To The Daily Sun,
Laconia has a great tradition in the annals of New Hampshire high school football. We have fielded some outstanding championship teams over the years. I can remember playing for Franklin during the 1950s; Laconia was the culmination or our senior year because that was the only game in our career that we would play under the lights.
Laconia, now has a state of the art arena in which are teams can play and, coincidentally, a tremendous area in which to view the festivities.
I love the sport of football as do many of the people in the area. We will be able to see approximately seven games a year played there, assuming we get into the playoffs every year. I would like to suggest that the Laconia School Board seek to enter negotiations with the Gilford School Board and then ask the scheduling committee to arrange a schedule whereby the two schools could share a field to their mutual advantage. If the Giants and the Jets can share and arena, it shouldn't be to much of a problem for Laconia and Gilford to do the same. Giford needs a new field, and Laconia has a new field. Laconia and Gilford can negotiate a contract fair and equitable to both sides for the use of the field. If they could come together in two agreements on the business park, this should not be to difficult.
Roland L. Maheu
Last Updated on Wednesday, 07 August 2013 10:03
To The Daily Sun,
Ariel Castro has been sentenced by an Ohio court to life imprisonment plus 1,000 years without parole based on 937 criminal charges occurring over a period of a decade. These charges include kidnapping, imprisonment, assault, and rape perpetuated upon three young women, Michelle Knight, Gina De Jesus and Amanda Berry. But it is two counts of AGGRAVATED MURDER that forced Mr. Castro to accept a plea bargain and plead guilty to ALL charges in order to avoid a possible death sentence. These charges were based on Castro's purposeful assaults on a pregnant Michelle Knight, forcing her to suffer at least two miscarriages.
Please note that the unborn children carried by Michelle in these two instances had to be recognized as living human beings in order for the two murder charges to be valid. In principle, this clashes directly with the landmark 1973 Supreme Court rulings in Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton that dehumanized and rejected the personhood and right to life of the unborn. Murder cannot be charged for a lethal assault on a blob of tissue that has no legal claim to personhood or right to life. By these case law precedents, the Roe and Doe Court also removed the legal protection for a woman's right to CHOOSE to carry her pregnancy up to the birth of a live child. Before unborn victims of violence legislation was passed on the federal level in 2004 (by Congress on the fourth try, valid within federal jurisdiction, including the military) and before similar legislation was passed in some individual states, the perpetrator of an attack on a mother that harmed or terminated the life of an unborn child was NOT held legally culpable for the harm to or the demise of the unborn. This caused a number of grossly unjust rulings by various courts when assaults were made on pregnant women that resulted in the deaths of their unborn children. In these cases the perpetrators were held culpable for harming or killing the mother but not in any way held responsible or culpable for the demise of her unborn. The mothers in these cases had no right by law (Supreme Court case law) to legal protection to carry their unborn children to birth because the unborn had been dehumanized and granted no right to life by the precedents of Roe and Doe.
The charges in Ariel Castro's case, however, were made possible by way of an Ohio statute (not case law) dealing with unborn victims of violence which, in part, states that the killing by assault at ANY STATE of pre-natal development of an unborn member of the species Homo Sapiens carried in the womb is AGGRAVATED MURDER. The statute also provides for varying degrees of charges for different circumstances resulting in harm or death to the unborn. The state of Ohio recognizes that it is not anyone's right to terminate a woman's pregnancy against her will and the perpetrator is held criminally culpable as if he had done the same to a living, breathing person.
There are still a number of states that do not provide ANY statutory protection for a woman's CHOICE to carry her pregnancy to birth. In these states, the dehumanizing case law precedents of Roe and Doe prevail and no culpability and punishment can be applied to the perpetrator for harming or killing the unborn.
There has been an ongoing battle to secure justice for wanted unborn children who have been harmed or killed against the mother's will. Many hardline pro-abortion forces have fought tenaciously to prevent the slightest encroachment into the edicts of Roe and Doe that support denial of the right to life for the unborn. These forces include presidents such as Clinton and Obama, liberal federal, state and local politicians, and numerous pro-choice organizations, notably Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. Their actions to prevent the enactment of the various unborn victims of violence acts are quite revealing.
There is a long list of assaults on pregnant women resulting in death to their unborn. Many of the perpetrators have tried to escape culpability by appealing the convictions for these acts, seeking immunity in the courts by arguing the non-human, non-right to life principles of Roe and Doe. All of these appeals to date have been dismissed. In the states that do not have protective statutes, the principles of Roe and Doe prevail and there is no way to hold the perpetrator culpable. Does a pregnant women represent one life or two? This saga with examples is for another letter!
Last Updated on Wednesday, 07 August 2013 09:54
To The Daily Sun,
I would like to thank everyone that came out to support my Eagle Scout project by attending my spaghetti dinner held on July 31st. The total made from the dinner was enough to complete the project of rebuilding the fire warning sign. I had a lot of help from family and friends — especially from my scout troop, so I would also like to thank them.
Last Updated on Tuesday, 06 August 2013 09:41
To The Daily Sun,
Over the past several weeks there have been many letters filled with speculation and conjecture regarding events leading up to the death of Trayvon Martin. The issue that is common in most, is race, and the role it may or may not have played. A refreshing letter from Mr. Andrew Engler says it best when he writes that, "I was not there for the confrontation that night so really have no business in determining what happened ... a jury heard the evidence and came to a conclusion. They were far more qualified to do so than are you and I."
