This is just another example of a Governor with leadership skills. We should all be thankful that we have Deval Patrick for a Governor. On a separate note, I would like to see the Governor review the High School project in Wilmington with the massive oil spill that is not going to be cleaned up. This project is a disaster waiting to happen with a storm water drainage system being designed to be built directly abutting this contaminated area when we have wetlands and private wells in close proximity. The DEP is a joke! They stated that it is out of their jurisdiction. Somebody from the EPA needs to lower the gauntlet on this project. If anybody wants to see the massive waste of state funds, come to Wilmington and see the gym that they want to tear down over February vacation. Other city schools would only dream to have a gym so nice. A major investigation needs to happen with this project and the contracts and the funding.

re: "This is just another example of a Governor with leadership skills. We should all be thankful that we have Deval Patrick for a Governor."
You're kidding....no seriously, you're kidding, right ?
After scandals within his administration over public health, crime lab, lab inspections, public safety, hack judgeship appointments, illegals killing citizens, probation department, rampant welfare fraud, EBT card abuse, and unlimited freebies for illegals, you add the DEP to the mix and go on to praise this clown ?
C'mon, that was a joke, right ?

I do agree, he made the right choice. I may not like him either- but I do respect his decision. You are right on!

I don't like the timing of it. He should have annouced at 4PM the ban would be for 7PM. Some people couldn't get out of work early or get home by 4PM. Anyone driving after 4PM was illegally driving and if they got into an accident their insurance doesn't have to pay the claim.

North Shore Rez, while I believe the ban was ultimately the right thing to do, you do bring up a good point. Not all people were able to get out of work. Not all companies look out for their employees. I wonder if an insurance company could deny a claim if the scenario you mentioned. I have a family member in the biz. I'll have to check that one out.

Ken B. I agree. He said on tv that his wife was in California and could not get home he said. I'm sure if she was coming in last night or early this morning and needed to drive home we would not have had a ban. Meanwhile the Bruins will play their game in Buffalo now because their employees could not get in for their game.

Not crazy about Deval but this was the right decision. Just look at what happened in Long Island, NY. I am proud of our state for once.

The governors decision was too drastic. Conditions were not so extreme as to warrant his actions.

I totally agree.. I also feel that any company that did not let their employees leave to get home and off the street before 4pm should be fined ! Somehow the names of these companies should be made public so people can know who they are .
As far as I am concerned these companies are committing a crime and should have to pay a penalty.

How about this,
If every one that got out of work late ,or was on the road before the 4o'clock ban went into effect!
Just got out of their cars and left them right there on the highway!

I agree.

The fee and jail time do sound like a bit much, but think about it...it will keep cars off the street. Without the ban, people would be getting their cars stuck everywhere in need of emergency help to bail them out. All this costs the state lots of money. Where you around in the '78 blizzard? There were tons of cars stuck on highways (abandoned) for weeks.

I think that it's impossible to determine whether people would have exercised good judgment without the threat of a $500 fine. Reading this thread makes it pretty clear that quite a few idjits would have been out joyriding without it.

Government overreach is "common - sense" as in it is far too common and people think it makes sense. It is a sad world we live in where corporations make stupid decisions to keep businesses open, workers make stupid decisions to submit, road crews enable these people buy digging them out, and of course there are always the joy riders... governors feel they "have to" write (illegal) executive orders in order to take care of the problem. We created this fascist state by thinking it was all just common sense. The constitution make this all very clear... the government should play no role in this at all. Oh what am I talking about; this is Massachusetts… never mind.

F

For all the folks who objected to the ban, for whatever reason, but especially because they thought it violates the Constitution....Apparently you weren't around in 1978 when emergency workers risked their lives to make sure there wasn't anyone trapped in one of the hundreds of cars stuck on Rte. 128.

driving is a privilege, not a constitutionally protected right.

It was lifted at 4pm today......

travel ban should be longer

same here Shannon, i do not like this guy & this is probably the only thing he's done to help Massachusetts residents, but now my dumbass landlord is using it for an excuse to prolong his snow cleaning from his property.

I know I'm late in responding to this article, but I, too agree(d) with the travel ban when it was in affect. It was the right thing to do. It seems that lessons were extracted from the Blizzard of 1978, when tons of people were stranded on the highways in their cars. I agree that jail is a bit harsh, but a fine is in order.

I think it was a good call,too. I also think a lot of people who work in retail would have been forced to drive in dangerous conditions otherwise.

One must bear in mind, however, that not everybody works a cubicle job in an office building. Some people, such as those who work in hospitals, as paramedics, etc., had no choice but to go to work, shouldn't have to be penalized, however.

although i will say, it was absolutely good advice to warn people to stay at home. just the manor and consequence is ridiculous.

There are a lot of stupid people who would have gone out in this, and it isn't a matter of Darwinism - it is a matter of resources having to be diverted to rescue idiots rather than towards minimizing the impact of the storm so that we can get back to business more quickly when the storm is over. And the fact that an infraction CAN get you a year in jail, doesn't mean it WILL. A year sounds scary enough to keep us all of the roads, but I would bet that anyone who actually got busted for it will not serve a single day.

With the current crop of serious offenders being released due to prison overcrowding, there is not chance a person would see a year in jail for violating the ban. Fine maybe, but then it would be dismissed at court!

Common Sense, your name doesn't go with your ideas. Your intense dislike of the governor is overriding your common sense. People do dumb things, and the rest of us have to pay for it. Were you around in 78? I was and it was a nightmare

Unfortunately, many employees would use their good judgment to stay home or leave early but their companies wouldn't permit it. So, employees would be not be "succumbing to the results of Darwinism" but choosing to risk losing their jobs or disciplinary action.

