I have to relate something that, in my opinion, could only happen in a small town like mine.
Like just about any municipality, one topic of discussion that always comes up is the maintenance of the roads. At some point just about everyone who lives in a town like ours gets concerned about the condition of the road on which they live. Like many towns, ours has a multiyear schedule that lists the roads that will be fixed in a given year, with some requiring just some paving while others require a complete reconstruction.
It's no surprise that some folks don't like the fact that their road may not see anything other some patching for a few years. Their road is always in dire need of being redone. They don't want to hear about how the list was assembled or that other roads in the schedule ahead of them are in much worse shape and are almost impassible. They want to be moved up on the list and let someone else's road be put on the back burner. They usually don't get their way, at least not here.
What is a surprise is when the residents on a road scheduled to be completely rebuilt come to the road agent and the board of selectmen demanding that their road be taken off the list altogether. If they had their druthers, they'd prefer if the town tore up the existing pavement and return the road to its original dirt and gravel. Their reasoning?
Cars are traveling too fast on their road as it is and making it better will encourage even higher speeds.
Frankly, I don't blame them because they're right.
The posted speed limit for their road is 25 MPH. The highest speed measured by radar on that same road: 71 MPH. This road is a narrow country road with one very steep decline at one end. The road surface isn't very good as it is and someone somehow managed to go 71 MPH on that road. It's a miracle they aren't dead. The average speed is about 40 MPH, a good 15 MPH above the limit, a speed that is still too fast for some stretches of that road.
As such, their argument for not fixing the road and actually degrading its condition by returning it to a dirt and gravel surface makes sense. It will also save our town a good portion of the $250,000 budgeted for fixing their road next year.
Are they going to receive what it is they've asked for?
That's yet to be decided.
Saturday, August 27, 2016
I have to relate something that, in my opinion, could only happen in a small town like mine.
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
New Hampshire's state legislature is unique in many ways, one of the most prominent being its size – 400 members of the House and 24 members of the Senate. That makes it the third largest legislative body in the world, with only the UK's Parliament and the US Congress being larger.
One of the other things that used to make New Hampshire different from many other states was that its legislature only met every other year. That meant the legislators had to 'take care of business' because they knew they had limited time to get everything done before the legislative session ended.
That all changed in 1984 when a group of citizens and legislators made a pitch to switch to annual legislative sessions. Their reasoning behind the change was that the 5 to 6 month biennial session was too long and that shorter annual sessions would be less of a burden.
They sold us a pig in a poke.
Those 5 to 6 month long biennial sessions have turned into 5 to 6 month long annual sessions. The promise of shorter annual sessions never materialized. The cost of annual sessions was more than twice that of the biennial session. In that time a lot of useless legislation has been filed and wasteful spending has been passed. There were no savings in either time or money. Annual sessions are far more of a burden on both legislators and taxpayers than biennial sessions.
We were conned and I think it's time to do something about it.
It's well past time to amend the state constitution, specifically Part II, Article 3 - When to Meet and Dissolve - and go back to biennial sessions. Annual sessions have failed to live up to the promises made by its proponents and it's time to admit that we made a mistake. It's time to take a step back.
I already know the argument will be made that we can't go back now, that we can't possible handle the state's needs meeting only every other year. But I can counter that by looking at the biggest state in the continental US – Texas - which has a single 90-day legislative session every two years and it seems to be able to handle all of its business in that time. New Hampshire is a fraction of the size of Texas (9,349 sq miles vs 268,596 sq miles) with a fraction of the population (1.33 million vs 27.97 million), but we won't be able to handle the state's business in 5 to 6 months every 2 years? I'm not buying it. That implies that either the people in Texas are a heck of a lot smarter and work harder, or we've gone stupid and are incapable of doing what we once could do. I'm not buying that either.
The 'experiment' of annual legislative sessions has failed. It's costing us money and not living up to its promise. It's time to declare the experiment over and get back to something we know works and works well.
Monday, July 4, 2016
These are words that as as poignant now as they were 240 years ago. Too bad that many of the people living in America now have little, if any understanding of their import,
July 4, 1776
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
While this is not an new story, it is one that still pisses me off. What am I talking about?
You know what I'm talking about – the red containers with a spout used to fill the gas tanks on all kinds of power equipment ranging from leaf blowers to lawnmowers to snowblowers, chainsaws, lawn tractors, and a whole host of other equipment and small vehicles.
