Michelle Gillett

Michelle Gillett, Op-Ed, The Berkshire Eagle
"Arts matter in hard times"
By Michelle Gillett, Tuesday, February 24, 2009
STOCKBRIDGE, Massachusetts

I wish I had a better grasp of where and how the economic stimulus money is being spent but once the numbers go beyond several hundred billion and car manufacturers request more and more of it, my grip begins to loosen. But I can comprehend that $50 million of the final version of the economic stimulus bill President Obama signed last week will be going to the arts, and that some of that money will be allotted to museums, arts centers, and theaters despite the insistence of some conservative Senators that the arts are luxuries only enjoyed by lefty high-brows. The money will be disbursed by the National Endowment for the Arts.

Forty percent of the money will go to state arts agencies. Sixty percent will be set aside for individual arts projects competing for endowment grants. Knowing the legislature voted for support for the arts is helping me sleep a little better at night. We may be living through an economic nightmare but without art, what's the point in even waking up?

"Life beats down and crushes the soul and art reminds you that you have one," Stella Adler said. And life does seem to be beating down more and more people each day — unemployment is up to 8 percent. In Massachusetts, foreclosures were up 22 percent last month.

As someone who works in and with the arts, I have been witnessing the impact of the downturn. Small publishers are receiving less of the grant money that keeps them in business; large publishers are laying people off and cutting back on publications; museums are cutting staff and hours, freezing salaries and hires. Benefactors have less to give or are holding onto what they have.

Financial advisers are telling clients to give less away which also hurts the arts. I would hate to choose between the social service and the cultural organizations I make donations to — but many people are making that choice, and the arts usually lose the draw. The stimulus in no way means we should think that cultural organizations don't need our ongoing support or can manage for long on less. Fifty million dollars is a drop in the bucket from the $787 billion stimulus package, and certainly doesn't amount to much when you consider 40 percent of it is being shared by 100,000 nonprofit arts organizations.

I liked reading Andrew Leonard's insights on the economy and how to get it going in his column on Salon.com.

"At least in part, a successfully growing economy is an illusion predicated on a shared hallucination," he writes. "If we all believe the economy is healthy, we feel confident enough to take risks and spend and invest and create. But if we believe the economy is unhealthy, we pull back, we avoid risk, we save our pennies. The great paradox is that when we, as individuals, prudently pull back, we can end up making things much worse for all of us collectively."

When we pull back, there are fewer cultural opportunities for families, for students and educators. It is far more prudent for us to spend and invest and create in the arts right now than to suffer irretrievable losses.

Americans for the Arts has some viable proposals for ways to create and invest beyond the stimulus money. Among them are creating an Artist Corps, a national training initiative that would train young artists to work in low income schools and their communities and provide "jobs to artists seeking to share their skills, provide mentoring, and professional development to students and individuals seeking work in the creative economy," and making Human Capital Investments in Arts Job Training. The National Governor's Association (NGA) has proposed a $1.5 billion increase to the U.S. Department of Labor's Adult, Dislocated Worker and Youth Programs and Wagner-Peyser Act administered by the states to "help up-skill workers and provide employment services and supports that will increase worker employability and earning power." Americans for the Arts recommends expanding these services available to workers in the creative sector and through arts.

There are those who still think that the arts do not represent real jobs. But as the parent of two daughters who studied art and now support themselves as artists, I know first-hand that they make an essential contribution. They are among the nearly 6 million Americans who have arts-related jobs and contribute to the $166 billion impact the arts have on the economy. Leaders in Washington — Democrats and Republicans — need to continue to recognize that money for the arts feeds more than our souls.
-
Michelle Gillett is a regular Eagle contributor.
-
----------

"Unseen horrors of war"
By Michelle Gillett, Op-Ed, The Berkshire Eagle, Tuesday, March 10, 2009
STOCKBRIDGE, Massachusetts

I never thought I would experience relief over seeing caskets containing dead bodies. But now that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has lifted the ban on media coverage of returning casualties from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I feel like I am in touch with an important reality. Because of the ban, first imposed in January 1991 during the Gulf War and continued by President Bush with the start of the Afghanistan war in October 2001, we have witnessed little of the suffering our service people have been enduring in the last eight years.

The ban was intended to "ensure privacy and respect is given to the families who have lost their loved ones," but I am cynical enough to think it was also intended to withhold images that might stir us to anger and anti-war feelings. Barring a few exceptions to the ban, we have had no chance to see the hundreds of coffins returning from Iraq and Afghanistan in Air Force C-17 jets or to witness honor guard ceremonies for fallen troops at military facilities.

.

In reaching his decision, Gates said he sought out the views of each service's senior leadership and had aides in his personnel and readiness division canvass family groups outside the Pentagon. Gates stated in a news conference, "I have decided that the decision regarding media coverage of the dignified transfer process at Dover (Air Force Base) should be made by those most directly affected: on an individual basis by the families of the fallen . . . We ought not presume to make that decision in their place."

