I think satire and parody require their own special font. Once again we have a "conservative" commenter--Mark Williams-- jumping into deep shit with an idiotic attempt at satire by posting on his blog a letter from a "colored person" to President Lincoln that he penned somehow thinking it was a creative way to counterattack the NAACP that accused his (now former) political organization with being "racist". Yikes!
Be careful how you use the term "colored person," careful how you use President Lincoln and even more careful how you combine the two.
I'm reminded of my young friend Max Karson getting arrested three years ago for comments made the day after the Virginia Tech massacre about how he could see himself doing that. Of course Max made these comments in a "woman's study" class and Max had previously distinguished himself by getting suspended from Amherst Regional High School for writing about masturbation and gayness and god knows what else.
Naturally the Daily Hampshire Gazette (a puppy to the powers that be) editorially supported the draconian reaction of Boulder, Colorado officials, rather than defending the rough and tumble world of the First Amendment.
But yes, if I were in the Tea Party establishment (and it may come as a surprise to some of you that I'm not a card carrying member) I too would have ejected this idiot for what he wrote on his blog. And if it was just fine, why did he delete it--a cardinal sin for bloggers.
The BIG difference is that Max was arrested and faced jail time from government officials in Colorado for exercising his First Amendment rights, this nitwit Williams was axed by the privately run Tea Party.
I'll drink to that.
NY Daily News (a conservative paper) reports
Max Karson retrospective
Showing posts with label Max Karson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Max Karson. Show all posts
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Saturday, April 21, 2007
"Methinks thou doth protest too much."
Or in the case of this Daily Hampshire Gazette editorial, not protesting enough!
###################################################################
A repeat offender (Daily Hampshire Gazette 4/20/07)
Max Karson has a long tradition of offending people. Even the tragedy at Virginia Tech is not outside his reach.
Karson began publishing offensive material while a student at Amherst Regional High School. In his crude publication "The Crux," he sought to spread his insults as far and wide as possible. He got suspended from school twice, only to be reinstated with the help of the Western Massachusetts ACLU.
Karson is now offending people as a student at the University of Colorado in Boulder, where he has been distributing an outrageous newsletter called "The Yeti," which is also packed with vulgar language.
It turns out that his timing is as bad as his taste. He declared in a women's studies class this week that he could see why Cho Seung-Hui went on his violent rampage at Virginia Tech. He also said that, like Cho, he could become angry enough to kill a large number of people, even for the most mundane reasons. After students and faculty complained and expressed fears, Karson was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of "interference with staff, faculty, and students of an educational institution."
Karson thinks he's doing us all a favor by pushing the limits of free speech, but free speech is not without responsibilities. Karson has a right to his opinions, but his fellow students have a right to react to what they find hostile and offensive and to protect themselves in the face of threatening remarks.
###################################################################
Arguably the most stunning speech in American history occurred to consecrate ground where tens of thousands of men over a three day period had giving “their last measure of devotion” so that a “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
War is far from pretty, neither is the First Amendment.
The Daily Hampshire Gazette--Max Karson’s hometown newspaper for the vast majority of his young life--hardly reenacted the cavalry riding to his rescue with the above editorial.
Sure, timing had everything to do with the rash reaction to his remarks. Spoken a day before the massacre Max’s comments would hardly have raised an eyebrow. Just as Professor Jennie Traschen’s trashing of the American flag at a public meeting in bucolic Amherst twelve hours before Flight 11 impaled the North Tower generated little response (there was even some applause). Then next morning, EVERYTHING changed.
I vehemently opposed the 2004 staging of ‘Vagina Monologues’ at the Amherst Regional High School because I believe the C-word (and N-word for that matter) should not be used in public. And I vehemently opposed the cancellation of ‘West Side Story’ in 1999 because I did not see it as even remotely racist.
Adults should be allowed to peruse porn--but not young teenagers. And even with adults I draw the line with kiddy-porn. So yeah, the First Amendment has its limits in protecting speech.
But Max did not cross that line! If he said that a few years back in Amherst--even a day or two after Columbine--everybody would have simply figured that’s our Max.
He was in a classroom (Women’s Studies no less). Did he have a gun on him when he made those supposedly threatening statements? And having tried to teach Max karate, I can assure you his slightly built frame is far from a deadly weapon.
Sure “free speech is not without responsibilities” just as government interference with free speech is not without grave consequences.
Now here's a sane editorial (from Colorado no less):
Opinion Colorado Daily News
Freedom isn't free. Or pretty
Thursday, April 19, 2007
We've got some bad news for you CU: you can't have your cake and eat it too. Following the arrest of CU student Max Karson on Wednesday after a heated classroom discussion with other students about the dreadful killings at Virginia Tech, it seems like university administration and students are trying to stuff their fat faces with high-minded social libertarianism and stay on a strict diet of political correctness all at the same time.
