A+ A A-

Belknap Convention seems poised to vote for expanding govt.

To the editor,
Nowhere in the report of Michael Kitch on the Belknap County meeting of Tuesday, May 21, was there mention of Colette Worsman's excellent rebuttal to false reports which have recently appeared in The Sun at the instigation of the Belknap commissioners. Curious, since until now Mr. Kitch has been so even-handed in his reportorial style.
As to the main event, one is left with the surmise that liberals are correct when they challenge alleged conservatives on their motivation to limit expenditures. Conservatives frequently use the refuge that they are guided by economic principles but that seems not to be the case with the Belknap Convention, which appears poised to vote for an expansion of government. The concept of reaping profit from an expansion of services that are more legitimately the function of the private sector is not one based upon a political philosophy nor even upon economic analysis.
The underling assumptions by the Belknap staff which were offered to the convention are arbitrary and not reducible to bedrock numbers. To see liberals and conservatives unite behind them in service to the growth of government is less than appetizing.
Rep. Dick Burchell
Belknap 5
(Editor's note: Try as he might, it is not always possible for Mr. Kitch to commit everything to writing in the time allowed between the end of a given meeting and his deadline here at The Sun. Some things just have to wait. His report on matter referred to in Rep. Burchell's first paragraph is in today's paper.)

Last Updated on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 11:37

Hits: 332

Give up on SB-2 for Sanbornton? Sorry Monitor, it's not happening

To the editor,
Regarding the editorial in the Concord Monitor suggesting that everyone just give up trying to get SB-2 accepted in Sanbornton — I feel that I must protest. The gist of the editorial is that after 13 years of being on the ballot, SB-2 has not been chosen, proponents of SB-2 should back off.
To quote them, "Our advice to them: Give it a rest." The real message is..."You have been defeated, so enough already — give up, put your tail between legs, slink away and don't bother bringing it up again.
Ironically, town meeting is supposed to represent old fashioned values and community. And yet the Monitor's suggestion is the very antithesis of good fellowship and good sportsmanship i.e.; being good winners and good losers. While offering a back-handed olive branch by suggesting that Sanbornton tailor the meeting to meet the needs of additional participants, the "in your face" implication almost suggests that the Monitor might have some sort of ax to grind!  Odd since they are the CONCORD Monitor. At any rate, they are certainly NOT appearing to be a good winner, are they?
"They won — you lost — so go home and don't bother ever trying again because your defeat is a "done deal" — quite the poignant message to send out to people striving for change. Unfortunately, it is also a posture that is usually associated with bullies and dictators. I don't know about you, but the very idea of a defeatist mentality makes me sick. It wasn't the way I was raised and it certainly isn't the way I think living in a free country should be. And it is certainly not an acceptable concept to teach our younger generations.
In another op-ed piece I mentioned the likes of Nazi Germany and communist countries everywhere — where free speech was curtailed and (even with the Borg in Star Trek), all efforts to resist are considered futile. But consider what might have happened if defeat had been regarded as a fait du complet during the great wars of our time — the Revolution, the Civil War, WWI an WWII. We probably would all be speaking with British accents — or worse — we wouldn't be speaking any form of English at all!
The saying goes — If you don't succeed, Try, try again. The Monitor's message spin on it? If you don't succeed — just give up! Hopefully anyone working towards change in Sanbornton, or anywhere else, has enough intelligence and good sense as to NOT pay any attention to such drivel.
Give up? Sorry — not gonna happen!
T.K. Whalen

Last Updated on Thursday, 23 May 2013 10:56

Hits: 378

864 voted on election day; 147 showed up for town meeting

To the editor,
Reading The Sanbornton Town Meeting Minutes, which can be found on the town website, you will note that of the two hand votes taken at the meeting; 147 people voted on one article and 120 on another. What a democratic process — 120-147 people voting out of 2,178 registered voters, I can't believe that anyone would in good conscience favor such a poor response when SB-2 would have brought out many more voters
On election day 864 people voted, and whatever the outcome they were able to vote on election day from 7 AM-7 PM. To bad the other 724 voters who showed up on Election Day couldn't make it to the Town Meeting.
Bill Whalen

Last Updated on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 11:23

Hits: 378

Froma Harrop - Oklahoma!

