• Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in Virginia, taking more than 9,200 lives each year. Tobacco-induced healthcare costs are $1.92 billion annually, including $369 million in Medicaid payments. • The growth of tobacco, and its importance to the economy of Virginia, has declined significantly. In 2008, tobacco was only the fifth most harvested and valuable crop, behind hay, corn, soybeans, and wheat, and constituted only 2.3% of the value of all Virginia agricultural products sold. • Virginia is becoming increasingly urban and its citizens are less concerned with Virginia's tobacco heritage. Significant majorities of Virginians support stronger clean indoor air laws and higher cigarette taxes. In 2009, 75% polled supported strong clean indoor air laws. • The tobacco industry has a significant presence in Virginia: Philip Morris has a large manufacturing and corporate presence in the Richmond area. • The tobacco industry's lobbying expenditures have significantly exceeded spending by tobacco control advocates. The industry also built strong ties to hospitality groups, trade associations, and tobacco growers to oppose tobacco control measures. • Republican legislators are significantly more supportive of the tobacco industry control than Democrats, who are more supportive of public health. • The tobacco industry gave about twice as much money to Republicans than Democrats. Controlling for party and legislative house, greater tobacco industry campaign contributions are statistically significantly associated with more pro-tobacco industry policy behavior. • Between 1970 and 2008, 70 cities and two counties imposed local cigarette excise taxes, an attractive and politically nonvolatile source of revenue. The tobacco industry has not been able to counter this activity. • Prior to 1990, many localities enacted local clean indoor air ordinances. Despite strong support among Virginians for clean indoor air laws and a growing movement among localities for local tobacco control, these measures were blocked in 1990 by the passage of the weak preemptive statewide Virginia Indoor Clean Air Act (VICAA). • Virginia was selected by the National Cancer Institute in 1990 to participate in the 17-state American Stop Smoking Intervention Study (ASSIST). ASSIST established a network of local tobacco control coalitions through Virginia Department of Health. Organizational issues and strong industry interference prevented ASSIST from accomplishing its mission of reducing smoking through policy change. • Virginia was awarded a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation SmokeLess States (SLS) grant in 1994 to support lasting statewide coalitions to reduce tobacco use; the effort failed in Virginia. • Virginia SmokeLess States was involved with the successful Southern Communities Tobacco Project to bring tobacco farmers together with tobacco control advocates; this effort accomplished little substantive change in tobacco control policy in Virginia. • In 1998, Virginia was part of the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) between 46 states and the tobacco industry and will to receive about $4 billion from the settlement over 25 years. Virginia committed 10% of the proceeds to a youth-only tobacco control program; 40% was directed at financially supporting tobacco-growing communities negatively affected by declining growth of tobacco in the state, and the rest went to the General Fund. • Virginia Tobacco Settlement Foundation (VTSF)was founded in 1999 with the 10% of MSA funds. VTSF mounted a youth multimedia campaign, but little data are available on the effectiveness of VTSF programming. • In 2009, the General Assembly expanded VTSF's mission to include youth obesity prevention and changed its name to Virginia Foundation for Healthy Youth without any additional funding. The consequences for tobacco control programming are not known, but are likely to be negative if resources are diverted from tobacco control. • Virginia had the lowest cigarette tax in the nation from 1993-2004. The 2004 "2.5 Cents to Common Sense" campaign run by Virginians for a Healthy Future (VFHF), comprised of the Virginia chapters of AHA, ALA, and ACS, successfully used polling data to show popular support for an increase, targeted key legislators, and ran an effective media campaign. This effort resulted in a tax increase of 30 cents per pack in 2004. None of the increased tax went to fund tobacco control. • In 2006, with encouragement from VFHF, Governor Tim Kaine (D) issued Executive Order 41, prohibiting smoking in most executive branch buildings and state-owned vehicles. • In 2007, VFHF worked closely with Gov. Kaine and Sen. Brandon Bell (R) to introduce SB 1161, a strong expansion of the VCIAA to extend make most public places, including restaurants, smokefree. This effort failed. • The City of Norfolk decided to pass an ordinance prohibiting smoking in restaurants in 2007, arguing that it not preempted by the VCIAA because of the city's inherent police powers. The ordinance was rescinded before it went into effect because of complaints by local restaurateurs and the likelihood of a statewide law passing. Statewide public health advocates did not effectively support this effort to test state preemption. • In 2009 VFHF focused an intense "district campaign" on Assembly Speaker William Howell's (R) home district of Fredericksburg, forcing Howell to stop blocking all clean indoor air legislation. Instead of supporting 100% smokefree legislation, he proposed a weak amendment to the VCIAA that created exemptions for smoking rooms in restaurants. The member organizations of VFHF split in 2009 over support for the Kaine-Howell compromise legislation. After securing an agreement with Gov. Kaine in a back-room meeting, the Kaine-Howell bill passed and was signed into law by Kaine. The law prohibited most smoking in restaurants and bars but allowed separately vented smoking rooms. • Given strong support from Virginians for stronger clean indoor air laws, Virginia tobacco control advocates should reexamine their strategies. VFHF and its member organizations should provide financial and political resources to expand their successful 2009 Fredericksburg district campaign to repeal preemption. They should also consider identifying and supporting local efforts to enact stronger laws using the Norfolk model.
1 Overview and Unique Considerations of Health Care Entities 01-13 ; Purpose 01 ; Applicability 02-06 ; Classification of Health Care Entities 07-08 ; Regulatory Environment 09-13 ; Health Care Reform 12-13 ; 2 General Auditing Considerations 01-119 ; Overview 01-02 ; An Audit of Financial Statements 03-09 ; Audit Risk 05-09 ; Terms of Engagement 10-14 ; Business Associate Agreements 14 ; Audit Planning 15-18 ; Group Audits 19-24 ; Multi-Location Audits Versus Group Audits 23 ; Complex Transactions 24 ; Materiality 25-30 ; Performance Materiality 29-30 ; Qualitative Aspects of Materiality 31-32 ; Use of Assertions in Assessment of Risks of Material Misstatement 33-34 ; Risk Assessment Procedures 35-57 ; Risk Assessment Procedures and Related Activities 37-43 ; The Entity and Its Environment 44-57 ; Additional Audit Considerations 58-99 ; Analytical Procedures 58-59 ; Accounting Estimates 60-62 ; Transactions Processed by Service Organizations 63-66 ; Compliance with Laws and Regulations 67-77 ; Going-Concern Considerations 78-92 ; Written Representations 93-99 ; Independent Auditor's Reports 100-102 ; Single Audit Act and Related Audit Considerations 103-109 ; Statutory Reporting Considerations for Health Plans 110-119 ; Risk-Based Capital Requirements 114-115 ; Deficiencies in Internal Control 116 ; Communicating Internal Control Matters in an Audit 117 ; Communications with Regulators 118-119 ; 3 Unique Financial Statement Considerations for Not-for-Profit Business-Oriented Health Care Entities 01-43 ; Complete Set of Financial Statements 02-05 ; Balance Sheet 06-08 ; Statement of Operations 09-28 ; Performance Indicator 12-17 ; Other Intermediate Subtotals 18-20 ; Discontinued Operations and Accounting Changes 21-22 ; Revenues 23-25 ; Expenses 26-28 ; Statement of Changes in Net Assets (or Equity) 29-32 ; Statement of Cash Flows 33-37 ; Notes to the Financial Statements 38 ; Subsequent Events 39-41 ; Example Financial Statements 42-43 ; 4 Cash, Cash Equivalents, and Investments 01-75 ; Cash and Cash Equivalents 01-11 ; Centralized Cash Management Arrangements 03-06 ; Cash from Restricted Donations 07 ; Other Restricted or Designated Cash Amounts 08-11 ; Investments 12-73 ; Fair Value Option 17-22 ; Investments in Debt Securities and Certain Equity Securities with a Readily Determinable Fair Value That Are Not Recorded Under the Fair Value Option 23-35 ; Investments in Certain Other Financial Instruments without a Readily Determinable Fair Value That Are Not Recorded Under the Fair Value Option 36-38 ; Investment Pools 39-47 ; Fair Value Measurements 48 ; Impairment of Investments 49-59 ; Securities Lending Activities 60 ; Transfers of Assets to an NFP or Charitable Trust for Investment 61-63 ; Regulation 64 ; Other Financial Statement Presentation Matters 65-73 ; Auditing 74-75 ; 5 Derivatives 01-44 ; Introduction 01-05 ; General Guidance 06-07 ; Accounting for Changes in Fair Value of Derivative Instruments 08-12 ; Fair Value Hedges 09 ; Cash Flow Hedges 10-11 ; Derivatives Not Designated as a Hedging Instrument 12 ; Hedge Accounting Requirements 13-28 ; Shortcut Method 20-28 ; Hybrid Instruments, Host Contracts, and Embedded Derivatives 29-37 ; Calls and Puts in Debt 33-34 ; Derivatives Embedded in Split-Interest Agreements 35-37 ; Other Matters 38-43 ; Changes in Fair Value of Hedged Item 38 ; Termination of Cash Flow Hedge by Debt Extinguishment 39 ; Additional Presentation and Disclosure Requirements for NFP Business-Oriented Health Care Entities 40-43 ; Auditing 44 ; 6 Property and Equipment and Other Assets 01-53 ; Overview 01-05 ; Capitalized Interest 06-11 ; Supplies, Rebates, and Discounts 12-13 ; Lessee Involvement in Fixed Asset Construction 14-17 ; Asset Retirement and Environmental Remediation Obligations 18-20 ; Impairment or Disposal 21-31 ; Discontinued Operations 28-31 ; Nonreciprocal Transfers 32-34 ; Other Long-Lived Assets 35-43 ; Financial Statement Presentation 44-47 ; Auditing 48-53 ; 7 Municipal Bond Financing 01-124 ; Introduction 01-13 ; Conduit Bonds That Trade in Public Markets 06-08 ; Credit Enhancement 09-11 ; Issuance of Municipal Bonds 12-13 ; Extinguishment and Modification Transactions 14-17 ; Calls and Mode Conversions 18-39 ; Defeasance 20-26 ; Modifications 27-31 ; Gain or Loss on Debt Extinguishment 32-33 ; Debt Issuance Costs Incurred in Connection With an ; Exchange or Modification of Debt Instruments 34-36 ; Puts or Tender Options 37-39 ; IRS Considerations 40-44 ; Financial Statement Presentation and Disclosure 45-72 ; Balance Sheet 45-63 ; Statement of Operations 64-65 ; Disclosures 66-72 ; Obligated Group Reporting 73-74 ; Interim Financial Reporting 75-76 ; Auditing 77-123 ; General 77-85 ; Auditor Involvement with Municipal Securities Filings 86-112 ; Letters for Underwriters and Other Requesting Parties 113-119 ; Reference to the Auditor as an "Expert" 120 ; Attestation Engagements Related to Municipal Securities Issuance 121-123 ; Appendix -- Municipal Securities Regulation 124 ; 8 Contingencies and Other Liabilities 01-129 ; Contingencies and Commitments 02-61 ; The Essentials of Recognition, Measurement, and Disclosure for Contingencies 03-09 ; Managing Risk of Loss 10-12 ; Medical Malpractice 13-47 ; Disclosures for Medical Malpractice 48-53 ; Physician Guarantees and Other Agreements With Physicians 54-61 ; Other Liabilities 62-86 ; Asset Retirement Obligations 62-64 ; Compensation and Related Benefits 65-76 ; Joint and Several Liability Arrangements 77-82 ; Agency Funds 83-84 ; Fees Paid to the Federal Government by Health Insurers 85-86 ; Tax Considerations for NFP Health Care Entities 87-101 ; Private Inurement and Intermediate Sanctions 94-95 ; Unrelated Business Income 96 ; State and Local Taxes 97 ; Tax Positions 98-99 ; Medicaid Voluntary Contribution or Taxation Programs 100-101 ; Risks and Uncertainties 102-108 ; Auditing Contingencies and Other Liabilities 109-127 ; Auditing Medical Malpractice Loss Contingencies 110-113 ; Auditing Accounting Estimates 114-119 ; Use of Actuaries and Actuarial Methods 120-123 ; Evaluating Lawyers' Responses 124-127 ; Income Taxes 128 ; Auditing Considerations 129 ; 9 Net Assets (Equity) 01-38 ; Investor-Owned Health Care Entities 01 ; Not-for-Profit Entities 02-25 ; Net Asset Classes 05-18 ; Reclassifications 19-25 ; Classification of Donor-Restricted Endowment Funds 26-32 ; Disclosure 33-37 ; Auditing 38 ; 10 Health Care Service Revenue and Related Receivables 01-61 ; Overview of the Health Care Environment 01-15 ; Rate Setting With Third-Party Payors 05-10 ; The Government Payor Environment 11-14 ; Charity Care 15 ; Types of Health Care Revenue 16 ; Types of Payment Methodologies 17 ; Patient (or Resident) Service Revenue 18-36 ; Revenue Recognition 18-29 ; Accounting and Financial Reporting Requirements 30-36 ; Premium and Capitation Revenues 37-40 ; Patient Receivables 41-45
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Herausgeber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie diese Quelle zitieren möchten.