Those who have jobs that allow working at home and/or making their own hours forget what it's like to have a job that doesn't.

I don't think the consequences were to be carried out by officials. In fact, no one was fined and no one went to prison. It was simply an incentive to keep people off of the roads. Deval Patrick showed his leadership skills throughout this storm, and did his state proud.

I'm pretty sure you can. They have leeway to make reasonable exceptions. If you live in an area with no power and are going to relative's to get out of the cold, they are not going to put you in jail.

No power.... Hmmm.. I must use what's left of my cellphone battery to surf the Net..

Nicely stated, Tiffany. I don't think the Dunkies diagonally across the street from me is open. And it's a very densely populated area where they get a lot of business.

you sir, are awesome.

you call it tyranny, I call it common sense

So essentially you are anti-business, then. Because the point of the ban was to make it possible to use all resources to get us back up and running as soon as possible without diverting them to rescue idiots. I, for one, would prefer that we get back to business as soon as possible, which isn't possible if people are out on the roads.

If you weren't going out anyway, how are you being tyrannized?

Diggies: three feet of snow,man. safety precaution ; dispense with the Tea Party tyranny stuff.

Plow operators, damn you tiny mobile keyboard and auto correct.

Yeah, you folks with your wildly overestimated Mad Driving Skillz and inability to see that whatever it is you think you need to be driving for isn't all that important? You're the problem.

Really, Thomas J Burke? The driving ban was not imposed in just your small corner of the world. OF COURSE there are people who are capable of navigating through these conditions, but there are far more who aren't. Do you want your streets plowed? Then get people the hell out of the way so the work can happen.
If you believe for a second that conditions and circumstances are the same as they were in the 30's, 40's, 50's, and 60's...even the 70's, and 80's, your are sadly mistaken. Population density has blown up, vehicles are "super-fancy", and people think they are impervious to the elements. That's just the tip of the iceberg...
This storm was no joke, and if you truly believe that your personal freedom was squashed by the executive order to stay off the roadways, then build your crazy-ass bunker, now.

Moxie, yours is the best comment yet. You really cut to the chase. And did it with perhaps unintended humor. Best chuckle I've had all day, perhaps all week.

Wrong, back in the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's, there were about four cars on the road as compared to today. If in fact in 78, a ban had been observed, 128 would not have been the parking lot it became. It hindered snow removal, and lengthned the time of recovery. It was a different generation, not so intent on instant satisfaction for every desire. Today, people have to be told what to do, because common sense has gone the way of the Model T!
Not one soul is going to jail for driving in the storm, but the threat worked, and made the life of those that did have to be out in the Blizzard!

Excessive is not the right word. It is Fascism. If he wants to punish people who get stuck, well fine. Even conficate their car if it interferrs with traffic. But punishing people for all the idiots that cannot drive in snow or assuming dictorial powers is nor democracy. Do we now live in a police state? For hundreds of years we did not need bans. Then we get policians who believe they are qualified to think for us.

Thank goodness, because otherwise you'd be out there getting your car confiscated and screaming "FASCISM" into the wind instead of the interwebs.

Alright Thomas, I'm guessing you never have had to call for a tow. Because even during summer driving conditions it takes awhile to get the truck even there. This is a blizzard. Meanwhile that car is impeding plows and emergency vehicles during the wait.

And let's not even talk about SAFETY! I don't mean the safety of those people who think that bans are not for them. I'm talking about the safety of the people whose lives those selfish, delusional, anti-social people ENDANGER when they slide into a median or run off the road so (oh yes you do!) and then they divert police and emergency personnel who SHOULD be helping those who can't get to the hospital because of the SNOW. When we do things as a community FOR the COMMUNITY that is not TYRANNY. The selfish tyranny of the individuals who care only about themselves--now THAT'S a tyranny!

@ TJ Burke- I'l bet you are the first and loudest to bitch and whine when taxes increase, roads have potholes, or emergency personnel fail to meet your ideal standards.
"Fascism"? Give it a rest. No one in government is remotely interested in micro-managing your life or anyone else's.
BIG PICTURE...look to the BIG PICTURE.

Spot on again, Moxie, on TJ Burke. It's the ones who hate government who are the first ones to complain about potholes or services they didn't get a hospital because of government cutbacks. The list is endless. And just like the tea party, they want their social security and medicare. Go figure. Some people are just never happy.

Go Moxie! Keep reminding them that we ALL have a stake! I am so sick of that "maverick" talk. Didn't it go out with Sarah Palin?

i agree, where are the updates?!

Agreed, and in any event, I don't think his executive order is enforceable on non-State roads....

Ken, I think Eastern Mass. got the brunt of of this storm more than Western Mass. this time around, so of course you guys would have an easier time dealing with it... Duh!

Thanks, Swampscott parent. Here's a link to the episode on the Esplanade. If the student was indeed tasered, it appears to have been because he threw a snowball at a cop: http://bostinno.com/2013/02/09/boston-university-snowbrawl-photos-and-video-nemo-in-boston/#ss__295171_1_0__295171_294644_0__ss

I'll repeat what I said on a previous post: There are a lot of stupid people who would have gone out in this, and it isn't a matter of Darwinism - it is a matter of resources having to be diverted to rescue idiots rather than towards minimizing the impact of the storm so that we can get back to business more quickly when the storm is over. And the fact that an infraction CAN get you a year in jail, doesn't mean it WILL. A year sounds scary enough to keep us all of the roads, but I would bet that anyone who actually got busted for it will not serve a single day. This was NOT tyranny, it is prevention of resources being diverted for things like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/nyregion/on-the-long-island-expressway-cold-hungry-and-stranded.html?_r=0

Get serious. It was the right thing to do. And he and I and most of the commenters here are just as "freedom-loving" as you! And nobody gave up their "decision-making" in favor of a promise (Whaa? no promises I read about). And your own fears are the only ones I've seen expressed here.