It used to be that they held gas and allowed you to fill a gas tank with little muss or fuss. But seven years ago the EPA got involved with gas cans and everything has gone to hell.
While they still can hold gasoline, they no longer allow easy transfer of fuel from the can to whatever gas tank you're trying to fill. Where it once could be done easily, it now requires two hands to even open the gas spout (you have to slide a toggle before you can press the handle that opens the spout..and that toggle is rarely easy to move). And because the vent that used to allow gas to flow freely is no longer allowed, gas flows poorly, in surges, and usually ends up everywhere but in the gas tank you're trying to refill. It spills, sloshes, and ends up places it's not supposed to.
The new gas cans were supposed to help prevent gas spills while at the same time eliminate gas vapors from escaping into the air. But between the now increased number and volume of gas spills and the big whoosh of gas vapors that are expelled from the cans when the spout valve is opened, I'd say they've been a complete failure.
If nothing else this works as an example of how government doesn't make things better but worse, due entirely to its intervention. Government didn't know better and actually made the situation worse than if they'd left well enough alone.
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Call it a twofer for American democracy, one for Small Town USA and the other for the entire nation.
Earlier this week our little town held it's school district and town meetings, the first steps in a two-step process that decides what our town will spend during the upcoming fiscal year. Each meeting of the town's residents deliberated school and town budgets and warrant articles that covered everything from zoning amendments to changes in how town government will run to funding outside agencies. One article even dealt with changing the classification of a dirt road from a town maintained road to an unmaintained road.
Some amendments to budgetary items and a few town warrant articles were made, those being the most debated issues addressed during the meetings. But for the most part both meetings were low energy with little real drama. Frankly, that's a bit unusual considering some of the school district and town meetings in the not-so-recent past.
It's amazing to see folks not blink twice when some spending articles total in the millions of dollars, with little discussion or debate, but lengthy and sometimes passionate debates over a spending article asking to spend a few hundred dollars. One would think it would be the other way around.
The outcome of these two meetings won't be known until we move on to the second step in the process next month, when the people in our town will vote to accept or reject all of the warrant articles as well as elect some town officials.
Early next week, specifically Tuesday, voters will head to the voting booths to vote during the New Hampshire primaries, helping to select the candidates from each party who are vying to be their party presidential nominees come this fall. Once done, the echoes of the candidates' speeches and campaign ads will rapidly fade away and be nothing but a memory by Wednesday evening, leaving us to recuperate in peace for the next few months until Election Day 2016 approaches.
And so it goes in small town America.
Thursday, February 4, 2016
I got a pleasant surprise today, that being the download speed from my ISP, the local cable company, has been bumped up to 40Mbs at no additional cost. The upload speed, however, is still where it was before at 4Mbs.
That will certainly help the cable company keep its present Internet customers, and maybe entice some of those still using DSL to make the switch.
Of course this speed increase could have been driven by the prospect of a new player entering the market. Ain't competition, even of it hasn't arrived yet, a wonderful thing?
Saturday, January 23, 2016
I have to admit to a little bit of “Let's see how you like it!” thinking in regards to the blizzard pelting the Mid-Atlantic states.
Being a hardy Yankee in northern New England gives me just a little gravitas since we see snowfalls like the one places like Washington DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and a host of other cities are experiencing at the moment, but we see them just about every winter, and in some cases more than once in any given winter.
Then again, we're used to them and are well prepared to deal with them. With few exceptions, we rarely see folks clearing store shelves in anticipation of what to us is a not unusual storm. However, we do still have to put up with the ubiquitous Storm Center TV news and the overblown drama and dire “We're all gonna DIE!” level warnings about not going out into the storm unless it's absolutely necessary. Well, duh.
I don 't know about you, but I'm not one to go out in a storm just because I can. I never have been. If I'm out in one it's because there's a pretty darned good reason, one that makes it necessary even though I don't really want to be out there. The most common reason – snowblowing the driveway in order to stay ahead of the anticipated snowfall totals. Sometimes it's easier to go out and snowblow once or twice during the storm than it is to clear all of the snow after it's all over, particularly if snowfall is expected to be above two feet.
So far our winter up here in New Hampshire has been rather benign. We haven't had the days and weeks of below zero temperatures or storm after storm after storm. We figure we're due a respite after the past two winters of heavy snowfall and below normal temperatures. A little breather now and then is a good thing and we're hoping to make the most of it. In the meantime we're more than happy to watch others struggle with winter weather we consider normal up here.
