Paula - - I agree
Anti-U.N. residents plan protest during peace garden dedication Sunday
Submitted by Howard Owens on May 5, 2012 - 12:15am
The dedication of the peace garden in Batavia on Sunday will draw a quiet protest from some local residents, according to Mike Barrett, owner of Barrett's Batavia Marine.
The problem, Barrett said, is that the peace garden is a little too closely linked with the United Nations and Barrett and others are no fan of the U.N.
One of Barrett's current concerns is a U.N. push to create an international treaty on the trade of guns, and while supporters of the treaty say it merely deals with the illicit sale of guns, groups such as the NRA fear it's really an attempt to circumvent the 2nd Amendment (Wikipedia).
"(The peace garden is) a noble effort," Barrett said, "but when one of the principles of the peace garden gets an award from the United Nations and they're going to have a torch run via the U.N. from Buffalo to Albany, that concerns us. We don't want anything to do with the U.N."
Barrett is referring to Paula Savage, a Batavia native who organized the first peace garden in Ottawa and is now part of the International Peace Garden Foundation.
Savage was recently honored by the U.N. for her peace garden efforts.
The Batavia garden is adjacent to the Holland Land Office Museum on West Main Street and the protest is scheduled to start at 2 p.m. on the opposite side of the street.
"It will be peaceful. There will be no bullhorns," Barrett said. "We're going to have an informational protest to show that the the peace garden is associated with the United Nations and that we're dead set against what the U.N. does."
- Howard Owens's blog
- Login or register to post comments
May 5, 2012 - 7:57am
#3
May 5, 2012 - 9:11am
#4
He has every right to protest whatever he wants as long as it’s peaceful and it doesn’t hurt anyone. Maybe he has some good points maybe he doesn’t, but it’s his right to voice his opinion.
May 5, 2012 - 9:15am
#5
Gotta agree with Pat.
May 5, 2012 - 9:46am
#6
Another taking marching orders from the NRA. The paranoia is stunning. I suppose the anti-UN nuts also oppose the work of the UN in feeding millions of children, fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS, helping refugees, fighting human trafficking, advancing human rights, providing the poor in developing nations with clean water, working to end the use of child soldiers, etc., etc. The efforts of the UN to end illegal gun trafficking are seen by Barrett and his NRA buddies as a means of taking guns away from local hunters? That is crazy!
May 5, 2012 - 10:05am
#7
My post says nothing about the right to free speech. Have at it. I am merely questioning the choice of venue taking into consideration what it seems they are trying to communicate.
May 5, 2012 - 11:39am
#8
Anti-UN, garden haters. Where has sanity gone? Mexico blames their violence and the gun trafficking on us. We expect them to keep terrorists and drugs out of our country but we are unwilling to keep Illigal guns from crossing back.
May 5, 2012 - 11:37am
#9
Paula, I did not see anywhere in the article that, MR Barrett was against the Peace Garden because; Paula Savage was honored by the UN. You are misreading the article. He is against the support of the UN and the International Treaty of Fire Arms Trade. I am not big fan of the United Nations either. I believe they are a burden on the US tax payers and should be sent to Geneva, Switzerland (They are truly neutral!).
Peace is a wonderful idea and desired more by " U.S. Airmen, Soldiers, Sailors" than anyone else!
May 5, 2012 - 11:44am
#10
That is funny Mexico blames their violence and the gun trafficking on the US. They are extremely corrupted in Mexico. Thanks for the laugh Charlie. 
May 5, 2012 - 12:02pm
#11
The problem, Barrett said, is that the peace garden is a little too closely linked with the United Nations and Barrett and others are no fan of the U.N."
(The peace garden is) a noble effort," Barrett said, "but when one of the principles of the peace garden gets an award from the United Nations and they're going to have a torch run via the U.N. from Buffalo to Albany, that concerns us. We don't want anything to do with the U.N."
Barrett is referring to Paula Savage, a Batavia native who organized the first peace garden in Ottawa and is now part of the International Peace Garden Foundation.
IDK, maybe I am reading it wrong.... Paula (great name BTW)organized the first peace garden, gets acknowledged by the UN and that is the link that Barrett mentions as to why they are choosing that venue to communicate their message. The link with the Peace Garden and the UN - 2nd ammendment issue seems weak and it occurred to me there may be a more suited time/place to get their point across. Not sure who their intended audience is and why they think the audience that will be there doesn't already support their views.
May 5, 2012 - 2:03pm
#12
Wow, this is the kind of regressive garbage that makes this area look like a reactionary outpost for insanity. I understand that there are arguments against the UN, I do not agree with them, but I do not doubt the sincerity of them and the passion of which they are argued. That being said, protesting a peace garden? I'm working Sunday, but if I wasn't I'd make my own sign that says "Please Don't Think We're All LIke This" and stand next to them.
I also think that reasonable people should boycott Mr. Barrett's shop, I wouldn't want to support someone who thinks like him.
May 5, 2012 - 1:57pm
#13
To the people who say he has a right to be there, yes, he does, and those of us who disagree with him have the right to speak out against him. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from being criticized for that speech. Your Mommy was wrong, you aren't special, you don't get a pass from critical examination of your publicly spoken ideas in a free society.
May 5, 2012 - 2:04pm
#14
If Obamas ATF was not responsable for the sham that sent the weapons there and worried a little more about our borders maybe just maybe there would not be as many weapons going there
May 5, 2012 - 4:36pm
#15
Charlie - They might use a hammer, or even a sickle, therefore the garden is a communist plot! (sarcasm)
May 5, 2012 - 5:26pm
#16
What's amazing to me is that there are actual people out there who are going to protest a "Peace" Garden. What's more puzzling is there are actually more than one of them too. There has to be some environmental cause of this stupidity. Was there another toxic train derailment? Just how many people are we talking about? Is Fox News going to cover this important protest?
May 5, 2012 - 9:58pm
#17
May 5, 2012 - 9:59pm
#18
Charlie you are tooo funny! Thank you!!Carol
May 5, 2012 - 10:19pm
#19
Thank you Paula, Paula Savage was given the Peace Award from the Harmony PEACE Run Group from Ireland which started at the UN in Honor of Peace, my God get the story straight she is not against GUNS!!!
May 5, 2012 - 11:47pm
#20
Whatever takes place on Sunday afternoon, on either side of the street, only goes to prove one thing.
And that is, we live in the greatest country in the world, may freedom of speech live forever...!!
May 6, 2012 - 12:05am
#21
I do not believe that the intent of a peace garden here is to violate the second amendment.
May 6, 2012 - 12:31pm
#22
Dan - It doesn't matter what the actual intent is, these people are determined that the peace garden is part of a vast conspiracy even if it isn't.
May 6, 2012 - 12:49pm
#23
i don't beleive that but commenting on things like this seems to get me in trouble.
