WBZ-TV News Is A Chocolatey Fountain of Bullshit

It's not even worth the effort to respond to this piece of utter nonsense from WBZ. Hell, there's nothing there to even argue against. It's not based on anything remotely resembling facts, and is just the usual whining from people who experience petty crime and blame it on streetlights not being on.

Petty crime has always existed, it always will exist, and just because a few local dipshits want to link their particular case of vandalism to streetlights doesn't make it the truth. Five years ago, my neighbor had "fag" spray-painted on his car too, but he also got a bunch of swastikas to go with it. He was parked right under a lit streetlight. Whoopedy-fuck.

Sure, it's disappointing that a supposed "news" show would be so journalistically irresponsible as to claim that a few anecdotes equals a "crime wave," but it's exactly what one should expect from tv news. It's what they've been doing for as long as I can remember, and it's why I haven't willingly watched a tv news show since I was about 17. They tend to induce a sort of berserker frenzy of rage in me.

So, since there's nothing there to actually argue about, I'll just say the same thing I've been saying for 15 years: If you take anything on tv news seriously, then you are a fucking idiot.

That is all.

Hey Streetlight-Lovers, Here's an Idea!

I've made no secret of the fact that I think the whole focus on streetlights in Fitchburg is silly. For all the catastrophic predictions and hand-wringing, there's still no good data to support the claims streetlight proponents are making.

On the other hand, it's pretty obvious that there are a lot of people in Fitchburg who really love their streetlights. Or the concept of having lots of streetlights, anyway. They want those lights on, whatever the reason. Even if it doesn't have a real effect on public safety, it would at least make them feel better.

Unfortunately, lit streetlights cost money, and the city doesn't have a whole lot of that to throw around. What's a streetlight-lover to do?

One option is to whine incessantly about how awful it is that there are unlit streetlights. This is a popular choice, but it has the notable disadvantage of not actually getting any lights turned back on, as well as just being really annoying. So here's perhaps a better idea.

A couple of days ago I received an email from the president of the Fitchburg Institute for The Common Good. Here's a quote from their webpage.

We can do something. Already something is being done. We can organize and fix this problem.

Not by whining, not by complaining and not by agitation. We can fix the problem the same way we fix any problem, by rolling up our sleeves and getting to work--just like we do every day.

The Fitchburg Institute for The Common Good is pleased to announce its Lights On, Fitchburg! Campaign. We are raising funds to pay the power company to turn back on as many of our city's streetlights as we can afford. Already we have arranged to have several streetlights on the East Side of town powered up and we are looking to expand the scope of our project.

However, we can't do it without your help. This problem is too big for any individual or group to tackle alone. Besides, we're all in this together.

This, in my eyes, is a sensible approach. People can already pay to have individual streetlights turned on, but not everyone may be able to afford it, and even fewer may want to deal with the hassle of actually doing it. The FITCG's approach is to pool donations from multiple sources and put that money into turning lights back on.

Now, anyone with 15 bucks can buy a domain and stick a Paypal button on it, so how do you know this isn't a scam? Well, they are registered with the state as a nonprofit corporation, which is good. As you can see from that link, they're still a small group.

I also emailed the president of the group--Mr. John F. Triolo--with a few questions, and as far as I can tell things are on the up-and-up (if I didn't think so I'd be attacking them, not promoting them). Mr. Triolo seems like a well-meaning guy with some big ideas, and an honest desire to improve the city. I wish him luck.

Here's an added bonus: If you're a conservative/libertarian-type who thinks that government sucks and the private sector should handle everything (and I think it's safe to say that plenty of those demanding the city turn on streetlights are of that persuasion), this is a chance to put your money where your mouth is. There's no need to suckle at the government teat when there's a private group you can support in helping to attain your goals!

Even if you're a dirty big-government liberal like myself, there's nothing that says you can't help the government. The city doesn't have a lot of money, and the less they have to spend on things like this, the more they can spend on buying us all puppies and candy. Don't pretend that you don't like puppies and candy!

So there you have it. If you want streetlights back on, check out the Fitchburg Institute for The Common Good. If you're comfortable with them, I'm sure they'd be happy to have you as a supporter. If you're not, that's okay too, but what better way do you have of getting lights turned back on? And if you don't care, well just carry on then.

