GilfordGrok

In rebuttal to Ms. Fraser's Letter to the Laconia Daily Sun (P.4, her Letter is after the jump ):

Ms. Fraser,

I stand by my post on GilfordGrok where I referred to you as the “Lady in Green” (because I could not hear your name). Often I will comment, as a blogger, on what is said (or how something is said) at public political meetings – and the joint meeting of the Select and School Boards certainly fit both adjectives. Anyone has the right to address their elected officials either to inform them of their opinions or to seek redress for perceived wrongs by those same elected officials. At the same time, when anyone rises to speak at such a public meeting, there is that same right to comment upon those words as well.

I stand by the information that was given to me concerning your spoken words:

“The gal who gave that tear jerking speech was sitting in front of me. She was given that speech in the form of a hand written piece of paper that was handed to her by the teacher beside her. When she came back to her seat she handed the paper back to the teacher and the teacher thanked her for reading it. "

as well as the demeanor in the video. I also added the following, since I did not directly see the paper passing: “Truth or not? Reality or a great facade? Who knows? “. I also point out – you could have sent your email to me as well, as my email address is readily available on the Town web site – but you didn't. Thus, I could only comment upon the information available.

But I also stand by the thrust of my post – those connected (either directly or loosely) are fighting the tax cap because they wish to see no financial limits placed upon the district. There are many that construe my willingness to see a tax cap put in place as “he doesn't support education in Gilford”. Rather, the proper categorization is that “I don't support education in Gilford 'at any price' or 'at a price beyond that of the average family paying the bills'”; remember, while the costs are rising, our enrollment is decreasing. Given that the majority of that rise goes to union members, is it "for the kids" or for the adults?

Once again, we see our language perverted for political purpose (i.e., “support” equated with “willing to not reign in spending” and “you're against kids” as a euphemism for “you won't spend what I want you to!”).

Spending other peoples' money requires hard decisions on actual dollar amounts as in "when is enough, enough Ms. Fraser?".  To a write a check, the Town first has to take that money from someone else; stating "it's for the kids" and hoping it all works out doesn't cut it. 

If that is insulting, then I have no idea how to sugarcoat that for you.

Continue reading "Rebuttal to Alexandra Fraser" »

Posted by Skip at 08:40 PM | Permalink

My rebuttal to both Joe Wernig and Kevin Roy's Letter's to the editor assailing Doug Lambert (Roy's Letter to the Laconia Daily Sun, P.11, after the jump; Wernig's all out personal attack was a while ago).  I also have a few comments interspersed in amongst Roy's Letter):

There are those in Gilford, chief among them Kevin Roy and Joe Wernig, that seem to be constitutionally incapable of accepting an apology as they continually assail and berate the unfortunate (and wrong) words that Doug Lambert uttered a couple of years ago. He was contrite, apologized several times, and finally withdrew completely from local politics. He admitted wrong, took ownership of that wrong, and did the right thing. He did not do as some have in the past which has been to merely duck down for several months and then slowly come back – a mere pittance of penitence, a hollow “oops”. Instead, a strong Conservative voice was silenced – for years.

While there are those accepted that apology, I personally received comments that said “no apology will ever be sufficient” and that they wanted to see him gone from the public square and his family penniless, destitute, and homeless. And it is obvious that both these “gentlemen” may fit into this category. The apology was meaningless – the actual aim was complete political and personal annihilation.

While I am not saying that Wernig and Roy are wishing for the latter, they are actively trying to keep Mr. Lambert speechless in the Gilford political sphere. They may well say it is about the word that was said but their actions belie their words. Notice their words in the paper – they can only dredge up that history and attack the person – always never accepting the apology. Have they no Christian charity in their hearts? No, it isn't about the apology or, seemingly, Christian forgiveness either.

This is strictly political even as they have not even tried to debate the issues of the day in Gilford in any logical fashion. It seems that “their agenda” as they have accused me over the years of having one (hint, I keep saying it over and over again: “Why should the rise of government spending ever be greater than that of the family income?”) is not to extract an apology from Mr. Lambert. That is not their purpose.

As we have seen this last couple of weeks concerning Sandra Fluke and Rush Limbaugh, it is not about civility (as the Right seems to be able to dredge up FAR more examples misogyny and real hatred on the Left than the Left can of the Right), it is about silencing the opposition.  Add to this, Joe Wernig's Chicago style political stunt of trying to get Barbara Aichinger off the ballot on a technicality that is false before he called his press conference.  These are Alinsky style tactics to remove powerful players from the field – they brook no competition.

Sidenote: Joe, wasn't your wife the Gilford Democrat Chair? Certainly Mr. Lambert and Ms. Aichinger poses a huge ideological obstacle to the Statist vision!.

Maybe Wernig and Roy owe Doug an apology for not accepting his? For by not accepting his, what does that make them to be?