They break my heart too. So many willing to give away personal freedom and choices. We can all agree driving in a blizzard is dumb. We should not agree on letting a Governor dictate our choices.

You do realize that not everyone is a Native New Englander? Not everyone was "taught" to drive in these conditions. Please stop crapping on the people that have to consider everything, and then make the call. THE TRAVEL BAN KEPT PEOPLE SAFE! Flip it over...are you pissed because the news has been boring? Tired of Weather Coverage? Thank God that's (almost) all we've got!

Diggies has a broken heart, but many of us believe that many lives were saved, and people were made safer. I guess Diggies' heart will have to get used to it.

Swampscott parent, would you have heeded Christie's advisory to stay off the roads? Is rude and crude the kind of temperament you want in a governor? All politicians are power hungry, including your beloved Christie. Speaking of which, he knew what side his bread was buttered on when he made friends with Obama to get funds for his state after Sandy.. As a parent, how would you feel if something happened to your child and you needed an ambulance and some idiots drove after being "advised" not to and caused such a traffic jam that an ambulance couldn't get through to bring your child to get him emergency care? Like so many others who think the way you do, you'd probably be the first in line to sue someone for the traffic mess. People on the right don't want to pay for anything unless it helps them. America was build on everyone helping others. This argument is so tiring.

I agree with Elaine.

Kathleen, thanks for the New York Times article. Nuf said.

Hmmmm... throwing a snowball at a cop is assault on a cop. Darwinism indeed. The kid deserved to get tased. the tweet regarding it as "just" throwing a snowball at a cop deserves to be tased too. Not a good example for your cause.

I like the way you think, Melissa G.!

Oh, because that's cost effective. Grow up.

Thomas, did you have to walk to school, uphill both ways? This was one of the biggest storms on record for this area, it is hard to believe you easily drove through too many similar storms in your youth. It hit during rush hour on a Friday. Several years ago, we had a large storm during a Friday rush hour, when no advisory was issued, other than to use common sense. That common sense ended up with six hour commutes for some, and emergency personnel being stretched to the limit digging motorists out along Rt 20. The happened because it was snowing so hard, the plows could not get through the traffic, and everything ground to a halt.
Comparing today's world to the one you grew up in is ridiculous! And relax, nobody wants to take away your rights. Tim Thomas and his Tea Party were traded to Long Island, where fellow "common sense" rough it yourself, individual rights blowhards, are still being rescued by emergency personnel!

Stay off the roads--not that frightening! Jeesh.

That's true. Sadly, the world is full of brainless people. They're the ones the ban is for.

Everybody is subject to accident. That's what accident means. People who think they are perfect and "better" make up a huge sector of that larger group of "brainless" people.

Your understanding of laws and rights is flawed. Stay home for a couple of days and read up on it. It'll do you good.

Your PRIVILEGE to drive (because it's not a right) is granted by the government.

Yes, melinda...YES! I believe that both urged "Common Sense", repeatedly.

Ditto!

Can you show the logic to back up your thought that the state doesn't save money? The way I see it, the plows were able to clear the roads faster and cleaner without having to navigate around stuck cars. Police didn't have to respond to as many accidents of people hitting trees. Emergency vehicles didn't have to take evasive actions to avoid out of control minivans. All of which saves time and gas which we the taxpayers foot the bill for.

As for the tired argument of you know how to drive in the snow, well that doesn't mean the oncoming car in front of you knows how to drive in the snow. Just takes one incompetent driver to ruin the paint job of two cars.

Right. 'Cause this didn't cost a state any money or divert resources from getting businesses back up and running: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/nyregion/on-the-long-island-expressway-cold-hungry-and-stranded.html?_r=0

while your town was barely snowing, there was 3-4 inches an hour in my town. Did you expect the Governor to ban driving only in certain towns? Like that would make sense! And this "dusting of a snow" you mentioned dropped over 2 1/2 feet in some parts, and left over a half a million people in the dark.
Also, keep in mind, Deval Patrick is our ELECTED Governor, not a king. If you need someone to define the difference between a king and a governor, wikipedia or dictionary.com will do just fine. And if you truly believe what you're saying, you are the only jester in this court.

Now that's my kind of Anonymous! Thank you, Anonymous!

Amen

Some people shouldn't be out at all, never mind a curfew... And by all means, grow up.

I'm sure that your travel needs were of enormous importance to society.

Avon, I can't reply to you so I have to do it this way. I think that telling people they have to pay 500., which is a heck of a lot of money to me, and spend a year in jail sounds extreme. If you are rich why don't you just send your check to Deval.

Reader, obey the law and you won't have to pay 500 dollars and you won't have to go to jail!! How about that!

Well said, Handsome Victor! Bravo!

Because that recommending thing works so well: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/nyregion/on-the-long-island-expressway-cold-hungry-and-stranded.html?_r=0

And how many people would have listened to his RECOMMENDATION? Sure the jail time was a bit much, but it worked, didn't it.

