5 thoughts on “A Tale of Two PACs”

  1. The Progressive Coalition of Amherst lists police violence as one of the issues that they are interested in addressing. What are they talking about? If there were any instances of police violence in Amherst they would be all over the papers and there would be a pitchfork and torch brigade heading for the police station. Maybe they were thinking about the riot gear clad police who were protecting themselves from brick-throwing students during the Blarney Blowout a few years back. If more residents would read the police blotter and speak with members of the force, they might have a better understanding of their role in the community. They stop inebriated motorists and those driving unregistered and uninsured automobiles. They also come to the aid of numerous town residents in need, no questions asked. The force is gravely understaffed, and unable to resolve pervasive speeding and other roadway offenses in town. I walk through town every day and every day I see many incidents of reckless driving and speeding, including in school zones. Good intentions by some in town have had a demoralizing effect by demeaning a top quality, well trained, and dedicated force. Sure, there are bad actors in many police departments around the country, and there may be some right here in Amherst, but I have not heard about it and it has not been publicized. If police violence was a known issue in town, where were the activists years ago? Why now?

    Like

    1. Thank you. Can any police force make improvements? Of course. Is it important for police leadership to be on the lookout for bad actors on the force? Of course. Will the alleged reforms coming from the Council make things better? We’ll see, but first they have to staff the thing. On the repeated allegations of current police violence here in Amherst, is it too much to ask for time, place, manner, and means?

      Like

  2. Why is everything a “fight” in Amherst? Why do people think they have to “fight”? We hire the best people in the state (if not in the country) to give us the best advice. Why don’t we just take that good advice (that we paid for) and quit fighting? We already lost millions in a schools override election that the voters accepted but Town Meeting chose to overturn by refusing to authorize the bond issue (like Congress refusing to ratify the results of the election on January 6). Costing us millions. For what? Just to “fight”? Why do we want candidates who will “fight”? How about candidates with the wisdom to seek out the best advice and then follow it? Consensus is merely the most expensive way. That is, except for “fighting”. Wisdom is much less expensive.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks, Kevin. I was just talking about this recently with fellow townies. The mantle of “fighter” has been passed along in Amherst for a long time. It likely started for great reasons but now it’s just treated as “The Amherst Way”. So many fights for fight’s sake, lest Amherst come off looking like a pushover community. I don’t know. It’s just scabbed over at this point.

      Like

  3. It is important to remember: as long as I’ve been living here (since 1995), we’ve had the equivalent of political action committees in town. They met quietly. They approached people to run for office or to submit their names for appointed committees. They crafted tactics and strategy for parliamentary moves on the floor of Town Meeting. They very rarely announced themselves publicly, but anyone who sat in the membership of Town Meeting in this century was aware that they were operating in town. This is what makes the sustained hue and cry about Amherst Forward, and any other registered PACs that come along, so ludicrous.

    Like

Comments are closed.