More Angry Letters to the Editor
Confused, angry letters-to-the-editor continue to be published in the Keene Sentinel, followed by the requisite vitriolic posts in each letters’ comments section. I’m posting links and the text below. If you feel inspired, please write your own letters-to-the-editor here.
“Protestors Don’t Belong Near School”
As I was out for my daily exercise recently, I passed the Keene Middle School just as the buses were lining up and the children were beginning to exit the school after a day of learning.
This day, however, was the first time I have been disturbed by an event such as an afternoon school exodus.
What was unsettling was that the children were exiting to a small group of protesters touting signs that say “school sucks” and blasting libertarian rhetoric through their bullhorns. I also noticed that the school administrators seemed to be just as disturbed by the scene as I was, but were not responding in the best interests of their students’ safety.
Then I realized that the administrators were caught in a Catch-22: If they chose to ignore the protesters, then they would return the next day to protest the middle school. If they were to call the police, then the protesters would win, because they would get it all on tape and then edit it to fit their message.
All this sideshow drama would ultimately shift the focus from the original issue, which was that a small group of protesters were interfering with the daily operations of the school.
The protesters’ right to free speech should not supersede the rights of children to navigate Washington Street free from ideological harassment.
In future, I would urge our administrators to ask these people to leave, and if they choose not to, then have them removed. Every day there are school buses, car and foot traffic and a few hundred students all leaving simultaneously, which on the best of days is a highly choreographed procedure with little room for error.
For administrators there are numerous things that could go wrong, and worse case it could mean injury or possibly the life of a student. These protesters can go 500 feet over to the Main circle and yell from there. They should not be allowed to continue to harass minors as they exit from school.
PATRICK McKENNEY
Washington Street
Keene
What has become of the Central Square common?
Pot smoking allowed at 4:20 each day?
Teens hanging all over the newly painted gazebo with no regard for the efforts of the Eagle Scout who just painted it?
Barbecue grills?
Baring of breasts?
Placing pot seeds in and amongst the plantings on the common to grow pot, simply for shock value?
I, for one, am a proponent of freedom of speech, but what message is being sent to everyone by the events of late?
Residents and out-of-town visitors feel intimidated to walk onto the common and enjoy its serene atmosphere and beauty when large crowds gather.
It is time for the town fathers to amend the by-laws, give our local law enforcement more power to stop this behavior.
If residents want to smoke pot, so be it, but someplace else; if they feel the need to grill, why not try their backyard or one of our beautiful parks or picnic areas designated for this?
And, if they feel the need to bare breasts, do it in their own yard, not for the rest of us to see.
We need to curtail this behavior once and for all, before it is totally out of control.
GARY LEBLANC
20 Gates Road
Marlborough
Comments
34 Comments on More Angry Letters to the Editor
Lol @ “Ideological harassment”
Here’s a clue, Patrick, how about you stop funding your chronically under performing and over priced government education scheme by extorting money from your neighbors.
If you’re going to mug your neighbors to pay for this, you’d better believe they have a right to protest it.
How could you expect either truth or logic from someone who babbled forth a string of lies, starting with his first sentence: “the children were beginning to exit the school after a day of learning”?
Here’s an idea, Paul.
Stop assaulting minors with ideology.
Why do you assume that people who CHOOSE to put their children in public schools want them to be harassed by a bunch of cracker assholes with an agenda?
If you feel accosted by the burdens of living in a civilized world, go into the woods and stay off public roads, work by candlelight, and refrain from public waterworks. While you’re at it, get off the Internet. After all, it’s also a tax-payer funded product of the State.
So…
Herding a bunch of young children into a bus and forcing them into a social prison for 35 hours a week = dandy
Protesting against that = disturbing.
I get it now.
Stop assaulting minors with ideology.
Lol, seriously? Assaulting people with ideology? Can you please avoid twisting the language like a pretzel to justify your obviously immoral behavior?
