So I should have stayed up a little later last night because sometime just before midnight the milestone one millionth visitor came a calling. Not that my sitemeter gives me their email so I can award him/her a prize.
Over the past seven years I have tried to cover the stories that my friends in the bricks and mortar media may have missed, or to cover them in a way that offers more of the backstory.
Living here all my life and having operated a small service-oriented business for 28 years gives me Google-like institutional memory and a fairly extensive list of ultra-reliable sources.
Sources who trust my use of "off the record," knowing that North Koreans could hold a flamethrower to my head and I would never give them up.
If you looked at my widget for "popular posts" (which is continuously updated real time) four months ago, six of the top ten stories had nothing to do with "rowdy student behavior."
Cowardly Anon Nitwits constantly accuse me, a proud UMass grad, of being "anti-student" where all I ever write about is the tiny minority of students who screw up.
So I kind of liked that I could respond with, "60% of my top ten stories have nothing to do with students behaving badly." Well unfortunately, that is no longer the case. This year's Blarney Blowout -- not exactly a "tiny minority" of students -- pushed not one, but two new posts into the top ten.
Now 60% of my "popular posts" do involve student bad behavior (4 of them specifically related to Blarney Blowout).
But I take great journo pride in the two stories that were pushed out of the top ten:
The potentially catastrophic basement fire at a Hobart Lane (students) apartment that exposed a (well known) landlord coverup of shoddy conditions -- including orchestrated violations of the bylaw restricting one family units to no more than four unrelated tenants.
A case that came at just the right time to help pass the Amherst Rental Registration & Permit Bylaw last year, the most important piece of legislation enacted by Town Meeting in a generation.
And the other case that you have also read about here more than any other media outlet: A working class family unfairly sanctioned by an overly PC Amherst School system. A sad story that is still ongoing.
I hope to be around to bring you a conclusion.
Congrats, Larry. They say good work is its own reward, but I want you to know that there are a lot of citizens out there who very much support what you do.
ReplyDeleteAnd would more if you just said SOMETHING about the question of the HS kids busted by the Hadley PD and if they are permitted to attend graduation, or not?
ReplyDeleteNo High School kids were "busted" (i.e. arrested) but yes, they were pretty much all ARHS kids.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, none of them are banned from graduation.
The two adult chaperons were not arrested with their hands cuffed behind their backs and dragged to the station.
They were issued "summons," so their names are not available via public documents request.
And the District Attorney's office will neither confirm or deny the status of an individual having been arraigned in court or appearing before a "show cause" hearing with the Clerk Magistrate without me first providing them with a name (kind of a neat Catch 22).
Why weren't minors "walking around with beers" arrested? They sure would have arrested 18/19-year-old UMass kids, and I think 17/18-year-old high school kids doing this is worse.
ReplyDeleteBut you have the (a) age of both parents, (b) of a senior, and (c) have a closed business in Hadley that (d) is at a fairly well described location. That and a few phone calls ought to get you a name...
Notwithstanding that, you have three published reports (one the semi-official Hadley PD Facebook Page) saying "Amherst Seniors" -- which is enough to request a formal comment from Jackson if not Maria G.
And then if you have a DSS/DCF source, the Hadley PD would have been obligated to file a 51A, that would have names on it...
Maria Geryk and Mark Jackson will not comment on any punishments handed out to students. Period.
ReplyDeleteYo Ed.
ReplyDeleteSince they were seniors chances are pretty good that they are 18 or over. So no reason to get DCF involved.
Congrats Larry. Even though I do not live in Amherst, I LOVE your work. I agree with anon 3:20, there are a lot of people who support your efforts, and I think the numbers bear that out. Your detractors comment, but those who agree with you post much less I'm sure. You are one tough mother#####r to take the hits you take from posters not brave enough to leave their names, and NEVER waiver from your mission. Good luck in your new enterprise. Richard Marsh
ReplyDeleteNice job Larry.
ReplyDeleteUm, what happened to the new Amherst Record?
ReplyDeleteThe first million is the hardest. Bravo!
ReplyDeleteMaria Geryk and Mark Jackson will not comment on any punishments handed out to students. Period.
ReplyDeleteThey seem to have been quite public in their comments about Dylan. And they wonder why we don't respect them... Anyway...,
Do what we used to do with the Minuteman -- ASK for a comment and then you state "refused to comment."
