Letters to the Editor - October 4, 2012

Presidential debates mock democracy

Are you going to watch the upcoming presidential debates? Take a moment to inform yourself a bit before the show begins. You might decide you want a different show.

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is controlled by the Republican and Democratic parties. It was established in 1987 to “provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners” by organizing and sponsoring the debates for president and vice president. Sure sounds good until you peel back the CPD façade to see the tightly controlled process essentially designed to foster a two-way debate between Democratic and Republican candidates. And there is no public oversight of CPD operations either.

 Curious, isn’t it, how third- and fourth-party candidates are not being allowed into the debate, when third-party candidates might have some better ideas on what to do in these challenging times? Their exclusion comes even though candidates such as Jill Stein, Green Party candidate, has recently been polling 2 percent nationally (CNN poll), without the benefit of gigantic Super PAC or Special Interest funding.

Whoa! What’s up? One must ask at what cost to democracy and the American people comes the two-party controlled gatekeeper CPD-selected candidates in our nationwide presidential debates. This, in a year when many are dissatisfied with the two-party-selected choices and their remedies for improving our country.

In the 2012 debates, it’s obvious the two major parties want to restrict participation by candidates and discussion from other parties. What are the Republicans and Democrats afraid of? Perhaps smart, candid candidates, more pragmatic (no pledges) and truthful (about the economy, Afghanistan and Iraq), and working to promote the constitutional rights and interests of the American people, not special big-money interests.

I just wrote to this “rigged” CPD and various news media to demand the inclusion of third- and fourth-party candidates to indeed ensure the “best possible” debates. In defense of democracy and the people’s interests, why can’t you?

Perhaps it’s time we demand the nonpartisan League of Women Voters be returned to running the debates in a fairer fashion, and work to eliminate the democracy-snatching control by Democrats, Republicans, and special interests to limit our choices.

Leila Baroody
Lakeville
 

Solve the Middle East problems sooner rather than later

The Arab Spring has changed everything about Israel’s relationship to the Arab world. The old ruling Arab elites are gone or going. What will replace them is not known. Will radical Islamists sweep to the top? Will more  moderate Arabs prevail?

For  an armchair analyst to presume some useful insights into Israeli-Arab relations is almost ridiculous. Still, don’t American taxpayers need to try to weigh Middle East matters for ourselves, especially where Israel is concerned? In the name of oil and Israel we have spent billions and billions of tax dollars in the Middle East. Our troops have been dying in the Middle East since President Reagan sent Marines to Beirut. Clearly, the Middle East plays a role in our lives.

America has always had a special relationship with Israel. And Israel has needed our help. Since 1948 Arab armies have attacked Israel eight times. Each time, with American support, Israel has fought them off. But now times have changed.

In present circumstances Israel is less well-equipped to defend itself: First, the Israeli army is not effective against Arab irregular forces. Second, world opinion is not sympathetic with the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and world opinion abhors the creation of new Israeli West Bank settlements. Third, American commitment to Israel’s defense is  beginning  to  shift. The  Democrat platform’s  omission of  Jerusalem as  the presumptive future capital of Israel was a signal.

American political commitment to Israel’s security has not come to an end, nor will it. Here at home, however, the call for change is beginning to be heard.

Israel can and should work to turn hostile Palestinian Arabs into supporters and friends. Impossible? Not so. The future for Israel will depend on a new Arab appreciation and valuation of Israel.  To gain that goal, Israel can begin changing how it perceives and works with the Palestinians.

Israeli relations with West Bank Palestinians  could  become a  wedge for dealing with the wider Arab world.  Like the NATO nations after World War II, Israel will be well-advised to partner with the Palestinians just as the Western powers did with Germany and Japan.

There  is  a way to begin to do just that: Displaced Palestinians  demand the right of return to their former homes inside Israel. There is justice in the demand. While 156,000 Arab Palestinians did become Israeli citizens following the Israeli war for independence, the Israeli state in 1948 did forcefully expel 700,000 Arabs from Israel. At the time of their expulsion those people were told they could never return. No compensation for their homes, farms and businesses has been offered or paid. Why? The Israelis maintain the 700,000 abandoned their property of their own accord. As David Shipler makes abundantly clear in his Pulitzer Prize winning, “Arab and Jew,” that official Israeli claim is not true.

An apology for a mistake, payment of restitution and help to set up a viable Palestinian state could be the beginning of Israel’s new role in the Middle East.