The world looked upon the tornado-flattened landscape of Moore, Okla., with awe. The destruction was shocking, as were the personal losses. Many Americans in the audience also felt — and this must be said — some comfort. Here was a country of strong people rolling with some very serious punches. It still exists.
On CNN, BBC or wherever, one heard plainspoken voices describing their ordeal with natural stoicism. These were victims (a word they might not apply to themselves) standing in front of the trash piles that were their houses. Some were bearing the death of loved ones, including nine schoolchildren. They spoke calmly of what happened and what they must do next.
In the world of TV coverage, miles of devastated streetscapes make for arresting visuals. For this viewer, seeing Oklahomans discuss the monstrous funnel's rampage in a straightforward manner, only choking up at the end, was far more moving than a sensational telling drenched in passion.
But did that fit into the prewritten script that TV news follows in a disaster?
The camera does not love quiet forbearance. The script calls for wailing victims. And there must be heroes.
In this calamity, there was no shortage of brave people, putting themselves in danger to save others. Reporters found them easily and asked the stock question: "Do you consider yourself a hero?"
It's rare that anyone will come out and say, "Yes, I'm a hero." But there are ways to imply it. You often hear, sometimes with false modesty, "Anyone would have done what I did." Television likes that. But when the Oklahomans were asked whether they considered themselves heroes, they were more likely to brush off the question or answer in a flat "nope."
We glued to screens vividly recall the memorable moments when CNN's Wolf Blitzer prompted a young mother to describe her close escape. Standing beside the exposed carpet of her wrecked house, Rebecca Vitsmun related in a matter-of-fact way how, when she saw the tornado heading her way, she grabbed her baby and made a run for it.
Vitsmun smiled through the entire interview, and so did the toddler. No tears. No moaning about how everything her family owned is lost. No mention of irreplaceable heirlooms smashed to bits. Hers was a harrowing story delivered matter-of-factly.
Almost in a fit of frustration for drama, Blitzer gives the woman her cue. "You've gotta thank the Lord, right? Do you thank the Lord for that split-second decision?" The script says that people in the heartland are prone to publicly thank the Lord with great emotion.
Showing considerable patience, the woman answers, "I — I'm actually an atheist."
Taken aback, Blitzer says: "Oh, you are? All right."
Vitsmun then responds with perfect grace, "We are here, and I don't blame anybody for thanking the Lord."
Tornado alley is a special kind of danger zone. When flooding is expected, people can move to high ground. There is no obvious place to flee in Tornado Alley. When the warning comes, it's often just a few minutes' worth. And any structure could be a bowling pin about to be knocked down.
A tornado is terrifying to look at, its freight-train roar horrifying. Coastal Americans visiting Kansas City take special notice of the "tornado shelter" signs in tall buildings. "We know we live in Tornado Alley," many interviewees said with resignation. And they're staying in Tornado Alley.
Most of the world has never been to Oklahoma. What it knows about Oklahoma may have come from the musical "Oklahoma!"
Note the exclamation point in the title. People in Oklahoma don't talk in exclamation marks, and that's all the more reason to keep it.
(A member of the Providence Journal editorial board, Froma Harrop writes a nationally syndicated column from that city. She has written for such diverse publications as The New York Times, Harper's Bazaar and Institutional Investor.)

Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00

Hits: 307

The organization is a reflection of the boss & that man is Obama

To the editor,
As I watched the Obama administration spokespeople on the Sunday morning talk shows, I couldn't help but wonder why they believed the Sergeant Schultz reply of "I know nothing" would absolve the president and his department managers of their culpability in the Internal Revenue Service scandal. If anything, that answer only makes matters worse.
The essence of management is to prevent things from happening, that you don't want to happen. For the president, or his appointed managers, to now say they need to ensure that these things don't happen again, begs the question. Common sense management would have put in place procedures to prevent these failures in the first place.
Workers want to please their bosses. That's human nature. By pleasing the boss, they can retain their job, perhaps get a raise in salary, or maybe receive a promotion or some other recognition or reward. Don't please the boss, and suffer the consequences of failure. Keep that in mind when you think of the administration's public reaction to the Supreme Court's decision, labeled Citizens United. That ruling struck down restrictions in the commonly called McCain-Feingold act which prevented corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures to political campaigns.
The Obama administration railed against this ruling, essentially claiming that it would allow businesses to unfairly fund Republicans running for elected office. However, if one looks at the amounts of money each candidate collected, such was not the case. On a head to head basis, the Federal Election Commission, the New York Times, and the Washington Post all show that President Obama raised over $250 million more than did Governor Romney. Overall, Republicans and Democrats raised about $1.2 billion each. Because of their extended primary period, and multiple candidates seeking the nomination, much of the Republican contributions were siphoned off into the primary period.
In spite of the fact that there was not a significant difference in overall contributions, the Obama claims of an unfair advantage to the Republicans, because of the Citizens United ruling, in all probability stimulated followers in the Internal Revenue Service to do what they could to stifle organizations that were likely to be opposed to Obama.
Anyone with some modicum of management experience would have taken steps to ensure that political preferences would not override the essence of the Supreme Court's ruling. For managers within the IRS, the Treasury Department, the president, and his staff, to feign outrage over not knowing of the outrageous conditions that were imposed by the IRS on the "right leaning", Not for profit corporations, is absurd.
Can you imagine a corporate CEO telling his/her shareholder's that he/she didn't know his people were breaking the law and no one in the entire chain of command knew anything about it? If that were the case, a rapid change of management would take place.
The organization is a reflection of the boss, of the boss, of the boss. Workers do their best to satisfy the boss and they look for the recognition they earned in doing so. For people to pretend that the workers stifled the "right leaning" Not for profits, and did not make their bosses aware of those achievements, defies credulity.
To accept the unacceptable will stimulate its growth.
Bob Meade

Last Updated on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 12:07

Hits: 372

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

Login or Register