"The Hadley Police are reporting that about 150 Amherst seniors were [quote Hadley PD FB page]. Will these students be permitted to attend graduation?"
Followup: "Hypothetically then, IF one (or more) of your students was to have been observed by a police officer consuming alcohol, would that student be permitted to attend graduation?"
Followup: What is the district policy on student consumption of beer?"
And if they won't comment on that, then "Is it the policy of the district to comply with the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA) (Title IV, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act)?"
And if they won't comment on that, I'd either call Mitchell Chester's office and/or ED Region 1 in Boston and ask them for a comment on Maria's not commenting.... (It kinda would be like the APD refusing to answer a question about them being willing to enforce Chapter 209A.)
"Since they were seniors chances are pretty good that they are 18 or over>"
ReplyDeleteNo, 25% of them wouldn't be -- here's why:
Amherst* has a September 1st cutoff -- a child must be 5 years old on Sept 1st to start kindergarten. That means that, 13 years later, the same child will be 18 on September 1st -- and hence those with birthdays in June, July & August were still 17.
As June, July & August are 3/12 (1/4) of the year, and as children are largely born year-round, that means 1/4 of the graduating seniors were still under 18.
See http://www.doe.mass.edu/kindergarten/entry.aspx
* All four towns are Sept 1st, as is most of the Commonwealth.
Have I got this right?
ReplyDeleteIs Dr. Ed, the guy so many readers complain is boring them to death, telling Larry, who is celebrating his one millionth page view, how to do his job?
Ah, the irony (which is no doubt completely lost on Ed)...
Good job Larry, as of now there are a lot more people from Hampden County reading your Blog. Keep up the good work and remember Truth always prevails. Semper Fi' to my family, friends and country.
ReplyDeleteOR is Dr. Ed engage in a Pro Bono Act?
ReplyDeleteCould it possibly be that I was offering suggestions, not just to Larry, as to how to sidestep the obfuscation of Team Maria? Could it be that I was offering two pieces of information (SDFSCA & "Sept 1st") that may not be commonly known?
Could it be that the irony is a level deeper here?
Please correct your stats to 500,000. The rest are just Ed talking to himself.
ReplyDeleteOh, and congrats!
""Since they were seniors chances are pretty good that they are 18 or over>"
ReplyDeleteNo, 25% of them wouldn't be -- here's why:"
75% seems like pretty good chances to me, I thought you were a doctor? seems like simple percentages would be pretty easy
"75% seems like pretty good chances to me"
ReplyDelete"Judge Payne, I am innocent of the charge of buying beer for minors because 75% of the kids I bought it for were 21 years old."
I do not believe that Judge Payne would smile, let alone consider this a defense...
"Your honor, 75% of the time I stop for Red Lights..."
Ed. You are changing the subject. You are a fool. We were talking about the liklihood that the majority of the kids were 18 and therefore there was no reason to call DCF. Try to keep up.
ReplyDeleteDr. Ed, if you don't want people to call you a fool, don't act foolish. your point has nothing to do with the CHANCES that a group of people are over 18, of which the chances are pretty high. in fact, by your logic, the MAJORITY of the kids WOULD be over 18.
ReplyDeleteWe all know your degree wasn't in reading comprehension, but even a middle schooler can figure out what we are talking about here. clearly you can't, fool.
Sorry folks, Chapter 51A says "a child" -- one, singular, and hence 99.99999% don't count -- "a child" must be reported.
ReplyDeleteRead the law yourself...
Ad hominum attacks on me won't change things...the general court, in its infinite wisdom, has decreed "a" child...
Dr. Ed again talking changing the topic. pretty typical when he knows he's beat
ReplyDeleteI am not changing the subject. It is "statistically likely" that 25% wouldn't be 18, and the law (which I posted) requires a 51A for *any* child.
ReplyDeletethat's literally a different subject, Dr. Fool, oh I mean Dr. Ed.
ReplyDeletethe argument was what the chances the kids were over 18, and, according to your math, statistically 75% seems like HIGH CHANCES.
jeez. whenever you make a point, chances are that it doesn't matter in the argument at hand. And to clarify, since you don't know what chances are, I'm saying a majority of the time the points you make mean nothing to the subject being talked about.