May 6, 2012 - 1:49pm
#24
It's funny, everyone seems to agree that we have the right to free speech, the right to protest, the right to our opinion etc.etc.
All this so long as when they do excercise that right, they do so at a venue other than the one that they are endeared to or support.
The word regressive was used, what is more regressive than calling for a boycott of a local business solely because the owner of that business is willing to stand up for what he believes?
May 6, 2012 - 2:03pm
#25
Mark, the only thing that is puzzling is the idea that gun rights have anything to do with a garden. It's seems like a poor way to get a point across. If I was leading the charge against the UN, the last thing I would do is protest a "Peace" Garden. It would make my group look like a bunch of idiots. Everyone has the right of free speach, other people also have the right to laugh at you during that expression as well.
May 6, 2012 - 2:03pm
#26
Mark - Freedom of speech does not include freedom from criticism. I'm glad he can make his ridiculous case, and I have the right to make mine, it's funny how these so called 'tough' people are awful sensitive to being rebutted....and no, it's not regressive when what he's standing for is ridiculous and asinine.
May 6, 2012 - 2:18pm
#27
Charlie, I took no position on this either way, was simply an observation,
Daniel, I actually agree that if you take a position that you are going to be open to critism.
The ONLY thing I take an exception too is the call for the boycott of a local business. That goes beyond criticism and into the realm of manipulation
May 6, 2012 - 4:53pm
#28
I would never boycotts someone's business because I disagreed with their politics...I wouldn't have anywhere to shop! Well...except here, as Howard is the only Localist Libertarian I know that owns a business in town.
I don't agree with his association, or the fact he would waste a perfect spring afternoon on it, but I say have fun. The peace garden is a welcomed addition, and I will visit it and think about how many of our soldiers are still dying for useless politics. I truly would love to see peace for my children, but as long as the people in charge don't value life, we never will.
May 6, 2012 - 7:06pm
#29
This would be a far more civilized world if we had intelligent debates that focused on facts and issues rather than emotional responses, which includes ridicule and threats of boycotts and such.
There is clearly a disrespect for somebody's right to free speech when you ridicule that speech or threaten actions to curtail that speech. To respect another person's right to speak freely means that when you disagree, you respond based on facts and reason, not emotion and not with threats.
May 6, 2012 - 8:21pm
#30
I am confused how the Peace Garden vs Gun Rights got started? What I understood from the article is that MR Barrett was just against the support from the United Nation because, he does not agree with the United Nations' International Treaty for Firearms Trade. What I can see is that he is not against the Peace Garden but, the sponsorship of the UN. Sounds like he is using this "Peace Garden" event as an attempt of getting his voice heard by the UN. Especially, since MS Paula Savage was recently honored by the UN. I do not much imagine that any UN Official will be present or concerned about the protest either. People's feathers get ruffled so easily. If, people do not like the protest then do not consume your thoughts about it.
May 6, 2012 - 9:05pm
#31
Howard - Boycotts and free market economic actions _are_ speech, the government censoring speech is bad, but people responding by speaking out and taking action on their own is called Democracy. Quite frankly, these kinds of shenangins make the entire region look bad, it's the sort of thing that leads people to believe that Western New York is filled with conspiracy theorists. I've had to combat that perception in my work in politics, but it still persists and the protest of a peace garden because of some imaginary UN action to ban guns does not help matters. I respect his right to speak freely, but I find his outrage over this to be inane and absurd, so no, I reject his premise outright. It's not emotional, it's logical, it's taken as emotional by people who are so sensitive that they cannot handle anyone rejecting their ideas.
May 6, 2012 - 9:08pm
#32
I think it's great that someone of the humanitarian leadership of Ms. Savage came to Batavia, and I think we should welcome the international community to this region, rather than chase anything that has to do with the UN away because some people pretend that they're coming to take away their guns.
May 6, 2012 - 9:12pm
#33
I'm glad to see that Assemblyman Steve Hawley was there today and embraced what was happening, it shows that he's the sort of responsible public servant that we need more of.
May 6, 2012 - 9:29pm
#34
Let's be serious, Peace Gardens have nothing to do with guns, unless of course your looking to drum up some business. This whole post was nothing more than a transparent advertising stunt. I can't see hunters boycotting a sporting goods store because, SUPRISE the owner supports gun sales. Dan's boycott talk will probably increase business further, don't you think?
Howard, I can see this from your point of view as well. A loyal advertiser has an idea and you do your best to publicize it. Not everyone agrees and now your site has comments against a good local business. I think they say all plublicity is good publicity.
May 6, 2012 - 9:27pm
#35
A protest???? Cool!!!!!
May 6, 2012 - 9:36pm
#36
You would think there would be this sort of outrage every time local taxes skyrocket, but no, only a protest when the big, bad UN comes to town (with their food programs and rice bags) and imaginary rumors fly that they're coming to take everyone's guns away.
May 6, 2012 - 9:39pm
#37
Dan, a boycott is coercion. Coercion is an attempt to use force to stifle free speech. It's saying, "I want you to shut the hell up."
If you can't see that is totally counter to the very nature of free speech and ultimately destructive of a free society, I can't help you. You should ask for a refund on your college tuition if you can't see it.
Charlie, don't be insulting. This isn't about advertising. If you don't understand by now how much I believe in individual rights, you obviously haven't been paying attention to what I've been writing for the past few years.
No person who truly respects freedom would ever try to deny another person the right to their freedom of expression. To ridicule another person's opinion or to threaten to harm them for that opinion is dictatorial, selfish, anti-freedom and anti-democracy. It is reprehensible and offensive.
May 6, 2012 - 9:43pm
#38
Howard - The Government is being coercive when it censors free speech, ordinary people choosing not to shop somewhere because the owner of the establishment is supporting an extreme agenda that harms the community's image is not. If you're arrogant enough to think you define free speech on a case by case basis by yourself, then congratulations, you're ridiculous. I did not have to go to college to understand this, but I learned it there, and quite frankly the fact that you can't see this after your years in journalism speaks for itself.
May 6, 2012 - 9:48pm
#39
To criticize another persons opinion is American, to take action on your own to correct an injustice is American, and to say that those things are not American is un-American.
May 6, 2012 - 9:51pm
#40
Maybe every republican should boycott Settlers becasue Hillary Clinton visted there,
Maybe we shopuld boycott Hawley insurance because Steve may have backed legislation that you didn't like.
Let's Boycott Rosemary Christian's diner becaus she is a Democrat.
Let's boycott Notre Dame High school because the Catholic church opposes abortion
Daniel, boycotts are coersion, plain and simple. People didn't en masse call for a Boycott of Barrett's YOU DID
To disagree is great, to question the venue of the protest greater, to call one an idiot, stupid or to call for a boycott of his business is wrong.