The point is; people should have a right to decide. If you want government to decide for you, maybe another country would better suit you? The blizzard of '78 was very different; we didn't have the weather technology we do today, the timing was different, people were caught off guard. If you didn't know about this blizzard, you were in a cave, and the driving ban went into effect when there was hardly any snow and is still in effect now, that the sun is shining in most places!

citizen, I'd much rather live in a country that has a driving ban in a dangerous blizzard that one that lets its citizen do what they please, no matter how much harm they do to others. Perhaps it's you who should move to another country. Be careful what you ask for....

elaine g. - "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty." Benjamin Franklin

Driving to the packie in a blizzard is not an "essential liberty." Stock up in advance. Another good saying is "A lack of planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on mine."

citizen, I rather doubt that Franklin was thinking about dangerous snow storms when he talked about giving up essential liberty for temporary safety. In the end, I think that most people in this state are happy that no one got stuck in horrendous traffic or had someone in their family die because an ambulance couldn't get through. That power outages can be fixed more quickly with cleared roads. Was it a perfect decision? Possibly not. But I have to wonder what others lambasting Patrick would say if Romney had done the same thing as governor.

Thank you Elaine. And citizen, it's risky to tell other people they may prefer to live elsewhere--it always comes back to bite you...

yes mcrem agreed..may have been a little offended at some comments. But the question was whether a person was in agreement or not with the driving ban imposed by G.Patrick. There is no right or wrong answer to this and there are pros and cons to both sides. It is a matter of opinion and in the future, should be for the majority to ultimately decide, not one person. So, going forward, this was a great question to ask and I'm hopeful that this question will be thought through thoroughly by government in the future. The funny thing is, I wouldn't have given it a second thought had it not been for the duration. There were people who poked fun about people "needing to go shopping or to get liquor" and if you had some place to go that was necessary, like to help a family member (it was a blizzard after all) then you wouldn't be subjected to the consequences of being out. Well, yes, you would. That is the point. You had no choice, whether frivilous or necessary, the choice was no longer yours. And not just during the high point of the storm when most wouldn't go out anyway, but hours past necessity, and subjected to all of Massachusetts for most of the duration.

We elect people and then they're authorized to make these decisions. That's how this works. Do you suggest we hold a special election to decide whether or not to impose a driving ban during a blizzard?

no, I'm simply saying that we should learn from our mistakes...in this case the duration.

you still had the right to decide to go wherever you wanted... they weren't there with guns preventing you from leaving your driveway. You had the CHOICE to go out and risk a fine, or to stay home.

noticed you left out the jail time.....

I agree. I can't believe he put this ban on for so long. In '78 we already had 30 inches or more of snow on the ground from previous snowstorms that winter. It was a terrible year. So when we got the 28 inches on top of that it was awful. I could see the ban late last night and early this morning but I can't see it continuing now. And a year iin jail an 500. fine. Boy this guy will do anything to get money from us.

Agreed - maybe I would've not thought so harshly of it if it had been a reasonable time frame. Even so, most of us don't need to be treated like toddlers, and I'd think we've enough common sense to make our own decisions without being forced by government.

J, your last sentence says it all. Lack of warning and preparation. I wonder what you'd be thinking if you were on 128 driving home on Friday night and had to sit in your car for 4 or more hours in traffic because there was no driving ban. And with no cars on the roads, it will be easier for the power companies to get the power back for those who lost it. I thought the ban was over. So it shouldn't be all that hard to shovel out the driveways of elder parents. My son already did his, along with his neighbors driveways and sidewalks on either side of his house.

I was here during the 78 blizzard and drovemy MG Midget around with no problems. I have been driving for 65 years and have never had an accident or gotten a ticket. I have never had trouble driving in snow or ice either. Guess what I can even negotiate a rotary. A lot of them have been taken out becaus people who cannot chew gum and walk at the same time have drivers license and vote for idiots.

Whoa, Thomas J Burke is like Superdriver or something. Everyone bow to his mad skillz.

good one, Avon!!!!

Comments like yours makes me think they're correct to do so.

Massachusetts does, not all states. And this ban is still in effect until 4 pm today. Ridiculous

Yup, Deval woke up and laughed nefariously while envisioning the power he would wield over the masses. Spot-on analysis, you should have your own rambling, underground conspiracy newspaper that nobody reads.

I love that you will rail against big government by filing a lawsuit. Call it "State of Massachusetts v. Irony"

Next he will ride aroung in an Army tank and run for president.

HA HA a Dukakis joke, great stuff! Dust off your Kennedy material while you're at it, he'sbeen dead long enough now.

By definition, wouldn't overthrowing the dictator be achieved by threats and force?

Not necessarily, we could just "recommend" that he leave.

But some of us like him. In fact, most of us, at least at the last election... Should we just get rid of everybody???

I was at the dentist on Thursday morning, and the tech was telling me that his boss at the bar he works at (in Faneuil Hall) told him they would be open, and he had to come in (especially since he has a car, and lots of other employees took the T, which was already announced as closed at 3:30). Later, Patrick issued the driving ban, so I'm assuming he didn't have to go in to work. And this is why an outright ban was necessary - jerkassed employers like this guy's boss who would have tried to force their employees to drive in unsafe conditions. The ban made it so these people were empowered to stay home, and avoid becoming both a problem and a statistic.

Don't know if this is the only stupid thing you've posted. (I have only skimmed thru them) bit I guess you don't know the difference between an airport and a city. Common Sense rules at the airport. No stupid threats of jail time needed there. No Common Sense needed for the masses of DEMOCRATS IN THIS NANNY STATE EITHER. The government does your thinking for you.

No judge would have ever imposed a year in jail (or even a day in jail, more than likely). That was just included so that everyone would see it and understand the seriousness of the situation.