Saturday, November 7, 2015
I'm not going to address an issue of vital national interest, at least not in this post. Instead, I'm going to address an issue of vital local interest (though it applies all across America...or at least rural and semi-rural America).
What is it that I find so compelling that I feel the need to express it here? What drives me to tackle this subject...yet again?
On more than one occasion over the past 13 years of blogging I have written about life in a small town along with the ups and downs that go with it. One of the more insidious factors that can have negative effects on any small town is what I call drawbridge mentality. It can be a complex subject, so rather than boring everyone with a long and convoluted definition of the term, let me try to simplify it for you and explain it thus:
It is an attitude most often held by newcomers to a town that now that they have found their perfect little piece of Americana, they want to 'raise the drawbridge', let no one else in, and most often, don't want there to be any change ever. Call it a more subtle version of “I got mine, buddy, so screw you!”While this is an attitude most often held by newcomers, it isn't limited just to them as I've seen a number of towns where life-long residents fall into that same trap. I know of at least one town down in southwestern New Hampshire where the residents have done that and now they wonder why no new families are moving in, why their elementary school is closing, and why what few businesses that used to be located in town have either closed their doors or relocated to another town.
I mentioned earlier that personal experience has driven me to address this topic, in this case a battle here in my little home town that pits a newcomer (the family has only been here for a few years) against a local business that has been run by the same family for generations. This in turn reminded me of a situation in a small town northwest of here where I once resided where a retired couple bought their 'dream home' near the town green.
Not once did they give any thought to the working farm that was across the road from them...until their first spring in their new home when the farm owners started their annual preparations for the coming growing season. Between removing the winter crop of rocks from the fields, plowing, seeding, fertilizing, and a lengthy list of other activities that take place on a working farm, there was noise and interesting 'aromas' emanating from the farm, something to which they took exception. It didn't matter to them that the farm had been in the same family and operating since the late 1700's, they wanted all of the activities that bothered them to stop. It didn't matter to them that the farm was the family's livelihood, how they made their living. They wanted their “peace and quiet” and were willing to do anything to get it. However they got nowhere with their complaints and found no sympathy in the town because they were, after all, flatlanders. They even made threats to sue, but from my understanding they couldn't find a lawyer willing to take their case because they all knew it was a loser right out of the gate.
In the end they stopped trying to shut down the farm operation and eventually settled in, acclimating to their new environs. I'd like to think they came to the point where they rarely even noticed the farm operations anymore...or perhaps they just shut off their hearing aids.
This situation has occurred in one form or another in small towns all across America. It's disheartening, disruptive, and at times, destructive.
The only other type of behavior that can cause havoc in small towns are when newcomers decide they want the same services and amenities to be made available as the place they fled, finding that small town life isn't everything they thought it would be. If they succeed they then complain about how much their property taxes have gone up, not making the connection between increased services/amenities and increased taxes. The level of this type of disconnect can be amazing, even when it is pointed out to them that they are the cause of the constantly rising property taxes.
I am not one who believes any town can become static and survive just as I do not believe a town's character can survive if it becomes just another clone of the places everyone has left. Towns will change with time. They always do. The towns that survive adapt with the times and do well if they can make any necessary changes while also maintaining its character. It's not easy, but it can be done and has been done. It's also worthwhile.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
I heard about the 4-year old mayor of Dorset, Minnesota late last year. Apparently the young man is mayor of a small town that boasts the highest number of restaurants per capita in the world. But that isn't why I'm writing about the small town of Dorset.
Mayor Robert “Bobby” Tufts is up for reelection. As in any election season there is more often than not a challenger, and it's no different in Dorset. In fact Tuft's opponent has already started running an attack ad:
And so it starts....
Friday, June 21, 2013
This post started out as part of this past Sunday's Thoughts On A Sunday, but I realized it deserved a spot all its own. It was related to a post I linked from David Starr and the problems with STEM education in our schools. While I did add my own two cents to David's observations, this kind of wrote itself as I was venting about what I saw as a problem with the school system here in my home town, a problem that exists all across America.
One of the things we hear constantly from the education lobby is that we need more teachers and lower student-to-teacher ratios. Both claims are wrong.