To suggest paid advertisor of the site should nopt have a public opinion or Howard should not have put up the article because he is, borders on juvenile
May 6, 2012 - 10:25pm
#41
Howard, I'm doing my best to try an understand why anyone on earth could possibly protest a Peace Garden.
The basis for this protest as presented is suspect. Other than a stunt, I can think of no other rational reason. Did actual people with signs show up? Are they occupying the garden?
May 6, 2012 - 10:44pm
#42
Dan, clearly, do you not comprehend the meaning of coercion. And I never used the word censor.
If you don't understand that a boycott is coercion, and that it's a singular attempt to stifle speech, I simply can't help you. There is some point at which reason fails.
Charlie, I've not entered the debate about the merits of the protest or the peace garden. My only concern is the ease at which people want to diminish the free speech right of others.
May 6, 2012 - 11:07pm
#43
Howard - You clearly do not understand the meaning of free speech, and clearly your warped sense of what constitutes coercion and what constitutes legitimate free market action is in play, at which point you really cannot be reasoned with. If only we were all as smart as you are, Howard.
May 6, 2012 - 11:10pm
#44
Mark - Do you stretch like that all the time? There is a difference between being a political candidate or hosting a politician and extolling an extreme agenda that hurts the image of this community. I will not shop at places that display a confederate flag, because I consider it to be a symbol of hate and a yearning for an era of time that was oppressive, just like I will not shop at a place where the owner wants to do something as asinine as protest a peace garden. If that means I called for a boycott, so be it, I really do not view boycotts as negative, I view them as consumers taking action on their own without government involvement.
May 6, 2012 - 11:10pm
#45
Or to put it another way:
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Speak all you want, but when you threaten the other person with harm because you disagree with his speech, you are in effect attempting to curtail his right to speak his mind.
You can punch him in his nose, or you can threaten his pocketbook. It all amounts to the same thing. It is saying, "shut up, you don't have a right to speak because I disagree with your ideas."
If a person's ideas are so disagreeable, the mature, intelligent, reasonable person will be able to present a cogent argument against those disagreeable ideas without resulting to force, either of a physical nature or of a fiscal nature.
This also goes for attempting to shut the other person up through ridicule, which is another form of coercion.
May 6, 2012 - 11:13pm
#46
Howard - Choosing not to shop at someone's store is not the same as punching him in the nose. Come on man, you know better than that. Criticizing another person for the views they speak about is not threatening them. Free speech is not a right that comes without the right of others to critically examine what you are saying.
May 6, 2012 - 11:12pm
#47
Dan, I can be reasoned with when presented with reason. That is something so far you have failed to do. Enjoy your bliss.
May 6, 2012 - 11:13pm
#48
Dan,
To criticize a position is free speech, and no matter what the position.
To boycott is to punish a company because thier position is different than yours, that is coersion.
It is saying if you do not believe the same as I do, I will hit you where it hurts, punish you, or maybe even destroy you, that is not free speech.
May 6, 2012 - 11:14pm
#49
Dan, it's exactly the same.
May 6, 2012 - 11:15pm
#50
Mark - I'll say to you what I said to Howard, not shopping at someone's store because of the views they espouse is not threatening to harm them, it's choosing not to shop at their store. They aren't even close.
May 6, 2012 - 11:17pm
#51
No Howard, it isn't, I'm choosing not to shop where I do not want to shop because the owners of said shop engaged in an activity that I think is dangerous to the community. I didn't threaten him with any physical harm, but I do not want to spend my money at his establishment. Saying that's threatening them with harm is a sign of weakness in debate and is nothing more than a straw man.
May 6, 2012 - 11:18pm
#52
Dan, by your definition, it realy is a matter of what foot a shoe is on, think about that as you sleep tonight please.
May 6, 2012 - 11:20pm
#53
Mark - I sleep just fine knowing that I can spend my money where I choose. I wish Mr. Barrett well, but I will not spend money at his store after he is engaging in the sort of extremism that makes this area look terrible.
May 6, 2012 - 11:24pm
#54
I respect that you choose not to shop there, something tells me that you wouldn't have anyway. That said, you said that he should be boycotted, that is calling for harm to his business, there is a diferrence, If you can not see that, then I guess there isn't much left to say
May 6, 2012 - 11:29pm
#55
Mark - I actually was looking to buy a shotgun and I was considering shopping there, but since this happened, I'll take my business somewhere else. I will not shop at Wal-Mart and I will find another locally owned gun store in Buffalo or Batavia.
By the way, Howard, you've been advocating more or less a boycott of Wal-Mart for years. I hope you can sleep at night knowing that you've taken a swing at Sam Walton's kids noses.
May 6, 2012 - 11:28pm
#56
Dan, I'm not even discussing any particular business nor any particular speech.
In concept, the idea of boycotting a business because of the speech of an owner or anybody else associated with that business is odious on its face.
The singular goal of a boycott is to cause economic harm to that business. The economic harm of a boycott (if successful, and they rarely are) might result in the owner missing a car payment, or canceling a vacation, or no longer affording to send a child to college, or laying off an employee, or shutting the business down completely.
Some of those consequences are far more serious than a bloody nose.
There may be legitimate reasons to boycott a business -- I largely boycott Walmart, for example, because I believe the business does more economic harm to local communities than economic help. So in that degree, you're right, a boycott is a legitimate form of protest. But any time you engage in activity designed to cause harm, whether physical, emotional or economic, because you don't like what the other person had to say, you are doing something quite wrong, maliciously wrong, both to the person and to the concept of individual liberty.
I'm sure, Dan, nothing will come of your threat to boycott Mr. Barrett's business, and I suspect he won't even miss your business if he ever even had it in the first place. I'm not the least concerned that your call for a boycott will have any effect whatsoever. My statements merely go to the morally reprehensible action of trying to use economic sanction to try and shut up another person merely because you disagree with their speech. That's really quite odious.
May 6, 2012 - 11:33pm
#57
Howard - If you're trying to spin this argument to me thinking I'm some big-shot, then you're mistaken, I'm just a guy. Secondly, I, as just a guy, said that reasonable people should consider not shopping at said establishment either because he espoused extreme views that cause this community to be looked upon unfavorably. I doubt that it'll make a dent either, but as one who has had my speech held accountable in legitimate and under-handed ways, I see no reason why Mr. Barrett should be the exception. I work on political campaigns, some campaigns will not hire me because of my views, that's the risk one takes when one makes them self a public person. I didn't delve into his personal life, I didn't say I wished him physical damage, I just said that I won't shop at his store and other people should consider doing the same because of the views he expressed in the public sphere. Nothing dirty about that, Howard.
May 6, 2012 - 11:38pm
#58
You said Dan,
"I also think that reasonable people should boycott Mr. Barrett's shop, I wouldn't want to support someone who thinks like him."