The families of the service members will be making the call on whether the return of their loved ones can be reported upon or filmed. He was also heavily influenced by the Army's stance.

"I got a very compelling memorandum from the Army in favor of this change of policy," Gates said. "And since that involves the largest number of our fallen, that, obviously, had an impact on me." It is thanks to President Obama's pledge to have an unprecedented level of transparency and openness in government that we are finally allowed to see the casualties of these wars.

But no matter how much transparency we are given, there are other war casualties that still remain invisible. The psychological damage wrecked on so many service people in the past eight years continues to increase.

As Bob Herbert noted in his New York Times op-ed column a week ago, 300, 000 service members are suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome or depression, 320,000 have probably suffered a traumatic brain injury. The number of suicides among active-duty soldiers and Guard and Reserve troops called to active duty is over 100, the highest it has been in all the years of fighting in the Middle East. The rate of soldier suicides surpasses that of the civilian population. The Pentagon said suicides by U.S. soldiers rose sharply in January 2009. Before the Iraq war began, less than one U.S. soldier tried to kill himself each day.

Now there are six suicide attempts every day, adding up to over 2,100 suicide attempts a year. The causes are numerous: repeated deployments without adequate rest, lack of treatment and recovery time, problems with intimate relationships, with work, with finances, with the law, the lack of access to psychiatrists and psychologists, I.S Army Chaplain,, Lt. Col. Ran Dolinger observed, "The real central issue is relationships. Relationships, relationships, relationships. People look at PTSD, they look at length of deployments . . . but it's that broken relationship that really makes a difference."

Since repeated deployments often cause the broken relationships, part of the solution to suicide prevention seems obvious.

There are other ways of reducing suicides — teaching soldiers to notice warning signs that can lead to suicide, giving the Veterans Affairs mental health system more money and staff, putting a system in place where soldiers can request a second opinion from a nonpartisan civilian psychologist. Often a soldier who sees a military psychologist is sent back to the front.

.

Soldiers need better advocacy at home as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Obama administration is working on policies that will expand and strengthen Veterans Centers, fully fund veteran health care, create a Military Families Advisory Board, and ease deployment uncertainty, But until the wars in the Middle East end — which doesn't seem likely any time soon — much of the suffering of soldiers will continue.

While images of flag-draped caskets bring the horror of the war home to us, we need to keep sight of unseen horrors — those soldiers so traumatized and stressed, they are taking antidepressants or contemplating killing themselves.
-
Michelle Gillett is a regular Eagle contributor.
-
----------

"Our ailing ally"
By Michelle Gillett, The Berkshire Eagle, Op-Ed, Tuesday, April 21, 2009
STOCKBRIDGE, Massachusetts

One afternoon last week, I was raking the layer of needles under the white pine and looked up at the two bat boxes positioned high above me on the trunk. After I hung them four years ago, I would sit on the back step at dusk and watch the bats fly out — one after the other, dark signal flags marking the coming of night. I considered them my environmentally correct approach to mosquito control and felt a certain pride of ownership when they emerged, weaving through and under the trees.

But there have been no bats riding the evening air over my garden for the past couple of years. At first, I thought the bat houses were too high on the tree; then I worried they were not getting enough warmth. I decided to move them to a more hospitable location, but then, I decided I there is no point in moving them because my bats are probably never coming back.

A massive die-off of bats is occurring in the Northeast and, because bats are migratory, the die-off will likely start happening in the South soon. In the Northeast, 90 percent of cave-dwelling bats have died. Some caves in New York have death rates of 100 percent. This rapid decimation of the bat population could lead to their extinction. There is no historic precedent or prior evidence of a die-off like this, and scientists are uncertain of the cause.

Most of the research so far points to a fungus called "white nose syndrome." White nose syndrome is a winter syndrome where a white powder appears on the bats' noses and wings; it is a symptom of something else, and that something else is still a mystery to scientists. The illness has caused bats to burn up their fat stores early in their hibernation and as a result, they leave their caves too early and freeze to death.

Pesticides which kill off bats' food source have been considered a possible cause or at least a contributing factor in the bats' deaths as well. A study of the fungus is being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey's National Wildlife Health Center in Madison, Wisconsin, and another study, led by Indiana State University's Center for North American Bat Research and Conservation, is looking at the bats' diets and how they metabolize food during hibernation.

One bat eats as many as 3,000 mosquitoes and moths every night. Without them, we will be vulnerable to insect-borne diseases, and our crops will be endangered. According to a recent article in The Hartford Courant, "Every June, over the vast corn and cotton fields of Texas, for example, millions of corn earworm moths migrate north from Mexico, descending at dusk to lay their eggs on crop fields. If left unchecked, these eggs would hatch within a few weeks, and then new moths would lay additional eggs, multiplying their scourge and smothering the crops."