If you saw the news conference it was a reporter who asked him what the penalty was if people were out there driving during the ban. Then he was forced to put a punishment on it. C'mon use your head, if you don't tell people they can't drive you get all those knuckleheads out there in their SUV's getting in the way of the plows. Didn't you see the pix from the '78 blizzard of 128? Sheesh!

Rob, you're in the Berkshires writing on Reading Patch. No one cares.

To be fair to the Governor, most people forget that the state continues past Worcester. Do y'all even have roads in that godforsaken wilderness? ;)

It's Deval, bluefish, and he did it, and you can't change that he did it, and most intelligent people are grateful and think it was the right thing to do. bluefish.

It's a shame he lost your vote though. Minus the fact that he announced last year that he was not running for reelection. oops.

Cynical. It helped. Deal with it!

You nailed it, Randi. My thoughts exactly.

Another really great post. Cuts to the chase.

Elaine G, Danny Boy, and the rest of you boot licking, state idol whorshipping buffoons sound like you are characters in the movie Idiocracy. Why do you enjoy being told what to do? You are a disgrace to our founders. How many people actually defiantly disobeyed your masters and traveled on the stupid roads? NONE. You were not effected whatsoever, and neither were the heroes in our government who feed us, clothes us and protect us in your minds. How about just saying "please do not drive on the roads" ? Perhaps I do not appreciate, like you do, our dearly elected leaders, on my dime, barking orders at me like I am a moron. But clearly you all love it. You wanna know why? Because you are pathetic, brain-dead, authority worshiping slaves.You will get exactly what you desire, which is a boot in your face.

RSA, we live in a civilized society, not one where each person can do whatever she wants and put herself and others in harm's way. Would you be willing to bet your life on driving in a blizzard, just to uphold your holier-than-thou beliefs?

Yes we do live in a civilized society, so we shouldn't threaten to steal someone money or throw him in a cage if he does something we don't like. That is anti-civilization. I can put myself in harms way because I own myself. I may or may not drive depending on my own reasoning. I dont need big daddy patrick telling me how to think or act. It is insane. Lets have some fun. Answer the question: Do individuals know what is best for themselves?

@DannyBoy: Its not a belief, its classical logic. @holy: You have no right to think for yourself. OBEY. OBEY. OBEY. OBEY. OBEY. OBEY. OBEY. OBEY. OBEY. OBEY. OBEY. OBEY. OBEY. OBEY. OBEY. OBEY. OBEY. OBEY. OBEY.

But holey(?!)--you put OTHER people in harm's way. And that's where we draw the line. Get it? Got it!

No slave. Those people chose to put themselves in harms way.

And this "we" you speak with... are you a conjoined twin?

RSA, does that include killing someone with your car?

No. Obviously no one has a right to kill anyone else with their car. I never said that. The argument being put forth is that someone MIGHT get harmed so that is reason enough for a group of individuals to ban the "public" from exercising THEIR OWN reason. Are you advocating pre-crime?

We, as in "the people", who elected the governor. Remember? Are you an island? But no man is an island.

Again, define this floating abstraction. Define "the people" before I repond to you non-point.

RSA, I am saying that a ban is necessary to keep people like you off the road as you have an amazing sense of entitlement to your free rights. With free rights comes responsibility. And nothing you have said in this chat shows any sign of maturity or thoughtful consideration of your fellow man. If you think "your" rights are so important, go out there and foolishly drive and hurt someone or even kill him or her and then have to live with that. But unfortunately, many others will have to live with your stupidity. It's a shell game.

Elaine. Sorry I don't even know how to respond to you. You have no valid points, just appeal to emotion, ad hominem, appeal to emotion. You aren't worth my time, or the effort of me typing. Go watch "American Idol"

No, maybe not, but a lot of people have accidents! You too!!!

Yeah like YOU don't depend on the "State" for anything. YOUR taxes happen also to be OUR tax dollars, and I like the idea that some of them protect me from people who don't drive off the cliff but jackknife into the median in front of me or someone I care about. Capisce?

I use the states "services" because I am given the following choice in the matter: Pay me or I'll put you in a cage. And my tax dollars are not legitimately yours and your tax dollars are not legitimately mine. Is it legitimate for me to walk in your house and write a check to myself against your wishes? No. So it is not okay for you, or anyone else (even the Deval Patrick and his tax collectors), to forcibly extract my property from me and then give me an inferior, wholly inadequate service. That is unjust and immoral. In the same manner it is unjust and immoral for individuals in the state to presume to know what is best for everyone, and punish them like wayward children if they do not act in a fashion that in in line with their "authority" Capice?

The democratic system of government does indeed grant individuals power to make decisions to do things that are in the best interests of ALL the people under that elected official's jurisdiction. There is NOTHING, in law, wrong with Governor Patrick's order, and it was similar to the orders of other governors in this and previous weather emergencies. It is a morally correct decision. And you had best not go into anybody's house and write checks, because you will be stopped by other representatives of the law. Calm down, stop thinking that everybody wants your property, and get used to the give-and-take of living in this great Commonwealth, one of the greatest states in this great democracy. BREATHE!

I am a responsible adult and I have right to say whatever I want, in any tone I want. The fact that you feel threatened by the mere POSSIBILITY that someone MIGHT drive against the wishes of some guy in government, is a snapshot into your twisted reality. You cannot refute any of my points so you attack me. I didn't go out in the storm, not because Patrick told me not to, but because I made that choice. I want to live in a society where people don't have their money stolen from them or get thrown in a cage of they don't listen to authority. That type of society never ends well. I feel bad for you because you cannot critically think. You are a lamb to the slaughter and I wish you the best.