Yet More Streetlight Nonsense

Ha.

Just yesterday I was complaining about the lack of stupid scaremongering articles in the S&E of late. I even said I wanted "something about scary loud noises caused by kids exploding soda bottles, or about unlit streetlamps coming to life and killing everyone."

Obviously, Jeff McMenemy is a devoted reader, because today he delivers another steaming pile of stupid about streetlights. To wit: Editorial: No fiscally bright side to turning off streetlights.

Having had several months to refine his arguments down into a light paste, let's see if he does any better with the scary "Unlit streetlights will doom us all!" rhetoric.

It doesn't start off very well:

Leominster Mayor Dean J. Mazzarella made it clear before he recently released his fiscal 2010 budget that he would not cut core city services, and we applauded the mayor for producing a budget that didn't call for any layoffs in the middle of a recession, although it did include a 2.5 percent tax hike.

That's why we were disappointed to learn that his budget does call for turning off about 200 of the city's 3,000 streetlights, in a move that would save about $20,000, according to Department of Public Works Director Patrick LaPointe, who talked about the plan during a budget hearing Monday.

Hilariously, McMenemy has just falsified his own title. Saving twenty grand is definitely a "fiscally bright side to turning off streetlights."

Following this poor start, the editorial includes quotes from Leominster city officials talking about how they're going to be careful about which lights are included in the less than 7% of the city's streetlights that they're considering shutting off. Which is reasonable, but I'm more interested in the arguments against turning them off at all.

Like this:

Turning off streetlights is a bad idea for many reasons. First, it makes the city less safe, both from a crime standpoint and just for kids playing at night or residents walking, jogging or bicycling.

Well, that's an interesting argument by assertion. Too bad it's not supported by facts. The evidence itself is inconclusive at best, which may be why the FBI doesn't list lighting under its review of variables affecting crime.

Two can play this game! I assert that leaving 93% of Leominster's streetlights on constitutes an attractive nuisance for invasion by space aliens. If they were to turn off all the streetlights, then the alien invaders would have more difficulty finding the town from their hiding place in the troposphere.

In other words, turn off all the streetlights or get ready for a lot of anal probes.

You've been warned!

When lights are turned off near homes, the value of the homes can also drop.

Can they?

I don't actually know, but probably. Lots of things can happen. That doesn't mean they do, and some quick searching didn't lead me to any evidence that turning off street lights makes home values drop. Admittedly, such evidence would be almost impossible to collect. Home values are affected by a lot of things, and I'm betting that an unlit street light is pretty unimportant in the bigger picture. But who knows?

It's probably not going out too far on a limb to assume that McMenemy didn't even bother with this sort of quick search, so we have another argument by assertion. There are few people whose fact-free assertions you should trust less than McMenemy's, so I guess this one fails too.

Perhaps another?

And even in great neighborhoods, fewer streetlights can encourage more property crimes, even if it's just car break-ins.

Okay, yeah, every one of these claims is an argument by assertion.

This one is a throwback to the first crappy argument. Less streetlights equals more crime. This assertion is still not supported by the evidence, so let's move on.

And turning off streetlights sends the clear message to residents and businesses that the city is in trouble, which Leominster is not.

No it doesn't. Most people wouldn't even notice this small number of streetlights being off. Futhermore, only a lunatic jumps from "the city shut off a few street lights to save money" to "OMG Leominster is DOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!"

If streetlights and crime are as tightly connected as McMenemy seems to believe, then we should be able to eliminate crime just by adding ridiculous numbers of streetlights so that everything is lit up. After all, it's not like crimes ever occur during the day.

Oh, wait. The FBI disagrees.

# Offenses for which time of occurrence was known showed that 57.4 percent of burglaries took place during the day and 42.6 percent at night.

# Offenses for which time of occurrence was known showed that more residential burglaries (63.6 percent) occurred during the daytime while 56.4 percent of nonresidential burglaries occurred during nighttime hours.

Dang. I guess we'd better start keeping street lights on all day.

Does DiNatale value streetlights over firefighters?

Roughly a month ago I wrote this post, about a couple of city councilors making fun of Marcus DiNatale for being an annoying, hypocritical buffoon.

