Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Editorial
March 31, 1957
Ghost Town Gazette
Chitina, Alaska
What is this article about?
An editorial by 'The Old Cynic' criticizes Alaska statehood proponents for dismissing opponents' 'age-old' arguments as invalid, defends the timelessness of arguments like 'no taxation without representation,' and accuses advocates of dishonesty. It also mentions plans to let the local light plant run without investment due to impending statehood.
OCR Quality
98%
Excellent
Full Text
The Old Cynic (usual local pronunciation is Old SoB) says that he will try to let the broken down light plant run most of this summer if it will. But since in recent years there has been no revenue from this utility and since Statehood will make such junk as this of no consequence, he will turn the utilities over to those who can and should do better. He is giving ample notice so that no one will be expecting his electric current next winter. May be damn poor this summer.
If we understand the laws rightly people can think anything they care to if they just keep their mouth shut and say nothing. We would not say it but here is what we think...
The people who are advocating Statehood flounder around in contradictions that force us to believe they are plain dishonest.
Here is a quote from an editorial in a leading Alaska newspaper.
"The opponents (of statehood) are writing letters to Congressmen and newspapers reiterating their age-old arguments that have become historical cliches. None of these arguments are new. It is significant that the Opponents have nothing new. They are still harping on the same old saws."
The implication seems to be that because the opponents have nothing new that their reasons for opposing statehood are no good. As far as we can learn the proponents of statehood have come up with no new arguments in favor of statehood but we cannot see why that lessens the merit of their "age-old" arguments. Anyone who tries to create prejudice in favor of statehood by contending that the arguments against it are no good because they are "age-old" is simply showing weakness and dishonesty. Our morality and Government laws are doubly "age old". Opponents of Statehood are not mealy mouthed. They will tell you clearly and emphatically why they are opposed to statehood. And whether they are right or wrong, they know they are honest in their arguments.
It takes a bit of stamina and guts to point up the dishonesty of this statehood stuff, and that is just what the opponents of statehood have.
If you don't think so, just talk up to one of them.
The most often reiterated cliche of the Statehood people is "no taxation without representation"
Surely that argument loses none of its supposed force because it was "age-old" when the Ten Commandments were written and the Nile River ran south.
Sometimes his neighbors point out to the Old Cynic that he would get along more tranquilly if he kept his big mouth shut. And he sez: "Hell, who wants tranquility? It's my mission to point out how the world is mostly all wrong and to tell how it should be run right."
If we understand the laws rightly people can think anything they care to if they just keep their mouth shut and say nothing. We would not say it but here is what we think...
The people who are advocating Statehood flounder around in contradictions that force us to believe they are plain dishonest.
Here is a quote from an editorial in a leading Alaska newspaper.
"The opponents (of statehood) are writing letters to Congressmen and newspapers reiterating their age-old arguments that have become historical cliches. None of these arguments are new. It is significant that the Opponents have nothing new. They are still harping on the same old saws."
The implication seems to be that because the opponents have nothing new that their reasons for opposing statehood are no good. As far as we can learn the proponents of statehood have come up with no new arguments in favor of statehood but we cannot see why that lessens the merit of their "age-old" arguments. Anyone who tries to create prejudice in favor of statehood by contending that the arguments against it are no good because they are "age-old" is simply showing weakness and dishonesty. Our morality and Government laws are doubly "age old". Opponents of Statehood are not mealy mouthed. They will tell you clearly and emphatically why they are opposed to statehood. And whether they are right or wrong, they know they are honest in their arguments.
It takes a bit of stamina and guts to point up the dishonesty of this statehood stuff, and that is just what the opponents of statehood have.
If you don't think so, just talk up to one of them.
The most often reiterated cliche of the Statehood people is "no taxation without representation"
Surely that argument loses none of its supposed force because it was "age-old" when the Ten Commandments were written and the Nile River ran south.
Sometimes his neighbors point out to the Old Cynic that he would get along more tranquilly if he kept his big mouth shut. And he sez: "Hell, who wants tranquility? It's my mission to point out how the world is mostly all wrong and to tell how it should be run right."
What sub-type of article is it?
Partisan Politics
Constitutional
What keywords are associated?
Alaska Statehood
Opposition Arguments
Political Dishonesty
No Taxation Without Representation
Age Old Cliches
What entities or persons were involved?
The Old Cynic
Opponents Of Statehood
Proponents Of Statehood
Leading Alaska Newspaper
Editorial Details
Primary Topic
Critique Of Alaska Statehood Proponents' Arguments
Stance / Tone
Strongly Anti Statehood, Accusing Proponents Of Dishonesty
Key Figures
The Old Cynic
Opponents Of Statehood
Proponents Of Statehood
Leading Alaska Newspaper
Key Arguments
Proponents Dismiss Opponents' Arguments As 'Age Old' Cliches, Implying They Are Invalid
Opponents' Reasons Remain Valid Despite Being Longstanding
Proponents Have No New Arguments Either, So Cannot Discredit Opponents On Novelty
Creating Prejudice Against Old Arguments Shows Weakness And Dishonesty
'No Taxation Without Representation' Is A Timeless Principle
Opponents Are Honest And Direct In Their Opposition