It all started very innocently.....a status update once a day-usually in the early morning and then checking for comments about the status update later that night and at the same time checking my News Feed and "liking" other postings....and so on......
But by a couple of years in I was fully and completely addicted. Status updates multiple times a day. Searching for that really unique and unknown news story to post that would make my "friends" think a little or laugh a lot. Coming up with snarky and entertaining comments to accompany those posts. And, a family outing was no longer just a family outing either. Every trip to the beach, vacation out of town, hike, anything was a moment to be preserved in Facebook history!
I couldn't go more than an hour without checking my status. What were they saying about my posts? What were others saying about what I said about their posts? What were others saying about what others said about what I said about their posts....and so on.....
Did anyone like my pictures of the birthday present I got my wife? And so on....
I finally hit my rock bottom (as they say in the addiction world) at my son's first Boston Red Sox game at Fenway this month. There we were sitting along the third-base line, perfect weather and a perfect night for my son's first game. About thirty minutes after I posted the very first pictures from Fenway, there I was checking for comments. Just like the addict who can't wait to heat up the crack rock, there I was taking a nice long toke from my phone! ahhhh the euphoria!!
I realized what I was doing. I looked over at my wife and she was giving me the look...and silently saying with that look "do you have to do that now?" .....just like the wife of an alcoholic who sees her husband sneaking a sip out of a flask, partially hidden under his coat. In that instant I saw myself as an addict and a moment of clarity and a little shame ensued.
So, the decision has been made....cold turkey off Facebook until at least Labor Day! And then, who knows? I might wade back in-with limits. But if I am not feeling confident in my "recovery" then I may just stay off until Christmas or longer. I don't know.
And, it hasn't been easy. Just like the alcoholic who craves the taste of gin on the tongue or the heroin user who craves the prick of the needle...the fight to resist the urge to rejoin the rest of the world in the "largest town square ever" has been tough, tougher than I thought it would be. I have already relapsed, but today is a new day...as was yesterday.
And, as I wrote this piece it occurred to me....Since virtually all of my friends and family get all of their information on Facebook, the only way a majority of those people are going to see my blog is for me to reactivate my facebook account, post this link and then get the heck out of there before I become tempted to stay around and visit awhile. This is sort of like the alcoholic having to walk into the liquor store to place an ad right in the scotch aisle, for his tag sale on Saturday because he knows that's where all of his friends will see it. Wish me luck. If you like my writing, please follow my blog. If enough people follow it, I won't have to visit the liquor store.
I have not heard yet of a support group for recovering Facebook addicts in my local area. Perhaps I should start one?
Monday, July 30, 2012
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
If it's not good enough for me, then why is it good enough for you?
Being the father of a seven year old has its challenges. One of the biggest challenges is when I deny my son something, out of my concern for his well being only to have it for myself later on. Like this example:
Charlie: Dad, can I have some beer too?
Charlie: Then, why are YOU drinking it dad?
Me: ummmmm
and on it goes......
This same situation is currently going on in Washington DC. There are newly elected members of congress who will soon be taking their oaths of office who campaigned, championed, rallied against "Government Run Health Care" and once they are sworn in, these newly elected republican office holders will make good on their promise, to kill the health care reform law that was passed last year.To stop government run health care in its tracks.....in the parlance of the Tea Party....to "kill the bill"
And, I understand that's the way it is. That is our political system. My side couldn't convince enough of the public to keep a majority and there are of course ramifications to losing elections for the party in power.Fine, okay, I get it.
But I would ask that these newly elected members of congress and really any sitting member of congress democrat or republican who is opposed to "government run health care" or "public option" should forgo, deny, not take, their own government health care. These folks should lead by example and if they really feel that a government run health care system is illegal, immoral....or whatever, then they should put their money where their health is and not take any form of government run health care.Ever.
Members of congress, like most elected officials at the state level, get excellent health care and it is administered through a government agency paid for with our tax dollars. So a person who is getting their health care from a government program is going to tell the rest of us we can't.
Even my seven year old knows that's a line..........
Charlie: Dad, can I have some beer too?Me: No son, it is bad for you?
Me: ummmmm
and on it goes......
This same situation is currently going on in Washington DC. There are newly elected members of congress who will soon be taking their oaths of office who campaigned, championed, rallied against "Government Run Health Care" and once they are sworn in, these newly elected republican office holders will make good on their promise, to kill the health care reform law that was passed last year.To stop government run health care in its tracks.....in the parlance of the Tea Party....to "kill the bill"
And, I understand that's the way it is. That is our political system. My side couldn't convince enough of the public to keep a majority and there are of course ramifications to losing elections for the party in power.Fine, okay, I get it.
