NH News Archives 2001 Page 2

Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page

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. Exeter Police Chief Richard Kane says that several years ago when the tobacco law was new, officers did issue many violations.

Now 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.

(Beginning of section Edited out by the News-Letter)

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.

(End of section edited out by the News-Letter)

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/ .

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Hello, my name is ----- and I am an Exeter High Student student. I am also an underage smoker. I am a 16 year old girl who has been smoking for about 6 years. I am replying to your column to give you a kids point of view on the situation. You stated that there should be more policemen patroling in front of Exeter High School when that won't do any good. You would be wasting money on a pointless act because it won't prevent teen smoking. It will only make teens more angry at the police officers.

If there were to be more police in front of the school to stop kids from smoking the only effect it would have is the kids would go somewhere else to smoke a cigarette. It would be a waste of money and would make other people angry because I am sure they would move in front of another persons house. They will be pushed on to someone else's property or a business' property because they want to have a cigarette then, not later.

Another thing that you have stated is "I find it hard that a lot of parents don't know their kids are smoking." That is not true. There is a percentage of parents that are not aware that their kids smoke but the majority of the parents do know. They either disapprove of it and can't stop them or they know the kids are going to do it anyway and supply them with the habit. I know what you are saying. I know you believe that it is the parents resposibility to make sure their kids don't smoke but they can't keep an eye on them 24/7. The EHS students can make an excuse saying they "have detention" or "missed the bus" so they can sneak in a cigarette after school. I have had to hide this habit from my dad for about 4 years. It is easier to do this than people make it seem to be. Kids go out and hang out with their friends. It's not like they can't put some gum in their mouth and spray on some perfume/cologne on before they go home to their parents.

Also, you had brought up the fact that the government doesn't spend half the money on non-smoking advertisements. Just to let you know, when I turn on the TV to watch a half an hour show, I see about 10 non-smoking ads a night within that half an hour. This whole situation is way above the police departments heads because they can't go in to people's houses every minute of the day to make sure that there isn't any underage smoking.

There are more important issues that the government and the police department to deal with and instead of them spending evey moment watching out for underage smoking, they have better things to do.

Well here is a reply that is going to be very tough for me to answer. A 16 year old EHS student that has been smoking for 6 years.

If my 10 year old daughter was coming home smelling more of perfume than when she left, there would be a serious sit down discussion on the matter. Although personally my 10 year old wouldn't be wearing perfume.

I wasn't going to reply to a 16 year old girl but I really need to think about this. I thought this would be the thinking of teen smokers, but I didn't expect such a quick response to my article.

A Democratic Liberal posted this anti-conservative message and my fingers went to typing!

Here was my Reply:

You Are Right! What's wrong with this world is in the Posts.

What's wrong is people screaming about drilling in the Arctic when at this moment there is no alternative and we need energy.
What's wrong is people for eight years said that we should respect the Office of President no matter what he does and now those same people are calling the President of the United States, "Dubya", before 100 days were even up!

What's wrong is people screaming that we were flying a spy plane when spying is done covertly in another country's space and flying in international airspace "Observing" another country is not spying. These same people said nothing when the Chinese were GIVEN information for favors. Then those same Chinese actually had a spy in our country, on our land, steal even more secrets on the last presidents watch. Even our own FBI under the last president had a spy operating against us. Now that was SPYING and it was against US!

What's wrong is the last president came from being a Governor and we were expected to overlook his inexperience and past problems but those problems continued right until the end when the Whitehouse china disappeared. Now the one's that over looked all the problems with the last president have no forgiveness for inexperience with our new president who if we give him a chance may leave his problems behind. Along with the Whitehouse china.

What's wrong is everytime bad news revolved around the last president, an international crisis occurred with tragic results like bombing an Embassy or an aspirin factory and now our new President has handled every crisis with honor, respect, and a firm hand when needed, and He still is.

What's wrong is this President was not the best choice but the best we had offered and if he is dealing with the rich and big business, at least they are Americans. The last president cut deals with the likes of the Chinese and Cubans!

HB101, requiring registered lobbyists to sign a statement concerning false statements or misrepresentation of material facts. 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 straight forward 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"!

Ask Senator Larsen, Senator Wheeler, and any Senator that voted to set the bill aside, why they have a problem with requiring lobbyists to tell the truth?

I Found this posted on a website:

To whom it may concern
I serve in the United States Air Force. I have watched the battle over the tax plan via the papers for a long time now. I never thought that anything I could have said could ever make a difference but today decided to try.

I grew up in New Hampshire. Leaving it for the Air Force was one of the worst moments of my life. But today I walk around telling people with more pride then I have seen anyone else display, how great my state is. I tell them how great our mountains are and how clean we are. I tell them about all the wonderful things that I have grown to love deeply about my state. Most of all though, I tell them about the amount of common sense we have. I tell them about how we don't have an income tax, and a sales tax. I show them that even though we don't have these things, we still work. And we work well.