May 6, 2012 - 11:41pm
#59
Mark - I was going to post something, but I'll just refer you to my response to Howard, I think it sums it up.
May 6, 2012 - 11:50pm
#60
Dan, you flatter yourself to read into anything I've written some sort of thought that I view you as a big shot.
Further, you're right that there are consequences for speech and any business owner who speaks out knows he risks losing business, and any employee-type knows he risks future employment for holding an opinion.
While those consequences may or may not have merit, it's really an unrelated topic. There's something quite different from discussing consequences vs. actively seeking economic harm for another person.
It would be as if you went to a political event in Attica, saw a person whom you didn't like seeing at that event, and so you called that person's employer and complained, leading, predictably, to that person being fired. It isn't causing physical harm, but the result is quite the same ... the person is out of a job, and it was your doing for no other reason than you wanted to push a political agenda.
The person may or may not have been willing to accept the consequences of his or her political actions or speech, but that still didn't make it right of you to cause economic harm to that person by tattling on him or her. (Note: I use "you" for the sake of argument, not to denote you actually doing such a thing.)
"I didn't say I wished him physical damage" But you did and do wish him damage. Why you can't see that is wrong is beyond me.
I can only chalk it up to lack of life experience, particularly lack of private sector business experience.
May 6, 2012 - 11:54pm
#61
And to be clear, I'm not arguing against your personal right to shop or not shop where you want, merely the political agenda of advocating a boycott to try and prevent somebody from exercising free speech rights. There is something very much dirty about that.
May 6, 2012 - 11:55pm
#62
well said Phil!!!Carol:)
May 6, 2012 - 11:56pm
#63
In any event, I stopped by the ceremony this afternoon and I must say it was a nice, vibrant display and a very well intentioned and noble event. Batavia should be proud. Now I must rest, in morning I will be heading to barrets to buy a couple of boxes of .22 LR so I can do some target shooting later in the week.
May 6, 2012 - 11:58pm
#64
Howard - You seriously equate me saying that I won't shop at his business and saying that others shouldn't as well as direct physical damage, and compare it to the firing of a public employee for their political activities. I chalk that up to you being incorrigible and ridiculous, but hey, that's just me.
May 7, 2012 - 12:00am
#65
Dan, I think I just won the argument. Good night.
May 7, 2012 - 12:25am
#66
well well well Our Peace Garden seems to be getting alot of attention!! Maybe we all should go to the garden and have a peaceful chat! Dan and Howard you guys need to come to the garden and chill out it is very peaceful there!!! Remember Paula Savage didn't get the award from the UN she got it from Ireland!!!! The people who gave her the "PEACE" medal came here from Ireland and started their race in front of the UN. For smart guys you can't read very well! Go back and read the article! I hope you don't boycott Barretts, my sons Nick and Mike would be very upset over something as stupid as this whole thing turned out to be. I sure would miss my speedies if they couldn't hunt anymore. Thank God my boys are good Christians and love hunting and love the Peace Garden!!!And they love me how lucky am I.As long as they don't hunt in the garden I will be happy!cAROL:)
May 7, 2012 - 1:06am
#67
Daniel, I do not see how this owner is harming this community's image? Oh I know how, because again you are under the assumption that, MR Barrett is attacking the Peace Garden and its symbolic presence! Again you perceive that the Peace Garden is against Gun Rights.
MR Barrett is doing nothing different than the Wall Street protestors. Example the protestor in Buffalo camped out in front of the City Hall to protest Wall Street Corruption. So, do you agree with their protest? If yes, why? What does the City of Buffalo have to do with Wall Street?
Yes, MR Barrett does not like the United Nations' Treaty on Firearm Trade. So what! Maybe, there is something in the treaty that affects his ability to buy international firearms. This may put higher cost to his customers. In his eyes the Peace Garden is supported by the UN and in his eyes what better place to let his voice be heard. Did you go to the Peace Garden Ceremony? Did he ruin the moment? I am guessing not.
One last question for you. Do you believe people have the right to protest war outside service member's funeral services?
May 7, 2012 - 1:11am
#68
Once again Charlie where do Dan and you get MR Barrett is protesting the "PEACE GARDEN!" Talk about blowing things out of context, geez!
May 7, 2012 - 7:40am
#69
John actually I was the only one keeping this in context. My comments are solely directed at the protest of the garden. That came from the story above as well as the quote "Barrett said. "We're going to have an informational protest to show that the the peace garden is associated with the United Nations and that we're dead set against what the U.N. does."".
As Carrol Grasso has said, the garden has nothing to do with the UN, guns or Mr Barrett's business.
May 7, 2012 - 2:36pm
#70
Below are some of the insulting despicable comments and/or implied innuendos; in whole or in part directed at Michael Barrett by some in regard to the Peace Garden; the Peace Garden, a symbol of good intentions and tolerance?
“Wow, this is the kind of regressive garbage that makes this area look like a reactionary outpost for insanity.”
“Another taking marching orders from the NRA. The paranoia is stunning.”
“Your Mommy was wrong, you aren't special.”
“There has to be some environmental cause of this stupidity. Was there another toxic train derailment?
******************************************************************
Michael Barrett, his father David, and mother Mary have provided hundreds of jobs for members of “this Community” since approximately 1954; well over fifty-eight years.
Fifty eight years of wages for people to provide for their families including all the taxes, fees and surcharges that go with it; paying into people’s Social Security, unemployment benefits or workmen’s compensation for example.
Dinner on the table, money for rent or mortgages; Christmas presents underneath the tree for children; fifty eight years.
Fifty-eight years of donations of money and merchandise given to Community Organizations, Service Organizations and Churches to help with their good works in our Community.
There is symbolism and there is substance.
I for one am proud to call Michael Barrett my friend.
May 7, 2012 - 2:42pm
#71
Anyone else finding it oddly amusing/ironic that they had a 21 gun salute at this thing?
May 7, 2012 - 2:44pm
#72
Great post, Richard. Thank you. I think you prove my point about how wrong it is to attack somebody for their opinion.
Again, civil debate that respects the rights of the other person means responding with facts and reason, not attacks.
May 7, 2012 - 3:17pm
#73
Richard, this is one of the best post that I have seen in awhile. Well said, very well said!
May 7, 2012 - 8:07pm
#74
After the name calling, I hope more people buy their firearms and other hunting/fishing gear there.
May 7, 2012 - 5:36pm
#75
Richard, I stand by my comment you quoted, defense by diversion isn't going to work. Not one person has chosen to answer the simple question as to why someone would be protesting at an event that has absolutely nothing to do with the proclaimed cause. The garden has nothing to do with the UN.
Did the stunt even take place????
