Mr. Leandro wants to use Engine 4 as his great claim to fame
To the editor,
First, I'd like to apologize to the people of Gilford for the back and forth between Mr. Leandro and myself regarding the repair of a 25-year-old fire engine. However, I can't let his illogical response to the residents of Gilford go without some logical, businesslike thinking.
Mr. Leandro is absolutely correct, the DPW folks who repaired Engine 4 are and will be paid whether Engine 4 was in for repairs or not. But when a logical businesslike thinker wants to find out the "real"/actual costs of those repairs, the cost of the DPW hours spent NEEDS to be included in that calculation. This is a realistic and strategic thought process that Mr. Leandro either fails to understand or does not want to present due to HIS original, incorrect, incredibly low, repair estimate. And, uniquely enough, Mr. Leandro has based his long time town concerns on neglect of town vehicles. I wonder how much other repair time was extended or wasted by spending 572 hours on one vehicle!
Unfortunately, as in his last rant, Mr. Leandro wants to use Engine 4 as his claim to fame! By his own words, Mr. Leandro taunts the Article 1 "yes" voters (59.99 percent out of 60 percent
needed) as he proudly emphasizes that "Gilford is not purchasing a new fire truck this year". So at this point, we now have a 25 year old fire engine which was repaired for over $72,000 in real costs that we'll need to try to keep in service for a number of years due to the excessive repair costs already invested. But the real question is what other "old truck" repair expenses will be realized over the next few years — another $20,000? Already, we took a gamble on Engine 4 and lost. Unfortunately, we're now extending our gamble. A good strategic move? I guess we'll see. . .
Mr. Leandro also taunts me about signing my letters using my title as Selectman. While, the media often automatically uses this title, I always use and declare "in my opinion" as I am only one of the Selectboard. I totally understand this and, as usual, I did use "I" throughout this letter. However, I do want to let the people of Gilford know that someone that's working for them is thinking logically, strategically, and businesslike. Perhaps I should sign my letter "logical thinker". But, I will again sign as. . John T. O'Brien
Gilford Selectman
First, I'd like to apologize to the people of Gilford for the back and forth between Mr. Leandro and myself regarding the repair of a 25-year-old fire engine. However, I can't let his illogical response to the residents of Gilford go without some logical, businesslike thinking.
Mr. Leandro is absolutely correct, the DPW folks who repaired Engine 4 are and will be paid whether Engine 4 was in for repairs or not. But when a logical businesslike thinker wants to find out the "real"/actual costs of those repairs, the cost of the DPW hours spent NEEDS to be included in that calculation. This is a realistic and strategic thought process that Mr. Leandro either fails to understand or does not want to present due to HIS original, incorrect, incredibly low, repair estimate. And, uniquely enough, Mr. Leandro has based his long time town concerns on neglect of town vehicles. I wonder how much other repair time was extended or wasted by spending 572 hours on one vehicle!
Unfortunately, as in his last rant, Mr. Leandro wants to use Engine 4 as his claim to fame! By his own words, Mr. Leandro taunts the Article 1 "yes" voters (59.99 percent out of 60 percent
needed) as he proudly emphasizes that "Gilford is not purchasing a new fire truck this year". So at this point, we now have a 25 year old fire engine which was repaired for over $72,000 in real costs that we'll need to try to keep in service for a number of years due to the excessive repair costs already invested. But the real question is what other "old truck" repair expenses will be realized over the next few years — another $20,000? Already, we took a gamble on Engine 4 and lost. Unfortunately, we're now extending our gamble. A good strategic move? I guess we'll see. . .
Mr. Leandro also taunts me about signing my letters using my title as Selectman. While, the media often automatically uses this title, I always use and declare "in my opinion" as I am only one of the Selectboard. I totally understand this and, as usual, I did use "I" throughout this letter. However, I do want to let the people of Gilford know that someone that's working for them is thinking logically, strategically, and businesslike. Perhaps I should sign my letter "logical thinker". But, I will again sign as. . John T. O'Brien
Gilford Selectman
Last Updated on Thursday, 21 February 2013 01:26
Hits: 156
Zero American deaths as U.S. embassies while Bush was president
To the editor,
This is in response to Ms./Mr. Siden's letter in the Feb. 14th issue of this newspaper. My comments do not pertain to her/his disagreement over my "What difference does it make . . ." column, I am content to let my words be contrast to whatever she/he writes. This letter deals with her/his closing paragraph which states, "Perhaps, in his next editorial, Mr. Meade will elaborate on the 12 attacks, the 56 killed and the 74 injured at United States facilities abroad during the previous administration; more than any administration in our history. Whereas, the present administrations has experienced three such attacks, and one of those was in a war zone."
