As they appeared in The Exeter News-Letter
Protect Your Child on the Web 1/30/2001 |
Budget Surplus and the School Board
2/16/2001 |
Trying to Make Sense of Our Spending
2/27/2001 |
Depression Defense Shouldn't be Allowed 3/27/2001 |
Governor This Year We Must Act 4/10/2001 |
Gun Ownership Is Still A Right
4/20/2001 |
Get Serious About Teen Smoking 5/4/2001 |
NH Bill Seeks the Truth 5/25/2001 |
Planners Appointment was the Right One 6/26/2001 |
An Apology to Kathy Corson 7/6/2001 |
July 4th Means Standing for Beliefs 7/10/2001 |
Danny Boy Tugs at Your Heartstrings 8/7/2001 |
Where Is All The Outrage? 8/17/2001 |
Racial Slurs Should Not Lead To Violence 8/21/2001 |
Stratham Selectmen are Dead Wrong 8/24/2001 |
Bush Plus Illegal Aliens Equals One-Term 9/7/2001 |
Attack Shows Even the Strong is
Vulnerable 9/18/2001 |
We
Are Not Like Them 10/12/2001 |
Sportsmen Speak Out in Salem, NH 10/26/2001 |
USS Cole Floats A Day Ahead of Schedule 11/6/2001 |
State listening to Anglers 11/13/2001 |
All
Crime is Hateful 12/12/2001 |
New Hampshire Outdoor News and NH News
1/30/2001
By Ken Goodall
At the last PTA meeting at the Exeter Regional Cooperative Middle
School, Greg Kann and Andy Littlefield presented "The
Internet and Your Child" a guide to protecting your children
from inappropriate websites. Mr. Kann is the Chairman of the
School Board and Mr. Littlefield is the Technical Coordinator at
the Cooperative Middle School. Although Mr. Kann and I may have
different opinions on public access to the school's history
files, we are in complete agreement on protecting our children
from these websites. The turn out was surprisingly small but the
questions and discussions were very informative.
Everyone attending agreed that filtering software is not the
answer to protecting our children, supervision is. Software may
assist parents in monitoring their kids on-line, but paying
attention to what they are doing, and occasionally joining them
while they are on-line can give parents insight to what their
kids are looking at. One problem with filtering software is that
there is no guarantee that it will block every bad site or not
block every good site. Filtering software has come a long way
according to Mr.Kann, and now parents can actually type in
allowable Internet addresses. A site that may contain certain
keywords that would normally cause a site to be blocked can now
be listed as an allowable site at the parent's discretion.
Parents could unlock sites like news sites, medical sites, and
encyclopedia sites. Any pages on those sites would be left
viewable for their children.
By the same token, parents can list sites to be blocked also. If
a parent's children are spending too much time in chat rooms,
e-mailing, or filling up the household computer with downloaded
music, they can take these website's addresses and add them to
the blocked file. Even though these sites may not have the
keywords that usually cause sites to be blocked, by a parent
listing it in the blocked category these sites will no longer be
able to be viewed by their children. I am not a fan of filtering
software, but used in conjunction with supervision, it can be an
effective tool in protecting children from viewing inappropriate
material or sending out personal information. Just like parents
want to know how their kids are doing at school, in sports, or
what they are watching for television and movies, parents also
need to keep in touch with what their kids are writing, reading,
or looking at on the Internet.
A very important part of maintaining some control over the use of
the computer is to locate the computer in a family oriented part
of the house. The living room, family room, or even the dining
room is a better location then to be left behind the closed door
a child's own room. Having the computer in a room where family
members will be walking through from time to time may be enough
to keep the temptations of a child to use the computer
inappropriately.
Several parents were very interested at looking at history files
and temp files to see what their kids are doing. History files
show the Internet addresses visited by a computer and the time
that they were visited. If these history files are opened while
connected to the Internet, they will bring a parent to the exact
page that was being viewed. These files can be easily deleted and
most children probably know all about them. If a parent monitors
when a child is on the Internet they could easily see if there
were any gaps in the times the children were on the Internet. One
parent has a rule in his household that only he can clear the
history file. If he ever noticed gaps in the history files, this
would cause a red flag in his mind, to start paying closer
attention to his children while they are on the Internet. So far
it hasn't happened and He does not believe that his children have
abused the privilege of having the Internet on their home
computer.
Filtering software is not the answer in school or at home, but
for parents it can help them to keep their children from
inappropriate websites and from giving out personal information.
The most effective tool in keeping children save is monitoring
them and staying aware to what they are doing. Teachers in study
halls or on computer room duty should go over history files to
make sure that no inappropriate sites are being viewed and
parents at home should do the same thing. Thanks to the PTA, Mr.
Kann, and Mr. Littlefield for taking the time to offer this
presentation. The turn out may have been small, but everyone
there had something to offer in the discussion.
Budget
Surplus and the School Board
2/16/2001
By Ken Goodall
The word "Budget" according to the Oxford American
Dictionary means an estimate or plan of income and expenditure or
the amount allotted for a particular purpose. A
"Surplus" means an amount left over after what is
required has been used, especially an excess of public revenue
over expenditure during a budgetary year. It appears that the
Exeter Regional School Board and their supporters that attended
the deliberative session last Thursday night have forgotten the
meaning of these words.
Usually when the School system comes in under budget, I would be
praising them for a job well done, but when they want to keep the
Surplus of public revenue, our tax money, in my opinion they have
failed in their job. To place our surplus tax money in a Capital
Reserve Fund or a Maintenance Fund makes that money part of the
budget for this year. The budget for this year plus any
contractual agreements becomes the default budget for next year.
Most of the School Board members feel that since this surplus has
already been taken from the residents of SAU#16, it is not a
raise in taxes for us.
This may be true in the here and now, but unfortunately they fail
to realize that by earmarking this surplus to special funds it
becomes part of this years budget thus increasing next years
default budget that the citizens of SAU#16 will be forced to pay.
This years first warrant article asks for a school budget of
$28,816,331 or $206,000 over the default budget from last year.
Even if the residents of SAU#16 vote against the proposed budget
we will still be required to pay the default budget of
$28,610,331. By keeping our surplus public revenue in the budget,
it increases our default budget for next year that we will have
to pay for. Any increase in the budget that we allow the school
board this year will increase the budget that we are forced to
pay next year.
When the School Board states that putting these surplus funds
into reserve funds will not increase our taxes, they are not
telling us the complete truth. To be truthful they should add the
words "this year". Keeping these surplus funds will not
increase our taxes this year, but next year we will have a bigger
budget to support and that will mean an increase in taxes.
The school board is right when they say that the High School is
in need of repair and that the bond issue lawsuit is costing us
money in delays. That may be so but planning a project that falls
short of expectations could be a lot more costly then the rising
construction costs incurred during this delay. Just look at their
last project, the Cooperative Middle School in Stratham. Built
just two years ago, it is already filled to capacity. If this is
the kind of planning that we can expect with the High School
renovation, then maybe this lawsuit will slow things down and
give us the opportunity to examine this project before we get in
over our heads.
I am a conservative and I don't mind over budgeting to make sure
that we can cover our school debts. When you over budget you
expect a surplus but that surplus should be used to alleviate
next years tax burden. Part of managing a budget is planning for
the unexpected. The school board defends their position for
taking our surplus tax money on unexpected expenditures like the
sprinkler system that had to be installed last year for $32,000
and future problems like paving parking lots or leaks in the
roof. You have to plan a budget with some unexpected
expenditures.
To form a budget you would have to look at previous years and
incorporate inflation into the figures. From the last several
years you would look at unexpected expenditures and take an
average expense that would be added to your maintenance budget.
You could even add 10% to cover the fact that the buildings are
getting older. If an expensive emergency comes up then that is
what special budget meetings are for, and then the town would
assist the school in that emergency.
As I stated earlier if the School Board had ended up with a
surplus that would alleviate next year's taxes I would be
thrilled with their performance. When the School Board takes last
years surplus of $400,000 and uses it to give school
administrators raises and to pay legal fees, I am not thrilled. I
am not thrilled at all.
Trying to Make
Sense of Our Spending
2/27/2001
By Ken Goodall
As I stated in a previous column, if the School Board had ended
up with a surplus that would alleviate next year's taxes I would
be thrilled with their performance. When the School Board takes
last years surplus of $400,000 and uses it to give school
administrators raises and to pay legal fees, I am not thrilled. I
am not thrilled at all.
Some of these legal fees are the School Board's fault and we will
all have to pay for them. I understand that. The School Board
used a privacy issue to stop a parent from looking at the
websites that our school computers had been visiting. At no time
did Mr. Knight ever request to see the names of students that
visited websites. If the School Board had just given him the
website addresses with no personal information about students,
the subject would have been closed. At no time did any School
Board Member, school lawyer, School Administrator, or teacher
ever think to make sure that these files were retained in the
event that they lost the court case. This oversight will cost the
taxpayers of SAU#16 and we will have to pay the bill. As we
should.
The other legal fees are related to a lawsuit filed by Rich
McGraw claiming that the State Legislature acted
unconstitutionally by enacting a law to lower the percentage of
voters to pass a bond issue in the State. A two-thirds vote used
to be required to pass bond issues but the new law changed it to
three fifths. The bond on the Exeter High School renovation
passed with exactly three fifth's or 60%. Since this is a
challenge to the law passed by the NH State legislature, I don't
understand why the Exeter School system is paying legal fees.
Seeing that this is a challenge to State law I would like to
think that if we are spending money on legal fees, then we should
be able to recoup those since this was never a local issue but a
state one.
When the School Board knows that there are pending legal fees
then they should project those as best that they can into the
next year's budget. When the budget is higher than the default
budget, they can explain the reasons like they did at Thursday
nights meeting. Planning for unexpected expenditures like legal
fees, maintenance problems, and expansion projects, are just
normal parts of planning a budget. The citizen's of SAU#16 don't
expect miracles. If the School Board comes out close to budget
that's great. If things come up and they need more, I am sure the
residents of SAU#16 would not refuse to fix a school's roof. When
the School Board continually comes out with a surplus and finds
ways to redirect that surplus, then when will it end?
When will it end, and when will the School Board actually come up
with a budget that is less than the default budget? At some point
the projections of new students, renovation projects, and land
acquisition should start to come in close to budget. When that
happens and we get a grip on population growth in the area, then
the budget will start to be more than what is required. Then
would the School Board actually present a budget that is less
than the default budget?
A surplus means just that, an amount left over after what is
required has been used, and if funds are actually needed and more
is actually required than that is not a surplus is it? If this
money is really needed than it should be left in the undesignated
fund to alleviate next years tax burden and if this money and
more is actually required to maintain the school system than let
the School Board explain why a higher budget is needed next year.