May 7, 2012 - 5:49pm
#76
I just got to ask, during the PR stunt, who was throwing the Turkeys out the window?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf3mgmEdfwg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
May 7, 2012 - 6:08pm
#77
Charlie, Paula Savage received an award at the UN, as in GCC's headline:
"GCC Alum Lauded at United Nations for International Peace Garden"
http://www.genesee.edu/news/articles/dspArticle/3899/
For a person who is vehemently anti-UN, why does there need to be any more connection than that to want to stage a protest?
If you want a chance to voice your anti-UN sentiment, you shouldn't have to defend the reason for making a statement. It's rather ludicrous to demand any further explanation. Nobody owes anybody an explanation for why they want to express their political views.
As for the protest, I know the turn out wasn't what Mike hoped ... many people who said they would be there decided to enjoy the sunshine, or something, which is rather the way of America these days.
May 7, 2012 - 6:47pm
#78
Howard, the answer is simple. A cause needs to have merit and a leader needs to explain why it makes sence to follow. Without those two things no one shows up on a sunny day.
May 7, 2012 - 7:44pm
#79
Hello Charlie,
I need a clarification?
You stated in part in post #75 in reply to my post #70, “Richard, I stand by my comment you quoted.”
To refresh your memory you said, “There has to be some environmental cause of this stupidity. Was there another toxic train derailment?”
If not contaminated ground water, what other environmental causes may come into play with people to whom you don’t agree?
May 7, 2012 - 8:05pm
#80
John, rest easy with the turnout Howard described, thankfully there is very little chance of a toxic connection.
May 7, 2012 - 9:06pm
#81
Rick and Howard- Yes, I said those things and yes I said that I will not shop there and said that others who think that protesting a peace garden is asinine shouldn't either. I'm glad that he's been in business for that long and employs people, but that is no excuse for protesting a garden dedicated to peace because the UN gave the organizer of it an award. It's extremism, we should not coddle extremism and it's based on logical fallacies. I think that Charlie may have been right, it might have been a publicity stunt to stoke the fires of the fear of 'outsiders'. The whole protest is based on a treaty that doesn't exist, it has nothing to do with gun control, it has to do with the fact that Mr. Barrett chose to attack the peace garden for it's association with the UN....and those are his words not mine.
When you choose to enter the public square to voice your opinion, the government should not shut you down nor should you be attacked for your personal life, but you should not be immune to criticism and non-violent responses to your opinions. Mr. Barrett runs a business that is a public business, a public response of not shopping at his business is not an unfair attack. To equate a boycott with violence really requires the suspension of disbelief, and to say that he's immune from criticism because he's a local employer doesn't make any sense.
May 7, 2012 - 9:04pm
#82
What name calling? I'm arguing with three conservatives and a libertarian, I thought that conservatives and libertarians despised political correctness.
May 7, 2012 - 10:36pm
#83
"To equate a boycott with violence really requires the suspension of disbelief ..."
Dan, you're just wrong.
Both a punch in a nose and depriving people of money from people they might otherwise get is coercion.
May 7, 2012 - 10:57pm
#84
Howard - No, you are, not shopping at a place is not physical damage or violence, it's taking peaceful action as a response to something said or done. Someone is not wrong because you say they are.
May 7, 2012 - 11:09pm
#85
Consumers in a free society make choices on where to shop, boycotts are encouraging consumers to make a choice to do their shopping somewhere else because of what they perceive as a wrong on the part of the owner. That's hardly 'punching someone in the nose'.
May 7, 2012 - 11:28pm
#86
Really Dan? You do not think your cry for people to boycott a local business does not hurt that business? Your sole purpose to boycott is because; you have different belief than MR Barrett? Why boycott when you stated, "I'd make my own sign that says "Please Don't Think We're All Like This" and stand next to them." Why not leave it at that? No, instead you go further and state, "I also think that reasonable people should boycott Mr. Barrett's shop, I wouldn't want to support someone who thinks like him." What makes you anymore reasonable than him? Your own statements showed you could be reasonable but, you decided differently. I believe MR Barrett is protesting the principle of the UN support.
Like I asked Dan. Do you agree with protestors gathering outside a fallen service member's funeral to protest "WAR?" They are protesting the principle of war but, not the service member. I find it highly despicable that these protestors would cause such ill regard for the grieving family! I myself would not stand beside MR Barrett's protest. My dislke for the UN is not based on gun treaties.
May 8, 2012 - 1:00am
#87
John - Blowing things out of proportion much? I support Mr. Barrett's right to protest, I do not support what he is protesting and suggesting a boycott, which is a counter-protest is not infringing upon his rights. I didn't call for the government to ban his protest, I said I disagreed with it and suggested a boycott as a protest in a response to it. I'm pretty amazed that a strong libertarian like Howard would confuse the two.
I support anyone's right to protest, and anyone's right to counter-protest. Instead of calling for the ban of Westboro Baptist's protests, counter-organizers have set up a response where they stand around the nutjobs from Westboro so the families will not have to see them. That's responding in an American way. Meet them yourselves and non-violently tell them to shove it. So is a boycott. Encouraging consumers to not shop at an establishment because the owner has engaged in expressing an extreme view in a way that hurts the image of the community is no different.
May 8, 2012 - 2:35am
#88
Funny I could say the same for your boycott! I do not agree with Howard much but, in this case I can see what he is saying. Boycott vs. Protest!
The Protest in this case is against the United Nations and it principles on Firearm Trade. Does the treaty hurt the ability for gun owners to purchase international weapons such as SKS, AK-74, etc...? Does it make it expensive and difficult to purchase which means it will add a higher price tag to purchase here in the USA? Granted he protest the UN at a "Peace Garden" ceremony offending you and some others for whatever reason you want. Did it hurt you financially, physically or mentally? I can probably with all certainty say it did not! Did it harm the outcome for the Peace Garden event? No! Did it keep people from enjoying the event? No! Did it take away the meaning of the event? No! Not many paid any mind to it but, a select few!
Now let’s compare this with your cry for a boycott. Would a boycott of MR Barrett's business harm him financially? Yes or No depending on the unreasonable people out there. It does present the possibility though. Would it harm him physically? Safe to say, NO! Would it harm him mentally? There is a slight possibility depending on his state of mind and how it would affect his livelihood. Your input about Westboro shows nothing about a boycott or a ban but, how they created a barrier between the two fractions. An amazing concept don't you think? So, why cry for a boycott when you could just provide a barrier. I liked your idea about holding signs in support of the UN/Peace garden and standing along MR Barrett.
May 8, 2012 - 6:48am
#89
Dan,
You will soon be working for the City of Buffalo. If I don't agree with your call for a boycott here, should we call for a boycott against shopping in Buffalo? Is that your position?
May 8, 2012 - 7:12am
#90
This was an ill-conceived stunt pure and simple, it should have never happened. This thread is becoming lost in personal friendship and business relationships. There is nothing more American than a boycott. It's freedom of speach at its purist. Americans have always voted with their dollars. Just stop trying to defend a position without firm ground under your feet.