We have the same corn here in New England, and the same earworm moths. Until recently, millions of pounds of those moths have been consumed by bats. Undoubtedly, without hungry bats to rid their fields of equally hungry insects, farmers will rely on pesticides to protect their crops, and will people like me who like to be outside when the weather is nice — without being attacked by mosquitoes.

Bats have been around for millions of years. While my deepest concerns are for the upset in the balance of nature their extinction will cause, I can't help wondering what will happen to Dracula without vampire bats to accompany him on his nocturnal forays for victims with blood to suck. And what about Harry Potter? Will the boy wizard's saga make sense without the Bat-Bogey hex? With no frame of reference, will comic book readers care if Batman protects Gotham City? And what will we have in our belfries when over-use of pesticides to kill those rapidly multiplying insects drive us mad and perhaps to extinction ourselves?
-
Michelle Gillett is a regular Eagle contributor.
-
----------

"A good if pricey, bond"
By Michelle Gillett, Op-Ed, The Berkshire Eagle, Tuesday, June 2, 2009
STOCKBRIDGE, Massachusetts

I got inspired to write about American Girl dolls when "Kit Kittredge," the first feature film about an American Girl Doll character, was released a year ago just when the stock market began to plunge — an ironic coincidence since Kit lives in Cincinnati during the Great Depression. Her father loses his car dealership and must leave town to look for work. To help make ends meet, Mrs. Kittredge raises chickens, grows vegetables and takes in boarders, while 10-year-old Kit, who has pluck and determination, decides to become a journalist and succeeds in solving a crime through her investigative research. I also found it ironic that a girl like Kit in today's economy would not be able to afford an American Girl Doll with its price tag of $100.

The reason for the film's success had little to do with its relevance to present-day social and economic concerns. Known as the "anti-Barbie," Kit, and her sister doll-characters, are among a very few positive role models in toyland for girls, and despite their price tag, they enjoy an almost cult-like following, Pleasant T. Rowland started marketing the dolls through a mail-order company in 1986 as an alternative to dolls that sell sexiness and precocity. Since then, over 14 million dolls have been sold, as have more than 125 million copies of the books that tell each girl-doll's story.

The characters are the 21st century equivalent of Nancy Drew — girls who are clever and resourceful and brave and determined. President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotamayor, devoured Nancy Drew books when she was growing up and says the girl detective influenced her choice of a law career.

Some day, there might be a woman nominee for the Supreme Court who will acknowledge the influence of Kit Kittredge on her career choice — that is, if she can afford the doll. An American Girl Doll and her accessories can only be purchased through the company's catalogue or in one of its flagship American Girl doll stores. Kit and her caboodle, which includes her tree house, her reporter dress and accessories, holiday dress, holiday baking set and dog Gracie, cost close to $400. You can buy Malibu Barbie at Target for $39.99. You can buy a copy of The Nancy Drew Sleuth Book in a bookstore for $6.94.

American Girl dolls have been lauded for their history lessons, their real girl bodies, their commitment to social change — qualities you can't attribute to Bratz dolls with their thongs and diamonds. There is Addy, an African-American who grows up during the Civil War; Josephina, who lives in New Mexico in the 1820s; Kaya, a Nez Perce girl growing up in 1764. Then there is Julia, who lives in San Francisco in the 1970s and her best friend Ivy, who is Asian-American. The latest in the historical/diversity line-up is a Jewish-American girl, nine-year-old Rebecca Rubin, who lives on the Lower East Side in 1914 with her Russian-Jewish immigrant parents, siblings and "Bubbie," her grandmother.

According to the Mattell-owned American Girl Doll Company, its mission is to "create girls of strong character." For the last seven years, it has offered a Girl of the Year contemporary character. Chrissa, the doll of 2009, has had to move with her family to live with her grandmother. When Chrissa starts her new school, she is given the cold shoulder by the "Mean Bees," and in response becomes the school's anti-bullying spokesperson. Chrissa has her own feature film, "An American Girl: Chrissa Stands Strong," and the company supports the Stop the Bullying campaign.

I applaud Chrissa's work to stamp out bullying but I will have to spend $178 to buy her "Starter Collection." I am hoping my granddaughter will be satisfied with the two American Girl dolls she already owns. I have watched her circle items in the catalogue the way I dog-ear pages in the Neiman Marcus catalogue. In a New York Times article last year, A.O. Scott wondered, "Is the brand reflecting tastes or enforcing norms of behavior? Is it teaching girls to be independent spirits or devoted shoppers?" He guesses, "Probably all those things and more."