In all of our years we have never had this kind of bickering over something so stupid. Jeanne Shaheen's plan, or any broadbased tax, will fundamentally change the way we live. It will change the way we view our state. It will strip us of more then just some of the money in our paychecks or the money we have to pay for goods. It will strip us of the pride we have in our ability to live the way we have lived for so long.

A governor is supposed to display a certain amount of leadership. They are supposed to unite people into thinking together. What is happening now shows that we don't have a governor. We simply have two parties feuding with each other. There is no leadership. Instead of solving a minor problem, certain people have turned it into a crusade for personal gain and boosting popularity.

I can tell you one thing though, New Hampshire doesn't respect bickering and stubborness. We respect people acting like adults and working together to fix something properly. There is time to fix this folks. There is time to sit down and figure this out. We as a state know how to do this because we have done it since our conception. Our license plate displays our motto, something we believe in strongly enough that it has withstood many an attempt to change. It reflects the amount of pride we have in our state and I don't think you should let the bickering of people acting with the maturity of children to tell you how to balance our budget.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Jean-Paul Turcotte
New Hampshire Resident since 1980

Out of the Mouth's of Babes! This young man has a head on his shoulders. Hopefully some of our legislators will heed his words.

I would also like to thank him for his service to our country. Thank You Jean-Paul!

To read and/or reply to this post: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ae0dff83aef.htm

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 Sates 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 Post Script added by the News-Letter stated "His opinions do not necessarily reflect those of The Exeter News-Letter or The Seacoast Newspapers."

Anyone that believes that the little piece of dust on Earth called Humanity could have any real impact on it just suffers from human arrogance. CO2, smog, styrofoam, or nuclear waste may effect humans life here on Earth, but the Earth will just rid itself of it's little nuisance called humans and continue on. We are just a condition of Middle Age for the Earth.

It began millions of years before man even evolved and it will still be around for millions of years after man has gone! Humans may not survive what we do to the Earth, but the Earth will. People are claiming that carbon dioxide is killing the Earth. No it's not. It may hurt humans but it won't hurt the Earth and plants love it. CO2 is a major part of sustaining life on Earth.

Life is full of rationalizations. Is the benefit worth the cost? Is having heat worth a little damage to the environment? Is being able to travel worth a little damage to the environment? A few hundred years ago people didn't live much past 30, now the average life span is in the seventies. Should we allow damage to the environment to better human life? Yes. Should we try to limit damage to the environment? Yes.

Many years ago there was a power plant being built in my state (Which I was against, but that's another story) and the battle cry of those in favor of the power plant still sounds true today:

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."

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.

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.

The ‘Kassidy Bill’ debated in Maine will make it a law that a person must report abuse of Children, Elderly or Incapacitated Adults. The bill requires every person to report suspected cases of abuse, neglect or exploitation. The bill addresses the shocking silence of adults who knew about the recurring abuse of 21-month-old Kassidy Bortner of Rochester, N.H., but did nothing to stop it.

Anyone that knows of actual abuse to children and does nothing to stop it obviously lacks human decency and basic courage. Even if a person lacks the courage to intervene, the least they could do is notify the police to stop the abuse. To make this a law though, may be taking this a step too far. This bill includes civil penalties that could be instituted if a person is found guilty of having knowledge of the abuse.

A law that requires us to police our neighbors opens the door to some serious accusations. Average people are going to have to decide what is and isn't abuse. Will yelling or screaming at your child be considered abuse? It could be by some people. Is spanking abuse? A lot of people believe it is. What recourse will be available to those that are wrongly accused?

What next? Speed kills and someone speeding may kill several people. Are we now going to be required by law to report people that are speeding? After a bouncing ball comes a running child. In order to "Save the Children" we may need a law to require reporting speeders. Where is this kind of legislation going to take us?

We cannot legislate morality or decency. To try to do so could put us on a very slippery slope. Neighbors watching neighbors and friends watching friends. Common sense and decency already require people of good conscience to report abuse. People that know of abuse and do nothing about it, lack conscience.

The people that didn't report abuse in the Kassidy Bortner case will have to live with it for the rest of their lives. Let's not institute a law to report every parent that loses their patience and screams at their kids or slaps a child for mouthing off to them. There is a difference between discipline and abuse. A law that may cause parents to have second thoughts on discipline could cause more children to grow up with a lack of conscience and knowing right from wrong.

My recent mailing stating that I wouldn't be replying to Linda Henderson's "Guest Shot" at me in the Exeter News-Letter, but that I would post it on the School Discussion Board instead, seems to have caused some trouble anyway! I posted my rebuttal on Monday March 12th and a couple of replies to it were posted the next day. Someone in the school system has decided that my defense of Mrs. Henderson's accusations is not worthy of the School Website Discussion Forum, the Post and replies to it have been deleted! Gone the way of the Internet history files that Mr. Knight was looking for!

