A+ A A-

Personally, on Syria, I think we should do absolutely nothing

To The Daily Sun,

Well now that Secretary of State Kerry has confirmed for us that poison gas has been used in Syria, what next? I read meetings have been taking place in the White House and military resources are "in place" so it seems it's just a matter of time now. Heck, Obama can't back down now after drawing a "red line" in the sand, but what will he do we all want to know?
Personally I think we should do nothing. That's right, nothing. Tell the U.N. to deal with it; tell the Arab League it's there problem; too bad because we have no dog in this fight. Nether side is a friend to the U.S.; nether side would show any gratitude for our intervention; fact is, both sides would kill us if they could, so let them kill each other. But we can be pretty sure that's not going to happen because Obama shot off his big mouth and to back down now makes him look weak, dumb, (put the descriptive word of choice here).
If anything must be done then that one thing should be to destroy the Syrian Air Force. That is likely to cause us some casualties but Obama has spoken. Perhaps Congress will step up and override him for once but don't hold your breath. Democrats were very vocal in opposition to the war with Iraq after first authorizing Bush to use force there, so I wonder if they will stand by their ideals now? Really though will it matter? Obama has shown little regard for Congress or the court when they fail to side with his agenda in the past so what would be different now? As Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces he could give any orders he deems fit despite what Congress says, the nation thinks or anything else. Though I doubt it will come down to that because there would be a political price to pay. Yet still so far the main stream media has given the president cover over gun running, Benghazi, the IRS and eavesdropping on America so far, so why should he worry now? It's us who have to worry.
Steve Earle


Last Updated on Wednesday, 04 September 2013 11:04

Hits: 225

Moultonborough selectmen should take a lesson from Meredith

To The Daily Sun,

The recent decision by the Moultonborough Board of Selectmen to hold a hearing for the removal of two Planning Board members pursuant to RSA 673:13 as a result of their alleged "inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance" is badly misplaced. The Legislature in enacting this statute intended it for substantial malfeasance or misfeasance, but not for a vote the Board of Selectmen did not agree with, which is the apparent reason for this action.

The Moultonborough Board of Selectmen should take a lesson from the Meredith Board of Selectmen, which when they were unhappy about a decision made by their Zoning Board (regarding the Foundry Avenue Realty Trust's application for a variance), the SelectBoard filed a timely appeal to the Superior Court, which ultimately remanded the matter back to the Zoning Board due to errors made by that board.

The actions of the Moultonborough Board of Selectmen in attempting remove Planning Board members for their votes will do nothing to rectify real or perceived deficiencies insofar as the Planning Board decision is concerned.

Eric Taussig


Last Updated on Wednesday, 04 September 2013 10:47

Hits: 735

America desperately needs credible conservative opposition

To The Daily Sun,

In a recent letter to this forum, Mr. Wiles lamented that the GOP has not "revealed a bold breath-taking economic plan" and has not gone on the "offensive." In my view, the reason for this is that the Republican Party is lacking leadership and that it is waging war within itself.

The problem is the ever-worsening ideological extremism that has captured the party. The influence of the Tea Party and the religious far right has essentially split the GOP organization. There is a divide between those who think moderates are not conservative enough and those who think radicals are not inclusive enough.

The radicals believe in a brand of invalidation. They seek to invalidate the legitimacy of Obama's two election victories, some tried to invalidate the president's Americanism. They seek to invalidate a health care law that was passed in Congress and signed by the president and that they lack the support to repeal. They seek to invalidate climate change by claiming it doesn't exist. Many radicals would invalidate science itself when data and facts contradict their theology-like ideology.

Republican moderates believe the GOP should be a broad national party, reaching to diverse constituencies, taking positions Republicans have historically taken such as openness to immigration, significant health care reform, civil rights and voting rights, support of collective bargaining and protection of the environment. Radicals believe that these views by the moderates would lead the GOP in ways that would destroy their narrow vision of America.

Wiles, Earle and others of the far-right need to stop talking to themselves. They have become expert in how to provide ideological reinforcement to like-minded people, but devastatingly have lost the ability to be persuasive with, or welcoming to, those who do not agree with them on every issue. It's apparent that Mr. Wiles has strong political views, and while I can admire his strong opinions, his admonishment not to "move toward a more moderate approach" will disadvantage the Republican Party and strengthen the resolve of liberal Democrats. With this arrogant all or nothing attitude, he and other like-minded extremists will be witnessing Hillary being sworn in as our 45th President.

