Wicked Local reports that Mayor Setti Warren is looking to revise some of Newton’s election procedures following last year’s residency challenge involving School Committee member Jonatan Yeo. Read Warren’s letter to aldermen and the report. (PDF)
Wicked Local reports that Mayor Setti Warren is looking to revise some of Newton’s election procedures following last year’s residency challenge involving School Committee member Jonatan Yeo. Read Warren’s letter to aldermen and the report. (PDF)
The Mayor’s signature from the letter mentioned here differs significantly from his signature taken as an example from
http://www.ci.newton.ma.us/documents/exec/MayorWarrensAprilNewsletter.pdf
Not only the graphics, but the dynamics of the fine finger movements are substantially different – it looks like two different personalities produced the signatures. Do those personalities coincide in one individual (psychological phenomenon) or were those two different individuals acting under the same name?
Re – oh, I do like this signature conspiracy – “Signature-gate”. Two people? or two sides of the same man?
After last week’s tomato escapades I’m delighted to have a new story to move on to, especially one of equal significance.
Re — Excellent observation. Has the man/ego hired a signature stylist, or a surrogate signer? That is very bizarre.
And while we are onto troubling and important things, how about that word “brouhaha”? I mean, is it derived from French, Hebrew, or just possibly from yet a third undetermined language?
Now I’m not going to be able to sleep.
I am very impressed that Mayor Warren is attending to this and other matter that are easily forgotten once the ‘brouhaha’ has ended. I was, also, pleased to hear there are plans for Carr to be repaired. It is a beautiful building.
Steve – from dictionary.com:
1885–90; < French, orig. brou, ha, ha! exclamation used by characters representing the devil in the 16th-cent. drama; perhaps < Hebrew, distortion of the recited phrase bārūkh habbā ( beshēm ădhōnai ) “blessed is he who comes (in the name of the Lord)” (Ps. 118:26)
LEGAL RESIDENCE (Domicile) is the place, where a person has a permanent home for legal purposes.
RESIDENCE is the place, where a person lives.
The difference between LEGAL RESIDENCE and RESIDENCE is that a person has only one LEGAL RESIDENCE (Domicile), but may have several RESIDENCES – for example, he/she lives in Newton of Massachusetts on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and in Nashua of New Hampshire on the other days of week.
The word “resident” in connection with the word “voter”, as used in the sections of the city’s ordinances about voting, has vague meaning – that was the main reason of the dispute about Yeo’s suitability to be on ballot paper.
The word “voter”, as used in the sections of the city’s ordinances about voting, made those ordinances to be so-called “Purge Voting” ones, which exclude the citizens, who do not exercise their right to vote, from participation in the city’s government.
There is no federal affirmative right to vote in U.S. (only amendments to U.S. Constitution prohibiting the voting discrimination based on race, sex and age) – there is a natural right to vote and a natural right not to vote. And it would be better to the city, if its ordinances do not violate the citizens’ right not to vote and do not purge voting.
In the city’s ordinances, “legal resident” should be used instead of “resident” and “citizen” (of the City of Newton, Massachusetts) instead of “voter”.
Those issues above were not addressed certainly and sufficiently in Mayor’s letter and Review of Election Procedures attached.
Besides, Mayor’s request to the Board of Aldermen to change the city’s ordinances was the legislative act, whereas only the executive and administrative powers are vested in the Mayor (but the legislative one). And Mayor missed to mention the Sec. 3-1: “There should be a Mayor, elected by and from voters.“ – that is all about who may be on ballot paper – the uncertain and anti-democratic qualification, which should be clarified and made to be more democratic, in order to decrease the excessive political power placed in the Board of Election Commissioners.
In all: The doubtful signature under the doubtful request.
http://www.ci.newton.ma.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=37296
Revised ordinances, Chapter 1 General provisions, Sec. 1-3 Rules of construction:
“Signature. If the written signature of a person is required, it shall always be his own handwriting or if he is unable to write, his mark.”
Is the signature under “Warren’s letter to aldermen” a fraud?
Stupid me. I thought “brouhaha” was from a Lady Gaga song.
Ted, I don’t mean to be a stick in the mud but you have completely missed the lyrics. There is absolutely no mention of a “brouhaha” in Bad Romance. The lyrics are “Ra, ra, ah, ah, ah” followed by “Roma, roma, ma”. Now I freely admit that “Roma, roma, ma” can be easily confused with “Brouhahah” but based upon official sources, I can reassure you that “brouhaha” is NOT terminology used in that song.
In mitigation, however, I think you must be thinking of the song “The Brouhaha” by the Beastie Boys, particularly since one of the Beasties is a son of Massachusetts.
The common knowledge:
1890, from Fr. brouhaha (1550s), said by Gamillscheg to have been, in medieval theater, “the cry of the devil disguised as clergy.” Perhaps from Heb. barukh habba’ “blessed be the one who comes,” used on public occasions.