Renovating the High school, expanding the Annex, and rising costs
are all good reasons for a higher budget and if the School Board
presented it in this way, I would support them.
If all the requirements were met for this year then wonderful, we
ended up with a budget surplus. If next year we are going to need
more, above and beyond the left over surplus, then we will deal
with it then. The residents of SAU#16 have never been against
giving our children a quality education and a quality building to
receive that education.
"Budget" and "Surplus", maybe the School
Board and their supporters should look these words up.
Depression
Defense Shouldn't be Allowed
3/27/2001
By Ken Goodall
There is a huge injustice that is about to be perpetrated against
the people of this entire country. This injustice will especially
hurt the survivors and families of the victims of the tragic
murders in Wakefield Massachusetts this past December. My deepest
sympathy goes out to the families of the victims in Wakefield.
The full joy of the holiday season will never completely return
to these families due to the actions of one sick individual. The
injustice that is about to occur comes to us in a statement from
Michael McDermott's lawyer, Kevin Reddington. Michael McDermott
was indicted on Friday February 16th, on 7 counts of murder.
After the indictments were handed down Mr. Reddington stated that
"McDermott was undergoing psychiatric treatment and taking
medication, and that he may pursue an insanity defense."
The insanity defense or The Depression Defense as I like to call
it, is actually plead as Innocent by Reason of Insanity. There is
not a shadow of a doubt that Michael McDermott committed these
crimes. To claim that McDermott is Innocent for any reason is a
total injustice to every citizen in this country. This man is as
innocent as Judas. This man is as innocent as Adolph Hitler. This
man is as innocent as Timothy McVeigh. If the Oklahoma City
bomber, Timothy McVeigh, had tried to plead Innocent by Reason of
Insanity, the entire country would have been up in arms. The
citizens of this country would have spoke out from every corner
of These United States to abolish the insanity plea. Being insane
does not remove the guilt for an act of crime.
The blame must lie with the criminal and not with his state of
mind or with the items he used to commit this crime. This was a
big man that could have used his hands, a bat, a knife, or a bomb
which he had already made at his home. People must be held
Personally Responsible for their actions. It is not the cigarette
when people choose to smoke, and it is not the firearm when
people choose to use it illegally. What it comes down to is
Personal Responsibility Period.
Even though the blame lies totally with the sick individual, his
sickness should not be allowed to be used as a defense for his
actions. If there is responsibility to be shared, there were
others involved. These were the doctors that had treated this man
for his depression. Another weapon in this case was the pen of
the doctors prescribing anti-depressants. By writing these
prescriptions their fingers were on the trigger as well.
Anti-Depressants may help many people, but these doctors need to
pay much closer attention to their patients. The problem with
these drugs is not over-dosing but abruptly stopping the
medication. When a patient stops taking these anti-depressants
they suffer withdrawal symptoms including severe depression,
aggressiveness, and psychopathic and suicidal tendencies. People
on these medications need to be monitored more closely and that's
a problem for the medical society.
Some responsibility has to fall on the State of Massachusetts.
The anti-firearm zealots are so overbearing on tracking legal
firearm owners and tracing every legal firearm that they are over
looking criminals that should be tracked, traced, and charged
with firearm violations. Michael McDermott had a legal firearm
license with the state and he let it lapse. The State of
Massachusetts knew that McDermott owned firearms and when his
license was not renewed then Massachusetts should have gone after
him to investigate why the license wasn't renewed. If the State
of Massachusetts had spent some time enforcing the laws that they
already have instead of making new laws that just create a
mountain of paperwork for honest firearm owners, then possibly
this tragedy could have been avoided.
The fact that Michael McDermott is sick and has a problem with
depression, does not take away the fact that He committed the
crime. Innocent by reason of insanity is a LIE, A Total
Falsehood. To be innocent is to be found not to have committed
the crime at all. If you are insane and you commit a crime, you
did it. You are guilty. What we need is a New Plea and that
should be, Guilty, But Insane. The Depression Defense, which has
been brought up in the Wakefield, Massachusetts tragedy, has no
place in our justice system. Put them in a hospital and when they
are better, let them serve out the remainder of their punishment
in prison where they belong.
There is a Legislative Service Request (LSR) in the NH
legislature it is LSR H-2037-R relative to the plea of guilty but
insane. This bill will be in front of the NH Legislature next
year and deals with the change of plea to Guilty, But Insane and
includes some jail time for those that are cured of their mental
illnesses. NH State Representatives Marshal and Mathew Quandt of
Exeter, New Hampshire are sponsors of the bill.
Governor This Year We
Must Act
4/10/2001
By Ken Goodall
Last year the New Hampshire State legislature and Governor Jeanne
Shaheen allowed the problem with education funding to sit and
fester through out the election year. There are the key words,
election year! Now that the election year is over all of a sudden
Gov. Shaheen has turned education funding into an emergency that
must be dealt with this year to save the children of NH. Last
year the Governor, worried about losing her Office, and the NH
legislature, lacking the strength to stand up to the NH Supreme
Court, almost allowed the Education system to come to a
screeching halt. Now she claims that "Putting off the hard
choices until next year or a future legislature will not make
this challenge go away or make it any easier to resolve. It will
only make it more difficult."
Why didn't she think of that last year? Why wasn't it that
important last year? Last year the education funding crisis was
so important that Gov. Shaheen assigned a "Blue Ribbon
Committee" to study the problem. The only problem with that
was the fact that the committee would need until December of last
year to finish the study. I guess there was no way a "Blue
Ribbon Committee" could finish a month early, before the
election.
Who did she think she was kidding? Governor Shaheen was playing
politics with our children's education. So was the NH legislature
that still doesn't have the strength to stand up to the NH
Supreme Court and make a new property tax plan constitutional and
equitable to even the poor towns that started this case.
According to Governor Shaheen's Inaugural Address "We must
set high standards for our schools and hold them accountable for
meeting those standards. We have debated school accountability
for three years. This year we must act." Well if we used
those same standards last year to account for our Governor's
actions and the in-action of the NH Legislature, we would have
dumped the whole lot of them.
Gov. Shaheen states that "Now is the time we must make that
investment in education a reality, not merely a promise. And we
must choose how we are going to pay for that investment. We need
to recognize that there is no easy choice, and that "none of
the above" is not an option." After refusing to take
her tax pledge this time around and making statements about a
"Permanent Education Funding Solution" it seems that
she is folding to accept a new tax, either a sales tax or an
income tax. Someone and I don't know whom, once said, "There
is no such thing as a small tax!" Once a tax is in the door,
all it can do is go up. It is easy to give in and accept
"the dole", but to fight and take a stand, may be a
tougher road, but it is a more honorable one.
The idea that every child has A RIGHT to an adequate education is
the biggest falsehood perpetrated on the people of New Hampshire.
No One, not the NH Supreme Court, the NH Legislature, Governor
Shaheen, or even God can guarantee the right to an adequate
education. All anyone can do is give children the right to have
the OPPORTUNITY to receive an adequate education. NH is made up
of a diversity of towns, big and small. An adequate education can
be interpreted differently in each of these towns. When people
are willing to live in a developed area with businesses to
increase the tax base, they suffer the consequences of having
businesses on the corner and neighbors around them to boost the
tax base and increase their ability to educate their children.
Why should people who sacrifice privacy, and peace and quiet, be
expected to subsidize those people that want to live in the
wilderness with no hustle or bustle of businesses all over town?
When people choose to live in a small town with out industry or
businesses to offset education costs, then they need to realize
that the burden of education lies with them. They may not be able
to afford the same education as the children of those living in
bigger towns, but they could still afford an adequate education.
If people choose to live in a quiet small town, then part of the
price they pay is a lack of services, businesses, entertainment,
and yes, education. If these people are not happy with the level
of education that their children are receiving then they can
either move, or learn to supplement their kids education at home
and maybe even turn it into some quality time with their
children.
Gun Ownership Is
Still A Right
4/20/2001
By Ken Goodall
The Exeter News-Letter printed an editorial called "Citizens
rally to oppose gun control measures" and the paper seemed a
little upset that citizens challenged this new bill. The paper
states that citizens "booed the lawmakers, who maintained
that the sole intent of the law is make it more difficult for
guns to fall into the hands of children and criminals." That
is not what people were booing.
They were booing the fact that we already have a law making it
illegal to allow a child to obtain a loaded firearm, called
negligent storage of a firearm. Criminals by definition have
committed a crime, and anyone convicted of a felony are no longer
allowed to even have a firearm in their possession. So the intent
of the bill which the paper seems to defend, actually makes new
laws on something that is already against the law. Making new
laws instead of enforcing existing laws deserves to be booed.
This bill does not only deal with children or criminals; this
bill deals with consumer safety for firearms. Has the Exeter
News-Letter had a rash of news stories on firearms
mal-functioning and causing injuries due to defects? I must have
missed those stories. This bill deals with setting standards on
firearms that would only increase the cost of them and add
features that could easily cause mal-functions. Adding extra
manual safeties and load indicators are unneeded features that
could cause more problems then they could solve. The only load
indicator that any firearm owner should ever trust is their own
eyes when they open the action of the firearm and look to make
sure that the firearm is empty.
The News-Letter states "In light of the rash of violence
that has been seen in America's schools over the past few years,
it is obvious something needs to be done." That is
absolutely correct but the paper is a little confused on the
solution. The solution does not lie with the firearm it lies with
the children. The question is not what children use to commit
violence; the question that needs to be answered is WHY children
commit violence.
Even with all these school shootings the facts remain the same,
violence in schools has risen since the early nineties but school
violence involving firearms has gone down. The media rides the
wave of headline grabbing shootings while the everyday violence
that occurs across the country goes unnoticed. Method or motive,
what is more important? These teens suspected of killing the
Dartmouth professors used knifes. Not one media outlet has cried
for "Knife Control", but they have all ran with
headlines asking "Why?"
Exactly, why? Not what did they do or how did they do it, but why
did they do it. That is the all-important question that needs to
be answered. What causes a child to body slam another child to
death? What causes a child to knife a friend over a girl at a
movie theater? What causes a problem student to get into bloody
fist fights at school? What causes a student to physically attack
a teacher at school? These are all violent acts by children that
rarely make the headlines and there in lies the problem.
Well when I want to defend my home and my family, I do not want
to have to deal with trigger locks, manual safeties, and load
indicators, when a criminal enters my home. The criminal won't
follow the laws of consumer safety for firearms and I would like
to stay alive to prove it.