There are those who condemn American Girl dolls for being elitist and expensive. No one would deny we live in an age where marketing and materialism make us consumers early in life. But some realities hold true throughout the ages — girls and dolls have a special bond. If I were a little girl today, I would certainly identify with and want to own Kit, who hoped to be a writer and make a difference in the world.
-
Michelle Gillett is a regular Eagle contributor.
-
----------

Stockbridge, Massachusetts
"Michelle Gillett to teach two writing workshops"
Berkshire Eagle Staff, Sunday, September 6, 2009

Author Michelle Gillett will be teaching a 10-week writing workshop beginning on Tuesday from 9 a.m. noon at her home in Stockbridge.

The workshop includes discussion of craft, writing time and time to share work and receive feedback.

She will be also be teaching an eight-week poetry workshop on Wednesday mornings beginning Sept 16 from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. This workshop focuses on reading, writing and discussing poetry and giving and getting feedback.

For more information, all (413) 298-4814 or e-mail mcgillett@verizon.net

----------

"Pull curtain away from ‘new chosen'"
By Michelle Gillett, The Berkshire Eagle (Online), Op-Ed, Tuesday, November 17, 2009
STOCKBRIDGE, Massachusetts

I cautioned myself not to have a knee-jerk reaction to the news that along with the passage of the health care reform bill by Congress two weeks ago, came an amendment to restrict coverage of abortion. I decided, this time, I would find out all I could about it and then respond.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment was created by Bart Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan, and Joseph Pitts, a Republican representative from Pennsylvania. The amendment offers restrictions that would prevent women from buying insurance that covers abortions -- even if they pay for it with their own money. Under present law, the Hyde Amendment bans the use of federal dollars to pay for almost all abortions in a number of government programs.

The Stupak amendment broadens those restrictions and states that no funds appropriated in the bill could be used "to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion." Those two words -- "any part" -- will separate those who can afford to buy their own insurance without government help and those who need to use government subsidized plans.

President Obama has already said that he thinks the language of the amendment needs to be changed. Forty-one Democratic representatives have signed a letter telling House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that they will not vote for the final bill if "contains language that restricts women's right to choose any further than the current law." The bill will be debated in the Senate after Thanksgiving.

As I worked at learning all I could, I discovered that Stupak and Pitts are both are members of an organization called "The Family," a fellowship of sex-segregated prayer cells or "invisible believing groups" of business, political and military leaders dedicated to fighting a "spiritual war on behalf of Christ." Doug Coe, the leader of The Family, told evangelical leaders at a breakfast not long ago, that "the more invisible you make your organization, the more influence it will have." Even though I felt a twitching, I again decided to learn more before I had my usual knee-jerk reaction.

No one really knows the scope of The Family's activities or the extent of their under-the-radar power, but the fact that the abortion amendment was passed makes me think it is vast. Jeff Sharlet is a writer who spent time as a "junior" member of The Family and wrote a story that appeared in Harper's Magazine six years ago about his experience.

Sharlet lived in one of the group's houses in Washington D.C. called "Ivanwald." The group's senior members live in an estate over-looking the Potomac called, "The Cedars." There was an "Ivanwald for girls" across the road from The Cedars, and the women who live there help serve at the weekly leaders' breakfast. "They wore red lipstick and long skirts (makeup and "feminine" attire were required)," Sharlet recalled. "After several months of cleaning and serving in The Cedars (they) become quite unimpressed by the high-powered clientele. "Girls don't sit in on the breakfasts," one of them told me, though she said that none of them minded because it was "just politics." Sharlet also wrote that The Family members consider themselves, "the new chosen."

I decided that I had reached the pinnacle of my learning curve. No "new chosen" is going to make my medical choices for me. But it seems that Coe is right, the more invisible you are, the more influence you wield.

In response to the Stupnak-Pitts amendment, President Obama said, "I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill," "And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions." He pointed out that because of "the strong feelings on both sides. . . there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo."

The Senate Finance Committee has a approved a bill that incorporates the compromise the House rejected in favor of the Stupak Amendment. The compromise "would have prohibited the use of tax subsidies to pay for almost all abortions, but would have allowed the segregation and use of premium contributions and co-payment to pay for such coverage," according to a New York Times editorial last week.

I am sure the "new chosen" are busy at their secret work pressuring senators not to approve the compromise where insurers would not give up all coverage for abortions. Politicians who believe that women should wear make-up and feminine attire obviously do not care that the procedure is most often used for medical reasons and to save the life or the health of the mother. They are shifty enough to shift the focus of health care reform to abortion.

There is a chance that the Stupak-Pitts amendment will be removed from the final bill, but we need to keep trying to remove the cloak that allows conservative religious groups like The Family to be invisible. Remember when Toto pulled away the curtain that concealed the Wizard of Oz? What was revealed was an ordinary little man running people's lives by playing with power.
-
Michelle Gillett is a regular Eagle contributor.
-
----------