Assault is a physical attack on you or your property. You don’t have a right to go around threatening violence against anyone who holds or expresses an opinion you don’t agree with, Mr. Tyrant.
Why do you assume that people who CHOOSE to put their children in public schools want them to be harassed by a bunch of cracker assholes with an agenda?
Holding signs and speaking out is not harassment.
And I suggest that if people are going to fund their kids’ “education” by extorting money from their neighbors, they might expect that their neighbors will have something to say about it.
Use your own money, or money obtained willingly from others, to fund your kid’s education, and I doubt anybody will protest it.
If you feel accosted by the burdens of living in a civilized world.
Oh, I’m quite happy to live in a civilized world. I just don’t like gangs of violent individuals who enjoy jamming their preferences down everyone else’s throats, and using threats of violence to obtain funding for their preferred causes. I wish these individuals would obtain funding by voluntary means, and promote their preferences about how other people should live, by means other than the point of a gun.
go into the woods and stay off public roads
Sorry, I’m forced to pay for them, and I’ll continue to use them while I am.
Private roads would be a far better arrangement, but transitioning, while feasible, is certainly a sticky wicket. I don’t mind putting up with government roads for awhile, if we can work on solving more pressing matters.
That said, you really should study this issue more. In fact, the first highway in NH, which connected Portsmouth to Concord, was a privately built toll road, constructed without using extorted money, and is now called route 4.
http://www.waymarking.com/gallery/image.aspx?f=1&guid=93bd9fed-91bc-415e-8080-19d044fc0dbe
In fact, there were quite a few of these being built. As a percentage of GDP, the amount invested in these roads from 1790 to 1830 was greater than the total amount invested by all levels of government in the interstate highway system between 1955 and 1995. These investments produced at least 40,000 to 50,000 miles of road, and built many of the covered bridges we see today, without any government involvement at all. In fact, in New Hampshire alone, there were 51 turnpike incorporations during that period, representing more than 1/6 of all incorporations at the time.
Here’s what Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859), a French historian who visited the U.S., and recorded his observations, wrote regarding how our country used to work:
“If it is a question of taking a road past his property, [a man] sees at once that this small public matter has a bearing on his greatest private interests, and there is no need to point out to him the close connection between his private profit and the general interest. . . . Local liberties, then, which induce a great number of citizens to value the affection of their kindred and neighbors, bring men constantly into contact, despite the instincts which separate them, and force them to help one another. . . . The free institutions of the United States and the political rights enjoyed there provide a thousand continual reminders to every citizen that he lives in society. . . . Having no particular reason to hate others, since he is neither their slave nor their master, the American’s heart easily inclines toward benevolence. At first it is of necessity that men attend to the public interest, afterward by choice. What had been calculation becomes instinct. By dint of working for the good of his fellow citizens, he in the end acquires a habit and taste for serving them. . . . I maintain that there is only one effective remedy against the evils which equality may cause, and that is political liberty. (Alexis de Tocqueville, pp. 511-13, Lawrence/Mayer edition)
Here’s a couple articles and books I recommend:
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/klein.majewski.turnpikes
work by candlelight
I’m happy to pay for electricity, although I’d certainly prefer if it were not government run.
and refrain from public waterworks
It’s amusing how your gang takes over a particular service, forces all competition out, and then you assert that if I don’t like it, I should refrain from using that service.
Once again, I’m happy to pay for water, I just wish I had some choice in the matter, rather than being forced to use the government monopoly.
While you’re at it, get off the Internet. After all, it’s also a tax-payer funded product of the State.
And you stole my money to pay for it, so I’ll continue to use it, thanks very much.
And, once again, many of the infrastructure problems with the internet, as well as poor service and high prices, are created by lack of competition due to exclusive contracts granted by governments.
If we lived in the USSR, you’d say, “If you don’t like the state, don’t eat, because bread lines are funded by the state”.
Thanks, but I’d prefer free choice — supermarkets, not bread lines.
