On my way to the polls, today, I ran into a neighbor who had just voted. She is well-educated (has a PhD)  and is a responsible citizen. I asked her how she had handled having to rank 25 candidates for City Council…not to mention 9 for the School Committee… on the paper ballot.  “There were two names I recognized,” she said. “I voted for them; the rest I chose at random,” she said.

Great. I’d written down my choices–but the crush of candidates and their supporters in front of the school where I vote felt overwhelming.

The school committee candidate I’d planned to place fifth gave me a crushing handshake and said he hoped I’d put him first.

The self-proclaimed “best friend” of a city council candidate said she’d really appreciate my vote.

A  lackluster fellow had spoken to me at my doorstep weeks earlier–suggesting that the frontrunner did not need my number 1 so I should give it to him.

In researching the school committee field, I’d been unimpressed with the school candidate who had put his kid in private school…Had decided to give my number 1 vote to a recent business school grad who attended the Cambridge public schools–after several of his uncles–all of whom worked in m– had been killed in the candidate’s native African homeland…

Anyway, I’d written down my choices but with so many names on the ballot, in the voting booth,  I somehow skipped a school committee candidate I favored and had to request a new ballot…Goofed again on my city council ballot….When I returned, again, for a new one, a  poll watcher asked if I understood how to vote and did I need help. On my second city council ballot try, I found myself voting for incumbents, figuring they, at least,  knew what they were doing.

When I went to check out, the voting machine refused my school committee ballot–the tip of the pen had touched one of the boxes when I was considering whom to mark as number 5.  I requested yet another school committee ballot. The poll watcher remarked,  “Luckily this doesn’t happen often.”

I asked if she meant that most people don’t goof up like I had or that there aren’t usually so many candidates.

“I meant it’s lucky we only vote once a year,” she said.

On my third school committee ballot I somehow missed giving the young African my number one vote. I was too embarrassed to ask for a fourth ballot so gave him number three–and a couple of others–mostly incumbents, the rest of my votes–pretty much at random.

The ballot went through. I remarked to another poll watcher that I’d goofed, yet again and that perhaps the system should be changed. “It’s historically correct,” she assured me. “It dates from the 1700s.”

I do wonder if, in the 1700s, voters had to rank 25 people for the same office–or if the system was designed –or remains– to ensure that incumbents remain  in office. I also wonder if, as a British colleague remarked when I told him about our ranking system,  there is such a thing as “too much democracy.”

—Anita M. Harris

Anita Harris is a writer and consultant living in Cambridge, MA.

New Cambridge Observer is a publication of the Harris Communications Group, a PR and market development firm based in Kendall Square.

With so many excellent liberal candidates running in the special election primary  for former Congressman Edward Markey’s old seat, I was having trouble deciding whom to vote for. So I decided to attend an event held last Sunday at  Temple Emunah, in Lexington, at which , seven Democratic candidates expressed their views on gun control, the economy, gay marriage, immigration reform, the Middle East, and the general state of affairs–each in 60 seconds.

The Republican candidates were invited, according to the moderator, but apparently were all attending another event.

The speakers included, from left to right in the photo, left: State Senator William Brownsberger, State Senator Katherine Clark, Middlesex County Sheriff Peter Koutoujian, Martin Long, Paul John Maisano, State Representative Carl Sciortino, and State Senator Karen Spilka.

I was impressed with all of the candidates. While they agreed on nearly all counts–on nearly all issues– there were, of course,  differences in their approaches and personalities.

Brownsberger, of Belmont, seeked rather a proper Bostonian, smart and well-spoken. He emphasized what he called his record of “doing what’s right when it’s difficult”–and that, in light of the current circus (my term) that is Congress…”we need adults in DC.”

Clark, of Melrose,  seemed to be courting the women’s vote–with an emphasis on the importance of  family and community.

Koutoujian, of Waltham, tall and quickwitted, said that as an Armenian whose ancestors experienced genocide,  he  identifies with the Jewish people and strongly supports civil rights, homeland security, justice,   women’s rights,  the Affordable Care Act and an end to gun violence.

Long, with a technology background–described himself as an “agent of change, of new ideas” who believes in “truth in advertising” with regard to special interest groups.  He also supports a return of War Powers to Congress, and a modest capital gains tax  (approximately 2%) to help fund Social Security. (Between us–and his campaign manager– he spoke a bit too quickly to be easily understood).

Maisano, of Stoneham, who speaks with a strong Boston “brogue,” emphasized his  business background. He was the only candidate to say he supports individuals’ rights to own guns, but agreed that strong background checks are needed before purchase.

Sciortina, the youngest of the group, of Somerville is well spoken; in addition to his support of the overall liberal agenda, he focused on his ties to the gay/lesbian/bisexual and transsexual communities and his opposition to the potential use of force in the Middle East.

Spilka, a former labor attorney who is now the state senate’s majority whip and very articulate, characterized herself as believing strongly in social and economic justice.

As mentioned, I was impressed with each of the candidates–and believe that any of them would do a good job of representing my views and those of  the constituents of the broad-ranging Fifth Congressional district. (The district  includes parts of ultra liberal Cambridge and 24 towns stretching from Winthrop and Revere on the Massachusetts Bay to the Metro West communities of Framingham and Ashland.

I never thought I’d say this–(and I’m not saying who has my vote)–but with so many similarities in the candidates’ platforms I’m going to vote based on personality and likeability. That is–I’ll vote for the candidate I think has the best chance of convincing the bozos in DC find some common ground.

