Alice's Restaurant - Arlo Guthrie

Alice's Restaurant
By Arlo Guthrie

This song is called Alice's Restaurant, and it's about Alice, and the
restaurant, but Alice's Restaurant is not the name of the restaurant,
that's just the name of the song, and that's why I called the song Alice's
Restaurant.

You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant
You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant
Walk right in it's around the back
Just a half a mile from the railroad track
You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant

Now it all started two Thanksgivings ago, was on - two years ago on
Thanksgiving, when my friend and I went up to visit Alice at the
restaurant, but Alice doesn't live in the restaurant, she lives in the
church nearby the restaurant, in the bell-tower, with her husband Ray and
Fasha the dog. And livin' in the bell tower like that, they got a lot of
room downstairs where the pews used to be in. Havin' all that room,
seein' as how they took out all the pews, they decided that they didn't
have to take out their garbage for a long time.

We got up there, we found all the garbage in there, and we decided it'd be
a friendly gesture for us to take the garbage down to the city dump. So
we took the half a ton of garbage, put it in the back of a red VW
microbus, took shovels and rakes and implements of destruction and headed
on toward the city dump.

Well we got there and there was a big sign and a chain across across the
dump saying, "Closed on Thanksgiving." And we had never heard of a dump
closed on Thanksgiving before, and with tears in our eyes we drove off
into the sunset looking for another place to put the garbage.

We didn't find one. Until we came to a side road, and off the side of the
side road there was another fifteen foot cliff and at the bottom of the
cliff there was another pile of garbage. And we decided that one big pile
is better than two little piles, and rather than bring that one up we
decided to throw our's down.

That's what we did, and drove back to the church, had a thanksgiving
dinner that couldn't be beat, went to sleep and didn't get up until the
next morning, when we got a phone call from officer Obie. He said, "Kid,
we found your name on an envelope at the bottom of a half a ton of
garbage, and just wanted to know if you had any information about it." And
I said, "Yes, sir, Officer Obie, I cannot tell a lie, I put that envelope
under that garbage."

After speaking to Obie for about fourty-five minutes on the telephone we
finally arrived at the truth of the matter and said that we had to go down
and pick up the garbage, and also had to go down and speak to him at the
police officer's station. So we got in the red VW microbus with the
shovels and rakes and implements of destruction and headed on toward the
police officer's station.

Now friends, there was only one or two things that Obie coulda done at
the police station, and the first was he could have given us a medal for
being so brave and honest on the telephone, which wasn't very likely, and
we didn't expect it, and the other thing was he could have bawled us out
and told us never to be see driving garbage around the vicinity again,
which is what we expected, but when we got to the police officer's station
there was a third possibility that we hadn't even counted upon, and we was
both immediately arrested. Handcuffed. And I said "Obie, I don't think I
can pick up the garbage with these handcuffs on." He said, "Shut up, kid.
Get in the back of the patrol car."

And that's what we did, sat in the back of the patrol car and drove to the
quote Scene of the Crime unquote. I want tell you about the town of
Stockbridge, Massachusets, where this happened here, they got three stop
signs, two police officers, and one police car, but when we got to the
Scene of the Crime there was five police officers and three police cars,
being the biggest crime of the last fifty years, and everybody wanted to
get in the newspaper story about it. And they was using up all kinds of
cop equipment that they had hanging around the police officer's station.
They was taking plaster tire tracks, foot prints, dog smelling prints, and
they took twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles
and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each
one was to be used as evidence against us. Took pictures of the approach,
the getaway, the northwest corner the southwest corner and that's not to
mention the aerial photography.

After the ordeal, we went back to the jail. Obie said he was going to put
us in the cell. Said, "Kid, I'm going to put you in the cell, I want your
wallet and your belt." And I said, "Obie, I can understand you wanting my
wallet so I don't have any money to spend in the cell, but what do you
want my belt for?" And he said, "Kid, we don't want any hangings." I
said, "Obie, did you think I was going to hang myself for littering?"
Obie said he was making sure, and friends Obie was, cause he took out the
toilet seat so I couldn't hit myself over the head and drown, and he took
out the toilet paper so I couldn't bend the bars roll out the - roll the
toilet paper out the window, slide down the roll and have an escape. Obie
was making sure, and it was about four or five hours later that Alice
(remember Alice? It's a song about Alice), Alice came by and with a few
nasty words to Obie on the side, bailed us out of jail, and we went back
to the church, had a another thanksgiving dinner that couldn't be beat,
and didn't get up until the next morning, when we all had to go to court.

We walked in, sat down, Obie came in with the twenty seven eight-by-ten
colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back
of each one, sat down. Man came in said, "All rise." We all stood up,
and Obie stood up with the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy
pictures, and the judge walked in sat down with a seeing eye dog, and he
sat down, we sat down. Obie looked at the seeing eye dog, and then at the
twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows
and a paragraph on the back of each one, and looked at the seeing eye dog.
And then at twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles
and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one and began to cry,
'cause Obie came to the realization that it was a typical case of American
blind justice, and there wasn't nothing he could do about it, and the
judge wasn't going to look at the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy
pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each
one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us. And
we was fined $50 and had to pick up the garbage in the snow, but thats not
what I came to tell you about.