Continue reading "Wernig and Roy cannot accept a simple apology" »

Posted by Skip at 08:34 PM | Permalink

A response to Kip Allen's Letter to the Editor in the Daily Sun:

To the Editor,

Kip Allen in his Letter to the Editor (Daily Sun, P7) wrote: "Social justice and moral obligation are not just words but ideas that a great nation was upon"

Methinks you forgot about a couple of words - but even after adding them back in, it still would be wrong.

The operative phrases in our country's founding was NOT "social justice" (a more nebulous term has never been created in the annals of social engineering and political tax raising) - but "equality under the law".  Neither was it "moral obligation"; rather, the phrase "the freedom ability to decide for oneself and one's family unhindered by Government" would be a far better fit.

This country was built on the singular (and still radical today) notions of individual freedom and personal sovereignty. What Kip Allen wishes to place upon us all is an overarching mechanism to force behavior according to the Progressive ideal of "social justice".  The problem is when you ask for specific definitions of that term and compare that to those of "individual freedom and choice", one can tell their political acknowledge the role of freedom, and then the word "but" appears as in usage that screams out "but that it should be subservient or limited in the cause of 'the common good' in one fashion or another".  While I agree we do have responsibilities to others, one has the innate freedom to decide for themselves whether to help or not - a voluntary and free choice of will.  However, every time I see his two phrases used together, I also see their implication of "and I will make you adhere to such by force of law".  And laws are not voluntary.

I am not so naive that all human behavior is such that we need no laws - unfortunately, there are those that believe that what belongs to others should be taken from them - we call those people "criminals".  

Often times, there are also others that delight in forcing behaviors upon others that they would not ordinarily perform - we call those people "bullies".

And then there are people who do both - forcibly take from some to give to others and then also demand that we act in ways that are pleasing to them and not what we would chose ourselves - we call them Progressive Politicians.

Continue reading ""Social justice": Not the moral philosophy on which the Constitution was fashioned" »

Posted by Skip at 07:39 PM | Permalink

It is well known that the number one facet of success in school is parental involvement.  Looking at the story below, it does seem that the educational system has taken it to heart and enforcing it.  From STACLU:

Your Governments Schools In Action….Actually, This Sorta Makes Sense

When I first caught the brief news blurb on this story, it made me think of the Nanny State and how they force involvement. Second thought, maybe this isn’t too bad

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — An Indianapolis elementary school treats parental involvement just like homework - and if a student’s parents fail to meet strict expectations, their child can be shipped to another school.

Indianapolis Public School 57, the city’s only so-called “fundamental school,” requires parents to sign their children’s homework every day, volunteer at the school and respond to teachers’ calls or notes within 24 hours.

Teachers sign similar agreements, and the school’s 210 students have strict rules, too, The Indianapolis Star reported. If students don’t turn in homework for several days, for example, they can earn enough demerits to kick them out of the school.

Students living in several east side neighborhoods are automatically assigned to School 57, but those who don’t agree with the rules can transfer to another school with no questions asked.

Parents having to be be involved with their children’s schooling if they want their kids to stay in the school? Homework has to be turned in? Excellent! On the flip side, it says something about our education system and many parents that they have to be forced to be involved with their kids’ education, eh?

My problem is exactly that - the parents.  Look, I rag on unions and the education-industrial complex (did you know that we really do spend more overall on education than on the military [war expenses exempted]), but it is true that having the parents deeply involved in their childrens' school work is the major indicator of success - and that cost is a zero dollar expenditure.  What it does cost is major time involvement of the parents (and in no small way, the school system in checking).

I do like the accountability factor - and it seems three-way: students, parents, teachers.  

Now, if we knew what their curriculum was too.... 

(cross-posted: GraniteGrok)

Posted by Skip at 07:37 PM | Permalink

It certainly has been a while since I've posted anything here at GilfordGrok - there's been a lot of stuff going on in other areas that have needed my attention.  However, now can be the time to play catch up on things that have gone on and just put my (albeit, late) 2 cents in.

*****

Congratulations to both Mr. Ruggles and Mr. Dunn for being appointed to their new positions (Finance Director and Town Administrator)!  It will be good to meet with and get to know them during the upcoming Budget season. 

*****

Speaking of the Budget season - there will be a lot of concerns expressed this year that rising costs will be affecting both the Town and the SAU.  Framed by the question of "what is the proper role of government?", it will be interesting to see where the leadership of both entities (Selectmen, School Board) believe the priorities of the town should be. 

Not everything that people will want can or should be funded.  Let's see which holds sway during the presentations - the needs of government vs the needs of the regular taxpayer.

Me?  I always take the side of the latter - after all, their priorities should be to see to the needs of their families first.  Government is an expense, a mandatory (and needed) expense.  But when push comes to shove, whose budget should, and will, be honored first?

*****

And I would be remiss if I thought that the issue of the non-profits / NGOs / professional services organizations seeking taxpayer monies was over with the voting done by the townfolks in the last election (the warrant articles which you, the townfolks, voted only to keep 2 NGOs in the budget).  