It seems that the school system doesn't like being criticized on the website. They didn't seem to mind School Board member Linda Henderson getting an article printed in the Exeter News-Letter with no time before the Vote on warrants to print a rebuttal. Mrs. Henderson got the last word before the vote and it appears the school system has given her the last word on the PUBLIC Discussion Forum on the school website also! If you don't like what someone has to say then delete it!

Mrs. Henderson not only accused me of being misleading, but stated that if the school board had recommended building a bigger school "Mr. Goodall would have been complaining about that too!". Well I never complained about building the Cooperative School and I never complained about renovating the High School either! I have written a column on the First Amendment, that hasn't been printed yet, the column suggests that the school system should spend more time teaching the theory behind the first amendment. I firmly believe that more now than ever!

Who ever chose to delete the messages posted on the school PUBLIC Discussion Forum should spend some time studying the United States Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights. The first of which is the First Amendment, the right to freedom of speech!

I will be posting this on the School's PUBLIC Discussion Forum. (At least until it gets Deleted)

Please reply to the post if you would like, after all it is a Public Discussion Forum, and actually it's our tax money that pays for it!

It seems that there is talk that Shaws Supermarket in Stratham NH may be planning a move. They plan to stay in Stratham, but they are "Problem Solving" and that may include a move to the site that was denied to Wal-Mart because of wetlands.

Am I missing something? Did these wetlands suddenly dry up? Is it because local Stratham developers including Susan Conway now own the land? How can this land be suitable for commercial and industrial use but not for a Wal-Mart Super store? Are Shaw's and other industrial interests dealing with the developers gong to be able to deal with the wetland issues better than Wal-Mart could have?

I certainly hope that the Citizen's For Stratham and the Citizen's For Smart Growth in Exeter are aware of Shaw's plans. These groups worked diligently to stop Wal-Mart from building in Stratham and Exeter. Both Wal-Mart sites in Stratham and Exeter were denied on issues involving wetlands. It will be interesting to see how vocal these groups are now that a local developer is involved.

Susan Conway seems to have little regard for wetlands. She has been involved with the land around the Cooperative Middle School in Stratham that just happens to be located above one of the largest water sheds supplying Exeter with it's drinking water. There are still plans for putting elderly housing, several single unit dwellings, and possibly some industrial building on this site around the school. The Dearborn Brook runs along that property before it empties into the Exeter Reservoir.

I have heard that the Exeter planning board has accepted the plan so far. I hope the Conservation Commissions can look into this and make sure that run off from this new construction will not interfere with Exeter's water supply. At least the Shaw's site would only run into the Squamscott river that empties into the ocean as I had stated during the deal with Wal-Mart.

Run off going into the Squamscott River and ending up in the ocean is not as dangerous as run off into a major watershed. Although run off into the Squamscott River was major enough to stop the plans for a Wal-Mart store. I am sorry but maybe Shaw's should just stay where they are and Wal-Mart should be offered the property now that it seems acceptable for development. Shaw's could build out the back of the store without losing any parking and Wal-Mart would make the drive to Stratham worth it.

Again groups look at the method of violence instead of the motive of violence. The Santee School district website links to Integrated Insights which has an article by Eileen Smith called "Can Troubled Teens Be Spotted? Can They Be Helped?".

The article claims the Columbine shooters "Harris and Klebold weren't the social outcasts that news reports originally depicted. They had a circle of social acquaintances. They had girlfriends. Their parents took them on fishing outings and to baseball games."

But the article also states that "they also had a history of bullying and threatening others - a trait shared by the boys who went on a shooting rampages at schools in Mississippi, Kentucky and Arkansas. Harris, in fact, swore revenge on people he believed had slighted him in long, ranting postings on the Internet. The parents of one of the students Harris threatened complained to the sheriff's department, which never filed charges."

These two already had a history of problems but were left alone for hours to build their bombs and plan their attack on the school. No one checked on them and no one followed up on their "Counseling"! They were also on anti-depressants and isn't it interesting that the other tragedies that the article mentions from Mississippi, Kentucky and Arkansas, all have links to anti-depressants as well!

Instead of claiming that "If a potentially violent person is denied access to guns and other weapons - and is separated from another troubled teen who might support his venomous tendencies - there is a much greater chance of avoiding tragedy." maybe you should look toward the doctors that prescribe these anti-depressants and don't follow up on the patients afterwards!

The problem is not WHAT was used to commit violence, but WHY the violence was committed! We have a crime in NH that is suspected to have been committed by two teens and they used a knife. No one is asking to ban knives! Everyone wants to know WHY these boys committed these murders and this is the important question that needs to be answered in all these cases of violence.

I e-mailed the following letter to the Superintendent of schools at the Santee School District and to Integrated Insights:

I saw a link to on the Santee School website and read the article by Eileen Smith called " Can Troubled Teens Be Spotted? Can They Be Helped?". I have found many stories indicating a clear correlation between the use of anti-depressants and violence! When kids are having problems we throw drugs at them and wonder why our kids are finding their own drugs to use.