Came to talk about the draft.

They got a building down New York City, it's called Whitehall Street,
where you walk in, you get injected, inspected, detected, infected,
neglected and selected. I went down to get my physical examination one
day, and I walked in, I sat down, got good and drunk the night before, so
I looked and felt my best when I went in that morning. `Cause I wanted to
look like the all-American kid from New York City, man I wanted, I wanted
to feel like the all-, I wanted to be the all American kid from New York,
and I walked in, sat down, I was hung down, brung down, hung up, and all
kinds o' mean nasty ugly things. And I waked in and sat down and they gave
me a piece of paper, said, "Kid, see the phsychiatrist, room 604."

And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I
wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and
guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill,
KILL, KILL." And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and
he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down
yelling, "KILL, KILL." And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me,
sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy."

Didn't feel too good about it.

Proceeded on down the hall gettin more injections, inspections,
detections, neglections and all kinds of stuff that they was doin' to me
at the thing there, and I was there for two hours, three hours, four
hours, I was there for a long time going through all kinds of mean nasty
ugly things and I was just having a tough time there, and they was
inspecting, injecting every single part of me, and they was leaving no
part untouched. Proceeded through, and when I finally came to the see the
last man, I walked in, walked in sat down after a whole big thing there,
and I walked up and said, "What do you want?" He said, "Kid, we only got
one question. Have you ever been arrested?"

And I proceeded to tell him the story of the Alice's Restaurant Massacre,
with full orchestration and five part harmony and stuff like that and all
the phenome... - and he stopped me right there and said, "Kid, did you ever
go to court?"

And I proceeded to tell him the story of the twenty seven eight-by-ten
colour glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and the paragraph on
the back of each one, and he stopped me right there and said, "Kid, I want
you to go and sit down on that bench that says Group W .... NOW kid!!"

And I, I walked over to the, to the bench there, and there is, Group W's
where they put you if you may not be moral enough to join the army after
committing your special crime, and there was all kinds of mean nasty ugly
looking people on the bench there. Mother rapers. Father stabbers. Father
rapers! Father rapers sitting right there on the bench next to me! And
they was mean and nasty and ugly and horrible crime-type guys sitting on the
bench next to me. And the meanest, ugliest, nastiest one, the meanest
father raper of them all, was coming over to me and he was mean 'n' ugly
'n' nasty 'n' horrible and all kind of things and he sat down next to me
and said, "Kid, whad'ya get?" I said, "I didn't get nothing, I had to pay
$50 and pick up the garbage." He said, "What were you arrested for, kid?"
And I said, "Littering." And they all moved away from me on the bench
there, and the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things, till I
said, "And creating a nuisance." And they all came back, shook my hand,
and we had a great time on the bench, talkin about crime, mother stabbing,
father raping, all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the
bench. And everything was fine, we was smoking cigarettes and all kinds of
things, until the Sargeant came over, had some paper in his hand, held it
up and said.

"Kids, this-piece-of-paper's-got-47-words-37-sentences-58-words-we-wanna-
know-details-of-the-crime-time-of-the-crime-and-any-other-kind-of-thing-
you-gotta-say-pertaining-to-and-about-the-crime-I-want-to-know-arresting-
officer's-name-and-any-other-kind-of-thing-you-gotta-say", and talked for
forty-five minutes and nobody understood a word that he said, but we had
fun filling out the forms and playing with the pencils on the bench there,
and I filled out the massacre with the four part harmony, and wrote it
down there, just like it was, and everything was fine and I put down the
pencil, and I turned over the piece of paper, and there, there on the
other side, in the middle of the other side, away from everything else on
the other side, in parentheses, capital letters, quotated, read the
following words:

("KID, HAVE YOU REHABILITATED YOURSELF?")

I went over to the sargent, said, "Sargeant, you got a lot a damn gall to
ask me if I've rehabilitated myself, I mean, I mean, I mean that just, I'm
sittin' here on the bench, I mean I'm sittin here on the Group W bench
'cause you want to know if I'm moral enough join the army, burn women,
kids, houses and villages after bein' a litterbug." He looked at me and
said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send you fingerprints
off to Washington."

And friends, somewhere in Washington enshrined in some little folder, is a
study in black and white of my fingerprints. And the only reason I'm
singing you this song now is cause you may know somebody in a similar
situation, or you may be in a similar situation, and if your in a
situation like that there's only one thing you can do and that's walk into
the shrink wherever you are ,just walk in say "Shrink, You can get
anything you want, at Alice's restaurant.". And walk out. You know, if
one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and
they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony,
they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them.
And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in
singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an
organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said
fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and
walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.

And that's what it is , the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and
all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it come's around on the
guitar.

With feeling. So we'll wait for it to come around on the guitar, here and
sing it when it does. Here it comes.

