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 Both previous suspensions were rescinded, according to the Daily Hampshire Gazette.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.

Echoes of 9/11

Nothing demonstrates the mood of a somber nation like the American flag at half-staff.

Power to the people (in the Peoples Republic)

In a fitting display of turn about fair play a Special Amherst town meeting will discuss the fate of the Cherry Hill Golf Course, just as it did on the night of April, 29, 1987.

Yes, it has been twenty years since Amherst took by eminent domain the bucolic former cow pasture turned golf course. The Special Town Meeting that long ago night (mainly called by immediate neighbors) invoked an “emergency preamble” to the warrant article thus making it Referendum proof.

In the twenty years of town operation the course has lost money in thirteen of them now totaling over $900,000 (not including the original $2.2 million purchase price). And in only ONE year (FY90) did Cherry Hill show profits equal to what Niblick Management is now guaranteeing us for the next three consecutive years ($30,000/year).


The warrant article (sponsored by Amherst Taxpayers For Responsible Change) for the special town meeting reads:

To see if the town will strongly urge the Select board to strongly urge the town manager to accept the recent bid of Niblick Management for privatization of the Cherry Hill Golf Course with a new condition allowing for a three year contract; and if Niblick is no longer interested, to reissue the new RFP (with the three year provision) before September 1, 2007
http://www.masslive.com/hampfrank/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-9/1176796967319050.xml&coll=1

The Republican (newspaper that is) Rocks!

http://www.masslive.com/news/topstories/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1176623476180640.xml&coll=1&thispage=5

Naturally Amherst town officials gave the reporter a bad figure. Yes, Cherry Hill was scheduled to lose $35,649 of taxation in FY06 and that was the budget Town Meeting approved…. however:

Cherry Hill overspent its budget by $13,419 and missed target revenues by $10,745 more than $24,000 over original projections conjured up by Pollyannaish town officials, thus costing taxpayers $59,649 in FY06—not $35,000.

On April 3, 2006 I publicly challenged “acting Town Manager” John Musante to a $10,000 bet--with all proceeds to charity--that Cherry Hill would not intake $207,000 in FY06. He refused. Cherry Hill only generated $196,667.

I will make the same bet now with current Town Manager Larry Shaffer that Cherry Hill will NOT intake $220,000 this year. As of April 1’st (no foolin) Cherry Hill was $8,000 behind last year's revenues to date, and so far the weather has been a lot worse this April than last.

Can you imagine how much revenue is lost when it snows on a Sunday (especially on this prime holiday weekend)?

How about it Mr. Shaffer: try walking the walk.

When the people lead, the politicians follow

Let’s hope the Peoples Revolt in Amherst fares better than the one in South Hadley.

The ‘Amherst Taxpayers For Responsible Change’, with the key word being RESPONSIBLE, just launched a petition drive to collect 200 signatures to call a Special Town Meeting to “strongly urge” the Select board to “strongly urge” the Town Manager to take the offer of Niblick Management to privatize our floundering golf business.

Town Meeting passed an advisory warrant article last June saying they “strongly urge” the Select board to put Cherry Hill out to bid. In August Mr. Shaffer said he had no problem with issuing the RFP so that the private sector could “save our bacon.”

But Mr. Shaffer must have turned vegetarian as he rejected Niblick Management’s offer of $35,000 a year for three years, preferring instead to risk the loss of many more times that of taxpayer dollars on keeping the White Elephant within the Leisure Services empire.

As I have said so very often: Only in Amherst!

Sad vote in South Hadley

The resignation of just elected Selectman Daniel Champagne over the continued funding of their municipal golf course—a much larger White Elephant than Cherry Hill-- demonstrated just how tough it is for somebody with a core to survive petty town politics.

God knows how often I tried to get our Select board to place on the ballot a non-binding question about continuing to operate our municipal tax drain, but town officials prefer to stick their head in the sand.

They will, of course, find out soon enough when the May 1’st Override sinks in a sandtrap.

A couple weeks back the Town Manger, when asked how he would react to an Override defeat arrogantly replied he would “give it a haircut” and bring it back.

So Mr. Shaffer, how do you give something that gets scalped a haircut?

Town Manager, finally, caves!

Like the recent apology of radio jock Don Imus, the Town Manager taking Police (2) and Fire personnel (5) off the Override chopping block (proposing to fund them with or without a May 1’st approval) is one of those better late than never sort of things.

I’m sure a new Select board member, who champions the Override, realized that heavy handed political scare tactics could backfire (as, in fact, they already have).

Now if only Mr. Shaffer would come to his senses on the nixed Cherry Hill Golf Course deal...