Search This Blog

Saturday, May 31, 2014

THE HERALD MAIL: WOODSTOCK FREEDOM VS TEA PARTY FREEDOM

(G-rated Version) They called police officers pigs.


The Herald Mail has its favorites. One of these is a Mr. Rodney Guessford. Everything that this man utters, be it in writing or by phone, is published. In my observations, the favorable responses to his utterances are always published and in a timely manner. Opposing feedback will likely not be published. When opposing feedback is published, it is long after his original comment was posted, almost ensuring that it has at least in part been forgotten. Opposition rendered useless.

In contrast, although I am a "top commenter," I rarely get a word printed.  I have a public profile on the Herald Mail on-line version, and it has a section called My Recent Comments. I comment nearly every day on something. My most recent comments listed in this section are from 5 months ago! I don't need the Herald Mail for my opinions to be read. I am just aggravated that their readership (my community) doesn't always get both sides to the inane babblings of Rodney Guessford.

This has to be the most ignorant definition of freedom ever to be uttered.


One of those babblings was titled: Remembering Woodstock. I found this telling to say the least. This has to be the most ignorant definition of freedom ever to be uttered. I wrote a letter to the editor of the HM in response. Of course it was not published. At first I thought maybe it was because it was the week of Memorial Day, but it is actually quite relevant since it was his ilk that spat upon our soldiers when they returned from Viet Nam. The Herald Mail can bite me! Here is the ignorant Feedback comment, followed by my op-ed. Read and SHARE. I believe the Conservative on-line network far outreaches their readership.
 
Herald Mail, Feedback, May 22, 2014
“I’m sitting here Saturday, I’m reminiscing. I’m playing my ‘Woodstock’ album. To all you tea partiers out there, that’s what freedom was, Woodstock.
That’s freedom, not carrying a gun and being fearful for everybody that walks around you. That’s not freedom. Freedom is enjoying everybody; everybody else’s thoughts. Caring about people, caring about babies and women and children, and the soldiers.

Freedom is not complaining all the time, and wanting your own agenda. That is not freedom.”

— Rodney Guessford, Hagerstown

To the Editor,
I am writing in response to--the HM's premier opinion writer/caller--Rodney Guessford's Feedback entitled Remembering Woodstock. This explains a lot. Rodney is tip-toeing through the tulips defining freedom as being free to drop acid and roll in the mud naked having sex with strangers. Sure that is freedom too. However, that is not what makes people care about people, babies, women, and children. Especially soldiers! These same people spat on our soldiers!

Now, carrying a gun actually is a freedom protected by the Second Amendment. I am not in fear of anyone, but should some drug addict attempt to invade my home, he should be very afraid because I am free to protect myself and my 80-year-old mother. This just happened in Dundalk and the poor woman had nothing with which to protect herself.
I doubt that Mr. Guessford "enjoys everybody else's thoughts."  He pushes his own agenda, and he is constantly complaining here in the HM. Complaining actually is a freedom also, protected by the First Amendment. "Tea partiers" are as free to complain, promote a Conservative agenda, and carry a gun as Rodney is to wallow in the mud. Deal with it.

 Lynda Givens Evans
Hagerstown/Baltimore

If you agree...SHARE! The Herald Mail and other Liberal news outlets will find themselves obsolete and powerless. The on-line Conservative network is limitless!

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

HERALD MAIL GIVES THREE CANDIDATES FOR BOE A CLEAN SLATE: THREE OPENINGS ON BOE





JACQUELINE FISCHER, MELINDA MARSDEN, AND STAN STOUFFER ONLY THREE BOE CANDIDATES WITHOUT DIRT TO REPORT BY HERALD MAIL: THREE OPENINGS ON BOE

Is it just me growing more cynical or is this truly a coincidence? These candidate's profiles for the Board of Education were published two-at-a-time, and the first thing that struck me was that the HM is not exactly known for its investigative work. So what's up? Why this election? Why only the BOE candidates? One of the candidate's told me that when they were interviewed the reporter justified publishing this information because the BOE has a large budget, if not the largest budget, in the county. OK, but what about the dirt that wasn't related to finances? Certainly there is dirt that could be dug up on other candidates for other races; in fact, I know that there is.

The second cynical thought came after reading the first profile that was without dirt. The article did not state that they had investigated this person and was unable to find anything to report. There just wasn't any. In fact, that statement did not appear in any of the profiles without dirt. Intentional?

After reading 6 of the 8 profiles and realizing that there were only 2 so far without dirt, I predicted that there would only be one candidate of the final two profiles to be published that would report a bit of dirt, giving us exactly three "clean" candidates. Guess what? Three clean candidates and three openings...imagine that.