The videos and speeches of the Bradley prize winners are up. My video here (Grumpy in a tux!), also the speech which I reproduce below. All the videos and speeches here (Betsy DeVos and Nina Shea) My previous interview with Rick Graeber, head of the Bradley foundation. Bradley also made a nice introduction video with photos from my childhood and early career. (A link here to the introduction video and speech together.) And to avoid us spending all our talks on thanking people, they had us write out a separate thanks. That seems not to be up yet, but I include mine below. I am very thankful, humbled to be included in such august company, and not so boorish that I would not have spent my whole talk without mentioning that, absent the separate opportunity to say so. Bradley prize remarks (i.e. condense three decades of policy writing into 10 minutes): Creeping stagnation ought to be recognized as the central economic issue of our time. Economic growth since 2000 has fallen almost by half compared with the last half of the 20th Century. The average American's income is already a quarter less than under the previous trend. If this trend continues, lost growth in fifty years will total three times today's economy. No economic issue — inflation, recession, trade, climate, income diversity — comes close to such numbers.Growth is not just more stuff, it's vastly better goods and services; it's health, environment, education, and culture; it's defense, social programs, and repaying government debt.Why are we stagnating? In my view, the answer is simple: America has the people, the ideas, and the investment capital to grow. We just can't get the permits. We are a great Gulliver, tied down by miles of Lilliputian red tape. How much more can the US grow? Looking around the world, we see that even slightly better institutions produce large improvements in living standards. US taxes and regulations are only a bit less onerous than those in Canada and the UK, but US per capita income is 40% greater. Bigger improvements have enormous effects. US per capita income is 350% greater than Mexico's and 950% greater than India's. Unless you think the US is already perfect, there is a lot we can do. How can we improve the US economy? I offer four examples.I don't need to tell you how dysfunctional health care and insurance are. Just look at your latest absurd bill. There is no reason that health care cannot be provided in the same way as lawyering, accounting, architecture, construction, airplane travel, car repair, or any complex personal service. Let a brutally competitive market offer us better service at lower prices. There is no reason that health insurance cannot function at least as well as life, car, property, or other insurance. It's easy to address standard objections, such as preexisting conditions, asymmetric information, and so on.How did we get in this mess? There are two original sins. First, in order to get around wage controls during WWII, the government allowed a tax deduction for employer-based group plans, but not for portable insurance. Thus preexisting conditions were born: if you lose your job, you lose health insurance. Patch after patch then led to the current mess. Second, the government wants to provide health care to poor people, but without visibly taxing and spending a lot. So, the government forces hospitals to treat poor people below cost, and recoup the money by overcharging everyone else. But an overcharge cannot stand competition, so the government protects hospitals and insurers from competition. You'll know health care is competitive when, rather than hide prices, hospitals spam us with offers as airlines and cell phone companies do. There is no reason why everyone's health care and insurance must be so screwed up to help the poor. A bit of taxing and spending instead — budgeted, appropriated, visible — would not stymie competition and innovation. Example 2: Banking offers plenty of room for improvement. In 1933, the US suffered a great bank run. Our government responded with deposit insurance. Guaranteeing deposits stops runs, but it's like sending your brother-in-law to Las Vegas with your credit card, what we economists call an "incentive for risk taking." The government piled on regulations to try to stop banks from taking risks. The banks got around the regulations, new crises erupted, new guarantees and regulations followed. This spring, the regulatory juggernaut failed to detect simple interest rate risk, and Silicon Valley Bank had a run, followed by others. The Fed and FDIC bailed out depositors and promised more rules. This system is fundamentally broken. The answer: Deposits should flow to accounts backed by reserves at the Fed, or short-term treasuries. Banks should get money for risky loans by issuing stock or long term debt that can't run. We can end private-sector financial crises forever, with next to no regulation. There is a lesson in these stories. If we want to improve regulations, we can't just bemoan them. We must understand how they emerged. As in health and banking, a regulatory mess often emerges from a continual patchwork, in which each step is a roughly sensible repair of the previous regulation's dysfunction. The little old lady swallowed a fly, a spider to catch the fly, and so on. Now horse is on the menu. Only a start-from-scratch reform will work.Much regulation protects politically influential businesses, workers, and other constituencies from the disruptions of growth. Responsive democracies give people what they want, good and hard. And in return, regulation extorts political support from those beneficiaries. We have to fix the regulatory structure, to give growth a seat at the table. Economists are somewhat at fault too. They are taught to look at every problem, diagnose "market failure," and advocate new rules to be implemented by an omniscient, benevolent planner. But we do not live in a free market. When you see a problem, look first for the regulation that caused it.Example 3: Taxes are a mess, with high marginal rates that discourage work, investment and production; disappointing revenue; and massive, wasteful complexity. How can the government raise revenue while doing the least damage to the economy? A uniform consumption tax is the clear answer. Tax money when people spend it. When earnings are saved, invested, plowed into businesses that produce goods and services and employ people, leave them alone.Example 4: Bad incentives are again the unsung central problem of our social programs. Roughly speaking, from zero to about sixty thousand dollars of income, if you earn an extra dollar, you lose a dollar of benefits. Fix the incentives, and more people will get ahead in life. We will also better help the truly needy, and the budget.Some more general points unite these stories:Focus on incentives. Politics and punditry are consumed with taking from A to give to B. Incentives are far more important for economic growth, and we can say something objective about them. Find the question. Politics and punditry usually advance answers without stating the question, or shop around for questions to justify the same old answers. Most people who disagree with the consumption tax really have different goals than funding the government with minimum economic damage. Well, what do you want the tax system to do? State the question, let's find the best answer to the question, and we can make a lot of progress.Look at the whole system. Tax disincentives come from the total difference between the value your additional work creates and what you can consume as a result. Between these lie payroll, income, excise, property, estate, sales, and corporate taxes, and more, at the federal, state, and local level. Greg Mankiw figured his all-in marginal tax rate at 90%, and even he left out sales, property, and a few more taxes. Social-program disincentives come from the combined phaseout of food stamps, housing subsidies, medicaid or Obamacare subsidies, disability payments, tax credits, and so on, down to low-income parking passes. And look at taxes and social programs together. A flat tax that finances checks to worthy people is very progressive government, if you want that. Looking at an individual tax or program for its disincentives or progressivity is silly. The list goes on. Horrible public education, labor laws, licensing laws, zoning, building and planning restrictions, immigration restrictions, regulatory barriers, endless lawsuits, prevailing-wage and domestic-content rules, are all sand in the productivity gears. Oh, and I haven't even gotten to money and inflation yet! And that just fixes our current economy. Long-term growth comes from new ideas. Many economists say we have run out of ideas; growth is ending; slice the pie. I look out the window and I see factory-built mini nuclear power plants that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is strangling; I see a historic breakthrough in artificial intelligence, facing an outcry for the government to stop it. I see advances in biology that portend much better health and longevity, but good luck getting FDA approval or increasingly politicized research funding.Many conservatives disparage this "incentive economics" as outdated and boring. That attitude is utterly wrong. Incentives, and the freedom, rights, and rule of law that preserve incentives, remain the key to tremendous and widespread prosperity. And it is hard work to understand and fix the incentives behind today's problems.Yes, supply is less glamorous than stimulus. "Fix regulations" is a tougher slogan than "free money for voters." Efficiency requires detailed reform in every agency and market, the Marie-Kondo approach to our civic life. But it's possible. And we don't need to reform all the dinosaurs. As we have seen with telephones, airlines, and taxis, we just need to allow new competitors, to allow the buds of freedom to grow.Many people ask, "How can we get leaders to listen?" That's the wrong question. Believe in democracy, not bending the emperor's ear. Take action. My fellow prizewinners have grabbed the levers of influence that belong to citizens of our free society, and done hard work of reforming its institutions. And ideas matter. The Hoover Institution motto is "ideas defining a free society." The Bradley Foundation tonight celebrates good ideas, and is devoted to spreading them. When voters, media, the chattering classes, and institutions of civil society understand, advance and apply these ideas, politicians will swiftly follow. Notes:Growth: Real GDP 1950:I was $2186 billion, and per capita $14500; in 2000:I, $12935 and per capita $45983; in 2022:IV, $20182 and per capita 60376. From these numbers, average log real GDP growth 1950-2000 was 3.56% From 2000-2002, 1.96%. In per capita terms, 2.31% and 1.20%. (2.31-1.20)x22 = 24.4. Cross-country comparison: Calculations based on purchasing-power-adjusted GDP per capita: US $69,287, Canada $52,790, UK $50,890, Mexico $19,587, India $7,242. Source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD The PPP adjustment tries to take account that some things are cheaper in other countries. Converting at the exchange rate produces even larger differences. US $70.248, Canada $51,987, UK $46,510, Mexico $10,065, India $2,256. Source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CDMankiw: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/business/economy/10view.htmlThanksI have been fortunate to benefit from the effort, time, wisdom and affection of so many people, and many institutions that supported their efforts.Of course it starts with my parents, Eric and Lydia Cochrane. They expected children to think and speak at the family dinner table. They exposed me to different cultures, on the south side of Chicago and in Italy, sometimes beyond my desires. They set an example by how they lived: They steadfastly followed their intellectual pursuits with extreme honesty. They treated people with a radical egalitarianism. And then left me alone to pursue my own passions. I was lucky to learn from some extraordinary and dedicated teachers, at the Ancona Montessori School, the U of C Lab school, Italian public schools, and Kenwood high school. There, in an inner city public school, Arlene Gordon (Math), Judith Stein (English) Walter Sherrill (Chemistry) and especially Joel Hofslund (Physics) gave me absolutely first rate experience. Thanks also to Ed Shands' patient coaching of our swim team. I moved on to MIT to study physics. This was more impersonal, and a difficult time for me, but as it turned out a superb education in the kind of mathematical modeling essential to economics. I went on to study economics at the University of California at Berkeley. Faculty took PhD teaching seriously, not just of their own research, and I soaked it up. I thank especially my advisers, Roger Craine, Tom Rothermberg, and George Akerlof. Many of their lessons are vivid today, but like my parents they provided only gentle guidance and feedback on my own imperfect quests. I was supremely luck to land a job at the University of Chicago. I learned a tremendous amount in the wide open collegial atmosphere at Chicago, thanks in large part to Lars Hansen and Gene Fama, but also colleagues too numerous to mention in this short space. Generations of MBA and PhD students also pushed me hard to understand economics and became lifelong friends and colleagues. At just the right moment Hoover came calling, allowing me the time and institutional support to blossom as a public intellectual and commenter as well as an academic. A special thanks to John Raisin for that. No man is an island. The world of ideas is a conversation. Everything I know has been shaped by teachers, friends, colleagues, collaborators, students, journal editors, referees, and others who took the time and effort to help me think about things. Many small interactions have had a crucial effect on my life. A coffee conversation at a conference with John Campbell resulted in our best known academic paper. A lunch conversation with Luigi Zingales produced my first public writing during the financial crisis. As a result, Amity Shlaes invited me to a conference. Howard Dickman, then at the Wall Street Journal, liked my presentation and asked, "Why don't you write opeds for us?" I answered, "Why don't you stop rejecting them?" My oped career was born. And so forth. I thank these and many more, and lady luck who put us together. Of course my greatest thanks go to my wonderful wife, Elizabeth Fama. We met the night I returned to Chicago. It was love at first sight. We were engaged on the second date. She has been my best friend and constant companion ever since, though marriage to a passionate researcher, busy teacher and lover of time consuming sports cannot have been easy. Together we raised four amazing children, Sally, Eric, Jean, and Lake, who fill my heart with love, and now that they are grown a bit of nostalgia.
One year after a national election in which the Democrats won not only the presidency but 18 congressional seats and 9 new senators, the party lost two major gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, but won an unexpected congressional seat in upstate New York. Clearly, Obama's coattails did not prove strong enough to bring out the two groups that helped him go over the top in last year's election, namely, the youth vote and the African American votes. There are many lessons to be learned by both parties from this past week' s elections, but there is also the risk of over interpreting results as a prequel of next year's mid-term elections. First, in an "off-off" year, most of the electorate was indifferent to the elections, worried as they are about more pressing issues such as higher taxes, the ever-expanding deficit and more than anything else, about unemployment, which has just surpassed the 10% mark in spite of reported GDP growth of 3.5% this quarter. Second, the state gubernatorial races were played out at the local level and had more to do with the candidates themselves than with the voters 'discontent with the President. Indeed, in a Virginia exit poll, 60% of the voters said that they had based their vote on state issues, while only 24% of those polled said they had used their vote to express their dissatisfaction with the President and 20% to express their support for him. On the other hand, Congressional elections reflect more of the national mood, and here the Democrats were winners: due to an inner brawl among Republicans, they unexpectedly won a seat the Republicans had held since the 1870s in the twenty-third district of New York. still, just as it would be a mistake to give national significance to the state races, it would also be silly to miss the obvious: the preponderant mood in the country is anti-incumbency, and this affects both parties. But clearly, independents who voted for Obama are re-directing their votes toward the Republicans and becoming savvier, more issue specific voters. In addition, both parties have base problems: the Democrats need to figure out how to get their base to the polls during off-year elections, and the Republicans must find ways to control their base so that it does not destroy the party. Turnout was the definitive factor in both gubernatorial races: it fell from 3.7 million to under 2 million in Virginia, and from almost 4 million to 2.3 million in New Jersey. The Republicans and Independents were more energized than the Democratic base, so they voted in larger numbers. Young voters between 18 and 29 years of age represented