While I share the same sentiments as most FK readers about the first letter, I thought there were some interesting things to take away from the second letter. Namely, why not do these things on private property? If we want less forcible extraction from the state, why tax it with more burden in the meantime? I recognize that the state shouldn’t care about people doing these things on “public” property, but the fact of the matter is that it currently does care, right?
@Paul – what you wrote reminded me of something I’ve been thinking about lately: public vs private roads. You’ve mentioned it a few times recently. In your opinion, if roads were completely privatized, do you believe there should be any sort of standardization regarding: (a) which side of the road to drive on, (b) demarcation of lanes (eg, a double-yellow line in the middle), (c) placement and arrangement of traffic lights and other traffic signals, or (d) size (ie, width and length) of vehicles?
Road privatization isn’t something I’ve given a lot of thought to, so I’m curious to hear your opinion, since it seems like you’ve given more thought to it than I.
I think most of these things would happen naturally, Gabe. For example, many computer parts, cables, interfaces (both hardware and software) are standardized. Many construction materials are standardized. CDs, LPs (for those who remember them), DVDs, VHS, etc, are standardized. We’ve developed a myriad of social conventions as well — you shake with your right hand, pay after eating at a restaurant, etc. Even on a busy sidewalk, people tend to stay to the right.
If everyone in an area drives on the right side of the road, why would the new guy/gal want people to drive on the left? It’d only increase danger and inconvenience to his/her customers. If everyone is choosing yellow paint for the middle, why switch to green?
I’m sure size and length of vehicles would vary to an extent, however. My wife and I rented a smart car recently, and the thing’s no more than 2/3 the length of a normal car — maybe even half.
I think to privatize roads one would have to move gradually and thoughtfully, so as to avoid disruptions. One could choose a rural road, with willing homeowners, for example, and turn ownership and maintainence responsibilities over to them, in exchange for which they get to avoid gas tax.
I think major freeways are better off auctioned. Funding for maintainance could be obtained by electronic toll, or subscription.
The protesters’ right to free speech should not supersede the rights of children to navigate Washington Street free from ideological harassment.
My right to keep my money should not be superseded by your advocating of violence to take it from me… to fund ideological indoctrination of children for 40+ hours a week.
jw,
Civilized society is the peaceful coexistence of people with different belief systems. That means you’ll see signs and people you disagree with, if you live there.
If you don’t want your kids seeing peace activists holding signs that read “education rocks, schools sucks”, then you’ll need to move to the woods, because the peace activists aren’t going anywhere.
The only way to stop your kids from seeing a civilized society is to remove them from it.
It’s like the letter writer was in a contest with himself to make the most hyperbolic claims possible. His assertion that the lives of the children were threatened by the presence of the activists is up there.
“The protesters’ right to free speech should not supersede the rights of children to navigate Washington Street free from ideological harassment.”
Yeah, all those damn churches on Washington street need to go!
I do find it positive that the second letter shows a change from someone wanting people to not smoke or bare at all to someone who just wants to not see it.
“ideological harassment” Haha, this is fucking classic. I see everyone else got it too. No more comment necessary.
I think in the last paragraph it said, “For administrators there are numerous things that could go wrong, and worse case it could mean injury or possibly the life of a student…”
That’s a pretty weird thing to say. That is creepy. That statement truly shows what the author thinks of the School Sucks people.
Paul – I didn’t ask if you believed there would be standardization. I asked if you believed there should be. Those are two different concepts.
As for the examples you gave, there are standards in place for construction materials (such as IEC 60228 for insulated cables, or IEC 60309 for plugs and sockets), IEC 60774 for VHS tapes, IEC 60908 for CDs (more on those) and ISO 13490 for their contents, ISO 14230 for vehicle diagnostic systems, ISO 5800 for photographic film, ISO/IEC 11801 for computer cables, and a host of other things we take for granted.
These standards were developed, in large part, by existing governments. That’s what I struggle with.