Sorry folks, but you can't defend Ward Churchill's right to call dead New Yorkers “Little Eichmanns” out of one side of your mouth and condemn Max Karson for saying he can identify with a mass murderer out the other.
Let's get the obvious part out of the way first. Karson, the CU student who has caused uproar after uproar with his sophomoric ‘zine, “The Yeti,” picked a bad time to launch another free-speech battle. In a classroom debate Tuesday, the always-provocative Karson allegedly said he could understand how someone could be angry enough to kill 32 people, according to CU police reports. He also allegedly said, again, according to police reports, that the lighting and interiors of CU buildings were making him feel “mad enough to do something.”
It's not a popular opinion these days to be sure, but was it worth arresting the guy over? Dumb? Yes. Threatening? We're not convinced.
First of all, debate about a subject never killed anyone. If a discussion about the massacre in Blacksburg, Va. was initiated in Karson's class, either by a student or teacher, surely no one expected everyone to have the same opinion about the matter. After Columbine, debate raged for years about whether 13 crosses - one each for the victims - or 15 - one for each victim and two for the killers who also died - should be erected to memorialized the fallen. A lot of people felt sympathy for the Columbine killers. Many more felt hatred toward the two young men that caused a community such misery. The point is, everyone had a right to their opinion on April 20, 1999 and they still do today.
In this country, we don't lock up people with ugly or stupid ideas. You are free to ignore them all you want, though. Once again, Max Karson, a man with views that so many people at CU disagree with, has been made a martyr for free speech, and that's bad for the rest of us.
And let's talk about people feeling threatened at CU for a minute. In Nov. 2004, CU-Boulder instructor Michael Kanner got angry when a student in his class made comments against the celebration of Veterans Day. The student told Kanner, a veteran, there is never any reason to use violence.
Kanner's response was, by his own admission, a bad one. He threw the woman's bag, then pulled a one-inch knife from his shirt pocket and, according to a witness, held it to her throat.
Kanner, to his credit, fell all over himself apologizing for the incident. He said his thumb, not the blade, was against the skin. No matter. He scared the woman and a number of other people in the class.
But he wasn't arrested. And he wasn't banned from campus. He's still there today, teaching like nothing ever happened.
Now that's what we call tolerance.
The CU administration also has never said Ward Churchill should be thrown off campus for what he said in his essay, “On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.” Supposedly, it's academic dishonesty that's got him in hot water with the university. So if the university is going to, in effect, defend Churchill's right to smear the fallen from Sept. 11, they ought to stand up and do the same for Max Karson, as painful as it may be.
But don't just take our word for it. Here's what CU-Boulder Chancellor G.P. ‘Bud' Peterson had to say Monday in a special editorial he asked us to run titled “Words need not create storms.”
“· on a university campus, you can enjoy the privilege of sitting across from the person you are engaging in debate or discussion. You can see the expressions and gestures of their person, hear all the nuances and inflections in their voice, and more fully comprehend how they process what you say and how it affects them.
“This proximity means that in face-to-face discussions, the stakes of debate are higher. You might have to go to class, or share a room or residence hall lounge with the person with whom you are debating, so the necessity for observing those nuances, along with the basic protocol of respect, is high.
“This openness and accountability represents the best of our universities and they are an integral part of our university community ·”
Well said, Chancellor. So the next time two people have a disagreement in a classroom, is the university still going to throw one of them off campus?
Looks like Michael Kanner put his knife away just in time. People get thrown in jail around here for a lot less these days.
And Max, grow up buddy. Fast.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Free Max Karson!
Local man arrested after riling Colorado class
BY ANDREW HORTON STAFF WRITER
AMHERST - A 22-year-old Amherst man with a controversial past was arrested Tuesday in Colorado after he made comments sympathetic to the gunman behind Monday's deadly shooting at Virginia Tech.
Max Karson, a 2003 graduate of Amherst Regional High School and a junior at the University of Colorado in Boulder, was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of 'interference with staff, faculty, and students of an educational institution,' after saying during a women's studies class discussion that he could see why Cho Seung-Hui killed 32 students and faculty members at Virginia Tech.
#######################################################################
When we radically change the way we live in response to a terrorist incident then the terrorist have won. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. The way to counter bad speech is with good speech.
I first met Max Karson thirteen years ago when he did Karate with me. When I was fighting the Amherst Regional High School allowing teenaged girls to perform ‘Vagina Monologues’ I cited the hypocrisy of the school canceling a production of ‘West Side Story’ and shutting down Max from distributing his newsletter, The Crux.
So Max gets in trouble for writing about masturbation, but it’s okay for an even younger girl to simulate it on stage?