If you recall, the issue at question was the whole streetlight idiocy, and DiNatale wanting to raid the city's free cash in order to keep more streetlights on. Stephan Hay and Jody Joseph then made fun of him for being a self-ordained "fiscal conservative" while being so eager to spend the city's free cash, and also for being an oppositional dummy.

Good times...

Now it's a month later, and we have this story about the city council transferring $91,000 from free cash to pay the city's firefighters. You just know that DiNatale will have something stupid to say about it, and he delivers right off the bat!

"I'm not crazy about taking money out of free cash," said Councilor at-large Marcus DiNatale.

Huh? Where did the freewheeling, free cash-spending Marcus of late March go? That guy would have been totally on board with this plan!

Maybe he just doesn't think firefighters are as important as having some extra streetlights on? Or maybe he's hoping that the light produced by burning homes will eliminate the need for more streetlights? Who knows?

He can believe whatever he likes, but I have to disagree on this issue.

See, if my home is on fire, then I really don't care if the sidewalk near it is well-lit. My bigger concern would be getting rid of the fire, which is where the firefighters come in. It's considerably more important to me to have a home that isn't just a smoking pile of rubble than it is to not stub my toe on a dark sidewalk.

DiNatale's stated reasoning isn't along those lines, of course. Rather, it's a fine example of a dumb idea couched in reasonable-sounding language (like most politics, really).

DiNatale said three budget line items have had money left over in them at the end of the year for each of the last three years.

Those include accounts in the building, health and employee benefits categories.

"Those three accounts, I believe, can cover this overage without using free cash," DiNatale said.

Golly, that almost sounds reasonable on the surface. Well, if you ignore the fact that he's relying on a speculation that maybe there will be money left over at the end of the year.

This argument was pretty-well eviscerated by Mayor Wong.

But Mayor Lisa Wong urged councilors not to support DiNatale's plan.

Wong said the fiscal year is not over, so it is not definitive those accounts will remain where they are. Furthermore, Wong said if those accounts do under run, any money left over would go back into the free cash account.

"At this point it doesn't make sense to transfer money out of those departments," Wong said after the meeting.

Ouch. That's eminently sensible.

If they use free cash and DiNatale's three cited accounts end up with extra money, it'll go back into free cash anyway. Which means what DiNatale is suggesting is basically a stupider and more limiting way of doing the same thing Wong is proposing.

Hmm, if that's the case then why would he be opposed to it? Oh, maybe late-March Marcus is back!

Let's not forget about what Jody Joseph said back then:

Ward 6 Councilor Jody Joseph said he was "tired" of hearing DiNatale criticize Wong.

"I'm constantly hearing the same thing, 'My way is right, her way is wrong,'" Joseph said.

This leaves us with three potential explanations for DiNatale's inconsistency.

1. He could legitimately believe that raiding free cash to turn on a few streetlights is more worthwhile than using it to pay firefighters.
2. He could reflexively disagree with everything the mayor supports, just to be a dick.
3. He could actually not believe anything at all, and just grandstands about any issue he thinks might appeal to local dimwits, in order to get his name in the paper and further his political career.

Whichever of those is correct (I vote for all three), I sure hope he keeps it up.

Not for the good of the city, mind you. Being obstinate doesn't really help the city, as far as I can see. No, he should keep it up because after the disappearance of Rachel, Fitchburg is in desperate need of more insanity in its politics. Because it's funny.

Alternately, he could adopt sensible positions and actually study issues instead of just being a reflexively oppositional nuisance about everything. Then he might actually be well-respected and get something worthwhile accomplished. But where's the fun in that?

Stay the course, Marcus. For the comedy!

Ghosts are more interesting than streetlights

Oh, what an embarrassment of riches I'm faced with today!

Checking the S&E today, I see it contains not only the dumbest editorial ever, in the form of a special column by village idiot Jeff McMenemy, but also the dumbest actual story ever. It's about ghosts.

Prior to spotting the ghost story, I was all set to address McMenemy's dumbness. But frankly, it's not coherent enough to be worth a full post. It's just a tedious hit-piece attacking both Lisa Wong and Deval Patrick for their shared crime of doing things McMenemy doesn't care for.

For some reason McMenemy is obsessed both with streetlights and with pricey SUVs. I'd explain what his reasons are, but he never really bothers to make them clear. The man has the intellectual sophistication--and language skills--of a mildly retarded parakeet. Just know he's really upset!