Our nation needs a strong conservative Republican Party, but what we've been witnessing in recent years is a dangerous shift to the far right. Moderate Republicans and independent voters see the party as out of touch with the electorate and determined to maintain a strangle hold on the country in a backwards, unprogressive way. In large part, these voters agree with the party on its nominally austere fiscal policy, but they are also socially liberal. Issues such as gay marriage, abortion, health care, and international cooperation force them to turn to the Democratic Party, and even there they may not find what they're hoping for.

Moderate conservatives must retake the Republican Party from the extremists. America desperately needs a serious, thoughtful, credible 21st-century "conservative" opposition to "liberal" views and actions. They must organize, reassess, and recognize the need to evolve on social issues if they are going to connect with the electorate.

As a nation, we are not going to make any progress on our biggest problems without compromise between the center-right and the center-left. But for this to happen, we need the center-right conservatives, not the extremists to be running the GOP.

Unless the GOP can distinguish who their real enemy is, they just might be on the road to finishing off what is left of the Grand Ol' Party.

L. J. Siden

Last Updated on Wednesday, 04 September 2013 10:20

Hits: 263

Huge disparity found in union wages is not sustainable model

To The Daily Sun,

Diana Lacey of Belmont, president of the state employees' association of NH/SEIU Union, Local 1984 waxes unhappily regarding the compensation of labor in America. I have a Labor Day wish as well. Visionary union leaders to replace the incompetents that have led labor over a cliff for the past 50 years.

Some thoughts and observations:
Samuel Gompers founded the American Federation of Labor (AFL) in 1886. Interestingly, he is buried within yards of one of the most successful business leaders of all time, Andrew Carnegie. Death silenced both men but that isn't much of a solution to the deep differences that still exist between labor and management. If only both sides would simply stop trying to harm each other, every person in America would benefit.
American industry thrives. Businesses are more profitable than ever, but unions have struggled for a half century. Employers in the early 1900s lacked the foresight to provide basic benefits and proper safety for labor, a stain that remains on business to this day. Unions deserve full credit for for righting that wrong. Despite those victories, unions are a dying breed, with good reason. Union membership peaked in 1979 at 21 million or 34 percent of the workforce. Today, membership is about 11.4 million or 11.3 percent of the workforce.

Why the unending slide of almost 50 percent? Answer: the average wage of a union worker in 2012, including benefits, was $53,552. That number is $12,000 more than non-unionized workers. Government union workers earned an average $81,637. Is it any wonder government employees like those at the IRS want only to EXPAND GOVERNMENT payrolls. Diana mentions selfish CEOS, lets talk about GREEDY, ARROGANT, government UNION employees always trying to stuff their pockets at tax payers expense. Their actions are just as egregious as anyone's.
This huge disparity of wages is not a sustainable model, as has been proven over past decades. Union jobs with high wages put EVERY UNION job at RISK to be eliminated FIRST by every business and business owner who now has to compete, not just locally and domestically but globally. Some union leaders FINALLY SEE IT. Richard Trumpka, president of the AFL-CIO said recently " to be blunt our basic system of workforce representation is FAILING to meet the needs of Americas workforce by every measure". In 1924, Gompers gave his most memorable speech saying "no lasting gain has ever come form COMPULSION". Gompers believed labor should be inspired by "the spirit of service" in order for the movement to be respected and successful. Compare that thinking to the words of SEIU union president Mary Kay Henry last month: " Our PRIMARY GOAL is to help workers BOOST WAGES". That narrow objective is a universe away from Gompers lofty goals. For some incomprehensible reason, union people still think their jobs are safe. Despite the huge membership losses they have already sustained and the flood of machines, robots, computers and technology, let alone cheaper labor in other countries ready to REPLACE THEM.
IF union leaders like Diana Lacey truly want to turn the tide on the fate of unions on this LABOR DAY, they will let Gompers words guide them. To uphold the "spirit of service", unions could at long last help, not hinder employers to become more competitive while demanding work force retraining required to elevate labor skills. Unions have to stop defending poor labor performance when it occurs. They must embrace productivity, not obstruct it, to the advantage of both sides. Simply demanding higher wages will only result in further DECLINING UNION MEMBERSHIP and fewer people who respect what unions stand for. Gompers had it DEAD RIGHT.
Recent rabble-rousing by paid SEIU workers demanding a DOUBLING of wages for McDonald's employees to $15 is the PERFECT EXAMPLE of how UNIONS KILL JOBS. Not only does higher wages with no increased output harm buying power, it eliminates the DOLLAR item MENU. The children's "Happy Meal " becomes the "UNHAPPY meal " at $10 instead of $5, with millions FEWER BOUGHT. Further, it ignites individual store owners operating on razor thin, fast food margins to replace high paid labor behind the frylator with a robot and the counter person with a self service I -pad like touch screen for ordering as fast as possible. The speed and intensity at which labor is sought to be removed is directly proportional to its impact on profits. The only question is will union honchos like Diana Lacey ever see the logic before unions truly become extinct.
Tony Boutin

Last Updated on Wednesday, 04 September 2013 10:15

Hits: 855

Pat Buchanan - 'No' to attacking Syria to save Obama's face

"Catastrophic!" said Sen. John McCain. If Congress votes "no" on a resolution calling for U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war, says McCain, it would be "catastrophic" for U.S. credibility in the world.