Max then joined in the Internet exchanges on the Masslive Amherst Forum:
916.1.1.2.1. Hey Max
by LarryK, 1/31/04 10:37 ET
Re: Question For Larry by CruxEditor, 1/31/04
Found this in Amherst College paper:
Amherst Regional High School is at the center of a debate on free speech after the third attempt to suspend a student who published a newsletter that school officials deemed obscene. Senior Max Karson was suspended for three days after he published the latest issue of The Crux. Both previous suspensions were rescinded, according to the Daily Hampshire Gazette. School officials believe that The Crux violates the school handbook’s definition of obscenity in that it “describes nudity or sexual conduct in a way that most members of the community think clearly offensive.” Karson and his father Michael Karson both said that although the latest issue of The Crux discussed and graphically described masturbation, it was not intended to sexually arouse readers and therefore cannot be labeled as obscene. The school maintains that the issue is about behavioral expectations. In October, the Amherst-Pelham Regional School Committee adopted a policy that encourages—but does not require—students to provide their principals with copies of published material and prohibits derogatory or offensive language referring to ethnicity, gender, race, religion or sexual orientation
933. Criminy...
by CruxEditor, 2/3/04 1:30 ET
Hey Larry! And anyone who wants to jump in!
Okay, yes, I completely agree with you... Mr. Wehrli and Ms. Hannigan are completely inconsistent about what they allow and don't allow. And yes, part of why they are supporting this is that they know they will look a lot worse stopping a bunch of girls' speech than they did when they stopped mine. Or tried to. Anyways, I think it's really annoying that they clearly have absolutely no position on any issue. I also think a lot of it has to do with the new super.
Yes, we are talking about the C-word, I know, but I see this as a sort of exaggerated feminine mystique. I think The Birdcage helped fight homophobia a lot more than any documentary would, because it was so funny and endearing, and simply because it had gay people on the silver screen. I think that the Vagina Monologues are similarily funny and endearing. Clearly Larry does not agree on that point.
I don't think there's any way to construe the Vagina Monologues as being anti-woman, or having an anti-woman effect. It may be vulgar by many peoples' standards, and it may offend everyone, but I don't see how it could be anything but anti-sexism, anti-violence, and pro... you know what I'm saying. I think even a one in a million chance of promoting the equality of the sexes is worth making an entire town red in the face.
933.3. Agree Max, partially
by LarryK, 2/3/04 9:48 ET
Re: Criminy... by CruxEditor, 2/3/04
Obviously school officials are being hypocritically inconsistent. Yes, they came down on you like a ton of latte because you were a 17-year-old white male.
But I take issue with ‘VM" being "funny and endearing". Obviously not anti-woman but most certainly anti-male. And is it fair for a schools system made up equally off both sexes to cater to only one side at the expense of the other?
A woman had a letter in Sunday’s Republican where she decried the "Sexualization of women in our culture, and the physical and sexual exploitation of women by men."
So I sent her the following email on Sunday:
"I find it kind of amusing (in an ironic rather than Ha Ha sort of way) you write in today's Republican: "...the physical and sexual exploitation of women by men."
If you have been paying attention, my #1 concern (the C-word believe it or not is only #2) is the "Little Coochie Snorcher that could" monologue where a 24 year old woman sexually exploits a--depending on which edition of the book you read--a 13 year old girl or after the outcry a few years back changed suddenly to 16 years old. But most folks would argue that if a 24-year-old has sex (after plying them with alcohol) with a 16-year-old that amounts to sexual exploitation of a girl by a women."
And she responded yesterday:
"I happen to agree with you. The vignette you mentioned where a 24 year old gives alcohol to, and then seduces, a 16 year old is the one vignette I take strong issue with. I don't understand why it's in the collection of monologues--in my mind, it negates the message about "owning one's body" the other monologues address."
933.3.1. Anti-male
by CruxEditor, 2/3/04 15:10 ET
Re: Criminy... by CruxEditor, 2/3/04
Hey. I first read the vagina monologues when I was in eighth grade, and I really liked it. I don't remember feeling threatened by it as a male. Do you guys know what parts would be anti-male? Or is it just the fact that they would never allow the Penis Monologues to be performed?
Also, what may be statuatory rape in a lot of states isn't in Massachusetts. I don't know if that matters to you, but 24-year-olds and 16-year-olds can totally have sex here without breaking the law.
933.3.1.1. Funny you mention
by LarryK, 2/3/04 17:43 ET
Re: Criminy... by CruxEditor, 2/3/04
that you were in 8'th grade. So that was 5 years ago. So that means the edition of 'VM" you read was the Off Broadway Award Winner where the Little Coochi Snorcher is only 13 when seduced by a 24 year old. And of course it is in response to a rape that happened when she was 10 (Dad avenged it by shooting the male perp). So the thrust of the monologue is men are bad--you're better off with women as sex partners even is you are only 13 and she is 24. And that is a crime in any state in the nation
933.3.2. How 'bout
by LloydLoar, 2/3/04 21:33 ET
Re: Criminy... by CruxEditor, 2/3/04
Kelley/Karson '04?
you only need one more K.
