Keeping Us Safe from Cat Stevens

What I remember about the incident was the outrage it inspired. A lot of people were really angry about what he said. People had loved his music, and bought so many of his records, but then, suddenly it didn't matter. Suddenly, people could not forgive him; they were demanding that all of his records be banned and that he never be allowed to come to the United States again. It was March of 1966, and John Lennon of the Beatles had said in an interview that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus. I think I knew what he meant-- it was a somewhat flippant comment about the nature of fame and how influential rock stars were with young people. But in the Bible Belt, it was considered blasphemy, and they took it as an attack on their faith. Some radio stations stopped playing Beatles records, some even held public events where Beatles records were burned. Lennon did get to travel to the US on numerous occasions, and eventually became a permanent US resident; but there were some people who never forgave him for what he had said.   

Fast forward to February 1989. Cat Stevens, who had so many hits in the early 70s, great songs like "Peace Train" and "Wild World" (and an album track I always loved, "Father and Son"), had converted to Islam in late 1977 and walked away from his music career. He became very fervent in his beliefs, and at a forum at a London university, where he was giving his views on world events, he was asked about controversial author Salman Rushdie, whose book was deemed blasphemous by religious Muslims. Rushdie had been put under a fatwa by Ayatollah Khomeini, who called for his death. Stevens, now known as Yusuf Islam, seemed to agree that anyone who blasphemes the Prophet Muhammad was indeed deserving of death. And when the New York Times reported that the former singer had been approving of the fatwa, many of his (now former) fans were appalled. Stevens seemed to realize he had expressed himself very badly, because he tried to clarify his remarks almost immediately, explaining that he was just describing the sentence for blasphemy in Islam, but he was not calling for Rushdie's death. Many people saw this as a distinction without a difference, and even years later, they couldn't forgive him.

Fast forward to 2025. Yusuf Islam became a lot more moderate as the years passed, and today, as Yusuf Cat Stevens, he continues to try to explain what he said, what he meant, and what he believed back in 1989, compared to where his spiritual journey has taken him since. For years, he has lived a peaceful life, eventually coming back to his music (after years of not playing it), but some fans have never forgiven him; by many accounts, Rushdie hasn't forgiven him either. And now, more than 35 years later, the US government is also unwilling to forgive him. He has a new book and was planning to tour some US cities, discussing his life and playing some of his songs. But the tour had to be cancelled because he was unable to get a visa. 

We are living in a time when lots of famous people, are getting in trouble for making statements that are perceived as controversial. When Republican activist Charlie Kirk died, comedian Jimmy Kimmel made some remarks that were perceived as offensive by Kirk's supporters, and he also mocked the president at the same time; the president and the chair of the FCC were furious and suggested that ABC needed to take some action. So, Kimmel was suspended, while outraged conservative commentators demanded he be fired. On the other hand, many folks debated whether what he said merited a suspension and the precedent it set for the government to imply that a network would be in trouble if the president disliked what someone on TV had said. He was back on the air several days later, but the debate continues.            

And here we are, in a media universe where it's easy to stir up outrage, and where people can hold onto grudges for decades. So, are we better off because Yusuf Cat Stevens can't tour America? Are we better off that a comedian can be suspended for something he said to displease the current administration? Back in late September 2001, after comedian Bill Maher made controversial remarks (leading to his show being cancelled), then-president George W. Bush's press secretary Ari Fleischer reminded everyone to "watch what they say, watch what they do." I found that chilling advice then, and I find it a very frightening prospect now. I may not agree with certain views, but the threat that they'll be banned worries me a lot. I doubt I'd attend Yusuf Cat Stevens' talk, but he ought to have the right to deliver it. I mean, how long do we hold what someone said against them? And who decides which views are permissible? That, my friends, is the question.    

Lenny Doesn't Live Here Anymore

I remember where I was the day that Lenny Zakim died. It was a Thursday, and I was driving home from work, and when the news came over the radio that he had lost his battle with cancer, I remember screaming out "No!" So many of us had admired Lenny. He was the kind of guy who loved a challenge; and no matter how bad a situation might seem, he would usually find a way to turn things around. You didn't want to count Lenny out. You didn't want to bet against him. So, when we heard he had cancer, we kept hoping that somehow he'd turn this around too. I mean, if anyone could beat cancer, it was Lenny. But sad to say, there was no happy ending this time. Lenny was only 46 when he died on December 2, 1999. I still miss him. 

