Sections

Weather Forecast

Close
Advertisement

Letter to the Editor: Levy proponents demonstrate the end justifies the means

Email

Kudos to the school board and faculty, they really made a statement.

Last Tuesday, with the help of low turnout, they made the statement that ethics mean nothing and that the end justifies the means.

Last November, while discussing how to move forward after the fourth levy defeat in four years, the superintendent cautioned those at the school board meeting that a referendum next fall (2012) would probably be unsuccessful; noting that levy referendums typically do not fair well during presidential elections because of high turnout, indicating their desire for a low turnout. Their efforts to sneak the levy through in the spring demonstrates that the end justifies the means.

The "yes" vote last fall (1,520) was essentially the same (1,535) this spring. Last November, 2,284 opposed the levy, but five months later only 1,208 showed up at the polls to oppose it.

With 1,061 fewer voters voting, is it not evident that low turnout was the difference? Yes! But because levy proponents know what's best, the end justifies the means.

Does anyone really believe that a majority of people really want this levy? No! But because levy proponents know what's best, the end justifies the means.

Is it ethical for a small minority to dictate to the majority that they pay for the demands of the minority? No! But because levy proponents know what's best, the end justifies the means.

Is it ethical for pro-levy proponents to steal signs from several properties the night before the election? No! But because levy proponents know what's best, the end justifies the means.

Is it ethical for the school board to use (public funds) to promote their pro-levy agenda? No! But because levy proponents know what's best, the end justifies the means.

Is it ethical to force seasonal residents to pay for indoctrination, but not allow them to vote? No! But because levy proponents know what's best, the end justifies the means.

One of the grievances listed against the King of England in the Declaration of Independence was for imposing taxes on us without our consent. Is it ethical to require those with no voice to pay for the levy in order to appease the few whose only concern was to save themselves a few dollars? No! But because levy proponents know what's best, the end justifies the means.

Is it ethical to do anything whatsoever is required to get the levy passed, regardless of the methods used? No! But because levy proponents know what's best, the end justifies the means.

Did it matter to levy proponents whether these methods were ethical or unethical, legal or illegal, fair or foul, kind or cruel, truth or lie, good or evil, moral or immoral, democratic or dictatorial? No it didn't! Because liberals believe they know what's best for all of society and what the best means are to achieve this goal, the end will always justify the means.

In the end does anyone really believe that a statement was made by a majority to support this levy and pay more taxes? Was this truly a cooperative community effort? Did the community of the Perham-Dent School District really make a statement last Tuesday? Wasn't passage inevitable after wearing down of the opposition with a continual barrage of levy attempts? Considered just a "band-aid" and not a long-term budget fix, can we expect another levy referendum in the near future?

If voting for the levy signifies that you care about students and education, does opposing it indicate that you don't care about these things?

Does the biased opinion of the entire EOT Focus editorial staff represent a huge void in fair and balanced news reporting?

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement