This is NOT a test!

[John]

Union Leader, Page 1 Editorial:

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=49549

[Kat Kanning]

Wowie! 

[John]

And this from the same paper's editorial page:

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=49536



And, Today's Quote (from that same page):
"Anyone can hold the helm when the sea is calm." PUBLIUS SYRUS

[intergraph19]

Amen to that.   A massive state wide education plan needs to go into effect where we educate our state on these issues so there can be at least one bastion of freedom in our nation.  That's the whole point of being in New Hampshire in the first place.  No one came here for the night life after all.

[Russell Kanning]

Thanks for the great articles.

[John]

Thank the Union Leader!     They are (almost always) on our side!   

They (also) print more LTEs than any other paper I know of - - - hint, hint.   
Stay within their LTE rules, and (I think) you will get printed.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Yes, thanks, John.

[Rodinia]

Greetings to all out there in NH. I'm new to this site as of yesterday. This particular issue is the straw that broke this camels back.
I heard about this on the Gardner Goldsmith show on Tuesday. It hit home with me because of a strange dream I had the night before Lynch's inauguration speech last week. In my nightmare, I'd heard that a seatbelt law for adults was going through legislation.
I was begging and pleading with people to wake up and smell the tyranny.
I'm pretty sure I had that dream because I was dreading what Lynch was going to say in his inauguration.
The next morning, I joked with my brother about the dream.
After listening to Lynch's speech and knowing that there were really no surprises involved, I relaxed. Only to be knocked over the following week with news of .....a seat belt law.
Well, I've written letters to all 10 of my district representatives, our district senator and our governor letting them know how I feel about a seatbelt law. I've talked to folks at my laundrymat and left a sheet of paper describing the situation and a list of people they can contact to express themselves. I think we should get a petition started. If we can gather signatures from across the state that'd be a powerful statement.

I've got another observation I'd like to know if anyone else picked up on. This representative who is sponsoring this bill is also sponsoring a bill to reduce a first time DWI offenders penalty from a misdemeanor to a violation. (personally, I think it should go from a misdemeanor to a felony)
Now, if our government is here to protect us from being hurt by others, isn't this the epitome of hypocrisy. He is sponsoring a bill to protect us from hurting ourselves (seatbelt) and a bill to make it LESS of a crime for someone else to potentially hurt others.......Please, let me know what you all think



[ "Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck."]

[Kat Kanning]

Rodinia, awesome work fighting the seat belt law!  You're an inspiration

[Russell Kanning]

Completely agree with you. Why should we make people wear seatbelts then lower the consequences for hurting people while drunk.

[AlanM]

Completely agree with you. Why should we make people wear seatbelts then lower the consequences for hurting people while drunk.

Driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 is not the same as having an accident, and causing injury, while under the influence of alcohol, or drugs for that matter. This is another situation of gov. protecting use from "potential" harm.
Alan

[Russell Kanning]

It makes sense to only punish people who actually harm someone.

[Lloyd Danforth]

It makes sense to only punish people who actually harm someone.

This is true.

I, probably, drive a lot better drunk than Russell.

[Rodinia]

Completely agree with you. Why should we make people wear seatbelts then lower the consequences for hurting people while drunk.

Driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 is not the same as having an accident, and causing injury, while under the influence of alcohol, or drugs for that matter. This is another situation of gov. protecting use from "potential" harm.
Alan

Than Alan, what you are saying is it is ok for the government to protect us from "potential" injury from ourselves by enforcing a seatbelt mandate while REDUCING the penalty for someone who is driving intoxicated who is far more likely to injure someone else. ?We'd be injuring OURSELVES by not choosing to wear a seatbelt while the risk of injuring another person is far far more likely while driving intoxicated. The government is to protect us from being injured by others not to protect us from injuring ourselves.

[Russell Kanning]

Based off of Alan's last sentence...I would say he agrees with you Rodinia.