Your right to act does not come from the government as you profess. Did you actually just say that in our system of government people cannot do things that aren't in the interest of ALL? If we follow your logic and premise NO ONE could do ANYTHING. Because a politician writes a law does not equate to morality. There used to be laws in this country that African Americans were 3/5ths of a person. Under your logic that would be just because it was the law. The will of the people.

RSA, money talks loudest. If a knucklehead were to venture out in this blizzard and got stuck on the roads, I, as a taxpayer, would be pretty mad that my share of tax dollars would be needlessly spent on rescuing that fool, for making such bad judgement, and not heeding the governor's order.

What you wish for, as your every post makes clear, has nothing to do with anyone but yourself. And it is you who don't respond to my painstaking reminder about the facts of living in a democratic society guided by the officials we elect. Nothing on the Patch is threatening, though I've seen some posters threaten other posters. If, as you say, you feel bad, you might look to your own problems before heaping the cause on somebody else. Don't feel bad, feel better--by treating people better, and by acknowledging that what the governor did in this one instance was intended to help the people he was elected to govern. Even you!

Aycaramba. Im not going to let you get away with your vain attempt at taking the moral high ground and act as if what you profess is peace. You are for punishing innocent people who may choose to operate their own motor vehicle. You are for punishing good family's that know what is best for themselves. You are for the violent domination of the minority under the "rule of the majority". You bow to authority and have no logic or reason to back up any of your hair-brained ideas about american self-government. You advocate violence and domination by the state. There is no point in going forward in a debate because you dont respect debate. You said in so few words that the majority trumps minority rights and you gladly support "might makes right". This is contemptible and I'd rather not engage any further with you. Enjoy your life.

I don't now why we are all wasting our time arguing with RSA. We've been had. He's using this driving ban as a shell game to try to show everyone how smart he is. Or as smart as he thinks he is. I'm not wasting anymore of my precious time on this fool. Let him join those idiots in Long Island who didn't listen. It's done and everyone is pretty much safe and sound. My freedom was not compromised, it was protected. My thoughts are about that poor little boy who died in the car from carbon monoxide poisoning while his dad was shoveling snow. The father is in the hospital. These storms are dangerous whether we are driving in them or dealing with the aftermath.

Oh RSA! You are a sheet flapping in the wind. A dirty sheet, but a sheet all the same. And you can take nothing from me that is rightly mine--in this case, a rational, perfectly LEGAL concern for the safety of the community. And you cannot prevent me from taking any ground I choose. Welcome to America!

Elaine, I was only waiting for your cue. Stay cool, keep voting, and have a great weekend!

aycaramba, glad to help. Your dirty sheet comment was terrific. That you can't take from me what is rightfully mine, i.e. a concern for the safety of the community. Have a good weekend also. Enjoy the sun tomorrow.

Yeah! An individual doesn't know what is best for himself. Unless that individual is the Governor, then he knows what is best for everyone. Yay!!!

You probably forgot he was elected. You, not so much.

Because a group of people elected someone does not give them a right to impose their will upon everyone else. Elections do not change morality or reality. Do individuals know what is best for themselves?

RSA, a lot of people don't know what is best for themselves. Have you never done something wrong? Made a bad choice. Patrick and Romney before him were elected to do what they think is right for the collective good in this state. Perhaps you'd be happier in freedom loving New Hampshire. Oh, that's right, they shut down the liquor stores at 6PM Friday night. Guess it's not so free there either.

make a bad choice (drive in a blizzard). Get stranded. Block roadway. Guy down road needs ambulance. Ambulance can't get there. Guy dies. Sucks to be that guy, but so glad to have the right to be stuck in this road. Right?

your thought for yourself brings you to be blocking the road. Not the thought for someone else. And I don't recall calling you anything derogatory. But I guess that's what people do when they can't stand that someone has another opinion.

My thought brings me to be blocking the road? Are you on drugs? You are obviously incoherent. My thought is that individuals can make the decision to travel or not to travel with their own reasoning faculties. The reasoning faculties that you so admire Patrick using. You know THE SAME ONES. We have equal rights you slob! I don't think that threatening people with time in a cage is productive or civilized. Sheesh....

So if the Governor's wife came in last night and he went to pick her up at the airport does he go to jail for a year? And yet so many think this is a fine idea??

No! They are demi-Gods that must lead us dronelike sheep to safety...

Who you callin' sheep? Oh, I guess you were only calling YOURSELF sheep. That's okay!

That's right--public enemy number one: the paramedics! Grow up! Really, grow up!

I should just shut my face and pay their salaries. Sorry for speaking. I am going to sit in front of the TV and wait for Mr. Patrick and the police to tell me what to do next. You are so strong and tough. Thanks for setting me straight with your flawless logic and excellent counter-point!

A counter point is limited somewhat by the point it's countering! Your point? Not so good. Selfish, weak, and deeply flawed. But by all means, sit in front of the television to listen for your next orders...

What you are doing is a classical "appeal to ridicule" and its a fallacy. Please deconstruct my logic by either affirming or denying that individuals know what is best for themselves. This way we can have a constructive debate.

Individuals often know what is best for individuals, though they often miscalculate, for themselves and others, what is best. People living in a free country elect officials to make decisions for the good of all the people, not the loudest and most deluded, hypocritical self-servers. Hence a good decision, in the interests of the greatest number of people.

And "appeal to ridicule" is a really stupid and practically meaningless phrase. Look how holeymoley keeps illustrating that on this site.

Ok lets test your logic. If the majority of people vote that african americans are a danger to society and should be jailed, would that be just? The majority of people are for it. The loudmouth african americans might argue but the majority has spoken. Your logic is flawed.