In many ways, the decisions were arbitrary, from among several equally-viable options. Who is to make these decisions, in absence of a central body? What if there is no harm/violence that will come to me one way or the other? For example, I don’t care if I drive on the right side of the road or the left. If we grew up in this country all driving on the left side of the road, would we know any different?
Yes, I think standardization is a good thing, and I think it would occur naturally. There’s no need for government mandates. If blockbuster has VHS, all your friends have VHS, etc, why are you going to buy BETA? If everyone is making flash drives with USB connectors, who’s going to buy a computer that can’t interface with them? If you’re opening a new road, and everyone in the country is used to driving on the right, why would you have them drive on the left? It’s the same reason everyone uses blu-ray now instead of HDDVD. No government mandate was necessary, just competition. These “ISO” certifications generally come along later anyway, to document what has already occurred in the market, and many, many standardized interfaces aren’t codified in this way at all.
Do you know how much $$$ the government hemorrhaged onto Sony in order to help Blu-Ray “win” the DVD battle?
Actually no, I wasn’t aware of that, and a brief internet search yields no stories. If it’s true that the government distorted the market, that’s unfortunate. The best player should have won out, by fair competition. The government seems to have a finger in every pot these days.
I feel you’re picking at details, while the broader point is obvious. The emergence of natural market order is a well established principle. Why would I buy an HDDVD player when netflix and blockbuster rent blu-ray, department stores sell it, and my friends own it? Try starting a company to sell equipment or parts that interfaces with nothing, and see how far you get.
If you really think the guy who just built a new road is going to make it left handed, when his entire customer base is used to right handed, I don’t know what to tell you. I wouldn’t drive on it.
Things that are already established are different than things yet to be put forth.
What happens when we all drive hover cars like in Back To The Future 2? It’s a silly example, I know, but it was on TV the other day. How will traffic conventions be established?
Each owner will set rules for their own property. Those methods that are most effective, and most preferred by the customers, will win out.
Generally, I think road owners will mainly be concerned that a person is driving in a safe manner. While some rules/conventions can be helpful, I think you’ll find that relying on people to be reasonable, and use common sense, can work quite well. For example, a number of European towns and cities have eliminated traffic signage altogether, and have found that accidents actually decrease.
As I referenced, there were large numbers of private roads at times in our history, and there were no significant difficulties with driving conventions. If there were any vast new technology, I suspect people would just behave in a cautious, safe manner, until natural conventions and rules for etiquette developed.
I imagine it would be like airplanes and ships.There are certain safety issues that benefit all,and are mutually agreed to.You sail on a certain side of a channel marker.They are all marked the same.Is it against the ‘law’ to go on the other side? Maybe.Is it stupid to risk your ship by doing it?Yes.Ships pass each other on the same side each time-that way you know where the other guy is going,it is for mutual safety.Just look at any small lake in summer-there is very little regard for others safety or enjoyment,because there is little knowledge or respect for common ‘rules of the road’.Things like this don’t have to be written ‘laws’,except for the fact that there needs to be some sort of order.In my view,it is enforced by laws because that is the only way it would work in this society.In my view,there would be common sense ,safe ways to travel ,you drive on the wrong side of the road and you get what you deserve-either the owner of the road bans you,or the other driver punches your face.Not very nice,but effective.Freedom does not have to equal chaos,it does not mean drive as fast and on whatever side you want,regardless of others. —bil
Because people are used to government running things in certain aspects of our lives, they think that we just can’t function without it’s firm hand smacking everyone around.
You would think that a road didn’t exist before some state hired jack-hole was there waving a weapon and demanding a fee to use it. People don’t need to fear a cop pulling them over and writing them a ticket, just so they will travel safely on the roads. They don’t want to get hurt or harm anyone else and just wish to arrive home in one piece. Call it strong motivation if you like.