I'm quite sure that the pitches to the Selectmen have probably started, they will start with the Budget Committee again, and once more, the Letters to the Editor will fly.  I just wish for one thing to happen:  that the NGOs would stop equating the use of Town Taxpayer money with measuring the level of support from that particular Town. 

The true measure is not by persuading a handful of politicians (of which I am one) that property tax money should be used for their organization.  Rather, it should be the amount of TIME and funding that individuals and voluntary organizations (e.g., Rotary, Lions, Elks, you name it) offer.

Yeah, THAT'S going to happen real soon!

*****

The land sale to the Gilford Village Knolls (and then the money to the Library Trustees)

I, for one, was glad to see it fail.  While the Selectmen were granted the authority to conduct the sale of the property by warrant, I still maintain that I would have preferred to see it go to the highest bidder.  That said, I would still like for the original donors receive their money back (with, perhaps, a bit of interest) to do with as they wish and then the rest of the proceeds used to offset the tax burden.

Oh well.

*****

Posted by Skip at 10:33 AM | Permalink

Hazardous Waste Day!

Gilford will be participating in the Lakes Region 2008 Hazardous Waste Collection at the Department of Public Works, 55 Cherry Valley Road, Gilford, NH, on Saturday, July 26, 2008 from 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon.  Further information is available through the following link to the Lakes Region Planning Commission, who sponsor the program.

Please also note that medical wastes will also be collected (think old prescriptions).

LRPC Hazardous Waste Collection 

Posted by Skip at 10:24 PM | Permalink

We had a problem here in Gilford with certain people plagiarizing material without acknowledging that it was from another place (look at the bottom of the post to refresh your memory) - that Code of Ethics for which it was said that "many hours" had been put into it - and it turned out to be a screen scrape.

And again, I think it hilarious that Evans tried to apply it to a non-employee! 

Ah yes, sloppiness does in another:

It seemed like an honorable goal: Draft an honor code for University of Texas at San Antonio students to follow, exhorting them not to cheat or plagiarize.

But when students threw a draft of the new honor code onto the Internet for feedback, some noticed a problem: Parts of the code appeared to have been lifted word for word from another school's honor code, without attribution. Even the definition of plagiarism was, well, plagiarized.

You gotta love the Internet.  You have to feel sorry for those folks that don't understand that ALL malfeasance can be caught - almost everything ends up there and then becomes searchable.

You know, your mother told you not to lie.  The paddle Dad was holding was made of wood.  Society's is made of bandwith, search engines, and derision. 

Posted by Skip at 08:11 PM | Permalink

From the NY Post:

Grading Teachers
Kids' test scores must count

January 28, 2008 -- IF you want good teachers in the schools, the first step is obvious: Figure out who they are.

And not by relying solely on water-cooler chat and subjective judgments but by also looking at rock-hard data on teacher performance.

Such common-sense thinking has led Chancellor Joel Klein & Co. to undertake a pilot project to measure and track teachers' results - based on their students' test scores.

The idea is revolutionary for city schools, but even baby steps in this direction could do a world of good for kids.

Imagine teachers treated like other professionals - having their performance monitored and quantified. In other fields, workers are routinely judged against numerical indicators.

Sales folks get measured:

• Future leads and pipeline sales
• Orders booked
• Repeat and new sales
• Services vs Product vs Warranties 

As a software engineer, I do very unique things most days.  Each project is pretty much different - often radically different than anything else I've ever done.  Yet, even within that variability, I've been measured (lines of code / function points, bugs, tech writing, seminars, consulting dollars, customer satisfaction, assisting sales / number of accounts won). 

If you are going to manage something, you gotta measure it.  That's one reason why I kept bringing up one simple measure during the SAU budget meetings - what's your ratio of indirect / direct cost? 

I ran into the expected obfuscation of "well, we do it this way, they do it another way, and somebody does it a third.  So, how can you measure us?"  As Terry Stewart pointed out, that's a simple org chart that almost all businesses have ready all the time.

We're still waiting to receive it. 

Gee, I thought it would have been rather simple for the SAU / School Board to come up with the simple ratio that I was asking for

Still have not received that either.  So much for measurements....

Numbers, after all, don't lie. The Giants should beware of Patriot QB Tom Brady in Sunday's Super Bowl because his lifetime win-loss record is 100-26 and he's thrown 222 touchdowns. Salesmen, entertainers, doctors and lawyers are often weighed against statistical standards.

Shouldn't educators be judged similarly? Absolutely. If their students do well, teachers should get credit. If not, teachers should share blame.

Given how vital the good ones are and dangerous the bad ones, it's insane that they're not already tracked this way. Most folks agree that:

* Education is vital.

* Teacher quality makes a key difference.

* Some teachers are shining lights while others are god-awful lousy.

Parents have long understood the importance of good teachers; every summer, they beg, steal or borrow to see that little Johnny escapes Ms. Jones or gets into Mr. Smith's class come fall.