Last but absolutely not least is the Exeter News-Letters opinion
that "People need to respect firearms, as it is not a right
anymore to own them - it is a privilege. If people want to
continue to bear arms, then this privilege should not be
abused." Whoever wrote and researched this should read the
second amendment of the New Hampshire State Constitution. Article
2-a [The Bearing of Arms.] of the NH Bill of Rights states that
All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of
themselves, their families, their property and the state.
There may be room for interpretation in the United States
Constitution that will have to be dealt with dealing with the
wording of a well-regulated militia, but NH has spelled it out
succinctly and precisely. All persons have THE RIGHT to keep and
bear arms. This is not a privilege, as the Exeter News-Letter
would like us to believe. It is a RIGHT.
One last side note. According to the Oxford English Dictionary,
the meaning of the word Militia is "A military force,
especially one consisting of civilians."
The Exeter News-Letter "Citizens rally to oppose gun control measures": http://www.seacoastonline.com/2001news/exeter/e3_23_e1.htm
Get Serious About
Teen Smoking
5/4/2001
By Ken Goodall
Driving by the Exeter High School and the High School Annex you
can't help but notice teens smoking across from the school.
Several years ago I recall many tobacco violations against minors
in the Exeter News-Letter police blotter. Richard Kane, Chief of
the Exeter Police Department stated that several years ago when
the tobacco law was new, officers did issue many violations.
According to Chief Kane there are several reasons for the numbers
dropping off and not the least of which is that there are fewer
teens smoking in front of the school. Many of the young people
smoking in front of the schools are eighteen and can legally be
in possession of tobacco products. He does not deny that there
are minors still smoking and that the police had 279 contacts on
tobacco violations last year. Many of these contacts did result
in fines.
Some people think that the Police should have better things to do
than bust teens smoking, but why make laws to protect our
children and then not enforce them? I think these laws should
continue to be enforced even more than they are. If kids want to
break the law with tobacco why make it easy?
Chief Kane doesn't believe that the police Department is making
it easy and with 279 contacts on tobacco violations maybe He's
right. Maybe this is just enough to keep most of the kids on
their toes. Chief Kane also believes that the total enforcement
should not fall completely on the back of the Police Department.
He believes that "a big part of the problem is Parental
Responsibility." He is right on the money with that
statement since I find it very hard to believe that a lot of
parents don't know that their kids are smoking. At the very least
their kids should smarten up and not smoke in plain view right in
front of the school.
I may be asking too much to expect kids to smarten up. The
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a Washington, D.C.-based group,
states that 34% of New Hampshire high school students smoke and
according to the Center for Disease Control, New Hampshire has
the 4th highest percentage of teen-age girls smoking in the
country.
It would be hard to expect kids to smarten up when we can't get
adults to. New Hampshire has received 54 million dollars from the
national tobacco settlement that 46 states have been involved
with. Out of that 54 million dollars New Hampshire has spent 3
million on preventing kids from smoking. The Center for Disease
Control recommends that NH should be spending around 10 million
on tobacco prevention. We are 29th out of the 46 states involved
in the settlement.
The Governor and the State Legislature redirected most of the
settlement money to cover our state's education funding deficit.
Anti smoking attitudes have lead to no smoking in federal
buildings, no smoking in NH State buildings, and laws regarding
the amount of seating and space available to allow smoking in
restaurants. How could the anti-smoking groups in New Hampshire
not be screaming about the mis-spending of this tobacco
settlement?
How can we expect the Exeter Police Department to police our kids
and their tobacco use, when our own State Government won't even
spend half the recommended amount to keep our kids from smoking?
The C.D.C.'s recommended amount of 10 million dollars is only
18.5 percent of the 54 million received by NH. The rest can be
spent on Health care, anti-smoking advertisements or education.
The problem is that the Governor and the NH State Legislature
chose to spend most of the settlement on education leaving only 3
million or 5.5 percent on saving our children from tobacco
products.
Another 21 million more settlement dollars was due to New
Hampshire in April of this year. Part of the agreement in
receiving this money is investigating retailers that sell tobacco
products to minors. The State is doing that, but we should also
be looking at enforcing the laws that are broken when minors are
in possession of tobacco. Especially when minors are flaunting
the law by smoking right across the street from our schools. If
we are serious about keeping our children from smoking then we
should get serious about enforcing our laws on retailers selling
to minors and also minors in possession of tobacco products.
Along with getting serious about enforcement of tobacco laws, we
should also get serious about how we spend tobacco settlement
money and spend a larger portion on keeping our children off
tobacco.
I have smoked and I quit but I am not an "Anti-smoker".
If adults want to smoke that is up to them. Second hand smoke
doesn't bother me. In my opinion artificial sweeteners and
automobile exhaust probably cause more cancer than second hand
smoke. With all the time and money spent to pass laws I just feel
that we should enforce them.
Kids are going to smoke and we won't be able to stop teen smoking
completely. There are those that will say, "Why in my day we
had smoking areas in school." That is true but in those days
people could smoke at their desks while they worked, smoking was
allowed in public places, and there was no such thing as a
non-smoking area in restaurants.
The same people that pushed to get laws against smoking in public
buildings, limiting smoking in restaurants, and increased fines
for selling tobacco to minors and minors in possession of tobacco
should also be pushing to spend a larger portion of this tobacco
settlement money on prevention. Maybe if some of this settlement
money were to trickle down to the enforcement level, our local
police wouldn't feel like they were banging their heads against
the wall when they try to enforce these tobacco laws.
To view more information on the Tobacco Settlement see the
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids website at http://tobaccofreekids.org.
NH Bill Seeks the Truth
5/25/2001
By Ken Goodall
New Hampshire House Bill number 101, requiring registered
lobbyists to sign a statement concerning false statements or
misrepresentation of material facts, only seeks the truth. Now
the fact that this bill passed the House says that there must be
something to it. I had always assumed that anyone that testified
before the legislature would be sworn in. This is not the case.
It seems that this is a pretty straightforward bill that is
with-in reason to expect from lobbyists. Anyone that would be
against this bill must not expect or want the truth when dealing
with lobbyists. The NH Senate Internal Affairs Committee voted
unanimously to list the bill as Ought to Pass. When it went to
the floor of the NH Senate on April 19th, Senator Sylvia Larsen
had the bill laid on the table.
New Hampshire Representative Marshal "Lee" Quandt, who
is one of the sponsors of the bill, said that Senator Kathrine
Wheeler stated to him that "It is a bad bill".
Basically the entire bill states that lobbyists will sign a sworn
statement to not "knowingly make any false statement or
material misrepresentation" to any legislative body. How
could that be bad? Unless you need lobbyists to mis-lead our
legislature to achieve your agenda.
Ex-Senator and gubernatorial candidate Mary Brown, who is now a
lobbyist for the National Wildlife Federation, told
Representative Quandt that "When all legislators agree to
start telling the truth, I'll sign onto the lying lobbyist
bill," Well Ms. Brown, having been a NH State Senator you
should know that legislators are sworn in and take an oath of
office before serving their term. If you forgot this while you
were Senator then you must not have been a very good one. Your
reply to Representative Quandt is a childish one. Similar to a
child saying, "Well none of the other kids have to. Why
should I?"
With lobbyists like you, Ms. Brown, I want the sworn oath signed
in ink.
I read on an Internet Bulletin Board that Senator Wheeler stated
that "Perjury is a felony charge. Proving perjury would
require verbatim transcripts of testimony, which do not exist in
the House", that "the wording of the bill would open
the door to lots of lawsuits, because anyone who disagreed with a
lobbyist could accuse that person of perjury", and "If
lobbyists don't tell the truth, they quickly lose their
effectiveness", and also "if a law in unenforceable or
will create unnecessary lawsuits, then why would we want to
create it?"
I asked Senator Wheeler in an e-mail that if these were Her
comments, where in the NH Criminal Code, under perjury, does it
state that the perjured statements must be in a transcript? Also
since unsworn falsification in writing is already a misdemeanor,
then why aren't there any lawsuits against lobbyists now? Why
would taking a sworn oath cause lawsuits when there aren't any
now? If you believe that a lying lobbyist would lose their
effectiveness, then why wouldn't every lobbyist be willing to
swear an oath?
As for a law being "unenforceable", well Sen. Wheeler,
what about HB545 The Railroad Trespassing Act?
According to your bill, A person would be guilty of a class A
misdemeanor for trespassing on railroad property if that person,
without the railroad carrier's consent, except to cross the
property at a public highway or other authorized crossing. Well
here is an unenforceable law for you.
After sending these questions to Senators Wheeler, Larsen, and
Hollingworth, I received one reply from Senator Wheeler and it
stated that "Obviously you have my thoughts and have already
answered them to your, if not
my, satisfaction". So these were Her comments but She
obviously is not willing to discuss them with a citizen of NH
that happens to disagree with her. Senator Beverly Hollingworth,
who supposedly represents me, could not even take the time to
respond.
Taking an oath doesn't prevent lying but at least it raises the
level of punishment for lying. If the legislators have to take an
oath then at the very least these lobbyists should be required to
do the same. Let's raise the bar a bit and make these lobbyists a
little more liable for what they say.
Can Senator Larsen's, Senator Wheeler's, and Senator
Hollingworth's friends, the lobbyists, rise to this level or is
this asking too much of them?
Please ask Senator Larsen, Senator Wheeler, and any other Senator
that voted to set the bill aside, why they have a problem with
requiring lobbyists to tell the truth? Also ask them to send this
bill to the floor of the NH Senate for a vote so that we may see
where our Senators really stand on the lying lobbyist bill.
Planners
Appointment was the Right One
6/26/2001
By Ken Goodall
When we vote for our Exeter Selectmen, we vote for their beliefs
and philosophies. We hope that they stick to them and make
decisions to forward those agendas. When committee and board
openings come up we want our Selectmen to use their judgment on
choosing replacements. This avoids lengthy elections and allows
them to over-see these committees and boards and the directions
that they are taking.
When someone shows a one-sided view and an agenda against our
current Selectmen then they should be kept as an alternate until
they broaden their horizons. I believe that this is the case with
Planning Board alternate, Kathy Corson. Since she entered the
public arena she has had one agenda and that is the attack on
Urban Sprawl and so-called "Super Stores" like
Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and even Barnes & Noble.
When Mrs. Corson first came on the scene it was with the group
calling itself "The Citizens for Stratham". This group
was supported by a National Organization called "Sprawl
Busters" lead by Al Norman, a man who believes that he knows
what's best for small town America. When a big box store is
planned, he steps in with his battle plan and floods the media
and sways the people against these big, bad, retailers. Well,
Congratulations, they won in Stratham and also in Exeter.
