Your Arlington, your views

Bob (the site owner) requested I cross-copy my summary view of the candidates night, from the Town Mailing list, to this blog. I wrote it in response to request for an “objective report”.

I cannot do that objectively. Perhaps a subjective view will
suffice.

My political views - in any other state I’d be a liberal, but in
this one I am apparently moderate/liberal.

The candidates all dressed nicely, abided by the rules, and with
very few exceptions kept a stone-face while listening to the
other candidates speak. Very professional. The moderator was
excellent, and the hall overheated but quiet.

I went in with a strong preference ranging to a certainty that
I would be voting for Mr Garballey. I did not leave the way
I came in.

A subjective review of each candidate.

Mr Worden is running unopposed as the sole Republican for this
seat. He need not worry about February 5, only the final election.
Given how the district tends to lean, and the fact that the
Democratic party will most likely provide a solid contender,
I think his prospects dim: regardless of who he is, and what he
says, unless he were a closet Democrat. He’s not. He is soft-spoken,
albeit rambling a bit, clearly a MA-Republican. However, I was
stunned by his curt refusal to answer some of the audience
questions, dismissing them as sole-issue litmus tests. Perhaps
he has a dim view of those: but his refusal to answer to polite
constituencies really surprised me. Personally: his views
are such that I cannot vote for him, but his charm and intellect
are such that I look forward to hearing from him in other
venues.

Mr Valeri, Independent: he is a charming and honest businessman,
with zero political experience. He consistently answered
several questions with both a personal view and a promise
to go against his own views if that is what his constituency
desires. Alas, most of his personal views seemed to be
counter to my own, and what I feel are the sort of bedrock
Democratic values that many locals seem to share. I don’t
think I can, personally, vote for the man - but I’d love to
learn more about him, and see him enter the local political
process at a lower level than Representative.

Mr O’Brian, Democrat. A nice fellow, horribly unfocused
and lacking. I can’t vote for him.

Mr Garballey. I went in thinking he had a lock on my vote.
He is every bit as good as my friends who know him, and
support him, say he is. He had one or two “weaker” answers,
but most of his answers were strong, thoughtful, knowledgeable
and aligned with the rather liberal tune of the district.
He is a formidable candidate.

Mr Thielman. If all I knew of him was last evening, I’d probably
vote for him. Solid on the issues, appropriately humorous, he
had a great way of presenting his work and his background.
He alluded to the troubles of this summer in an appropriate
way - but he was not called upon to answer them with an
audience question, and did not choose to bring it up during
his opening or closing remarks, wisely. Also a formidable candidate.

If your mind was already made up before you went in, you
weren’t going to have your mind changed. If you were open
to the discussion, it is my guess that here is what
happened: if you are conservatively inclined you are not
finding an independent threat to Mr Worden. If you are
more moderate you may be leaning toward Mr Thielman or
Garballey - the difference between them is on the margins:
did you like one’s answer to 40B reform better than
the other, did you like one’s answer to abortion rights
more than the other? They hold the same positions,
pretty much.

I look forward, frankly, to a week of Mr Thielman and Mr
Garballey showing the differences between them - which
are small in policy, and a matter of degrees in style
and the ability to convince. One of them will face
Mr Worden in the final election, and one of them will
be the next Representative - given the district
demographics.

At this point, I’ll be satisfied with either. I’ll
have to choose one to vote for, and I will: dunno
which.

A very worthwhile evening.

Mark Schuldenfrei

Review by Eyobel Dawit, AHS student

For those of you who have read “The Kite Runner” by Khaled Hosseini, which was part of the senior summer reading list for Arlington High School, you know that it is a magnificent and inspiring story about the main character, Amir, trying to redeem himself from the evil he had done as a child. Just as the book had been great, the film does an excellent job portraying the story in a small time frame, cutting out many different parts. Despite this, the movie still stayed true to the book, creating perfect images for both the peaceful and dangerous times of Afghanistan’s history.

One highlight of the movie was the incredible acting of the two young boys who portrayed the childhood friends Amir (Zekeria Ebrahimi) and Hassan (Ahmad Khan Mahmidzada), who is Amir’s servant. The story is about an Afghan refugee who arrives in America, reminiscing memories of his childhood, his devoted best friend and the times they shared stories and flew kites. This film captivates you throughout the entire two hours and seven minutes, causing many emotions to stir up as portrayed when receiving the Truly Moving Picture Award, designating it as a film that can “move you to laughter, to tears, to make a difference.”

This film has been nominated at the Golden Globe Awards for best foreign language film, best original score and at the Critic’s Choice Award Ahmad Khan Mahmidzada, who played Hassan, won best young actor. “The Kite Runner” is an inspiring film that teaches all of us the true meaning of loyalty and friendship. Not only does it stir up emotions, but it is also a feel-good movie which guarantees you a good time and satisfaction when leaving the theatres.

The following is the opinion of John L. Worden III, former Town Meeting moderator. It is posted with his permission:

There has been some comment on the unusually early date – January 11 – set by the selectmen for the closing of the warrant for this year’s Annual Town Meeting. I don’t know why they chose this date for a meeting that starts near the end of April, and it is ironic, as I’ve been complaining for years, both privately and publicly, that the more typical end-of-January date was much too early.

Whatever the motivation of the selectmen, the appearance, and the reality, is that ordinary citizens are severely limited in their ability to submit 10-registered-voter articles, the very heart of the right of the people to directly petition their government in a form to which that government, the Town Meeting, is required to respond.

Historically, Town elections took place on the first Saturday of March, and Town Meeting began on the third Monday. Thus, closing the warrant around the end of January provided about eight weeks for review of the articles before the meeting began discussing them. When elections were moved to the first Saturday in April, Town Meeting was moved to the fourth Monday (since the third Monday is Patriots Day). This meant that there were 12 weeks for review – a longer period of time, according to a survey I took a few years ago, than any town in the Commonwealth except Stoughton.

The argument I’ve used in the past is that people shouldn’t have to decide by a few weeks after Christmas what they want to discuss in May. Now, they’ve got to decide, and get the signatures, pretty much before the tree is taken down.

I propose two solutions, one for the future, and the other for this year. As to the future, I have asked the Town Meeting Procedures Committee and the new Moderator, John Leone, to file an article to amend the By-Laws so as to provide that the Warrant will remain open until 60 days before the start of Town Meeting; if enacted, this change would take effect in 2009. As to the immediate solution, the Selectmen have reserved to themselves the right to continue inserting articles, on their own motion, after the warrant has closed; I suggest that they use this power to insert those citizens’ article that may be proposed after their early closing date.