The special primary will be held on Tuesday Oct. 15.

Note to the candidates and their supporters–Please feel free to comment if you feel I’ve misstated views or emphases–the presentations were very quick and I was writing very fast. 

–Anita M. Harris

Sunday, September 29, 2013
6:00 p.m.-7:30 p.m.
Temple Emunah, 9 Piper Road, Lexington

Queen Elizabeth II and Philip Ramirez of the Harris Communications Group

Went to the British Consulate Tuesday morning  (June 4, 2013) expecting to hear the Right Hon. Jeremy Hunt, MP, the UK Secretary of State, speak about recent changes in the British health care system–but at the start of the session, Vice Consul Anne Avidon explained that Hunt had been called to Downing Street and that she’d done her best to replace him with someone of equal or higher rank. Avidon then pulled out a life-sized cardboard photo of the Queen–commenting that “she listens a lot but doesn’t say much.”

UK Boston HM Consul General Susie Kitchens and Tim Kelsey, national director for patients and information, National Health Service Commissioning Board.

The levity continued as the Consulate team collected the results of a networking game, in which attendees had been handed scrabble letters to add to those of others at the event in order to form words related to health care. The winning word–Edata–brought five people Cadbury chocolate bars from England.

In a Q& A session with Consul General Susie Kitchens, the real speaker, Tim Kelsey, national director for patients and information of  the UK’s National Health Service Commissioning Board,   outlined several components of what a Consulate publication describes as  “the most widespread changes in England’s National Health Service since its inception in 1948.”

One key change, effective since April 1, is that 80 percent of the UK healthcare budget (approximately $120B), has been “devolved” from the Department of Health to frontline clinicians. These clinicians form new Clinical Commissioning Groups and are responsible for designing, delivering, and paying for local health services.

Some other changes involve requiring doctors at various level to share treatment and mortality outcomes, increased patient participation in assessing their own care, and the digitization of all health care records by 2018.

The event was sponsored by UK Trade and Investment and the British American Business Council of New England.

–Anita M. Harris

New Cambridge Observer is a publication of the Harris Communications Group, an award-winning public relations and digital marketing firm based in Cambridge, MA.

Much appreciated Katie Johnson’s insightful May 27 Boston Globe article “Many Women With Top Degrees Stay Home.” It’s about a Vanderbilt University study showing that married women with degrees from the most elite colleges and universities are likelier to opt out of professional careers than are women who attended the least selective schools–and that this differential has little to do with family income.

One analyst suggests that women with degrees from elite schools feel freer than others to opt out because they think their prestigious degrees will allow them to easily transition back into the workforce.

Mebbe so–although this implies that, given the choice, all women would rather leave their jobs to stay at home with children–which I don’t for two seconds believe is true.
Based on my research for Broken Patterns, Professional Women and the Quest for a New Feminine Identity, I’ll bet the explanation for opting out is a lot more complicated than that.

In my interviews, many women told me they chose male-dominated professions because they didn’t want to live the sorts of lives their homemaker mothers led–but many had grandmothers who worked outside the home in the early 20th century. This–and the historical record– led me to posit a push=pull process in which, going back to the industrial revolution in the US, the more women left the home for paying work in one generation, the greater the pull to domesticity, in the next. That push-pull process–driven by social, technological, generational and psychological forces–is also reflected in women’s personal development along their life cycles. I believe it helps account for some of the choices–such as schools, spouses, and careers– that women make.

I’m not saying Johnson and her interviewees are wrong…Only that that women make life choices for a multitude of reasons. The Vanderbilt study points out that women who graduate from elite schools tend to marry men from similar schools. It strikes me that if both spouses pursue highly competitive careers that allow little time for family life, something’s got to give when children come along. Most often, it’s the woman.

Like Sheryl Sandberg, the Facebook COO and author of Lean-In, I am troubled by the conundrum this creates: talented women who opt out of careers, even for just a few years, may lose the opportunity to attain positions in which they can influence workplace culture–and enhance the lives of women and men of the future. On the other hand, perhaps it is not the privileged who are likeliest to push for equality–but, rather, those who have struggled to overcome barriers.
–Anita M. Harris

Anita Harris is the author of Broken Patterns, Professional Women and the Quest for a New Feminine Identity (Wayne State University Press, 1995), A new edition will soon be published; please comment below if you’d like to reserve a copy.

New Cambridge Observer is a publication of the Harris Communications Group, an award-winning public relations and digital marketing firm based in Cambridge, MA.

Harvard Square Stacation

Spending Memorial Day Weekend at home, in and near Harvard Square. Good start yesterday: Breakfast at Henrietta’s, lunch at Mexican, afternoon perusing books on Web design. More later!

–Anita M. Harris

New Cambridge Observer is a publication of the Harris Communications Group, a public relations and digital marketing firm located in Kendall Square, Cambridge, MA.

Photos by Anita M. Harris; kindly request permission and link before re-posting.

New Cambridge Observer is a publication of the Harris Communications Group, an award-winning public relations and content marketing firm located in Cambridge, MA.

Happy to report that Frankenstorm caused little damage in my immediate neighborhood or on my running path but this downed tree is evidence of Hurricane Sandy’s force, last night.

—Anita M. Harris

Anita Harris is a writer and blogger in Cambridge, MA.

New Cambridge Observer is a publication of the Harris Communications Group, a strategic publications and online marketing firm based in Kendall Square, Cambridge.