Putting kids on anti-depressants seems to be a big mistake in my eyes. The problem is not abuse of these drugs called SSRI's (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors), but lack of supervision while these kids are prescribed these drugs. Abruptly stopping the use of these prescribed drugs causes anxiety and violent tendencies.

On May 17th, 2000, the U.S. House Education and Workforce Committee was in the process of reviewing school laws and is starting to see a problem with Ritalin!

There are problems with over prescribing, giving samples without proper diagnosis, stealing and selling Ritalin in the school yard! Ritalin is an SSRI (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor) in the same category as Prozac, Luvox, Zoloft, and Paxil. With just a little investigation there is a definite relation between School Violence and kids taking these drugs! I would hope that the Sub-Committee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families that is investigating this problem through up dating old education laws, would see the under-lying problem of violence and SSRI's. Gun Control Activists quote that there are 30,000 gun deaths a year (1997). Sixty percent of those, or 18,000 were suicides!

Wow, Incredible! Now figure that thirty percent of those suicides involve taking at least one other life! That's 5400 more deaths related to the suicides! Most of those that get to the point of suicide have had some sort of therapy, and today most therapy includes prescribing mood altering drugs.

23,000 or 75 percent of gun deaths each year are suicide related, and people want to point at the firearm, when depression and how we treat it is the actual cause of the majority of firearm violence in this country! Most patients diagnosed with depression are going to be prescribed these Anti-Depressants and it's not over-dosing that is the problem, it's abruptly stopping the medication! When an un-monitored patient abruptly stops the medication, the suicidal and psychotic emotions arise. The biggest feeling is that of a lack of conscience, or an "I don't care" attitude and they can do anything to anyone they want!

The legislature needs to look at all these Anti-Depressants like Prozac, Ritalin, Luvox, Zoloft, and Paxil, and take a close look at the side effects and the follow up care that is taking place.

I would like the US Congress and the NH Legislature to read this article and check into this information so that maybe we can address the cause of the problem, which appears to be these SSRI Drugs and NOT GUNS!

2) April 16 1999: Shawn Cooper, a 15-year-old sophomore wounds one at Notus Junior-Senior High School in Notus, Idaho. http://www.boiseweekly.com/archive/v7i42/cope/cope_col.html Reports that Cooper was abused and medicated. (This link has died, but Shawn Cooper was connected to SSRI's)

4) May 21, 1998: Kip Kinkel, a 15-year-old kills four and wounds twenty three at Thurston High School in Springfield, Ore.. http://www.drugawareness.org/washtimes.html Kinkle Had been taking Prozac.

5) March 24, 1998: Mitchell Johnson, 13, and Andrew Golden, 11, opened fire on their classmates and killed five and wounded eleven at Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Ark..

From Jon Rappaport of the Truthseeker foundation: http://www.nfgcc.org/schoolviolence.htm A Doctor from Georgetown University commented on Network television that one of the boys had previously been treated for violent behavior. (Treated with what?)

AND According to Arianna Huffington the following events are linked to Anti-Depressants as well:

10) The estate of Brynn Hartman, Wife of the Saturday Night Live Comedian, Phil Hartman, is also suing Pfizer, since Mrs. Hartman had been on Zoloft when she killed her husband and herself! http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/061099.html

These drugs cause side effects like insomnia, anxiety, and agitation. (From The New York Hospital Cornell Medical Center), and sometimes suicidal tendencies especially with fluoxetine (Prozac). These results have been found in adults and some young people, but the best course for prescribing SSRI's to the young seems to be extreme caution.

How could so many of these legally drugged up kids have been left with out supervision?

A major problem today is that every time a child has a problem, doctors start prescribing these drugs and when something like this tragedy occurs, medical records of minors can't be released. Luckily some of the families of violent offenders do release the information and as you see, the amount of violence related to anti-depressants is astounding!

How can troubled teens like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold who had a history of problems be allowed to spend hours and hours alone in a garage building bombs and planning their attack on the school without one Parent, Doctor, or other official that knew of their previous problems not check up on them?

The doctors that prescribed these drugs had their fingers on the triggers as much as these teens did!

If there is any connection to anti-depressants being used then this information is very important and any use of these drugs MUST be monitored very closely!

_______________________________________________________________________ Integrated Insights (Formally HHRC): http://www.hhrc.com/

Integrated Insights has an article titled "Helping Children and Adolescents Cope with Violence and Disasters". The article states that "People with PTSD are treated with specialized forms of psychotherapy and sometimes with medications or a combination of the two."

Isn't this just great! The help they offer to victims of violence very well may have been the CAUSE of the violence in the first place!

Mrs. Linda Henderson wrote a "Guest Shot" editorial in the Exeter News-Letter, Friday March 9th, claiming that I was mis-leading the people of Exeter. This school board has been giving surplus funds out as raises, keeping this years surplus in the budget instead of lowering next years taxes, spending millions of dollars to build playing fields a mile and a half away from the school, and they built a new school just two years ago which is already filled to capacity!