What we need are better teachers. If we have better teachers we don't need minuscule student-to-teacher ratios. At the moment our education system is set up to foster mediocrity, specifically in the quality of our teachers. What do we expect? We get mediocre schools with mediocre results and kids with mediocre educations. For the most part our schools are union shops and unions tend to suppress exceptionalism and force mediocrity. (Take it from one who used to belong to a union. It was something that always galled me – the institutional mediocrity.) I have seen this mediocrity in the school system in my home town. That's scary.
A lot of people claim our town has a great school system, and it is compared to a lot of the surrounding towns. That isn't saying much because it is still nowhere near what it should be considering how much money we spend on our school system every year – just under $17,000, about $4,000 more than the state average and between $2,000 and $7,000 more than the top 10 school systems in the state. It is towards the upper end of the mediocrity scale, meaning it isn't nearly as mediocre as other schools, but it's nothing to which we should aspire. For the money we spend we should have one of the best school systems in the state, but we don't. When our schools cut back on or drop some of the staples – courses that were at one time important, like Shop and Home Economics to name two – and replace them with subjects that have little to do with preparing students for real life, then the schools are in trouble. When I was in school these classes started in middle school...excuse me, junior high school, and it was mandatory. Of course I grew up before sexual equality became the norm and all the boys took Shop and all the girls took Home Ec.
Today all kids should take both because they teach them skills they will use throughout their entire lives regardless of what they end up doing for a living. I cannot count how many times I've come across young adults who couldn't swing a hammer, use a screwdriver, replace a light socket on a lamp, change a flat tire, or prepare a meal that didn't come from out of the freezer and into the microwave. They have no idea how the simplest things we use every day work and they have to call someone else to fix things for them. Those in our society may have access to knowledge our ancestors would find amazing, but as a whole our citizens don't know how to do things our grandparents and even our parents took for granted, and I'm not talking about arcane skills like shoeing horses or blacksmithing. But I digress...
Not all that long ago there was an effort made to move our school system towards what is called the International Baccalaureate program, an education program first proposed to UNESCO in 1948. While its goal was to offer an interesting perspective to education and an internationally approved curriculum, it has devolved into more of a feelgood program that seems bent more on fostering an educational environment that promotes socialist ideals rather than courses of study that are supposed to prepare our kids to fend for themselves in the real world. The more I learned the less I liked the idea and a lot of parents felt the same way. For the time being the IB is dead in our town. But that doesn't mean there aren't those within the school system that will keep trying to push it upon our kids.
I could go on and on about the problems with the school system in my town and schools across America, but I think you get the idea. It's time to take our schools back from the unions and the education lobby, to tell the Department of Education to go take a hike, and to start teaching our children what they need to know in order to make their way in the real world.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
I had planned a post about a self-proclaimed Progressive feminist getting her comeuppance when her college-age son ended up on the wrong end of a college PC tribunal. But something more interesting and closer to home came to my attention while perusing our local newspaper's Letter's to the Editor, so that post will wait until tomorrow.
One of our local liberals had his diatribe against the Second Amendment in April 17th edition of the Laconia Daily Sun. I can only describe as being long on 'feelings' and ignorance and short on fact. Here's part of what the fellow had to say:
The 2nd Amendment is a racist piece of legislation that should have been removed with the abolition of slavery. Only the most irresponsible gun owners believe that the 2nd Amendment actually “protects” our freedoms.The fellow goes on to disparage the NRA, equates Glocks to drones and tanks, and believes private ownership of guns is a “hindrance to human progress.” He also labels the Second Amendment as “a piece of legislation”. It is not. If it were, then merely passing a law in Congress would suffice to repeal it. He is showing his ignorance of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
What a putz.
Here is what I e-mailed to the newspaper in response to this fellow's ignorance-laced rant:
I am writing in response to George [M's] letter about the Second Amendment being racist. It was apparent to me that Mr. [M] has little understanding of the Second Amendment, the 1860's, or the history of gun control laws.I find that the folks who make claims about the racism of others are often the only racists in the room. But their racism is more subtle and backhanded, and therefore a more dishonest form of racism. What's worse is that they often don't realize that they are indeed racist.
First, when the 13th Amendment that ended slavery was ratified, there was no possibility that the 2nd Amendment could or would be repealed. Most of the populace of the United States was armed, it being just after the Civil War. Many were veterans of that war, both Union and Confederate. The frontier was still open, territories will still being settled, and law enforcement was spotty at best. There was no way the states would have ratified a repeal of the 2nd Amendment under those conditions, Mr. M's contentions to the contrary.