No one wants a local business to be hurt because of this. There was no protest. Put it to rest.
May 8, 2012 - 7:24am
#91
Notice that Dan keeps trying to say there is no physical harm in a boycott, which nobody has ever said was the case. There was simply an analogy to punching somebody in the nose, which in Dan's mind somehow became more than an analogy.
Yet he has not once addressed the fact that a boycott causes financial harm. He blithely ignores that fact.
The whole point of a boycott is to cause financial harm, isn't it? If it doesn't cause financial harm, what good is it?
If I were more partisan, I might make the point that a certain class of political belief never sees harm in taking money from the people who earn it. Dan seems to be of a mind that taking money from somebody is quite an acceptable thing to do, that there is no harm in hurting a person financially. Interesting mindset.
And, Dan, I can think of nothing more libertarian than defending one's right to free speech, and whether I agree with that speech or not (Charlie) is completely immaterial. This isn't about the content of the speech, but the idea that somebody would advocated harm to another person to shut them up.
May 8, 2012 - 7:50am
#92
Dan didn't say a boycott wouldn't cause financial harm, of course it would. All his statements are defending this idea that a boycott was the same as physical harm. He's not going to allow you to suggest there is a link.
Let me be real clear, I personally think if your looking for sporting goods you should shop locally. One press release isn't a reason to avoid that shop, one mistake doesn't justify a boycott.
May 8, 2012 - 7:58am
#93
Dan has never admitted that it would cause financial harm, because once he does, he loses the argument.
Once you admit that it causes financial harm, then you are admitting that it's the same as punching somebody in the nose for exercising free speech.
Harm is harm, whether it comes in the form of a bloody nose or reducing a business's profits.
If harm is harm -- are you seriously, Charlie, going to argue otherwise -- then harm is coercion.
Do you really believe it is right to use coercion to force somebody to shut up because you disagree with the content of his or her speech?
Is it really OK to harm somebody because you don't like their speech?
If that's OK ... next time you say something I disagree with, can I come over to your house at take your TV? Or perhaps I should call your boss and complain that you're spending too much time on the computer while on the clock? After all, I didn't punch you in the nose. It's not physical violence, so it must be OK, right? Anything to get you to shut up because I don't like your speech is OK, so long as it's just financial harm, right?
May 8, 2012 - 8:03am
#94
And let's be clear -- my position isn't about the UN, the peace garden, Barrett's, Dan Jones, Charlie Mallow, or any of those specifics. It's about defending free speech.
May 8, 2012 - 10:04am
#95
First off, I’m not commenting regarding this business or the topic of this post anymore. I also don’t like the idea of a local business taking a financial hit for a mistake. But, I will respond to you in general terms about boycotts.
Boycotts are non- violent means of protest. There is a huge difference between physical harm (punching someone in the face) and depriving them of financial support. Customers are a result of good business practices. When you’re in business you have to understand that you shouldn’t offend you customers. Politics and good business don’t mix and when you cross the line you will lose customers. There is no moral imperative to give your dollars to anyone you do not wish too. What you call coercion is really just public reaction to a bad business practice. No one owes you a dime just because you open your doors. No one can steal something from you that you didn’t earn. Customers are earned everyday.
May 8, 2012 - 10:14am
#96
Howard,
Charlie’s position is perfectly clear and he stands by his original comment.
“THERE HAS TO BE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL CAUSE OF THIS STUPIDTY.”
I'll take him at his word.
May 8, 2012 - 10:17am
#97
Richard, without question. If you had more than two people show up to protest a Peace Garden, test the soil. It’s toxic.
May 8, 2012 - 11:03am
#98
Boycotting because of Bad Business practices is one thing
Boycotting because someone's political views or actions is coercion
Failing to see the difference is puzzling
May 8, 2012 - 12:34pm
#99
Ditto, Mark.
And I'm not even addressing the idea that one Mr. John Doe decides not to go Acme Dine and Shine any longer because he doesn't like the politics of the owner. This is about calling for others to boycott an establishment over politics. Not only is it morally reprehensible, it's immature and toxic to good democracy.
We had a situation come up one time where a business owner made a comment here that one of his customers found offensive and she said she would probably never go to that business again. I can't fault her for that. But you didn't see her on this site suggesting others do the same. I don't even think she told her friends.
May 8, 2012 - 1:10pm
#100
Charlie, btw, just want to be clear -- to be logically consistent, you also wouldn't have a problem if one reader of The Batavian called up the employer of another reader and said, "I'm not going to do business with you any longer because John Doe said he supported Obama." You'd be OK with that?
I mean, it is a non-violent form of protest, correct? It's only money, after all. What harm is there in causing somebody to lose money over their politics, right? Whatever it takes to shut up people with disagreeable opinions as long as it's non-violent, correct?
May 8, 2012 - 2:00pm
#101
What is the difference in boycotting a big box store in the hopes that they will close down? Doesn't that deprive local residents a job, if you are successful?
I've stayed out of this because I didn't believe that many would join in the protest. From what I read, not many did.
Am I to understand the underlying cause of the protest was NOT about money? If it wasn't then it certainly had to be about the Peace Garden and the War of 1812. How many people are still protesting that war? By the way, the War of 1812 has a rich firearms history.
This entire topic seem to get out of hand many threads ago.
Those who wished to protest had a right to do so, even if I can't quite figure out why (other than the money aspect of selling guns).
Those who went to the Peace Garden didn't seem to be bothered by those across the street. They also didn't really connect our Peace Garden with the UN. What they did understand is Batavia and her early settlers had a part in the history of the War of 1812. A war that occurred many years before the UN was a twinkle in anyone's eye.
May 8, 2012 - 2:34pm
#102
Howard - Straw men, ad-hominem, stretching an argument way into extremes way beyond it's original scope? Are you really being like this, or am I seeing things? Firstly, not giving is not the same as taking away, you seem to think that because Mr. Barrett owns a local business that he's somehow entitled to our support, that the legitimacy behind the idea of his protest (and not the actual protest) is entitled to not be challenged and that doing both is the same thing. I'm rejecting your premise Howard, I know, you must be stunned.
You seriously believe that a boycott it's just like punching someone in the nose, because you think he somehow deserves success in the first place? No, I know that you know better deep down. The truth is, you really think that there is no way you could ever be wrong, and systematically proving it causes you to inevitably fly off the handle, throw up straw men and start making cute little insinuations about attitudes and age because you somehow think you deserve to be right. You're not arguing for anything, you're just arguing that I'm wrong without any context because you can't handle the possibility that you're wrong. Precious.....and I thought that liberals where the ones who wanted hand outs.
May 8, 2012 - 2:17pm
#103
For all of Howard's whining about personal attacks, he's the only one in this thread that has engaged in personal attacks on others.