You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant
You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant
Walk right in it's around the back
Just a half a mile from the railroad track
You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant

That was horrible. If you want to end war and stuff you got to sing loud.
I've been singing this song now for twenty five minutes. I could sing it
for another twenty five minutes. I'm not proud... or tired.

So we'll wait till it comes around again, and this time with four part
harmony and feeling.

We're just waitin' for it to come around is what we're doing.

All right now.

You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant
Excepting Alice
You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant
Walk right in it's around the back
Just a half a mile from the railroad track
You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant

Da da da da da da da dum
At Alice's Restaurant

Happy Guy Fawkes Day - Nov 5, 2010

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes_night

Commemorating the Gunpowder Plot to blow up Parliament in 1605

Remember, remember, the 5th of November
The Gunpowder Treason and plot ;
I know of no reason why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.

Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes,
'Twas his intent.
To blow up the King and the Parliament.
Three score barrels of powder below.
Poor old England to overthrow.
By God's providence he was catch'd,
With a dark lantern and burning match

Holloa boys, Holloa boys, let the bells ring
Holloa boys, Holloa boys, God save the King!

Hip hip Hoorah !
Hip hip Hoorah !

A penny loaf to feed ol'Pope,
A farthing cheese to choke him.
A pint of beer to rinse it down,
A faggot of sticks to burn him.
Burn him in a tub of tar,'
Burn him like a blazing star.
Burn his body from his head,
Then we'll say: ol'Pope is dead.

The Gunpowder Plot of 1605, in earlier centuries often called the Gunpowder Treason Plot, was a failed assassination attempt against King James I of England and VI of Scotland by a group of provincial English Catholics led by Sir Robert Catesby.

The plan was to blow up the House of Lords during the State Opening of Parliament on 5 November 1605, as the prelude to a popular revolt in the Midlands during which James's nine-year-old daughter, Princess Elizabeth, was to be installed as the Catholic head of state. Catesby may have embarked on the scheme after hopes of securing greater religious tolerance under King James had faded, leaving many English Catholics disappointed. His fellow plotters were John Wright, Thomas Wintour, Thomas Percy, Guy Fawkes, Robert Keyes, Thomas Bates, Robert Wintour, Christopher Wright, John Grant, Sir Ambrose Rookwood, Sir Everard Digby and Francis Tresham. Fawkes, who had 10 years of military experience fighting in the Spanish Netherlands in suppression of the Dutch Revolt, was given charge of the explosives.

The plot was revealed to the authorities in an anonymous letter sent to William Parker, 4th Baron Monteagle, on 26 October 1605. During a search of the House of Lords at about midnight on 4 November 1605, Fawkes was discovered guarding 36 barrels of gunpowder – enough to reduce the House of Lords to rubble – and arrested. Most of the conspirators fled from London as they learned of the plot's discovery, trying to enlist support along the way. Several made a stand against the pursuing Sheriff of Worcester and his men at Holbeche House; in the ensuing battle Catesby was one of those shot and killed. At their trial on 27 January 1606, eight of the survivors, including Fawkes, were convicted and sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered.

Details of the assassination attempt were allegedly known by the principal Jesuit of England, Father Henry Garnet. Although Garnet was convicted and sentenced to death, doubt has since been cast on how much he really knew of the plot. As its existence was revealed to him through confession, Garnet was prevented from informing the authorities by the absolute confidentiality of the confessional. Although anti-Catholic legislation was introduced soon after the plot's discovery, many important and loyal Catholics retained high office during King James I's reign. The thwarting of the Gunpowder Plot was commemorated for many years afterwards by special sermons and other public events such as the ringing of church bells, which have evolved into the Bonfire Night of today.

2010 Stamford Board of Education Endorsements

Dear Stamford Friends,

Please find my endorsements for this year’s Board of Education election below. As many of you know I am actively involved in the school community and want to keep you up to date on what is at stake this year. I realize this is a long letter, but I felt it is necessary to keep you informed. The fact is that the issues are not simple, and they go beyond any one hot button issue. Feel free to forward this along to other if you desire.

This year's election stands as a mandate on the job Dr. Joshua Starr is doing as superintendent of the Stamford Public Schools and the overall direction we are going as a district. This year it is important to vote for a Board of Education that will allow his programs to continue moving forward, improving our schools, and preparing all of our students, our children, for the 21st century. This means voting for:
Angela Lorenti and Bob King on November 2.

Overall, the district is moving in the right direction. We are closing the achievement gap, and we are leading other CT urban schools. In fact, other superintendents come to our schools to look at where we are succeeding in closing the gap, with the goal of implementing those plans in their own districts. Dr. Starr is chairing CAUS, the Ct Association of Urban Superintendents, and there are individual success stories coming out of our schools every day. Unfortunately we don’t have the dollars to pay staff to publicize all these great things that are happening, but we are leading the way for others and making significant improvements across the board, which runs counter-intuitive to the common perception of the Stamford Public Schools. The reality is Stamford is an anomaly in the North East, our population is still growing and people are still interested in moving here. There is a lot of talk regarding a mass migration out of Stamford. But the fact is that people are not fleeing, because Stamford offers more options, and more diversity, than any of the surrounding towns, and that makes for a more well-rounded educational experience for our children.