But I would ask that these newly elected members of congress and really any sitting member of congress democrat or republican who is opposed to "government run health care" or "public option" should forgo, deny, not take, their own government health care. These folks should lead by example and if they really feel that a government run health care system is illegal, immoral....or whatever, then they should put their money where their health is and not take any form of government run health care.Ever.
Members of congress, like most elected officials at the state level, get excellent health care and it is administered through a government agency paid for with our tax dollars. So a person who is getting their health care from a government program is going to tell the rest of us we can't.
Even my seven year old knows that's a line..........
Monday, January 3, 2011
Eavesdropping on Coffee Shop Convo
So, I got a gift card from my son and his mother for Christmas from a very nice coffee shop in Lenox. I don't normally sit and have my coffee here, but I do frequent coffee shops around Berkshire County- especially those with free wi-fi and so I decided this morning to check this one out.
What struck me, sitting here, is the type of conversations patrons were having. The topics vary greatly from what I am normally used to hearing at my own "local" in Dalton or even the cafes I frequent in Pittsfield......
For example, as soon as I sat down a woman across from me asked "Excuse me sir, I was wondering if you could tell me...I have seemed to have forgotten if it was Socrates or Demosthenes who walked around with a pebble in his mouth?" At that very moment a man, sitting clear across the room from me shouted out to someone at the counter "My movie will be coming out next spring" (no, it wasn't George Clooney). Two women sitting nearby were talking about their "other homes" in New York City and one guy was telling a friend how he just saw an ad for a dog walker and was going to make the call today as he is tired of having to walk his dog in the cold.
What struck me, sitting here, is the type of conversations patrons were having. The topics vary greatly from what I am normally used to hearing at my own "local" in Dalton or even the cafes I frequent in Pittsfield......
For example, as soon as I sat down a woman across from me asked "Excuse me sir, I was wondering if you could tell me...I have seemed to have forgotten if it was Socrates or Demosthenes who walked around with a pebble in his mouth?" At that very moment a man, sitting clear across the room from me shouted out to someone at the counter "My movie will be coming out next spring" (no, it wasn't George Clooney). Two women sitting nearby were talking about their "other homes" in New York City and one guy was telling a friend how he just saw an ad for a dog walker and was going to make the call today as he is tired of having to walk his dog in the cold.I am not saying that I never hear these same type of conversations in Dalton or Pittsfield......it's just that they seem to be more prevalent here in Lenox. The conversations I normally overhear are about a story in the Berkshire Eagle, will this be a good planting season or not?, about a sermon given at the Sunday Mass, or an issue going on with the local public school. It is not often that I get asked about ancient philosophers, or if the person advertising a dog walking service is reputable.
My point in writing this piece isn't to start a class coffee warfare. I am not bashing the good coffee patrons in Lenox, in fact I was delighted that I must have looked intelligent enough at that hour of the morning to someone to be considered an expert of ancient philosophers. My point is to point out that within the Berkshires, within a distance of just a few miles, the topics of conversation, the things important enough for people to talk about over their morning joe can be truly striking and very different.
Is it like this everywhere? I suppose coffee shops are in their own way community focal points and the people who frequent their "local" are representative of those who live nearby.
Do you agree?
Friday, December 31, 2010
My last week....
So, here I sit on the morning of December 31, 2010 in the final week of my service as a State Representative. The end of the year is a time for reflection, and here are a few of what I think were some of the highlights of my time in office.
Thanks,
Denis
- Massachusetts Health Care Law- A first of its kind law now being looked at by other states and was a blueprint for the law passed by congress last year. This law has been a success for it's initial goal of eliminating the uninsured as 95% of Mass residents now have some form of health insurance. As a supporter of Single Payer systems I still believe that the state will have to eventually adopt the Single Payer system to control costs.
- Equal Marriage- Probably the biggest civil rights issue of my adult lifetime so far ( I am too young to remember the 1960's). I was proud to have supported and voted to not write discrimination into the Massachusetts Constitution and support the right of same sex couples to marry.
- Rural Broadband- More people in rural western Mass have broadband than when I took office. I was proud to have worked on, and voted for the state's $40 million broadband investment bill, which included my $15 million amendment.