NOW I begin to feel sorry for you.

I win.

But you'll never get that driving time back... It's gooooooooone......

RSA, you just said "I win". You have just proven all my points.

But you didn't make any valid point. You just shucked some illogical drivel, and in your small brain this somehow equated to a coherent argument.

It's Deval. His edicts aren't holy. But some of them are smart!

I know, right!? He is such a super-genious! I love him very much. Im glad he is here to protect me.

He's smarter than you! That's a start!

Im just a guy who loves big, strong men who know how to flex their power and punish the stupid. Loving every minute of this emergency. I wish it would be like this all the time. Dont you?

I think there's a dating site for you.

aycarumba, your comment on finding holymoley a dating site was priceless. First time I've laughed since this post came up.

Was anyone saying they have a right to hurt someone else? No. We have a right to think for ourselves, and not violently impose our ideas on others against their will. It really isn't that complicated.

It's called "public safety". The ones who whine about their rights being infringed because they can't screw up the traffic in a blizzard, and they don't have the "right" to deflect the energies of emergency teams--this shut them up and kept them off the roads. Thank you, Governor Patrick!!!

Define public. I am included in your definition. I'm trying to debate with you but you keep doing this faux-bravado ridden one-liners. How much television do you watch?

Get over it, RSA. It happened. It's over now. Many of us think it was a wise and good decision. But anyway, you're free to take your mission on the road again.

Possibly New York state would have benefitted from a travel ban--on Long Island and in New York City. In Buffalo--not so much.

Perhaps the travel ban in Massachusetts could have be imposed on regions (Boston, Cape Cod) which had severe problems, and not on regions (Amherst, Pittsfield) that didn't.

Western Massachusetts objects to the state's Boston-centric point of view. Surely you can see why.

Avon!!!

Avon you sound like one of them liberals maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan

FACT: All that you just mentioned is pre-crime of the Orwellian persuasion Avon. No objective act of aggression ACTUALLY occurred in any of the cases you cited, only the POSSSIBILITY of one occurring.

Hell, you've probably bumped into RSA once or twice.

Touche!!!!

Hear Hear! If RSA and holeymoley hate the Commonwealth, its governor, and his "subjects" who have gladly voted him into office twice, then I suggest they move elsewhere. I think the Deep South would be a fitting venue for them to kick and scream about the tyranny in Massachusetts.

Yes. How dare I ask questions. You are an authoritarian whack job.

Ask questions? By all means! But your stupid attacks on everybody are getting REALLY boring. Is there a "boring" button? There really should be. PUSH.

I live in TX. LOL. This is TOO fun

Is there an illogical control freak, TV-head botton ay?

If the government were actually there to protect people they wouldn't be the first people to violate those same rights by coercive theft.

Now who's being pre-emptive? Pre-crime? Paranoid any?

That makes no sense. I wasn't being "pre-emptive" in any sense of the word. Do you actually know what this word means? (without a wiki search). Pre-crime is EXACTLY what you are advocating.

My sentiments exactly!!

He could have issued a warning that it was not advisable to drive, rather than using the guns of the state to punish people (with jail or theft ) who might not do EXACTLY what he says. Do you two enjoy seeing people get hurt? Do you want to punish people?

I summoned an AUTHOR! TV-head no like!

RSA is obsessed with television. Dude, it's not our fault you can't afford cable.

Breathe.... Chill pill.... those are valid points. And you must stop shrieking about people and concepts you do not know. For your very own sake. Really! (And you have not "demonstrated" anything--not on this page anyway). Good night all!

ahh, but sometimes it's so much fun.

Oh, trust me, I know.

This is my first post: "Blah, blah, blah... You folks complaining about the travel ban, and think you "know it all", don't cry for help from authorities if you got stuck in the snowstorm, ok?"

I made no personal attacks there, if that's what your definition of ad hominem is. And what's with this obession with slavery? I can think for myself very well, thank you.

Christopher--if you like it, then you haven't read it! It's really bad, pretty much the worst exchange I've seen here, and that's saying something...

Terrific quote ... but do you really think it applies here? It's a bit much to assume that because individuals agree with the ban they are slaves ... agree or not, things went well and people, cars were safe and emergency personnel were able to reach their mark if necessary. And the job of moving so much snow was made easier and we'll get back up to speed that much quicker. It really was not a bad call but whether I agree that it should have been imposed upon us is another question. Fact is, I hope, we are not children needing to be led to make proper decisions. Anyone in their right mind would have known it was unsafe to be on the roads and the ridiculous threat of fine and/or jail time was a bit much. An advisory from the Gov. would have sufficed, I think. So, all that said, the concensus(sp?) appears to be that it worked ... I am ambivalent, not sure the Gov. has the actual authority to impose such a ban, but I admit it got people's attention (those that needed to be prompted to do the right thing) and seemed to prove helpful in the long run.

Gotta say, folks, some of these exchanges have been the nastiest I've seen in any Patch post. And, Patch editors, how is it that some comments were allowed to stand even tho they surely went against the terms, using potty words and personal insults? Would really hope you will take the time to answer this.

Those evil business owners would have FORCED their employees to drive to work huh? Do you work? Do you live on the same planet as me? No business would have scolded or punished employees for not coming to work during a blizzard.

Sensible and responsbile? What if they get fired for not coming to work because your ultra-responsible and caring company does not give them sick days?? "Someone has enough common sense to make people do what they should do". Spoken like a true authoritarian. Hitler would be proud. You must be nicknamed Mr Sensible or Mr Responsible, because you just know what is best for others.

Prison time for disobedience. That seems right up your alley. Whats the fuss?