But the ghost story, now that's something amazing!

Let's do some quoting!

Kathleen Caslin became a ghost hunter six years ago by accident, after a supernatural encounter got her questioning the existence of the paranormal.

"That's where your life turns on a moment," Caslin said.

Caslin, a registered nurse, was working a night shift at a hospital in 2003 when she was approached by a ghost in one of the patient rooms, she said.

Okay, that's not so terrible. Kooky lady spends her free time doing something stupid. Not really news-worthy, but maybe it would work as a human interest story or something.

So what brings this nurse I hope to never require medical care from to town? She's giving lessons on how to be credulous like her!

Caslin, Edward Perry and other members of the SIGNS Paranormal investigative team gave a presentation on dealing with hauntings at the Thayer Memorial Library Sunday afternoon. Caslin is now a researcher with the group.

Caslin decided to start asking questions about the unexplained after her encounter in the hospital, and that eventually led her to her position with SIGNS.

The group researches haunted houses and tried to determine what, if anything, is actually going on. Perry said paranormal investigators need to keep an air of skepticism as they do their work.

An "air of skepticism"? I don't think they know what the word means.

See, if you're a skeptic, you don't call yourself a "ghost hunter." Because that assumes that ghosts exist, and any "ghost hunter" is going to primarily be looking for things that support their belief. You can no more be a skeptical ghost hunter than you can be a skeptical Leprechaun wrangler or a skeptical dragon slayer.

If you hear funny noises in your walls and send a ghost hunter in to investigate, they're going to say it's a ghost. If you send in an exterminator to investigate, they're going to say it's mice. If you send in a plumber, he's going to say it's your pipes. That's just the way it goes.

But you don't get many newspaper stories about plumbing problems, or rodent infestations. Being a ghost hunter is clearly way more fun.

But wait, the website for this nutty "SIGNS" group says they're all about science! SIGNS even stands for "Scientific Investigations of Ghosts N Spirits."

Ugh. That's terrible.

What sciencey-sounding stuff do they use?

Perry, wearing a polo shirt with the logo from the movie "Ghost Busters" on it, demonstrated the different devices the ghost hunters use in their work. There is an electron meter to gauge the energy in a particular room, a temperature gauge, an audio device to pick up sounds of spirits talking or moving, video camera and audio recording devices.

Ooh, an electron meter! Because ghosts are always leaving their electrons laying around everywhere. Also a temperature gauge (known to laymen as a "thermo-meter"), in case the ghosts have a fever or something. Plus a tape recorder. Obviously that's the most important bit!

Besides the Ghostbusters polo shirt, I mean. Because nothing says "scientific rigor" like referencing a movie in which a giant marshmallow destroys part of New York.

The investigators at SIGNS have been successful [Sic] picking up what they claim are the voices of ghosts in different haunted locations using audio recording. Caslin explained the group will record their discussions inside a haunted location and then hear the voices of ghosts when that recording is played back.

When the ghost is heard, it is called an Electronic Voice Phenomena [Sic], she said, or EVP.

Funny that they don't hear these voices at the time, isn't it? Maybe it's a magical audio recorder?

EVP is awesome in the same way that playing records backwards to look for hidden messages is awesome. It nicely illustrates the brain's ability to find patterns, even if the patterns it finds are totally meaningless.

If you record something (or nothing) and then crank the volume way up to the point where it's mostly a bunch of white noise, you can then rely on the pattern-finding parts of your brain to turn a bit of noise into something that sounds like a voice.

You might experience something similar in the shower. I often hear phantom phones ringing when in the shower. It doesn't mean my house is haunted by a phone, it means finding patterns in the random noise of the shower is not particularly useful.

It's sort of cool, as long as you're not a gullible doofus who interprets your brain's reflexive pattern-finding behavior as proof of a ghost.

Not that this group of totally-not-fake scientists would ever do something so obviously stupid!

Caslin played EVPs taken at the Christ Community Church in Chicopee where SIGNS suspect two disgruntled ghosts started haunting the church in 2004 after it switched from being a combination of Methodist and Congregationalist to just Congregationalists.

The recordings played revealed sometimes inaudible and distant whispers responding to the comments of the SIGNS team. At one point, one of the alleged ghosts can be heard telling the team to "get out."