It's too late to get a rebuttal in the Exeter News-Letter before the vote tomorrow, Tuesday, March 13th, but I am at least going to post a reply on the school Internet discussion forum. The following reply is posted on the Exeter Regional Cooperative School Discussion Forum:

The Exeter News-Letter printed a "Guest Shot" by School Board member Linda Henderson.

First I was incorrect by stating that if the 1.1 million dollars was put into the Capital Reserve Fund it would increase next years default budget. The reason is that the money was appropriated last year so it was already in the budget. In other words it was 1.1 million of last years budget that wasn't spent due to the lawsuit preventing the High School renovation.

Since the original quote for the job will no longer hold true then the money should be left in the Undesignated Fund WHICH WOULD LOWER NEXT YEARS DEFAULT BUDGET. Then when the new quote with the new prices due to inflation is figured out, we can start over from the beginning like we should.

If the new project starts before next year then the 1.1 million dollars can still be put towards the construction, if not it will lower our taxes next year. Until the High School renovation gets under way I believe that the money that was already paid by the citizen's of Exeter should be returned to us.

Second Mrs. Henderson's comment stating that my claim that the middle school is "Filled to Capacity" is mis-leading. She stated that "The middle school was designed to handle ten years worth of projected increases in students" and " We may reach capacity sooner because the good economy has meant more families moving here."

Well according to another story in the Exeter News-Letter "If four more students enroll in the Cooperative Middle School, the 2-year-old school will be full, school officials insist."

This sounds like it's full to capacity to me! Now who is being mis-leading?

To read the full story in the Exeter News-Letter: http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/exeter/e1_12c.htm

The News-Letter Guest Shot also claimed that if the School Board had recommended building a bigger Cooperative school "Mr. Goodall would have been complaining about that too."

Not once did I complain about building a new school in Stratham and if they had planned a bigger one, I would not have complained about that either. We needed a new school.

I would also like to point out that I am in favor of remodeling and expanding the Exeter High School. The political problems that have come up with the funding for the new construction has to do with the percentages needed to pass funding issues and has more to do with the State Legislature then local policy.

The fact that it has put the brakes on the project for now may cost us money in rising construction costs but possibly it will give us pause to make sure we get the most for each dollar spent.

I just wanted to clear the air and let it be known that I am not against improving our school system.

Reply if you would like, after all it is a Public Discussion Forum, and actually it's our tax money that pays for it!

HB736-FN - Establishing the consumer safety firearms protection act. Sponsors: Martha Fuller Clark (d) Christine M. Konys (d) Burton J. Cohen (d) Katherine Wells. Wheeler (d) Jane A. Clemons (d) Amy E. Robb(d)

It will do no good to talk to these Massachusetts type liberals, but the bill has been referred to the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee and we need to let this committee and our local representatives know how bad this bill really is. The E-Mail addresses for the Criminal Justice Committee and some local Reps are below or also below you can search for your local Representatives. Please whether you live in NH or not let the committee and anyone you know in NH, know how bad this bill is for our 2nd amendment rights.

If you do not want to write your own letter feel free to copy mine, just send something or call the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee at 1-603-271-3418.

This is a copy of the Massachusetts Firearm Consumer Safety Act almost word for word, that has destroyed the 2nd Amendment in that state. Consumer safety does not mean that we regulate the right to own firearms from the honest citizen's of New Hampshire who don't already own one! Although from the text of this bill, the sponors of this bill will be coming after current firearms owners next.

Firearms have not been found to be unsafe in functionality but only when used irresponsibly or illegally. We have new laws on safe storage of firearms and on safety requirements for hunting. Anyone that acts irresponsibly or illegally with a firearm is already breaking a law and it has nothing to do with consumer safety. All this bill will do is limit the ability of NH residents to take advantage of our second amendment rights. There are people in this state who have copied the philosophy of Massachusetts and this bill is a twin of the one in Massachusetts. If people believe in these draconian measures instead of having our citizen's accept the personal responsibility that goes along with the 2nd Amendment then move to Massachusetts!

This bill calls for load indicators to tell people if a firearm is loaded or not. These are mechanical and can fail or cause the firearm to fail, possibly when someone is trying to use it in self defense or defending a member of their family. The only load indicator that any responsible firearm owner should believe is their own eyes when they open the action of the firearm and check it like they should.

This bill eliminates the ability of a firearm owner to LEND a firearm to someone without going through a licensed firearm dealer and retaining the Name, Address, and Social Security number or other identification number of the transferee. These people even want to stop honest citizen's from borrowing a firearm from a friend without filling out the same paperwork that is required to buy one. When you do follow the procedure to LEND a firearm to a friend it will still cost $10 for the paperwork. Not only does this create a State Listing of every future firearm owner but it also creates a State Listing of every citizen that borrows a firearm. Is this Hitler, the Gestapo, or what?