Dr. Starr has also made large strides in putting programs into the school that are uniform throughout the district. There are no longer over 100 reading programs; the new math program is one that spirals back to reinforce the lesson, letting students learn and succeed even if it does not register the first time. The Science Times has published articles saying this is in fact the best way for students to learn. Science and Social Studies are much more hands on now than ever before. I believe that Dr. Starr does have a vision and that Stamford schools are becoming more successful because of that vision.

I don't believe that Stamford needs to keep turning over superintendents left and right, continually changing programs and direction based upon the whims of the political winds that are blowing each election season. We need a long term strategic plan that moves beyond each year and is absent of political turmoil. I think that the children need Dr. Starr to stay where he is and complete his vision, as this would lead to the continued success of all of our children. Students and schools need the consistency of a standard curriculum across the district and the only way to achieve this is to keep the superintendent. Any changes at the top will take almost five years to reverse current policy and/or implement any new policies.

There is a very passionate vocal minority that has been actively campaigning against Middle School Reform (MSR) and would like us to believe that Dr. Starr is driving the district towards mediocrity. This group, led by Stamford Residents for Excellence in Education has done an amazing job of organizing and aligning their issues with the major political parties here in Stamford. They would like to see Dr. Starr removed (endorsing candidates that could make this option a reality) and have Stamford return to our old system, a system where political patronage drove educational policy, a time when more of our schools were failing to meet state and federal standards and running the risk of our schools being taken over by Hartford. This is a potential future where no qualified superintendent would want to work in Stamford. The next superintendent will not have the ability to implement an educational policy to improve our all our schools, to give every student in Stamford an opportunity to succeed. We would only be able to attract sub-standard candidates who are simply willing to do whatever they are told. This is not a system I wish to return to, nor is it a place where I want my children learning.

It has been discussed and debated that the Middle School Reform (MSR) process has been flawed from the start, but Dr. Starr has compromised and crafted a plan that has been accepted by Hartford, since their mandate was no grouping at all. The GE Foundation has generously donated an additional $10.4 million based upon the continuation of de-tracking strategies. This money is being used for teacher training and other professional development; if that money was removed because we changed the direction of MSR it would be devastating to the city from both a fiscal and teacher morale perspective.

The reality is this is the first year that the plan has been in place, and it does require some modifications, just as you would expect any other initiative in the business world. There is a Middle School Advisory Council that is made up of parents and administrators who are responsible for shepherding these changes in a controlled and rational manner, discussing the necessary changes and making the modifications. Course corrections need to be the mantra here, not a complete reversal to the old system. I encourage you to read Dr. Starr’s response to the SREE letter regarding the initial results of MSR here and then decide for yourself:

http://stamfordpublicschools.org/filestorage/68/109/741/Response_to_Stockman_JPS_10_21_10.pdf
I also ask you to let all the facts speak for themselves and not allow distorted and skewed statistics to paint an incomplete picture of what has actually been accomplished.

Dr. Starr is certainly not perfect, and has his flaws, but what person doesn’t? I don’t believe one person is capable of pleasing everyone in an organization or community as large as our city schools. However, he is now more dedicated to Stamford, having just relocated his family from Brooklyn, NY to Stamford, and enrolled his own children in the Stamford Public Schools. This sends a message loud and clear, that he has enough faith in what he is doing to put his own children in our schools and believes that the schools are going in the right direction. This is a difficult decision for all parents, and knowing that he has chosen our district speaks volumes.

The fact remains that he has not done anything egregious that would justify the Board of Education terminating his contract. The actual costs of this process to the taxpayers of this city are going to be quite significant and during a time of economic distress and limited tax base, this just does not seem to be a prudent decision. Some of the costs include: paying him severance of almost $250,000 for him not to work for one year while he looks for another position; the cost of an interim superintendent while we search for a replacement; the cost of a consultant to search and place suitable candidates to be interviewed; the cost of paying candidates to come to Stamford, etc.. These are probably just the tip of the iceberg in additional costs that will be siphoned out of the classrooms and need to be spent on activities that will not see any return for years to come, assuming the new person is even allowed to stay long enough to implement their vision.

For these reasons I am supporting Angela Lorenti and Bob King on November 2 as they will support these initiatives and continue to be advocates for our children, not political puppets who are more interested in establishing power downtown.

With regards to the 3rd opening on the Board of Education, I feel Geoff Alswanger is a very
smart person, who has spent a great amount of time speaking with parents and coming up to speed on the issues that the district is currently facing. Geoff has described himself as a frustrated parent of school age children, and having another voice on the board would certainly be helpful. Geoff has said he is willing to listen to the community, work collaboratively with the other members of Board of Education and the other city boards. He also says he is open to working with Dr. Starr as long as Dr. Starr is willing to listen to Geoff’s concerns. He has come to the table with a strong opposition to MSR, and claims he wants to make some minor tweaks, though adding more groups is not considered minor by the people working on the MSAC. However, without knowing exactly the details of his plan and the changes he wishes to implement, and how these could impact the ongoing reforms, it is difficult to know exactly how his election will affect the MSR train, which has already left the station. Although it is unclear to us how he will vote with regards to the other issues currently in front of the Board of Education, Geoff appears to be a good candidate, given his willingness to work with Dr. Starr other city officials, and his dedication to improving the educational system for all of our children.