After the battle in Stratham and Wal-Mart made plans for Exeter,
Mrs. Corson started a group called "Citizens for Smart
Growth" and went on to chase Wal-Mart out of Exeter. She won
her bid to get rid of Wal-Mart but luckily it was stopped there
and her bid to make an ordinance against any stores over 65,000
square feet in Exeter, failed. You see this is why we have
Selectmen and Planning Boards. They take decisions like this on a
case by case basis, and if a large store could be feasible, then
Exeter could be given the opportunity to open one.
Well Mrs. Corson, where have you been? When Stratham built the
Middle School above one of the largest watersheds for the town of
Exeter, your group was silent. Now Stratham and Exeter are
planning to add many single-family homes and four apartment
buildings in the same area above the watershed and still your
group is silent. When Shaw's planned a super store on the same
wetland area where Wal-Mart was planned, your group was silent.
Susan Conway, one of the owners of the land where Wal-Mart had
been proposed has now announced plans for a retail store and a
couple light industries in Epping. Again your group is silent.
Do you mean to tell me that with all your ranting about wetlands
and ecology, that a smaller store and a couple light industries
will have no effect on your precious wetlands? Also what about
the supposed wetland in Exeter that was already listed as
industrial, but when you brought up the fact that it may be wet
there also, Wal-Mart gave up and left town, and now right across
the street from there is a 24 hour gas station. Your group has no
problem with this?
For your community service I commend you. I am sure your Adult
Education courses that you teach are very informative. In seeing
that you offer a course called "Cutting Your Food
Budget", could you tell me where in Exeter that our
residents can pick up a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk for a
decent price? Guess what? No where. There is no grocery store in
Exeter. We either have to go to Stratham or Seabrook to do our
shopping.
As for your group's belief that the merchants in downtown Exeter
would be hurt by a Wal-Mart, I must dis-agree. There are only a
couple stores downtown where you may find something for a good
price; the rest are more like specialty stores. Most people that
shop Wal-Mart are not likely to shop downtown Exeter all that
often and if they did, they probably would, even if there was a
Wal-Mart in town.
Your agenda to stop any opportunity for Exeter to open a store
over 65,000 square feet limits the Selectmen and the Planning
Board's ability to judge the benefits if the opportunity arose.
At a time when Exeter tax payers need all the help that they can
get, this kind of ordinance is too limiting and could slam the
door on a chance to lower our tax burden.
For these reasons I believe that the selectmen of Exeter made the
right choice. You will eventually get the seat on the board that
you seek, I just hope that you broaden your views and keep the
doors open to any opportunity to benefit all the residents of
Exeter.
An Apology to Kathy
Corson
7/6/2001
By Ken Goodall
First off I would like to apologize to Kathy Corson for calling
her One-sided. Mrs. Corson, I am Sorry. I should have contacted
you before I wrote my column "Planners Made the Right
Choice". From the view of you in the media over the last few
years, your agenda certainly did seem one-sided. After
corresponding with Mrs. Corson I understand now that she has
concerns with a lot of issues like wetlands, the water supply,
increased housing developments, and affordable housing in Exeter.
Actually we agree on several of these issues. I am not in favor
of un-controlled business growth or "Sprawl" as the
Politically Correct call it, but it is my opinion that a Wal-Mart
in either Exeter or Stratham would not necessarily have been
detrimental to the Exeter area.
Mrs. Corson supported trying to get a grocery store on Portsmouth
Ave., I thank her for that, but personally I don't see a problem
with Epping Road as she does. Most traffic would head towards the
highway anyway. It would be nice to have a grocery store
somewhere in Exeter and be able to avoid that harrowing,
dangerous drive through what I like to call "The
Gauntlet", upon entering Stratham.
As for the merchants downtown, I do believe some would be hurt by
a big box store, but also some may benefit. People may decide to
head into town for lunch and some window-shopping. There really
is nothing downtown for me and I believe that would stand for a
lot of other residents also. I basically haven't shopped down
town since Woolworth's Five and Dime closed. I think that a lot
of business is from the Academy and residents that don't mind
battling the traffic, but I don't think that a Wal-Mart at the
end of Epping road would have affected that.
My basic point was that the anti-Wal-Mart groups from Stratham
and Exeter have basically fell silent since chasing Wal-Mart out
of town. There are many issues involved in Urban Sprawl and Smart
Growth and they don't go away when the Big Box store leaves town.
The 24-hour gas station at the end of Epping Road has complied
with zoning laws and the projects around the Cooperative Middle
School in Stratham have past wetland testing. An Exeter resident
e-mailed me and stated that these projects did clear the zoning
tests, but that is not necessarily a seal of approval with me as
it should also not be with groups like the Citizen's for Stratham
and the Citizen's for Smart Growth. Like with the building of the
new school and the safety of the old school buildings, these are
things that should be examined closely, and I just believe that
these groups should have at least made some comments in regards
to these issues.
Mrs. Corson told me that since she is busy with the planning
board, she no longer belongs to either of these groups. I would
also like to add that an Exeter resident defended Mrs. Corson and
said that she is doing an excellent job dealing with many more
issues than the Big Box one. From the inside maybe that can be
seen but from the outside, from someone who can't go to or watch
every town meeting, sometimes things seem different. The Exeter
resident stated that it is beneficial to have a planning board
made up of "individuals who have diverse views".
Selectmen also have diverse views, which is why the vote to over
look Mrs. Corson was not a unanimous one.
If Mrs. Corson is open to many options to improve the Exeter
area, then she should understand that an ordinance limiting any
possibility of a big store could possibly cause Exeter to miss a
good opportunity in the right situation. As for my comment that
she was "One-sided", again, I apologize and hope that
Mrs. Corson continues in her efforts with the planning board. I
respect the opinion of the Exeter resident that e-mailed me and
tend to believe that she has done good work on the board.
At the time of the selectmen's vote, and the view I had of Mrs.
Corson, I supported them. If Mrs. Corson really wants to work to
improve life in the Exeter area, then again I apologize and hope
that she continues with her work on the planning board and her
community service.
July 4th Means
Standing for Beliefs
7/10/2001
By Ken Goodall
With the passing of the fourth of July brings thoughts of men who
stood up for their beliefs and put their names on the line. They
fought against tyranny and taxation without representation. Many
risked their lives, their families, and their jobs, to stand up
for their beliefs and have the courage to break away from
England. This was the beginning, the beginning of a new country,
The United States of America.
At the last deliberative session for the Exeter Regional
Cooperative School Board there were around one hundred concerned
citizens and a hand full that took the floor to voice their
opinions. Part of a town meeting type deliberative session is
having citizens speak their piece and voice their opinions in
support of warrant articles or against them. Whether you agree
with people or not, part of being a Democracy is allowing the
freedom of speech.
I believe that the School system should consider teaching this
idea to its students and even having the students remind their
parents. There were several high school students sitting around
me and complaining about the people that were brave enough to
exercise their first amendment rights and speak to the audience
and to the people of Exeter on cable television. There were also
some adults making similar statements like "Why is this guy
getting up again?" and "Why doesn't this guy just give
it up?"
Well there was a small group of rabble-rousers two hundred and
twenty six years ago that could have "Just given up"
and if they had we would still be drinking tea at 2 o'clock and
paying taxes on it too. Our country was started by a small group
of vocal people who cared enough to voice their opinions and do
something about them. If it weren't for vocal Americans like
that, the United States Constitution that gives us the First
Amendment and the Freedom of Speech would never have been
written.
After talking to several people after the meeting, I found that I
was not alone in hearing these derogatory comments. These similar
comments were made through out the audience. One person that I
spoke to said to a couple of the complainers ""Look,
these people have questions and statements that they want to
make. If you people have a problem with that then go up to the
mike and say so. Otherwise be quiet!" I wish that I had the
courage to have said that to the people around me, some of which
were high school students. If this is what our high school
students are being taught about Democracy and the right to free
speech, then the problems run a lot deeper than school renovation
projects and budget surpluses.
One student exclaimed to her friends that "Can't this guy
see that the roof leaks?" and why he couldn't except
maintenance fund to fix it. Well young lady, yes that guy does
know about the roof and other items that need fixing at the high
school. Maybe someday when you have to pay the bills, you will
learn that maintenance should be part of the budget and not just
a fund for surplus tax money. When you no longer live under Mommy
and Daddy's roof, you will learn the cost of a roof and the
meaning of the words budget and surplus.
I praise the students who took the effort to come to the
deliberative school board meeting, and we need more of them to do
just that. Whether they agree or disagree with what is going on
it is great to see them show up. The only problem was their
belittling the citizens of Exeter and surrounding towns, that had
opinions and suggestions to make to the school board and to the
public. Even though these students were not able to vote in the
meeting they very well could have voiced their opinions.
I would love to see more students show an interest, but instead
of mocking those that are trying to express their opinions, try
getting up and speaking yours, instead of insulting people from
your seats like cowards. I don't expect the adults in the
audience to change, it's too late for them, but maybe some of you
students could share your thoughts with us next time. We could
have a dialogue and who knows, maybe we could share some
information and each of us could come away with a little more
understanding of the other and be better people for the
experience.
The United States Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and the First
Amendment were not written for those that agree with the
government, but for those that don't. It guarantees our right to
question authority and to voice our opinions about what we
believe in. It is very hard to do when you don't agree with
someone, but that is what it's all about. Even if we hate what
someone is saying, we have to honor their right to say it. To
abandon these rights is to abandon what The United States of
America stands for.
Danny Boy Tugs
at Your Heartstrings
8/7/2001
By Ken Goodall
In Providence, Rhode Island, the Catholic Church Diocese has
announced that the Catholic Church would no longer allow the song
"Danny Boy" to be sung during Mass. According to the
Diocese, Catholic Doctrines dictate "that liturgical music
must come from sacred text or be written specifically for
Mass." From what I have read this does not appear to be
completely true.
Since the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy defines that which
is Liturgical, then under chapter 6, Sacred Music, it states
"sacred music is to be considered the more holy in
proportion as it is more closely connected with the liturgical
action, whether it adds delight to prayer, fosters unity of
minds, or confers greater solemnity upon the sacred rites. But
the Church approves of all forms of true art having the needed
qualities, and admits them into divine worship."
Well Danny Boy seems to add delight to prayer, fosters unity of
minds, and confers greater solemnity upon the sacred rites, so it
seems that it would qualify as being liturgical. Also many
churches are already singing it during mass and according to the
Code of Canon Law which regulates the Catholic Church, canon 23
states that "custom has the force of law" and since
canon 27 says that "custom is the best interpreter of law,
custom and usage should be illuminative." then based on
these Laws of Catholicism, Danny Boy should be accepted as it
already has been.
There are at least three versions of the story behind this song.
The first claims that a long time ago an old man that had many
son's, would soon be sending his youngest off to war. The old man
was sad and knew that he may never see his son again. He looked
intently at his son and sang this song.
The second version is based on occurrences from centuries ago
when Ireland was made up of warring kingdoms and Serfdoms. In
those days the Kings lead their people in battle. A mortally
wounded king called his son Daniel to his side. Explaining that
his son would now have to lead their people in war, the song
celebrates his words.
The third version describes an Irish mother who is sending her
son off to war. The war was taking its toll on their people and
she feared that she would never see her son again. Either he or
she would probably die. She sang this song to him before they
parted.
The story of the current words to the song, which may be more
truth then fiction, describes the author, Fred Weatherly. Mr.
Weatherly was a professional songwriter and in order to make the
song more marketable, there are no gender identifying verses.
Either sex could sing this song in the first person.
It doesn't matter whether any of these are true, it wouldn't take
away the beauty and the sadness of the song. This haunting melody
has been played many times at Church Masses and Funerals. If the
Catholic Church in Providence wants to become a strict
interpreter of Catholicism, they may very well turn off many
young people. In order to keep growing they need to keep the
young people interested, and abandoning songs like "Danny
Boy" would be a step in the wrong direction. There are many
Irish Catholics that are upset about the loss of "Danny
Boy".
What's next? "Amazing Grace"? This was written by a
slave trader who had abandoned religion only to find it again
after surviving a storm. Even after returning to the church he
continued to trade slaves, but according to history he treated
them well. Well for slaves I guess. Does this "add delight
to prayer, foster unity of minds, or confer greater solemnity
upon the sacred rites"? As much I would say as a song that
sings of saying good-bye to a son for the last time.
With so many problems in the world today, the Catholic Church
needs to step forward, not backward.
Where Is All The Outrage?
8/17/2001
By Ken Goodall
Where is the outrage? Where is the public outcry? Where are The
Citizen's for Stratham? Why aren't they screaming to "Save
the Wetlands"? A local group including Susan Conway and Mark
Stevens has announced plans to seek a variance from the Stratham
Zoning Board of Adjustment to build an 80,000 square foot store
on the land previously eyed by Wal-Mart. The variance is
necessary because the project will infringe on wetlands on the
property.
Granted, the Wal-Mart deal was for a 205,000 square foot
"Super Store" but the deciding factor to deny Wal-Mart
was the issue of the wetlands. From the silence in Stratham now,
am I to assume that the Citizen's for Stratham feel that
infringing on only half the wetlands is acceptable?
The group Aries Ltd. purchased the property last year for $5
million and plans to seek the variance either this month or next.
Part of the plan includes two retail stores and a restaurant
along Portsmouth Avenue at the entrance to the larger store. Also
the current Stratham Tire building will be demolished and a new
building will be constructed in a different location. The
restaurant and one other retail store along Portsmouth Avenue
will be 4000 square feet each. The other retail store and the new
Stratham Tire will be 9000 square feet each. All totaled the area
of construction will be 106,000 square feet. 106,000 square feet
that's over half of the proposed Wal-Mart super store that got
denied.
Now don't get me wrong. I believe in business, as a matter of
fact I was in favor of Wal-Mart and am in favor of whatever
retail or industrial businesses are in the works now. My problem
is with the people who were so scared of big, bad, Wal-Mart who
have now fell silent. If the beauty of Stratham with their small
town atmosphere was being attacked by a Wal-Mart, isn't the
possibility of a Target Store, A bigger Shaw's, or just 106,000
more square feet of commercial space on the same property going
to have the same effect?
Maybe the Stratham Zoning board will find that this new project
will actually effect much less than half the wetlands that
Wal-Mart was, and will be much less of a burden to the
environment in the area. Well that's all well and good, except
that those people who continually screamed about Wal-Mart should
be equally vocal that their concerns are still being considered
with this new project. All that I hear is SILENCE.
According to Patricia Grahame's website
(http://www.pgre.com/patbio.htm) she remains an active member of
the Stratham Conservation Commission and the Exeter Chamber of
Commerce. At the height of the Wal-Mart proposal in 1999, she
stated as a member of the Conservation Commission that she
"felt right along that there's no wetlands that can be
created by man ... I just think there's a lot of audacity to what
they're trying to do here." Mark Stevens brought these plans
to the Planning Board back in July, what has changed that Mrs.
Grahame now doesn't seem to have a problem with the wetlands
issue?
In a letter to the editor that I wrote to the Exeter News-Letter
in October of 1999, I asked Mrs. Grahame "Where has she been
over the past few years while the Route 101 project was going on?
Many wetlands have been destroyed and re-constructed during the
project to widen route 101." The State of New Hampshire
Water Resources Council mandates recreating an equal amount of
wetlands to replace ones that have been developed.
There were hundreds of people at Stratham Planning Board meetings
fighting against Wal-Mart and they were all more than willing to
use the wetlands as a reason to stop Wal-Mart. With all the
projects involving wetlands over the last couple years, where did
everyone go? Last week The Exeter News-Letter had a common sense
editorial on the School Board asking the State to allow them to
fill 24,000 feet of wetlands. All this wetland will be destroyed,
just to allow the students to have playing fields. With education
funding in crisis, our school board is looking at Playing fields.
One location they are looking at is over a mile away from the
school.
The Co-Op school in Stratham was built above one of the largest
watersheds for the Town of Exeter, but all the conservation
commissioners and planners say that the towns' scientific studies
show that this area is safe. Why has mine been the only voice to
question this? With 20 homes and 4 apartment buildings being
planned shouldn't more people have at least shown an interest in
the quality of Exeter's water supply? Everyone that I have spoken
with states that the area is safe for construction. It is my
right to doubt that. If you let a golf ball roll from in front of
the Co-Op school, if it could make the corner, it would land in
the Dearborn Brook.
From what I have been told this area will have little effect on
the watershed and I certainly hope that they are correct. Where
were those hundreds of people concerned about a piece of property
that would only drain into the Squamscott River and flow out to
sea, but not even raise a question about these other wetland
issues? Now there have been several rumors of a Target Store, a
bigger Shaw's, or now several retail stores and one 80,000 square
foot store infringing on the same wetland as Wal-Mart. Again I
ask, "Where is the Outrage?"
Insert Wal-Mart smiley face here. (Edited out by the News-Letter)
Racial
Slurs Should Not Lead To Violence
8/21/2001
By Ken Goodall
To the family and friends of Thung Phetakoune, I would like to
offer my deepest sympathies. Mr. Phetakoune was pushed to the
ground causing his death on Monday, July 16th. Richard Labbe, 35,
has been charged on two counts of reckless second-degree murder,
the second charges that his actions were motivated by race, and
raises this to the level of a "Hate Crime".
If Labbe is found guilty, with his previous record, He should get
life behind bars.
That being said, there is another part of this issue that I find
quite shocking. Seventeen year old Anouseng Summer Phetakoune,
17, stated in an article in the Exeter News-Letter titled,
"Laotians Sense Discrimination" in the July 24th issue,
that She "got arrested at the Stratham Fair last year"
for chasing another teen-age girl with a knife. The girl and
several others from the Exeter High School had called her a gook
and told her to "Go back to her own country". Miss
Phetakoune added that she was upset that when the police arrested
her they wouldn't let her tell them what happened and they did
nothing to the other girls.
Well a year has gone by and no one has taught Miss Phetakoune
that what she did is wrong, and no matter what the other girls
said, she had no right to chase them with a knife. I do not know
if she is related to Thung Phetakoune, but actions like this
could end up with her in a jail cell right next to the man that
killed Mr. Phetakoune. Words and insults do not cause bodily
injury, but when a knife is pulled the possibility of causing
injury or death to someone is very real.
Miss Phetakoune also commented that the police did nothing to
those other girls. Well I certainly hope the police did give
these other girls warnings on harassment and hopefully notified
their parents of their involvement in this situation. If Miss
Phetakoune's only reasoning for the knife was the fact that the
other girls called her names, then no wonder the police didn't
listen to her. I would have read Miss Phetakoune her rights and
stuck her in the cruiser. Then I would have called the parents of
these other upstanding kids and had them come to the station to
pick up their kids, or keep another officer with them until every
parent or guardian came to pick them up.
Words may hurt but they cannot injure. People can insult your
race, your religion, your grandparents, or your mother and you
can still walk away unharmed. I know a lot of the people that run
the Stratham Fair and many more involved in activities at the
fair. If this girl had gone to the fair headquarters, the police
would have been notified since officers are always there, and the
officials at the fair, at the very least, would have had these
ignorant girls removed from the grounds and informed that they
would not be welcomed back.
If Miss Phetakoune is related to Thung Phetakoune, then again I
offer her my deepest sympathies for her loss, and I also
understand the effects that an incident like this can have on
someone. I also do not know what resulted from her arrest, but
from her comments in the media, I believe she needs some serious
counceling more now then ever. To rise to the level of pulling a
knife on someone over insults and ridicule shows a lack of moral
conscience. These other girls from the Exeter High School who
were hurling these racial slurs could also benefit from some
counseling. To discriminate and insult someone because of their
race, religion, or sex shows a lack of moral conscience as well.
The phrase "Hate Crimes" never existed until the media
introduced it after white supremacists attacked blacks,
homosexuals were attacked because of their lifestyle, and many
others were attacked because of their heritage. Now the phrase is
common and there is federal legislation pending regarding Hate
Crimes. This is a statement on society today. None of the parties
involved in the incident at the Stratham Fair last year showed
any signs of decency.
Stratham Selectmen
are Dead Wrong
8/24/2001
By Ken Goodall
In an article in the Exeter News-Letter on Friday August 17,
2001, the headline claims that the Stratham Selectmen are
"Upset by Calls for Middle School Inspection". The
company that constructed the school is Hutter Construction and
they have come under scrutiny for doing sub-standard work on
other projects. One of these projects was the Pennichuck Junior
High School in Nashua, N.H, where when the roof collapsed it was
believed to have been due to heavy snow.
Upon inspection of the building it was found that steel bars in
load bearing walls that were supposed to be re-enforced with
concrete had not been. This may not have caused the collapse but
it very well may have contributed to the failure of the roof.
Similar walls can be found at the Middle School in Stratham, but
according to Selectman Marty Wool, Terry Barnes, the Stratham
building inspector, "Did an exemplary job of inspecting the
building as it was being built". In a letter dated Aug. 10th
to State Fire Marshal Donald Bliss, the selectmen admit, "No
oversight process is fool proof".
Then why when the selectmen admit that no oversight process is
fool proof do they accuse the Exeter Area Taxpayers Association
(EATA) who requested the inspection of being on a "Witch
Hunt"? The Selectmen claim that Mr. Barnes was at the Middle
School jobsite on a daily basis. That may be true but did he see
every wall get re-enforced with concrete as required? The
selectmen may be willing to risk the lives of the students and
teachers at the school but the EATA and others, including myself,
are not willing to take that risk.
The News-Letter article also mentioned a second Hutter
Construction project that came into question. This project was
the construction of the new elementary school in Pelham NH.
Pelham Building Inspector Roland Soucy angered some school
district officials when he put a stop work order on the project
back on June 12th of this year. The Pelham School Board Chairman
Robert E. Turnquist stated that He believes the "building is
completely structurally sound." The President of Hutter
Construction, Gary W. Bertram, said the construction being used
is "typical," and the delay is both frustrating and
unnecessary.
What the News-Letter reporter forgot to mention in Friday's
article was Mr. Soucy's concerns were found to be valid. After
checking the building, walls were found that were not re-enforced
properly. Mr. Soucy took a lot of heat for his decision to issue
the stop work order, but was willing to accept that in order to
insure the safety of those that would be going to this school. We
may never know if his decision saved lives or not, but we must
honor his actions to require that projects in his town are up to
their specifications.
Selectmen Marty Wool's opinion of double checking the quality of
work at the Stratham School is that "They're wasting the
State people's time and effort and money for no good
reason." Mr. Wool may be willing to risk the lives of his
children and grandchildren but some of us are not. Mr. Barnes may
have been at the construction site every day but it would be
impossible for him to have witnessed every facet of the project.
Mr. Wool stated in the article that "If there was a problem
with the school in Nashua, the fault lies with the architects and
engineers. Hutter was simply following their plans."
Well Mr. Wool there is NO if here, the project did not conform to
the plans. The plans called for steel in the walls re-enforced
with cement and that was not done. That sir is not according to
the plans. Mr. Wool accuses those of us asking for an inspection
of being on a "Witch Hunt" and states that "The
EATA is a group of negative people who seem to have nothing
better to do then to find fault with the Co-Operative School
Board." He also stated that "I don't know why they feel
that the School Board is out to screw everybody. I don't
understand that."
Mr. Wool, pay attention, when the School Board ended up with a
$400,000 surplus a few years ago instead of putting it towards
the next years budget to offset OUR taxes, they incorporated it
into that years budget and spent some of it on raises for
administrators. Not Teachers, Administrators. Then when they
ended up with another surplus they decided to put the money in a
Maintenance Fund and a Capital Reserve Fund rather than give the
taxpayers a break again. I can't blame the School Board for that
since the voters agreed to this, but it was the School Board who
recommended the warrant article to keep this money. The voters of
the Exeter Area who supported this article may not have minded
them keeping excess tax money, but I certainly did.
Now with education funding in crisis, this board is spending
large amounts of time and money on plans to fill wetlands in two
different locations to provide playing fields for the students.
One area between Court Street and Linden Street floods every year
and filling these wetlands could very well divert those flood
waters to other areas that may effect home owners in that area.
The second location that they are spending time and money on to
investigate is over a mile away from the school. How useful could
it be to have fields that far from the school? Will we be paying
for buses to bus the kids to gym class or soccer or football
practice? This is why people like the EATA and myself question
the actions of the Co-Operative School Board.
To the Selectmen of Stratham, if you want to call this request to
investigate the construction of the Middle School a "Witch
Hunt", that's fine, you go right ahead. Believe me, I would
rather have you telling us "We Told You So", then to
have us telling you that over the injured bodies of students and
teachers at a collapsed middle school.
Bush Plus
Illegal Aliens Equals One-Term
9/7/2001
By Ken Goodall
The Bush administration is considering granting legal residency
to three million undocumented Mexican immigrants. Undocumented
Mexican immigrants? Isn't that supposed to be Illegal Aliens?
It's time that the Great Melting Pot stopped melting, at least
with illegal aliens.
I don't know if President Bush is trying to gain the vote of the
Mexican-American population or not, but this will certainly cause
him to lose the vote of every other naturalized citizen of this
country. There are many legal immigrants in this country who are
working and trying to become citizens of the United States
Legally. Why is President Bush offering Mexican Criminals the
opportunity for a free pass?
Some readers may take umbrage to the use of the words Mexican
Criminals. A criminal is someone that does something illegal or
against the law. To enter this country without permission or
documentation is illegal and anyone that enters this country
illegally is a Criminal. So by definition, undocumented Mexican
immigrants are illegal aliens, and to continue the logic they
would also be Mexican Criminals. So President Bush is basically
giving immunity by legalizing Mexican criminals that have
illegally entered the United States.
There are some that actually believe that we need illegal aliens
to do the work that Americans are not willing to do. So since
many companies are using illegal aliens to get dirty jobs done at
a cheap rate, these people believe that no one else will do it.
Well there are plenty of emigrants who would be more than willing
to take these jobs for the opportunity to come to this country
legally. I suspect many of those businesses that hire illegal
aliens wouldn't like that. That would mean they would have to
offer some kind of benefits and probably they couldn't get away
with slave labor pay either. Too Bad.
These companies that have knowingly used illegal aliens have been
breaking more laws then than the illegal aliens working for them.
These law-breaking companies should be caught and fined to allow
legal operating businesses a chance to compete legally. If we
have laws on illegal aliens and laws against knowingly hiring
them, then let's enforce those laws. Otherwise why do we have
those laws? If enough people feel that these laws are not worth
enforcing, then work to get rid of them. Open the borders
completely and let the free market reign.
The illegal aliens should be rounded up like the criminals that
they are and sent back to their own countries. There are a lot of
welfare recipients that don't work because they are poor and
single with kids. Well that's when we offer government day care
to take care of their kids for free and they can do some of these
jobs to start leading a productive life instead of living off the
public dole. Prisoners can do other jobs since many low risk
prisoners could work during the day and again start to lead a
productive life.
Many say that since Mexico is a bordering neighbor then we ought
to allow them to stay. Well Canada borders the U.S. also and the
border is actually much larger then Mexico's. Actually by all
rights Canada should get first preference since many Canadians
already speak our language and won't require bilingual services.
For as many reasons to allow illegal Mexican's, you can find just
as many reasons to allow other illegal aliens to remain also.
Don't forget all those legal immigrants whose visas are about to
expire. This may be a good time for them to let them expire. They
have a better opportunity here if they are illegal.
Now I am all for immigrants coming to this country legally as
long as they have jobs and can support themselves. To the
immigrants that do this and work to achieve their version of the
American Dream, I salute them. That is what America is all about
and that's how the melting pot is supposed to melt. Those
immigrants with their green cards who struggled to come to the
U.S., but unfortunately for them they are not Mexican, will not
be feeling any too happy with our President if He goes through
with his plans. Is it fair to all of those who struggled lawfully
to come to this country only to have a bunch of criminals be
accepted as "Legal" with a wave of the Presidents magic
wand?
Attack
Shows Even the Strong is Vulnerable
9/18/2001
By Ken Goodall
The horrific acts perpetrated against the United States of
America on September 11, 2001 have me thinking about defense.
Defense of our country and defense of my family. Over the past
several years we have seen the demilitarization of our Armed
Forces. Now would the military have been able to avoid this
recent tragedy? No, that is not what I am suggesting.
What I am suggesting is that with the military budget cuts over
the last decade, they may have left us unprepared for such an
atrocity. The demilitarization included cuts in spending on
defense, military research, and the most important military
intelligence. Had we had more intelligence operatives around the
world we may have had an inkling of what was about to happen.
Another victim over the past several years has been the Second
Amendment. Restrictions along with banning certain so-called
assault weapons have been the norm lately. Now would firearms
have made a difference in the recent tragedy? Again, No probably
not. The problem is with the increasing efforts to disarm the
citizens of this country. What this tragedy has done is shown the
vulnerability of the strongest nation in the world. In a free
nation where people are free to travel, there are prices to be
paid. We can and probably should tighten security at airports and
also do background checks on people coming to this country. If we
see people with questionable connections then let's start denying
entry to this country.
Would these actions have avoided this tragedy? Again, probably
not. Criminals do not obey laws or rules so making things illegal
will only effect those that already obey the law. If criminals
want firearms they will get them. If criminals want explosives,
they will make those. We can't outlaw diesel fuel and fertilizer,
and if criminals want to hijack a plane, they will find a way to
do it, like these terrorists just did. No matter what we do there
is always a way in. That is why citizens should retain the right
of self-defense and that includes staying armed.
I am not suggesting armed citizens on planes. Allowing firearms
on planes would have made it easier for the terrorists to get
firearms on them also. As it stands it appears that the
terrorists used box cutters, home made blades, and special
plastic knives that all were able to pass security scans. These
weapons allowed them to take over the planes but it appears from
reports that it may not have worked on all the planes.
A cell phone call from a passenger on flight 93 stated that they
had been hijacked and that some of them were going to
""do something about it." This plane was possibly
heading for either the Whitehouse or Air Force One. Flight 93 is
the plane that ended up crashing in a field in Pennsylvania. This
cell phone call may be a clue that these passengers did fight
back, like true Americans, and possibly caused the plane to crash
where it did instead of hitting another target. Most hijackings
result in the release of the passengers and most of the people on
these planes probably had no idea what was going on until it was
too late. Something possibly happened on flight 93 that gave
those people the strength to fight back. If this is true these
people are Heroes.
What these events do is alert us to the fact that we are
vulnerable. This time it was planes, next time it may be poison
gas, poisoning the water, or chemical warfare. We thought that it
could never happen here. Many anti-firearm types have called the
Second Amendment "Archaic", because with technology
wars would not be fought on our own land. Well groups like these
terrorists have brought the fight to our own land, and if ever
the need arises, the minutemen of the future, may just be the
firearm owners of today. When terrorism strikes, chaos ensues.
This may be why the timing of these planes was worked the way it
was. First the civilian towers, then the possible attempt on the
Whitehouse and finally the attack on the pentagon.
In a time of chaos, the police may be overwhelmed. When police
become involved in actions in several places and terrorists work
towards our water supplies or just our towns in general, then the
militia would need to be activated. Well regulated? Not
necessarily. Were those volunteers well regulated at this tragedy
in New York? No, they just worked to help whoever they could. If
something ever happened in this country, then most firearm owners
would hopefully act as heroically as those passengers on that
plane may have.
Our President, George Bush, has stated "We will make no
distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and
those who harbor them." This is so true. Those who protect
criminals are as guilty as the criminals themselves. Since there
is no way to absolutely protect against attacks like this, we
need to make a statement that actions like this will not go
unpunished. That is a statement that will be heard around the
World.
We Are Not Like Them
10/12/2001
By Ken Goodall
Some people are saying that our own government may have done
something to cause the attack on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon on Tuesday, September 11th. Some say our support of
Israel caused this tragedy; others say it's our policies and
actions to influence other countries in the Middle East. Then
these same people say that retaliation will only "lower us
to their level" or will "Make us like them".