only 10% in Virginia and 9% in New Jersey. In contrast, in the 2008 presidential race they represented 21% and 17% respectively, and are credited for delivering the states to Obama in both cases. In New Jersey, an unpopular Democratic incumbent, albeit an Obama ally, lost to a new Republican face that ran on a fiscally conservative platform. Obama's appeal was apparently weaker than the voters' aversion for Jon Corzine, so U.S district attorney Chris Christie won, becoming the first Republican to win that position in 12 years. In Virginia, Bob McDonnell underplayed his extreme socially conservative views and his connection to Christian Right leader Pat Robertson. Instead, he ran a positive campaign based on job creation, quality of life for Virginians and fiscal responsibility. His opponent, Creigh Deeds, ran a negative TV ad campaign based on his opponent's social conservatism and his ideology as reflected in a misogynist twenty-year old thesis. In a calculation that backfired, Deeds distanced himself from President Obama for most of his campaign, only to turn to him towards the end. It proved to be too late. On that sunny autumnal day, Democratic voters, especially African Americans and young voters, the two groups than gave Obama his victory in Virginia, were absent from the polls. After eight years of two outstanding Democratic governors, the Executive Mansion in Richmond reverted to Republicans. Unlike Governor Warner who in 2005 prepared the way for his successor, Tim Kaine had spent most of 2009 out of the state, in his new national role as chairman the Democratic National Committee, and did very little to help Deeds. Kaine's national ambition seems to have gotten in the way of his local role as Deeds' promoter and cheerleader, and he became, in the words of Professor Larry Sabato, more of a "partisan rather than a unifying figure" at home. However, the apathy of Democratic voters has deeper roots than just civic irresponsibility or lack of engagement. It is also a reflection of disillusion and even rage with the failure of the Obama administration to create jobs and to deal with Wall Street in stricter terms, for example by breaking up the "too-big-to-fail" banks, introducing stricter regulation of derivatives trading and by reducing of CEO's compensation. Again, in spite of all the rhetoric, Obama seems to have bailed out Wall Street at the expense of middle-class tax payers and small businesses. In sum, Obama's young followers and liberals stayed home because Obama is moving too slowly in crucial issues; independents switched parties because of their own fears of losing their jobs and facing higher taxes, as well as to punish the Democrats for too much government spending with little results for higher employment; and McDonnell benefited as much from a weak, erratic opponent who ran a terrible campaign as he did from his own smart strategy and pragmatic style.While the main problem then for Democrats is how to energize the base so that they can fulfill their civic duty and vote, the Republicans have the opposite problem: how to control their base so that it does not get in the way of allowing the party to field moderate candidates that can get the Independent vote. In this sense, what happened in New York 23rd district may be a blessing in disguise for the Republicans, as it will teach them a lesson in time for next year mid-term election. In this previously little known congressional district near the Canadian border, the Republican Party nominated moderate Assemblywoman DeDe Scozzafava in a special election called to fill the seat of Representative JohnMcHugh (R-NY) who had been appointed Secretary of the Army by President Obama. This was regarded as a safe Republican seat given that the party had held it for over 100 years. However, in a twist of events that took both parties by surprise, Conservatives rebelled against the party nominee, whose social values were deemed too liberal, and fielded their own candidate, Doug Hoffman, with the support of talk show celebrities Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Sarah Palin. The Club for Growth, main supporter of Tea Partiers and Birthers, poured a lot of money in support of Hoffman, and consequently Scozzafava, the official Republican Party nominee, started training in the polls. On the weekend before the election, Scozzafava abandoned the race and endorsed the Democratic candidate! The Right was jubilant, confident of a victory in this rural district, which has very few immigrants and is 93% white. Indeed, Fox news insisted on predicting a "tidal wave" in favor of the Conservative candidate all throughout Election Day, only to be forced to concede at past midnight that instead, the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens, had won. The election in the 23rd district, then, served as a warning to Republicans of whatnot to do in 2010. While the two Republicans that won the gubernatorial races did so by moving to center, thus appealing to Independents and moderates, the main losers in New York state were the Tea Partiers and Birthers who have taken advantage of the vacuum of leadership at the top, have hijacked the Republican Party and made the country at times seem ungovernable. Let it be noted here that both conservative candidates then- to- be governors elect, Chris Christie in New Jersey and Bob McDonnell in Virginia, had rejected Palin's offer to campaign for them. Recognizing the relevance of this kind of wisdom, as well as his good looks and ability to persuade, McDonnell is already being touted as a possible candidate for the 2012 national ticket.2009 will be remembered as the year of anti-incumbency, but this anti-incumbent mood is not so much about Obama, who still enjoys close to 60% of popularity, as it is about government in general. Indeed, every special Congressional election since Obama assumed the presidency has been won by Democrats even in seats previously held by Republicans. In politics, one year is an eternity, so it is difficult to extrapolate the November 3rd results to next year's mid-term election. It all depends on whether the economic stimulus starts to work more consistently and is translated into jobs. The passage of health care reform by the House is undoubtedly a victory for Democrats, but it was a narrow one, with 39 Democrats voting against it, in spite of serious compromises by House Speaker Pelosi, including one amendment that prohibits the use of federal money for abortion and that is already under fire by the party's liberals. If the so-called Stupak amendment is not taken out in House-Senate conference, then the Party may see a huge backlash by women and other groups. Still, health care reform will be a reality by year's end, and once it passes it will become sacred: voters will embrace it (as they did with Medicaid and Medicare, as well as Social Security) and, together with job recovery, it may become the basis of a better mid-term election for Democrats than most pundits are predicting now.Finally, while the two gubernatorial races were won by the Republicans, and can be read as a warning to incumbent governors everywhere in next year's elections, it is clear that the largest group that went to the polls were mainly McCain voters, as well as disgruntled independent voters who shifted to the right. And while this trend is good news for the Republicans, the inexorable weight of demographics is against them: these races were won by an overwhelmingly white and older, more male than female, electorate who constitute at the same time an increasingly smaller percentage of the population as a whole. The fastest-rising voting groups do not vote for the Republican Party, which they consider the party "without ideas". To win next year, the GOP needs to regroup fast, get rid of the Palin-Limbaugh baggage and find new leadership. A year has gone by since their huge electoral loss and they have yet to find it. Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science and Geography Director, ODU Model United Nations Program Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Herausgeber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie diese Quelle zitieren möchten.
Cass Sunstein has a lovely New York Times essay that tries to give us back the word "Liberal." I hope it works. "Liberal" from "Libertas" means, at bottom, freedom. In the 19th century, "liberals" were devoted to personal, economic, and increasing social freedom from government restraint. "Conservatives" wanted to maintain aristocratic privileges, and government interventions in the traditional way of doing things. The debate was not so obvious. Conservatives defended their view of aristocratic power in a noblesse-oblige concern for little people that the unfettered free market might leave behind, in a way quite reminiscent of today's elites who think they should run the government in the name of the downtrodden (or "nudge" them, if I can poke a little fun at Sunstein's earlier work). But by the 1970s, the labels had flipped. "Liberals" were advocates of big-state interventionism, in a big tent that included communists and marxists. It became a synonym of "left." "Conservatives" became a strange alliance of free market economics and social conservatism. The word "classical liberal" or "libertarian" started to be used to refer to heirs of the enlightenment "liberal" tradition, broadly emphasizing individual liberty and limited rule of law government in both economic and social spheres. But broadly, "liberal" came to mean more government intervention and Democrat, while "conservative" came to mean less state intervention and Republican, at least in rhetoric. But a new force has come to the fore. The heirs of the far-left marxists and communists are now, .. what shall we call them.. perhaps "censorious totalitarian progressives." Sunstein calls them "post liberals." The old alliance between center-left and far left is tearing apart, and Oct 7 was a wake up call for many who had skated over the division. Largely, then, I read Sunstein's article as a declaration of divorce. They are not us, they are not "liberals." And many of you who call yourselves "conservatives," "free marketers" or even "libertarians" should join us to fight the forces of illiberalism left and right, even if by now you probably completely gave up on the New York Times and read the Free Press instead. Rhetoric: Sunstein is brilliantly misleading. He writes what liberalism "is" or what liberals "believe," as if the word were already defined his way. It is not, and the second part of this post quotes another NYT essay with a quite different conception of "liberal." This is an essay about what liberal should mean. I salute that. It's interesting that Sunstein wants to rescue the traditional meaning of "liberal," rather than shade words in current use. "Classical liberal," is mostly the same thing, but currently shades a bit more free market than he'd like. "Neoliberal" is an insult but really describes most of his views. People have turned insults around to proud self-identifiers before. "Libertarian," probably has less room for the state and conservativism than Sunstein, and most people confuse "libertarian" with "anarchist." It's interesting he never mentions the word. Well, let's rescue "liberal." Here are some excerpts of Sunstein's 37 theses. I reorganized into topics. What is "liberalism"? 1. Liberals believe in six things: freedom, human rights, pluralism, security, the rule of law and democracy....6. The rule of law is central to liberalism. ...It calls for law that is prospective, allowing people to plan, rather than retroactive, defeating people's expectations. It requires conformity between law on the books and law in the world. It calls for rights to a hearing (due process of law)....Liberalism requires law evenly applied, not "show me the man, and I'll find the crime." It requires a legal system in which each of us is not guilty of "Three Felonies a Day," unprotected unless we are trouble to those in power. 10. Liberals believe that freedom of speech is essential to self-government....11. Liberals connect their opposition to censorship to their commitment to free and fair elections, which cannot exist if people are unable to speak as they wish. ...They agree with ... "the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." It's freedom, individual dignity, equality before the law and the state. Economics On economic matters, "liberalism" starts with the basic values of the laissez-faire tradition, because the right to transact freely is one of the most basic freedoms there is:15. Liberals prize free markets, insisting that they provide an important means by which people exercise their agency. Liberals abhor monopolies, public or private, on the ground that they are highly likely to compromise freedom and reduce economic growth. At the same time, liberals know that unregulated markets can fail, such as when workers or consumers lack information or when consumption of energy produces environmental harm.On the latter point, Sunstein later acknowledges room for a variety of opinion on just how effective government remedies are for such "failures" of "unregulated markets." I'm a free marketer not because markets are perfect but because governments are usually worse. A point we can respectfully debate with fact and logic.16. Liberals believe in the right to private property. But nothing in liberalism forbids a progressive income tax or is inconsistent with large-scale redistribution from rich to poor. Liberals can and do disagree about the progressive income tax and on whether and when redistribution is a good idea. Many liberals admire Lyndon Johnson's Great Society; many liberals do not.I endorse this as well, which you may find surprising. Economics really has nothing to say about non-distorting transfers. Economists can only point out incentives, and disincentives. Redistribution tends to come with bad incentives. "Liberals" can and do argue about how bad the disincentives are, and if the purported benefits of redistribution are worth it. Cass allows liberals (formerly "conservatives") who "do not" admire extensive federal government social programs, because of their disincentives. Me.17. Many liberals are enthusiastic about the contemporary administrative state; many liberals reject itI also agree. I'm one of those who largely rejects it, but it's a matter of degree on disincentives, government competence, and the severity of the problems being addressed. "Liberals" can productively debate this matter of degree. Liberalism is a framework for debate, not an answer to these economic questions. Integrating ConservativismIntegrating "conservative" into "liberal" is one of Sunstein's charms, and I agree. He is also trying to find a common ground in the "center," that tussles gently on the size of government while respecting America's founding enlightenment values, and unites many across the current partisan divide. 2...Those who consider themselves to be leftists may or may not qualify as liberals. You can be, at once, a liberal, as understood here, and a conservative; you can be a leftist and illiberal. 