The suspected murderer of those people in Wakefield Massachusetts had a license there and let it lapse. They didn't even go after him with all the laws they have! If they had, those people would still be alive today! Those legislators in that State are responsible for making a law that they didn't enforce and now honest people are dead. Enforce the laws we have and keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, but leave honest people alone.

One of those people that was killed had a license to carry in NH and if that person had a right to carry in Massachusetts, who knows, maybe He would have survived and possibly saved a few lives as well. That State took his right to defend himself away and allowed the killer to break the same laws and now all those people are dead.

Please don't make it hard for the people of New Hampshire to defend ourselves. These regulations will only make it hard for honest citizen's and do nothing to stop criminals.

"Live Free or Die", these are big words but mean nothing without the right to defend them. Please stop HB736 now and forever

BOWANA'S VIEWS

As Printed in the Exeter News-Letter on Tuesday February 27th:

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.

The Exeter Regional School Website: http://www.ercsd.k12.nh.us/

The Exeter Regional School Bulletin Board (Post your Comments and Questions): http://disc.server.com/Indices/61076.html

CC: Rep. Martha Fuller Clark, Rep. Christine Konys, Rep. Raymond Buckley, Rep. Warren Henderson, Rep. Jackie Weatherspoon, Rep. Carl Robertson, Rep. Marshal Quandt, Rep. Mathew Quandt, Rep. Ken Weyler, Rep. Tom Varrell, Sen. Beverly Hollingworth

RE: Commission to study methods for reducing violent incidents involving children and guns.

I noticed that you both sponsored HB197 and SB163 involving a commission to study reducing violence involving children and guns. I would appreciate it if you could forward this to the Commission doing this study.

I am very tired of people pointing their fingers at the items used in violence instead of the actual motives and root causes of the violence. These recent killings of those two Dartmouth professors by suspected teens, was committed using knives. Why did this commission have to be directed towards firearms instead of the act of violence in general?

The NH legislature just passed a law requiring schools to report incidents of "Bullying". The definition of bullying being "insults, taunts, or challenges, whether verbal or physical in nature, which are likely to intimidate or provoke a violent or disorderly response". This law sounds like if a bully pushes to a point where another student hits the bully, then it would be the bully's fault. Students should learn to walk away and report the incident if it's that bad. If adults learned to act this way there would be no road rage at all.

There are many types of violence just as there are many types of bullying. From pushing and shoving all the way to serious bodily injury. The causes of all of these incidents are the important factors, not whether the item used was a fist, bat, knife, or firearm. You have this commission dealing with a method of violence with children not a cause of violence with children.

In February of last year The Journal of the American Medical Association released a study that shows that there is a tremendous increase in prescribing anti-depressants to preschoolers aged 2 to 4 years old. The "Terrible Twos" are just that. If you start throwing these drugs at preschoolers, what are we going to do for them when they hit their teens? There has been a connection between school shootings and the shooters having been on these drugs.

Gun violence in schools has actually gone down since 1992, while violence in general has gone up in schools. If a majority of the school shooters were on (or had abruptly stopped taking) anti-depressants then it stands to reason that most of the other violence in schools may be related to these drugs as well. I have read a lot about the Oregon shootings and how Kip Kinkle had been on prozac. I had heard that, but now a Vermont Outdoors writer has said that "Just about every massacre that occurred anywhere in the U.S. and Canada over the last decade has involved an individual using a prescription drug called Prozac or one of its relatives."

We went through this in the Eighties for crying out loud. I thought doctors had learned how to use this stuff and monitor patients since we know that problems occur when they stop taking it. We are locking up guns, limiting ammo, doing background checks, and in some states mandatory waiting periods but these doctors (and Parents) are putting kids on these anti-depressants without keeping a close eye on them afterwards. These anti-depressants known as Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) have been known to help, but the problem arises when a patient stops taking the drug. We have known this since Prozac got it's reputation in the Eighties when "everyone" was depressed. That gave us the "Going Postal" and the "Prozac Moment" sayings and these sayings have truth to them.

When one of these events happened, people like our previous President, pointed at the guns, gun owners, and gun companies for being responsible. Why do they point at the tool and not the PERSON using the tool. Automobiles kill more people than guns, but you don't hear anyone calling for a ban on cars. If there is any truth to the connection between these drugs and the shootings then these Doctors (and parents) are putting these kids on these drugs and not following up on them as necessary, then maybe we should start looking a little closer at this situation.

If there is any logic (and I don't see it) to suing gun companies, then there is definitely logic in going after these Doctors (and parents) for putting these SSRI drugs into these children without following up and making sure that they don't stop taking it. From "Time-Outs" to not keeping score in sports, children today are being over protected from loss and failure. When a child seems stressed then they go for these drugs because "it is so much harder growing up these days"-- BULONEY.

Every generation has its struggles and this generation is no different. Earlier generations had to struggle to survive and when you struggle with nature you have to keep score because if you lose, you die.