- Infrastructure Projects- Berkshire Mall Road, Mount Greylock Summit Road, Route 2-Shelburne repaving, South Street,-Dalton are just a few of the many projects I was able to help get the state to move forward with that had been long delayed and needed by the district.
- Constituent Service- The lifeblood of a public servants work. Whether it was helping a local business secure a grant, getting fuel or food assistance to a family, fighting with an HMO to get a denied treatment decision overturned, or any of the many examples of helping people, this is the kind of day to day work that a State Representative does that I am going to miss the most.
Thanks,
Denis
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Wind Bill is Bad Policy for Massachusetts
I support wind energy projects that are appropriately planned, with community input and local boards and commissions having the ultimate authority for their approval.
It is important for me to say that in the very beginning of this writing because proponents of the Wind Siting Act in Massachusetts will often attempt to paint anyone objecting to this legislation as “anti wind energy” and that is simply not the case for me. Both the Jiminy Peak and Brodie Mountain projects are within my legislative district and in fact, I supported a public grant for the Jiminy Peak project.
Senator Michael Knapik’s stand on blocking the legislation during informal sessions of the Massachusetts Senate is applauded by me and many of my colleagues. We did our best to stop this bill in the House of Representatives, but despite our objections to it, the bill was passed and sent to the Senate. The vast number House members who supported this bill were from the Boston area or regions of the state where wind energy projects are unlikely to ever happen.
The bill was filed by Governor Patrick at the beginning of this legislative session and when I first heard of the bill and the well meaning intentions behind it, I was, like most people, favorable to the concept of a law that would help expedite wind projects. I mean, who wouldn’t be? After the energy price spikes of just a few years ago and the obvious implications to our environment by the continued burning of fossil fuels, moving to a clean and renewable energy source is a no-brainer.
Then I actually read the troubled bill and discovered that it essentially removed local decision making from the process and planning of these projects. It empowers a single state agency that permits projects and can over rule local decisions or special conditions on wind projects. The earliest version of the bill included a condition to allow these projects on state park and conservation lands. That provision was removed, but legislative supporters have already publicly vowed to file legislation in another session to possibly bring this and other removed provisions back. Scary stuff.
The Massachusetts Municipal Association and planning agencies like the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission are opposed to the bill because of the loss of local control. The expedited process which would be set up for the wind energy industry does not exist for any other energy sector in Massachusetts.
It is common practice for the legislature to do two things for a bill which has tremendous state-wide impacts. Typically the committee or committees charged with hearing the bill will take the show on the road and actually have hearings across the state to gauge support or problems with the legislation. This never happened. It is also common practice to have bills go before more than one legislative committee to have those committees review the bills from their perspective too. For example, this bill has implications for both Municipal and Environmental law but neither of those committees heard the bill. Despite the fact that the bill would create new costs for state government, there was not a single hearing held on it by either Senate or House Ways and Means. This bill had one hearing before one committee, Energy, over eighteen months ago.
This legislation would impact two specific regions in Massachusetts with the most wind; Cape Cod and most of the ridge tops in the western end of the state. These two regions are coincidentally two of the poorest and are made up of towns unable to staff full time planning and engineering departments. The “expedited” process, giving these towns only 120 days to approve or deny an extremely complicated wind energy proposal is a joke and an obvious bonus to the industry pushing the legislation. If a town is unable to approve or deny a project within 120 days, the project would be automatically approved at the local level and forwarded to the single state agency for final approval.
Proponents, in their zeal to push this legislation through will commonly use the sole example of the six years stalled Hoosac Wind, as the reason for it. But they ignore the fact that dozens of projects, including many in the Berkshires have been approved and built without lawsuits or local objections. When I reviewed information from the implications of wind projects in states that have an expedited process, my conclusion was that a slower, not faster process for these projects is in the public’s best interest.
Another rallying cry I have heard by proponents throughout the debate on the bill is that “it is easier to build a coal fired plant in Massachusetts than a wind farm”. If that is truly the case, and I for one don’t believe it is, then we should be using our time in the legislature to make it harder to build the coal plant; not easier for wind energy corporations to exploit the limitations of our small towns and trampling local control.
I remain opposed to this legislation. It sets a terrible precedent for how we allow our communities to make determinations about energy projects and will have consequences that we in the western most region of the state and in some of the poorest communities in the state will have to deal with for decades.