22. A liberal might think that Ronald Reagan was a great president and that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an abomination; a liberal might think that Roosevelt was a great president and that Reagan was an abomination. "Conserativism" properly means conserving many of the traditions of our society, rather than burning it down once a generation striving for utopia, and having it dissolve into tyranny. Sunstein's "liberalism" is conservative 24. Liberals favor and recognize the need for a robust civil society, including a wide range of private associations that may include people who do not embrace liberalism. They believe in the importance of social norms, including norms of civility, considerateness, charity and self-restraint. They do not want to censor any antiliberals or postliberals, even though some antiliberals or postliberals would not return the favor. On this count, they turn the other cheek. Liberals have antiliberal and postliberal friends.26. .. if people want the government to act in illiberal ways — by, for example, censoring speech, violating the rights of religious believers, preventing certain people from voting, entrenching racial inequality, taking private property without just compensation, mandating a particular kind of prayer in schools or endorsing a particular set of religious convictions — liberals will stand in opposition.The latter includes, finally, a bit of trends on the right that "liberals" do not approve of, and they don't. 28. Some people (mostly on the right) think that liberals oppose traditions or treat traditions cavalierly and that liberalism should be rejected for that reason. In their view, liberals are disrespectful of traditions and want to destroy them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Consider just a few inherited ideals, norms and concepts that liberals have defended, often successfully, in the face of focused attack for decades: republican self-government; checks and balances; freedom of speech; freedom of religion; freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; due process of law; equal protection; private property.29. Liberals do not think it adequate to say that an ideal has been in place for a long time. As Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. put it: "It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past." Still, liberals agree that if an ideal has been with us for a long time, there might be a lot to say in its favor.A lover of freedom can also admire rule of law, tradition, and custom. Why do we have private property? A illiberal, like many college students fresh to the world, might start from basic philosophical principles, and state that all of the earth's bounty should be shared equally, and head out to the ramparts to seize power. As a philosophical principle, it can sound reasonable. But our society and its laws, traditions, and customs, has thousands of years of experience built up. A village had common fields. People over-grazed them. Putting up fences and allocating rights led to a more prosperous village. The tradition of property rights, and their quite detailed specification and limitation that evolved in our common law, responding to this experience, along with well-educated citizens' conception of right and virtue, the moral sense of property right that they learn from their forebears, can summarize thousands of years of history, without us needing to remember each case. This thought is what led me in the past to characterize myself as an empirical, conservative, rule-of-law, constitutional and pax-Americana (save that one for later) libertarian, back when the word "liberal" meant something else. But, as Holmes points out, a vibrant society must see that some of this laws and traditions are wrong, or ineffective, and thoughtfully reform them. Property rights once extended to people, after all. Most of all, the 1970s "liberal" but now "illiberal" view has been that government defines the purpose and meaning of life and society, be it religious purity, socialist utopia, or now the vanguard of the elite ruling on behalf of the pyramid of intersectional victimization. The role of the government is to mold society to that quest. "Conservatives" have thought that the purpose of life and society is defined by individuals, families, churches, communities, scholars, arts, culture, private institutions of civil society, via lively reasoned debate; society can accommodate great variety in these views, and the government's purpose is just to enforce simple rules, and keep the debate peaceful, not to define and lead us to the promised land. I read Sunstein, correctly, to restore the word "liberal" to this later view, though it had largely drifted to the former. Who isn't liberal? The progressive leftWho isn't a "liberal," to Sunstein? If you've been around university campuses lately, you know how much today's "progressives" ("post-liberals") have turned politics into a tribal, warlike affair. This is who Sunstein is really unhappy with, and to whom this essay is a declaration of divorce: 5. ...liberals ... do not like tribalism. ... They are uncomfortable with discussions that start, "I am an X, and you are a Y,"... Skeptical of identity politics, liberals insist that each of us has many different identities and that it is usually best to focus on the merits of issues, not on one or another identity.I would add, liberals evaluate arguments by logic and evidence, not who makes the argument. Liberals accept an enlightenment idea that anything true can be discovered and understood by anyone. Truth is not just listening to "lived experience." 18. Liberals abhor the idea that life or politics is a conflict between friends and enemies.23. Liberals think that those on the left are illiberal if they are not (for example) committed to freedom of speech and viewpoint diversity. They do not like the idea of orthodoxy, including on university campuses or social media platforms. Ad of course, 30. Liberals like laughter. They are anti-anti-laughter.Old joke from my graduate school days: "How many Berkeley marxist progressives does it take to screw in a light bulb?" Answer: "I don't think that kind of humor is appropriate." ****In case you think everyone agrees on this new definition of "liberal," the essay has a link below it to another one by Pamela Paul, "Progressives aren't liberal." Paul's essay also covers some of the history of how the word was used, but in the end uses it in a quite different way from Sunstein. In the 1960s and 70s, the left proudly used the word in self-description. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan, who often prefaced [liberal] with a damning "tax and spend," may have been the most effective of bashers. ...Newt Gingrich's political organization GOPAC sent out a memo, "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control," urging fellow Republicans to use the word as a slur.It worked. Even Democrats began avoiding the dread label. In a presidential primary debate in 2007, Hillary Clinton called herself instead a "modern progressive." She avoided the term "liberal" again in 2016.I think Clinton was trying to position herself to the right of what "liberal" had become by 2016. "Progressive" has come to mean something else. But I may be wrong. Never Trump conservatives tout their bona fides as liberals in the classical, 19th century sense of the word, in part to distinguish themselves from hard-right Trumpists. Others use "liberal" and "progressive" interchangeably, even as what progressivism means in practice today is often anything but liberal — or even progressive, for that matter.In the last sentence she is right. Sunstein is not, as he appears, describing a word as it is widely used today, but a word as it is slowly becoming used, and as he would like it to be used. liberal values, many of them products of the Enlightenment, include individual liberty, freedom of speech, scientific inquiry, separation of church and state, due process, racial equality, women's rights, human rights and democracy.Here you start to think she's got the same basic big tent as Sunstein. But not so -- this essay is testament to the enduring sense of the "liberal" word as describing the big-government left, just please not quite so insane as the campus progressives: Unlike "classical liberals" (i.e., usually conservatives), liberals do not see government as the problem, but rather as a means to help the people it serves. Liberals fiercely defend Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, the Voting Rights Act and the National Labor Relations Act. They believe government has a duty to regulate commerce for the benefit of its citizens. They tend to be suspicious of large corporations and their tendency to thwart the interests of workers and consumers.Sunstein had room for disagreement on these "fierce" defenses, or at least room for reasoned argument rather than profession of essential belief before you can enter the debate. "Tout their bona fides" above also does not have quite the reach-across-the aisle non partisan flair of Sunstein's essay. I don't think Paul welcomes never-Trump classical liberals in her tent. For Paul, the divorce between "liberal" and "progressive" is real, as for many other "liberals" since the October 7 wake up: Whereas liberals hold to a vision of racial integration, progressives have increasingly supported forms of racial distinction and separation, and demanded equity in outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Whereas most liberals want to advance equality between the sexes, many progressives seem fixated on reframing gender stereotypes as "gender identity" and denying sex differences wherever they confer rights or protections expressly for women. And whereas liberals tend to aspire toward a universalist ideal, in which diverse people come together across shared interests, progressives seem increasingly wedded to an identitarian approach that emphasizes tribalism over the attainment of common ground.It is progressives — not liberals — who argue that "speech is violence" and that words cause harm. These values are the driving force behind progressive efforts to shut down public discourse, disrupt speeches, tear down posters, censor students and deplatform those with whom they disagree.Divisions became sharper after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, when many progressives did not just express support for the Palestinian cause but, in some cases, even defended the attacks as a response to colonialism, and opposed retaliation as a form of genocide. This brings us to the most troubling characteristic of contemporary progressivism. Whereas liberals tend to pride themselves on acceptance, many progressives have applied various purity tests to others on the left, and according to one recent study on the schism between progressives and liberals, are more likely than liberals to apply public censure to divergent views. This intolerance manifests as a professed preference for avoiding others with different values, a stance entirely antithetical to liberal values.Yes. But no Republicans, please. Unlike Sunstein, Paul's "Liberalism" remains unabashedly partisan. I hope Sunstein's version of the word prevails. In any case, it is nice to see the division between the Woodstock Liberals, previously fellow travelers, from the extreme progressive left, and it is nice to see this word drift back to where it belongs. This is an optimistic post for the future of our country. Happy Thanksgiving. Update: I just ran across Tyler Cowen's Classical Liberals vs. The New Right. Excellent. And I forgot to plug my own "Understanding the Left," which I still think is a great essay though nobody seems to have read it.
Part five of an interview with Robert and Joanne Frigoletto. Topics include: His father's dental practice. How dentistry changed between Robert and his father's time. Dentistry and insurance. How Robert got into pediatric dentistry. What it means to Robert and Joanne to be Italian. What it was like when Robert and Joanne moved to Leominster, MA. Finding a church to join. Italian cooking. Discrimination and derogatory ethnic terms. ; 1 ROBERT: How is it different? I guess, I don't know. LINDA: Oh, I guess I'll just give a hint. I remember last time… SPEAKER 1: Yeah, I'm just gonna -- not saying anything different. LINDA: I guess remember last time you had mentioned… ROBERT: Two generations? LINDA: Well, more, more that they established more of a relationship you had thought, your father and his, his customer. Or the patients or whatever. ROBERT: The patients, yeah. LINDA: And by the time you came along it was more a business relationship. SPEAKER 1: Yes, that's what I was gonna say. ROBERT: Yeah, I think the culture changed then, the insurance changed then. SPEAKER 1: Exactly. ROBERT: You know, they weren't paying the bill all the time anymore, I guess. But then I get… SPEAKER 1: It was on a professional level more than… ROBERT: Yeah, it was more of a professional level. LINDA: But can you give me some examples of your father… again, last time you had mentioned that some, some of these people just couldn't afford the bill. ROBERT: Sometimes they bring in the eggs and the, from the chickens, and they'll bring in the chickens. SPEAKER 1: [Laughter] ROBERT: Then they couldn't bring in the eggs. [Laughter] SPEAKER 1: [Laughter] ROBERT: Really, my life, we had eggs for the rest of our lives here, really. SPEAKER 1: [Laughter] ROBERT: But right. My, my dad used to do a lot of work for these -- 50 cents and some dollars. And I remember coming from dental school in '63, when I got out, and I thought I had a hard time 2 learning the fees, they were the same as we were charging in the clinic in Chicago, and that was like three and four dollars a filling. My father had the same fees then. SPEAKER 1: He had clinic fees instead of Boston [buttons]. ROBERT: Instead of Boston places. Yeah, certainly now Boston places and places around here about the same. SPEAKER 1: They're the same because it's all covered by insurance. ROBERT: Yeah, well, different class. So I guess he had a lot of people who are paying him on time, and those people really appreciated the doctor and patient relationship. And a lot of them are friends, and my father used to use a lot of his patients to do work, and… SPEAKER 1: Yeah, I think that was more prevalent then… ROBERT: It was more prevalent in those days where people used to use… SPEAKER 1: And you kind of… ROBERT: … their own group back and forth. But my father used to say -- there's a great quote, "If you keep spending money in town it'll eventually get back to you." That was probably a good -- he always used to tell me that. Keep using the local people in town, and it'll eventually get back to you. LINDA: That sounds good. ROBERT: Yeah, I think that's -- that's a quote that's gonna make the CD. SPEAKER 1: [Laughter] LINDA: Well, if you don't pay extra, I don't know. ROBERT: … out of all the quotes. LINDA: I don't even know about… SPEAKER 1: Yeah, right. We… LINDA: You know, we don't know. ROBERT: Right. We don't know what that means. LINDA: We don't know. ROBERT: Hidden information or whatever, that's the one or two phrase out of all of this.3 LINDA: Oh, but don't be discouraged because, again, I think… ROBERT: Oh, I'm not discouraged. LINDA: … there are more… ROBERT: I'm just talking about it, you know. SPEAKER 1: I think it's just wonderful that it's written down, and especially, and I think I mentioned this last time, in the book that we've done called City in the River, that was one of Fitchburg, the section on the Italian, the Italian section in the book, left out his father. They mentioned the other brothers, the other brother and sisters, but his father was left out. So it's nice