Mr. Cop is just there to fill the coffers of his handlers, plain and simple. He does not make you or I safe with his mere presence, and the dude ain’t heroic. If you believe otherwise then you have been watching too many police shows, go sell your t.v.
Gooberment appears to have the best of both worlds, they can claim credit for achievements and grand feats the private sector instead had pulled off, (despite their heavy handed interference). They likewise also dodge the blame for their massive screw ups by shifting it to others, while the public buys into it all.
Yuck!
Paul – As always, I appreciate the well-thought-out answer.
So if a private road owner were to impose a speed limit, would that be acceptable, in your mind? Or is that an imposition upon our natural rights.
Not speaking for Paul,but if the owner wanted a speed limit,what right of yours would be imposed on? He grants you the right of passage according to his own rules,not what you consider to be your right.If he wants a 10 MPH speed limit,how does that impose on you? Go another way!If he only wants red cars,that is up to him.Go another way! If his rules are onerous to too many people,he will go out of the road business,or someone else will provide service.Although there are way too many roads already.The private road owner would have rules that are for the safety of his customers,no speed limit means more accidents,more unhappy drivers.Like any business,the owner should make the rules of how it is run. —bil
Yep, I agree with bil — it’s their land, they certainly could impose a speed limit, or whatever other rules they wanted. I don’t have a natural right to use other people’s property.
What if he said no foreign cars? What about no Jewish drivers? Or no female drivers?
That’s his business — it’s his property.
Although if he was racist or sexist I’d probably boycott him, and encourage others to do the same.
Sure the bigot can behave towards people in a free market how he likes, yet he will always act against his long term interests each and every time he does something that shows his stupid display of bigotry. It’s just not worth it to anyone just to get a small amount of temporary enjoyment out of any display of racist behavior.
I’m not from the government, so by default I will proceed in my daily life as if you, me, and everyone else is is fully tethered to reality, capable of wiping their own nose, and reasonably intelligent. It is in gooberment’s interest to treat you like you are ignorant, scared, and possibly insane.
That’s his business — it’s his property.
Although if he was racist or sexist I’d probably boycott him, and encourage others to do the same.
Why only “probably”?
Like, if it were this road, you wouldn’t: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=&geocode=&q=42.930536425795516,+-72.27795839309692&sll=42.930536425795516,+-72.27795839309692
Sure the bigot can behave towards people in a free market how he likes, yet he will always act against his long term interests each and every time he does something that shows his stupid display of bigotry. It’s just not worth it to anyone just to get a small amount of temporary enjoyment out of any display of racist behavior.
All things considered, would you say the Weimar Republic started out as a (relatively) “free market”? It’s amazing how easily some extreme elements can take hold.
Believe me, I am a BIG free marketeer, when it comes down to it. I just have concerns, that’s all.
Sorry, Gabe, I should not have said “probably”, I misspoke. I would definitely not be a customer of a business using racist or bigoted policies.
I’d also encourage people to publicize the bad behavior, ostracize them, stand near their property with signs, etc.
Hopefully, we could drive them out of business, and get the property into more responsible hands.
Albeit I agree with you in principle, we’re wading into a sticky situation.
We’d be imposing our morals onto someone else. Morals, I believe, are a personal concept.
By what you wrote, it seems you believe a majority of potential users of the road could take action to engender a change in ownership, based on their common beliefs. Wouldn’t that be doing harm (or violence?) to the existing road owner? Sure, it’s not direct physical violence, but we’re using our common will to impose financial harm upon him, based solely on our (not his) beliefs.
And anyway, I doubt driving him out of business would change his views at all. If anything, I suspect it might solidify his pre-existing bigoted beliefs.
Furthermore, what if, instead of the common belief of majority in opposing bigotry, this majority decided next that we should all put some words down on paper to agree to certain decisions about how to handle financial transactions, and what percentage might go into a common fund to be redistributed. Majority rules, right? So just as we’ve imposed our majority’s will on that bigoted road owner and chased him out of business, we’ll impose our majority will on people who don’t wish to participate in the actions we’ve written down.