But in his short life, he did some remarkable things. In his obit, which ran in newspapers nationwide, the headline often read "Leonard Zakim, 46; Promoted Racial Unity and Tolerance." That was an understatement. Lenny came to Boston from Jersey. Back when he got here in the late 1970s, Boston had been going through periods of racial and religious tensions. He was hired by the Anti-Defamation League in 1979 as its New England Director for Civil Rights (he would later rise to be the organization's Executive Director), and he went to work trying to bring people together. That was his superpower-- the ability to bring together folks who were initially suspicious or mistrusting and get them to collaborate to make Boston a better place to live.

He started an annual Black-Jewish Passover seder, that brought together community members from Boston's Black and Jewish communities; it grew in popularity and other cities emulated it. He brought together faith leaders from Catholic and Protestant traditions and worked with them to tackle antisemitism. He worked hard to improve Catholic-Jewish relations in Boston: in fact, his efforts were so successful, and so inspirational, that he was awarded the Order of St. Gregory by Pope John Paul II (if I'm not mistaken, Lenny was the first Jew ever given this medal). And while Lenny's political views leaned Democratic, he had friends who were conservative Republicans, because that's how Lenny was. In fact, when he died, his funeral was attended by thousands, from just about every walk of life.

Sometimes, when I'm driving home, I still think about Lenny and I wonder what he would make of our hateful and contentious politics, the refusal of each side to see the humanity in the other, the willingness of far too many to insult and mock and demonize, rather than getting together to tackle the problems our society still has. But then, it's a matter of leadership, isn't it? Lenny was a leader. He found ways to bring people together. Surely, we need someone like that, now more than ever. But sad to say, Lenny is gone, and few in leadership positions seem committed to doing what he did. In Boston, they named a bridge after him, because after all, he was all about building bridges. And each time I drive across it, that's what I miss the most: leaders who want to turn down the volume of our angry discourse and give people a chance to collaborate. Leaders who want to promote understanding and tolerance, rather than mistrust and outrage. Leaders who want to build bridges... like Lenny did.     

Doing What You Love

I had lunch earlier today with some of the members of a wonderful Rush tribute band from New Jersey called A Farewell to Kings. As you might expect, we talked about all things Rush, but we also talked about the importance of following your dream and doing what you love.

Like other tribute bands, including the stellar Massachusetts-based Lotus Land, the guys in AF2K hold down other jobs during the week. But on many weekends, you can find them performing at venues throughout the northeast, making fans happy and keeping the music of Rush alive. It's not the easiest life in the world: there is a lot of driving, a lot of practicing, and I'm sure some venues are better than others. I'm also sure the guys are not getting rich doing these gigs. But more often than not, the enthusiastic crowds make up for those inconveniences. After all, when you're doing what you love, it's gratifying to know that others appreciate you for doing it.  

But this blog post isn't just about Rush tribute bands. There are many folks out there who are also following their dream and doing what they love. School is starting in many parts of the US this week, and many children will be starting kindergarten. Some will be nervous or apprehensive about their first day of school, while others will be excited and eager; but in all cases, the one thing that is consistent is they will be greeted by their teacher, who will encourage and reassure and welcome them. Few teachers in the US are paid what they deserve. In fact, most are seriously underpaid. But if you ask the average teacher, "Why do you do this work?", the reply is always "Because I love it."

Recently, a friend of mine decided to start taking some courses online; she's not pursuing a degree at this point-- she already has one. And she's not looking for a career change-- she likes her current job. So, why take courses? She told me she was eager to learn something new, to study something she was interested in but had never studied before. So, she signed up for a course in archaeology, and she is really enjoying it. "I've always loved to learn," she said to me, and as someone who got my PhD when I was 64, I could totally relate.

I'm sure that some of you who read this blog can also relate. Perhaps there is something you enjoy, and you do it not because it's lucrative, and not because it will bring you fame, but just because you love doing it. I do a lot of research about early baseball history, and I write articles about it. Most of the work is unpaid, but for me (and the others who do it), it's a labor of love, because there are so many great stories waiting to be told. My husband, who makes his living repairing computers, took up nature photography as a hobby a few years ago. He got pretty good at it and he has won several awards, but that isn't why he goes out seeking birds or flowers or butterflies to photograph. He loves to do it, plus he is preserving something interesting, something beautiful, that can be shared with others.

And in a world where so much around us seems chaotic or unpredictable or even depressing, there is often comfort in pursuing a dream, or doing something you love-- whether it's playing in a Rush tribute band, or reading little kids a story, or taking photos of nature, or studying archaeology. It doesn't have to make you rich, but it can help keep you grounded and remind you that even in difficult times, people still need the opportunity to seek out those moments of joy, and to cherish every one of them.   