Oh, maybe they are that stupid. Or maybe ghosts really hate it when churches switch from including two Protestant sects to just allowing one. That certainly gets me all worked up!

Caslin researched the history of the church and believes the two ghosts are Methodists [Sic] spinsters and former members of the church who died before it made the change to just being a Congregationalist church.

The two ghosts are known to throw hymn books, move books, hide candles and make apparitions in the church, Caslin said.

Wow, that's some major stuff that these ghosts are "known" to do! Throwing crap, hiding things for some reason, and even appearing! Why are these ghost hunters not cashing in on their findings? With all that evidence, they could definitely win James Randi's million-dollar challenge by providing evidence of the existence of the paranormal!

You could be rich, guys!

Here's another awesome bit of information:

Caslin and Perry said their group is willing to come to investigate homes free of charge. She said the group is very discrete.

Hear that? You can have these crackpots in your very own home!

So here's what you do:

1. If you don't have one, buy a small battery-powered radio.
2. Tune it to something that's either all talk, or at least old-timey sounding (maybe some ragtime, for the folksy ghost feel).
3. Call SIGNS and tell them you are haunted by a noisy ghost who likes ragtime or whatever.
4. Before they arrive, throw the radio in a closet, under a pile of clothes or something. Make sure it's loud enough to be just barely audible in the room, but not loud enough that you can actually make much of anything out. It's even better if it has crappy reception and keeps cutting in and out.
5. Open some windows to make your house drafty (for the thermo-meter).
6. Scatter around some spare electrons.
7. When the ghostbusters arrive, give them mescaline.
8. After they report back that the house is totally definitely haunted like crazy, start giving tours.
9. Retire, rich and happy!

Or you could just make fun of them for being a bunch of credulous nitwits. That would be good too.

Whiny babies, commence whining!

Ugh, more boring crap about streetlights being shut off. Didn't I write about this awhile ago?

(Yes, I did!)

Well, now the plan is actually about to start.

A plan to shut of more than 60 percent of the city's streetlights could be implemented as early as next week, Mayor Lisa Wong said Wednesday.

The plan is expected to yield about $64,000 in savings, according to a report released this week by Department of Public Works Commissioner Lenny Laakso.

"We just have to get the OK from the mayor's office, then we'll tell Unitil to implement the plan," Laakso said.

Wong said it would take a month or two to fully implement the program.

All well and good. They're going to shut off about 63% of the streetlights, while leaving strategically-placed lights on.

Lights would remain on along Main Street, on dangerous curves, near some schools and in some areas recommended by ward councilors and police officials, Laakso said.

Well, that's pretty sensible!

After all, there are about 3,000 streetlights in Fitchburg. That's a lot of electricity and a lot of money. And many of the lights are in places that don't really require streetlights. It's really a very sensible plan.

Of course, local whiny babies don't care for this sensible plan. Because they're scared of the dark, and have apparently never lived anywhere that didn't have a giant streetlamp every 30 feet. You know, exotic places like Alaska. Or Lunenburg.

Some people are not whiny babies, of course, and even speak up. Like this rarely-seen creature, an actual intelligent letter to the editor writer! Hold on to your hats!

The truth is, no conclusive evidence exists on the correlation between streetlights and criminal activity. A 2002 article from the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences concludes that "more research is needed" on the relationship between lighting and crime. Oddly enough, few American studies have been conducted on this crucial issue, and the results of the studies we do have are decidedly mixed.

In one of the newer studies, a 2000 Department of Justice report on Chicago showed that "reported offenses increased" when lighting was improved. How could this be? According to the evaluation, it "could not provide a definitive explanation of these findings." So the answer is, nobody knows.

On the other hand, the International Dark-Sky Association, an organization concerned with the negative effects of light pollution, estimates that the U.S. wastes more than a billion dollars annually in energy costs for unnecessary lighting. In short, the jury is still out on whether (or to what degree) street lighting makes our streets safer. And there is some indication that illuminating our cities may do more harm than good.

Letter-writer Elizabeth Gordon, you are a breath of fresh air! You cite people who actually know what they're talking about instead of just asking dumbass city councilors and people on the street for their uninformed opinion!