Second, gun control laws were first prevalent in the South after the Civil War. These laws were aimed at keeping the former slaves from being able to arm themselves. This was done in order to head off possible retaliation by blacks against whites, or at least that's how the idea was sold. A less openly known reason was that it prevented blacks from being able to protect themselves against the predations of whites trying to "keep them in their place."
Mr. [M], the 2nd Amendment isn't racist and never has been. It is the gun control laws you seem to love that are racist at their roots. Perhaps you should do a little more historical research before making such ill informed accusations.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
A Merrimack, New Hampshire gun shop owner decided he would exercise both his First and Second Amendment rights by naming President Barack Obama “Firearms Salesman of the Year” and posting the acclamation in one of the windows fronting his shop.
Store owner Keith Cox said it's all about freedom of speech, noting he's been getting words of support from customers ever since he put up the sign.While some people have found the sign offensive and want Cox to take it down, we must remind them that there is no right to not be offended in either the US or New Hampshire constitutions. If they're so offended, then they do not need to buy anything from his shop, do they? (It's likely the same folks offended by the sign also believe that disarming law abiding citizens is the path to safety from gun wielding criminals, and therefore wouldn't be patronizing Cox's gun shop anyways.)
Beside the image of Obama are the images of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong, above the statement, "All experts agree gun control works."
Thursday, November 29, 2012
One of my favorite local liberals, James Veverka, is at it again. (I say he's my favorite because he makes it so darned easy to show him up for the unthinking, intolerant, progressive parrot he is.)
This time, in response to a local conservative's remarks about the election results, he writes in the November 27th issue of the Laconia Daily Sun “...out of the six counties in Virginia that have a median income of $100,000 or more, Obama won five. [He] doesn't realize that four years of hysterical right wing fiscal, birther, and religious foaming at the mouth got them nowhere.”
One thing I realized right off the bat is that Veverka doesn't mention anything about those five counties in Virginia other than he median income. Then again he probably doesn't know anything else about those counties other than a bunch of well off people live there, thereby proving his point that even the rich love Obama. But I know far more about those counties that blows Veverka's claim right out of the water.
Those five counties are heavily populated by government bureaucrats, lobbyists, and others whose livelihoods depend heavily upon federal government largess. Their $100,000 (or more) median income is by way of direct or indirect government money (meaning our money). Very few of those within those five counties are CEOs of manufacturing, service, or other private commercial companies or corporations. So when the voters within those five counties in northern Virginia voted for Obama they were doing so to ensure their continuing employment at taxpayer expense.
A well known GOP pollster told me back in August that only two states he polled where people believing things were better in the country since 2008 were Virginia and Ohio. The Virginia perception was almost entirely the result of the massive amount of government spending and employees that spill across the Potomac bridges each day into areas as far away as Prince William and Faquier Counties.The people living in those five counties are out of touch with the economic and political realities the rest of us must face every day. So to use them as an example of wealthy voting for Obama is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst. Knowing Mister Veverka from his long history of vilifying non-Democrats in the local newspapers, in his case I'd have to say it's both.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
I have to admit that I haven't felt much like writing since the Tuesday debacle of Obama's re-election. The con man has once again conned the American electorate and has won another 4 years to continue damaging America's economy and standing in the world.
What galls me even more is what I've come to call the “sore winner syndrome” where many of the local populace here in my part of New Hampshire seem to be even angrier and less tolerant now that their “messiah” has won a second term. One in particular I have mentioned here before, a fellow living in a world of his own making where anyone who disagrees with his beliefs on any level is seen as deluded and/or evil. And he's a smug SOB, to boot.
In his latest diatribe against Republicans he likens them to demons to be exorcised.
Writes James Veverka in the Friday edition of the Laconia Daily Sun:
The people saw the pathological lying and distortions of the right wing hate machine and stuffed them in the garbage disposal where they belong. Their radical agenda is no longer recyclable so the next time the far right rears its ugly head, the people will recognize the smell right away. They will not be fooled by economic conservatives who have an extreme social agenda and religious agenda that would make Mullah Omar beam with pride.In his last sentence he equates conservatives with the Taliban. He also mixes up the economic conservatives (those who believe we shouldn't spend more than we take in or borrow money from our adversaries) with social conservatives (those who are pro-life and believe in the freedom of speech and religion). There are times when the two groups cross over, but for the most part economic conservatives could care less about social issues one way or the other. But to hate-filled unthinking indoctrinated pedantic leftists like Mister Veverka, there is no difference. By that measure I might make the claim that he is a Stalin-loving communist looter who would like nothing better than imprisoning anyone who dares speak out against his beloved messiah, but I am not venal like him.