that he's gonna be in some archives. ROBERT: I think that was a political… SPEAKER 1: Yeah, there was a … ROBERT: … it was -- for my father being involved in politics a little bit, there was some stuff. But what was… SPEAKER 1: But the Jewish section they mentioned him. There's two doctors… ROBERT: Well, that's because of my mother… SPEAKER 1: … that's Dr. Van and Dr. Phil, they mentioned Dr. Frigoletto in the Jewish part of the book. ROBERT: My mother was such a social being. SPEAKER 1: Well, they mentioned that, that's why she came here. Now… ROBERT: Everybody loved her. She was just huggy. SPEAKER 1: No, but they mentioned her because of your father's instrument on the incumbency, so it was mentioned in that part of the book. ROBERT: [Brilliant] thing. SPEAKER 1: But it's nice to have this in history. Like I say, who knows, great, great, great grandchildren, someday, may wanna find out. ROBERT: Yeah. LINDA: Oh, but it's not -- certainly that, but it's the people that wanna learn about, let's say, the history of Italians or the history of Leominster and Fitchburg. It's really for our reviewing.4 SPEAKER 1: Absolutely. And that's important, I mean, I think the more of us ought to be a little more connected with history somehow. This generation sometimes is not too interested; they're only interested in here and now. ROBERT: And the only -- the other thing that may be interesting was he had a brother and sister that came here from Grandpa, lived here for a while, Lee Marie. SPEAKER 1: Louise… Louise Frigoletto. Grandpa Frigoletto came here from Italy. ROBERT: Grandpa Frigoletto had a brother and sister from Italy who came to Fitchburg for a year or two. SPEAKER 1: A year. Didn't… ROBERT: … and that both of them ended up in California. The last time I was still there, we got to meet them about 15 years ago for the first time. They came out to my daughter's wedding, and we still talk and write letters, and [unintelligible - 00:05:11] see each other probably 'til we die. We found them too late. Wonderful Italian family. SPEAKER 1: Yes. They -- now, his parents have gone off to visit them. I never… ROBERT: The never talked much about it. I knew they went, but, you know, they came home with some pictures and by the end of the week that was it, and I never remember them calling or doing -- and yet we, you know, we went up there and struck up a nice relationship, and to this day we're constantly in touch. But somehow they didn't like they didn't like the area, and what's interestingly, culturally, I think, is that the brother, so I understand, didn't like it here and saw an ad in the Boston Paper from California saying come out and work in our produce farm, and if you spend a year with us and you work hard, we'll give you an acre of land. For five years or three years or some time, and that's what this brother 5 did, and kept getting acres of land, and now -- out in [Los Baños] you'd look like this, as far as you can see, hundreds of acres of produce that he produces… SPEAKER 1: Yeah. LINDA: Mm-hmm. SPEAKER 1: Well, now, do they have Frigoletto, or are they… ROBERT: No, they're Frigolettis… SPEAKER 1: They kept the old… ROBERT: They're the Frigolettis. SPEAKER 1: Frigoletti, right. ROBERT: Hmm. SPEAKER 1: Yeah. LINDA: Oh, yeah, but they would be, right…? SPEAKER 1: Right. LINDA: …. because… ROBERT: Because they left a year or two after Grandpa. My father might've been, you know, five years old or born recently or something like that when they left. And the… SPEAKER 1: But there's a family resemblance. LINDA: Is that…? ROBERT: Oh, I wish. I walked… SPEAKER 1: Watch. He walked like him. ROBERT: I walked into the room in California, and one of the daughters turned around and said, "You look just like Uncle…" SPEAKER 1: Tony. ROBERT: Uncle Tony, who used to be her -- Uncle Tony had died recently just before we got there, right? Showed me pictures of Tony… SPEAKER 1: They're your father's first cousin. ROBERT: My father's first cousin. I looked at the pictures and go, "Wow!" SPEAKER 1: Yeah.6 ROBERT: And I guess one of us, one of the daughters, one of the daughters' daughters who came to the wedding, yeah, and met me for the first time. This Tony used to send her money when she was going to college, was her favorite uncle, you know, always slipping the -- never met me. When she met me she took a breath because she thought Tony came back to her. And she told me that after, just for a second, because you turn around they introduced you, she says, "I took a deep breath because that was my favorite uncle. And he -- and for a second there he was again." So we knew we were the right relatives. SPEAKER 1: [Laughter] LINDA: [Laughter] ROBERT: So that's -- I don't know if that's be of interest to anybody at all. But I think the produce going and being -- and now, doing very well. He says most of the lettuce you get back East comes from us. SPEAKER 1: They made… ROBERT: … big bucks. SPEAKER 1: Big money. LINDA: Wow. SPEAKER 1: They really value the land. ROBERT: Yeah, they'd really lorded it then. LINDA: So getting back to dentistry, how did insurance change the practice? ROBERT: He didn't have that 50 cents and a dollar a week, come and get in do free work as much because all of these poor—and there are poor people who are now on welfare, which is some kind of insurance, right? And insurance paid now some of the things that were deductibles and back pays, but it separated the trust factor, and now we weren't doing so many things for free or discounts or 15 kinds of people, because we don't have to, we would get it from the insurance. But you'd always get less with the insurance with 7 all these complaints about the things you would choose to do and put doubt in people's minds. So now the relationship with the doctor who could do no wrong, which sometimes I guess he did, and insurance company always looking for their stockholders, and they have different goals, so you've got -- poor consumer was in the middle, and the relationships are more business than personal, aren't they now? So that's what happened to medicine. When I heard that medicine sometimes -- a lot of times the insurance companies would figure out the price of an appendectomy, say, and they get this from the auto insurance business. I heard this, and I think it's true that most doctors can do an appendix in 33 minutes, and it'll cost the hospital X amount of dollars, and they figure it out. And that's what you do when you got a big car fix. They say it takes 34 minutes to do this and this is the price you get for it. It doesn't matter if it's complicated or not. Because a car is not a person and doesn't have the history of diabetes or cardiac or whatnot, you know, you replace a windshield in a car, it usually goes pretty much the same way every time, not true with people. So this insurance really got kind of crazy. Now they've come up -- well, this is not even cultural -- well, this is cultural. They've come up with a new thing now, evidence-based medicine that will be coming through -- it's starting to trickle in. If you don't perform, if you don't -- say you come to me with a certain disease, certain problem, and I don't solve it in one of the three or maybe one of the only ways that most people would solve that, the insurance won't pay for it because it's not evidence-based. It has to be proven that that particular way of solving the problem is the way that most people solve it. So that's gonna take all of the 8 entrepreneur out of this. And just what they've done with the drug companies, they stifle some of the research because the people, the drug companies can't get back their dollars. So all the medicines that didn't work out and all the lawsuits they got, so they'd stopped doing a lot of extra research and the progression, and the speed of new things coming out is slower. And the same thing is gonna happen in medicine, I would guess, with evidence-based medicine there's gonna be a stifling. On the other hand the protection of crazy medicine, so you get both sides, don't you? LINDA: You hear much of that…? ROBERT: You get a protection… LINDA: Crazy medicine? ROBERT: I don't know. LINDA: Let's keep it at dentistry. ROBERT: Yeah, at dentistry? Yeah, this is people of all levels, but less and less now. Most dentists are pretty proficient. Yeah, I think in my father's day there was some bad ones around, less skilled ones around. But I don't know of any now, everybody's pretty good. LINDA: So did your father determine procedures as much in the same way you did, or was it, was insurance even determining that for you? ROBERT: Ah, no. I would not let insurance determine that. I would tell the patient the best thing, give them their choices, tell them what the insurance would pay, and if they didn't pick the worst one I'd kinda go along and do it. If they picked the worst procedure I'd tell them go someplace else. I think in my father's day, my father would pick the procedure that he thought the person could afford. That's what you're looking for, remember we said that. LINDA: Mm-hmm. ROBERT: And then give them that procedure rather than letting the patient make up their mind, because I have found that some of the poor 9 people want the best medicine, and some of the richer people don't always want the best medicine. LINDA: How did the instruments change between your father's day…? ROBERT: Surprisingly a lot of the same stuff, but two things that changed the most were the high-speed drill. Let's see, just about in the early '60s when I was getting out of school, they had this air rotor, you know, air-driven turbine rather than the old mechanical thing you saw the string going around turning the pulley. Krrrr-krrrr. SPEAKER 1: Grinding away. [Laughter] ROBERT: Right, and now it's like painting, little brush. I mean, it's really air… air-quick-caning. As you can remember now, going to the dentist, you don't feel the pressure anymore. You just hear the sound. If you forget the sound that'll be all set. The other thing is the plastics, all of the adhesives and the kinds of plastics and fiberglass materials. That was always a boring subject, dental materials, is now the hot subject, because every six months they're improving all of these white fillings, so to speak, which they haven't got yet perfected but they're getting closer every year. LINDA: Oh, wow. SPEAKER 1: And the other thing besides the material, I mean, the procedures they do, the procedures that you do that your father didn't do with children? ROBERT: Ah, yeah, the specialties of -- but that's true in medicine in general, the specialties have become more important and accepted, except you can't get this under the specialist now if you're in an HMO. [Laughter] LINDA: True. True. ROBERT: You might be going back to the generalist because it's less costly. But now we -- my brother and I would say the same thing, we 10 would get referrals from general doctors for problem cases that, to us, were not really problems because we dealt with them every day. And he used to say the same thing, he used to get problem cases that were routine. But we had extra training, and that's what specialists are for. I mean some percentage sometime of his work. LINDA: Did your father deal mostly with problems or maintenance? ROBERT: Father dealt mostly with problems, because a lot of people would come only when they had a problem. Although he was -- he would deal with a lot of six-monthers that were on maintenance. SPEAKER 1: I think it was pretty evenly divided. ROBERT: Yeah. But certainly, for a time in my dental career, maintenance and prevention became really most of my practice. As a pediatric dentist that was -- prevention was really strong, stronger than most practices. And then, now the insurance companies are in now trying to dilute a lot of the preventive things that we're doing in medicine. And the -- what do you call it? SPEAKER 1: Pendulum. ROBERT: The pendulum will swung back because they're gonna get caught ten years down the line with more expensive diseases because they didn't wanna pay for the prevention. SPEAKER 1: I think there wasn't much education when your father was practicing, so people wouldn't… ROBERT: People -- yeah, less television, less news, less -- now you can't do anything because it's out in the news, they tell you every week something new. SPEAKER 1: So a lot of his patients were problems. ROBERT: Yeah, now the drug companies are advertising directly to the consumer. The hospitals are advertising directly to the consumer – never had that 25 years ago. Looked like the doctor make the choice, which hospital to go to, which medicine to use. Now, 11 people go into doctor and say, "I wanna go to hospital A, and I want you to use pill B." SPEAKER 1: I just thought of something that might be important. Your father, Scott, is the… first of all… ROBERT: The dental staff at the Burbank Hospital. SPEAKER 1: Burbank Hospital. That's what you… ROBERT: That's right, yeah. He and Dr. Beckman were… SPEAKER 1: There were no oral surgeon in town… ROBERT: Well, no. SPEAKER 1: … they used to do the oral surgery. ROBERT: My father was -- yeah. My father was [unintelligible - 00:18:01] surgery. SPEAKER 1: Mm-hmm. I think in his other life he would come back as an… ROBERT: Back as an oral surgeon. SPEAKER 1: Yeah. ROBERT: Yeah, I learned a lot of oral surgery from my dad. SPEAKER 1: Uh-huh. ROBERT: And I think he learned by the gut of his -- how do you say that? SPEAKER 1: Pleat of his pants. ROBERT: Pleat of his pants. SPEAKER 1: Mm-hmm. ROBERT: Right. You read about it and then you practice it, huh? LINDA: Then you can just… SPEAKER 1: Confident. ROBERT: Yeah, they were no -- oh, very good. Very good at tooth extractions, and a lot of people would come in. They didn't have root canals in those days, right, so you'd end up taking out the tooth. SPEAKER 1: He wasn't doing major facial surgery. We're talking of… ROBERT: No. Doing internal, oral… SPEAKER 1: Yeah, root canals…12 ROBERT: Yeah. SPEAKER 1: … extractions, yeah. LINDA: Well, I was going to ask you about pulling teeth. It seems as though people back then would just have their tooth pulled… ROBERT: Tooth pulled out and not saved, and nowadays, people are saving their teeth. Maybe years -- in his early practice, how that 70 percent of the people had full dentures, huh. Population maybe over 50 percent certainly… SPEAKER 1: Really? ROBERT: … had full dentures, and now it's down to like 25 percent. And I can remember teenagers coming into his practice when I was there the first few years and saying, "I want all my teeth out," 16, 17 years old, and my father would refuse to do it. And two months later he would tell me he would see them with dentures. LINDA: Now, why would they do that? ROBERT: Because they were here to have it made, they had money to fix them, and someone told them just get them all out of teeth and get dentures, and what a terrible thing. And my father wouldn't do it, and a number of people wouldn't do it, but I guess there were two or three dentists around who would do it. My father says he'd always see those people six months later with dentures. He used to kick them out, "Hang on to these." They'd come in and ask that [unintelligible - 00:19:51]. SPEAKER 1: Again, it's… ROBERT: But I know I used to see a lot of 16-year old kids taking out one tooth at a time, and 8 months later taking out the other one, and a year later another one would go. And I know a couple of people today that are running like that. [Laughter] LINDA: Right. SPEAKER 1: Well, as long as it's a couple that…13 ROBERT: Yeah. Well, see, I'm seeing it now in Florida when I volunteered at an indigent clinic, in Florida, during the winter. Seeing the same thing now with all of the immigrants that have come in over the past 10 years and the minorities. They're really back to the '50s dental education-wise, because these minorities they go and have a toothache and have it taken out, and I see the same thing happening as what's happening back in my early days. LINDA: Now, is that because they don't have the money or the education or both? ROBERT: Both. Both. They come from third world countries, and… you know, we had a couple of dentists in town, they go every year, over to -- where do they go, Bangladesh or something? SPEAKER 1: No, no, no. They go to El Salvador. ROBERT: El Salvador? SPEAKER 1: I think. ROBERT: And he'd see people standing in the line. They walk all night for six, eight hours to be at the clinic early in the morning at the tent to have teeth taken out because they had been suffering with toothaches for months. And there's -- every morning there's a line of people, he would say. SPEAKER 1: Or Colton tells a… ROBERT: He says over there that's all we can do. And I think I mentioned to you last time, you know, people in Colombia who said, "Let's get… let's pool some dollars and get some old equipment and get it over there to the clinic in Colombia, and the Colombian doctor who was working with us in Miami said, "Don't bother, they'll get stolen within 24 hours." LINDA: Hmm. I don't remember you mentioning that. ROBERT: Oh, didn't I? LINDA: I do remember you mentioning Florida. ROBERT: Oh. So you never know.14 LINDA: See? So it's coming back to you. ROBERT: Yeah. We're trying to get a grant passed now. I sent her the stuff, a lady has the clinic, and see if we can get Rotary and Kiwanis and all of those groups involved in helping out some of the poor people in Florida. SPEAKER 1: Yeah. No one wants to do it down there. LINDA: No one wants to… SPEAKER 1: The other day, the dentist don't want to… ROBERT: No, no difference in this, with the county. SPEAKER 1: Yeah. ROBERT: You know, the welfare system is so screwed up, and the fees are so low and the people don't show for appointments. SPEAKER 1: Yeah. ROBERT: And the only way you can do it is if you had a clinic. In fact, tomorrow night there's gonna be a meeting locally in town, and the local dentist society is gonna talk about that with some of the politicians. And I think the only answer is to develop a clinic every so often and have us guys in private practice go volunteer half a day, a week, and have some kind of tax incentive. LINDA: Trying to get people to volunteer is a problem. ROBERT: Well, you gotta give them -- you gotta give them a tax incentive… LINDA: Yeah. ROBERT: … a couple of hundred bucks of a day or something like that, you know. And then -- see, years ago, my father was -- and I just finished the rest of it, I'm doing it all, the school examiner… SPEAKER 1: He asked you. Yeah. You and your father both were school dentists. ROBERT: Right. Yeah. My father was the -- well, they didn't have school dentists anymore; he would just examine teeth. But the program started with a guy named [Bumgardner] who's a living legend. The patient that used to come into my office shaking like this 15 because they were afraid of the dentist. I used to go to Dr. Bumgardner. [Laughter] SPEAKER 1: [Laughter] I actually hear some people say that to this day. ROBERT: To this day. "My parents used to go to Bumgardner." Oh, he must have been… SPEAKER 1: He must have been horrible. [Laughter] ROBERT: So he'd say -- he was the school dentist. He used to take out teeth without Novocainee and did things like that, you know, and just -- I mean, a kid could come in with a sore tooth and just yank it out. LINDA: I can remember you telling me -- I think you told me that you were known as to be more gentle than your father? SPEAKER 1: Yes. ROBERT: Oh, that story, too, yeah. SPEAKER 1: [Laughter] ROBERT: He was pretty rough. [Laughter] But people loved him. SPEAKER 1: Well, he was quick. ROBERT: Yes. If you said ouch he'd say, "Oh, shut up." SPEAKER 1: Well, yeah. Your father worked on me once. And when I said ow, he said, "That doesn't hurt." LINDA: [Laughter] ROBERT: [Laughter] That doesn't hurt. LINDA: You [unintelligible - 00:24:04] went to him once? SPEAKER 1: Once? [Laughter] ROBERT: Well, I told you a story about the first toothache ago was the nearest from the hospital, I guess. SPEAKER 1: That was a story. ROBERT: That was a story, yeah. And I gave him a Novocainee and she said, "Ouch," and I said, "I'm sorry." She said, "Your father would've told me to shut up." I said, "Well, shut up." She says, "Good! I feel more at home now." [Laughter] 16 Then the other guy was Bill Botta, who used to be the head of United Fund here and played tennis with him. He says, "I never found out there was Novocaine until I left your father." Went to another dentist, he said, "Do you want Novocaine?" He says, "What's that?" [Laughter] He says, "Your father, decided -- " he was a big, overweight, burly guy, and I'm sure my dad decided he was strong enough not to take, that he could take the pain, why give him a Novocaine. [Laughter] He says he grew up without Novocaine, and he's well with that, you know. I don't know if it was terrible, but -- actually I don't take Novocaine now. I grew up the same way. [Laughter] SPEAKER 1: And I don't understand that. I cannot imagine not having Novocaine. ROBERT: Well, I used to study how it felt. It would help me practice, really, because I kinda knew what happens. Dang it. SPEAKER 1: I just hope… [laughter] yeah, well, before the war. ROBERT: It wasn't part of my education, but it really is not bad. LINDA: [Laughter] So tell me about… ROBERT: All right. LINDA: Tell me more about your father's connection to Burbank Hospital. ROBERT: He and Dr. Beckman, this other dentist, had decided -- I guess because my father liked these surgeries so much. He's taken out a lot of teeth, people would demand that. Started the dental department, really, the dental staff at Burbank Hospital, and which became… SPEAKER 1: So they had… ROBERT: And to mingle with the medical staff eventually as we, dentists, became accepted as doctors as the years went on. SPEAKER 1: So then they had hospital privileges in the OR. ROBERT: And we had hospital privileges in the OR, right? And I remember when I first got out of school going up with him and he was so 17 good at taking out teeth and so fast. He used to just toss them, and the girls would be running around trying to catch them with a can. [Laughter] And he caught [unintelligible - 00:26:20] mouth extractions on elderly people and senior citizens and then put the dentures right in immediately, and they'd walk out with a full set of teeth. SPEAKER 1: There was a time when both father and son were on the staff together. ROBERT: Together. Right. SPEAKER 1: Yeah, well… ROBERT: We did cases together. And it was part of my training, really, going into pediatric dentistry because I ended up dealing with retarded adults. Probably one of the few pediatric dentists that had six years of general dentistry experience, and then took a lot of retarded people to the hospital, and did fillings and their special equipment to make sure you did rehab in the hospital, at least special, and some medically compromised people. SPEAKER 1: That's what you did. ROBERT: And some apprehensively compromised people, that were adults that we took into the -- or young kids under three or four. In fact, well they're starting to change, to pass the bill in town now, in the state, been at it for three years, I think they'll get it through this year, 23 States out of… SPEAKER 1: Fifty. ROBERT: The 50 that passed it to force the insurance companies to pay for hospital costs for serious dental problems for kids under five years old. LINDA: Oh, good. SPEAKER 1: About time. ROBERT: Which we used to have years ago, and in fact, that's one of the few things Medicaid still covers. But then the insurance companies 18 dropped it. As we hear they dropped circumcision, because that's not treating a disease but preventing. SPEAKER 1: Really. ROBERT: Pennsylvania they had started it and a few states picked it up. The insurance companies are so under the wire now they think of everything they can think of to not, not to pay. Because the dollars are so tight. SPEAKER 1: Don't get sick. Stay healthy. LINDA: [Unintelligible - 00:28:25]. ROBERT: Yeah. Well, they've… they've prepared, they're doing this evidence-based medicine, and some of the insurance companies now want to allow only one clean and fluoride a year for children instead of two, every six months. LINDA: And how long does it take them to make a change like that? Typically speaking. ROBERT: I don't know. I mean, when the change comes out and there's some noise about it, because when they come out with a change they won't pay for it. SPEAKER 1: No, but does it take years, months? ROBERT: I don't know. I started reading about it a year and a half ago, and I hear some insurance companies now are just trickling in. SPEAKER 1: So probably about a year… ROBERT: A couple of years. Yeah, a year or two. LINDA: So there's really no public discourse; it's just immediate, but it comes down… SPEAKER 1: Yeah, they just do it and tell you about it. ROBERT: The public comes when they get hurt later and they wanna make a noise about it. SPEAKER 1: When they found out they're not covered. ROBERT: Like what happened with the HMOs. Many years nothing happened until a few people died. Actually, a few senators' 19 daughters, kids got involved and said, "Dad, you know, this isn't government." Dad said, "Gee, my insurance is still okay, [laughter] I got the big stuff up here in Washington." You know, and then word started to trickle through, and then they started to get after the HMOs. And here's the big thing now about passing a law whether you could sue an HMO or not. What is negligence, what isn't? LINDA: What's going on with the doctors and all of those insurance changes? ROBERT: To clarify with the patient, the pros and cons of both sides and letting the patient know what they want to do, what's available for them and how much money they will get from it, pros and cons of each kind of treatment, what will happen if they don't get treated. And some people say, "Hey, I ain't got any money. Do the treatment that they will pay for, even if it's second class." And the doctor then has to decide -- and a lot of second class, second steps are okay, as long as it's average, good. You don't have to buy a Cadillac every day, right? You can buy a Ford, still get there, but you don't wanna buy last year's junk. LINDA: Well, what if, let's say, the Dentists Association or whatever you call the professional organization, what if they felt very strongly that children should have their teeth cleaned twice a year? And the insurance companies says… ROBERT: We're not strong enough. That would take a decade to change, and we'd need a lot of public support behind it. Unfortunately, the children don't vote, so that's not gonna happen. Now, if it has something to do with adults, like if they took away, maybe root canals, maybe the adults would get it done faster. But things to do with kids don't change too quickly. SPEAKER 1: Not just quick.20 ROBERT: It's the kids they're taking advantage of, what can I say? When you wanna get cheers, who gets -- used to be the kids and the senior citizens got it. Now, the senior citizens, there's so many of us that vote, we're now getting listened to. Especially now with the next group of baby boomers that come along. SPEAKER 1: Very vocal. ROBERT: Very vocal. Runs and goes, gonna vote… SPEAKER 1: My feeling is that somehow in this society we children like they're commodities, aren't people, they're just things, are just -- they have it real tough, children. ROBERT: Yeah, it's terrible. There's a story of a little girl I tried to tickle once, dirty clothes and dirty… and when Medicaid is out, "How many brothers and sisters do you have?" How many sisters or whatever I asked her, and her answer, in two words, told me, the answer was, "Too many." And I couldn't get her to laugh, tickling her, that's how -- she could've been four and a half years old, pretty face, you know, worn out clothes. You could see. And those kinds of kids you just wanna give them a hug and help them out as much as you can. Every week in our office we would, I would say, "We should do something for nothing and we should tell the girls," and it gets me to the end of the week. And we then find someone, you know, we wanna do something for and remind me, and so Fridays we can do it, because they would know a lot about the people sometimes more than I did, in busy days. SPEAKER 1: That sounds more. We just don't like the insurance company… ROBERT: We don't like someone telling me what we can do for nothing. That's one we choose ourselves. But that was always a good exercise. Or if we charge someone some money, they'd come back, they'd say, "Wait a minute," and they'd come back and say, "These people really can't afford it." That's okay. [Unintelligible - 00:33:14] work out something.21 LINDA: Mm-hmm. ROBERT: I always had that nice relationship with my best friend so that we could, so that we could really be helpful to people when we could, on those who needed it. And on the other side of the story where someone comes in, you know, a little kid who came with us with an interpreter, Spanish kid with a toothache, and I said, "How did she get on Medicaid so quickly? She's only been here two weeks, you tell me?" and the interpreter told me, "Oh, we got her on Medicaid before she even left Puerto Rico. She had a toothache in Puerto Rico. And we paid for the flight over." SPEAKER 1: That annoys me. And we don't… ROBERT: So there's, you know, there's two sides to every story. And being a doctor or politician or anybody, a judge, lawyer, boy, you're in the middle of some of this ethical stuff. It's tough to make a decision sometimes. Gotta go with your heart. And sometimes you get in trouble though, with your heart. So sometimes you just pull back and don't do anything; that's not good. SPEAKER 1: It's not good for people. ROBERT: Because what's happening to a lot of medicine now; they're pulling back and not doing it because they're afraid to make the right suggestion. They have a poor doctor in Boston with a basketball player, with Madge… SPEAKER 1: Dr. Madge. ROBERT: Dr. Madge, it's my cardiologist. SPEAKER 1: [Laughter] LINDA: Wow. SPEAKER 1: So I said to him when I… ROBERT: I asked Dr. Madge, "If I had a little irregular heartbeat when I'm playing tennis, what should I do?" He said, "Just play through it." [Laughter] I said, "Thanks a lot, that's pretty…" SPEAKER 1: … before we asked her.22 ROBERT: No, even now. LINDA: Even now? ROBERT: Why are you telling me that? But I'm not sure. He said, "You have to make your decision." LINDA: Uh-huh. ROBERT: It's tough. SPEAKER 1: He lost that case to… ROBERT: No, no, he won it, but two years later. Two years of misery. LINDA: I thought that we're now… SPEAKER 1: … but they took him again. ROBERT: But it's civil. SPEAKER 1: Oh, civil. ROBERT: He still made it. He won the case. I don't know what happened with the civil case. SPEAKER 1: No, I don't know what happened. ROBERT: She wanted the big bucks. SPEAKER 1: Yeah. ROBERT: You know, he