Before we fly off the handle, like our previous President has (more than once), maybe we should stop attacking and restricting law abiding citizens and take a closer look at the families of these children and the doctors that prescribed these drugs in the first place. I would like the US Congress and the NH Legislature to read this letter and check into this information so that maybe we can address the cause of the problem, which appears to be these SSRI Drugs and NOT GUNS.

Here are the last major school shooters and the link under each name is a reputable news source that connects them all with SSRI's (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) like Prozac, Ritalin, Zoloft, Luvox, Paxil, and others:

1) May 20 1999: T.J. Solomon, a 15-year-old wounds six at Heritage High School in Conyers, Ga.. http://add.about.com/health/add/library/weekly/aa052599.htm CNN Reports That T.J. Solomon was on Ritalin.

4) May 21, 1998: Kip Kinkel, a 15-year-old kills four and wounds twenty three at Thurston High School in Springfield, Ore.. http://www.drugawareness.org/home.html Kinkle Had been taking Prozac. (Original Story gone but site is loaded with information)

5) March 24, 1998: Mitchell Johnson, 13, and Andrew Golden, 11, opened fire on their classmates and killed five and wounded eleven at Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Ark..

Andrew Golden's Medical Records released to Courts but not open to the public. From Jon Rappaport of the Truthseeker foundation: http://www.nfgcc.org/schoolviolence.htm A Doctor from Georgetown University commented on Network television that one of the boys had previously been treated for violent behavior. (Treated with what?)

AND According to Arianna Huffington the following events are linked to Anti-Depressants as well:

10) The estate of Brynn Hartman, Wife of the Saturday Night Live Comedian, Phil Hartman, is also suing Pfizer, since Mrs. Hartman had been on Zoloft when she killed her husband and herself. http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/061099.html

How could so many of these legally drugged up kids have been left with out supervision? After an hour or so of research I found this to be quite obvious. The main problem with getting information out is the fact that these are young people who's records are sealed and cannot be accessed with out permission.

Three weeks after the Columbine shootings the President held a conference on youth violence and declared "the best ideas from people who can really make a difference: parents and young people, teachers and religious leaders, law enforcement, gun manufacturers, representatives of the entertainment industry and those of us here in government."

The President seemed to miss a very important factor in that conference and that was the mental health industry. Any mental health worker involved may have been able to add important information like the connection between these SSRI's and many of these acts of violence. Everything about these SSRI drugs suggests that close monitoring would be very important due to the fact that the drug must be taken regularly and to stop taking these drugs can cause psychotic reactions. Instead of spending time and money on the vehicle of violence, the gun, we should be investigating the cause of the violence, which very well may be the prescribing of these psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin, Luvox, Zoloft, Paxil, and Prozac to the young people of this country.

Seth Tricky, 13, of Fort Gibson, Oklahoma, shot several of his classmates back in December of 1999. This is a small town and this boy attended church on a regular basis. On the evening of the shooting the boy's pastor, the Rev. Jeff Burress of the First United Methodist Church of Fort Gibson, Okla., made this statement: "At a time like this," he said, "it's awfully easy for us to point an accusing finger and to place blame. As Seth's pastor, I can place a lot of guilt on myself. Maybe I could have said or done something that might have prevented this. Seth's dad, his mom, his brother, his sister, his teachers, his Sunday school teacher, his classmates -- all of us could beat ourselves up for something we did or didn't do. But placing blame and feeling guilty isn't what we need to be doing right now. Of course, we need to accept responsibility for what we have done and for what we have failed to do that has caused others to suffer in this instance and in other instances. But laying guilt on ourselves or others isn't the answer."

We can't blame the automobile that a drunk driver used, or the Pill maker of the drug a person was taking, or any manufacturer or seller of an item used to injure or kill someone. We can take personal responsibility for what each of us do. If this boy had problems, and he obviously did, then we need to work on the CAUSE of these problems, and not the items a sick person turns to, to release their pent up anger. Does anyone know if this boy was on any of these anti-depressants?

If this boy has seen any medical professional for depression or behavior problems, you can bet that they put him on these drugs. Parents have to start sharing this information, like some of the one's below who gave permission to release this information. This could be a very important factor in much of todays school violence in general.

JUST REMEMBER THAT GUN VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS HAS GONE DOWN SINCE 1992, BUT SCHOOL VIOLENCE IN GENERAL HAS GONE UP.

One last point and a little more current, Michael McDermott was indicted on Friday February 16th, on 12 counts of murder for the murders committed in Wakefield, Massachusetts at the end of last year. After the indictments were handed down McDermott's lawyer, Kevin Reddington, stated that "McDermott was undergoing psychiatric treatment and taking medication, and that he may pursue an insanity defense." It seems that these anti-depressants may be the cause of more violence then just violence involving children.

On May 25, 1997 18-year-old Jeremy Strohmeyer raped and murdered a 7-year-old African American girl in Las Vegas, Nevada. Strohmeyer had been diagnosed with ADD and prescribed Dexedrine, a Ritalin-like drug, immediately prior to the killing.