Rich Lyons is also a parent of school age children and has made a strong push over the last few days to reach out to various members of the community and listen to their concerns. He seems to have heard over the past few weeks that there are many issues and voices that are impacted by the above issues. He recognized the division with the community and within the current Board, and he says he is willing to work to find compromise with the new Board of Education. As a former member of the Stamford Board of Representatives, he knows how to work with this system and get things done. Rich also appears to me to be a good candidate.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I know it is long, but I feel it is important to present the facts so you can make an educated decision when you go to the polls on Tuesday.

Sincerely,
Jeff Herz

Letter to the Advocate: School image - Oct 26, 2010

Stamford schools suffer more from a public relations crisis than a real crisis of education.

We have numerous success stories every day across the district in every school. Speak to most parents and they will tell you how they love their teachers and love their building administrators.

Of course there will be exceptions, but I am always amazed at how happy most parents I speak with are about their schools. This says that we are doing something right. This is what we should be promoting in order to improve the overall image of our district.

Jeff Herz

Stamford

Keep Dr. Starr for the children

Dr. Joshua Starr has made large strides in putting programs into the school that are uniform throughout the district. There are no longer over 100 reading programs, the new math program is one that repeats information letting students succeed even if it does not register the first time. Science and Social Studies are much more hands on now than ever before. We believe that he does have a vision and that Stamford schools are becoming more successful because of that vision.

What we don't believe in is that Stamford needs to keeps turning over Superintendents left and right and therefore continually changing these types of programs. We think that the children need Dr. Starr to stay where he is and complete his vision and hopefully this would lead to more continued success of our students. Children and schools needs the consistency of a standard curriculum across the district and the only way to achieve this is to keep the superintendent. Any changes at the top will take almost 5 years to reverse current policy and/or implement any new policy's.

Finally, that Stamford Schools suffer more from a public relations crisis rather than a real crisis of education. We have numerous success stories every day across the district in every school. Speak to most parents and they will tell you how they love their teachers and love their building administrators. Of course there will be exceptions, but I am always amazed at how happy most parents I speak with are about their schools. This says that we are doing something right. This is what we should be promoting in order to improve the overall image of our district

Nancy and Jeff Herz

Principals: Parents like middle school reform

Principals: Parents like mid-school reform
Published: 08:08 p.m., Friday, October 22, 2010

To the editor:

At the Board of Education Candidate Forum at Roxbury Elementary School on Oct. 19, several candidates claimed that there were widespread complaints from our community regarding Stamford's Middle School Transformation -- in particular the grouping practices -- now entering its second year, having extended from just sixth grade to sixth and seventh grade.

We were curious about this claim, so we called and asked the middle school principals at Cloonan, Dolan, Rippowam and Turn of River how many complaints they have received from parents regarding the new grouping practices. The number of complaints ranged from zero to a handful.

We asked how that number compared to complaints about placement and grouping under the old four-to-five-group grouping system. Unanimously, the principals answered that there were far fewer complaints under the new system than under the old system; which one principal described as "voluminous." One principal reports that parents have thanked him for giving their children a fair shake now.

So, are the claims made by these candidates based on facts or the desire to inflame public opinion against Middle School Transformation? They were clearly not based on facts in the schools actually undergoing the change.

The silent majority of parents in Stamford are clearly more satisfied with the new grouping system than they were with the old system. It is unfortunate that the candidates didn't take the time to speak with the administrators in our schools before making such inflammatory statements.

People can torture and cherry pick data in an effort to contradict the promising test scores that emanated from last year's sixth graders, which were higher in every category than the scores of sixth graders the year before under the old system. They can try to fear monger, claiming that people are moving out of Stamford, and out of our public schools, despite the fact that enrollment is up and consistent with the district's predictions.

The truth is, if they bothered to speak to those working in the middle schools, they would know that the new grouping system, admittedly a work in progress, has not resulted in disaster. It is working. Just ask the principals.

Wendy Lecker

Cindy Grafstein

Stamford

The writers are co-presidents of the Stamford Parent Teacher Council. This letter represents their own opinions. They did not write this on behalf of the council.

Recap of BOE Candidates Forum Oct 14, 2010 - Rippowam Middle School

Here is my recap
Bob King spoke the most eloquently and completely about the issues without pandering to any specific group. Clearly he understands the depth of the issues, since he has been involved for so long.

Geoff Alswanger spoke the most passionately and clearly has a good grasp of some of the issues. I do believe he is too focused on MS reform and needs to understand there are many other issues that too need to be addressed. I think if what he says is true he will be a good member, I just worry he is saying the right things just to get elected and then his sole goal will be to try to derail the MS train, which has already left the station (right wrong or indifferent). (btw/ I am not well versed on this issue, so I cannot and will not comment on the merits either way) We will see.
I thought Rich Lyon was a dunce during the forum, not paying attention, asking for the question to be repeated each time he came to speak. Then I spoke to him afterwards and got a much different impression. I doubt I will vote for him, but at least he showed me he was not as idiotic as he looked on the stage.

