To The Daily Sun,
We learned the consultant for the proposed Meredith roundabouts had designed enough width for emergency vehicles to pass in the event of a traffic accident in the area. We learned there are planned emergency vehicle turns through the median barriers. What if a pedestrian is inside the barrier?
We learned the dividers mean that the entire area will allow right turns only. We learned that no one knew what impact having people from the bank, the shopping center and other businesses in the area, having to travel to the next available roundabout in order to reverse their direction of travel would add to the traffic burden.
We learned that it was assumed that the business in the area will not be impacted by the change in the traffic pattern. We learned that Manchester, Vt., has two roundabout systems, which the presenter stated they love. We learned the local administration in Manchester, Vt., would not talk with the Meredith town manager about it.
We learned that the project will cost $5 million for construction only. We learned that there will be additional land acquisition costs. We learned we do not know what those costs are? We learned the "town will not be contributing to these costs."
We learned the committee believes the money will all come from the federal and state governments and apparently we don't pay taxes to those organizations. We learned that the committee believes local property taxes will not go up as a result of the project?
I recommend that everyone do your homework on this project. The presenters stated: road project construction is scheduled to take place in 2017 and 2018, the project will not solve the congestion issue, the proposal will beautify the area, and there will be over $5 million spent, but it will not cost you anything. The inference is government is giving free money which we can either take or reject. Kind of makes you wonder where they get their money, doesn't it?
You are encouraged to go to the public hearing on Jan. 26 and find out what's going to happen to you, the taxpayer. It would be better if you did a little homework and can lend an informed voice to the discussion.
Last Updated on Monday, 05 January 2015 11:36
To The Daily Sun,
Biotech scientists have suggested human DNA is so complicated it is nearly impossible to conclude it was creased by accident. The more science learns about humans and the universe the possibility of God increases.
Science has been skeptical of the god theory since the dawning of time. Scientists have begun to change their tune. The existence of God has yet to be proven. But as science digs ever deeper the God possibility has increased, not decreased. In 1996 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God dead? The cultural narrative at the time suggested he was at best obsolete. The theory was as science progressed there was less need for the existence of "God" to explain the universe. It seems those rumors of his premature death were a bit premature. About the same time renowned astronomer Carl Sagan postulated there were only two basic requirements for a planet to support life. The right kind of star and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion planets (the number 1 followed by 24 zeroes) in the universe there should have been at least a septillion (the number 1 followed by 21 zeroes) that were possible of supporting life.
The odds of finding other life in the universe were considered to be all but assured with those huge numbers. Since the 1960s, The United states both publicly and privately invested millions in countless projects in the quest to discover life elsewhere. SETI was one of the largest projects focusing monster radio telescopes around the universe. Years later without success SETI was defunded by Congress. The search has continued with private money. The most notable fact of all this effort "deafening silence." As of 2014 searchers have discovered nothing, zero, nada. You got it precisely — bupkis.
What the hell happened, if as Sagan suggested there were only two basic elements needed to create the possibility of life? The answer: One heck of a lot. His two parameters grew to 10, then 20 and then 50 as science became smarter. The number of possible planets capable of supporting life shrunk faster than Obama's job approval rating. As new factors fundamental to the existence elf life expanded it has become more than clear there is no other planet likely able to support life as we know it. The number of critical factors now has risen to more than 200.
Yet we are talking about existing. Can every one of these critical factors here be so perfect by accident? At some point science is going to suggest we could not have happened by accidental forces. It is getting ever closer to that pronouncement. We have reached the point it takes less" faith" to assume some "intelligence" created the conditions to support life as it does to believe the earth overcame octillion odds by accident.
Lastly, consider the "fine tuning" for the universe to exist at all. Top astrophysicists are well aware the four fundamental forces, gravity, electromagnetic force, and the strong and weak nuclear forces were created in one millionth of a second after the big bang. If the ratio between the nuclear forces were off the tiniest fraction-by even one part per 100,000,000,000,000,000 then no stars would have formed at all, including ours... When you multiply that number by all the other factors required to be perfect the odds against the creation of the universe are heart-stoppingly astronomical. The notion that it just happened, defies all odds.
If your still having trouble grasping my point. What are the odds of flipping that quarter in your pocket, having it come up heads 100 million times in a row. Can that happen by luck? Science seems to think not.......neither do I.
Last Updated on Monday, 05 January 2015 11:32
To The Daily Sun,
We have been fighting in the Middle Eastern countries for 13 years, unable, so it seems to extricate ourselves from foreign wars. If our stated aim was to bring peace to that troubled region, we have failed repeatedly. Violence follows us like a mad dog. Why is this endless conflict our responsibility? Why do American citizens put up with it?
If I was an anthropologist I would say, "We tolerate violence because it is an inherited gene!" We are not a peaceful people. We are generous, kind, caring for our own — but intolerant of people unlike ourselves. When injured we strike back in blind fury exacting untold pain and loss on our enemies. (Understand what "Shock and Awe" is all about!) There is no end to our retribution. We will feel safe — no matter what the price.
To bring a meaningful peace into our lives this holy season we ourselves must practice peaceful living. Do not accept violence in any form. Stand firmly against it — in movies, literature and every media, and in your own life, and that of your family.
In this age of liberal thinking everyone wants to "get along," please everyone, be "one of the crowd." But the time is past due for responsible people to assert their intolerance of violence. It is urgent if the world is to ever banish wars and killing. It starts with you ... yes, you. Peace is possible if we all work for it.
You know the parable of the "mustard seed!" A seed as small as you can achieve marvelous things.
Leon R. Albushies
Last Updated on Monday, 05 January 2015 11:28
To The Daily Sun,
I would like to apologize (to our guests and neighbors) for the abbreviated New Year's Eve Fireworks this past Wednesday. Those of you who turned out the view the show know the fireworks started on time at 10:30, but ended after about 1 1/2 minutes.
Atlas Fireworks has been our trusted partner for 14 years and have always provided a successful program. Unfortunately this year they had a technical problem with the electronic firing equipment which caused the show to shut down early.
Again, my apologies. I am sure next year will be a show to remember. Happy New Year.
Mill Falls at the Lake
Last Updated on Monday, 05 January 2015 11:21
To The Daily Sun,
A House Bill on Oct. 30 sought to wipe out a financial overhaul known as the "push out rule", which prevents banks from using our deposits to trade in derivatives — risky securities that many believe contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. The regulation was a way to protect taxpayer's money. The gist of this part of the Dodd-Frank bill basically said that Wall Street derivatives should be funded by private money and shouldn't get a public subsidy.
It is, unfortunately, business as usual on Capitol Hill. Effectively Congress has outsourced its policy expertise to the private sector. A few weeks ago I held out an olive branch to some of the more rigid contributors to this forum pointing out the fact that liberals and conservatives can work together against the now known common enemy: Wall Street and the 1 percent.
What do I get in response? A personal attack on me and academia along with a host of emotional jargon that had no bearing on the subject at hand. All of a sudden, according to this contributor, Tea Party Republicans are showing concern for: "the elderly, the poor, working single moms and dads, working families and the middle class."
Someone wrote recently that old men are lonely and use this forum as a way to get recognition. I'll take it a step further. Dead limbs on a tree don't know they're dead until a storm comes and creates windfall. Once again a memo to the Tea Party and Republicans, and yes Democrats as well, "the only reason to fear government is that it is run by corporations and their lobbyists not the people."
Last Updated on Monday, 05 January 2015 11:18