Unfortunately, very few whiny babies are capable of understanding what you wrote. Even fewer will give a shit. For instance, here's a lovely comment on that letter. It's from "WHAT ABOUT US":

QUOTED FROM STORY "Since there is no statistically significant evidence that street lighting affects the level of crime, I for one am fine with the city saving money by shutting off the lights. Others, I'm sure, will disagree."

Do you really need a chart or graph or some form of written information to see what is going on in your own town? Open your eyes... Look around you... Forget about waiting for someone to spell it out for you.

Yes, Elizabeth. Your perfectly logical and straightforward approach to decision making is offensive to idiots. You and your "charts" and "graphs." NERD!

The local illiterati have determined that research means nothing at all. All they need to know is that they think that turning off streetlights is bad, so therefore it is. End of argument!

Let's have another example, shall we? This one comes from "cheryl". It's beautiful:

No lights in Fitchburg? good when we get hurt from them turning off the lights then we should send medicol bills to Lisa Wong. she wants Lights Out then she should pay All medicol bills for those who gets injured.

I enjoy the way this person's mind works. Turning off 63% of the streetlights in her mind is apparently the same as "no lights in Fitchburg."

Yes, "cheryl." The mayor is going to come to your house and steal all your light bulbs! Not for any reason; just because she's evil! I bet she won't even pay for your "medicol" bills when the scary darkness hurts you!

See, the fact of the matter is that 98% of the bitching about turning off streetlights has nothing whatsoever to do with streetlights. It has to do with the fact that there's a subset of inbred douchenozzles in Fitchburg who hate Lisa Wong and are going to complain about anything she does, because it's her.

To illustrate that point, here's a comment on that same article from our old racist buddy, "QEII":

Geez i'm surprised and she makes me ill when i see her chuckle on tv. Nothing is funny about what has gone wrong with Fitchburg, i am appalled that we are the source of her sick laughter. She should I suppose she fooled a lot of people didn't she; 29, a mayor (great on her resume) and the people of Fitchburg foolheartedly put her there.

So the comment that this dipshit is making on an article about streetlights is basically "I don't like the way Lisa Wong laughs."

Umm... okay. I've never had an issue with the mayor's laugh, personally. But I'm also not a crazy asshole who hates the mayor.

Look, people who are scared of the dark. This is easy. If you're really scared of Mad Max-style roving gangs of bandits raiding your home because a nearby streetlight was turned off, you can pay about $12 a month to have it turned on. Surely you're willing to pay that much for your own safety, right?

Because if not, then you're probably not actually all that concerned about the streetlights. So if you don't pay for the light, but do whine about it being turned off, you're really just whining because you enjoy whining. Stop it.

---

Also, I'm putting up a new poll. I theorize that the vast majority of people who whine about streetlights being turned off also whine about people getting too many public services (you know, welfare and disability and so forth). Do you agree?

Street Lights and Psychoses

Ha, I totally called it!

The dumbasses at the Sentinel have puked out an editorial about turning off streetlights and it's as full of stupid as you'd expect.

But is it the particular flavor of stupid we were expecting? Let's find out!

First a little clarification though. On that earlier post a commenter mentioned that she has been informed that all these crappy (but byline-lacking) editorials are written by Jeff McMenemy, the S&E's editor. I have no trouble believing this, as Mr. McMenemy has written many similarly terrible editorials with an actual byline included.

However, I don't want to attribute such idiocy to an innocent party if it isn't actually Mr. McMenemy. He could have a really dumb acolyte doing the writing or something. So I will just refer to the person behind this editorial as "the editor".

Anyway, the editor pulled a switcharoo on me! I was fully prepared to debunk a claim that turning off some streetlights would cause an increase in crime. Maybe the editor read my earlier post mentioning that, because he didn't go so far as to make that claim. He does dance around it quite a bit though. So let's dance!

First, consider the opening paragraph...

Fitchburg Mayor Lisa Wong's decision to consider implementing a plan as a "last resort" that calls for turning off every fifth street light, except major intersections, in the city is equally farfetched as it is ill-conceived.

Umm.. what?

Her decision is "farfetched" and "ill-conceived"? That doesn't even make sense. You can call a plan "ill-conceived" or "farfetched," but you can't call the "decision to consider implementing a plan" those words.

