Certainly the NHP Herald Courier is free to take strong issue with the comments in my 8/12 letter on the subject, such as, “Calling Mr.Wendling a private eye was hardly an abusive slander as Tom (not Tim) Coffey wrote.”
You’re certainly correct, but that was not the descriptive I called an abusive slander. What your initial editorial said, in fact, was; “Still we find the hiring of a low rent private investigator a heavy handed approach” and later, ” Do the numbers justify the hiring of even a low rent private eye?”.
Don’t the elementary rules of journalistic integrity require verbatim rather than selective quoting? Apparently not. Naming and then calling a retired NYPD detective low rent because you disagree with his mandate from the Herricks School Board, remains an abusive slander, despite your dissembling retort.
As for my observation that “the core reason the poor are poor is not because the rich are rich, rather it’s usually because they make bad life choices over, over and over again;” I stand by it, despite your assertion that my opinion is “unkind and somewhat bizarre”.
In fact, your reference to the “starving people of East Africa” as an example of those blameless for their life condition, makes my point.
Climatologists since the 19th century, have empirically demonstrated that the Horn of Africa region has been chronically hostile to human habitation. Further, given the high fertility rate and religious antipathy to birth control among these largely nomadic masses, the plagues of high infant mortality, cholera and typhus as well as famine, are a predictable result; a classic example of people making and then refusing to reverse a bad choice, in their case, where they choose to live.
Of course my contention will always be anathema to the secular left, in perpetual thrall to the fantasy of Rousseau, that mankind is inherently comprised of just good guys while those meanies with money and influence are the real problem. So let’s just change the power structure by redistributing wealth and all will be sweetness and light, the eternal cry of the progressives since Marx and Engels. Why of course it will!
Your supposition, “It is possible that if Herricks were to distribute the cost of illegal students over its five schools, the cost would be little more than the price of textbooks and far less than the $20,000 used to hire a private investigator”, is both beside the point and a telling example of excuse mongering on behalf of fundamental dishonesty.
Following that reasoning, if Herricks had say, eight schools rather than five, they could presumably reduce the cost of illegal students to several gross of No. 2 of pencils as well as colored chalk and washable glue for the kindergarten class. Sure.
At the end of the day and despite all the sanctimony, theft is a vice that should be admonished and discouraged for the sake of young people; regardless of circumstances and whatever presumed pious intentions motivated the activity. To do otherwise is to nod and wink at bad behavior as just another option, the siren song of modern relativism.
http://liarcatchers.com/corporate_investigations.html