Shall I continue?
Gary doesn’t understand that the town common is for gatherings, rallies, protests, political actions, parties, speeches and so on. That’s the main point in town commons all over the nation.
Gary doesn’t understand that the town common is for gatherings, rallies, protests, political actions, parties, speeches and so on. That’s the main point in town commons all over the nation.
Excellent point Keith.
Albeit I agree with you in principle, we’re wading into a sticky situation.
We’d be imposing our morals onto someone else. Morals, I believe, are a personal concept.
Regardless of the definition of “morals”, I, and you, and everyone, has a right to decide who they will and will not do business with, or otherwise associate with.
It’s absolutely legitimate for one to use that freedom of association to try to advance the ideas and behaviors one believes in.
By what you wrote, it seems you believe a majority of potential users of the road could take action to engender a change in ownership, based on their common beliefs. Wouldn’t that be doing harm (or violence?) to the existing road owner? Sure, it’s not direct physical violence, but we’re using our common will to impose financial harm upon him, based solely on our (not his) beliefs.
Refraining from associating with someone is withdrawing benefit, not imposing harm. There’s a big difference. Socialism, for example, is based on a failure to differentiate between these. It forces people to provide benefits to others. In reality, the only appropriate use of force is to prevent people from doing harm.
In this situation, the market would simply be signaling that it does not want bigoted policies for road management. A bigoted road provider would not be meeting the needs of the community, so he should go out of business — just as any useless business should.
And anyway, I doubt driving him out of business would change his views at all. If anything, I suspect it might solidify his pre-existing bigoted beliefs.
I agree. The purpose of driving him out of business would be to have that road be managed in a nondiscriminatory way. That is, the purpose would be for minorities to be able to use it, not to reform the owner.
Reformation of the owner is better attempted by intervention by friends and honest conversation.
Furthermore, what if, instead of the common belief of majority in opposing bigotry, this majority decided next that we should all put some words down on paper to agree to certain decisions about how to handle financial transactions, and what percentage might go into a common fund to be redistributed. Majority rules, right? So just as we’ve imposed our majority’s will on that bigoted road owner and chased him out of business, we’ll impose our majority will on people who don’t wish to participate in the actions we’ve written down.
If a majority (or anyone) wishes to promote their preferences by avoiding certain businesses, or patronizing others, that’s their right. Indeed, that’s what we see all the time, as businesses providing a valued service thrive, and others go bankrupt.
What they don’t have a right to do is use threats of violence, to promote those preferences.
You have a right to live your life as you choose, as long as you don’t harm others, without violence being used or threatened against you. You don’t have a right to demand that people associate with you, regardless of your behavior.
Post your comment below. Login in the far right column to get rid of CAPTCHA. If you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
Want to discuss rather than just comment? Visit the Free Keene Forum.
Supporters of FK
Recent Forum Topics- Free Minds Radio 02/05/2012 February 5, 2012
- HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012
- Marijuana decrim bills up for vote February 5, 2012
- Episode 35 - Anarch-Elitism February 5, 2012
- HB 1533 -- fines for hurting legislators' feelings February 4, 2012
- HB 1494 -- "Your papers, please" February 4, 2012
- Legislation discussion? February 4, 2012
- What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 3, 2012
- Pet Doctor February 3, 2012
- Free Minds TV February 3, 2012 - EP 239 [S7E04] February 3, 2012
- Recent Forum Posts
- Re: Sorry, I misunderstood "Introduce yourself format" . . . Re-do, here we go! February 6, 2012
- Re: For the politically inclined February 6, 2012
- Re: Bearcat petition at city council meeting February 6, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 6, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 6, 2012
- Re: HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 6, 2012
- Re: Sorry, I misunderstood "Introduce yourself format" . . . Re-do, here we go! February 6, 2012
- Free Minds Radio 02/05/2012 February 5, 2012
- Re: HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012
- HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012