Denis Guyer
State Representative
Second Berkshire District
It is important for me to say that in the very beginning of this writing because proponents of the Wind Siting Act in Massachusetts will often attempt to paint anyone objecting to this legislation as “anti wind energy” and that is simply not the case for me. Both the Jiminy Peak and Brodie Mountain projects are within my legislative district and in fact, I supported a public grant for the Jiminy Peak project.
Senator Michael Knapik’s stand on blocking the legislation during informal sessions of the Massachusetts Senate is applauded by me and many of my colleagues. We did our best to stop this bill in the House of Representatives, but despite our objections to it, the bill was passed and sent to the Senate. The vast number House members who supported this bill were from the Boston area or regions of the state where wind energy projects are unlikely to ever happen.
The bill was filed by Governor Patrick at the beginning of this legislative session and when I first heard of the bill and the well meaning intentions behind it, I was, like most people, favorable to the concept of a law that would help expedite wind projects. I mean, who wouldn’t be? After the energy price spikes of just a few years ago and the obvious implications to our environment by the continued burning of fossil fuels, moving to a clean and renewable energy source is a no-brainer.
Then I actually read the troubled bill and discovered that it essentially removed local decision making from the process and planning of these projects. It empowers a single state agency that permits projects and can over rule local decisions or special conditions on wind projects. The earliest version of the bill included a condition to allow these projects on state park and conservation lands. That provision was removed, but legislative supporters have already publicly vowed to file legislation in another session to possibly bring this and other removed provisions back. Scary stuff.
The Massachusetts Municipal Association and planning agencies like the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission are opposed to the bill because of the loss of local control. The expedited process which would be set up for the wind energy industry does not exist for any other energy sector in Massachusetts.
It is common practice for the legislature to do two things for a bill which has tremendous state-wide impacts. Typically the committee or committees charged with hearing the bill will take the show on the road and actually have hearings across the state to gauge support or problems with the legislation. This never happened. It is also common practice to have bills go before more than one legislative committee to have those committees review the bills from their perspective too. For example, this bill has implications for both Municipal and Environmental law but neither of those committees heard the bill. Despite the fact that the bill would create new costs for state government, there was not a single hearing held on it by either Senate or House Ways and Means. This bill had one hearing before one committee, Energy, over eighteen months ago.
This legislation would impact two specific regions in Massachusetts with the most wind; Cape Cod and most of the ridge tops in the western end of the state. These two regions are coincidentally two of the poorest and are made up of towns unable to staff full time planning and engineering departments. The “expedited” process, giving these towns only 120 days to approve or deny an extremely complicated wind energy proposal is a joke and an obvious bonus to the industry pushing the legislation. If a town is unable to approve or deny a project within 120 days, the project would be automatically approved at the local level and forwarded to the single state agency for final approval.
Proponents, in their zeal to push this legislation through will commonly use the sole example of the six years stalled Hoosac Wind, as the reason for it. But they ignore the fact that dozens of projects, including many in the Berkshires have been approved and built without lawsuits or local objections. When I reviewed information from the implications of wind projects in states that have an expedited process, my conclusion was that a slower, not faster process for these projects is in the public’s best interest.
Another rallying cry I have heard by proponents throughout the debate on the bill is that “it is easier to build a coal fired plant in Massachusetts than a wind farm”. If that is truly the case, and I for one don’t believe it is, then we should be using our time in the legislature to make it harder to build the coal plant; not easier for wind energy corporations to exploit the limitations of our small towns and trampling local control.
I remain opposed to this legislation. It sets a terrible precedent for how we allow our communities to make determinations about energy projects and will have consequences that we in the western most region of the state and in some of the poorest communities in the state will have to deal with for decades.
Denis Guyer
State Representative
Second Berkshire District
Friday, August 13, 2010
New Venture
Press Release: For Immediate Release
August 12, 2010
Guyer to create Community Development Corporation. Crane & Co Stationery Factory to be redeveloped for housing, commercial kitchens and agricultural food processing center. Plan also envisions retail and other economic development at site.
Dalton- Denis Guyer is creating the non- profit Berkshire Community Development Corporation, which will acquire and redevelop the Crane Stationery Factory at 63 Flansburgh Avenue into condominium style housing, commercial kitchens, agricultural value -added food processing center and other retail offerings at the 100,000 square foot site.