933.3.2.1. Let's see one more K....
by AmhRes, 2/3/04 23:49 ET
Re: Criminy... by CruxEditor, 2/3/04
would equal KKK. Sounds about right
933.3.2.2. When you lack cogent
by LarryK, 2/4/04 9:18 ET
Re: Criminy... by CruxEditor, 2/4/04
arguments you resort to namecalling.I believe that in debate circles it is called Argument Ad Homonym.
LL you surprise me. And to think I thought you were a master debater.
960. Hey AmhRes
by CruxEditor, 2/7/04 14:59 ET
Will you please tell me what you meant when you implied that I'm in the KKK? And will you please tell me why you said it?
You say that you should practice what you preach, but isn't that sort of a bullying tactic to use? Also, I was totally staying out of the meanness in the discussion, so why me?
960.1.1.1.1. mbex,
by LloydLoar, 2/7/04 23:55 ET
Re: Hey AmhRes by CruxEditor, 2/7/04
I have no "explanation" for my thoughtless joke about Max and Larry.
So I apologized.
In case you missed it, I'll apologize again.
But Crux would do his own mental health a favor to work on his histrionically reactive "unadulterated hate" language.
(at age 18, what does he know about adultery?)
960.1.1.1.1.1. 's cool, Lloyd
by CruxEditor, 2/8/04 1:56 ET
Re: Hey AmhRes by CruxEditor, 2/8/04
Thanks for saying that. I don't know, I think you just hit a sore spot for me, you know? Last year, 50 teachers signed a letter saying I was racist and sexist and everything else and they ran it in the school paper. But you obviously didn't mean to, so I completely forgive you.
I can only hope that AmhRes and Larry and I will come to a similarly peaceful resolution.
"Life is very short, and there's no ti-i-i-i-ime... for fussing and fighting my friend!"
Also, Lloyd... we live in a world where educators let 14-year-olds use the C-word. How could an 18-year-old NOT know about adultery??
959.1.1.1.3. O'reilly Factor
by CruxEditor, 2/7/04 16:20 ET
Rip it up, Larry. Rip it up. You know I'm for the production and everything, but if you see a way to destroy Amherst, go for it, by all means. The town is very sick, and the honorable thing to do would be to put it out of its misery.
AmhRes, you should go talk to Larry at his office. Even if you don't have anything to say, you should go meet him, anyway. He's a nice guy, regardless of whether you agree with his politics.
Of course, now that I think of it, ninety-percent of my personal interactions with Larry Kelley involved him beating me up, but I guess I was asking for it. I mean, I even paid him.
Just don't look him in the eye, and you'll be ok.
955. Larry
by CruxEditor, 2/6/04 16:53 ET
Is it okay if I mention you in a letter I may be writing to the editor of the Gazette?
I won't call you any names or say that you're in the KKK with me or anything.
955.1. Sure, go ahead
by LarryK, 2/6/04 17:09 ET
Re: Larry by CruxEditor, 2/6/04
Unlike AmhRes I don't mind standing up under my God given (well, Irish Catholic Mother given) name.
950. LloydLoar
by CruxEditor, 2/6/04 3:41 ET
To keep up with your posting format, I'll bash you for a few paragraphs, and then I'll accept your apology.
How old am I? 18. Who raised me? My parents. My dad got trespassed from school property for calling the principal a f***ing Nazi. We have a lot in common, I guess, except I don't accuse people of being members of racist organizations. My mom kicked me out when I was sixteen years old. So, yes and no. My father approves of my reactive need to express my unadulterated hatred. My mother does not.
Please stop correcting the grammatical mistakes in my writing. It really bothers me. I would do it back, but as much as I despise you, I can't bring myself to do it.
On the topic of my belief that all miscommunications are the fault of my readers: When I write something, and my dad doesn't understand it, I think it's because I didn't word it clearly enough. When I write something, and my brother doesn't understand it, I think it's because I wasn't really saying anything in the first place. When I write something, and my girlfriend doesn't understand it, I think I should rip it up and start over.When I write something and YOU don't understand it, I think it's because you either won't, or can't, read.
You characterize my response to your comment as a reactionary and short-fused expression of my ability to alienate people. You described your comment as "(perhaps) tasteless." And you say that I react without knowing very much about the target of my hatred. But I know a lot about you, now. I know that when you apologize to someone, you have to debase them by asking how old they are and who raised them, probably so that apologizing doesn't seem like such a huge concession. And as you build up to your apology, you mercilessly criticize the person's hotheaded reaction to your assault on them. And then, right as you're about to finally say sorry, you tell me that my strongest, and only, attribute may end up being the ability to alienate.
However, the most fascinating part of your post was when you said "I kinda thought this Forum might be about civil discourse." Is calling other people KKK members civil discourse? And where did that come from, anyways? How is it possible for you to say that about me (for no reason, I think), and then when I get pissed off, accuse me of not participating in civil discourse?
Hey, I was just talking about my feelings, I wasn't trying to be uncivil. And your comment WAS thoughtless, thank you for admitting that. My comments are not. You're slinging mud. This isn't mud. This is bullets. I still hate you.
