|
|
Post by swampfox on Mar 19, 2009 20:39:10 GMT -5
Welcome to Whitestown Buzz, a new blogger who appears to be concerned about the antics of Whitestown's elected officials. Their website can be found at: www.whitestownbuzz.blogspot.com/Hope to see and hear a lot about this group of elected officials. |
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Mar 19, 2009 20:59:13 GMT -5
The blogger is correct, terrible things could happen if this law passes. The Whitestown board could appoint a member to the Planning Board who is a Whitestown property owner but really lives in the Town of Norway.
What next, the minutes of the town Planning Board published in Norwegian and clarencebunsen is forced to suppress the "Ole & Lena" volume of his Bad Jokes file?
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Mar 19, 2009 21:03:21 GMT -5
"What's really going on in Whitestown...
When a town such as Whitestown has a select group of people running it and won't let anyone else in, things tend to get done that favors "the group" and it tends to breed corruption." Hey Swamp, when I see the word "tend" twice in a sentence, I know the author is on thin ice. I don't mean to sound tendentious, but these anonymous screed sheets get a little tiring. It's always easy to say that a town is run by a band of bandits... and perhaps it is ... but conditions in a town never improved without concentrating on provable facts. Otherwise, it's just one select group versus another. |
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Mar 19, 2009 22:07:09 GMT -5
 Dave, don't feel there is anything wrong with remaining "anonymous" especially in little close knit towns. Many of these anonymous warnings bring forth information that in most cases is investigated and many things do get corrected. Most people are afraid to come forth openly with vital information and without knowing they can remain anonymous alot of investigations would not take place. 
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Mar 19, 2009 22:51:35 GMT -5
Hold on a minute, Bobbbiez. We're not talking about people who are turning in their bosses for criminal activity. This is normal public discourse, about who should be elected and which policies should be implemented, etc. To have someone publish a sheet of innuendo and no facts to back up up their inferences, without signing their name to it, in regard to school board issues, is far different from whistle blowing.
As I said, I don't know how you do things in central NY, but in my county and town, when we launch political broadsides or internet websites, we sign our names to our opinions.
Is there a reason why whoever writes the opinions for NHOnline does not want us to know his or her name? Would we value their opinion less if we knew their identity? Do they have something to hide about themselves? These are the questions I would have when reading anything anonymous. If opinions that held sway in America were voiced by people who kept themselves anonymous, we wouldn't know the names of our founding fathers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Mar 19, 2009 23:42:26 GMT -5
I have oft wondered the same thing about the NH blog, and I agree with you about this one. Both of those blogs make excellent points and much of the material is substantiated, so I don't know why one would insist on anonymity. Had I researched and found things such as were found in the Whitestown case, I would be proud to champion the effort to defeat the law.
It is quite possible that the scenario of out of town developers getting onto the town zoning board could become a reality. THAT is not a good thing under any circumstances.
It definitely smacks of NH politics, and Whitestown residents should beware.
Yep. I have always wanted to know who was behind the NH Citizens blog, so I could compliment them on their hard work, tireless research, and efforts to shine light on the backroom politics and patronage happening in NH.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Mar 20, 2009 0:24:41 GMT -5
Don't know fellows but when you're working within a small town and people are so close I can understand why some would like to remain anonymous. Yes Dave, it could possibly be in fear of ones job or a family members job. We all know that is why many do not want to sign their names for all the public to see. Not everyone is like myself who is way past the age of worrying about who I might get in trouble, but I do understand why some would worry and I do know many work places frown upon their employees getting involved in political matters.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Mar 20, 2009 0:39:34 GMT -5
"If opinions that held sway in America were voiced by people who kept themselves anonymous, we wouldn't know the names of our founding fathers." Dave, we might know them now but I'm sure there were times in America's history to correct the wrong in our government many times names were kept anonymous for whatever reasons until the force was strong enough to over turn the wrong. 
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Mar 20, 2009 1:10:27 GMT -5
I believe back in the 1800's the names of the secret "conductors" to the underground railroads were kept anonymous so they could continue working the freedom network for thousands of slaves and I'm sure there were other times in our country's history others were kept anonymous to help correct the wrongs in our government. I believe if you want to "fight City Hall" stay invisible until your force is strong enough to confront the battle head on.