Wm. Earl Brecher
West Cornwall

Consider all facts: Support McMahon this November

This year, we have a competitive Senate race in Connecticut with Linda McMahon and Chris Murphy. It is exciting that Connecticut voters will have an impact at the national level this year. The national media folks at MSNBC, NBC, New York Times, etc., are shocked that there is a competitive race in Connecticut which is normally a predictable blue state.

Many have put up criticisms of McMahon’s involvement with the WWE without any mention of Murphy’s inability to manage his personal finances. An article in the Sept. 8, 2012, Hartford Courant noted Congressman Chris Murphy was sued for foreclosure in 2007 and for failing to pay his rent in 2003. Murphy acknowledged to the Courant that “he had been careless with his personal finances.”

I certainly understand that the average person can go through hard times. However, Mr. Murphy is a well-educated attorney, so it is difficult to consider him an average person. Do we want our senator from Connecticut to be an attorney who is “careless” with his personal finances? How can we trust him to pay attention to how our tax dollars are spent? Additionally, Murphy has proven to be a rubber stamp for Nancy Pelosi rather than an independent thinker who looks out for us. His rubber-stamp support of his Democratic bosses will certainly promote his own political career, but does little for promoting efficient and good government.

Let’s send a message when we vote this November that we are independent thinkers in Connecticut and that we are fed up with incumbent Washington politicians like Murphy. I urge you to vote for change this November and support Linda McMahon. It will be refreshing to give a chance to a strong woman that has created hundreds of jobs and generated millions in tax revenue for our state.

Tom Gandolfo
Lakeville

Show LINDA she can’t buy the election

When running for the Connecticut Senate seat two years ago, Linda McMahon was an unknown entity. Today she is so well known that her yard signs say merely “LINDA.” Ah, what a difference two years and millions of dollars can make. Her $60 million campaign of 2010 was not money wasted. Not only did the public learn who LINDA really is but LINDA learned that money alone does not a political campaign win. This year, in addition to again spending vast amounts of money, already over $30 million, LINDA knows that she has to distort and misrepresent facts about her opponent while hiding her own questionable past from the attention of the voters.

The deluge of TV ads, multi-colored fliers and incessant phone calls aimed at representing our hard-working congressman as a dead-beat because, like LINDA, he missed some mortgage payments is reprehensible. In another ad, LINDA states that Murphy missed about 96 percent of his committee meetings implying that all other congresspersons attend all, or almost all, meetings. In fact, they miss the vast majority of these meetings, many of which are held all over the country and are often sub-committee meetings that all members cannot possibly attend. Further, LINDA speculated that Murphy was misspending his time by lazing in the congressional gym. (One could, with less unfairness, speculate that in this time period LINDA was busy kneeing wrestlers below the belt. At least this can be backed up with video tapes indicating some plausibility to this charge.)

LINDA is now embarked on another try at one of Connecticut’s Senate seats and, once again, LINDA will learn that the Connecticut voters do not offer their Senate seats for sale.

George Anastasio
Vice Chair, Canaan DTC
Falls Village

Consider carefully before you vote GOP

If you think that all politicians are the same, please consider what you are endorsing if you choose to vote for all or part of the Republican platform.

A vote for the Republican ticket means that you are endorsing a party that places obstructionism above the needs of the country, as so clearly announced by Mitch McConnell, when he said, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president”; represents and supports the interests of the wealthy to the detriment of everyone else; wants to make reducing the deficit a central theme of their party, yet they had no problem when huge deficits were caused by Republicans (Dick Cheney said in 2004, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter”); thinks climate change and evolution are based on “junk” science; demonizes the president as being “other,” “un-American” and “not one of us”; thinks that voter fraud is so prevalent that many Republican-controlled state legislatures have passed or proposed new voter ID laws, thereby suppressing the fundamental right of many Americans to cast their ballot; recently blocked the Veterans Jobs Corps Act of 2012 so Obama couldn’t have a legislative “success” so close to the election.

And, the Republican Party believes that the only financial plan ever is to cut taxes (mostly for the wealthy) and reduce government regulations. That two-pronged approach was a major contributor to the economic meltdown beginning in 2008; takes extreme positions on women’s health and reproductive rights (and unbelievably has re-endorsed Todd Akin in Missouri); would destroy our successful Medicare/Medicaid program that so many citizens rely on; would probably shape the U.S. Supreme Court in an even more conservative direction than the current Roberts Court.

When you go to the polls on Nov. 6, remember that the Republican Party platform extends from the national level all the way down to the state and local levels. Republican senators, congressmen or congresswomen, and state legislators will all be supporting this agenda. If you disagree with the Republican platform, you must go to the polls on Nov. 6 and elect the Democratic ticket. If we don’t vote for the clear choices on Nov. 6 and then wake up on Nov. 7 to a Republican majority, we have only ourselves to blame.

