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must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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.


Shea-Porter's picture should accompany 'demagogue' in dictionary

To The Daily Sun,

Look up the word "demagogue" in the dictionary and you'll find this definition: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.

There should also be a picture of New Hampshire's U.S. House Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, although "leader" is a stretch. I'm puzzled by her recent trip to Laconia to "demagogue" Trump policies concerning targeted cuts in welfare and aid to the poor.

Last I heard, we're still working off the Obama budget, and we have yet to pass a budget under the Trump administration. Seems like we hear Shea-Porter and her ilk spouting off daily that Trump has accomplished nothing, but somehow he has already halved funding, "from $50 million to $25 million while eligibility standard has been tightened, leaving many needy individuals, couples and families without the means to power and heat their homes" (with someone else's money).

Reading through the demagoguery of Shea-Porter, my take-away is that the poorest citizens will actually be getting the help as more citizens can find jobs and no longer need assistance. Doesn't it make sense that if, according to them, Obama brought us out of the recession and created all those new jobs, shouldn't there be less need for welfare assistance?

Terry Stewart

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 749

Numbers & attitudes can be mutated to conform to rationalizations

To The Daily Sun,

Apparently it has been (initially) reported by the local Sharia authority that a total of "30,224 deadly Muslim terrorist attacks" occurred after September 11, 2011, which was later amended to "30,000 fatal Islamic terrorist attacks." One could construe that this terrorism is a series of battles in an ongoing war! The bombings of innocent civilians over Rotterdam, London, Dresden, and Tokyo during World War II likewise could be labelled as "terrorism." I would surmise that there is a difference between "deadly" and "fatal;" and we don't know if the reference was to deaths or incidents. Likewise the reference must be assumed to be world-wide "attacks," unless there has been a surge of U.S. terrorism incidents in Bowling Green. Of course one of the earliest acts of criminal terrorism in American history occurred in Boston in which the Patriots (not football) preferred coffee rather than tea. An unruly tea party! In this present polar political environment, these numbers could be construed as "real facts," Conwaysian alternate facts," or "voodoo math." Obviously numbers can be used to support any rational or irrational thought processes.

With that in mind, I submit some other numerical statistics that can be interpreted in whatever manner one's rationalization is:
1. In the United States in 1900, there were 36 deaths, while the numbers peaked in 1972 with 54,589 deaths. Things improved(?) by 2015 with only (only?) 35,092 deaths. Between 1899 and 2013, there were a total of 9,613,732 deaths for a daily average of 411 deaths.
2. Contrast that with 2010, in which there were 30,470 U.S. "deadly" deaths with an increase in 2013 to 33,636 "fatal" deaths and 75,505 injuries. Since 1968 through 2011, there were 1,400,000 "deadly or fatal" deaths recorded with a daily average of 89.
3. From April 1999 until February 2016, 125 unfortunate deaths and 47 concurrent injuries were incurred. The average in that time span was a very sad 0.02 deaths per day.
4. Between 2006 and 2010, there had been 352,000 deaths for an average of 193 deaths daily.
5. Since October of 2001, there have been 93 U.S. deaths (caveat here) for a daily average of 0.01.
6. From 1995 until 2017, 175 deaths (another caveat) were recorded, and the average was 0.02 per day.
7. Lastly, from 1775 until 2007, 666,441 deaths and 673,929 related-deaths occurred for a total of 1,354,664 deaths. The daily average is 15.
Wow, all these numerics are just missing the causes. Obviously we should focus on and eliminate the causes of the extremely high per diem deaths. Seems more than obvious! Not going to happen, though! Number 1 is the statistics for motor vehicle accidents on public thoroughfares. Ban automobiles, can't do! Anyway the carbon dioxide/nitrous oxide emissions are allegedly good for something. Number 2 is due to firearms. Oh, no! Got second amendment rights, and collateral damage is acceptable. And before anything is said, my children have had professional firearm training! Number 3 is the statistic for school shootings. Very sad, but unfortunately Sandy Hook didn't register a seismic reaction in Congress! Number 4 is deaths due to alcohol use. Tried to ban it with the 18th Amendment, but we needed something for the weekends ... and the weekdays! Number 5 is U.S. deaths due to Islamic terrorism after 9/11. Caveat: with 9/11, the daily average rises to 0.5. Now with that outrageous daily average, we must do something about them! Build another Great Wall of China! Decrease diversity! Number 6 is right-wing terrorism. Not really a topic of conversation? Ask Oklahomans! Caveat: with unaccounted/unrecorded atrocities by a radical fringe of Anglo-Saxons against people of color over the last century, the average would be higher. I think Medgar Evers and Herbert Lee would have agreed! And lastly, Number 7 includes the 12 major conflicts (commonly referred to as "wars") that the U.S. has been involved in as well as the 65 other minor conflicts in which lives (death should not be taken lightly) were lost. Keep the bomb, but ban the bomb for other countries except Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, England and France. Makes me feel safer!
It is quite obvious that some individuals are less concerned about the dangers of motor vehicles (411 deaths daily), alcohol (193 deaths daily) and firearms(89 deaths daily) more than due to conflicts; and more focused on the 30,224 "world-wide attacks" that have resulted in an U.S. daily average of 0.01/0.5 due to a "miniscule" radical fringe of Islam. Actually the U.S. has its radical fringe, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, and alt-right, among others, who lack tolerance. Numbers and attitudes can be mutated to conform to any number of rationalizations. Just read what you want because that is your truth! Live in one's own pseudo reality! Perhaps we should be respectful of differences, and refrain from the childish name-calling that permeates the slanted stereotypical opinions of some people's psyches. Not going to happen! Then there would be nothing to complain about.

Frank M. Weeks

Gilmanton Iron Works

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 486