Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Editors reserve the right to edit letters for spelling, grammar, punctuation, excessive length and unsuitable content.


World doesn't just revolve around those with Napoleonic complexes

To The Daily Sun,


Looks like the MoBo blogger has been using his Thesaurus. I don't read his blog, but folks usually send me clips of his self-absorbed omniscience, but I do read The Laconia Sun, online, every day. The blogger believes he can walk on water. He calls me a churl, in his letter to the editor of March 28. Thank you.

According to Wikipedia, a churl (etymologically the same name as Charles/Carl and Old High German karal), in its earliest Old English (Anglo-Saxon) meaning, was simply "a man," and more particularly a "husband," but the word soon came to mean "a non-servile peasant," still spelled Ä‹eorl(e), and denoting the lowest rank of freemen.

Churl: In Isaiah 32:5 (RSV marg., "crafty"). In 1 Samuel 25:3 , the word churlish denotes a man that is coarse and ill-natured, or, as the word literally means, "hard." The same Greek word as used by the LXX. here is found in Matthew 25:24 , and there is rendered "hard."
M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, published by Thomas Nelson, 1897. Public Domain, copy freely.

I've commented many times, in public and private, that I have no intention of ever running for elected office. I've received many emails, phone calls, from town folk, state reps., county commissioners, over time, to run for office. The blogger can use his thesaurus again, and look-up "gadfly," especially tangent with a touch of jurisprudence.

Ah heck, I'll at least post Wiki:

Wikipedia: A gadfly is a person who interferes with the status quo of a society or community by posing novel, potently upsetting questions, usually directed at authorities. The term is originally associated with the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, in his defense when on trial for his life.

The blogger's personal attacks are not uncommon. He's attacked our state Rep. Cordelli, county delegate Rep. Comeau, and others, on his blog, because they don't share his view on political issues.

Relative to his advice in the paper, pretending to be a "shrink" (he does have a "medical background," lungers) and telling me to run for office or shut up, is not an issue for debate. It must really be painful, not to be able to censor someone else's thoughts in a letter to the editor, like his blog.

He still doesn't get it. Some of us (very few) do attend most Selectboard meetings, and participate, not just at an annual meeting, to find out what is going on in town.

No ... I will not shut-up (or down). Those with Napoleonic complexes (see blogger) can continue to believe the world turns around them. But like wind ... it will pass.
Others in town, lemmings, might share his myopic view on what Moultonborough should be. That's their prerogative, but not a mandate to others.

Joe Cormier


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 349

Better to resettle refugees in safe places that share language & culture

To The Daily Sun,

Our refugee policies seem more intended to provide Americans with good feelings and reward special interests than to help the world's threatened/struggling people.

If an American warship finds a sinking cruise ship, we expect the warship to help as many passengers as possible even if they have to share cramped, primitive quarters and limited food.

But that's not what our nation's refugee program does. It greatly benefits a few while leaving millions more threatened and/or struggling.

It costs about $70,000 to re-settle each refugee in our country. That same $70,000 could re-settle 12 to 13 refugees in safe spaces in their own or nearby countries with people who share their language and culture. Or, for $70,000 we could feed about 200 starving people for a year. (On March 19, 2017, 60 Minutes reported that South Sudan has millions of starving people.)

Some pressure to bring refugees here comes from the organizations that help the refugees; the more refugees, the more funding. Other Americans feel good seeing or knowing about the refugees we bring here.

But, out of sight and therefore out of mind are the millions more suffering people who could be, but aren't being helped with the same amount of money. We should maximize the number of people we help with the available resources.

And, while many refugees who come here may feel they won the lottery, many encounter hardships living where few people speak their language or share their culture, where their skills aren't useful in generating a prosperous life, where assimilation is difficult, etc. Refugees would more quickly assimilate if they re-settled with people who share their language, culture, and means of life; and it would be easier to return home or visit friends or family members when possible.

After a refugee is re-settled here, there are continuing costs to Americans: various forms of welfare, and impact on American workers and American children's education, etc. Many refugees have low level skills and compete for jobs with Americans who have the most difficult time making a living. Non-English speaking and often uneducated refugee children increase education costs and/or take resources needed by American children.

It's long past time to change our policies related to refugees. We need to give up what makes us feel good, i.e., saving the few refugees who come here, and use our limited resources to maximize the number of struggling/threatened people that can be fed and/or moved to safe areas among people who share their language and culture. That's better for us and better for them.

Don Ewing

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 626