Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

BOWANA'S VIEWS

As they appeared in The Exeter News-Letter

New Hampshire Outdoor News and NH News

Current Columns For 2002

Protect Your Child on the Web

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.

Back to Top

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.

Back to Top

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.

Back to Top

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.

Back to Top

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.

Back to Top

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

Back to Top

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.

Back to Top

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.

Back to Top

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.

Back to Top

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.

Back to Top

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.

Back to Top

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.

Back to Top

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)

Back to Top

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.

Back to Top

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.

Back to Top

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?

Back to Top

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.

Back to Top

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)

Back to Top

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.

Back to Top

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.

Back to Top

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.

Back to Top

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

Back to Top

Current Columns For 2002

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.

This Page was Updated on 06/14/03

send comments to The Webmaster

Back To NH Outdoor News