Bayonne did not say anything substantial or relevant, leaving no impression on my other than the he has put on weight since he bought his suit as his jacket was clearly too small

Limone is a complete idiot and was belching incomprehensible facts and contradictory statements that made no statements. Almost always leaving us saying "huh" or "what"

Leydon struck me as a complete nothing. He grew up in Stamford, his parents grew up in Stamford, his wife grew up in Stamford, he has 4 kids, he was on the board in the 1990s and has been on the board of reps. His delivery and style was not dynamic, I have no idea how he has won elections previously. I have no idea why he is running ,except people are leaving Stamford because of our schools.

Angela Lorenti was not able to attend as she was attending her daughters induction into National Honor Society at St. Johns University last night. I know, as an Independent, she is focused on being an advocate for the students, and not letting city politics influence how money is allocated or the priorities of the school board.

This was a recurring theme throughout the night, but no one said if the issue was real or perceived. Bob King did bring up that we have a lot of students who go onto higher education and are incredibly successful and those stories need to be better articulated and promoted. Someone also mentioned (after the forum) about further engaging the business (outside of GE) to engage them to invest in the schools and the community to encourage their employees to live and stay in Stamford. This was the best idea I heard all night and it took place in a small conversation not on the dais. As you know I think all our schools are great in there own way, and we need to spend more time promoting them, rather than just allowing the negative perception to continue (off my soap box now).

There was also a ground swell to support the teachers and not impact the classroom with any changes or budgetary constraints on the horizon. However, none of them touched upon my major concern is that the union is not necessarily in line with their rank and file in how things are being run and managed.

Finally the support around Starr was mixed. King supported him, calling him an innovator. Lyon said he needs to play the politics game better, probably a true statement but it came across kind of crass. Limone and Leydon complained he does not compromise and does not listen to the public and Bayonne was upset because he interviewed for another position. Alswanger took the middle ground on this, saying they all need to work together

I hope to get at least one more so I can hear more from everyone.

Letter to the Advocate: BoE Candidates Targeting Starr

To the Stamford Advoate editor (published Oct 14, 2010):

Do the Board of Education candidates who oppose Superintendent Starr and plan to vote to terminate his contract upon election understand the fiscal ramifications of this path?

There is speculation in the community that that is exactly what the prospective board members who are opposed to Dr. Starr are planning to do if they are elected.

Some of these extraneous costs associated with this plan include buying out of his current contract, hiring a consultant to find a replacement, the possible need for an interim superintendent, and then the time a new person will need to become acclimated and implement a new direction.

These unnecessary costs will further remove resources from the classroom and prevent us from moving our schools forward in a positive manner until this change is completed.

Let's be careful for what we wish, and ask what is the cost of rash, politically motivated decision-making. Where are the fiscal watchdogs on this issue?

Jeff Herz

Stamford

Letter to the Advocate: Fiscal irresponsibility of BOE candidates

Do the BOE candidates that oppose Dr. Starr and plan to vote to terminate his contract upon election understand the fiscal ramifications of this path? Some of these extraneous costs associated with this plan include buying out of his current contract, hiring a consultant to find a replacement, the possible need for an interim superintendent, and then the time for a new person to become acclimated and implement a new direction. These unnecessary costs will further remove resources from the classroom and prevent us from moving our schools forward in a positive manner until this change is completed. Lets be careful for what we wish, and asking what is the cost of rash, politically motivated decision making. Where are the fiscal watch dogs on this issue?

Pujols and Ichiro for the Baseball Hall of Fame?

When the editors of Zisk sent out notifications looking for submissions about Albert Pujols or Ichiro Suzuki , I was on vacation and reading Bill James “Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame”. Since I don’t have any personal anecdotes about Albert Pujols or Ichiro Suzuki; as I have never seen Ichiro play in person and have only seen Pujols play live once in the 2006 NLCS Game 7. (He went 0-2 with two walks, nothing outstanding or substantial. I don’t need to remind any of you Met fans that he was not the hero of this game, hello Yadier Molina.) SO I figured I would do an analysis to determine if either is worthy of Cooperstown enshrinement at this point in time, 10 years into their respective MLB careers.

Before reading this book, my opinion of who deserves to be in the Hall of Fame was somewhat subjective, essentially was the player considered to be the best player at his position for the period of time he played. Here is an excerpt from a previous piece I wrote for Zisk back in 2005 on the Hall of Fame standards:

“Let me start off in a broad category of what type of player does not belong in the hall of fame. Mediocre or above average players, who might have had a few good years, but has not performed over the long term. Compilers, players who played beyond their years even though their statistics continued to fall, but they hang on to reach some individual goal, that baseball anointed as being hall of fame numbers, don’t belong in the hall of fame (hello Don Sutton, and Dave Winfield). Quite simply, was the player good enough to be great and elite by the standard of being held up against his peers of the day, if yes, then you can argue they should be in the hall, if you can name 2-5 players better then that player at the same position, then I would say they are good, but not great and should not be in the Cooperstown.