Or you can, but everyone reading it will laugh at you and call you dumb.

Let's pause a moment to take special note that the editor recognizes that this plan is a "last resort," is by no means guaranteed to happen, and would affect only every fifth streetlight. Remember these things, because the editor will shortly forget them.

Here's paragraph two!

We can't think of a time or place where it would ever make sense for a mayor to call for turning off street lights -- it sends all the wrong signals about your city -- but this is especially true in Fitchburg.

Oh my god I love this paragraph.

It starts off with that great "we lack the ability to think" bit. I can think of a lot of times and places where it would make sense for a mayor to call for the turning off of street lights. Here's a free one: daytime. You'll have to come up with others yourselves.

But the best part is that once again the editor has fallen back to the braindead non-argument of "sending the wrong signals." Only today we're not sending the wrong signals to kids, we're sending them to... ummm... well the editor hasn't bothered to tell us yet. Devious! He simply tells us that they're sent especially hard in Fitchburg.

Why especially in Fitchburg? I don't know, but the editor has some lies to tell!

Fitchburg is a city where police are fighting an escalating crime problem, particularly violent crime, which is fueled by a growing number of gang members and the illicit drug trade.

Jesus fuck people, how often do I have to point out that crime has been decreasing for the last few years? Just saying things are getting worse all the time doesn't make it true!

I am impressed that the editor has pinpointed the cause of crime though. I'd be curious to see the epidemiological studies he ran to discover that violent crime in Fitchburg is due to gangs and drugs. Good thing he knows just what causes it.

Anyway, what the fuck does that have to do with streetlights? Oh, nothing? Well okay. Let's continue...

Likewise, the city's residents also have to deal with a [sic] higher-than-normal property crimes, caused by the drug addicts who steal anything they can get their hands on to fuel their illegal and destructive habit.

Wow, down on the drug addicts! Those studies must have been really conclusive. Because there's no way that destitute people in a terrible economy would ever steal anything unless it was for drug money. Only those degenerate drug addicts would ever do such a thing!

Also, what's "higher-than-normal" when it comes to property crimes? Is there a normal level of property crime that the dickhead editor would consider fine? Seeing as Fitchburg ranks 6th out of 14 similar-sized cities in property crime, I'd call it pretty normal. Right smack in the middle.

The Sentinel lying about crime rates isn't really newsworthy though. Let's get back to the rest of this idiocy.

Turning off street lights sends the message to them, and everyone else inside and outside the city that your city is in dire straits, and it encourages lawlessness.

Sending messages again! And now we finally know who's getting this message: everybody. Wow!

I wonder what it's like to be Jeff McMenemy the editor. Constantly bombarded by "messages" from streetlights and pieces of legislation and space aliens (probably). It must be hard to live like that.

Maybe he has magic sunglasses like "Rowdy" Roddy Piper in They Live, but instead of seeing the secret authoritarian messages hidden in the environment and becoming a freedom fighter he has embraced them and wants to be one of the creepy skull people too.

The editor sees this and thinks "Well okay, whatever you say!"
We've also finally figured out just what the streetlights are saying when they talk to everyone: They're encouraging lawlessness! Man, streetlights sure are jerks. I mean the ones that are off. The ones that are on are okay I guess. Or at least they don't talk to Mr. Psychotic Editor Guy.

Wait, maybe he's just scared of the dark?

The city of Fitchburg needs more lights and more police on the streets to keep residents, business owners and their customers more safe, not less.

Yep, I think he's just scared of the dark.

Mr. Editor, I am sorry for making fun of you. Clearly your parents did something wrong when you were a child, and never addressed a very primal fear that most of us got past years ago.

You see, darkness can't actually hurt you. More lights don't equal more safety. Also, there are no monsters under your bed.

The last quote represents pretty much the end of even the pretense of an argument about streetlights. From here on the editor just goes into a rant about how Mayor Wong is so incredibly terrible for proposing this plan mentioning this idea as a remote possibility.

Frankly, that part isn't even interesting enough to respond to. After all, it's based on the faulty premise that there's something wrong with the plan. Since that hasn't been established, the ranting that depends on it can be safely ignored.

Finally, just a word of advice to the editor: If a streetlight talks to you or tries to send you a "message" or a "signal", for god's sake just ignore it!