To The Daily Sun,
I feel the best analogy was made by Jon Stewart last night in regards to the Harvard grad Mr. Cruz and his slightly confusing speech. Cruz's point is up for your impression and interpretation. Cruz was reading from the Dr. Seuss book "Green Eggs and Ham" while trying to fill out his time and gather support to suppress and defund Obamacare. Cruz says "I don't like Green Eggs and Ham". The problem is that the main theme of this children's book is about someone who hates something before he tries it but after tasting it discovers that is isn't to bad after all and actually likes it. Sounds to me like he is promoting the ACA. But then again he would never talk to me as I didn't go to any school whose students would fall into his category of acceptance. I think it was only Harvard, Princeton and Yale grads he talked to.
I will admit there is a lot of confusion on this health care law and as usual it is who you believe. The GOP'ers are throwing a lot of cash at negative ads and my opinion is they will really cash in if it fails. However if it works as advertised then we, the American people, will win big time. So, who has the most to gain with this bill? The GOP has NEVER offered any ideas for health care but only tell us how bad it is. So, what do they have to gain? Somehow I doubt the GOP is trying to protect us. If they were then they wouldn't be cutting or trying to cut help for the disadvantaged like food stamps etc. They only help those who don't need it, like tax breaks for the top 1 percent, Not raising the minimum wage, farm bill benefits for numerous member of Congress who don't need them and so on. Who you gonna believe?
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 September 2013 08:47
To The Daily Sun,
Professor Cracraft, in his Sept. 26, letter to The Laconia Daily Sun, gave us another example of liberal bias in academia. While many professor's argue that their writings do not influence their students, one would think that if the students can read, then his and other professor's biased writings may influence them.
In his letter, the professor states his position about the military draft. He and I are in total agreement about that. However, his liberal bias comes through when, to make his case for a draft, he makes derogatory claims about former President George W. Bush's and former Vice President Dan Quayle service during the Viet Nam war, but he says nary a word about Messrs. Biden, Clinton, and Gore, or any other liberal politician.
We have often heard about the five deferments of former Vice President Dick Cheney, but Cracraft, and others, are loath to mention that hale and hearty Vice President Joe Biden received the same number of deferments, and was not in the service. While the professor demeans Quayle for signing up for the National Guard, and he states that the draft " . . . favored the sons of the rich and influential", he neglects to cite a few facts about former Vice President Gore, whose father was an influential and outspoken Senator from Tennessee who opposed the war. Al Gore enlisted in the army after he graduated from Harvard. Normally, an enlistment is for a three year tour of duty, but he was allowed a two-year tour, actually serving for a total of one year and nine months. During that time, the former vice president also saw five months of service in Viet Nam as an "Information Specialist", but saw no combat. Perhaps Al Gore did, in fact, benefit from being the son of a rich and influential Senator. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2525562/posts).
Cracraft also fails to mention the draft deferments of former President Clinton, or the "draft letter" that he sent to Colonel Holmes. In that letter, Clinton said, "I came to believe that the draft system itself is illegitimate. No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, . . .". Here is the link to Clinton's full letter: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html.
Professor Cracraft is free to write as he pleases. I do think however, that those who teach our children have an obligation to give more than half the story.
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 September 2013 08:42
To The Daily Sun,
On September 13 my husband and I had the privilege of attending 161st Police Academy's graduation in Concord at the Training Academy.
One of the honors at every graduating class is bestowed upon a class member who has served in the military before attending and graduating from the Academy. This candidate must show outstanding character and leadership during their training at the Academy and is chosen for a special award; the Charron-Legion Award.
Jeremy Charron was a Marine who went on to become an Epsom police officer. He was killed in the line duty while serving his community. He was a hero, as are all of our men and women who serve and protect.
This graduation was special to me. As Concord's American Legion Post 122 presented the Charron-Legion award, alongside the parents of Jeremy Charron, it was my privilege to take the photos of the recipient, Nashua Police Officer Julia Banks. Officer Banks is a Marine veteran who served her country with honor and now continues to serve our state. It was a proud moment for me to see the first female officer receive this award.
I want to say thank you to all of our veterans, no matter what age, no matter where they served, whether man or woman. We have the bravest military in the world! Thank you Officer Banks and to the entire 161st graduating class of the New Hampshire Police Academy. You make us proud every day. Stay safe and God speed.
Gilmanton Iron Works
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 September 2013 08:39
To The Daily Sun,
I read the article in Wednesday's edition of The Laconia Daily Sun about the poor kid who had his fundraiser jar stolen from his parent's business. Let me just say that I'm sad and mad about that. I'm so tired of hearing about things like this. It seems to me there's getting to be more and more people who just think they can take anything that's not nailed down,do anything they want, and think the law doesn't apply to them!
