I read in the Townsman that two writers were disturbed by either the self-interpreted politics of the editorial (“Editorial did no reflect community,” Sept. 25), while the other on the removal of the instruments of death and destruction from one of our parks (“Canon no longer belongs in town’s Park,” Sept. 25). One writer felt that the editorial made those of “US” question if the paper still reflects the sentiments of our community. I feel it would have been better to write how he felt. Instead, he felt that he could not agree with the editorial and included “US.” If I disagreed with an editorial and felt so troubled to write to the paper, I would say I disagreed with the editorial and here are my reasons. I wouldn’t pronounce that “US,” as he puts it, felt that the editorial was unfair or not to our liking. Who is “US?” It would have been better if the writer concluded his article by listing the names of those that he refers to as “US.” Is it a committee, club, an organization, group?
Regarding that obsolete cannon from World War I or later. The writer feels it is a bad influence on the youngsters that may travel through this very pleasant park that sits next to the town offices and old Punchard High School. I certainly don’t want to upset them or hide from them these relics of the past and their importance. It might be advantageous for the young people of Andover to learn that if it wasn’t for cannons like that and the men to use them, maybe we wouldn’t be that free to walk through a peaceful park like this. We are a free country today and the writer can voice his objections because of the men and women who fought with weapons as this to assure us of that freedom. I feel hiding this away somewhere as to not upset our children would only deny that these relics exist and why they do even today.
Although, I guess there are some here who would rather take a page from “The Powers to Be” of the library and sprinkle that park with a few polar bears.
Frank A. Odlum
1 Agawam Lane