I accept your apology.
950.1. Crux, maybe
by LloydLoar, 2/6/04 9:55 ET
Re: LloydLoar by CruxEditor, 2/6/04
you oughta have more respect for you mother's sensibilities.
950.1.1. Sensibilities
by CruxEditor, 2/6/04 16:47 ET
Re: LloydLoar by CruxEditor, 2/6/04
I can't really control what makes me angry, so I can't help you there. But I can control whether or not I say horrible things about people, and so can you. Maybe you should have more respect for my mother's, and everyone else's, sensibilities.
950.1.1.1. I'm glad I got you talking about
by LloydLoar, 2/6/04 23:00 ET
Re: LloydLoar by CruxEditor, 2/6/04
respect for mothers.
Yr right. MY mother wouldn't approve of my KKK jibe. So, I'll try to be more respectful.
But hopefully, my sense of humor won't just reactivate your "unadulterated hatred" of me (whoever you think I am).
Y'know, hatred eats at the hater as much if not more than at the hated.
Maybe your "hatred" of me bounces off, while it just smolders inside you.
You might consider meditation or exercise. Maybe someone to talk to who won't give you such a hard time.
945.1. Obscenity
by CruxEditor, 2/5/04 18:12 ET
I've spent a long time researching and arguing the definitition of obscenity, so I can give you a very short, very accurate briefing on the word.
In that context, they are talking about the legal definition of obscenity. The material has to fulfill all three of the following requirements:
1. The material, taken as a whole, does not have any redeeming social, political, artistic, scientific, or other value.
(I think that we can all agree that taken as a whole, the VM's DO have political and artistic value.)
2. It has to be patently offensive to the community it is received by.
(This may be true in this case, but I don't think it is. Most kids aren't offended by it.)
3. It has to appeal to the prurient interest.
(There's no way that the VM's are supposed to turn people on. It is not a pornographic show, regardless of the language used in it.)
So, while the show may fit the commonly used definition of the word obscene, it doesn't even come close to fulfilling those three requirements. Even if the show WAS pornographic, and if it WAS offensive to everyone, it wouldn't matter, as long as there is one sentence in the whole thing that has social or political value. And, basically, in Massachusetts, unlike any other state, there is a law the specifically protects vulgar speech. So the obscenity angle is no good on this one.
944. 'VM' another casualty
by LarryK, 2/5/04 12:44 ET
Amherst Bulletin
Nick Grabbe, Commentary Editor
Dear Nick,
It is with deepest regret that after 14 years, I must now tender my resignation as an Amherst Bulletin columnist.
I have always worked hard to disburse my opinion to a broad audience with clarity and precision. While I freely admit my oftentimes-combative rhetoric, I take pride in always trying to maintain a high standard of journalistic integrity.
Our agreement was simple: I could write about anything as long as it was a local, Amherst issue. Considering how often I challenged the municipally owned Cherry Hill Golf Course or town officials’ mistreatment of the American flag (starting the eve of 9/11), obviously I was never limited to covering an issue only once.
The direct order from your boss Jim Foudy to ban me from writing another column blasting High school officials obsession with ‘The Vagina Monologues’ is clearly a breech of our deal. I also feel it infringes on my First Amendment rights. Perhaps I am now "the center of the storm," but isn’t that the very position most columnists would forbear coffee over?
Furthermore for Mr. Foudy to pen a Gazette editorial that very afternoon (1/27) supporting "VM" and alluding to me as a bookbanner with little public support, while ignoring a School Committee meeting that very night (where play opponents outnumbered supporters by a more than two to one margin) was a tad too Machiavellian for me.
Again, I regret abandoning something I truly love…unfortunately a higher principle takes precedence.
Larry Kelley (5’th Generation resident, Amherst)
CC: All the usual suspects
944.3. Larry
by CruxEditor, 2/5/04 18:05 ET
Re: 'VM? another casualty by LarryK, 2/5/04
I'm sorry.
I have an incredible amount of admiration for the kids who are putting on the Vagina Monologues, and I have an incredible amount of admiration for you. If everyone stood up for what they believed in, the world would be a wonderful place.
But it isn't. I'm sorry they're not letting you stand up. I know you'll find another way.
BY ANDREW HORTON STAFF WRITER
AMHERST - A 22-year-old Amherst man with a controversial past was arrested Tuesday in Colorado after he made comments sympathetic to the gunman behind Monday's deadly shooting at Virginia Tech.
Max Karson, a 2003 graduate of Amherst Regional High School and a junior at the University of Colorado in Boulder, was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of 'interference with staff, faculty, and students of an educational institution,' after saying during a women's studies class discussion that he could see why Cho Seung-Hui killed 32 students and faculty members at Virginia Tech.
#######################################################################
When we radically change the way we live in response to a terrorist incident then the terrorist have won. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. The way to counter bad speech is with good speech.