To these people I say, "We will Never be like them!" We
have never aimed at innocent people, now I am not talking about
war, in war innocent people die, I am talking about our so-called
"Police Actions" or interventions around the world. Yes
we bombed an aspirin factory, but our intelligence reports lead
us to believe that it was a chemical weapons plant. Bad
intelligence reports? Yes, but were we given false reports just
to lead us into actions that inevitably gave the United States a
black eye? That is not only possible, but also probable. We did
bomb a Chinese Embassy, but that was an accident, we didn't aim
at them. These recent acts of terrorism were purposely aimed at
innocent United States citizens. That is why we will never be
like them.
This was not just an attack on our buildings. This was not just
an attack on our civilians. This was an attack on our Liberty,
our Freedom, and this was an attack on our way of life. These
terrorists have invoked terror into our civilian jetliners. They
have invoked terror into our tall buildings. They have invoked
terror into our places of work and they have invoked terror into
our homes.
Now is the time to take a stand against terrorism. Now is the
time to be United, United we Stand, Divided We Fall. These people
making excuses like it is our Government's policies that caused
this act of terrorism or that it is our alliance with Israel that
caused this act of terrorism, are only clouding the issue, and
are acting to divide us. These same people claim that retaliation
will make us like these terrorists. This is another attempt to
divide us. We must not be divided, we must stand United. We do
not target innocent civilians; we target only the guilty.
To Osama Bin Laden and all of his associates and supporters I say
this, There is no mountain thick enough. There is no cave deep
enough. There is no country big enough to protect you from us.
Thanks to you, we are United and we will act United in our
efforts to find you and your associates and make you pay for your
horrendous act of terrorism. We are United against you and you
better look over your shoulder because we will find you, maybe
not today, maybe not tomorrow, but we will find you and you will
pay for what you have done.
Todd Beamer was a passenger on Flight 93 and during a cell phone
conversation with an operator he told her of the hijacking and
that there was a group that had decided to do something about it.
Passengers Jeremy Glick, Tom Burnett, and Mark Bingham had also
made similar calls to various people, all with the same
statements that they were going to "Do something about
it". Another passenger was Richard Guadagno, a refuge
manager for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and a friend of
mine had the honor to be Rich's supervisor while working for the
Fish and Wildlife service. He said "I just know that Rich
was in the thick of the struggle. He was that sort of an
officer."
The last thing that the operator heard Todd Beamer say was
"Let's Roll". That was just minutes before that
ill-fated flight crashed into the ground in a field in
Pennsylvania. Todd Beamer's wife said that he always used to say
that to get his kids going when they were leaving the house. The
heroic actions of these passengers probably caused this plane to
crash with no injuries on the ground. It is now believed that
this plane was headed towards Washington, D.C. Possibly the
Whitehouse or the Pentagon.
Well America, Now is the time to be United, United We Stand,
Divided We Fall, and to all Americans, I say now, "Let's
Roll"!
(Proceeds from this column are being donated to the rescue effort
in New York City)
Sportsmen Speak Out
in Salem, NH
10/26/2001
By Ken Goodall
On Wednesday September 5th there was standing room only in the
Knightly Meeting Room of the Salem New Hampshire Town Hall. The
Salem Conservation Commission held a public hearing to discuss
their decision to ban all hunting in the Salem Town Forest.
Hunters from around the State and some from out of state came to
show their dissatisfaction with the Commission's decision to ban
hunting on over 200 acres of land that make up the Salem Town
Forest. This was a familiar scene to many since last year the
Commission made a recommendation to the Salem Selectmen to ban
the use of firearms in the Town Forest. After a public hearing
the Selectmen decided to continue to allow muzzleloader and
archery hunting in the Forest.
Mr. Andrew Santo who had sold 10 acres of land to the Town of
Salem to be added to the existing Town Forest for $10,000, stated
that He had mentioned allowing hunting on several occasions but
that it had never been added to the deed. Everett McBride, who
served as a Selectmen last year, stated that He believed that
their decision to amend the deed to the Town Forest to include
hunting as an accepted activity was never carried out.
Conservation Commissioner George Jones questioned whether a deed
could legally be amended in that manner.
A lawyer advising the Conservation Commission told them that they
had the control of the Town Forest over the power of the
Selectmen. Due to increased activity in the forest and the use of
a new parking area, the Commission felt that safety was now a
factor and used their power to institute the ban on all hunting.
Mike Edwards of Kingston, NH, said that His Dad, who he considers
an "Old Yankee", told him to never give land to the
town, to the state, or to the Government, because they would
change the rules. Mr. Edwards who is the NH Webmaster for New
England Sportsman Network (http://www.nesportsman.com) also
attended last years meeting.
Several people came to the meeting after seeing the issue being
discussed on a live broadcast on the local cable channel. Most
were supporters who came to echo the hunter's position to request
that the Commission reverse their decision and allow hunters to
use the Town Forest. Stephanie Micklon, a NH State Representative
from Salem, also saw the broadcast and came down to voice her
opinion. Ms. Micklon who enjoys walking and taking pictures in
the Town Forest, came down to say that she considers herself a
"Bambi Lover", but would never deny hunters the right
to use the land. She also stated that she "feels safer with
hunters then with the dirt bikes" using the forest.
Another woman who saw the live broadcast came down to say "I
don't like guns" and that she was nervous about walking with
her child in the Town Forest. She was upset that no one had
spoken out for the everyday user of the forest and she felt that
she had to come down to support the Conservation Commission's
decision.
Doug Ross, A NH Fish and Game Commissioner, Dave Walsh, a
NHF&G Officer, and another officer attended the meeting.
Officer Walsh stated that he saw more danger with All Terrain
Vehicles then with hunters. When questioned on the enforcement of
Muzzleloader and Archery Only in the Town Forest, he said that he
covers several towns and responds when called, but that it was
the Commission's responsibility to put up signs and mark the
boundaries.
The question of marking the boundaries has come up before and is
on the Commission's agenda at a future date. The problem is that
signs fade and get destroyed and tags marking the boundaries seem
to disappear. Even with marking boundaries some people may miss
the signs and still cross into or out of the Town Forest. At this
point Commissioner Linda Harvey suggested recommending to the
Salem Selectmen to extend the ban to all of Salem, due to the
difficulty of enforcement in the Town Forest.
Mike Edwards approached the Commission and questioned Linda
Harvey on her comment of extending the Ban to all of Salem and
she stated that what she meant was to extend the limitation of
Muzzleloader and Archery Hunting Only to all of Salem. Mr.
Edwards proceeded to question her on the subject, but the
Chairman of the Conservation Commission stopped Mr. Edwards since
this was not the subject of the meeting.
After a short break the Commission brought the meeting back into
order. Conservation Commissioner George Jones who had proposed
the original motion that brought about the ban on hunting, now
made a motion to allow hunting by Muzzleloader and Archery Only
in the Town Forest. The motion would allow hunting by
Muzzleloader and Archery during the Regular firearms season and
for Archery to continue to the end of the State Archery season.
The motion also mentioned that the permit process, whereby
hunters had to register at the Salem Police Station to hunt in
the Forest, was being purposely left out of the new motion. The
Salem Conservation Commission voted unanimously to allow hunting
in the Town Forest.
After a discussion with NHF&G Commissioner Doug Ross, He
agreed to inform the NHF&G headquarters of the decision and
to include in the NH State Hunting Booklet that the Town Forest
of Salem would be Muzzleloader and Archery Only.
USS Cole
Floats A Day Ahead of Schedule
11/6/2001
by Ken Goodall
On Friday, September 14th, The USS Cole was set afloat again and
it was done a day ahead of schedule. The shipyard in Pascagoula
Mississippi worked diligently to get the USS Cole back on the
water. Congratulations to all for their valiant effort. The USS
Cole had been the victim of a terrorist attack while refueling in
Yemen last October.
With the events of late, this reminds me of another war waged
against terrorism by American soldiers. This is a story that I
wrote last year titled "Lest We Forget-Bravery Of Our
Servicemen and Women":
Lt. Brandon Floyd, of the USS Hawes, a guided missile Frigate,
offered his personal perspective on the tragedy:
"It wasn't until a few days ago though, that we started
doing something that I feel may be the first thing I've seen in
my short Naval career that has truly made a difference. Right now
we're supporting the USS COLE and her crew in Aden. When the
attack occurred we were a day away. Just by luck we happened to
be on our way out of the Gulf and headed towards the Suez and
could get here in a relatively short amount of time. I know what
you all have seen on CNN, because we have seen it too. I just
want you all to know that what you see doesn't even scratch the
surface. I'm not going to get into it for obvious reasons.
But I will tell you that right now there are 250+ sailors just a
few miles away living in hell on Earth. I'm sitting in a nice
air-conditioned stateroom, they're sleeping out on the decks at
night. You can't even imagine the conditions they're living in,
and yet they are still fighting 24 hours a day to save their ship
and free the bodies of those still trapped and send them home.
As bad as it is, they're doing an incredible job. The very fact
that these people are still functioning is beyond my
comprehension. Whatever you imagine as the worst, multiply it by
ten and you might get there. Today I was tasked to photo rig the
ship and surrounding area. It looked so much worse than I had
imagined, unbelievable really, with debris and disarray
everywhere, the ship listing, the hole in her side. I wish I had
the power to relay to you all what I have seen, but words just
won't do it. I do want to tell you the first thing that jumped
out at me - the Stars and Stripes flying. I can't tell you how
that made me feel...even in this God forsaken hell hole our flag
was more beautiful than words can describe.
Then I started to notice the mass of activity going on below,
scores of people working non-stop in 90 plus degree weather to
save this ship. They're doing it with almost no electrical power
and they're sleeping (when they can sleep) outside on the decks
because they can't stand the smell or the heat or the darkness
inside. They only want to eat what we bring them because they're
all scared of eating something brought by the local vendors.
Even with all that, the USS COLE and her crew is sending a
message guys, and it's that even acts of cowardice and hate can
do nothing to the spirit and pride of the United States. I have
never been so proud of what I do, or of the men and women that I
serve with as I was today. There are sixteen confirmed dead
sailors who put it on the line for all of us, and some of them
are still trapped here.
Please take a minute to pray for their families and say a word of
thanks for their sacrifice - one made so that we can live the
lives that we do. All of you that serve with me, thank you. All
of you that have loved ones that serve, Thank You."
This letter can be found on the Department of the Navy's, Navy
Historical Center Website: http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/2000/nov-dec/cole.htm.