May 8, 2012 - 2:22pm
#104
Mark - Threatening someone with physical harm or financial damage via a crime, like theft, or extortion, is a coercion.
Boycotting, or non-violently using one's right as a consumer to shop somewhere else is not.
Not being able to tell the difference is not only puzzling, it's deeply troubling and indicative of an attitude that thinks that a business somehow deserves our money in the first place.
May 8, 2012 - 2:31pm
#105
Rick - I won't speak for Charlie, but I'm fairly certain that his tongue was planted firmly in his cheek when he made that comment.
May 8, 2012 - 2:31pm
#106
Dan, I've not made one personal attack in this thread.
There have been no straw men, no ad-hominem attacks, nor have I been emotional about it. I've made a logical, irrefutable case that you can't deal with unless you twist meaning into it that's not there.
And now you're in attack mode because you can't refute the point.
Examples of twisting: I never said any business was owed anything nor entitled to anything. I also never said a person's ideas shouldn't be challenged. Nor have I argued for hand outs.
To say I've flown off the handle is to engage in utter delusion.
Nor have you systematically proven anything, other than an unwillingness on your part to deal with fact and reason.
It's flatly ridiculous to accuse me of being unwilling to accept being wrong when any logical examination of the facts of the matter would demonstrate that I am not wrong in this case. That would be like you arguing that the earth is flat and when I prove you wrong, you accuse me of being stubborn and close minded. Clearly, facts are facts. You can't win on the facts so you're resorting to calling my character into question.
Again, I note that you have not once addressed the fact that attempting to deprive somebody of money is causing harm. That's an irrefutable point that you're unwilling to address. Instead of addressing it, you now attack me. Clearly, you can't win this argument so you want to make it personal.
May 8, 2012 - 2:38pm
#107
Howard - Who says he was entitled to money in the first place? That's the whole point. You're arguing as if money to him is a right and that I'm depriving him of the right via a boycott. No, in business money is a goal, something earned, not given out and after your years in business you really should know better, it's something I understand despite what you described as my "lack of private sector experience". Whatever it takes to make yourself feel better, though, Howard. Just because you say it over and over again doesn't make it true.
May 8, 2012 - 2:41pm
#108
I'm in attack mode? Did I call for you to get a refund on your college degree? Did I mention anyone else's age? No, of course not, but then again in your mind you aren't capable of personal attacks because everything you say is true to begin with.
It's like arguing with a member of the flat earth society. The opposing argument is 'you're wrong because it's my assertion that you're wrong'.
May 8, 2012 - 2:46pm
#109
Dan,
Threatening a person's livelyhood as a means of shutting down his political position may not be a crime, it is just immoral.
If you won't shop at Barrett's because you disagree with his political opnions, I suggest it is your loss not his.
If you can't see how calling for a Boycott as a means of stiffling polictal views and or action is vastly different than voicing critism to his views than I guess is is pointless to continue discussing it with you.
Be Well my Friend, Live Long and Prosper
May 8, 2012 - 3:05pm
#110
Mark - Then our disagreement is fundamental in nature and honest. I agree, there is no point continuing this discussion. I also would point out the evolution of the discussion, I made a suggestion of a boycott of Barrett's, but it's become a discussion about boycotts in general and the argument has become largely void of Mr. Barrett.
Since I'm a Star Wars fan, may the force be with you.
May 8, 2012 - 5:52pm
#111
Danny,
In post #70 I said in part;
“Below are some of the insulting despicable comments and/or implied innuendos; in whole or in part directed at Michael Barrett.”
In post #75 Charlie stated emphatically that he stood by his comment. He did not disagree that the comments were insulting and despicable.
I asked Charlie for a clarification in post #96;
“Hello Charlie,
I need a clarification?
You stated in part in post #75 in reply to my post #70, “Richard, I stand by my comment you quoted.”
To refresh your memory you said, “There has to be some environmental cause of this stupidity. Was there another toxic train derailment?”
If not contaminated ground water, what other environmental causes may come into play with people to whom you don’t agree?
In post #96.
Howard,
Charlie’s position is perfectly clear and he stands by his original comment.
"THERE HAS TO BE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL CAUSE OF THIS STUPIDTY.”
In post #97 Charlie again confirmed that he stands by his words.
Danny, a man’s word is his bond!
May 8, 2012 - 6:05pm
#112
In Post #112
Charlie said the same dam thing....
May 8, 2012 - 6:06pm
#113
LOL When I came back from Montour Falls this Sunday we went by the Peace garden during the 21 gun salute. I didnt even think to look for protesters. My guests stayed overnight and thanks to Dan's ridiculous boycott talk, we went to Barretts monday to fill our tackleboxes for the season. A good chunk of change that usually went to Wal-Mart because of convenience. Seems alot of my soportsmen friend were commenting to me outside of the batavian forums yesterday n today. So it seems Mr. Jones comments have been heard, and as a community it seems they have been weighed and measured and the results? the great barretts boycott resulted in a probable increase in business. Good job Dan....you got your point of view stated and the perception of the general public exposed to it was......to ignore you and your opinion and shop at barretts.
Good job......best results of a classic fail I have ever seen.
May 8, 2012 - 8:17pm
#114
Charlie, you amaze me with this comment. "There is nothing more American than a boycott."
So, is a protest, un-American? I mean you support Dan's call for a boycott but, you do not support MR Barrett's right to protest. Just because, you do not agree with MR Barrett. I guess what is good for one, is not good for all?
Someone stated above that MR Barrett did protest but, did not get the numbers he wanted to support him.
May 8, 2012 - 8:23pm
#115
Great comment, thanks Mark. However, I believe this will still go over the heads of both Charlie and Dan.
May 8, 2012 - 8:48pm
#116
I love a good Straw man, so much more interesting than a Tin Man...and less whinny too. I wonder what a Tin Man in an argument would sound like...
Here's the thing, boycotting a business is your personal right. Telling others to do so is your right as well. For instance way, WAY back on post 12 Dan said:
I also think that reasonable people should boycott Mr. Barrett's shop, I wouldn't want to support someone who thinks like him
That is his right and opinion. Just as it is my personal right to find that comment ridiculous and ignore it flatly. Which, no offense Dan, I'm pretty sure just about everyone did.
Now, is it right for Dan to do this? That's opinion. My opinion was just stated, but others see it as coercion, and still others find it appropriate. It can be argued that Mr. Barrett's business both does, and does not have anything to do with the argument, because of the type of business he is in and the stance that he took. That said, the quality of that business, its associates or products, have nothing to do with Mr's Barrett's personal views.
Since he was just speaking as himself, and not as a representative of his company, in fact it was only because Howard said that he owned the store that I knew it. Dan's comments are an overreach.
If, however, he was speaking as an advocate for his business, then I would say different. Just my two cents.