Yet rookie teachers, good and bad alike, get lifetime tenure almost automatically after just three years of service in New York. By definition, some kids are being short-changed.

Let's be clear: The problem has never been how to sort the wheat from the chaff but, rather, how to get the teachers' union to allow merit-based distinctions.

In theory, sophisticated stats shouldn't really be necessary. A good principal knows from long-term observation which teachers are the crème de la crème and which are hopeless. They should be able to make staffing changes accordingly.

Alas, the union - and the teachers' contract - makes that nearly impossible. 

Posted by Skip at 08:24 PM | Permalink

Our friends over at AnkleBitingPundits had this news / commentary snippet:

If you want a perfect example of the “gimme” mentality of teacher’s unions and just how out of touch their leaders are with the real world, look no further than this article.  As you may recall a few months ago we wrote about how Rhode Island teacher’s unions couldn’t face the reality that they were getting gold plated retirement benefits.  Now a new study came out showing how each retiree could get as much as $1.1 million over the course of their retirement, and how good they have it.

Well, now a study has come out showing that the state is $4.9 billion in the hole for these costs and are looking to try and solve this seemingly insurmountable problem. And how does Robert Walsh, the head of the Rhode Island NEA respond? Well, just read.

But Walsh rejects the argument advanced by Governor Carcieri that the state needs to bring its employee benefits — including pensions — “back in line” with what private-sector workers get.

On the retirement front, Walsh said: “All you have to do is look at what happened to the market in the last three weeks to understand why private accounts and 401(k)s don’t offer nearly the security of a defined benefit plan,” he said. Estimating that one out of five private-sector workers in Rhode Island still has a defined benefit plan — with guaranteed income no matter what happens on the stock market — Walsh said of the other 80 percent with no such guarantees: “We are never going to compete with folks, with employers who are so ridiculous they do not provide retirement security plans for their employees.

“If they don’t, they are terrible people and they shouldn’t be allowed to exist and that’s always going to be the union position on those issues,” he said.

You got that? According to Mr. Walsh’s typical union thug mentality, unless a company promises retirement benefits to workers that bankrupt the company, they are “terrible” and “shouldn’t be allowed to exist”.

Basically he’s talking about 90% of the companies out there that have to survive financially in the real world that know such a system is unsustainable.  But Mr. Walsh and his ilk have been sucking off the public teat for so long they are utterly blind to reality and doesn’t care one damn bit about the taxpayers that pay the lion share of these costs.

And somebody ought to ask this financially ignorant fool that what the hell does he care what happens to the stock market?  It doesn’t matter to him because the taxpayers just pay more for his and his union’s guaranteed income - in addition to having to save for their own retirement.  Unlike his lucky ass, nobody bails them out.  But that’s the liberal and union mindset - everybody needs to be bailed out by the taxpayer.

And while he’s bashing the market why doesn’t he take one minute to think that it’s because of the market, and the contributions of the taxpayers that he’s able to have his gold-plated benefits.  His union members can retire at 55 and collect about $38,000/year (plus a guaranteed 3% yearly increase) for the rest of their lives.

He actually thinks it’s in his benefit that Rhode Island teachers contribute a whopping 8.75% of their pay toward their pension costs. Big damn deal. The state - meaning the taxpayers - kick in about 21% of total payroll. In the real world companies match contributions up to about 6%.  Rhode Island teachers get about have their contributions nearly triple matched.

Somebody might want to tell Mr. Walsh to shut the hell up and take a look at the real world. And please don’t say I’m bashing public school teachers here. My dad is a retired public school teacher, I’ve got 4 aunts and uncles who are retired public school teachers, and my brother and wife are currently teaching in the public schools.

It’s the gimme mentality of these union leaders that gets me irritated. And yes, if the teachers blindly follow the garbage spewed out by these leaders then they too are just as guilty as being financially blind and ignorant, not to mention greedy.

After all, it's always "for the children", isn't it?  With individual teachers, more than likely.  I think Bull Dog got up a head full of steam, however, when looking not at teachers but at unions.  Face it, unions exist for the betterment of their members just as companies should be enriching their owners - that's what they both do. And power dictates who gets the better of the deal in many cases.

Posted by Skip at 08:13 PM | Permalink

MANCHESTER – Superintendent Michael Ludwell gave himself a 2 percent pay raise this summer without the school board's authorization, a revelation that prompted his abrupt resignation Monday night, Mayor Frank Guinta said yesterday.

Ludwell collected about $1,000 in unauthorized pay before Guinta and School Board Vice Chair Leslee Stewart confronted him Monday, the mayor said. He has agreed to refund the district in full by Dec. 31, when his resignation takes effect.

"What has occurred is a violation of the public's trust," Guinta said.

Posted by Doug at 05:11 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Click here for more cool pictures.

Posted by Doug at 09:53 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Those of you that read the Laconia Daily Sun are quite familiar with Dr. Leo Sandy's column most every week.  Short version: a Peace and Justice kind of guy, not exuberant about religion or nationalism (champions for a one world government via the UN), he advocates lots of talk and non-violence to solve ALL problems.  Violence is so passe; war is just so uncivilized.