“When I made the decision to leave the Massachusetts Legislature earlier this year, I knew that working in some community development or agricultural role was where I really wanted to land. During my time in the legislature I have loved working closely with the folks in the agricultural industry and I have relished supporting projects that would create jobs and housing opportunities for working families. I heard that Crane & Co was deciding a future course for the Stationery building, so I went in and pitched my idea to them.” said Guyer.
Crane and Company plans to consolidate its Stationery Division operations into a single Dalton-based facility, moving operations from the Curran Highway, North Adams and Stationery Factory into the Ashuelot Park-Dalton site by late 2011.
Besides the redevelopment of the building into both affordable and luxury condominium units, Guyer also plans to create a commercial kitchen facility that will act as an incubator for new food businesses. Entrepreneurs looking to make and market their products will rent kitchen time and storage space as well as receive business creation support from the CDC. To support local agriculture, Guyer plans what is called a “value- added” facility, which would process locally grown dairy, fruits and vegetables into products such as jams, wine, salsa, cheese, granola and ice cream.
“We recognized that Denis’s vision for the future use of the Stationery factory was consistent with our desire to support a development project that is positive for the town of Dalton and our community”, said Charlie Kittredge, CEO of Crane & Co. “We would like to recognize the work and the input provided by the Town Manager and Select Board combined with some preliminary work performed by the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission. While the decision behind consolidating our Stationery activity was driven by the need to sustain and improve our business, it was none the less a difficult step to take and we are now pleased to have identified a potential use for the future of the building which will provide housing and business opportunities while at the same time supporting our local farms and agricultural economy”.
There are also plans to redevelop a portion of the building for retail use. “I am hoping to attract businesses that are related to the other ventures that will occur in the building, so an eatery based on a locally grown concept and a cooperative food market would both fit very nicely into this plan” said Guyer.
With this venture Guyer is in a way returning to where he started. “I began a twelve-year career at Crane in 1992, cutting envelope liners in this building, in a way it really feels like I am coming home” said Guyer.
Stationery Press Release FINAL VERSION 08-12-10
August 12, 2010
Guyer to create Community Development Corporation. Crane & Co Stationery Factory to be redeveloped for housing, commercial kitchens and agricultural food processing center. Plan also envisions retail and other economic development at site.
Dalton- Denis Guyer is creating the non- profit Berkshire Community Development Corporation, which will acquire and redevelop the Crane Stationery Factory at 63 Flansburgh Avenue into condominium style housing, commercial kitchens, agricultural value -added food processing center and other retail offerings at the 100,000 square foot site.
“When I made the decision to leave the Massachusetts Legislature earlier this year, I knew that working in some community development or agricultural role was where I really wanted to land. During my time in the legislature I have loved working closely with the folks in the agricultural industry and I have relished supporting projects that would create jobs and housing opportunities for working families. I heard that Crane & Co was deciding a future course for the Stationery building, so I went in and pitched my idea to them.” said Guyer.
Crane and Company plans to consolidate its Stationery Division operations into a single Dalton-based facility, moving operations from the Curran Highway, North Adams and Stationery Factory into the Ashuelot Park-Dalton site by late 2011.
Besides the redevelopment of the building into both affordable and luxury condominium units, Guyer also plans to create a commercial kitchen facility that will act as an incubator for new food businesses. Entrepreneurs looking to make and market their products will rent kitchen time and storage space as well as receive business creation support from the CDC. To support local agriculture, Guyer plans what is called a “value- added” facility, which would process locally grown dairy, fruits and vegetables into products such as jams, wine, salsa, cheese, granola and ice cream.
“We recognized that Denis’s vision for the future use of the Stationery factory was consistent with our desire to support a development project that is positive for the town of Dalton and our community”, said Charlie Kittredge, CEO of Crane & Co. “We would like to recognize the work and the input provided by the Town Manager and Select Board combined with some preliminary work performed by the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission. While the decision behind consolidating our Stationery activity was driven by the need to sustain and improve our business, it was none the less a difficult step to take and we are now pleased to have identified a potential use for the future of the building which will provide housing and business opportunities while at the same time supporting our local farms and agricultural economy”.
There are also plans to redevelop a portion of the building for retail use. “I am hoping to attract businesses that are related to the other ventures that will occur in the building, so an eatery based on a locally grown concept and a cooperative food market would both fit very nicely into this plan” said Guyer.
With this venture Guyer is in a way returning to where he started. “I began a twelve-year career at Crane in 1992, cutting envelope liners in this building, in a way it really feels like I am coming home” said Guyer.
Stationery Press Release FINAL VERSION 08-12-10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)