John Hoffman
Lakeville

Two parties, at least two views

The letters to the editor in last week’s edition might make one think we were living under “one party” rule in Salisbury.

It seems that the Democratic Party authorities and some of their minions are feeling their toes have been stepped on since the election of a Republican selectman who at times does not concur with their vision or style of governing.

Mr. Vail makes clear that the Democrats “run this town” and by inference suggests those who do not march to the Democratic drum beat should sit down and shut up.

All of their writers exhibit an obvious fear of a code of ethics. Mr. Ginouves contends that such a code would send volunteers fleeing into the woods. Maybe the Democrats should revise their selection criteria if those whom they have chosen would be forced out by a code of ethics.

The idea of a public reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance appears to panic this group. They come up with excuses ranging from “we have never done this before” to “it is a personal matter.” I would conclude that the public reciting of the pledge would remind people that during the 1700s we “Americans” decided all citizens should participate in their governance and that one party should never be the absolute authority. This idea does not concur with the governance structure that Mr. Vail says his party has imposed in Salisbury.

We also have those who declare that all this is politically motivated and might even have undertones of questioning the patriotism of public officials. This is an argument presented by those who have little substance and are only in the debate because they were asked to be. Those who turn their backs on America and its military leave themselves open for questioning of their patriotism.

Then we have the “gotcha” moment. This might not have happened had the leader of this community not felt the need to ramble on about an issue which obviously perplexed him. A simple “let’s discuss this at the next meeting” could have sufficed.

Ms. Maltby needs to understand that Mr. Rand and Mr. Dresser don’t allow Mr. Lauretano to have items on the agenda which they do not agree with. The only incivility going on in this community is the intolerant attitude the Salisbury Democratic leadership has toward those with whom they disagree.

Finally I would address this complaint about “wasting time” and “not focusing on the important issues.” On April 27, 1991, this community convened in a special town meeting to consider and pass an ordinance to establish Salisbury as a nuclear free zone (number 72). The ordinance says, in part, “ ... no nuclear weapons or products associated with nuclear weapons may be positioned or manufactured within Salisbury.”

This is why we do not have any missile silos in our community and is an example of the important issues we should be dealing with at the local level.

God bless Salisbury!

Michael J. Flint
Lakeville

Let’s not start a bad habit, vote for Vivian Nasiatka

The undersigned Republican Town Committee chairs of the 64th House District’s new towns — Norfolk, North Canaan, Canaan and Kent — want to advise all voters of reasons why Democrat Roberta Willis should not be re-elected to represent us.

For 36 of the past 38 years the Democrats have controlled the Legislature increasing taxes, spending and borrowing at will. In 2012, Connecticut ranked No. 1 nationally for Tax Freedom Day (May 5) when Connecticut’s taxpayers finally earned enough to pay their total annual taxes.

Today, Connecticut’s citizens and businesses are burdened with 368 taxes and fees required to generate almost $20 billion dollars. Two hundred generate a measly $16.7 million in revenue, but at what bureaucratic and excessive state employee cost? Since 1970, Connecticut’s population grew 18 percent — about 500,000 people — to 3.5 million while government spending increased over 315 percent. Connecticut’s ruling party treats the state like an employment agency on the backs of its citizens and businesses that bear the 368 taxes and fees.

When Democratic Town Committee chairman Tod Jones said, “Kent belongs with the towns of the Northwest Corner,” Willis was “unenthusiastic about the prospect” saying, “I can’t adopt everyone. It would require me to give up Torrington, which is half my district, and take on a lot of small towns.”

Rep. Willis is so politically partisan that when Gov. Malloy wanted to pass education legislation with which she disagreed, she nevertheless as chair of the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee “as a peace offering” said, “If it was a Republican governor, I would have given the proposal a hearing, but it wouldn’t have come out of committee.”

Rep. Willis’ voting record shows she is a fiscal liberal who supports her Ruling Party 97 percent of the time on every single piece of legislation. Even a downgrading of the state debt rating doesn’t stop their spending and borrowing addiction. Rep. Willis and her ruling party have made Connecticut not just an impossible dream for countless citizens, but a family nightmare for many. The Partnership for Strong Communities confirms that since 1990 Connecticut has lost a higher percentage of its 25- to 34-year-old population than any other state. To lose connections between parents and their children and grandchildren is tragic.

