my censored letter to the editor: Math Lesson for Jeb Bradley

by: TimothyHorrigan

Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 06:57:18 AM EDT

Former Congressman (and current State Senate candidiate) Jeb Bradley stated that a "nearly 10% percent hike" in the Rooms and Meals tax is being considered in the New Hampshire legislature. The Democratic majority amendment to HB2 (the main budget bill) in the NH House of Representatives actually only proposed raising the rooms and meals tax from 8% to 8.75%.

I do not know where Jeb Bradley studied fourth grade math. However, I am pretty sure (if I correctly remember what Mrs. Metcalf taught me 42 years ago at Mast Way School in Lee) that 8.75% minus 8% is only 0.75%- or 3/4 of 1%. The proposed increase is arguably "nearly" 1%, but it is nowhere near 10%.

Thanks,
Rep. Timothy Horrigan
7A Faculty Road
Durham, NH 03824
ph: 603-868-3342

Jeb stated that the proposed sales--- ahem!  rooms and meals--- tax hike from 8.75% to 8% was a "nearly 10%" hike.  8.75 divided by 8 is indeed almost 1.10--- but that's not a 10% hike, because you don't divide a higher percentage by a lower percentage.  You subtract  the lower percentage from the higher percentage.

Happily, Foster's  saved me from publishing a mischaracterization of HB2 as the "main" budget bill.  HB2, even though it is much more extensively debated than HB1, is the "trailer bill" for the budget.  HB1 is where all the numbers in the budget are specified, and HB2 sets out the rules by which the budget is constructed and says where the money comes from.  But that may not be why they didn't run my letter.  They have published much more glaring factual errors than that on their letters page.  (And, there are glaring factual errors every day elsewhere in the paper, but we only expect correct facts from the Letters to the Editor correspondents.  We don't expect true facts from the editor herself or from her staff.)

Censorship on Blue Hampshire?

by: Digger

Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 11:41:47 AM EST

Then, a "contributing writer" from this blog happened along the fact that someone (not myself) dared defend our governor's actions.  That contributing writer (whose name starts with an "e") then stated this:

Please don't be insulting.

It's one thing to say that the people who disagree with you about whether the DSCC would fully back the nominee are wrong.
It's a different matter to tell us that campaign funding is important, as though we are slow students.

You really are not in a position to educate Blue Hampshire on that.  

Allow me to set the scene.

I come here to read the blog; if it's something of interest I follow it "below the fold", but I'm typically busy reading between 4-10 online newspapers/magazines, so I don't often post.  Also, I'm a lifetime Democrat, never voted GOP ever, and I work with and donate to Democratic campaigns.

Well, I admit, the above post from a "contributing writer" ticked me off.  It was not the first time I had seen this person get unnecessarily snippy and deliver an incredibly patronizing and arrogant retort to someone simply for disagreeing them.  Why not simply refute the post with facts or opinion?  Why the need to get snotty?

So I posted something back to this "contributing writer".  Something along the lines of "Wow, I can't decide whether that was arrogant or simply patronizing", with a post that defended what Lynch was doing.

Later, I returned to check my posts, and when I clicked on two of them, they were gone.

I didn't go over the line or use innappropriate language so I was very surprised, and concerned.  I made inquiries.  I was told that, if I was a registered user, I would be able to see them.  I checked again, and I couldn't see them.

Finally I was told that they 1) either were deleted or 2) they are hidden forever because they got some "1.00" ratings.  To this moment, I don't know what was true.

As a Democrat, I'm really surprised that what I have termed as "soft censorship" is allowed on a Democratic blog.  Keeping people in line with hardcore tactics is something I associate with Republicans; Democrats support debate and the free association of ideas, don't they?

So I raised the censorship issue.  If you have ever seriously disagreed with someone here, or stood up to the "bullying" or patronizing behavior of one of the "contributing writers" here, you know what likely followed.  The accusation that I was a (please choose 1 or more of the following):

1) a GOP operative
       or
2) a troll whose only aim is to "disrupt the blog"

Accusing someone of being an "enemy", simply because they disagree with you, is variously hilarious, pathetic, and honestly very strange, not to mention indicative of a potentially weak argument by the accuser.  Consider that I have Obama memorabilia and a picture with him in my house, making it particularly surreal to be accused of being an "operative" for the enemy.  Maybe I was a participant in the phone jamming scandal and I can't remember it?  Am I the Manchurian Operative, activated by seeing the "Ellen" TV show?

Seriously, a mindset here has been constructed that (perhaps unconsciously) ends up putting people on the "enemies list" simply for raising a question about the conduct of the "contributing writers" or for arguing for a moderate Democratic position.  Why?  Please, show my posts (with their context please) where I have been consciously disruptive and adovcated Republican opinions.  I don't believe they exist.

These "contributing writers" have developed a tendency to be very agressive in their disagreements with people, and what I object to is that there is a double-standard at work; if you respond aggressively to one of these people it seems your posts dissapear.  Isn't that just a little scary?

I understand that this blog is a liberal Democratic blog, and that the idea of what Lynch had done would not be universally welcomed by readers here.  But where's the ideological tolerance?  How do you have a free exchange of ideas with this type of restriction of the exchange of ideas?

Also, I think it's appropriate to raise a censorship debate here.  Were my posts deleted or are they hidden?  Was the blog involved in the deletions or was it solely based on "troll" ratings by a few hardcore posters here intolerant of different views, or of someone willing to stand up to the a few bullying "contributing writers?