On October 1st, 1997, in Pearl Mississippi, 16-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed his mother--50-year-old Mary Woodham--to death and then went to his high school where he shot nine people killing two teenage girls and wounding seven others.8 Published reports say he was on Prozac.

Exactly two months later on Dec 1, 1997, Michael Carneal, a 14-year-old opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded, one of whom was paralyzed. Carneal was reportedly on Ritalin.

Then in February, 1998 a young man in Huntsville, Alabama on Ritalin went psychotic chopping up his parents with an ax and also killing one sibling and almost murdering another.

On March 24, 1998 in Jonesboro, Arkansas, 11-year-old Andrew Golden and 14-year-old Mitchell Johnson shot 15 people killing four students, one teacher, and wounding 10 others.13 According to one report, the boys were believed to be on Ritilan.

Two months later another grisly school massacre occurred. On May 21, 1998 15-year-old Kip Kinkel of Springfield, Oregon murdered his parents and proceeded to his high school where he went on a rampage killing two students and wounding 22 others. Kinkel had been prescribed both Prozac and Ritalin.

On April 16th, 1999, 15-year-old Shawn Cooper of Notus, Idaho took a 12-guage shot gun to school and started firing, injuring one student and holding the school hostage for about 20 minutes. Terrified students ran for their lives, some barricading themselves in classrooms. Cooper had been taking Ritalin when he fired the shotgun's rounds.

The incident in Idaho did not make the national press (no one, thank God, was killed). But all that changed four days later when 18-year-old Eric Harris killed 12 students and a teacher at Columbine High School before killing himself. Harris was on one of the SSRI anti-depressants called Luvox.

One month later to the day, on May 20th of this year TJ Solomon, a 15-year-old high school student in Conyers, Georgia on Ritalin opened fire on and wounded six of his class mates. Thankfully, none were killed.

Then there's 14-year-old Rod Mathews who had been prescribed Ritalin since the third grade and beat a classmate to death with a bat.

19-year-old James Wilson who had been on psychiatric drugs for 5 years and tool a .22 caliber revolver into an elementary school in Breenwood, South Carolina killing two young girls, and wounding seven other children and two teachers.

I realize that this commission is studying methods for reducing violent incidents involving children and guns, but there is a real possibility that a correlation exists between the use of anti-depressants and violent acts. Including those acts of violence involving children and guns. Please consider at least making mention of the problem with anti-depressants. Someone has to get the ball rolling and until someone starts to examine one of the causes of violence instead of the method of violence, we will continue to fight the symptoms of the disease instead of the cause.

Please consider the probability that anti-depressants could actually be one of the causes before it's too late.

TO: The EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND ADMINISTRATION Committee and my local Reps

RE: HB438-AN ACT relative to the sale of dogs and cats.

There is a new bill that I don't believe that I am in favor of but I would like to hear opinions on it. The bill is HB438-AN ACT relative to the sale of dogs and cats. From what I have read it would eliminate the importation of dogs and cats for resale to the public. The new paragraphs added to the RSA would state that Dogs and Cats may not be imported into the state for purposes of resale to the public and that only breeders licensed under this paragraph may offer dogs and cats for sale.

This would mean that only animals existing in this state now could be bred for resale. Is the state over stepping their bounds or is it just me?

The methodology also states that there are 80 pet shops licensed by the department and that these shops would be closed. Isn't this a little draconian? Can't we control dog and cat breeding without the government regulating the industry out of existence or are they looking to have only a few State regulated breeders operating in New Hampshire?

If there is a problem with dog and cat populations I am in favor of working to correct it but I don't believe that the problem lies with breeders. We need to educate everyday pet owners on pet population control. If I am missing some good reason for this bill I welcome some explanation.

The Foster’s Daily Democrat column titled "Amendments to warrant articles fail at Co-op School District meeting" is way off base. The title itself is way off base by stating that amendments to warrant articles failed because the column itself goes on to list the warrant articles that were amended.

I don’t know what kind of mistake that it was but the fact is that most of the amendments brought by citizens at the meeting failed to pass. The story mentions four of the amendments that did pass, but failed to mention that these amendments were proposed by School Board members.

Several School Board members watered down these four articles by amending the teeth out of them. This is the reason that school board member Ray Trueman asked that his name be removed from the amended articles. The strong supporters of the School Board that attended the meeting voted for every school board-recommended amendment that was brought up.

I believe that there were only four or five amendments that were brought by citizens that failed. So since four School Board member-proposed amendments passed, this would mean that almost half of the proposed amendments passed. This is a far cry from "Amendments to warrant articles fail at Co-op School District meeting"!

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.

Here is my first Article as printed in The Exeter News-Letter on Tuesday 1/30/2001 BOWANA’S VIEWS

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.

' Designed by Bowana.
Copyright © 1998-2002 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.

This Page was Updated on 04/07/02