Despite all the rhetoric, the only individual who knows if race was a motivating factor is George Zimmerman.
In referencing this tragic event, Mr. Ewing makes a dramatic sweeping generalization that the "incident revealed corruption of our media" — I'm sure he's including Fox News and other conservative media in that condemnation. But rather than defending the Stand Your Ground law or discussing the verdict of the jury, it's unfortunate instead that he went after the victim, portraying him as a doped-up hallucinatory career criminal who probably had it coming.
Medical examiners found THC, an ingredient in marijuana, when they tested Martin's blood and urine, but the amount was of such a low level that it would have played no role in his behavior the night he was killed. The level described can be seen days after somebody smokes. Ultimately, whether Martin was a perfect person or not is irrelevant to whether Zimmerman's conduct that night was justified. Clearly, there are two different versions of the events that transpired on February 26th, the night Martin was killed.
To be "fair and balanced" shouldn't Mr. Ewing have provided us with the relative background on George Zimmerman? His criminal records reveal that he does not have a clean past and has several brushes with the law. Records seem to indicate that he does have an aggressive personality. In 2005 Zimmerman was arrested and charged with "resisting officer with violence" and battery of law enforcement officer." Both of these felonies are considered third degree. Due to his desperate attempts, and possibly the fact that his father was an Orange County magistrate judge, the charges were reduced to "resisting officer without violence and the remaining charge was waived when he entered an alcohol education program. Again in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiancé was granted a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Prior to the events of February 26th, Zimmerman's neighbors complained about his aggressive tactics to the local police and the homeowners association. In police interviews, acquaintances of Zimmerman described him as a racist and very confrontational.
Who had the right to stand their ground — Martin or Zimmerman? The Florida Stand Your Ground law is a murky mess at best, which will hopefully lead people to start thinking and reevaluating. With this having been said, it risks a change in the law, and the NRA simply cannot have a defeat to their agenda of extending the scope of the Second Amendment. Political influence is what's most important — to hell with innocent victims.
L. J. Siden
Last Updated on Tuesday, 06 August 2013 09:37
To The Daily Sun,
The origin of the assertion "There's a sucker born every minute" is disputed, but there's no disputing the fact that it applies to today's young adults. Call them Generation Y, Global Generation, or Net Gen, but know that they are the Sucker Generation. Government con men and Baby Boomers — who loudly profess to be looking out for their interests — are taking the kids to the cleaners.
By the time enough members of Generation Y start asking "Why us?" the con game will have run its course. The greatest inter-generational theft in history will have left them indentured servants to the past, with a future circumscribed by decisions made long before they had a vote. Ironically, surveys show this generation largely supports the progressive policies that will limit their lives. To avoid playing the part of patsy, New Hampshire's youth need to understand what's being done to them and by whom. They then need to start voting from enlightened self-interest, not youthful idealism.
Across the country governments at every level, in cahoots with public-sector unions, have amassed unfathomable debts in a vicious cycle of quid pro quo. In exchange for votes and financial support, they made promises to pay unionized workers wages, benefits, and retirement packages that far out-strip the ability of current taxpayers to manage. To avoid alienating those taxpayers in their bid for union support, elected representatives hid the true costs of their promises, chronically underfunding the debt obligations and pushing the day of reckoning beyond voters' attention spans. But the free-lunch mentality is finally giving way to reality as the bills come due. Witness Detroit to see the future for us all.
Detroit's financial woes have been long in coming and are now widely reported. The city owes more in public pension and bond obligations than it can ever hope to repay. Across decades city leaders failed to live up to their most basic municipal duties. Other cities — and some states — are not that far behind and soon their stories will make headlines. But why should the Granite State's 20-somethings care? Because inevitably, and underhandedly, those debts will be transferred to them.
In an egregious case of "taxation without representation," New Hampshire's young adults will pay for poor decisions made in places where they had no vote. Money that would otherwise fund their schools, their roads, their communities — or their own family's necessities — will instead bail out municipal pensioners who will make more in retirement than they will after decades in the workforce. Their earnings will be spent to rescue residents of Detroit, Oakland, Chicago, and a dozen other cities whose budgets have been built on unsustainable borrowing.
It gets worse: In addition to municipal insolvencies, costly and underfunded federal health care and entitlement programs will pull even more money from their future to fund obligations from the past. The generation that once rallied to "Don't trust anyone over 30" and railed against the power of "The Man" now acts the part. While holding most of the nation's political power and wealth they show little regard for Gen Y, except as a source of revenue. Gen Y will pay to maintain programs today that won't be there for them tomorrow.
It's not youthful innocence that enables the Boomers to run this scam, it is ignorance. For that, you can thank a public school system that infamously and inexcusably has been handing diplomas to functional illiterates who fail to achieve proficiency in math, history, and civics. Too many don't understand the fundamental truths of the governmental and economic systems in which they live. They don't know what's being done to them, and the people who should be passing on this knowledge have little incentive to do so — and a lot of self-interest in failing to do it.
If they're going to save their futures from a rapacious past, today's 20-somethings need to get their heads in the game and act fast. While adopting the slogan, "Don't trust anyone over 60!" might be extreme, the gap in generational priorities and perspectives is as great today as it was nearly 50 years ago.
Last Updated on Tuesday, 06 August 2013 09:30