To The Daily Sun,
Niel Young, as do many, sees what he wants to see. Or not see what he doesn't want to see.
Our Plymouth Common, Common People's Peace Vigil, began in February, 1998, during Democrat Clinton's presidency. We started when Clinton and Blair were going to start bombing Iraq that February. They were halted then by the UN's Kofi Annan, so that bombing was put off until December that year, when we all were (mostly all) distracted by holiday festivity. We did the vigil Saturdays through all of George W. Bush's presidency. We've done it through all of Obama's presidency. Other peace vigils continue throughout the state. I was part of the Veterans for Peace weekly vigil a couple of weeks ago, mid-week on Elm Street in Manchester.
The best don't-bomb-Syria reasoning I've seen is this from Ron Paul: "I agree that any chemical attack, particularly one that kills civilians, is horrible and horrendous. All deaths in war and violence are terrible and should be condemned. But why are a few hundred killed by chemical attack any worse or more deserving of U.S. bombs than the 100,000 already killed in the conflict? Why do these few hundred allegedly killed by Assad count any more than the estimated 1,000 Christians in Syria killed by U.S. allies on the other side? Why is it any worse to be killed by poison gas than to have your head chopped off by the U.S. allied radical Islamists, as has happened to a number of Christian priests and bishops in Syria? For that matter, why are the few hundred civilians killed in Syria by a chemical weapon any worse than the 2000-3000 who have been killed by Obama's drone strikes in Pakistan? Does it really make a difference whether a civilian is killed by poison gas or by drone missile or dull knife?"
Thanks to Neil Young for giving me the opportunity to remind people to look around. I'll add that if I had my druthers, the money spent on launching missiles at Syria should be redirected to all neighboring countries who need help with wars' refugees, millions of displaced people in the Middle East.
Lynn Rudmin Chong
Last Updated on Friday, 06 September 2013 07:40
To The Daily Sun,
Do you fish, hunt, hike, ski, boat, snowmobile or just simply enjoy the mountain views in Grafton County? If so, you need to be aware of the next few wind projects as they could affect you.
Have some of you have missed the two-way dialog put forth by wind developers? The truth is wind developers haven't spoken in months, perhaps it's because four communities have taken a "Not A Willing Host" stance.
Many of you have been asking NHWindWatch.org: What have the wind developers been up to? Are they waiting for summer residents to leave before making another announcement? Do they feel they even owe area residents a more complete explanation of their plans or how their plans will affect our property values, regional wildlife or our watersheds?
Many of you are starting to question — who are we accommodating here?
After all, it's our property investment rights that are in question here and with all due respect we were here first. We're talking about sweat equity! And we know the concentration of four wind farms, in a 15 mile radius, will surely impact us all. There's ample land out there across New Hampshire — we know we've done our part — so go somewhere else!
One thing is for sure — developers are not speaking. Why? What are they hiding? Are they changing their plans? Are they proposing taller turbines? More turbines? More wind farms? Or all the above?
We were all stunned by last falls announcements — will this fall be a repeat? I fear it will be...
Newfound Lake and the Mount Cardigan area is surly under attack... that much we know.
Last Updated on Thursday, 05 September 2013 10:19
To The Daily Sun,
The letters to the editor lately from those who don't agree with the right-wing nuts have them all frothing at the bit.They all need to leave the horse pasture and get a breath of fresh air.
I would like to quote from Dave Schwotzer's letter. He writes that letters to editor continue to misstate facts to this newspaper. Mr.Schwotzer states that national debt rose $4.9 trillion over eight years under Bush administration. The truth is that on March 7, 2009 the national debt was $11.033 trillion. It is true that has risen $6 trillion during Pres. Obama's six years. It is also correct to say that two wars were going on and the country was going further in debt as there was no money to pay the country's debt.
I would like to remind the right-wing nuts again that the red states in this country receive more money back from federal government than they pay in. The last time I checked it was 31-cents more for every dollar sent in. The fact is that the red states are doing well, living off the money paid in by the blue states — or liberals as we are called.
I would like to ask Steve Earle and his friend one more time to explain what was the Bengazi scandal? I will ask one more time: why is it a scandal when a government employee killed in harms way is called murdered and a ambushed soldier is killed and no scandal occurred? If Special Forces had been sent in with no knowledge of the situation on the ground, got ambushed, would they have been murdered or killed? Why isn't the life of a military person just as important as that of a government employee? They both get paid by the federal government. I hope Steve and his friend Russ Wiles will explain the scandal. But if your answer is something you heard on the insanity show, forget it.