His less than magnanimous slap in the face to those who do not share his political views quoted above is one of his less over-the-top Leftist rants. After reading his screeds over the past few years I and other readers of the Sun can predict exactly what Mister Veverka will write about any topic.
He's an angry man who thinks that the rest of us owe it to him and others like him to let them run our lives because he's so much more intelligent and wise. And this is where he departs from reality because I doubt very much he has much luck running his own life. Otherwise why is he so angry all the time even when “his” side has won? He's just another one of those sore winners that can't keep his hate in check even in victory. I guess that shows everyone what a pathetic excuse for a “tolerant” Democrat he is.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Both the calendar and the weather are telling me that summer has ended.
And as always it is this song that describes how the end of summer makes me feel, taking me back to end of summer during my teen years.
Note: There were tons of covers done of this song, with some of the videos quite good, but they aren't the same. Only Don Henley's version speaks for me.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
This past Thursday I filled the trusty F150's gas tank, paying $3.689 per gallon for the privilege.
This afternoon on my way home I passed by the gas station and saw regular had jumped to $3.919 per gallon. WTF?
That's a 23¢ per gallon jump in only 5 days.
Did I miss some earth-shattering news that caused oil prices to spike some time in the past few days? I know prices tend to fall after the summer season ends and then jumps up a bit when the refiners start changing over to making the winter blends of gasoline as well as increasing fuel oil and propane production. But what the heck?
Monday, September 10, 2012
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
First, we are told “You didn't build that!”
Next, it's “Government is the only thing we all belong to.”
It's merely another part of the Democrat mind-set, being that we owe everything to the government and that we are owned part and parcel by that same government. In other words, they are trying to tell us that we are slaves of the State and that we should be grateful for our indentured status.
What's worse is that at there are a lot of people who look forward to becoming vassals as if that will somehow relieve them of some great burden. It will. They will be relieved of their freedom to choose for themselves. They will become nothing but a disposable cog in the machine that is the State.
Is there anything we as Americans can do to prevent this from happening? Sure.
Vote them out of office. Ridicule them at every opportunity. Show the rest of the people that what these folks are advocating is not a solution, but a trap. There are plenty of examples to prove the point.
One of the biggest in more recent American history was LBJ's Great Society, a social welfare program that trapped millions in poverty and kept them dependent on the government, generation after generation. Minorities that had been making great strides to lift themselves out of poverty after World War II were again made second class citizens, having sold their freedom for a regular check from the government coffers. What's worse is that very folks who pulled this off painted their efforts to re-enslave them as a means to reach some kind of never-to-be-reached 'equality'. They were sold a lie, one too many still continue to believe.
If they need other examples there are plenty to choose from – the Bolshevik Revolution, Nazi Germany, Cuba, Nicaragua under the Sandinistas, Chavez's Venezuela, and a whole host of other nations that tried what the Democrats have been attempting to do (and failed miserably). It's a system that is always doomed to fail. Some have failed in spectacular fashion while others have been slowly fading away. But all of them have had one common element – surrendering individual freedoms to the State.
Friday, August 31, 2012
I find that more often words of wisdom come not necessarily from those writing the op-ed pieces in the various publications – both hardcopy and online – but from those commenting upon them. In a recent WSJ piece by Kimberly Strassel about how it is the various state governors who are leading the way in reform, showing the federal government how to put the country's fiscal house back into order, two particularly astute observations were made by her readers – one stating the choice we have before us this coming November and the other quoting Thomas Sowell in relation to the first.
Stated the first, Steve Korn:
We have a choice between government that works and government that doesn't.To which Gregg Sanderson replied:
Thomas Sowell had the best answer I've seen:And so it has been in our nation and others of the West. It has become less about logic and using the lessons from the past, showing us what works and what doesn't, and more about already dis-proven means of doing things that are implemented anyways because of how it makes someone (or a group of someones) feel.
"Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good."
As history has shown again and again, and particularly over the past few decades, making choices based upon or heavily influenced by feelings is almost always the wrong thing to do. The unintended consequences almost always outweigh any perceived benefits and end up doing more harm than doing nothing while providing little good.
Saturday, August 25, 2012