May 8, 2012 - 9:27pm
#117
John, after 117 posts you still seem to have trouble understanding. A publicity stunt isn't the same thing as a protest. One is done for profit. When a stunt takes advantage of another's accomplishments, who has worked to create something of benefit to the community, that's in real poor taste. When no one shows up, what point is there in talking about it anymore?
It was pretty clear I thought that people should buy from that local store. Mr. Barrett doesn't deserve financial harm for a bad decision. In general I support protests, boycotts and any other god given right I have. Should I start the 118th post or has it sunk in?
May 9, 2012 - 12:25am
#118
Phil - None taken, if I took offense to criticism I would have never gotten involved in politics, especially in Batavia.
I also want to make clear that I did not expect to nor want to do any harm to Mr. Barrett, and if Kyle thinks I'm petty enough that it was my goal, then he doesn't know me too well. I did not organize a boycott, I did not spread awareness, have a protest, send out press releases to other media outlets, hold meetings or work through an organization or create one. I just made a statement, one that was probably thought provoking and struck a nerve, and caused over 100 comments by making it. That was the larger the idea behind me saying what I said. I thought that his protest was ridiculous and asinine, and I thought that reasonable people shouldn't support someone who was unreasonable enough to protest a peace garden because that hurts our community's image on a broader scale. If you really thought I wanted a serious boycott of Barrett's, don't you think I would have at least made a Facebook page? Do you really think I'm thick in the head enough to think I could put a dent in a business that's over 50 years old? Of course not. I did, however, make my points in a way that made the community of The Batavian feel a little unnerved, which I really don't mind, because I can stand the heat in the kitchen.
I am a little surprised though that so called tough people acted in an outraged manner over one statement, and that they believe that my choosing to not shop at a place is the same as physical assault and that I was personally attacked, even though I didn't nor have I ever delved into someone's personal life. Regardless though, it is what it is.
May 9, 2012 - 12:25am
#119
So Charlie, how is a publicity stunt? Do you know this for fact? Did Mike say hey Charlie watch I am going to stage a phony protest to drum up business? Or is simply an assumption on your part based on your vast knowledge of human nature?
Just asking!
May 9, 2012 - 12:43am
#120
Thanks Bea We all had a great time at the Peace Garden! And you know what nobody even looked across the street. Remember Paula Savage recieved an award from Ireland from the Harmony Peace Run group NOT THE UN!!!!! The race started in front of the UN. How the heck that story got started is bull crap. People only read between the lines I guess! The next thing you know when we start planting in the garden some people will think we are planting weed!!! If you know what I mean! By the way we are going to have a talk in the garden at a later date all about how the war of 1812 got started and how it ended, won't that be interesting? I wonder if we will get protested again when we start talking about the guns and how many people died in the war? We'll see right! Come and enjoy the Garden it really is nice. Carol:)
May 9, 2012 - 6:22am
#121
@dan: "I also want to make clear that I did not expect to nor want to do any harm to Mr. Barrett..."
Nice way to try and back down and save face, Dan.
It's not that easy. There was nothing equivocal about your comments, and you went to the mat to try and defend your proposal.
Now that you see you're backed into a corner with no logical place to run, as a practical matter you are attempting to disown your words. By this latest comment you essentially just admitted that in fact you were trying to harm a long-standing, community-minded local business.
May 9, 2012 - 7:57am
#122
Mark, my vast knowledge of human nature. Tell Mr. Barrett the Girl Scouts just won a UN award for removing palm oil from their cookies.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/girl-scouts-win-award-united-na...
May 9, 2012 - 8:04am
#123
Howard,
I’ve known Danny since he was a little boy and lived on the corner across the street from me; and now he is a young man with much the cockiness that goes with it; most of us went through that.
I can assure you that his mother taught Danny to do the right thing and apologize to Mike.
Danny,
Are you going to be the bigger man and apologize to Mike, shake his hand and put this behind you?
It’s not about saving face, Danny; it’s about doing the right thing.
May 9, 2012 - 10:13am
#124
Thanks Charlie it was a sincere question.
I will pass your link to him along with this one
May 9, 2012 - 4:01pm
#125
Wow, this is still going on five days later?
"Am not." "Are too." "Am not." "Are too." "Am not." "Are too." "Am not." "Are too." "Am not." "Are too." "Am not." "Are too."
May 9, 2012 - 8:16pm
#126
Wow Charlie, Your comment is an ASSUMPTION, that this is a publicity stunt! It is not a FACT but, YOUR OPINION! Come on I thought you were smarter than that! According to others who attended, they stated, he had a low turn out in support of his protest. Just because, people do not agree with MR Barrett makes his protest a publicity stunt. It means most do not agree with him on the issue of his protest! So Charlie, it seems to me you are failing to understand not myself!
" In general I support protests, boycotts and any other god given right I have." Hmmm, Charlie so, in general you did not agree with MR Barrett's right to protest because, you did not agree with it and you viewed it as a publicity stunt. However, it did not bother you that Dan cried for a boycott of MR Barrett's store because, it his GOD given right to do so? Honestly, you only generally support protests and boycotts? Proceed with your 1 million post because, like I stated, the failure of understanding falls on you.
May 9, 2012 - 8:27pm
#127
"I did not spread awareness, have a protest, send out press releases to other media outlets, hold meetings or work through an organization or create one."
Well Dan, wouldn't you say using a social media (The Batavian) and making a statement to boycott MR Barrett's business is an attempt to make awareness? Yes, you may not have gone to Channel 4, Channel 13, CNN or FOX but, you still made an public announcement to boycott a local business!
May 9, 2012 - 8:41pm
#128
BTW Charlie, here is an old quote for you. "Assumption is the Mother of all F _ _ _ Ups!"
May 10, 2012 - 3:26pm
#129
I've thought about this for a few days, and I've come to the following conclusions.
1. A boycott is a legitimate form of protest, and saying it's like punching someone in the nose is a massive logical fallacy.
2. A protest of a peace garden was ridiculous and asinine.
3. Supporting someone's right to protest and criticizing their protest are not opposities, including a boycott. We've gotten to this point where being critical of someone is assumed to mean you don't support their right of free speech.
but.....
I don't think a boycott, even a personal one, is needed, and I'll buy that shotgun from Barrett's (probably next month). I do apologize if anyone thought that I was actively trying to destroy Mr. Barrett's business by making the above comment.
May 13, 2012 - 10:09pm
#130
Dan, I agree that having a protest against the UN at the Peace Garden is a asinine and not a well thought of location. You might want to ensure no hard feelings with MR Barrett when you try to purchase a shotgun .
Really? Staging an informational protest at a Peace Garden dedication because the woman who started it was honored by the UN which MIGHT create an international treaty that COULD be an attempt to circumvent the 2nd amendment? Sounds like a stretch. I would think there would be other ways to get your information out other than to take advantage of some one else's accomplishments. Just my opinion.