I first met Max Karson thirteen years ago when he did Karate with me. When I was fighting the Amherst Regional High School allowing teenaged girls to perform ‘Vagina Monologues’ I cited the hypocrisy of the school canceling a production of ‘West Side Story’ and shutting down Max from distributing his newsletter, The Crux.
So Max gets in trouble for writing about masturbation, but it’s okay for an even younger girl to simulate it on stage?
Max then joined in the Internet exchanges on the Masslive Amherst Forum:
916.1.1.2.1. Hey Max
by LarryK, 1/31/04 10:37 ET
Re: Question For Larry by CruxEditor, 1/31/04
Found this in Amherst College paper:
Amherst Regional High School is at the center of a debate on free speech after the third attempt to suspend a student who published a newsletter that school officials deemed obscene. Senior Max Karson was suspended for three days after he published the latest issue of The Crux. Both previous suspensions were rescinded, according to the Daily Hampshire Gazette. School officials believe that The Crux violates the school handbook’s definition of obscenity in that it “describes nudity or sexual conduct in a way that most members of the community think clearly offensive.” Karson and his father Michael Karson both said that although the latest issue of The Crux discussed and graphically described masturbation, it was not intended to sexually arouse readers and therefore cannot be labeled as obscene. The school maintains that the issue is about behavioral expectations. In October, the Amherst-Pelham Regional School Committee adopted a policy that encourages—but does not require—students to provide their principals with copies of published material and prohibits derogatory or offensive language referring to ethnicity, gender, race, religion or sexual orientation
933. Criminy...
by CruxEditor, 2/3/04 1:30 ET
Hey Larry! And anyone who wants to jump in!
Okay, yes, I completely agree with you... Mr. Wehrli and Ms. Hannigan are completely inconsistent about what they allow and don't allow. And yes, part of why they are supporting this is that they know they will look a lot worse stopping a bunch of girls' speech than they did when they stopped mine. Or tried to. Anyways, I think it's really annoying that they clearly have absolutely no position on any issue. I also think a lot of it has to do with the new super.
Yes, we are talking about the C-word, I know, but I see this as a sort of exaggerated feminine mystique. I think The Birdcage helped fight homophobia a lot more than any documentary would, because it was so funny and endearing, and simply because it had gay people on the silver screen. I think that the Vagina Monologues are similarily funny and endearing. Clearly Larry does not agree on that point.
I don't think there's any way to construe the Vagina Monologues as being anti-woman, or having an anti-woman effect. It may be vulgar by many peoples' standards, and it may offend everyone, but I don't see how it could be anything but anti-sexism, anti-violence, and pro... you know what I'm saying. I think even a one in a million chance of promoting the equality of the sexes is worth making an entire town red in the face.
933.3. Agree Max, partially
by LarryK, 2/3/04 9:48 ET
Re: Criminy... by CruxEditor, 2/3/04
Obviously school officials are being hypocritically inconsistent. Yes, they came down on you like a ton of latte because you were a 17-year-old white male.
But I take issue with ‘VM" being "funny and endearing". Obviously not anti-woman but most certainly anti-male. And is it fair for a schools system made up equally off both sexes to cater to only one side at the expense of the other?
A woman had a letter in Sunday’s Republican where she decried the "Sexualization of women in our culture, and the physical and sexual exploitation of women by men."
So I sent her the following email on Sunday:
"I find it kind of amusing (in an ironic rather than Ha Ha sort of way) you write in today's Republican: "...the physical and sexual exploitation of women by men."
If you have been paying attention, my #1 concern (the C-word believe it or not is only #2) is the "Little Coochie Snorcher that could" monologue where a 24 year old woman sexually exploits a--depending on which edition of the book you read--a 13 year old girl or after the outcry a few years back changed suddenly to 16 years old. But most folks would argue that if a 24-year-old has sex (after plying them with alcohol) with a 16-year-old that amounts to sexual exploitation of a girl by a women."
And she responded yesterday:
"I happen to agree with you. The vignette you mentioned where a 24 year old gives alcohol to, and then seduces, a 16 year old is the one vignette I take strong issue with. I don't understand why it's in the collection of monologues--in my mind, it negates the message about "owning one's body" the other monologues address."
933.3.1. Anti-male
by CruxEditor, 2/3/04 15:10 ET
Re: Criminy... by CruxEditor, 2/3/04
Hey. I first read the vagina monologues when I was in eighth grade, and I really liked it. I don't remember feeling threatened by it as a male. Do you guys know what parts would be anti-male? Or is it just the fact that they would never allow the Penis Monologues to be performed?
Also, what may be statuatory rape in a lot of states isn't in Massachusetts. I don't know if that matters to you, but 24-year-olds and 16-year-olds can totally have sex here without breaking the law.
