A+ A A-

So where is that 76 acres of floodwater supposed to go now?

To the editor,
I'm watching the "progress" on Tenney Mountain highway bank and fast food restaurant relocation construction. So let me get this right — with recommendation of the Plymouth Planning Board, the Town of Plymouth voted to fill in (raise above flood stage) an additional 76 acres of flood plain, effectively removing 76 acres from the flood plain.
So now where will this 76 acres of floodwater go? I suppose the next big Baker River flood we can blame on global warming and not on the fact that we are filling in the flood plain.
David Lorman
Plymouth

Last Updated on Thursday, 23 May 2013 12:00

Hits: 387

We're stuck in Victorian mind set, wanting tourists to pay our bills

To the editor,
The N.H. House voted down the casino bill last week giving as a reason that it would ruin the "New Hampshire Advantage". This is always brought up during public policy debates. Coined by a former governor of N.H., Steve Merrill (1993-1997), it means different things to different people. Most commonly, it refers to the state's business climate; lack of a sales or income tax; quality of life and a large citizen legislature, which I take it to mean that we here in New Hampshire like to take our time in deciding things!
I have a different take on the N.H. Advantage. We rank second only behind Maryland in the average median household income and second only to New Jersey in property taxes as a percentage of home value. This tells me one thing. We're stuck in a Victorian mind set where we want the tourists to pay all our bills.
In recent studies, the N.H. Advantage begins to dim a bit. Massachusetts added 41,000 jobs last year and Vermont added 3,000. By comparison, N.H. lost 2,000. An even more startling economic indicator is that the population growth is also slowing down. Thanks to the University of New Hampshire's high in-state tuition rate, we are easily one of the top three most expensive states to raise children.
Being a chess player, my next question to those purists who don't want a casino or income tax — what's your next gigantic move?
George Maloof
Plymouth

Last Updated on Thursday, 23 May 2013 11:46

Hits: 426

You say scare tactics? I will tell you what scary really looks like

To the editor,
In response to L. J. Sidens remarks in The Daily Sun, dated Wednesday, May 15:
I respond to you as kindly as I know how. I kept thinking as I read your comments that the thoughts you have about Fox News, conservatives ET. Al. is the same thoughts I have about the main stream media, such as MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, etc. You say Fox News, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes are not fair and balanced. You say, "They are quick to break any rumor, opinion, half-truth, distortion or lie as hard news." How about the media, hoping and intimating that the Boston bombing was done by a white supremacist or was a right wing person. How about the media trying to accuse conservative talk shows for the Gaby Gifford shooting and the Sandy Hook horror even before the facts were in. Please sir, would you please give me an example of this distortion of truth on the part of Fox News. It is one thing to make an accusation it is another to give proof of this criticism.
Proof of MSNBC's, etc. bias is that they did not cover Dr. Gosnel's abortion clinic trial and murder to which he received a lifetime prison sentence. I have heard Chris Matthews accuse conservatives' citizens as bigots, biased homophobes and racists; especially if we don't agree with Obama, and they accuse us only because we have conservative beliefs. That is so not true. We are NOT racist; we wholeheartedly disagree with President Obama's socialist form of government and his drastically changing our American way of life away from our Founding Fathers' and the Constitution. True many programs are in need of changing and revamping but not the socialist/communist way.
Chris Matthews constantly sings the praises of Barack Obama. You say of Fox "it's a megaphone for right wing propaganda". NO, it is the only news media allowing the conservative point of view. The liberal view is spread in all the other many channels. They get their talking points from the N.Y. Times. Fox does not spiel out propaganda. It is TRUTH. If they broadcast untruths about what is going on please, sir, tell me what it is. They do give the conservative point of view admittedly, but they give the opposite point of view as well. As I said they have Bob Beckel, Allan Coombs, Juan Williams, and others. When they have a Republican Senator to give their point of view or advocate a bill in question they also have a Democrat politician giving his or her opposition. That is fair and balanced. Please tell me the conservatives, I mean smart savvy Republicans rebutting the Democrat's point of view on MSNBC, ET. AL. Please the next time you make accusations of Fox News and its leadership gives examples.
I am so sorry that you are of the opinion that we use scare tactics by bringing God into the dynamics of news of what is happening today. God is so loving, kind and as I said patient. You apparently have not read the Old Testament where God's judgment is constantly mentioned by the disobedience of His people and their turning away from His commandments and precepts.
Of course you are going to call me a Bible thumper and yes I am. I am proud of it. I do believe that the Bible is God's Word and it is His instruction to us. Read it sir; it is very instructional and the way to follow. And yes, read the New Testament giving us the way of redemption for the human race through the sacrificial Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. If I am narrow, so be it. Here are the words of Jesus "I am the way the truth and the life. No man comes unto the Father but by me". King Jesus said that. If it is too narrow for you, take it up with Him.
God has been so patient with his creation. For years and years, He has put up with disobedience and a turning away from His commandments and His way. Read "Mere Christianity". The author C.S. Lewis was an atheist and he was so much so he said he was going to prove the Bible false. He proceeded to study it in a scholarly fashion. After which, he became an ardent Christian and one of the strongest proponents of Christianity today. "Mere Christianity", "Screwtape letters", "Joy" and his other books are truly classics.
You say the conservatives rely on scare tactics. Sir, I will tell you what scary is. I will tell you scare tactics by the left.
1. What is scarier than murdering innocent babies and leaving them to die on a table or flushing them down the toilet or drowning them in toxic liquid? That is darn right cruel and horrendous and more than scary. What kind of person is it who could do or allow such a thing and then use real baby's feet as a relic for his desk.
2. What is so very scary is targeting applicants to the IRS who are conservatives and a government denying them or making them wait an abnormal amount of time to become tax exempt because of their beliefs and asking inappropriate, and an inordinate amount of questions in order to become tax exempt. That is not a mistake that is tyranny.
3. What is scarier than the director of this Tax Exempt Department at the IRS, Sarah Ingram becoming the director of Obamacare. She will be in charge of our medical needs and procedures. Can we trust her to give conservatives or the elderly good medical care when needed? I don't think so and proof is the unscrupulous targeting of Tea Party folks and Christian organizations for non-tax exempt status. More tyranny. Obamacare MUST be repealed.
4. What is dreadfully scary is a government who won't give American citizens cover or protection when they are under attack in other lands as in the Benghazi murders because they didn't want America to think that terrorism is alive and still viable and who wanted to win an election. That sir is scary. Obama's election superseded any concern for the lives of these dedicated servants to America.
5. What is also scary is a political party that voted to take God out of their platform, I think three times.
So what are you saying? That government should reign supreme in the lives of people over and against our Creator who loves us so much He sent His son to die for us so we can have eternal life. Not only eternal life, but guidance in this world we live in. I choose The GOD of the Bible and His Salvation in a nano minute. That is not scary sir, that is the safest and the most common sense way for a person and or a country to live by. God bless the USA.
Florence Shealy
Laconia