Sure thing, dude.  'Splain this one (emphasis mine):

He’s made good will gestures. He’s made concessions.

He’s reached out.

But the jihadis keep slaughtering people indiscriminately.

What’s a military-installed prime minister to do?

BANGKOK (AFP) - Thai Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said Wednesday that separatists fighting in Muslim-majority provinces have refused to take up his offer to launch peace talks.

Check one - Let's talk! 

“As of now, there has been no progress on starting negotiations, because that would require the agreement of both sides. So there are no talks for now,” he told reporters.

“My government is still adhering a policy of non-violence, but cooperation from the people is crucial,” he said.

Check two - non-violence! 

Since Surayud took office following a military coup last year, he has made a series of peace gestures to the militants fighting along the southern border with Malaysia.

Check three - keep trying! 

But the violence has only escalated since the coup, and the government has deployed thousands more troops and paramilitary forces to the region.

Go figure.

(Hat tip: Jihad Watch.)

MY hat tip to Little Green Footballs! 

Background:  the Thai military overthrew the civilian government a while ago as it became alarmed / frustrated over the continued violence and that government's inability to bring peace to the southern region of Thailand as radical Islamofascists continued attacking unarmed Buddhists and Christians.  They installed a new Prime Minister who was supposed to "fix" the problem.

The above is probably a model for what these peace centers are pushing for with the PM trying to act 

As one can tell, I think quite little of the "Peace Centers" (see here too).  IMHO?  All of the peace talk does not much more than disabling oneself from being able to defend oneself.  Talking can be useful, and can be the right tool, but only at the right time.   However, limiting yourself to only one tool all the time is a recipe for disaster, as we see in the above Post from LGF.

Money Phrases:

• require the agreement of both sides - The Peace folks, like Dennis Kucinich, always seem to skip over this point. If only one side is willing to talking, peace is not going to arrive any time soon.  Neville Chamberlin, any one?
  

• But the violence has only escalated since the coup - When a person, or a set of people, wishes to have something to which they are not entitled, sees that the owners of what they desire will not defend themselves, why not do what is working?
  

The Peace folks never seem to grasp one enduring fact: people are not good by nature  and are not going to always look out for the best interests of others.  In fact, many only think of themselves and what they want.  And will do what they want to get what they want.

The result of ignoring basic human trait will not bridge a gap to peace; history shows us that the final reckoning will only make things worse (having mentioned Chamberlein, think of how things might have been different if the rest of Europe had stood up to the Nazis in the runup to WW II?).

Never forget that old adage: a conservative is a liberal that got mugged. 

Posted by Skip at 08:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I LIKE this idea that was in today's (Thursday, 8/16) Citizen editorial (yes, I am still catching up):

"I pay your salary" is a declaration indignant taxpayers are known to say to government employees who appear to be unresponsive or indifferent to a public concern.

But finding out what that salary is can too often be a frustrating experience, fraught with annoying red tape at the very least or bureaucratic stonewalling at worse.

So it is especially refreshing to learn that there is at least one community in this state which has chosen to act on its own initiative not only to make its employees' salaries readily available, but to do so by posting them on the town's Website.

The town we are referring to is Durham.

So much so, I did it here for both the Town and SAU salary lists. And will do so again this year unless the Town and the SAU do it themselves and leave up the info all year. Both entities have web sites that would easily accommodate putting up, in HTML form for online or EXCEL format for analysis, the information on where the majority of our taxes go – salaries and benefits.

You know that it can be easy – after all, both the Town and the SAU provided the information to me upon request.  Rather simple and done quite quickly.

Durham provides the salary, overtime pay, insurance (healthcare) buyout, merit pay, and longevity pay.  I would add, as appropriate, stipend pay, retirement pay, and taxes paid on behalf of each employee.

And for those that are under contract (as most of the SAU seems to be), an additional posting of the start and end date of that contract plus any part of “golden parachute” arrangements / reimbursements for any unfulfilled contract conditions.

Again, as the Citizen editorial states - “I pay your salary”. We just want to see the total of what that salary costs us....

Posted by Skip at 08:18 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Well, at least one person reads the 'Grok besides Doug and I!

Alec read what I said and responded to it in a comment, which I put up.  Well, it was such a good one, I decided to make it a post (and of course, comment upon it) all on its own. 

After all, it is fun to have "conversations" with folks!

Sigh.

Skip my man, it is time to learn to take some constructive criticism. As someone who is all too quick to point out that he is “the new guy” and still has a lot to learn, I had hoped you’d see the value in some objective advice.

We all know that the Grok’s aim is to provide you guys a sounding board on the issues of the day. I’d never suggest that you would want to or need to lose the right to throw your own two cents (or 75 cents) into a discussion for the sake of reporting integrity.