933.3.1.1. Funny you mention
by LarryK, 2/3/04 17:43 ET
Re: Criminy... by CruxEditor, 2/3/04
that you were in 8'th grade. So that was 5 years ago. So that means the edition of 'VM" you read was the Off Broadway Award Winner where the Little Coochi Snorcher is only 13 when seduced by a 24 year old. And of course it is in response to a rape that happened when she was 10 (Dad avenged it by shooting the male perp). So the thrust of the monologue is men are bad--you're better off with women as sex partners even is you are only 13 and she is 24. And that is a crime in any state in the nation
933.3.2. How 'bout
by LloydLoar, 2/3/04 21:33 ET
Re: Criminy... by CruxEditor, 2/3/04
Kelley/Karson '04?
you only need one more K.
933.3.2.1. Let's see one more K....
by AmhRes, 2/3/04 23:49 ET
Re: Criminy... by CruxEditor, 2/3/04
would equal KKK. Sounds about right
933.3.2.2. When you lack cogent
by LarryK, 2/4/04 9:18 ET
Re: Criminy... by CruxEditor, 2/4/04
arguments you resort to namecalling.I believe that in debate circles it is called Argument Ad Homonym.
LL you surprise me. And to think I thought you were a master debater.
960. Hey AmhRes
by CruxEditor, 2/7/04 14:59 ET
Will you please tell me what you meant when you implied that I'm in the KKK? And will you please tell me why you said it?
You say that you should practice what you preach, but isn't that sort of a bullying tactic to use? Also, I was totally staying out of the meanness in the discussion, so why me?
960.1.1.1.1. mbex,
by LloydLoar, 2/7/04 23:55 ET
Re: Hey AmhRes by CruxEditor, 2/7/04
I have no "explanation" for my thoughtless joke about Max and Larry.
So I apologized.
In case you missed it, I'll apologize again.
But Crux would do his own mental health a favor to work on his histrionically reactive "unadulterated hate" language.
(at age 18, what does he know about adultery?)
960.1.1.1.1.1. 's cool, Lloyd
by CruxEditor, 2/8/04 1:56 ET
Re: Hey AmhRes by CruxEditor, 2/8/04
Thanks for saying that. I don't know, I think you just hit a sore spot for me, you know? Last year, 50 teachers signed a letter saying I was racist and sexist and everything else and they ran it in the school paper. But you obviously didn't mean to, so I completely forgive you.
I can only hope that AmhRes and Larry and I will come to a similarly peaceful resolution.
"Life is very short, and there's no ti-i-i-i-ime... for fussing and fighting my friend!"
Also, Lloyd... we live in a world where educators let 14-year-olds use the C-word. How could an 18-year-old NOT know about adultery??
959.1.1.1.3. O'reilly Factor
by CruxEditor, 2/7/04 16:20 ET
Rip it up, Larry. Rip it up. You know I'm for the production and everything, but if you see a way to destroy Amherst, go for it, by all means. The town is very sick, and the honorable thing to do would be to put it out of its misery.
AmhRes, you should go talk to Larry at his office. Even if you don't have anything to say, you should go meet him, anyway. He's a nice guy, regardless of whether you agree with his politics.
Of course, now that I think of it, ninety-percent of my personal interactions with Larry Kelley involved him beating me up, but I guess I was asking for it. I mean, I even paid him.
Just don't look him in the eye, and you'll be ok.
955. Larry
by CruxEditor, 2/6/04 16:53 ET
Is it okay if I mention you in a letter I may be writing to the editor of the Gazette?
I won't call you any names or say that you're in the KKK with me or anything.
955.1. Sure, go ahead
by LarryK, 2/6/04 17:09 ET
Re: Larry by CruxEditor, 2/6/04
Unlike AmhRes I don't mind standing up under my God given (well, Irish Catholic Mother given) name.
950. LloydLoar
by CruxEditor, 2/6/04 3:41 ET
To keep up with your posting format, I'll bash you for a few paragraphs, and then I'll accept your apology.
How old am I? 18. Who raised me? My parents. My dad got trespassed from school property for calling the principal a f***ing Nazi. We have a lot in common, I guess, except I don't accuse people of being members of racist organizations. My mom kicked me out when I was sixteen years old. So, yes and no. My father approves of my reactive need to express my unadulterated hatred. My mother does not.
Please stop correcting the grammatical mistakes in my writing. It really bothers me. I would do it back, but as much as I despise you, I can't bring myself to do it.
On the topic of my belief that all miscommunications are the fault of my readers: When I write something, and my dad doesn't understand it, I think it's because I didn't word it clearly enough. When I write something, and my brother doesn't understand it, I think it's because I wasn't really saying anything in the first place. When I write something, and my girlfriend doesn't understand it, I think I should rip it up and start over.When I write something and YOU don't understand it, I think it's because you either won't, or can't, read.
You characterize my response to your comment as a reactionary and short-fused expression of my ability to alienate people. You described your comment as "(perhaps) tasteless." And you say that I react without knowing very much about the target of my hatred. But I know a lot about you, now. I know that when you apologize to someone, you have to debase them by asking how old they are and who raised them, probably so that apologizing doesn't seem like such a huge concession. And as you build up to your apology, you mercilessly criticize the person's hotheaded reaction to your assault on them. And then, right as you're about to finally say sorry, you tell me that my strongest, and only, attribute may end up being the ability to alienate.