said, if she were alive now he would have earned four trillion dollars… LINDA: You know what, I think… ROBERT: … so I don't want part of that. Because you said that if he played basketball he wouldn't die. It's like bringing the [unintelligible - 00:35:40] in and saying if you could change the distributor the car will work. Probably. If you changed the guy's heart, maybe it'll work, maybe it won't. Look at the guy who just got in trouble and he had an artificial heart, and stroke, blood clots. SPEAKER 1: I printed that, Reggie Lewis, I think she was gonna start a third suit, but I haven't heard anything about that. ROBERT: Is that right? LINDA: Haven't heard anything.23 ROBERT: Well, her lawyer keeps going, going and going. He wants to get -- he probably started the case and said, "I won't take anything until we're winning." He's just gonna keep coming up with stuff until they win. LINDA: They had a big negative backlash last time, which I'm sure they weren't prepared for. SPEAKER 1: Yeah. LINDA: So I can imagine they'd keep going now. ROBERT: Me neither. I thought he was finally done. For 12 months he had at least -- remember the first year? He had to take off two months because he had plenty of phone calls from his family, and his life and everything from people, and he just left the city, upside down. SPEAKER 1: You know you can see… I mean, you can see people thinking, "Oh, it's his fault," because you don't get all the information on TV, so… ROBERT: No, you got just what the media wants you to get. SPEAKER 1: Mm-hmm. Yeah. ROBERT: So we wonder how much of this stuff we're hearing about the war is true. We hear only about all our successes, we don't hear about the failures. LINDA: It seems that anytime we do hear about a failure, it's always a mechanical… ROBERT: Brought it down, mechanical, right. Oh yeah, they were there on a training mission. SPEAKER 1: Mm-hmm. ROBERT: Anyways. Boom. Well, here we are spending two hours again. We gotta… LINDA: I know, I'm sorry. ROBERT: This is terrible. SPEAKER 1: No. ROBERT: Look. What other questions you got?24 LINDA: Oh, I want just to cover with the information about your starting your practice, and I seem to remember that you went into the pediatrics floor in [unintelligible - 00:37:26]. SPEAKER 1: He practiced with his dad first. ROBERT: I practiced general dentistry with my dad for six years and found myself doing more and more of the younger population of the practice, and enjoying it, and being successful at it. Probably enjoying it is the main word. Oh, I just enjoy the kids. SPEAKER 1: IE, he is the kid here. ROBERT: IE, I am a kid still. SPEAKER 1: [Laughter] ROBERT: Well, they are the next leaders of the world, and it feels [unintelligible - 00:37:58] time thinking about what they're thinking about, it keeps you young. The body doesn't like that, but the mind that's -- you know the story, "I just got my mind together and now my body is falling apart." And it took 60, 65 years to get to here. [Laughter] LINDA: [Laughter] SPEAKER 1: Anyway, that's when he… ROBERT: So all the parents used to say, you know, I guess -- well, last time the parents used to tell my father, "I don't want go over to your son. He just got out of dental school. But I don't mind if my kids go to your son." So I guess that's why I got the younger population and enjoyed it and did well with them. Because I have magic, it's a hobby, and sleight of hands, so I was always -- to this day, I think, would keep thimbles and cards next to my chair. LINDA: How did you learn that? ROBERT: This 91-year old Sylvia here that we're talking about started me in as a hobby as a kid, and puppets and all that stuff. I think I broke my leg at one point, and that's when I got introduced because I was in a cast for some weeks and nothing to do, and she brought the 25 stuff and happened to like it. But the… you know, one of the many stories of kids is the kid had been to three dentists and with a toothache, four-year old, and screaming and yelling at me and kicking, and me, the dentist, could handle him and finally made their way to pediatric dentist office, my office. And so I looked in the mouth as the kid was screaming and produced a red thimble from his mouth, and the kid stopped crying right away, put his hand to his head, scratched his head and said, "No wonder why that damn thing was hurting." [Laughter] SPEAKER 1: [Laughter] ROBERT: And I had him then, right? [Laughter] Yeah, I said, "Lemme look around some more. You got any more of those in there? Ah, over here," and goes, "Why not. Well, go get rid of that," you know. "I can do that magically, you know. Boom, I got that." [Laughter] LINDA: He's a cute… ROBERT: So probably he said, "No wonder why that damn thing was hurting." [Laughter] SPEAKER 1: They really do… ROBERT: Oh, I've got some great stories, yeah. [Laughter] And sometimes, also, when I used to lecture, I used to tell that story, and nobody would laugh. And I'd look and I'd say, "Come on, guys, wake up. Get a life. Do any of you have any kids, anybody, I mean, kids at all? That's a funny story." LINDA: Even if you don't have kids I think that was… SPEAKER 1: Right. ROBERT: That's a funny story. Because you guys are too serious. I used to tell adults that and get nothing out of it. I tell you, these guys are really too serious. It's like golfers rather than tennis players with dentists. We have a good time. In golf everybody's, "Don't make a sound. Be serious." And I'm throwing clubs around [unintelligible - 00:40:40] I can't understand.26 SPEAKER 1: He used to talk… ROBERT: I can't understand why they take this game so serious. LINDA: So can both of you talk a little bit about being Italian, what it means to you? ROBERT: Other than being proud I'm Italian -- I grew up not knowing there was much difference 'til recently. I got interested in the history of all of this, and yet I think my wife has a different story. SPEAKER 1: That's very recent to him. He just thought of himself as American [laughter] more recently, I think… ROBERT: Yeah, I mean I didn't know there was any difference to… many years SPEAKER 1: We were always -- our family was very into the history of being an Italian, very proud, you know, really proud of everything connected with being Italian, whether it was, you know, where you came from, or the country… ROBERT: Oh, yeah, I was smart enough to marry an Italian. LINDA: … the history. Thank you. The history, the architecture, I mean, we were all -- our family was always -- there were some parts of it. Some were more into the food, some were more into the history, but there was always, you know, you're an Italian American, you know, it's great to be an Italian. So it was just -- although, living where I lived, where we were, talk about a minority, we were really a minority. In the school I went to we were also a minority. And I do remember -- but just in that neighborhood, I don't remember while I was in anywhere else, but there were people who -- now, we were… ROBERT: Who thought you were second-class citizens, right? SPEAKER 1: … we were third generation, and we had some people who were first generation but spoke English thinking that we were second-class citizens because we had those funny-sounding names. ROBERT: First generation of another group, another ethnic group.27 SPEAKER 1: Yeah, of another -- yeah, they're not Italian. Right. And I thought, "Excuse me?" you know, I was born here, my parents were born here… ROBERT: So she experienced some prejudices that I don't remember. SPEAKER 1: Yeah, and in school, too. LINDA: Now, where was this? SPEAKER 1: Boston. The suburb of Boston but it was a very, very predominant Irish, Catholic neighborhood. I went to an Irish Catholic school, so while the nuns were Irish… ROBERT: Irish Catholics… SPEAKER 1: … so the nuns couldn't quite… ROBERT: Well they were Catholics, that's the… SPEAKER 1: You know, they couldn't quite understand, you know, anything. And then we had, maybe, like, two Polish kids, maybe three Italian kids. So we did feel different, but only in that, you know, instance then we were in the rest of the, you know, with my relatives who lived in all over suburban Boston, [unintelligible - 00:43:23], whatever, you know, lived with the -- it wasn't a problem… ROBERT: Which brings up my story, which you're probably waiting for, again, because I must've… SPEAKER 1: That was when I was -- then we moved to another neighborhood in Newton, I don't live there now. ROBERT: When I was in this progressive school and my parents were -- we were family members of a local country club that was limited in the acceptance of people, of members, and I took home a black friend of mine from school for the weekend, grabbed my neighbor, who was Jewish and took him up to play golf and get kicked off of golf course with a black and a Jewish guy. That was in the early '50s. LINDA: And where was this? SPEAKER 1: At the local…28 ROBERT: At a local country club. SPEAKER 1: He was too dumb to even know… ROBERT: I was too dumb to even know that they had restrictions. Right. SPEAKER 1: Sorry, I didn't mean dumb. LINDA: What kind of -- what did they tell you? Was this before you got on the course, or did somebody…? ROBERT: No, no, we were right just -- took him out on the course. Apparently we were coming back close to the clubhouse again on the third hole… SPEAKER 1: Someone saw him. ROBERT: … and the manager came out and told me I had to get off the course. LINDA: Did you ask why? SPEAKER 1: He didn't tell you? ROBERT: I don't remember. Yeah, we left… LINDA: And then? ROBERT: He was the boss, he said, "Get off," I got off. LINDA: But was it clear that he was doing because it was…? ROBERT: Yeah, I guess I knew that -- I figured it out once I was in the car and got home, I guess. I didn't figure it out right on the spot, but I think once I got in the car I figured it out. I didn't even think of checking on it when it went up, because I did the same thing recently, I took a lady on men's day who had Levi's, and you never have to have Levi's up there, same club. [Laughter] SPEAKER 1: Well, they were happy [laughter]. If you knew who was Wednesday… ROBERT: [Laughter] I forgot. I thought Wednesday morning was men's day and then Wednesday afternoon was okay. SPEAKER 1: They don't want pants with Levi's anywhere. LINDA: So it was key to double win.29 ROBERT: There was a double, so-- I got permission… I did get permission to go out on men's day in the afternoon. They said, "If nobody complains, just go out." When I get back in, head of the pro comes up to me and says, "And I heard you want Levi's, too." SPEAKER 1: [Laughter] ROBERT: I said, "I didn't even think to look at that so much." [Laughter] LINDA: All right. What's our next question? How did you feel coming here? I know we talked a lot more about this last time, but how did you feel coming to Leominster after living in -- was it Newton? SPEAKER 1: Mm-hmm. Yeah. I thought this was the end of the earth, [laughter] I thought this was… ROBERT: She said this was the on the other side of orange. [Laughter] SPEAKER 1: No. I thought it was real country. ROBERT: Out there an echo. SPEAKER 1: And I thought when I first came here, well it was late fall, so it was winter by the time we moved in our house and no one welcomed us, and I thought what an unfriendly place. And the ward of the dentist who welcomed us, the one nearest our age was 15 years older than we were, so I thought, "Oh, Lord, there was no one my age." I don't even know if there are any neighbors here. I never saw a face, and it didn't dawn on me that, well number one, it was winter, so people were kind of [unintelligible - 00:47:09] down. Number two was this is a real family community, generations are born and married and stayed here, so they have all extended families living right here. It's not that you're all spread out though… ROBERT: But the lights kept going on in the houses around us. You didn't see any people, but the lights kept going on at night. SPEAKER 1: And there was -- not Leominster, and I told him I thought the city had these houses wired up and they just flipped the switch at night [laughter].30 ROBERT: And the lights used to go because there were no people around us. SPEAKER 1: I thought there were no people. LINDA: And what year was this? SPEAKER 1: I thought it was '63. And then I realized after that, well, number one, it was winter and people weren't so ready, you know, to welcome you. Number two, his name was known in town, so they assumed, I guess that he had tons of friends and family, whereas, he really didn't because he was all the way to school, and his family -- well, because his parents were in Florida, so we had the one aunt and uncle who lived here in town. So I think people just assumed, "Well, we have our huge extended family. They must have theirs," so it was mainly lonely and I thought unfriendly. So it took -- it took a while, then when the thaw came, the neighbors… ROBERT: Spring came and we started raking leaves and we see people around. SPEAKER 1: … come. And then I found out it was a nice neighborhood, and the neighbors were nice, because the snow melted and out they came. But it took a while. I was really thinking, "Oh, boy. What a -- this is awful." ROBERT: There was like about -- we moved up here, right? We were like -- there were three houses up here in this hill, three of four houses, right here the top of the hill, and these people built houses and moved in, I always bring a bottle of wine and welcome them, maybe from the experience that we had. And it was all fine, that's great, whatnot, and then we decided after -- well, never, never heard from them after that. SPEAKER 1: Hmmm. No. People aren't as friendly as they are in the Midwest. Well, I worked… ROBERT: Then we finally said -- oh, great people, Midwest. SPEAKER 1: … people are different.31 ROBERT: Different. Then we decided we're gonna throw a street party. So we opened up our house and we sent a letter out to everybody with the old farm road address, 95 percent of the people showed, right? SPEAKER 1: Mm-hmm. ROBERT: Never heard from them since. That was 15 years ago. Other than the, other than the people who are touching us [unintelligible - 00:49:31] land here. LINDA: Mm-hmm. SPEAKER 1: Well, people are busy. It is different. People -- it's not like when we were kids. I think people are just so busy. ROBERT: When I grew up in the street where we had everybody, had each other's keys and everything when I was in grammar school, high school and whatnot. That street was close. SPEAKER 1: Well, those were your high school, what, home high school friends. ROBERT: Those were my home high school friends, right. But I mean, geez, you know. SPEAKER 1: But I have… ROBERT: We were in each other's houses all the time. Streets were… SPEAKER 1: I don't think… I learned to like the area, but it took a while. It really did. Took quite a while. Probably it was better when my children learns… ROBERT: When we saw the kids enjoying it, then we got to like it better. SPEAKER 1: … yeah, I probably -- great place for children because there was so much available that was close by, where on the city you really had to travel, you know. Here they could do everything within the, you know… ROBERT: Yeah, five-minute ride. Then it wasn't -- it was easy to go to wherever you want to go. Now, if you ever decide to go from Leominster to Fitchburg or across our city. LINDA: I just did.32 ROBERT: 3:30 to 5:30, it'd take you an hour and a half to get