mind nearly impossible.

The best thing to do is to reevaluate your own piece of cyber real estate. Build a place with a variety of perspectives. Familiarize yourself with the positions of your ideological foils. Know their stances better than they do, and begin your arguments from there. Read. Learn.

Grow. Don’t dwell in some myopic land where you’re spoon fed red meat from comfortable sources. Gather as much information as you can. Be informed. Cyberspace is a seemingly endless world of knowledge; we might as well not stand in one place.