After election ruminations? Sure! Writing about other things, having lots to do and little time in which to do them (e.g., the old 8 lbs of stuff to fit into a 6 lb bag)......time to play catch up.....
FUD - Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt
Fire departments all over are known to not sit on the sidelines during political elections. As individuals and as organizations, they have their right to enter the public square and throw their arguments into the fray. Here in Gilford, they certainly made their intentions known as they backed Mr. Dormody, Mr. Phillips, and Mr. Roy (Scott Mooney, Sun, 3/12).
One thing in Mr. Mooney's letter was a plea for
"to conduct themselves in a professional and civil manner when involved town business"
Well, is it fair to demand that some adhere to that standard, but not one of your own? Jeff Madon's Letter (Sun-3/12, Citizen-3/10) caught my eye due to it's content:
"Of course we are disturbed about the looming salary and benefit cuts, but public safety of the residents and visitors of Gilford has always been, and will always be our primary concern. We challenge those that are intent on slashing budgets and demeaning..."
Civility can be judged on a number of different levels. The words that construct the above certainly seem civil enough. However, syntax is not a sufficient judge of civility, one must take the semantics of that snippet of his letter into account as well:
"Of course we are disturbed about the looming salary and benefit cuts, but public safety of the residents and visitors of Gilford has always been, and will always be our primary concern. We challenge those that are intent on slashing budgets and demeaning..."
Now, I'll just be blunt - where did "looming salary and benefits cuts" come from? "Looming" gives a reader an impression of immediate and large, something to be afraid of. Yet, at no time did anyone on the Budget Committee ever say it was prudent to do so. And putting it that way, in that manner, makes it seem as if looming salary and benefit cuts are actually all but a done deal. During campaigning, some pushing of the boundaries of the issues is almost expected, but is attempting to "make points" that way acting exactly what was being attacked? Isn't the underlying meaning ("they are going to cut employees!"), written to deliberately mislead voters (for I can think of no other reason) uncivil?
I also noticed the attempt to "raise" the worth of the writer by promoting the idea that "our primary concern" is only altruistic; the juxtaposition of that while presenting "are intent on slashing budgets and demeaning" in an attempt to use an untruth to better one's position, uncivil?