Last Updated on Thursday, 23 May 2013 11:27

Hits: 322

'It wasn't me." There, that was easy to say. Now you try it.

To the editor,
With all of the recent scandals involving the Obama's administration, they seem to be taking the "Shaggy" defense. The singer Shaggy released a song called "It wasn't me". The words tell of a person cheating and being caught. His friend advises him to state "It wasn't me".
Hillary Clinton's answer to a question on Benghazi "what difference does it make" could have been followed with "It wasn't me".
President Obama knows nothing about any of the scandals so he is correct when he states, "It wasn't me". After all, he is only the president and he has to keep track of his tee times.
On to Ms Lerner, a top IRS official, who elected to not answer any questions from Congress and has invoked the Fifth Amendment. My advice to Ms Lerner is to drink a fifth and state "It wasn't me".
Jay Carney, press secretary for President Obama, is "clueless" and changes stories on a daily basis. One thing he knows is "It wasn't me".
Eric Holder, attorney general, has invoked the "Shaggy Defense" several times. In the "Fast and Furious" scandal and the seizure of AP records and others.
Of all of the scandals, the most serious is Benghazi because four brave Americans died and we do not know what happened eight months later. It is outrageous that President Obama called Benghazi a "sideshow". Recently, Howard Dean, one of the top Democratic Party leaders called Benghazi "laughable".
With everyone in the Obama administration declaring "It wasn't me", I can only conclude that it is President Bush's fault.
Jim Mayotte
Sanbornton

Last Updated on Thursday, 23 May 2013 11:20

Hits: 313

Some people choose to accept whatever evil happens to them

To the editor,
Dear Bernadette Loesch:
Apparently three times is the charm as I finally noticed your letter in Saturday's Laconia Daily Sun. I regret not seeing your earlier letters.
Your letter of April 26 asks, "why (do) ordinary, law abiding people need to own or be able to use high powered, lethal weapons?" In America the poor, weak, un-famous, and politically unconnected have the same right to life as rich, powerful, famous, and politically connected people.
Law abiding people need guns because governments don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Our right to life includes our right to protect ourselves and other innocent lives from criminals. That requires guns with enough bullets. The police will rarely arrive in time to protect you. As the NRA correctly states, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.
I am not aware of any low powered, lethal weapons. If something is lethal, it is high powered enough. Neither of us is going to care if we are killed with a 22, a 50 cal. Barrett's, or a 30 cal. machine gun, we'll be just as dead. I prefer that potential murderers, and other criminals, are detoured by knowing that they may be seriously harmed by a potential victim.
As I discussed on my letter of May 17, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow citizens as a last resort to protect themselves from an oppressive government (this is so hard for us to imagine, yet many citizens felt the same way even as they were being carted off to their deaths).
As free citizens we have a right to own and use weapons for whatever lawful purposes we want. Along with that freedom goes responsibility for their safe use.
Your letter of May 11 asks "why people ... need to arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction." You continue with "why people need high power weaponry" implying that "high power weaponry" (assuming you mean guns) are "weapons of mass destruction". This is not the case. "Weapons of mass destruction" typically means chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons. I don't recall anyone advocating individual ownership of weapons of mass destruction.
Guns of various sizes and capabilities are used for hunting, target shooting, defense and other lawful purposes. For most activities people know what they need. But people are usually surprised when they need a gun for defense; attackers rarely pre-announce their intentions. A successful defense requires fast enough access to your gun and enough bullets. Fortunately, many crimes are prevented by displaying a gun and without firing a shot. I wish more people were able to defend themselves.
Hopefully I have answered your questions. I suggest that you and others who are not familiar with guns talk to people who know guns or go to a shooting range and get some instruction.
Guns are tools that can be used for good or evil. There will always be evil whether we want to believe it or not. The question is whether people face the world as it is or live in a fantasy world. I accept that some rational, knowledgeable people decide to just accept whatever evil happens to them. But, I am saddened that many thousands become robbery, rape, and murder victims out of ignorance, an irrational fear of guns, or legal restrictions such as the counter-productive "gun free zones" that are so often a major factor in mass killings and other crime.
Thank goodness that many people are prepared to defend themselves. Not only do they have that right, but the fact that so many people are prepared to defend themselves seems to be a major factor in the decline of violent crimes.
Don Ewing
Meredith

Last Updated on Thursday, 23 May 2013 11:15

Hits: 340

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

Login or Register

LOG IN