|
|
|
|
Post by tanouryjr on Mar 20, 2009 1:34:44 GMT -5
"If opinions that held sway in America were voiced by people who kept themselves anonymous, we wouldn't know the names of our founding fathers." Dave, we might know them now but I'm sure there were times in America's history to correct the wrong in our government many times names were kept anonymous for whatever reasons until the force was strong enough to over turn the wrong. I have to agree with Boobie here. Many of our founding fathers did, in fact, use pseudonyms. From the late eighteenth to early nineteenth centuries, it was established practice for political articles to be signed with pseudonyms. A well-known American was the pen name Publius, used by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, in writing The Federalist Papers. The British political writer Junius was never identified. |
|
|
|
Post by gearofzanzibar on Mar 20, 2009 4:17:08 GMT -5
Hold on a minute, Bobbbiez. We're not talking about people who are turning in their bosses for criminal activity. This is normal public discourse, about who should be elected and which policies should be implemented, etc. To have someone publish a sheet of innuendo and no facts to back up up their inferences, without signing their name to it, in regard to school board issues, is far different from whistle blowing. Er...what? The blog owner in question thinks having non-residents sit on the planning and zoning boards is a bad, bad idea. They quote the proposed law. They provide full details of when the meeting considering the law will be held. They make no specific allegations of wrongdoing, other than the rather obvious statement that political cabals are bad things. Seriously, what's the problem? Where's the innuendo? That's nice, but irrelevant. So what if someone wants to be anonymous? He asked, anonymously. Er...it's not a secret, as even the most trivial effort on your part would have demonstrated. Google "Publius". This country was founded on the right of the populace to engage in anonymous political commentary. Edit: Ah, I see Mr. Tanoury beat me to invoking Publius. Heh. |
|
|
|
Post by gearofzanzibar on Mar 20, 2009 4:26:04 GMT -5
Yep. I have always wanted to know who was behind the NH Citizens blog, so I could compliment them on their hard work, tireless research, and efforts to shine light on the backroom politics and patronage happening in NH. Cathy Lawrence. Just drop her an email and I'm sure she'd be happy to identify any other contributors of particular posts. Me? I'm staying anonymous. Well, as anonymous as I can be when dozens of people know who I am. Come to think of it, the only local blogger who I think is/was truly anonymous was the proprietor of "Central New York Political Insider". My identity is pretty well known, Strikeslip's isn't exactly a secret, the proprietor of Uticasux is an open secret, and, well, Sue Arcuri literally begs for recognition. Who else is there? There have been some quick, hit-and-run blogs that popped up and vanished just as fast, but even they don't really try to be truly anonymous. Otherwise they would have scrubbed the EXIF data from their jpg's. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Mar 20, 2009 5:59:34 GMT -5
I think we're off track here. We began speaking about someone wanting to pick up petitions for election and remain anonymous.
If you are seriously thinking about running for school board (and not just breaking the superintendent's chops), name recognition is a vital part of getting elected. It doesn't make sense to me to throw away even one opportunity to get your name in the newspaper.
|
|
|
|
Post by gearofzanzibar on Mar 20, 2009 6:55:01 GMT -5
I think we're off track here. We began speaking about someone wanting to pick up petitions for election and remain anonymous. If you are seriously thinking about running for school board (and not just breaking the superintendent's chops), name recognition is a vital part of getting elected. It doesn't make sense to me to throw away even one opportunity to get your name in the newspaper. Now I'm really confused. School board election petitions? There must be posts that I'm not seeing, because I thought this thread was regarding the Whitestown Buzz blog and political anonymity in general. |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Mar 20, 2009 7:36:10 GMT -5
First of all .... I mistakenly referred to the NH Online, when I was writing in response to what I read in the Whitestown Buzz. It was the article cited in the Buzz that struck me as innuendo. And yes, the Federalist Papers were signed Publius and pseudonyms were a popular device used in American newspapers of that era. But I believe Hamilton also wrote anonymously when he wanted to stir up trouble for his opponents and make unfounded accusations, a popular pastime in his day. Anyway, so much for my throw-away comment about founding fathers! because I thought this thread was regarding the Whitestown Buzz blog and political anonymity in general. I guess I've taken it in the anonymity direction. As a topic, it is more interesting to me than the Whitestown Buzz, frankly. Although everyone has made good points, I just think anonymity in politics should be approached with caution. Read that as "seldom employed." I respect a person who steps forward in the public square to tell me or a group of us his opinion. I have cause to wonder about people who write anonymous sheets making easy accusations, such as "When a town such as Whitestown has a select group of people running it and won't let anyone else in, things tend to get done that favors "the group" and it tends to breed corruption." And I still wonder why anyone would not use their given name when addressing an issue. Gear, you can cite all the anonymous web writers you want, but I can still not understand it. I would never think of proudly voicing my opinion in the public sphere without my name attached to it. Oh, sorry, I'm Dave Griffin of Saugerties, NY. Smart Bomb Address: 42-09-23.830North, 073-59-56.400West |
|
Dave, don't feel there is anything wrong with remaining "anonymous" especially in little close knit towns. Many of these anonymous warnings bring forth information that in most cases is investigated and many things do get corrected. Most people are afraid to come forth openly with vital information and without knowing they can remain anonymous alot of investigations would not take place. 