Someone who was there and witnessed these events wrote this
incredible letter. General Norman Schwartzkopf on CNN also talked
about the brave and valiant effort that the crew of the USS Cole
had put forth to recover the bodies of their fallen comrades and
keep their ship afloat.
The US does a lot to be hated for around the world, but I don't
like it when we attack citizens of other countries for the
actions of their governments, and I don't like acts of terrorism
against our servicemen who are just doing their jobs.
While the rest of the Navy is still in the comfort of their
posts, the crew of the USS Cole continues to live in a disaster
area, with many of their systems down, and having to sleep above
deck. The crew continues the battle to keep their ship, their
pride and joy, and ours too, afloat. To let this ship sink and
leave the bodies of trapped servicemen and women to the sea would
just be another victory for the suicidal maniacs that perpetrated
this horrendous crime against our country.
In a time of peace our servicemen and women are fighting a major
war against terrorism by standing up for their country and doing
whatever it takes to keep the honor and respect of their ship,
and their country, intact.
Some people feel that the military is a way for people to avoid
the hustle and bustle of the public sector, but they don't get
paid very well. They don't always get the benefits that they
deserve, and last and absolutely not the least is the fact that
even during peace time, when you serve our country, your life is
on the line. Lest we forget, these honorable men and women put
their lives on the line for the rest of us. Like the line spoken
by Jack Nicolson in the movie A Few Good Men, "We
(servicemen) walk the line to protect your freedom while you sit
at home and eat your Wheaties."
When our boys and girls go off to serve our country, we need to
remember that they are putting their lives on the line for us,
and we should remember and respect them more often then once a
year on Veterans Day.
I would like to thank all of those that are serving or have ever
served our country. It may not seem that way sometimes, but there
are a lot of us who do appreciate what you do.
United We Stand, Divided We Fall.
State Listening to
Anglers
11/13/2001
By Ken Goodall
A group of fishermen started a discussion on an Internet message
board. The discussion started as a comment on the quality of the
warm water fishery in Lake Winnipesaukee. Warm Water species
include bass, pickerel and perch. The idea of bringing some of
the points in the discussion to the attention of the New
Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHF&G) prompted the first
Warm Water Fisheries Meeting, which was held on Thursday, January
11th of this year. Unfortunately I was unable to attend the
meeting.
New Hampshire has always been known as a Trout and Salmon
fishermen's haven, but since the introduction of Bass around the
turn of the century, Bass fishing has been on the increase ever
since. Not so long ago one of the best-kept secrets in NH was the
quality of Bass being caught in Lake Winnipesaukee. Now we have
come full circle and questions on the stability of Bass and other
warm water species in Lake Winnipesaukee were one of the topics
at the meeting.
One point of discussion was the effect of tournaments on
fisheries like Lake Winnipesaukee. According to Steve Perry,
chief of the New Hampshire Fish and Game's inland fisheries
division, there were 471 Fishing Tournaments held in NH last year
and 431, or 91%, of those were Bass tournaments. Many anglers
defend tournaments by stating that Bass tournaments are catch and
release only and all the fish that are weighed in are released
back into the lakes.
The practice of catch and release brings up a subject that most
anglers agree is in need of a study of some kind and that is
delayed mortality. Delayed Mortality is when a fish dies long
after being released. The only way to study this possible problem
is to revisit the site of a tournament and look for dead fish and
possibly interview other fishermen to see if dead fish have been
seen. A lot of different studies are going to involve the
everyday angler and getting input from them in the course of
their normal time spent fishing.
Tournament anglers and well-run tournaments spend a lot of money
to insure the health of the fish. Live wells with aerators
(injects oxygen into the water of a live well) are required at
most tournaments, and chemicals to calm the fish and preserve
their protective coatings of slime are used by many tournament
anglers. To tournament fishermen the health of the fish is of the
utmost importance, since bringing in a dead fish results in a
penalty and loss of pounds of their total fish weight.
Cold Water species have been stocked for years but to this date
no warm water species have been stocked by NHF&G. Cold water
species like Trout and Salmon do not breed the same as warm water
species. Since the introduction of Bass into NH lakes, Bass have
gotten to where they are on their own. Whether to devote the same
amount of money to a Warm Water fishery is another subject
altogether. I do not believe that this was discussed at the
meeting, but I am sure it will come up in future meetings.
Cold Water Fisheries and Warm Water Fisheries should not get the
same amount of funding because they are two different types of
fishing. The methods used for cold water species do not lend
themselves to Catch and Release as well as warm water species.
Cold water species are also much more sought after as a food
source and I believe you will find a much larger percentage of
cold water anglers keep their catch.
Let's face it, and I am sure some cooks will tell me how to
prepare a delicious Bass, but Trout and Salmon are a more tasty
fish then warm water species. Don't get me wrong, I am not much
of a freshwater fish eater at all. I usually release every fish
that I catch, including Trout and Salmon. If I catch a wounded or
gut hooked fish, then I keep them and usually give them to my Mom
or my Mother-in-law since they both love fish of all kinds.
Bass are a prolific species and the majority of Bass fishermen do
practice Catch and Release. Also Trout and Salmon, although
heavily stocked now, are a native species and Bass are an
introduced species to the northeast. Look at the population of
Bass now and they have only been in New Hampshire for about one
hundred years.
I am not denying the need for Warm Water Species management and a
warm water fishery study. We also need to monitor tournaments,
basically because they can be; you can't monitor every
Non-Tournament fisherman out there fishing. Tournaments already
take counts and weights that can be used as a measure of the
fishery.
Tournaments also need to be held to some sort of standards to
assure that fish are handled correctly and released in a proper
manner to prevent as much delayed mortality as possible. Short of
education through pamphlets when licenses are bought, we can only
hope that the average angler acts as sportsman-like as possible,
like the majority of Tournament fishermen already do.
There is no question that Warm Water fisheries deserve more
funding than they are receiving now, but to suggest that they
receive the same amount of funding as Cold Water fisheries is
comparing Apples and Oranges.
This first meeting was just the beginning of a new era of
communication between fishermen and the NH Fish and Game
Department. Hopefully the NH Fish and Game Department will
continue to hear fishermen's opinions on the Warm Water Fishery
here in New Hampshire.
All Crime is Hateful
12/12/2001
By Ken Goodall
A crime is a crime. To make more laws regarding so-called Hate
Crimes, is just more redundancy on the books. There are laws
against harassment. The are laws against harassment at work,
sexual harassment, road rage, and stalking laws. Any kind of
harassment, Racial, Religious, Sexual or domestic, there are
already laws against it.
All crimes involve hate of some kind. Rape is not a crime of sex;
it is a crime of power. These individuals feel, if only in their
own minds, that women have some kind of power of them. Rape is a
way to exude power over women. They hate women for having
supposed power over them. Certainly seems like these acts could
be considered hate crimes. They insult the women, they degrade
the women, this could be considered Gender Hate.
Anyone that has been robbed or mugged ends up feeling violated,
unsafe, and yes even hated. A victim of robbery feels that they
must have been hated for what they had. Hated enough that someone
wants to take what they have worked hard to earn. Being robbed or
mugged certainly seems like a hate crime to the victim.
New Hampshire teachers are going to bullying and hate crime
seminars. Now when students call each other names like sissy,
girlie boy, or fag, these will now be considered a hate crime or
bullying. Insults and harassment do not have to be tolerated.
They do not have to be raised to the level of hate crimes in
order to punish these students.
I have asked over a dozen people to name one incident of a hate
crime against a straight white man. A tough question until I
asked Joe Bell of Tewksbury, Massachusetts. He answered rather
quickly, "Reginald Denny". Reginald Denny was pulled
from his truck and brutally beaten. One Man, Damian Williams,
struck Denny in the head with a brick and then did a victory
dance over Denny's bloody body. This horrendous act was caught on
tape like Rodney King's arrest, which resulted in the acquittal
of the Police that beat him and lead to the riot that Mr. Denny
ended up in the middle of.
At the sentencing the judge said ""Mr. Williams, it's
intolerable in this society to attack and maim people because of
their race," This could definitely have been considered a
Hate Crime. Damian Williams was found guilty and was sentenced to
ten years in prison for his violent actions. How much time did he
actually serve? Four years. Four years for brutally bashing a man
in the head with a brick. The judge's quote comes from a story
done by a CBS affiliate in Hollywood, California. That story from
a year ago was on a new indictment against Williams. What was the
indictment for? Murder.
It is commonly thought that whites commit the majority of hate
crimes as they are reported today. By the numbers this is true,
but when you figure in the percentage of the population that is
white, it sheds a whole new light on the subject. In 1999,
according to FBI Hate Crime statistics, there were 4092 white
offenders of hate crimes, and 947 black offenders. Yes, by the
numbers whites do commit more hate crimes. The US Census states
that 211 million people claim to be "White Only", while
35 million people claim to be "Black Only". When you
consider that whites outnumber blacks by 6 to 1, the numbers
change completely. Judging by the 6 to 1 ratio whites should have
committed around 5682 hate crimes, instead of 4092, or blacks
should have committed only 682, instead of 947. So per person,
blacks commit more hate crimes then whites.
Now another problem with these Numbers or statistics is that many
Black on White crimes do not get reported as hate crimes. That is
due in part to the current sway towards political correctness. In
October of 1999 two white men were riding their bikes through
Charleston, South Carolina when they came upon a group of 17
blacks. One man luckily was knocked out, the other, Troy Knapp,
was not so lucky. He was beaten so badly that now he can barely
function.
According to a Fox News report, the prosecutor in the case, David
Schwacke, said, ""we haven't been able to establish
hate as a motive." When asked if the suspects were 17 white
men against 2 black men, would hate more likely be considered a
motive, he said "I think there would be people raising that
as an issue,"
If laws regarding hate crimes aren't used against people like
Damian Williams, who was released after only four years, and
federal prosecutors refuse to prosecute those suspects that beat
Troy Knapp, then what good are these so called hate crime laws?
When laws are broken, justice should be served; Hate shouldn't
have anything to do with the sentence. A vicious crime is just
that, vicious. If a criminal acts extremely brutally, then the
sentence should reflect that brutality. Hate should have nothing
to do with it.
CBS Affiliate Channel 2 Hollywood:
http://www.channel2000.com/news/stories/news-20000901-220351.html
FBI Hate Crime Statistics:
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/hate021301.htm
US Census by CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/08/12/white.black/
Fox News report on Frontpage Magazine:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/pi_crimes/hate_crime06-16-00.htm
As they appeared in The Exeter News-Letter
' Designed by Bowana.
Copyright © 1998-2003 All rights reserved.
Information in this document is subject to change without notice.
Other products and companies referred to herein are trademarks or
registered trademarks of their respective companies or mark
holders.
send comments to The Webmaster
Back To NH Outdoor News