Because of her/his inability to substantiate previous claims that she/he made, I decided to see if I could validate the source for the above statement. I Googled, "How many attacks on U. S. Embassies during the Bush administration". As expected, it brought forth a large number of responses, many of which were from left wing blogs. Here's a brief summary of some of them,
Media Matters (probably the left's favorite site) identified seven attacks during the tenure of George W. Bush, with no Americans killed.
Allvoices.com had a similar report but did not show the attack on the Israeli and American embassies in Uzbekistan. They did show a total of 29 people killed in six attacks, but none of those killed were Americans.
Other blogs seemed to have accepted and passed on unsubstantiated information from blogs, similar to what Ms./Mr. Siden claimed.
In the interest of finding some reliable source, I went into Wikipedia for their historical report on attacks on diplomatic missions. Their report listed attacks on diplomatic sites of all nations. For the (GWB) period involved, Wikipedia showed there were a total of eight attacks over the eight year period, with 12 deaths in the attack in Karachi, Pakistan in 2002, and two deaths in the Uzbekistan attack. It should be noted that, based on the Media Matters report, the deaths in Karachi and Uzbekistan were not Americans.
As to Ms./Mr. Siden's claim that there have been only three attacks during President Obama's time in office, Wikipedia listed seven attacks: 2011-Damascus, Syria, Kabul,Afghanistan, and Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, in 2012-Cairo, Egypt, Benghazi, Libya, and Sanaa, Yemen, and in 2013-Ankara, Turkey. There were four American deaths in the Benghazi attack.
Perhaps Ms./Mr. Siden can take a break from trying to make everything "Bush's fault".
Bob Meade
Laconia
This is in response to Ms./Mr. Siden's letter in the Feb. 14th issue of this newspaper. My comments do not pertain to her/his disagreement over my "What difference does it make . . ." column, I am content to let my words be contrast to whatever she/he writes. This letter deals with her/his closing paragraph which states, "Perhaps, in his next editorial, Mr. Meade will elaborate on the 12 attacks, the 56 killed and the 74 injured at United States facilities abroad during the previous administration; more than any administration in our history. Whereas, the present administrations has experienced three such attacks, and one of those was in a war zone."
Because of her/his inability to substantiate previous claims that she/he made, I decided to see if I could validate the source for the above statement. I Googled, "How many attacks on U. S. Embassies during the Bush administration". As expected, it brought forth a large number of responses, many of which were from left wing blogs. Here's a brief summary of some of them,
Media Matters (probably the left's favorite site) identified seven attacks during the tenure of George W. Bush, with no Americans killed.
Allvoices.com had a similar report but did not show the attack on the Israeli and American embassies in Uzbekistan. They did show a total of 29 people killed in six attacks, but none of those killed were Americans.
Other blogs seemed to have accepted and passed on unsubstantiated information from blogs, similar to what Ms./Mr. Siden claimed.
In the interest of finding some reliable source, I went into Wikipedia for their historical report on attacks on diplomatic missions. Their report listed attacks on diplomatic sites of all nations. For the (GWB) period involved, Wikipedia showed there were a total of eight attacks over the eight year period, with 12 deaths in the attack in Karachi, Pakistan in 2002, and two deaths in the Uzbekistan attack. It should be noted that, based on the Media Matters report, the deaths in Karachi and Uzbekistan were not Americans.
As to Ms./Mr. Siden's claim that there have been only three attacks during President Obama's time in office, Wikipedia listed seven attacks: 2011-Damascus, Syria, Kabul,Afghanistan, and Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, in 2012-Cairo, Egypt, Benghazi, Libya, and Sanaa, Yemen, and in 2013-Ankara, Turkey. There were four American deaths in the Benghazi attack.
Perhaps Ms./Mr. Siden can take a break from trying to make everything "Bush's fault".
Bob Meade
Laconia
Last Updated on Thursday, 21 February 2013 01:13
Hits: 466
Environmental power brokers most concerned with making $
To the editor,
This letter is in response to recent letters by Robert Moran and Dick Devens on "global warming". I was surprised that they even used that term since environmental alarmists have ceased using that term after finding out that the earth has been cooling for over a decade now. Robert asserts that "climate change" is neither natural or benign. I think we would all agree that it is not benign, but there are many who would be shocked to hear credible scientific professionals proclaim that climate change is not natural. Especially since there has been climate change as long as this planet has been in existence.