I'm upset about what Laconia has become. A city full of drug addicts and people too lazy to work — they'd rather steal or sell drugs for income. I may struggle, but I earn every single dime of it! I've always had to work hard and struggle for what I have since I moved out on my own. However, I've never, and never will resort to selling drugs or stealing to make ends meet. I'd rather be homeless, or sell my things, if it came down to it, before I'll take something that doesn't belong to me, that someone else worked hard to get, or intended to be for a good cause for that matter. I've had things stolen from me, so I know how this kid feels. I worked hard for all those things stolen from me, just for someone who didn't earn them to take them and enjoy them.
This kid put a lot of kindness and thought into what he did. I understand the economy is pretty bad still, but it's no free pass to steal. Seems to me like every time someone tries to do something nice or positive for their community for a change, someone has to ruin it. Pretty low to steal from a kid and/or a good cause. Just nothing is safe anymore. Did I really expect anything better from Laconia? I guess I know now that this city is going further and further down the tubes. You can't trust anybody anymore. Seems to me good people are hard to come by nowadays, most people just care about what's good for them, or they're just plain lowlifes who think it's okay to take what isn't theirs. Those animals that money was going to are better and more civilized than the people who took it!
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 September 2013 08:36
To The Daily Sun:
On Friday, Sept. 20, the House of Representatives (for the 42nd time!) passed a bill to negate ObamaCare. In his victory strut, Speaker John Boehner said, "(the American people) don't want ObamaCare."
C'mon. What do the American people know about ObamaCare? The "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" runs 2,400 pages with 450,000 words, the equivalent of about five novels. People with jobs and families have neither the time to read it nor the background to understand it without help.
Those with the wherewithal to explain it objectively show little interest in doing so. Supporters and opponents consistently lie to pursue political agenda and personal advantage.
Some deliberately mislead and manipulate. Sadly, too many are lazy ignoramuses quoting each another.
Mainstream media are little help. They tell us who said what, but leave us to divine the truth. They call he-said-she-said reporting objectivity. Contemporary journalism acts as if Thomas Jefferson's famous defense of a free press — "a well-informed electorate is a prerequisite to democracy" — is not a call to truth, but a call to transcription.
Some lies are so incredible they make Saturday Night Live, Colbert and The Onion look scholarly. Yet, educated, apparently sophisticated people pick up and pass on the nonsense. Some make TV commercials out of absurdities. Others write about them and credentialed pols and pundits go on national talk shows to give the crap legitimacy. (You would think lightning would strike a live broadcast every now and then.)
The most absurd was probably the warning government is setting up death panels to decide when you are too expensive to live. That idiocy seems to have ebbed, but new contenders for "most absurd" continuously arise. Here are four of the more recent:
— If you seek a financial subsidy, claim any income you want. No one will ever try to verify it.
— Medical practitioners will be implanting microchips to monitor you.
— The government will inspect your home by force if you receive services at home.
— Members of Congress are ObamaCare exempt.
Most of the untruth, however, is more complex and subtle. It usually addresses one of three general areas: employment, cost or medical decision.
Here are two examples (one from the pro side, one from the con side) of how zealous partisans mislead us with sophomoric assessment, faulty logic and cherry-picked facts.
From the pro side:
"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
While the law will not force consumers to pick new plans or care providers, no one can make this blanket promise. Just one simple reality — not all physicians are in all plans — belies both parts of the statement in multiple ways:
— Before ObamaCare, employers routinely changed plans when it suited them. They will continue to do so under ObamaCare.
— People who change jobs may find their care provider is not in the new employer's insurance plan.
— Employees without access to employer-provided insurance will seek coverage on the exchanges.
— Employers too can choose to buy insurance on the exchanges.—- Some employers have already announced they will no longer provide insurance to certain classifications of employees (part time, for instance) and will instead provide a stipend for employees to seek coverage on the exchanges.
From the con side:
"The law is a job killer."
Because most economists think the impact on labor will be nominal, there is not much objective analysis available. The little analysis that exists supports the economists.
This claim originates from a distortion (or failure to understand) a 2010 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report. It said the law would affect labor numbers because some workers will choose to work less for two reasons:
— Some would work less if offered stipends to buy insurance on the exchanges.
— Older workers might retire earlier with assurance they could buy insurance on their own.
The CBO report said this would decrease labor in the economy by one-half of 1 percent. Although the budget office was saying people would be unwilling to work as much, the anti-ObamaCare forces presented it as business unwilling to employ as much.
In fairness, however, CBO also said requirements employers provide insurance or pay a fine "will probably cause some employers to respond by hiring fewer low-wage workers." The budget office also said it expects employers to offset some of this loss by hiring more part-time and seasonal workers. To date, CBO has not provided the numbers (anticipated new hires) to allow objective observers to postulate the overall effect of the provide-or-pay provision.
Last Updated on Thursday, 26 September 2013 08:32