Can We Handle the Truth?

Not many folks read my blog post from August 1, the one where I defended the importance of fact-checkers. I was disappointed, but not surprised. After all, we're living in a time when the very concept of objective truth is under attack. When I was growing up, I learned in school that some things were factual (yes, the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776), and others were myths (no, the Founding Fathers never stated America should be a Christian nation). I learned how to use reliable sources when I did my research. I learned how to tell the difference between something that could be proved with credible evidence, and something that was just someone's opinion. And I learned to respect and rely upon people with years of expertise in their chosen field, as opposed to people who insisted they were right because... well, because they believed they were right.  

How times have changed. These days, even when some things are well-documented and accurate (for example, the earth really is round-- or, if you prefer, spheroid in shape) and others are frequently refuted and demonstrably false (the earth is not flat, although this was a popular belief until as late as the 1600s), there are still many people who insist the subject should be debated. Some folks are certain we never landed on the moon. Or they are convinced that serious diseases can be cured by purchasing some product they saw in a TikTok video. For some folks, not liking a fact is grounds enough to discount it. ("My preferred candidate lost, so therefore, the election must have been rigged"-- no matter how many investigations showed the election was conducted fairly and the other candidate got more votes.) And even though many years of evidence suggest that something is absolutely true, a growing number of people are convinced they don't have to believe it if they just feel it isn't true. 

Contributing to this problem is the rise of partisan media. As we become more and more polarized, we increasingly seek out sources that reinforce what we already believe. That's called confirmation bias, and I've mentioned it before. It's a big problem. In a world where the vast majority of us no longer share common sources of information, that means we no longer hear any views that challenge how we think, nor encounter other ways of looking at the issues. And whether it's science, or politics, or history, a growing number of folks just want to stay in their own bubble, never needing to confront any facts they don't like.

This makes it challenging to be an educator. When the president wants certain historical facts erased-- not because they didn't happen, but because he doesn't like the fact that they happened-- it becomes difficult to teach. Yes, slavery, and then segregation, went on in America for far too long. No, the fact that this happened was not a good thing, and forbidding teachers from discussing it (or insisting they put a positive spin on it) doesn't make it a good thing. Yes, America has lived through periods of time when racism or xenophobia or antisemitism flourished, often with encouragement from politicians and clergy. No, banning books about those periods of time doesn't mean those things didn't happen. And studying these issues doesn't mean you hate your country-- just like ignoring them doesn't make you patriotic.

I'm basically happy to be alive, and I try my best to be optimistic. But sometimes, I feel like we're living in perilous times, and I'm not sure what to do about it. It's a world where our leaders just want us to accept whatever they say, and where the truth isn't as important as vibes. It's a world where we are told that a protester who throws a sandwich at the police is a dangerous criminal, while a protester who attacked and vandalized the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 is a hero. There are federal troops on the streets of American cities, while men in masks grab up people who "look" suspicious, and we're told that this is perfectly normal. It's not the world I expected, and yet here we are. But when I try to discuss it, some folks tell me I'm just an alarmist. Or they tell me I'm too negative. Some folks insist there's no problem at all, even though to me, it certainly seems like there is. So, you tell me-- are we losing more and more of our freedoms, or is it just my imagination? After all, in a world where facts and truth are debatable, what I am seeing is probably just something else we can all debate-- until the day when debating is no longer allowed... 

 

Defending the Fact-Checkers

I was disappointed to hear that Glenn Kessler was leaving the Washington Post, and even more disappointed that no replacement had been named. Glenn was perhaps the first political fact-checker at the Post: he began doing that work back in 2011. He was thorough, he took his work very seriously, and he made a genuine effort to be non-partisan. Of course, if you asked politicians from both sides, they would claim he was biased-- just a partisan hack who hated their side and favored the other side. But Glenn was not a hack, and he was not a partisan either. And even when I didn't entirely agree with him, I thought he tried his best to be fair to the facts. 