Robert goes on to say, "The consensus within the scientific community is clear and straightforward. Global warming is real, increasing, man made and dangerous". Wow, I wonder where he came up with that information? Toward the end of his "doom and gloom" scary letter, he informs us that ice is "receding in the northern and southern extremes of our planet".
What is really scary is that Mr. Moran sounds like an alarmist mouthpiece for Al Gore, Maurice Strong and James Hansen. Joe Bastardi, one of our most accurate meteorologists, has the facts and charts at http://patriotpost.us/opinion/15298, which shows that the earth has in fact been cooling for over 10 years now. He goes on to tell us that recent years have not given us the worst storms of this century. His graph shows us that the 1950s gave us more numerous and severe hurricanes.
I wonder if Mr. Moran thinks polar bears are becoming extinct as does, or did, Al Gore, who took the cue from the flawed analysis of Biologist Charles Monnett. Most scientists who have been keeping up with actual verifiable research, tell us that while there has been a recession of ice in the Arctic, there has been considerable growth in the Antarctic. As of September, 2012, there is a record 7.51 million square miles of frozen water. Even the Associated Press came out with this paradoxical article, "Experts: Global Warming Means More Antarctic Ice".
Dick Devens asserts that some poll taken shows that 8 percent of citizens are dismissive of global warming and are also the loudest segment. Is it any wonder? From the gang at East Anglia to the numerous myths in Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" flawed documentary, anthropogenic global warming is increasingly seen by more in the scientific community as a hoax. All concerned citizens want a clean, sustainable environment. However, if anyone thinks that the power brokers in the environmental movement are primarily concerned about a clean environment, then I've got some Solyndra stock you might want to purchase. They are getting rich off of our tax dollars with green technologies that are many decades away from being viable. Please check out Washington Post editorial writer, Charles Lanes' just released column about the awful waste of money that has been poured into the failed electric car industry. We are being hoodwinked folks as government continues to pick our pockets because it supposedly knows better how to spend our money. Once again, the facts are clear. It clearly does not. I would love to know where Robert and Dick came up with their information which appears to have been gleaned from 10 year old sources.
Russ Wiles
Tilton
This letter is in response to recent letters by Robert Moran and Dick Devens on "global warming". I was surprised that they even used that term since environmental alarmists have ceased using that term after finding out that the earth has been cooling for over a decade now. Robert asserts that "climate change" is neither natural or benign. I think we would all agree that it is not benign, but there are many who would be shocked to hear credible scientific professionals proclaim that climate change is not natural. Especially since there has been climate change as long as this planet has been in existence.
Robert goes on to say, "The consensus within the scientific community is clear and straightforward. Global warming is real, increasing, man made and dangerous". Wow, I wonder where he came up with that information? Toward the end of his "doom and gloom" scary letter, he informs us that ice is "receding in the northern and southern extremes of our planet".
What is really scary is that Mr. Moran sounds like an alarmist mouthpiece for Al Gore, Maurice Strong and James Hansen. Joe Bastardi, one of our most accurate meteorologists, has the facts and charts at http://patriotpost.us/opinion/15298, which shows that the earth has in fact been cooling for over 10 years now. He goes on to tell us that recent years have not given us the worst storms of this century. His graph shows us that the 1950s gave us more numerous and severe hurricanes.
I wonder if Mr. Moran thinks polar bears are becoming extinct as does, or did, Al Gore, who took the cue from the flawed analysis of Biologist Charles Monnett. Most scientists who have been keeping up with actual verifiable research, tell us that while there has been a recession of ice in the Arctic, there has been considerable growth in the Antarctic. As of September, 2012, there is a record 7.51 million square miles of frozen water. Even the Associated Press came out with this paradoxical article, "Experts: Global Warming Means More Antarctic Ice".
Dick Devens asserts that some poll taken shows that 8 percent of citizens are dismissive of global warming and are also the loudest segment. Is it any wonder? From the gang at East Anglia to the numerous myths in Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" flawed documentary, anthropogenic global warming is increasingly seen by more in the scientific community as a hoax. All concerned citizens want a clean, sustainable environment. However, if anyone thinks that the power brokers in the environmental movement are primarily concerned about a clean environment, then I've got some Solyndra stock you might want to purchase. They are getting rich off of our tax dollars with green technologies that are many decades away from being viable. Please check out Washington Post editorial writer, Charles Lanes' just released column about the awful waste of money that has been poured into the failed electric car industry. We are being hoodwinked folks as government continues to pick our pockets because it supposedly knows better how to spend our money. Once again, the facts are clear. It clearly does not. I would love to know where Robert and Dick came up with their information which appears to have been gleaned from 10 year old sources.