Consider what the senator is saying here. Because Barack Obama, two years ago, said "Assad must go," and, one year ago, said any use of chemical weapons crosses his "red line," Congress has no choice but to plunge America into yet another Mideast war.

Can this be? Are we really, as a nation, required to go to war to make good the simple-minded statements of an untutored president who had no constitutional authority to issue his impulsive ultimata?

Are we really required to go to war to get the egg off Obama's face?

Not since the War of Jenkins' Ear has there been a dumber cause for a great country to go to war. Is there no way out?

There is, and it's right in front of us.

The House, Senate or both can vote "no" on the war resolution and Obama can then say, as did David Cameron, that, while he disagrees, he respects the decision of a Congress in which the Constitution placed sole authority to authorize America's going to war.

Are Brits now crying "catastrophe!"? Do the Spanish no longer think the Brits will defend Gibraltar? Is Britain now wholly non-credible to the world?

For Obama, and for us, it is the other options that invite catastrophe.

If, for example, the House or Senate votes down the war resolution and Obama, without authorization from Congress, the Security Council, NATO or the Arab League plunges us into a new war this nation does not want to fight, he will be courting a geostrategic and political disaster.

Even if Congress approves a war resolution, the president should think long and hard about diving into a war he sought to avoid and stayed out of for over two years. Make no mistake; if Obama attacks Syria, be it for hours or days, we are in that blood-soaked abattoir for the duration.

In his dramatic statement Saturday, as politically astute as it was constitutionally correct, Obama called Syria "someone else's war."

Whose war? It is Shia Alawite vs. Sunni, Muslim vs. Christian, Kurd vs. Arab, Islamist vs. secularist. Backing Bashar Assad are Iran, Hezbollah and Russia.

Backing the rebels are Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, al-Qaida, foreign jihadists and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Assad is accused of killing 100,00 people. But that is the total of the dead in a civil war Assad has as much right to fight as the rebels. While his army is accused of using gas on civilians, the Islamist rebels have murdered Christians, massacred captives and engaged in public acts of cannibalism on dead Syrian soldiers.

Gas is a sickening weapon. Yet, there is no evidence thus far that Assad ordered its use. Rebel elements are said to have been found with sarin. As for Americans who tend to prefer white phosphorus, napalm and cluster bombs, upon what lofty moral ground do we stand?

Have we forgotten that Churchill wanted to drop anthrax on Germany and settled for two days of firebombing the defenseless city of Dresden? Or that our great friend Anwar Sadat was the confidante of Gamal Abdel Nasser when Egypt was using poison gas on Yemeni tribesmen?

The United States does not have any national security interest in Syria's war. Why would we then launch missile attacks to "degrade" Assad's military, when that army and air force are all that stands between us and a privileged sanctuary for al-Qaida in northern Syria, not unlike what al-Qaida had in Tora Bora and Waziristan.

We are told that if we do not strike Syria — making good on Obama's threats — Israel, Turkey and even Japan and South Korea will not be able to trust us ever again.

What nonsense. We have treaties with Japan and South Korea. As for Turkey and Israel, if what is happening in Syria is outrageous and dangerous, why do they not act? Why do they keep tugging at our sleeve?

The Israeli Air force is five minutes from Damascus, its army a two-day march. The Turks have three times Syria's population and a 400,000-man army equipped with NATO weapons. Together, they could invade and turn the tide in a week. Why do they not man up?

McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham came out of the Oval Office saying Obama was open to wider strikes on Syria and more lethal support for the rebels. As Iran, Hezbollah and Russia would then upgrade their own weapons shipments to Damascus, this will mean more dead, more wounded, more tens of thousands fleeing into exile and a longer war.

But what it will likely end with, after America is dragooned in, is a U.S. war with Iran; our allies, sitting in their box seats, cheering us on.

And that is the dog you will not hear bark in the war-on-Syria debate.

(Syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan has been a senior advisor to three presidents, twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000. He won the New Hampshire Republican Primary in 1996.)

Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00

Hits: 732

The Laconia Daily Sun - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy
Powered by BENN a division of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Login or Register