Hello everyone,
What you are currently viewing is a blog called KeeneOpines, which will be the op-ed/editorial arm of The Keene Observer once its publication begins. In the meantime, please enjoy and examine the commentary being provided by its staff.
The Peconic Company
Government and People... and them again...
Free Staters think that government is bad, corrupt, and controlling. Now, with that said, I must question that statement: do Free Staters think that government itself is bad or the people within that government is bad? Based on their postings, literature, broadcasts, etc., I would have to assume that they believe in the former. They feel that getting rid of the structure will resolve issues... and of course I must differ.
If you were to eliminate the structure of government and create a society that had no formal leader, no public collaboration, and no one employed by that system, the Free Staters would say that the problem is solved, there is no one controlling anyone's life. But, there is an issue with that. Let's say that there is a corrupt government official like Boss Tweed, for example. If there were no formal government, that doesn't mean that a figure like Tweed would be eliminated, he would just play a different role in society, most likely business. If people like Tweed were out of government and into business, then the businesses would all be corrupt with all of these people. Or these people may become doctors and keep charging people over and over for operations they did not receive so that they can get their hefty paycheck. Or even make "mistakes." Life would become corrupt and would be Mafia-esque.
However, if you were to eliminate the people from those public offices and elect people who are not corrupt rather than eliminating the offices, qualified people can make society stronger. And, those corrupt members of our society will face the punishments of being corrupt by a well oiled society. People fail to realize that people run our government and not some oversized robot that does not have feelings and is out of touch with society.
The people who are like the Free Staters feel that government has failed us because they did not get what they wanted from our society and feel that it is the "power figures" fault for it not going their way. Newsflash, sometimes you must compromise to achieve a common goal as a society, which is the purpose of government. These vague and cliché phrases like "liberty", "freedom", and "rights" are meant to pull heartstrings and get people to support them even though these words have no substance behind them. These people are a crying shame to investigative journalists and devalue the power of the press. When it comes to reporting and interviewing others, they have lost the reputation as a real news group because of their handling of interviewees. When they go to ask the mayor or other people questions, they get no response. Why? Because the Free Staters don't treat government officials like PEOPLE!!! They make these officials seem like people who run on gasoline and are only programed to screw the Free State syndicate. When people are treated like that and are only asked accusatory questions, they will not give you the light of day, no matter what your rights are because they have rights, too. What the Free Staters fail to understand, amongst other things, is the idea of everyone having rights, liberties, and freedoms. They feel that in theory everyone should have these rights, but in practice, feel that only they deserve these rights. Look at the videos on their website. All you will see is them complaining how they get arrested for everything and that government isn't held accountable for anything. They even went as far as telling the city manager to just fire people. Just fire people? What if I went to their place of work, walked up to the manager, and told the manager that I wanted Johnny on the griddle fired because he "purposefully" undercooked my hamburger? How different would it be for the government? They can't just fire someone because some loonie walks in and says so because they have rights, too. They have the right, along with every other citizen, to be innocent until proven guilty, and just saying someone is guilty is like claiming the said person is a witch. Is that what we want from our society? People just walking around calling for a witch hunt of the government because they got caught smoking a doobie one night and got arrested for it? Or for actually imposing on the rights of others? The Free Staters have easily proven that they have tunnel vision and show little regard to an alternative opinion. They have also shown little regard of the people of the government.
Also, their little network thingy (or whatever it is) has a very fitting name: the "Obscured Truth Network." I think it is very accurate, especially with the content they put up. Talk, talk, talk, clip, talk, clip, talk, talk, clip, talk, clip. How are viewers supposed to think of these people legitimately as being muckrakers if they don't even know if they are seeing the truth? You see, they may think that they are unveiling things that "mainstream media" and the "bureaucrats" are trying to hide, but from the aspect of the viewer, it looks like they have something to hide themselves, or felt that certain clips were "more worthy" than others to make it to air. Everyone has a word for that and it is censorship. The Free Staters have seemed to have made it a priority to make it look like the government is censoring everything they do. But by looking at their own content, it would lead me to believe that the Free Staters are strong believers in censorship. At times I wish I was in Keene right now because I would be having so much fun asking the Free Staters on camera, "What is liberty? What is liberty? [Get a response] But that's not what I asked. Did you know that it is not your right to impede on the progress of emergency officials? [Get a response] That's not what I asked. I asked if your Constitution says anything along the lines 'All citizens have the right to impede emergency officials from doing their job?' It doesn't? Oh, also, if I asked everyone in Central Square at 4:20 what 'the power to tax is the power to destroy' means and where it originated from, would they be able to answer it correctly?" However, luckily for the Free Staters, I am receiving a quality education from my suburban sanctuary a couple hundred miles away where I am enlightened to the truth from actual historians, political scientists and journalists, amongst many others.
Until next time,
Dennis J. Foley
EiC
Expectations...Rhetoric...Research Exercises?