Russ Wiles
Tilton
Last Updated on Thursday, 21 February 2013 01:07
Hits: 38
Gilford will stay safe as loon as it's known we'll defend ourselves
To the editor,
I strongly suggest that everyone gets the easiest to use, smallest gun(s), learn how to best use it (or them), and stock enough ammunition to allow regular practice so use is well known, and it is known to be ready. Also post a notice at your door, and/or property entrance, that the occupants are armed and ready to defend themselves. Preparation is the best defense! My BB pistol is ready, but needs more regular practice (working on that). Dad's 22 rifle needs practice. Pepper spray should also be available, but needs more care in use. I recall that Dad's shotgun has a big kick back, but it too should be cleaned, tested, and ready.
I understand that Gilford is a relatively safe area, but it will stay that way only if it is well known that most homeowners are well prepared to defend themselves, so that such defense is never needed. At the Naval Academy I qualified as an expert with all the various guns we trained with, but that was 58 years ago. The best part of the Naval Academy was sailing their 44-foot yawls!
Jack Stephenson
Gilford
I strongly suggest that everyone gets the easiest to use, smallest gun(s), learn how to best use it (or them), and stock enough ammunition to allow regular practice so use is well known, and it is known to be ready. Also post a notice at your door, and/or property entrance, that the occupants are armed and ready to defend themselves. Preparation is the best defense! My BB pistol is ready, but needs more regular practice (working on that). Dad's 22 rifle needs practice. Pepper spray should also be available, but needs more care in use. I recall that Dad's shotgun has a big kick back, but it too should be cleaned, tested, and ready.
I understand that Gilford is a relatively safe area, but it will stay that way only if it is well known that most homeowners are well prepared to defend themselves, so that such defense is never needed. At the Naval Academy I qualified as an expert with all the various guns we trained with, but that was 58 years ago. The best part of the Naval Academy was sailing their 44-foot yawls!
Jack Stephenson
Gilford
Last Updated on Thursday, 21 February 2013 01:02
Hits: 40
Unfortunately, there will always be some people living in tents
To the editor,
Dear Adam Michalewicz:
There are homeless people in every town and city. They are homeless because they can't afford a place to live or because they are making choices that keep them from living in a home.
People who can't afford a home usually work to get back to a home, and they will ask Carey House or Laconia Housing and other housing programs to help them.
But the people who make choices that keep them from living in a home have other diseases or illnesses that don't help them. Mental health issues are the biggest reason for people living in tents year around.
All the agencies in the City of Laconia are aware of who is living in tents and why they are living that way. The police department checks on them and the other people living outside check on each other.
But sometimes there are people who will not do anything to change the way they live and will stay in tents year around.
We can help a homeless person who makes choices that keep them from living in a home by giving hope. Some of the people who were living in tents this year have moved to a home because they got that hope and there was space available.
Unfortunately there will always be some people who live in tents. Our job as a community is to do the best we can to respect their dignity and keep them safe.
Leonard Campbell
Belknap County Continuum of Care
Laconia
Dear Adam Michalewicz:
There are homeless people in every town and city. They are homeless because they can't afford a place to live or because they are making choices that keep them from living in a home.
People who can't afford a home usually work to get back to a home, and they will ask Carey House or Laconia Housing and other housing programs to help them.
But the people who make choices that keep them from living in a home have other diseases or illnesses that don't help them. Mental health issues are the biggest reason for people living in tents year around.
All the agencies in the City of Laconia are aware of who is living in tents and why they are living that way. The police department checks on them and the other people living outside check on each other.
But sometimes there are people who will not do anything to change the way they live and will stay in tents year around.
We can help a homeless person who makes choices that keep them from living in a home by giving hope. Some of the people who were living in tents this year have moved to a home because they got that hope and there was space available.
Unfortunately there will always be some people who live in tents. Our job as a community is to do the best we can to respect their dignity and keep them safe.
Leonard Campbell
Belknap County Continuum of Care
Laconia
Last Updated on Thursday, 21 February 2013 00:57
Hits: 221
More Articles...