If stealing from innocent families who MIGHT decide they need to drive is just, why not a year in a cage?

how is this unconstitutional? driving is a privilege, not a right.

privilege from whom? This should be interesting....

Jon...the freedom of movement in fact a right guaranteed by the US Constitution under the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment.
Since it was written well before cars, it does not implicitly include cars, but does not explicitly exclude them
Courts have theorized mostly that ANY means of travel be considered "movement"
Thereby making driving bans unconstitutional as the federal right to me is higher than a state law of emergency powers
This argument has been used by a California man who never got his drivers license and refuses to under the guise a state can not limit or restrict his movement as a US Citizen....it has worked every time hes been summonsed to court

So the end justifies the means? Hmmm...

RSA, you either follow the rules or you don't. You didn't.

"Patch, you own the site so you can obviously do what you want. But don't profess to be an outlet for the free exchange of ideas."

Sorry RSA, I don't equate using rude, obnoxious, boorish language in your comments with making valid coherent counterpoints. Maybe in your mind, you think as such, but to me, that's just ranting and raving.

DannyBoy. Your simpering authority worship was savagely ridiculed, as it should have been. Enjoy the ride prole.

To you, blindly following the dictates of an authority figure is a virtue. You are def. in the right state.

Try learning how to spell "a lot"..It's 2 words.

game. set. match. kirby.

The authority worshippers I've seen on this thread would have loved nothing more than to see you punished for what you did: use reason as it relates to your own familial situation.

Yes, he did. Here's a much better solution: leave the decisions to the locals they know their situation much better than some pol in Boston. Fine those whose cars get in the way of snowplows on state roads a LOT of money. Let the local towns and cities decide whether or not to close the roads in their towns and/or fine whose cars are in the way. My first boss once told me "treat people like children and they'll act like children. Treat them as adults and they will act accordingly". Stop treating Massachusetts residents like children, and see what happens.

It is the first time the roads were closed in 35 years! and even back then, no one had the wisdom to close the roads until AFTER the storm. How many pictures of abandoned cars on 128 did you see from this storm?

While you're looking that up, I'll go ahead and tell you WHY they don't exist....because in this day and age of so many ways to get information out to the public compared to 1978, people paid attention and took the storm seriously. They heeded the warnings and the ban, and they stayed home.

Your obvious attempt to bait people into further debate is also comical. How can Massachusetts, a state that sees snow almost regularly in varying amounts from November into April, shut down for EVERY storm?

The state would be bankrupt after one snowy winter. This is New England...we stay open for business for the most part in snowstorms under 12-18", but 30" is another animal...and I don't fault Governor Urkel for his judgement call. It worked, it saved money and time, and potentially lives.

Get over it.

A sad state of affairs if we need a politician to force people to do the rational thing. Let people make their own decisions (good or bad) and live with the consequences. but fine the heck out of them if they get stuck and screw up snowplowing.
My point is that the governor should not make those decisions, leave them up to the local cities and towns. I know that many parts of the stater were not in such bad shape as Boston, yet were under a blanket ban.
I was in the blizzard of 78, and was in it driving home from work. A good warning would have kept myself and most of the other off the road, but there really was not the technology to forecast the blizzard as well as what we have today.

Dan D., so we should leave it up to 378 towns/cities to do their own thing dealing with this weather event? Have you thought about coordinating the response to such a dangerous storm? What if people from the areas less hit decided to travel into Boston at the height of the storm, wouldn't that have created a traffic nightmare on the roads?

So Dan D, you are saying that if I had chosen to drive home from Boston to Milford that evening I'd have to stop at each and every town line and figure out if that specific town had a driving ban? That's your plan?

Define "best interests". It is not in the best interest of people to be given a one-sized fits-all dictate from an individual professing to know what is best for all of us. Patrick is an individual just like the rest of us, and has no special "power of reason" that each of us doesn't inherently have. Each individual can make the decision about the safety of his or her family. There is a poster on this thread that had to leave his home to prevent his family from freezing. He was turned into a common criminal because Patrick did his "thinking" for him. Politicians can never know or forecast the unique situations that families will face in a storm It is plain wrong to use the guns of the state to threaten punishment for self-determination. We can always conjure up a situation where someone MIGHT have ventured out and got stuck. The hypothetical works both ways. The fact is most people stay home during inclement weather. Is there the off chance that someone might make a bad decision and get stuck? Yes. And he or she would be cited for "interfering with official business" or some such law, OR they would be towed out of the way and pay the tow fee. We live with the risk of bad things possibly happening because we live in a free society.

The world isn't a perfectly safe place. Bad things happen. Let individuals decide for themselves the seriousness of the situation they are in. Lets not preemptively threaten EVERYONE because the POSSIBILITY exists of something incovenient happening. If Patrick didn't threaten people, it isn't as if otherwise reasonable people would go for a leisurely drive through a blizzard. It is a simple choice ultimately. Let people choose what is best for their dynamic situation. Or allow a small group of individuals in the state to decide for everyone, regardless of the nuances of their particular region or familial situation, in which manner to act. I side with the latter.

I am fairly certain there were exemptions for evacuation. The ban was to cut down on the "hey man, let's go to the bar!" crowd.

You can always opt out of being on the list. There is usually a checked checkbox at the end of a comment. Undo the check and you're off the list.

Yes, just click the "stop following" button above the comments section and they ought to stop.

All those mad driving skillz, but can't figure out how to use the internet. Are you some kind of savant?

Clicking on the link that says stop sending emails only brings up a page with comment that the URL to stop emails does not exist and it does not stop the emails.

You can stop it.