I can’t help but wonder how many young people heard this advice as a life lesson: cheating is fine if the other side cheats first. What does that teach about character? About fairness? About playing by the rules even when it’s hard?
Sports are supposed to instill integrity, teamwork, and resilience. When we replace those values with “win at any cost,” we risk raising a generation who believe that bending or breaking the rules is acceptable if it gets them ahead. And I wonder — how many of those players, years later, carried that lesson into other parts of their lives? How many crossed ethical lines in business, relationships, or even the law, because they’d been told that it’s okay to do wrong if you feel wronged?
A society that embraces “two wrongs make a right” doesn’t become more just — it just becomes more wrong.
It’s pretty clear that David completely missed the point. The comment about building a stadium—just like the tongue-in-cheek suggestion of suing Newtowners for “being stupid”—was obviously satire. If Dave took the stadium idea literally, maybe the “stupid” comments struck a little closer to home than he’s willing to admit. Sometimes satire isn’t meant to be taken at face value—but then again, if you have to explain the joke, maybe that’s part of the problem.
If, as Mr. Gaston states, the property between Main Street sidewalks and the road belongs to the private property owners, then let me ask this: Would I, as a property owner, be within my rights to post “No Trespassing” signs and have any protesting group arrested for trespassing on that strip of land?
If the answer is yes, then these protests are occurring on private property without permission, and the conversation shifts from free speech to property rights enforcement. If the answer is no, then there’s clearly some form of public right-of-way or easement that permits public use, which contradicts the argument that this land is entirely private. Either way, this issue seems far less clear-cut than Mr. Gaston suggests.
Bruce Walczak’s promise of RESPONSIVENESS sounds great on paper, but my own experience tells a different story. After his July 25th announcement, I congratulated him and asked a sincere question about the ongoing traffic disruptions on Main Street caused by frequent rallies at the flagpole—a concern shared by many residents and businesses.
I never received an answer. No acknowledgment, no follow-up, nothing.
If a candidate pledging openness and “no evasive answers or silence” can’t even respond during the campaign, how can voters expect better once in office? Responsiveness is proven by action, not slogans. Newtown needs better!
Hi Bruce, I am not sure what meeting you attended but there was no extensive discussion. It was pretty much a popularity contest with over 200 protestors in attendance. In my estimation, no one on the LC even did any research on the subject, and those who voted NOT TO EVEN CONSIDER the benefits of an ordinance was a blatant act of conflict of interest and dereliction of duty. I for one presented 4 quantifiable benefits. If you are not able to think critically, then you really shouldn't be chiming in on the subject.
