The debate over article #25, Form Based Zoning for North Amherst Village Center, veered towards testy a couple times and in both cases from opponents who would eventually rule the day--but only because, in zoning, a minority can obstruct the will of the majority.
Nathan Turowsky, a rare UMass student member of Town Meeting, described by another youthful rookie member as "an adorable dorky kid" came close to being escorted from the podium by the constable. Not so adorable.
And over on the privately owned Amherst Town Meeting listserve a vociferous opponent came back to a positive post from Nancy Buffone, UMass Executive Director of External Relations and fairly long-time Amherst resident, by calling her a "buffoon"-- although he quickly apologized:
"Today I realized that no matter which side ends up winning tonight, I
will have lost. I get no pleasure out of this kind of strife and
nastiness that's been going back and forth. I'm probably one of the more
guilty folk but I am not alone. The bottom line is that I feel drained
and depressed. I probably will not watch Town Meeting tonight because I
really can't win win no matter what the vote is. This has taken a lot
out of me."
After article #25 failed to garner a two-thirds super-majority, losing 137-73, there are indeed no winners.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
he should enroll in a public speaking course
Who called Nancy a "buffoon?" This article seems a bit lopsided in disclosing who was there, and I would like to make sure I do not vote for such a backwards "leader" if I can help it.
You just love showing students in a bad light, don't you Larry? If he agreed with you and/or had a better speaking style this clip would never appear here.
What a great moment for his teachers, especially his English teachers!
This was Nathan's 8th time, or so, addressing Town Meeting, each time with increasing bizarre-ness.
That's almost 100 hours of wasted time (24 minutes x 240 members).
Can anyone tell me what message he is trying to convey. He better go back to school, until he can speak.
If there's such a thing as impressionistic speaking, then this is it.
Rule 1 of Public Speaking: It's not about you.
Rule 2: Make sure that you know where any sentence is going to end.
My guess is that he is genuinely brilliant in something, and we are seeing the weak part of his game.
Three things.
First, exactly what was the moderator ruling him out of order on? And on what basis? I can see none -- he stated an opinion and a rationale for others to vote the way he wished.
I know it was a Selectboard meeting and not a Town Meeting, but we were both there on 9-10-01 for the flag debate and compared to some of the things that were said there, including blood & genocide being represented by the red in the US Flag, what exactly did the kid do?
(He should have appealed the decision of the chair -- he clearly had supporters and one of them should have.)
Second, the clock stops when the ref blows the whistle. The rules are that he gets that extra time added to the end. There is a reason for this, a reason for a lot of Robert's Rules and the bottom line is that Col. Roberts didn't want people finishing things out in the Streets of San Fransisco with firearms.
Third, this is why it is totally useless for any UM student to even bother to participate in the Amherst Town Meeting. I once did -- and after the schmuck of a moderator realized I was a UM student from my address, I could have sent up a flare and he wouldn't have seen me.
Larry, I disagree with this kid and everything he stands for, but what appears to have happened to him was wrong and it is yet one more example of why I think it is only a matter of time before the inevitable really-bloody riot with dead cops (and kids) and a destroyed community.
So he is a pompous windbag who uses lots of big words, few correctly, and isn't able to construct a single coherent sentence let alone make a point. I will make it for him -- the Amherst rental housing market is essentially controlled by just 8 people (seriously) and he believes this to have a corrupting influence on the political process.
He is the only pompous windbag in this town? The only one who can speak all day without actually saying anything coherent? REALLY?????
No, he is a UMass Student, UMass students aren't to be considered quite human, and we go from there. And those who fail to learn from history get to relive the mistakes of the past.
Many cities didn't quite consider the African-Americans in their ghettos to be quite human either -- and were surprised when their cities burned. Amherst has ghettos -- remember when the cop went through the floor earlier this year -- that says a lot about the conditions of student housing in this community.
Why shouldn't we expect history to repeat itself? Why *shouldn't* we expect the rage and related real riot sometime in the near future?
My guess is that he is genuinely brilliant in something, and we are seeing the weak part of his game.
No.
I have seen a lot like him, they are very good at blindly repeating the proper leftist mantras, using lots of big words (often incorrectly) to say absolutely nothing but as persons supporting the proper leftist causes he is awarded good grades and TAs and everything else.