While some evidence exists that hard-copy news magazines like Time had a fact-checking department as far back as the 1930s, online fact-checking is something that's relatively recent. One of the earliest sites devoted to it, Factcheck.org, got started in late 2003. The website Politifact.com got started circa 2007. A few other online newspapers and magazines developed their own fact-checkers too, and at least one cable channel has its own fact-checker-- Daniel Dale originally worked for the Toronto Star and joined CNN in 2019. In a world where facts were often in dispute, and each side of the debate lobbied hard to tell the story their own way, professional fact-checkers served a very useful purpose. This was especially true when social media platforms like TikTok and YouTube became dominant: many people who thought they were seeing "news" were really seeing partisan opinions masquerading as accurate fact. It was the professional fact-checkers who delved into the issues and presented much more in-depth (and more accurate) analysis, contradicting the misinformation and showing what the facts were.  

But as Glenn Kessler has noted, these days, the fact-checkers are outnumbered. And it seems the folks who are intentionally spreading misinformation are winning. Consider this: increasingly, more people are relying on AI for their searches and their research. In and of itself, that should be okay-- at its best, AI can explain a complicated subject or quickly find reference works you need. But here's the problem: at its worst, AI can get things wrong, or make up sources that don't exist. Professors are noticing that some student assignments have been written by ChatGPT (if you don't know your subject well, you won't recognize when the AI makes a mistake). 

And to make matters worse, some AI may soon be giving results that are intentionally biased. One search engine (Grok) has already had a tendency to periodically go off the rails and give answers that praise Hitler or encourage antisemitism. And now, thanks to pressure from the Trump administration, the tech giants who own the various AI chatbots are being ordered to remove any "woke" content. That means in order to do business with the federal government, these AI must align with the beliefs and ideology of conservatives. (Although conservatives have long claimed search engines were biased against conservative viewpoints, evidence has repeatedly shown that to be untrue; but it's still widely believed, and the president is determined to make sure only "correct" views show up in the answers AI provides.)

Meanwhile, all over the internet, it's easy to find myths, conspiracy theories, fake quotes, and manipulated or doctored images of events. And let's not forget the proliferation of deepfakes that look like famous people but are really AI generated. And standing against so much inaccurate information are a handful of fact-checkers, trying their best to separate truth from fiction in what we read or what we watch. I hope Glenn Kessler lands somewhere soon, because he's good at his job, and we need him to keep doing it. But it's also up to us to become fact-checkers every day: to avoid sending around memes with fake quotes, or falling for clickbait or outrage porn, and to take the time to seek out reputable sources. Glenn is right that at this moment, it seems like the bad guys are winning, but we certainly don't have to help them. In other words, it's okay for folks to debate what is or is not "woke." It's okay to disagree on the issues and debate whose perspective is the best. But when it comes to accurate and factual information, that shouldn't be up for debate. As New York congressman Daniel Patrick Moynihan once noted, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no-one is entitled to their own facts." I am sure Glenn Kessler would agree. 

 

Do You Remember the Time? (A Trip Back to 1974)

Sometimes, I enjoy looking back at some of my historical photos, especially the ones that relate to the years I spent in radio. And  whenever I do that, I always come back to several photos from the summer of 1974. This one shows the marquee of the Allen Theater in Cleveland, June 28, 1974. The quality isn't the greatest, but the historical significance is: it's when Rush played at the Allen Theater, and I first met them in person. John Rutsey was still their drummer at that time, and I've told the story of how shy the three guys in the band were. They were very appreciative that I had gotten them airplay at WMMS, and before their gig, their manager promised me they would never let me down. (And in all these years, they never have.)

June 1974 was an interesting month for music. Among the big albums nationally were Paul McCartney and Wings "Band on the Run," Elton John "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road," and Grand Funk Railroad "Shinin' On." At WMMS, we were doing well with Roxy Music "Stranded," David Bowie "Diamond Dogs," and the latest albums by Mott the Hoople, the Eagles, and Golden Earring. But our listeners still loved hearing that Rush album, the one with "Working Man" on it.  

A month later, John Rutsey was replaced by Neil Peart. If you're a Rush fan, you know the famous photo that commemorated their being signed to Mercury Records. It was probably taken in early August, if I had to guess. 

You can see WMMS deejay Matt the Cat on the left, and on the right, program director John Gorman, along with Mercury Records local promoter Don George. And in the middle, those three serious-looking guys: Neil, Geddy, and Alex. No, they weren't angry or upset: they were tired, and still camera-shy. And there I was in the front, holding the Rush album (which I still have).  

Perhaps, like me, you were a Rush fan right from their first album in 1974. Or perhaps you became a Rush fan years later. And perhaps, like my husband, you were never a Rush fan (he prefers country music) but you knew someone who was. My husband accompanied me to many of their concerts throughout the 1980s and beyond, and even he could not deny that these guys were dynamic performers, talented musicians, and really fun to watch. 