What I am suggesting is that it would be of great benefit to you to try and separate the news you produce and the commentary you provide a little more. You agree with me that you editorialize. You agree that editorializing damages credibility for a reporter. You disagree, however, with my calling the work the Grok is currently doing as an attempt to report on news. More peculiar is that you don’t seem to want that title, and in fact go as far as to say that you don’t think it fits.

No, I really don't want that title, nor am I striving for it (re: reporter).  As Doug said in his comment "Er, and all I wanted to do was write stuff sometimes..." - me too.  I do want to be correct with my facts - one can quibble about commentary and opinions, but facts are facts.  But it will be mixed in with commentary.

It is not that we do not wish to be seen as credible; we just have a difference of opinion on how to present "news" with commentary. 

Continue reading "A response from Alec!" »

Posted by Skip at 01:48 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Well, take off for a few days of vacation, and lots of stuff starts to happens and is reported in the local papers. Guess it is time to provide commentary...after all, that is what we do here, right? Right in our Policies, we have these snippets, plain as day:

Given that, since we are doing this in order to be able to get our views out...We are the benevolent tyrants of GilfordGrok. Since we own it and pay the bills, we get to make all the rules (yup, he who has the gold makes the rules). We can say whatever we want and anytime we want...

We try to get our information correct, but sometimes, we don't. So don't think we are the be-all or end-all source of complete information! We ASK you to double check what we say with other blogs - it keeps us honest, you get better informed, and the world will be a happier place for all (right.....)

Up at Technorati (a blog site that rates about 94 million blogs as to their “importance”, we make that even clearer:

A conservative blog run by two guys in central New Hampshire about international, national, state and local issues including politics, culture, religion, music, and just about anything else that amuses us.

Over at GraniteGrok, we have this:

The owners of this blog (Doug and I) are conservatives, thus this blog will have that kind of slant on any of the topics discussed here.

[snip]

Actually, we will take on almost any  topic and any subject -  anything that amuses us is game!

So why do I mention the above? Seems that the Steamer  thinks that our “job”, our “mission”, is actually something else! In this week's Editorial, I spied this (bolded emphasis mine):

Editorializing is a classic blunder for rookie reporters to make. It is such an easy trap to fall into, and one of the most dangerous out there

Blunder? What blunder? Does he mean us?  I think he is confused....

Continue reading "Steamer Editorial - No, Alec, we're not!" »

Posted by Skip at 06:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Since the Gilford Steamer and the Meredith News are owned by the same company and cover different areas of the Lakes Region, I was not surprised to see this editoral on last week's events.

Reprinted with permission...

August 01, 2007

These days, the Meredith News and the Gilford Steamer are very much sister papers, so an event like last week's visit by Moultonboro representatives to see how Gilford's elected officials feel about the budget committee had the feel of one of those crossover "events" TV networks attempt to bolster ratings. Like if that old lady on "Murder, She Wrote" took a vacation to Hawaii and ended up solving a mystery on "Magnum, P.I." during a special two hour program.

(By the way, after coming up with the above analogy off the top of our head as a joke, a quick check online confirmed that this exact crossover actually happened in 1986. We're speechless.)

Really?  Speechless, naw....not them!  But certainly a cute story.

This meeting is going to represent something very different to both communities. Gilford's School Board is coming off an acrimonious season with the Budget Committee, and it would almost assuredly color the comments the board would make. In its meeting with the Board of Selectmen, Gilford's reps had no harsh words for the process. However, their comments reflected a town that considered but ultimately rejected a warrant article to disband the Budget Committee. If pressed, town officials would likely say that a board is only as good as the members elected to it and leave things at that.

Works for me!  But here, I think the editorial meant the Moultonborough Study Committee rather than "Board of Selectment" - but I get the drift.

We'll be interested to see what sort of message is brought back to Moultonboro. On that side of the lake, several town officials have contrasting views of what a Budget Committee would represent to the community.

I certainly will love to see those notes.  Further, I hope that the Moultonborough citizens that came down to watch their elected / appointed officials ask for the notes that created the minutes!   Hate to belabor the point, but watch the video from the week before to get a sense of how the committee members already feel about buget committees.

Continue reading "Gilford Steamer muses on Moultonborough and Gilford" »

Posted by Skip at 08:06 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

TMEW and I went to a new restaurant this past week in Laconia,NH called TBones.  A NH based chain, they have quite a menu - and had my favorite on it.

Now, I have traveled a lot for business over the years and eaten in almost all parts of the country; I'm also partial to Prime Rib.  Well, I have to admit - probably the BEST I have ever had; it was like buddah (that's butter to you non-Bawhstonians).  Tender, cooked exactly right....not much more I could ask for.  Only in Ruth Chris Steak House have I had better - but I have paid the price for it too!

Now, am I shilling?  Naw - when I think a meal is above and beyond, I thank the wait staff (and leave a 20% tip).  And I have been known to ask for the manager to tell the kitchen staff "Thanks!" in the past as well (and I did here).  I told her that I was quite delighted with the meal that I'd talk about it on Meet The New Press and a post here at the 'Grok.