It is why I consider both UMass itself and the larger academy to be morally corrupt if not outright morally bankrupt and likely to implode shortly.
It is not that he can't say anything of value, he can't even say anything coherent. Love me or hate me, people usually can understand what I am saying well enough to have articulateable reason(s) to not like me....
He was ruled out of order because his three minutes were up.
He had asked at the beginning for an extra minute and town meeting said no.
He was ruled out of order because his three minutes were up
No, I am talking about in the middle when he is talking about a corrupt process and keeps getting interrupted by *someone*. Not the vote to give him an extra minute but if that is a majority vote (which I believe it is) and from only the tape audio, it sounds too close to call from a voice vote. At the least too close to call...
Nathan was ruled out of order because:
1. he was insulting the moderator and town meeting (the house)
2. he spoke for more than 3 minutes
Nathan was a "no show" on Wednesday and I assume will be "no show" on Monday.
His 15 minutes of fame are over. And I'll never get those 15 minutes back.
Nathan was ruled out of order because he was insulting the moderator and town meeting (the house)
That is the point I was making. Lots of people have done a lot worse.
0r are the rules different when you are speaking about the Town (versus the USA)? Apparently one can only say positive things about the Town, only praise it's employees and rubber-stamp their self--descriptive accolades.
Hey, if he believed that the process of zoning to be morally corrupt (as opposed to legally) he has every right to say that. It is the same thing as someone stating that something is racist, and that is done all the time.
"Insulting the house", as I understand it, is a direct ad hominum directed at the membership, as in "you are all a bunch of f***ing a**holes." What he said was at best thrice removed from this, insulting a proposal and indirectly the process that created it, and then indirectly the people who were involved in that, who even more indirectly are members of this body as well.
I'd have let him say it. Give him enough rope to hang himself, the best solution to bad speech is good speech, the second is to let the bad speech continue to the point where everyone agrees it is bad speech.
And I bend over backwards to let my political opponents speak because I am certain that I am right and they are not and that the more they speak, the more they will convince everyone of this...
Ed
Nathan, according to his mother's Facebook page, has indeed left Amherst and returned to the familial homestead in VT after a grueling semester. He received two As and a B+.
ed, if your comments weren't so frequent, and long-winded, and were more "to the point", i wouldn't scroll past them. seriously.
ed, have you considered starting your own blog, instead of always trying to co-opt larry's?
Hey Ed...
You have "political opponents"?
Nathan, according to his mother's Facebook page, has indeed left Amherst and returned to the familial homestead in VT after a grueling semester. He received two As and a B+
That is only 9 credits. Full tine status is 12.
Just mentioning....
By political opponents, he must mean anyone who disagrees with him, on any of the seemingly limitless subjects on which he is willing to put forth an opinion, no matter how ill-informed. One can't have actual "opponents" until one enters the arena called real life, which Ed is apparently still unready to do.
Someone has to explain to me how "decorum", and the limitations on speech required in a public forum to get it, are such a bad thing.
I understand that bad speech, or poorly thought out speech, or speech that gratuitously rips people who serve, hopefully works on an audience to discredit itself. But, when you have 250 people whose civic obligation is to sit there and listen to it, I think the speaker has some obligations that are different from those pertaining to posters on a blog.
I'm lucky there was no YouTube when i was Nathan's age!
Please... that kid was hardly out of order. Was anyone damaged by his "insults"? And I've never seen anyone in any forum not be allowed the extra 5 or 10 seconds or so to finish up what they are saying. It was the moderator and a member of the audience who came off rude and disrespectful from where I sit.
Also, is there any video of Nathan coming "close to being escorted from the podium by the constable"?
I just commented twice in a row, then watched again. I thought he did a pretty good job and I get what he's talking about. I don't know whether or not I agree with him, but it wasn't the train wreck (in terms of his style, sentence structure, etc.) that some have said here. I thought he did a nice job of twice rephrasing a sentence that the poor moderator and the poor member of the audience had to endure. Over the years I've seen many people give insulting presentations to town meeting and selectboard, this was not one of them as far as I'm concerned.
He is an elected member of the body and he was not treated appropriately.
Two people didn't like what he was saying so they shut him down--despicable. I will not be voting for the same moderator next time around, I've had enough of that act.
For the record, I don't agree with Ed, however.
I agree completely with anon 10:38.
Post a Comment