“The Hall-of-Fame should be reserved for the best of the best at the time they played the game; those individuals who performed almost every year of their career significantly above the league average. During the steroid era, hitters were hitting the ball better than ever before, so just because you have averaged 30 HR’s during this period does not make you a hall of famer, since many players have routinely hit 50+ in the time frame. The bar on which we measure needs to be moved up or down over time based upon the level of competition, the ball parks, the expansion and many other factors.”

So with this standard in mind, let’s first consider these two players. Pujols is an absolute no brainer. Pujols has not only been the best first baseman consistently over the past 10 years, but he has to be considered one of the best players in the game as well. The only comparison might be Alex Rodriguez, whose reputation has been tainted by steroids, where Pujols has been clean to date. The only other first baseman that could be considered great over the past decade is Todd Helton and Lance Berkman, but he is not equal to Pujols by any standard, with Helton having played 50% of his games in Colorado’s thin air could have skewed his numbers upwards and Berkman has been injury prone. Some of the other young studs like Prince Fielder, Ryan Howard, and Mark Teixeira have been good but not in the same category as Pujols yet over the past decade.

With Ichiro it becomes a bit more complicated. In the aught decade there have been numerous outfielders that could be considered great, some polluted by steroids, some remain clean. They include Vlad Guerrero, Manny Ramirez, Barry Bonds, Andruw Jones, Carlos Beltran, Torii Hunter and Johnny Damon. Unfortunately as a player in the steroid era I am not sure how to measure Ichiro. He is a throwback to the dead ball era, a strong armed singles hitter, who is adept at moving the runner and knows how to take the extra base. His baseball knowledge is off the charts, however he does not have the offensive prowess of Vlad, Bonds or Manny, (nor does he have the stench of steroids). He does have the defensive skills of Beltran, Hunter and Jones, and he possesses 9 gold gloves to prove it. However, as Bill Mazerowski has shown defense does not get you into the Hall of Fame.

I am not sure if playing in Seattle, on a lot of mediocre teams has hurt my perception of Suzuki as opposed to someone like Damon who was always on winning teams, in the playoffs and prominently displayed here on the East Coast playing for the Red Sox and Yankees. If we just consider Ichiro’s MLB stats and exclude his body of work from the Japanese leagues then I am not sure he stands out amongst this group and can be considered the greatest of his era. Quite frankly other than Bonds and Ramirez no other OF stands out as being great over the past ten years and is worthy of induction based upon my gut, which is purely subjective.

Now if we look at the numbers, Pujols again remains as close to a perfect Hall of Fame candidate (numbers via baseball-reference.com through July 20, 2010):

Albert Pujols:

Black Ink*	Batting - 39, Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink**	Batting - 213, Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor	Batting - 230, Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards	Batting - 50, Average HOFer ≈ 50

In all of these categories, Pujols is off the charts in all areas except the Hall of Fame Standards where his perfectly in line with those already enshrined.

More interesting is to look at what players have similar stats at the same age (29 for Pujols). These comparables are all in the HOF or will be eventually and include Jimmie Foxx, Hank Aaron, Lou Gerhig, Ken Griffey Jr., Frank Robinson, Mickey Mantle, Juan Gonzalez, Mel Ott, Hank Greenberg and Orlando Cepeda. I think there is little doubt that there is no one on this list except Gonzalez, who belongs enshrined in Cooperstown. This further reinforces the belief that Pujols has got what it takes.

By Age	Age	G	AB	R	H	2B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG
Albert Pujols	29	1491	5485	1130	1822	410	388	1179	872	615	0.332	0.426	0.625
Jimmie Foxx	29	1561	5551	1216	1852	313	379	1345	985	859	0.334	0.442	0.617
Hank Aaron	29	1511	5940	1077	1898	321	342	1121	541	609	0.319	0.373	0.569
Lou Gerhig	29	1232	4542	1075	1558	321	267	1146	806	508	0.365	0.453	0.643
Ken Griffey Jr.	29	1535	5832	1063	1742	320	398	1152	747	984	0.297	0.379	0.563
Frank Robinson	29	1502	5527	1043	1673	318	324	1009	698	789	0.302	0.389	0.553

Career	Yrs	G	AB	R	H	2B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG
Albert Pujols	10	1491	5485	1130	1822	410	388	1179	872	615	0.332	0.426	0.625
Jimmie Foxx	20	2317	8134	1751	2646	458	534	1922	1452	1311	0.325	0.428	0.609
Hank Aaron	23	3298	12364	2174	3771	624	755	2297	1402	1383	0.305	0.374	0.555
Lou Gerhig	17	2164	8001	1888	2721	534	493	1995	1508	790	0.34	0.447	0.632
Ken Griffey Jr	22	2671	9801	1662	2781	524	630	1836	1312	1779	0.284	0.37	0.538
Frank Robinson	21	2808	10006	1829	2943	528	586	1812	1420	1532	0.294	0.389	0.537

Ichiro Suzuki

Black Ink*	Batting - 36, Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink**	Batting - 129, Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor	Batting - 204, Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards	Batting - 36, Average HOFer ≈ 50

Ichiro is on track with the Black Ink Standard and HOF Monitor, but falls short on the gray ink and HOF Standard. This means Ichiro has led the league in categories, but does not come close to leading in other (power) categories. Pujols on the other hand is a more complete offensive player and has led or been in the Top 10 for most offensive categories.