Once again, a great meal!

And here is what we talked about on Meet The New Press this past Saturday about T-Bones 

Posted by Skip at 08:28 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

They said no. Good for them!

No, I'm not talking about the Selectmen's decision to not allow the Firemen apply for a grant for the exercise equipment (although I do agree with the decision). Sometimes, you just find out the darndest things after one of Gilford's meetings (in this case, the organizational meeting for the Budget Committee and an informal discussion with Debra Shackett, the Assistant Town Administrator).

As during the end of the budget season last year, the campaign and election season just completed, discussion swirled around the topic of civility and free speech – what was allowable, or reasonable, or not. While the debate will continue, many agreed that limiting speech is not the answer – MORE speech is. I concur – the more, the better! And if more ways to distribute that speech, better still.

Yet, few were there to personally witness this give and take. In fact, other than other Gilford officials and the press, I only saw one person from “the public” in attendance. For a Committee that generated so much controversy last year, I was rather surprised. I had expected to see many more come to the meeting to see for themselves how members comported themselves.

We have the local press (which pretty much do a stand up job in reporting on all sides of the issues). And, obviously, GilfordGrok. Add to that, Dale Dormody will be launching a new site to report on the goings on in town. Also discussed was Doug Lambert's and my offer to live stream the audio from Budget Committee via GilfordGrok so that those that could not (or chose not to) attend the meetings in person could listen over the Internet (yet to be approved).

When it comes down to it, the more ways that news and opinions can be distributed, the better! Never one to accept what only one news or commentary outlet tells me, I try to sample as many sources to figure out what is flash and what is real. While it takes more time, it is time well spent, as one can only be more well informed as a result.

However, back to the original point. I started by commenting about a little known decision by the Town's Administration - to not give up our cable channel. Huh? Gilford has a cable channel? Yes siree Bob, we do! The operative phrase is “spank 'em when they're wrong, and thank 'em when they're right”. In this case, two big thumbs up for the Town Administration on this decision!

No, our channel is not being used, and no, you cannot find it on your Metrocast set top box – yet. One of the reasons that you do not see Gilford activities on the cable system is that we do not posses the broadcast equipment to do so. According to Ms. Shackett, other towns are broadcasting events, but they obtained their equipment by trading something in return back to Metrocast – their channel. A mighty valuable commodity called bandwidth to a cable company (more channels means more potential profit). And with the forfeiture of that channel, they have lost, perhaps for good, a direct outlet that could be used for their town and by their citizens. Now those Towns have to rely on the Public Access Channel scheduling. For example, if Gilford had that equipment last year, much of the buzz and accusations that Gilford read and talked about the BC might have never happened – from the comfort of their living rooms, Gilfordites could have watched the proceedings and made up their own minds. Not then, and not right now, but the potential is there.

Now, for some of you, this is nothing but a yawner. For others, this may be setting off fireworks inh your heads with ideas of what might be possible. When the time is right and when all of the funds have been obtained, our channel will be there for those ideas to come to fruition.

You have heard Evans Juris stating that we still need more money still to purchase the equipment. I urge you all to donate to get the “Gilford Channel” up and running.

Personally, I see this as another way for the citizens of Gilford to truly see what happens at meetings that affect your lives and those of your families. For if you cannot get to the meeting in person, you'll be able to attend, not with a click of a mouse, but with a click on the remote. Join the fun, and see what really goes on.

And if you are thinking such, the answer is no. I have a face for blogs, columns, and radio.....and that's enough for me (and probably you too!).

Posted by Skip at 06:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 06:14 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

...is a privilege, not a right.  But it seems, as with many things nowadays, everything is a right.  And many privileges seemingly are being turned into rights, whether the item deserves to be or not.  And this local item of discussion, seems to be heading right into that arena.

Gail Morrison, D-Sanbornton, has introduced HB878 that will elevate the frequency of testing for seniors that still retain their licenses and cars.  And already the howls have started!  Recriminations of discrimination abound.  The main clause that is causing such a kerfuffle is "Because age frequently brings on medical changes or illnesses such as diabetes, strok or other debilitating conditions, this bill includes accelerated testing, once every two years beginning at age 70 and once a year beginning at age 75."

Oh my, let's just discriminate natural outcomes!  Ours is a rural area, no doubt about it.  And without a car, without a costly mass transit system in the area, it is hard to get around, no doubt about it.

I've read the Letters in the papers, and the opponents of this law seem to stress two things:

Continue reading "Driving at any age...." »

Posted by Skip at 08:54 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Skip at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

 

Posted by Doug at 07:05 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Differences - politics, and media.  Styles AND Substance 

The issue?  It is not about civility.  It is about money and the spending of it thereof with some very large expenditures in the near term future.  And that, simply, is what the campaign for the three seats on the BudComm should be about. Nothing less, but nothing more.