from one city to the other. If you're going north, then the south isn't too bad. But we come off the highway, we – every… well Route 13, Route 12, every one of those going north is loaded. SPEAKER 1: Well, I laughed. He told me 30 years ago, "Oh, you just wait," because I complain, I still miss the city. I didn't miss living there, but I wanna be a little bit closer so that I could just run in and take advantage of everything, I missed that. And he kept saying to me thirty years ago, "Oh, just wait. This Leominster is just gonna be a bedroom community to Boston," and I would just laugh hysterically and said, "Oh, my God, no one is coming past Concorde." And… ROBERT: And here we are. SPEAKER 1: Here we are. Yeah. ROBERT: Build the highway and they will come. [Laughter] SPEAKER 1: Yeah. LINDA: So which church did you join? SPEAKER 1: Ah, that's something… ROBERT: She remember one of the… SPEAKER 1: I wasn't used to that. We were in North Leominster and there was a knock at door, and there was this priest standing there and I went, "Well, I've never seen this in my life." No one -- no priest ever knocked on my door before. And it was the pastor from the Italian church in Fitchburg trying to convince me to join his church. My [unintelligible - 00:51:54], "Oh, that's fine, that's…" ROBERT: And we were living in… SPEAKER 1: North Leominster. ROBERT: Leominster. SPEAKER 1: Yeah, and, of course, I came from Boston where you went to church, and whatever neighborhood you lived there and whatever, 33 you know. He wasn't surprised when he came home. He said, "Oh, yeah," you know, but I didn't join that church… ROBERT: No, I said, "But you don't have to feel you have to join." SPEAKER 1: The one that was dear in my life, Lady of the Lake, we lived in North Leominster, that was there, so that was the church I joined. But then when we moved here, my daughter was in public school in first grade, we just moved, and I thought, "Well, yeah, I have to sign her up to CCD classes." So this house had been St. Leo's Parish, which was the Irish church. Well, I thought, well, that's obviously where I have to send her to… ROBERT: Closest church. SPEAKER 1: Well, again, didn't dawn on me that's where, you know, but if I had known, I mean, Saint Ana's was just hop, skip and a jump down the road, I could've signed her up there. But it -- still, it was the '70s now, and I still wasn't thinking, "Oh, well, this is different." And I called the secretary of the church who answered it and asked who it was, and she signed up my daughter, and I thought, "Well, don't you want -- aren't you gonna ask me my name? I haven't been -- don't you want us to join the church?" I never heard of a church that would take a child to CCD if the parents didn't belong to it. And she said, "Well…" in her accent, "… um, well, I thought you might… you might wanna join Saint Ana's church." ROBERT: -Which is the Italian church down the road. [Laughter] SPEAKER 1: I didn't know, this is 1970 whatever, and I said… ROBERT: "What?" SPEAKER 1: Yeah. I said, "What?" ROBERT: Why? SPEAKER 1: I was so befuddled. And I said to him, "I wish I had thought fast enough," I probably would've said, "Well, I'm Protestant anyway, so I don't wanna join any church." [Laughter] My sister was so 34 overwhelmed by that. So I thought, well change comes very slowly out here. [Laughter] ROBERT: Did you know we have the largest Finnish population in the world. LINDA: In the world? SPEAKER 1: No, no. In the United States. ROBERT: In the United States that's -- yeah, that's a Finnish group and we have a sister city in Finland. LINDA: Hmm. I didn't know that there were so many Finns around here. ROBERT: A lot of Finns. They're great people. LINDA: Just like my grandfather is Finnish. ROBERT: Is that right? SPEAKER 1: Oh, really? ROBERT: Oh, I remember in my dad's practice, and then I was… SPEAKER 1: Well, still. ROBERT: Great Finnish people. Wonderful people. SPEAKER 1: They have this pact, signed a pact in Fitchburg, and they still have big gatherings, Finnish gatherings and so forth. Yeah. LINDA: So would you like to speak about anything else? ROBERT: No, I need to have lunch. LINDA: Lunch? SPEAKER 1: Oh, poor dear. LINDA: It's dinner. I don't know… ROBERT: Put something in my tummy before I go play tennis at dinnertime. SPEAKER 1: Every Friday he has to play tennis. Yeah, still have fun. ROBERT: Fun time. SPEAKER 1: What else? What else? I guess just my Italian experiences are a little bit different from his. I think… ROBERT: Yeah, well you grew up in a different place. SPEAKER 1: Yeah. Well, and our family might have been different. We had more traditional meals and we did the traditional Christmas Eve dinner. We did the traditional…35 ROBERT: This reminds me, my mother made homemade raviolis every Thanksgiving and Christmas. SPEAKER 1: Yeah. That wasn't Christmas Eve in an Italian household; you have all fish Christmas Eve… ROBERT: Yeah, if you're like -- there aren't any fish out here. SPEAKER 1: [Laughter] No, that's true. ROBERT: Years ago, but I said the fish was four days old… SPEAKER 1: … when I found that out… found that out… ROBERT: … by the time it swam up the national river. ROBERT: That was true. The first time I bought a fish here I threw it out. I couldn't even eat it. I thought, no wonder he doesn't likes fish. ROBERT: It was after the… SPEAKER 1: He was used to getting it live from the… ROBERT: Oh, that's when I got the live fishes, this meeting with her relatives. They had fresh fish and wow, what a difference. SPEAKER 1: We did have… ROBERT: But we didn't have fish houses around here until, maybe, like three, four or five years after we're married. It moved… SPEAKER 1: Yeah, at least. Yeah. ROBERT: It took the… late '60s. SPEAKER 1: I know your mother. I don't remember your mother ever doing -- she did -- I mean, she baked great pies but never did Italian cookies, Italian version. We did all that Italian stuff at the holidays so we were more… ROBERT: The lady next door did, Vermonti. SPEAKER 1: Oh, wow. You were lucky. ROBERT: She used to bring them over. SPEAKER 1: Oh, wow. The stuff you do with this… ROBERT: With all the onion on them and stuff like that, there were ribbon things? Yeah. Yeah?36 SPEAKER 1: I think they have someone I'm looking for a recipe for that because only our -- a distant relative on the other side made those, and we only had it when we went to her house, not… LINDA: Often you don't… SPEAKER 1: Oh, I would love that. That's the one I'm trying to… ROBERT: Yeah, you've been looking for fill-ins. SPEAKER 1: My children are so into this. ROBERT: We make [unintelligible - 00:56:38], we're the intersect. We have her grandmother's, her mother's… SPEAKER 1: [Unintelligible - 00:56:45]. Yeah. ROBERT: [Unintelligible - 00:56:45]. And we get her up all nights and mix us the stuff and… SPEAKER 1: My father's family were great cooks, and my mother actually cooked like my father's side of the family. There were two different sides, and you could tell the difference. My mother's side cooked one way and my father's side cooked the other way… LINDA: Why? They're from different regions? SPEAKER 1: No. ROBERT: No? SPEAKER 1: From the exact same place, but it seems like the Fridocelli cooked with a little bit more… LINDA: Cooked cuisine. SPEAKER 1: You know, a little more fancy. And then my mother's side, they were a little more peasant, plain… ROBERT: You mean there was merit having both grandma and grandpa from the same city. [Laughter] SPEAKER 1: Well, my four grandparents came from the same… ROBERT: Oh, is that right? SPEAKER 1: Same province. ROBERT: Same province. Yeah. SPEAKER 1: Yeah. But still the cooking was a little different.37 LINDA: Wow. SPEAKER 1: Yeah. And that was it. It was important, and I'm glad my kids still think it's important. It's very important for them to -- and often the Italian are important to them. Even though… LINDA: Now, they didn't marry Italians? SPEAKER 1: My daughter married someone who's half Italian. LINDA: What is her last name? SPEAKER 1: Well, she goes by Frigoletto. Yeah, she kept her name. LINDA: But who did she marry? SPEAKER 1: Peter De Feo. D-E capital F-E-O. And then my son, really, broke with tradition. He married Tamara Taylor. [Laughter] ROBERT: Oh, yeah, but he was going with an Italian. SPEAKER 1: He was going with an Italian… ROBERT: Italian, but she turned out to be too strong for us… SPEAKER 1: [Laughter] LINDA: Oh. SPEAKER 1: So Tamara Taylor… ROBERT: Direct battleship. SPEAKER 1: Actually now… she's a redhead, but delightful. She's Norwegian and Scottish. I thought Taylor was English, but she said Scottish was her blood. And her family, they have traced her family back to the first two boats that came over the Mayflower and the next one. What was the other one? Two names, I forget what it is. ROBERT: I don't know. SPEAKER 1: So they're into the history, too. So now the two of them… ROBERT: Has it anything to do with the Minnon, the Tintin, the Sta. Maria? [Laughter] SPEAKER 1: No. But she's had -- but she's very much into Italian… ROBERT: Wrong group, right? SPEAKER 1: … go back. She was trying to learn the language. LINDA: Mm-hmm.38 SPEAKER 1: She was trying to learn to speak it. LINDA: Oh. ROBERT: She's in [unintelligible - 00:58:57]? That daughter-in law? SPEAKER 1: Boy, no. I forget. Yeah, we were trying to learn all this… ROBERT: New Ireland, I think… I forget. No memory anymore. Kinda learn all these Italian words… SPEAKER 1: The word for parent is genatori. ROBERT: Genatori which is… should be -- parenti's relatives. SPEAKER 1: Right. Yeah, that's… ROBERT: Parents genatoris. SPEAKER 1: Yeah, I can't figure that one out. Right. ROBERT: Yeah. SPEAKER 1: Now you are part Italian? LINDA: My grandmother was Italian, my maternal grandmother. Then she married a Finn. SPEAKER 1: Oh. LINDA: And then my mother married a Yankee, then I married a Swede. SPEAKER 1: So you're all that? ROBERT: Did you watch the Hall of Fame last night? LINDA: No. SPEAKER 1: Oh. ROBERT: There was a cute love story in the war, early '40s… SPEAKER 1: Based on a true story. LINDA: Oh, my goodness… ROBERT: In Italy. LINDA: … need to tell me but… ROBERT: Yeah. And a lot of Italians. They spoke too fast, though. SPEAKER 1: You know, I'm not -- and that was the first time I said that's… ROBERT: But a lot of sceneries were filmed entirely in Italy, and it was about this guy that… SPEAKER 1: But you can buy the tape. It's a Hallmark story, though.39 ROBERT: Yeah. LINDA: It was Love and War. Thank you. SPEAKER 1: Love and War, yeah. ROBERT: Love and War But it was an interest of -- the thing I thought was cute, that I hadn't learn or forgotten, I guess, is that a British soldier, it might be British saying, when he falls in love with this Italian girl that they took him in and saved his life, he says, "We, growing up, we used to call you macaroni heads," from British, from the -- derogatory thing, you know, those Italians, they're macaroni head. He says, "Now I found out how wonderful you people are." [Laughter] He says, "I feel guilty." That was kind of a cute part of the story. LINDA: I think that's sort of true. SPEAKER 1: Yeah. LINDA: In any culture, if you just open yourself up and… ROBERT: Sure. SPEAKER 1: But I -- actually, you must've -- I can remember, in Boston… ROBERT: I don't remember. SPEAKER 1: … he had a lot of this derogatory terms. ROBERT: Well, dego, I remember but I didn't hear -- macaroni I thought was just English, that was an English that was the… SPEAKER 1: Yeah, that was it. What I'm saying is that you did hear -- but then, again, you would hear it for the Irish, you would hear it for the Jewish, you always would hear about derogatory terms for -- at least in the city we get through all the ethnic… LINDA: So tell me what some of them are, you know, what's so politically correct now that you don't really…? At least my children don't know any of the… SPEAKER 1: You know, I don't really… LINDA: … Italian being derogatory… SPEAKER 1: No. Dego, wop…40 ROBERT: Dego, wop. And when in Chicago we used to -- we used to walk back East to look at the watch and, "Watch the dego by," [laughter] and used the word "dego." LINDA: Oh, dego. Where did that come from? SPEAKER 1: I don't know either. ROBERT: I don't know. SPEAKER 1: I don't know either. LINDA: I've never heard dego. SPEAKER 1: I don't either. ROBERT: Like, what? Pollack is Polish? SPEAKER 1: Pollack would be for… ROBERT: Be Polish and… SPEAKER 1: Mic are half… ROBERT: Mic were half for Irish. Right. And we were dego and the wops. So I would be French… SPEAKER 1: No. I don't know where they… ROBERT: Don't know the origins of all of those things… be interesting, which my uncle would've mind. He was such a [unintelligible - 01:01:51]. He was doing the history of words. SPEAKER 1: He was so… ROBERT: After he retired that was his… LINDA: Did he keep his information? ROBERT: Yeah, he's kept it going, and when he died I tried to get it from my aunt. SPEAKER 1: And when he couldn't… ROBERT: I guess she gave it to one his younger teachers. I don't know where it is now. SPEAKER 1: He gave it to another elderly person… ROBERT: Another elderly person and got lost or something. SPEAKER 1: Right, it's gotta be… ROBERT: We even offered to pay her for it.41 SPEAKER 1: Yeah. ROBERT: It was -- yeah, it was just so interesting. SPEAKER 1: He was the professor of Roman languages, so he's doing the… ROBERT: He knew the different languages. SPEAKER 1: … words, whether it came from France… ROBERT: France or Italian or whatnot. SPEAKER 1: We desperately want… ROBERT: I wanted to get a hold of that. SPEAKER 1: We couldn't, we tried. ROBERT: Every time we'd see him, which is like twice a year, that it's, "Oh, I got, you know, twenty… twenty more words…" LINDA: What's his name? ROBERT: Merlino. My mother's name, Merlino. SPEAKER 1: Camillo Merlino. ROBERT: Camillo Merlino. How's that? SPEAKER 1: Yeah. He was the… ROBERT: Protestant Italian. SPEAKER 1: … head of the department at BU… ROBERT: Head of the Roman's languages at BU. And still I didn't get the language. SPEAKER 1: No, he did not inherit that. No, my kids took after my part of the family. We have an air for languages, he struggles so with it. Doing better than I ever… ROBERT: I got so frustrated last night watching that… SPEAKER 1: That was tough, I had… ROBERT: But you said you had a tough time, too. Two years trying to learn words, just to recognize [unintelligible - 01:03:12]. SPEAKER 1: I mean, I think you're doing well… ROBERT: It's got nothing. SPEAKER 1: … trying for all these years. LINDA: I think you have to be immersed in it.42 SPEAKER 1: Mm-hmm. That's true. ROBERT: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Good idea, let's go. [Laughter] SPEAKER 1: That's my mother. ROBERT: Yeah, yeah, yeah, for a month, that's her way of saying we gotta go. SPEAKER 1: But that is no close. ROBERT: [Laughter] SPEAKER 1: Well, before we let you on, could you take another picture of us? LINDA: Oh, yes. I have central… SPEAKER 1: I'd love that. LINDA: … because I almost forgot the camera, too. SPEAKER 1: Oh. LINDA: This was supposed to go over real low. SPEAKER 1: No, we wouldn't hold you to it. I just thought -- I didn't like my plaid shirt, I looked like the… the fire hand. LINDA: He said you'd say amazing things. SPEAKER 1: Yeah. Well, I may -- well, I was that day. Well, I was today, too, but… ROBERT: Guess what? It's four o'clock. SPEAKER 1: It's now four o'clock in the middle of a family interview./AT/jf/jc/es