Looking at how President Obama's presidency has fared thus far, it is interesting to see how the two main sides look at Obama. Most Democrats and general Obama supporters feel that he is not making enough progress quick enough. The Republicans and other conservatives are looking for anything and everything they can point out as a failure of Obama's administration for their campaigns. What I find intriguing is that people voted for Obama because they wanted "change" and now they aren't seeing the results of that claim. I feel the claim Obama made that he wants to being change to America, end the war in Iraq, win the war in Afghanistan, fix the economy and the healthcare system will make or break his presidency, as do many other people. He has created such a high standard for himself that if he fails to complete all of his goals, it would be a failure. We have not had a president in the position that Obama has found himself in in recent history. Is this because of the situation our country finds itself in at the moment, or is it because of campaigning? If Obama had not campaigned on complete change of what had been going on, but rather smaller aspects of it, would he be seeing the resentment many Americans are feeling towards him and the Democrats? It would be possible, but unfortunately we will never know. The rhetoric used in campaigning is what has affected recent elections, most notably the most recent election. "Change" is the driving force in most of the elections. Usually, incumbents have the upper-hand in reelection campaigns due to the personal branding and the much larger campaign war chest than their opponent. But, this past election, we saw three incumbents who spent a lot more (or had more available to spend) than their opponent either lose, win by a small margin, or have a vote that is still undecided. Looking in New York City, incumbent mayor Mike Bloomberg had spent 10x more than his opponent, Bill Thompson, did. The rhetoric of bringing change to City Hall brought the vote to a 4-5% margin rather than the 10-12% margin that was polled before the election. In the New Jersey governor's race, John Corzine lost to a candidate that was seemingly not much more superior than he was, but because of the "change" Chris Christie wanted to bring to Trenton, Corzine lost the election. In suburban Nassau County, NY, where the election for county executive is still undecided, incumbent Tom Suozzi had been considered a very popular executive, but with Ed Mangano calling for a "tax revolt" and more change to the county, Suozzi was only ahead by 237 votes at the end of election day, with the recount and absentee ballot counting to conclude fairly soon. Is rhetoric, rather than policies and history winning elections for some and losing some for others? If so, then politics will not be fun since people who get tickled by a word will automatically vote for the person who mentioned that word. It would make the general population one big search engine. Type in "change", "lower taxes", and "liberty" and you will start to see votes pile in, but never will the population ask what you mean by change or liberty. They assume it's the change and liberty that they are thinking of an voila! you have a new public official running things.
But, how does this get changed? What must the general population do to change this. Well, there are two main options: 1. Use your cable box and 2. Meet the candidates. Let's start with option one. Your cable box has a variety of news networks for a reason: they all offer different opinions. I can guarantee that if you go to FOX and watch some of their coverage on news events and then go to MSNBC it will be very different. So, my challenge to everyone, if option one is the path you choose to take, is to watch at least an hour of each major network a week. Watch FOX News; MSNBC; CNN; if you get Bloomberg watch that, too; and also watch your local news stations (and all of them, not just WHDH and not just WBZ or WCVB, every single one of them). Local stations also have their biases (seen more in New York City, but it is applicable to nearly every station) so it is important to watch all of your local stations as well. Who knows, you may find you like how another station covers their stories compared to your usual station. Option one is a good option for those who either can't get out or don't want to get out and meet the candidates for office and is an excellent way to connect with the rest of society and create a knowledge base for understanding every angle on an issue.
Option two involves a good bit of mobility. Go and try to meet the candidates that are running for office. Get to know them and ASK THEM QUESTIONS!! There is no better way to get involved with your government than to be involved yourself. Whether they are running for city council or U.S. President, go and meet that person because it will help you determine and reconsider where you stand on major issues. It will also allow you to better understand what John Corzine is trying to insinuate when he has a multitude of photos of a portly Christie in his ads. Entertaining? Yes. Educational? Yes. SO GO ASK!!
Don't get brainwashed by propaganda from candidates for public office and interest groups (*cough*, can't let my buddies slide through a post without a mention) who have THEIR best interests in mind, not YOURS. Don't let a Free State website or TV show or radio show or pamphlet or whatever other form of ambiguous media they try to use give you vague words like "liberty" and "freedom" as acceptable forms of policy establishment. It's very Sarah Palin-esque and we all know what happened to her.
Until next time,
Dennis J. Foley
EiC
Minor Hiatus
Hey everyone!
Sorry for the minor hiatus, The Observer has been doing a little restructuring and I have had a few things in my life that I've had to handle that took precedence over this (sorry). I'm just writing to inform all of you that, as you may have noticed, is not The Keene Observer anymore, but rather Keene Opines. Does that mean The Observer is toast? Absolutely not. What we are doing is making this blog purely the editorial section of a new and improved Observer.
Speaking of a new and improved Observer, I am looking to bring on board reporters, photographers, graphic designers, and other smaller positions that would likely pay. If you are interested or want to learn more about it, email me at peconicnews@live.com and I can answer any questions and further explain the idea behind it.
There will be a new editorial soon, I just need to finish editing it (when I find the time to do it).
So, until next time,
Dennis J. Foley
EiC