Can Gilford afford all of these future expenses, some to cost several hundreds of thousands if not millions:

• New Police Station
  
• New roof for the school
• New Fire Engine (no, not the one on the Warrant - the one after that)
• New plans for the Meadows - prelim plans are for a number of fields for soccer, football, and lacrosse, plus 350 car parking area.  And that hasn't touched upon the buildings.
  
• Teacher contract up for renegotiating (I put my hand up now to help - and I'll do it for free!)
  

So it all comes down to control - will all this spending go on all at once or will it be staged over time?  Or not spent at all?  The BudComm will play a central role in making these decisions, thus the campaign should not be about "civility" but about large bills that may be coming real soon.  That said....

------------------------------------------------------ 

A while ago, Alec of the Gilford Steamer was "requesting" a bit attention from us here at the 'Grok:

We're starting to wonder what a newspaper has to do to get itself "Grokked" here,

Continue reading "Well, the Steamer did ask to get "grokked", right?" »

Posted by Skip at 08:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Once again, with family matters, biz traveling, the BudComm season wrapping up, and a whole bunch of things taking up time, I haven't been posting all that much.  I've got a whole stack of stuff from the local papers that I have clipped, thinking that I'd have time back then to comment on them...well, not so much.

So instead of complete fisking, I'll settle for a just a few comments.

Laconia Daily Sun - Jan 10 - Letter to the Editor from Dale Dormody.  Yup, this is the guy seemingly in the mold of Senator John Kerry of MA (remember, he voted for the war before he was against it?).  Well, not quite the Iraq war, but it seems that with signing the petition to erase the current Budget Committee (along with his wife, the Library Director whose budget would no longer get the same scrutiny), it seems that he was against the BudComm (the petition) before he was for it (signing up as a candidate).

Anyways, I digress.

Continue reading "Ruminations on 2/4/07 - updated 2/10 (it's been a busy time)" »

Posted by Skip at 08:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 06:42 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

a vocal minority has persisted in arguing that the GOP, as the party of the rich, isn’t the best vehicle for a Christian political witness. “There are 2,000 Bible verses that deal with caring for the poor,” says Balmer. “Jesus never mentioned abortion.”

.

The outcome of this debate may hinge on younger evangelicals, who have grown up in an era when the Religious Right was a fact of political life rather than a new innovation. “Some are less embedded in the subculture and will be less likely to hear the political cues,” says Laura Olson, a Clemson University political science professor who has studied the evolution of evangelical political involvement. “They will be no less committed to pro-family issues, but they’ll say, ‘Let’s talk about poverty, hunger, and the environment.’” Olson points out that even prominent liberal evangelicals—such leaders as Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo—oppose abortion and hold orthodox views about homosexuality.

.

Jessica Echard, executive director of Eagle Forum, is a young Christian conservative who believes the social issues will remain paramount. “I don’t see the evangelical base energized by these new issues,” she says. “They care about babies, marriage, and what their children see on TV.”

Some changes may be inevitable, however. “As the number of evangelicals has grown, they have become more like the society around them,” says Olson. “That will lead to a diversity of opinion on a lot of issues.” Peter Brown, the assistant director of the Quinnipiac Polling Institute, agrees that on many issues “evangelicals are in line with the rest of mainstream America.” Yet Brown doesn’t foresee a real partisan shift among evangelical voters. “People vote based on values and comfort level,” he says. “There’s no evidence evangelicals are losing that comfort level with the Republicans just over the environment.”

Posted by Doug at 07:05 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Continue reading "When is "enough" adequate?" »

Posted by Skip at 08:39 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Lush gardens...

Fascinating History. T-A Heritage Day Festival in the village...

Saturday football...

Posted by Doug at 07:39 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This past week's Steamer (subscription required) has the headline of “New assessments to increase island tax burden” as well as an editorial of “Bending reval rules”. Both spoke to the issue that the island property assessments are probably going to skyrocket to keep within the State regulations.

In the editorial, Alec tries to propose the the “foot loose” part by suggesting an end around the whole process by simply doing a what-if of just raising all assessments by 17%, and then shoots it down by noting the problems. I smiled as I read it, trying to figure out if he was just thinking out loud, or trying to skewer-in-advance those that might propose the same thing.

What both the headline and the editorial failed to mention were the other two components of what drives the tax burden – the overall tax rates (how much we pay per $1,000 of assessed value) and the spending of the town. It is a three legged stool that has to be balanced to keep your “sit-down” on a level keel.

If you keep spending level, you can lower the rate even as assessments go up - town revenues (via the taxes we pay) will remain the same. However, if spending goes up, the age old run-around used by politicos can be used - “hey, we kept the rates the same!” by just letting the assessments go up and keeping the additional revenues.

That is what taxpayers should be eyeballing all the time, the tax rates, as there is little we can do about the assesments due to State regs and marketplace forces.  Be sure to keep that in mind, and remind your elected officials that you are doing just that.

Continue reading "Incomplete headline, or foot loose and fancy free?" »

Posted by Skip at 08:15 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)