Unlikely, the signer was the devil disguised as Mayor. Likely that was foolishness.
We should set things straight – “brouhaha” is an indecent word.
Please, try Google search with the next:
Bonny Fetterman. “I wonder if you are aware of the etymology of the word ‘brouhaha’ because if you were, you probably wouldn’t have used it in this title,” she wrote. She continued, citing her high school teacher: “It was an anti-Semitic term in France, based on the words of Hebrew prayer, ‘Baruch atah … ’ which sounded like a confused mess to Frenchmen passing synagogues and came to signify a loud, confused mess.”
Re, “brouhaha” is not an indecent word. You refer to one theory of the origins of the word. Another is that it derives from 16th century French drama wherein a disguised actor playing the role of the devil threw off his disguise (his brou) and uttered “brou ha ha”. A “brou” in French can mean a shell, covering or envelope.
@Lisap.
There is another word, an Italian dialect word “baruccaba”, which has come from the same phrase and also means “hubbub”. Therefore the Hebrew origin of both words, “brouhaha” and “baruccaba” is the very likely one – “good” Christians of that time were more than incline to believe that Jews were diabolic people and, consequently, that devil often spoke Hebrew.
Re, Your source actually says that the Hebrew origin of the word “bourhaha” is less “far fetched” – not that it is more likely. Getting back to the point, however, the word is absolutely not a term of offense or “indecent” as you suggested.
@Lisap, I am partially deaf from playing in rock bands in my misbegotten youth, so I might have misheard Lady Gaga. It sounded similar. Or, I might just have been attempting to interject a little levity into this otherwise serious discussion. For more leivty, here is a Lady Gaga lip dub by Emerson College students that the entire student body participated in last year (my daughter appears in it three times).
@Ted, The downside of blogging – you couldn’t see the silly lopsided grin on my face when I wrote that post. Can’t wait to check out the lip dub and will keep an eye out for a certain Emersonian. 🙂
The word “brouhaha” sounds cheerfully, and thus lures into unreasonably cheerful attitude towards the grave problem of human majority’s hate for human minority, which hate was increased in late medieval Europe as a psychological relief of the majority during that time of famine, plague and war, and eventually which hate caused the tragedy to the minority in 20th century.
“Brouhaha” sounds cheerful but is indecent in its origin. If the indecent F*** word reflects as the sexual assault, as the start of a new life, the indecent “Brouhaha” word reflects only the hate and death, therefore its cheerful use harms the modern human society and is the disrespect to the memory about those perished because of the hate.
Lisap, I saw that sly smile, and returned one of my own.
Re, I have no idea where the word “brouhaha” actually came from, but there are many examples in American-English that are or were in common usage. Paddy wagon comes to mind (i.e., a police van, which was named after the derogatory slang term for Irish immigrants, based on the stereotype of their frequent drunk, rowdy and criminal behavior). Many of these terms also have disputed origins. Paddy wagon is not one of them.
@ Ted Hess-Mahan.
So I did not know that the hate had produced “brouhaha” – when I had realized I became terrified because it looked to me like we forgot the lessons of the past and laughed and danced on the ashes of innocent victims of the hate – but those who do not remember the past is doomed to repeat it – that is the most terrifying aspect of the problem.
Re, Americans have a gift (curse?) for reinventing themselves. I don’t think the rest of the world ever forgets, but as human beings, we need a few good juicy rationalizations every day just to get through life. The question is, what now? As with the last city election, we should learn from it, and amend the Charter in a way that will help us avoid problems in the future.
@ Ted Hess-Mahan: ” … amend the Charter in a way that will help us avoid problems in the future.”
Exactly! The Charter is the serious matter and should be amended in serious, legitimate way, in order not to undermine its authority. Otherwise, the arbitrary rule and accompanying problems would only increase, whereas citizens’ sentiment about Newton would decrease and drive down the real estate prices together with the real estate tax return to the city.
So, is Warren’s letter to aldermen the serious document? No, it is not, because it had not shown its legal basis (which is not obvious) and, likely, it had not been signed lawfully.
If the Board of Aldermen has accepted the letter for consideration, that may be (and, likely, will be) perceived as the act of elitism, which would drive the citizens’ sentiment down with all negative consequences. Really, for example, why Newton League of Women Voters acting in good faith during years cannot create a Charter Commission, whereas Mr. Warren’s doubtful letter sets the Board of Aldermen into motion?
I think that now the Board of Aldermen can get out of the situation in decent way improving citizens’ sentiment by means of sending a “show case call” to Mayor Warren, in which the Board would ask, like:
• Why Board of Aldermen should not consider the letter to us as an unlawful act, whereas no legal ground for the letter was cited in it?
• Why Board of Aldermen should not consider the letter to us as an unlawful act, whereas the signature under the letter appeared to be unlawful?