I have many other photos from along the way: I saw Rush in lots of cities and we remained in touch over the decades. I'm still amazed that more than 50 years have passed since I first met the guys, and I'm equally amazed that we still keep in touch. But I wonder what memories you have of 1974: perhaps you associate it with politics: the Watergate Scandal, the resignation of Nixon, and the controversial pardon Gerald Ford gave him. Perhaps 1974 brings back memories of TV shows like "All in the Family" and "Happy Days," or movies like "Blazing Saddles" and "The Towering Inferno." Or maybe you remember big sports headlines like Hank Aaron of the Atlanta Braves hitting his 715th career home run, and breaking Babe Ruth's record. 

As for me, I will never be able to look back on 1974 without thinking of the first time I played "Working Man" in the spring of that year, never realizing what it would lead to. And of course, I will always remember meeting the guys in the band for the first time: they were so young, yet even then, I knew they had such great potential. In December of 1974, Rush played at the Agora, and they performed some of the new songs they were working on. They also kindly gave me a shout-out when they played "Working Man."

And there you are. It was 1974. I was 26 years old, a deejay and a music director at WMMS in Cleveland.  And it was a year that would soon change my life. In fact, so many things have changed since then-- some good, some not so good. But the music remains, the friendships remain, and the memories remain too. And I'd be interested to know what you think of when you think of the year 1974. Feel free to let me know in the comments!    

The Tao of Wordle

I don't know how many of you recall a book from 1982 by Benjamin Hoff called The Tao of Pooh. It was a best-seller, and in it, the author used the fictional characters from A.A. Milne's beloved "Winnie-the-Pooh" universe to teach about Taoism. Hoff's basic theme was about learning to accept the natural order of things-- in other words, accepting life as it is, rather than fighting against it; being willing to live in the present, rather than feeling obligated to change everything around you. Taoist philosophy speaks about "wu wei," which is often translated as "non-doing," but conveys the idea of going with the flow. Pooh and his friends Piglet, Rabbit, Eeyore, and Tigger each have a different lesson to teach us. But one lesson that I remember is Pooh's ability to find joy in simple things. The book commends Pooh for that, and advises us to slow down, and to be mindful of what is around us.

And that leads me to Wordle. I have no plans to write a book about this popular word game, but it has often occurred to me that there are lessons we can learn from playing it. So, with apologies to Benjamin Hoff, and to Pooh, may I suggest the Tao of Wordle? Here are some lessons I've learned in the 3 years I've been playing.

1. You can only play Wordle once a day, and that's okay. Unlike other online games that you can play repeatedly, you have one game of Wordle each day. No more, no less. So, why not enjoy it? 

2. Some days, you will do very well; other days, you won't. There's no way to predict. And however it turns out, that's how it was supposed to turn out that day.

3. Sometimes, you will have a very easy time winning the game. Other times, it will be a challenge. There's no predicting that either. I jokingly say that sometimes, the Wordle gods smile on us, and sometimes they seem to be toying with us. (And now and then, you may solve the game on the first try-- it rarely happens, but when it does, it's guaranteed to make you smile.)

4. Sometimes, you will use logic to solve the Wordle. Sometimes, you will use luck. Sometimes, you will wonder why the Wordle gods chose that word, and you will feel like the game wasn't fair. Other times, you will pull out a win on try #6 and feel gratified that you succeeded. But however you feel, that's the score you got, and tomorrow is another day. 

5. In Wordle, as in life, everything changes, and nothing is forever. You may have a long winning streak. But at some point, you may suddenly lose it. The good news is that losing your streak only means there's the opportunity to start a new streak next time. My longest streak was 322 wins in a row. And then I lost. I was briefly disappointed, but the next night, I started my new streak. That's what a Wordle player does.

 6. Thanks to social media, you may find that others want to play Wordle with you every night. There are people from all over the world who play and then post their scores. If they do well, they are applauded by other players. If they do poorly, other players encourage them. It's almost like a family. And if you are a Wordle player, you never need to feel alone, because others are playing too.

 Perhaps you have some lessons you have learned from playing Wordle, but I guess for me, the biggest one is that like the Tao of Pooh, we can find joy in playing this simple game. And even in the midst of difficult times, we know that there are folks who care how we are, and who are waiting for us to post our score. And so, I'll sign off now-- because it's nearly midnight as I am writing this, and the new game of Wordle awaits. Wishing you a good score, and good people to share it with.