Last Updated on Thursday, 05 September 2013 10:13
To The Daily Sun,
The Children's Foundation of the St. Vincent de Paul Society, would like to thank everyone who helped make our 23nd Annual Project Pencil a huge success. By working closely with the school nurses, guidance counselors and resource coordinators, the Children's Foundation was able to provide assistance to over 600 children. Backpacks, various school supplies, personal hygiene items, lice shampoo, underwear, socks and diapers were delivered to the local schools, preschools, and child care centers in the Lakes Region.
A special "thank you" goes out to The Citizen for offering to be a drop off location for back to school supplies and Bert and Mary, for delivering these backpacks and supplies to the local schools.
The continued commitment and generosity from individuals and businesses in our community, to helping "children in need" is heartwarming.
Thank you for your support.
St. Vincent de Paul Children's Foundation
Last Updated on Thursday, 05 September 2013 10:07
To The Daily Sun,
Watching the left-right quarrel over the limits of government re-erupt on the opinion pages of The Laconia Daily Sun is a sorry, sad scene. In a time of national decline, a persistent, often rude quarrel waged by extremists over the fundamentals of government just adds more rot to the decay.
Except for tiny San Marino (30,000 people on 24 square miles), America is the planet's longest surviving republic. To some that means the American experiment exceeded expectations. Demise is overdue. To others, it demonstrates unequivocal success. The nation will endure in perpetuity. Odds on demise, however, probably increase as leaders manipulate truth for personal gain and an uninformed citizenry accepts and embellishes their altered reality.
The Daily Sun debate is as old as the republic itself. At its heart is a dichotomy in our foundation. Our basic documents — the Declaration of Independence and Constitution — are politically incompatible.
The Declaration touts individual liberty and local sovereignty over centralized, distant dominance. The Constitution promotes nationhood.
History shows we usually cope with our schizophrenia. When we could not, Civil War ensued. Assumptions we are now immune from self-inflicted catastrophe are wishful (if not outright foolish).
The Declaration of Independence lays out the rationale for our existence. It justifies 13 British colonies severing political ties with an empire. The rationale denies legitimacy to governing authorities operating beyond the control of the governed.
In effect, the Declaration of Independence asserts government capable of governing a population scattered "from sea to shining sea," enforcing uniform laws or pursuing national agenda across 50 self-governing states is fundamentally illegitimate.
By late 1777, the Continental Congress that declared independence had designed a government consistent with the Declaration's ideals. Over the next three years, all the states ratified the design, and the United States under the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" became reality March 1, 1781.
The Articles established a "firm league of friendship" among the states and ensured each retained its "sovereignty, freedom and independence." The national government was a committee of state delegates. It was empowered to conduct foreign affairs, declare war and maintain a military. It could not collect taxes, regulate interstate commerce or enforce laws. Almost immediately, political leaders, beginning with George Washington ("we have errors to correct"), began questioning the utility of the Articles.
More than utilitarian concern, however, drove the founders to question the Articles. During the Revolutionary War (1775-1783), an American identity had taken hold. The Articles (with nearly complete deference to state sovereignty) failed to incorporate that spirit.
Multiple efforts to strengthen the Articles failed. Finally, in September 1786 at Annapolis, the states agreed to repair the document once and for all in a "Grand Convention" to be convened the following May at Philadelphia.
In Philadelphia, however, the delegates (being Americans) immediately closed the doors and far exceeded their mandate. The "Grand Convention" became the "Constitutional Convention." Instead of trying to fix the Articles, the delegates (now known as "the framers") set them aside and began drafting a new document (and a new nation).
Their challenge was to safeguard personal and states' rights while ensuring the exercise of those rights did not overwhelm the nation's ability to govern itself. Meeting that challenge required the framers embrace and integrate principles into our essence that seem mutually exclusive (individual liberty and collective action). In other words, they framed a government on a contradiction.
The libertarian mindset currently dominating energetic right-wing politics looks at the central government enforcing collective behavior, regulating corporate activity or restricting individual prerogatives and screams "socialism." Although there is some truth in the accusation, they use the word because they know it has a special toxicity in the American psyche.
Intimidated, the progressive wing of American politics cannot muster the courage to engage on the issue. It simply denies the charge, promises more and forfeits the opportunity to make its constitutional case. Too bad: It would astound the framers to learn today's champions of individual sovereignty and state supremacy cite the Constitution as their authority.
As a substitute for engagement on the issue, progressives mock their ideological opponents. This dubious (and strikingly immature) tactic betrays the work of the framers by allowing street protestors, conventioneers and populist political hacks to pontificate state and individual rights over nationhood without reasoned challenge.
The bottom line is America can allow neither libertarian nor progressive ideology to win this debate. It is a tug-of-war between anarchy on the right and despotism on the left. Neither comes to a good end in the absence of cooler heads seeking balance — not in 1787, not in 2013.
Last Updated on Thursday, 05 September 2013 10:03