However, the most fascinating part of your post was when you said "I kinda thought this Forum might be about civil discourse." Is calling other people KKK members civil discourse? And where did that come from, anyways? How is it possible for you to say that about me (for no reason, I think), and then when I get pissed off, accuse me of not participating in civil discourse?
Hey, I was just talking about my feelings, I wasn't trying to be uncivil. And your comment WAS thoughtless, thank you for admitting that. My comments are not. You're slinging mud. This isn't mud. This is bullets. I still hate you.
I accept your apology.
950.1. Crux, maybe
by LloydLoar, 2/6/04 9:55 ET
Re: LloydLoar by CruxEditor, 2/6/04
you oughta have more respect for you mother's sensibilities.
950.1.1. Sensibilities
by CruxEditor, 2/6/04 16:47 ET
Re: LloydLoar by CruxEditor, 2/6/04
I can't really control what makes me angry, so I can't help you there. But I can control whether or not I say horrible things about people, and so can you. Maybe you should have more respect for my mother's, and everyone else's, sensibilities.
950.1.1.1. I'm glad I got you talking about
by LloydLoar, 2/6/04 23:00 ET
Re: LloydLoar by CruxEditor, 2/6/04
respect for mothers.
Yr right. MY mother wouldn't approve of my KKK jibe. So, I'll try to be more respectful.
But hopefully, my sense of humor won't just reactivate your "unadulterated hatred" of me (whoever you think I am).
Y'know, hatred eats at the hater as much if not more than at the hated.
Maybe your "hatred" of me bounces off, while it just smolders inside you.
You might consider meditation or exercise. Maybe someone to talk to who won't give you such a hard time.
945.1. Obscenity
by CruxEditor, 2/5/04 18:12 ET
I've spent a long time researching and arguing the definitition of obscenity, so I can give you a very short, very accurate briefing on the word.
In that context, they are talking about the legal definition of obscenity. The material has to fulfill all three of the following requirements:
1. The material, taken as a whole, does not have any redeeming social, political, artistic, scientific, or other value.
(I think that we can all agree that taken as a whole, the VM's DO have political and artistic value.)
2. It has to be patently offensive to the community it is received by.
(This may be true in this case, but I don't think it is. Most kids aren't offended by it.)
3. It has to appeal to the prurient interest.
(There's no way that the VM's are supposed to turn people on. It is not a pornographic show, regardless of the language used in it.)
So, while the show may fit the commonly used definition of the word obscene, it doesn't even come close to fulfilling those three requirements. Even if the show WAS pornographic, and if it WAS offensive to everyone, it wouldn't matter, as long as there is one sentence in the whole thing that has social or political value. And, basically, in Massachusetts, unlike any other state, there is a law the specifically protects vulgar speech. So the obscenity angle is no good on this one.
944. 'VM' another casualty
by LarryK, 2/5/04 12:44 ET
Amherst Bulletin
Nick Grabbe, Commentary Editor
Dear Nick,
It is with deepest regret that after 14 years, I must now tender my resignation as an Amherst Bulletin columnist.
I have always worked hard to disburse my opinion to a broad audience with clarity and precision. While I freely admit my oftentimes-combative rhetoric, I take pride in always trying to maintain a high standard of journalistic integrity.
Our agreement was simple: I could write about anything as long as it was a local, Amherst issue. Considering how often I challenged the municipally owned Cherry Hill Golf Course or town officials’ mistreatment of the American flag (starting the eve of 9/11), obviously I was never limited to covering an issue only once.
The direct order from your boss Jim Foudy to ban me from writing another column blasting High school officials obsession with ‘The Vagina Monologues’ is clearly a breech of our deal. I also feel it infringes on my First Amendment rights. Perhaps I am now "the center of the storm," but isn’t that the very position most columnists would forbear coffee over?
Furthermore for Mr. Foudy to pen a Gazette editorial that very afternoon (1/27) supporting "VM" and alluding to me as a bookbanner with little public support, while ignoring a School Committee meeting that very night (where play opponents outnumbered supporters by a more than two to one margin) was a tad too Machiavellian for me.
Again, I regret abandoning something I truly love…unfortunately a higher principle takes precedence.
Larry Kelley (5’th Generation resident, Amherst)
CC: All the usual suspects
944.3. Larry
by CruxEditor, 2/5/04 18:05 ET
Re: 'VM? another casualty by LarryK, 2/5/04
I'm sorry.
I have an incredible amount of admiration for the kids who are putting on the Vagina Monologues, and I have an incredible amount of admiration for you. If everyone stood up for what they believed in, the world would be a wonderful place.
But it isn't. I'm sorry they're not letting you stand up. I know you'll find another way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