For Ichiro, it appears he is veering away from the Hall of Fame standards; when we compare him to similar batters for him by age 35 include Jack Tobin, Wally Moses, Ken Griffey Sr. Mickey Rivers, Dom DiMaggio, Kenny Lofton, Willie McGee and Pete Fox. These are all good players, but not one of them is great, nor are any of them in Cooperstown and I think we can all agree that they should not be there.

Career	Age	G	AB	R	H	2B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG
Ichiro	35	1519	6481	1008	2151	246	87	542	442	646	0.332	0.337	0.432
Jack Tobin	35	1619	6174	936	1906	294	64	581	508	267	0.309	0.364	0.42
Wally Moses	35	1576	6203	953	1838	364	82	568	661	377	0.296	0.364	0.423
Ken Griffey Sr	35	1539	5636	914	1689	293	100	649	565	683	0.300	0.364	0.434
Mickey Rivers	35	1468	5629	785	1660	247	61	499	266	471	0.295	0.326	0.385
Dom Dimaggio	35	1396	5637	1046	1679	308	87	618	750	570	0.298	0.383	0.419

Career	Yrs	G	AB	R	H	2B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG
Ichiro	10	1519	6481	1008	2151	246	87	542	442	646	0.332	0.337	0.432
Jack Tobin	13	1619	6174	936	1906	294	64	581	508	267	0.309	0.364	0.42
Wally Moses	17	2012	7356	1124	2138	435	89	679	821	457	0.291	0.364	0.416
Ken Griffey Sr.	19	2097	7229	1129	2143	364	152	859	719	898	0.296	0.359	0.431
Mickey Rivers	15	1468	5629	785	1660	247	61	499	266	471	0.295	0.327	0.397
Dom DiMaggio	11	1399	5640	1046	1680	308	87	618	750	571	0.298	0.383	0.419

The biggest knock against Ichiro is that he played 9 years, starting at age 18 in the Japanese Pacific League for the Orix Blue Wave. He did not arrive in the MLB until he was 27. If we include his stats from the Japanese League and assume that there level of play is equivalent to the MLB, then he should go in. If we assume that the JPL is like our minor leagues, then he should not be enshrined because he does not qualify on the subjective side, nor does he really cut it on the quantitative side either based strictly upon his MLB stats. If the BBWA wants to equate him to Jackie Robinson, saying that he was the first breakthrough Japanese star here, then that is perfectly acceptable as well.

Finally, on a completely separate note, the one thing that bothered me about the Bill James book was his contention that Don Sutton (which was written in 1995, prior to Suttons induction in 1998) belongs in the Hall of Fame simply because he had compiled 300 wins. It still bothers me that this guy got in, since he was never considered by anybody during his career to be elite and amongst the top 10 pitchers in any given year he played. Although I consider Dave Winfield, a player who played too long simply to pad his stats in order to improve his chances of gaining access to the Hall of Fame, I have to concede he was considered amongst the top players in many of the years he played ball.

*Black Ink: Named so because league leading numbers are traditionally represented with Boldface type. The definition for the test that I'm using here was written up in Bill James. The essential point is to measure how often a player led the league in a variety of "important" stats. This method penalizes more recent players as they have 14-16 teams per league, while the older players had just 8. To get a point you must lead the league in that category.

Batting Statistics

• Four Points for home runs, runs batted in or batting average
• Three Points for runs scored, hits or slugging percentage
• Two Points for doubles, walks or stolen bases
• One Point for games, at bats or triples

** Gray Link: Essentially the same as the Black-Ink above, but it counts appearances in the top ten of the league. For each appearance the values are below. As with the Black Ink, this method penalizes more recent players as they have 14-16 teams per league, while the older players had just 8. To get a point you must be in the top 10 in the league in that category.

Batting Statistics

• Four Points for home runs, runs batted in or batting average
• Three Points for runs scored, hits or slugging percentage
• Two Points for doubles, walks or stolen bases
• One Point for games, at bats or triples

Jeff is a rabid baseball fan and baseball card collector. Realizing his dream of playing Major League Baseball died in a plane crash outside Canton OH in August 1979, he set his sights on becoming a nerd instead. Immersing himself in statistics long before SABR came to reality. After SABR was formed, he realized he was not really as quantitative as he once thought, since he could not follow anything they were saying. Now, he lives in Suburban CT with his wife, 3 kids and dog, fighting the local board of education to make our schools more successful and praying the wife will let him watch the last inning of tonight’s Yankee game after another crappy reality program on every channel out there.

This was written exclusively for Zisk Magazine #19