Rep. Willis voted for the forced unionization of 12,000 — mostly women — in-home care workers. She voted for Public Act 11-44 to tax hospitals resulting in the March 22, 2012, Register Citizen headline “Sharon Hospital announces 26 layoffs to ‘reduce our salary line.’ ” Hospital president and CEO said, “We are all faced with doing more with less” so when Rep. Willis claims to be working for your family, ask her when her ruling party will stop regulating, taxing and indebting to death the citizens of Connecticut.

For the new towns of the 64 — Don’t start a bad habit.

Vote for Republican Vivian Nasiatka.

Carl Gundlach
Norfolk RTC
Anna McGuire
North Canaan RTC
Gregory B. Marlowe
Canaan RTC
Karen Casey
Kent RTC

Don’t go only by niceness in casting your vote

In a fascinating coincidence, three letter writers in the Sept. 13 Journal commented on the dangers of voting for a candidate simply because he or she is nice.

John and Wallace Harding wrote, “Naively, many citizens believe they owe an incumbent politician their vote simply because they respond to a constituent phone call, a request for assistance, or provide a ‘political’ hand.” The balance of their letter implies that some naughty Republicans therefore feel obligated to vote for unspecified nice Democrats.

Peter Becket wrote, “Roberta Willis (or Chris Murphy for that matter) may be seen as a nice person...,” and then suggests we nevertheless dump Willis as subversive of our prosperity. The startling new concept of niceness in electoral criticism is a relief from diversionary attacks on candidates’ personal finances — but what’s good for the Willis goose is good for the Roraback gander.

I have heard some folks say how nice Andrew Roraback has been, helpful to folks when they need a “political” hand, to use the Hardings’ term. We now hear that’s why some independents and even Democrats might vote for him for U.S. Congress. I have to go along with Becket and the Hardings: nice alone doesn’t cut it. We are talking here about sending someone to the national stage. I would think all Democrats, most independents, and even old-style Republicans would want someone down in Washington who is not just nice, but who will be the more positive candidate for our country. Which includes Connecticut; we’re all in this together.

During the 2008 to 2012 period, state Sen. Roraback voted yea only nine times out of 50 — and nay on all the rest. Hardly positive. Some of his nays that passed anyway: Authorize day care and personal care workers to join unions; prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or expression; access to post-secondary education; require paid sick leave; minimum wage increase. (One of his nine yeas was for workers’ compensation benefits for police officers facing injury from interaction with animals.) That cavalcade of Roraback nays was largely in a Democratic Party environment — analogous to the climate in today’s Washington.

Sen. Roraback has been marketing himself as someone who will bring bipartisanship to Congress — a claim clearly meant to appeal to the moderate Connecticut culture. But talk is cheap at election time. In his Aug. 14 Republican primary victory speech before party insiders — his own version of Romney’s heartfelt Boca Raton rant — he spoke instead for voters “who have had enough of Obama and what the Democrats in Washington are doing to this country.” Isn’t that a little light on the bipartisanship? He continued, in simplistic Tea Party mantras: “the taxing has to stop ... the spending has to stop ... the regulating has to stop ... most importantly, the gridlock has to stop.”

Dear Democratic and other undecided friends who are thinking of voting by niceness: if Roraback is sent to Congress in an Obama presidency, will he really stand aloof from the Republican naysayers? Yeah, right.

Alan Tucker
Sharon

Thank you for personal attention to cleaning streets

I would like to commend Rachel Call, owner of Just Another Hand consignment boutique on Main Street in North Canaan, for taking the initiative to personally clean a sizable portion of the sidewalks and roadside gutters on Main and Railroad streets recently. She removed a remarkable amount of sand, litter and weeds that had been accumulating for years.

The sweeper truck gets a lot of the sand each spring, but not all of it, nor all the litter that builds up. Perhaps a hand sweeping could be done once or twice a year downtown. I understand Great Barrington sweeps its streets every week.

Mark R. Godburn
North Canaan

PO battle won for now

A new postmaster has been chosen for the Lakeville and Salibury post offices. It is the guaranty, for a while, that both offices will stay open.

Thanks to all of those who signed petitions and came to the meetings. I wish that the U.S. Congress would be as efficient, and finally pass the bill needed to help the national Postal Service. It should have been done before everybody left Washington to campaign for their re-election!

Etienne Delessert
Lakeville
 

Prospects are dimming

In memory of the now-fading hope that the word “government” might be synonymous with common sense and concern for the people’s business:

There once were selectmen’s town meetings

’Bout lighting, taxation and heating.

But now bombast and rant

Laced with dogmatic cant

Supplants discourse with farcical bleating.

Gloria Miller
Salisbury