EagleTribune.com : Blogs : The Soapbox

This is in response to your editorial :Racetrack must survive on own merit:
“Racetracks Must Survive on Own Merits”

This eagle-Tribune editorial really misses the point!

You stated that the track should survive on its own and why should we bail it out. You also stated that slots, etc creates gambling addicts. I has also been said by others that casino gambling attracts drug dealers and prostitutes.

All of the above is inaccurate and untrue.

You don’t seem to see the advantage to the citizens of New Hampshire in lower taxes, better schools, and lots more.

Some years ago, Senator Jajuga of Massachusetts released a study that shows million dollars were bussed to Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun in Connecticut. All of that money came from the Merrimack Valley residents: Lawrence, Lowell, Haverhill, Andover and Salem NH. That could all be going to NH. Rockingham Park is the ideal place to draw from Maine, NH, Massachusetts Vermont and Rhode Island. Mostly from people who already gamble and enjoy it.

If people want to gamble, and they have been doing just that with your state lotteries, keno and scratch tickets, they will find a place..

Rockingham Park has had Poker tournaments there for the past 2 and ½ years with no problems at all. Even the Salem, NH police chief is in favor of slots at Rockingham Park and sees no potential increase in crime.

Wake up NH legislators before Massachusetts scoops you and opens a casino and/or slots in the Boston area and then it will be too late for NH.

Take a good look at the potential for millions in taxes for NH.

Controlled gambling is here to stay and millions of tax dollars could be distributed to all of the cities and towns of NH.

2009 is the year to pass that legislation for slots at Rockingham Park which will improve the lives of all NH residents.

I urge NH legislators to pass this bill and start building a new economy.

Jerry Valley
Methuen, MA

The United States Constitution became the Supreme Law of the land on September 17th, 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This document has become the cornerstone of our country by laying down founding ideas based off of inalienable rights and by proclaiming freedoms to all of its citizens. The real genius that our founding fathers implemented in our Constitution is its ability to evolve over time with the country. When written, slavery was a significant establishment in our country. After time though, the American people recognized the declaration that all men are created equal despite their skin color, and this came to fruition with the signing of the 14th and 15th amendments.
The Constitution however, in all of its brilliance is still the subject to much debate. One of the main areas where questions linger after over 200 years is the 2nd amendment,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This amendment clearly states that it is a right of the American citizen to bear arms and to form a well regulated militia, for the necessity of the free state. If Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, all of whom were framers of the Constitution, knew that in the year 2008 that 30,000 Americans would be killed by fire arms, and that there would be guns capable of firing hundreds of bullets in minutes, then certainly they would have still signed their names. It is the freedom and right of every United States citizen to bear arms, and it is a necessity to the security of the free state. It is with these words that I invite a modest proposal. We the people should free ourselves of the entire Defense Department, including the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. The Defense Department accounts for $481 Billion dollars (16% of the entire U.S. budget). This money could be used for our schools, our cities and towns, and our own well being. Because the 2nd amendment clearly outlines that it is our right to bear arms, it seems simply redundant to spend our money on a Defense Department.
The American people in their Wild West and hip shooting ways have vocally said they can defend themselves, why else would they support this amendment? The late Charleston Heston, once president of the National Rifle Association said, “And you know what it's (The 2nd Amendment) purpose is? To prevent the federal government from interfering with private citizens' rights ...” This proposal offers to the leader of the most passionate pro-gun supporters exactly what he calls for. The United States federal government will no longer interfere in its peoples’ rights, including its defense. The American people will form a well regulated militia and take up its own defense, while saving billions of dollars that can used for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
If this idea were to be adopted, then it would create a booming new industry. On 18-year-old birthdays kids would receive guns and accessories like the latest leather and diamond encrusted holsters. Instead of celebrities flaunting their clothes and cars, they will be seen with only the newest, sleekest, and stylish guns. Instead of house-warming parties, neighbors will shower new home owners with rifles and handguns so they can protect their newest investments. Increased taxes on gun and ammunition purchases will also help bolster the United States economy.
The use of citizen arrests will sky-rocket and the need for police will also diminish. People around the country will be found once a week scrambling into militia lines with their fellow neighbors, necessary practice in case of attack. Any United States citizen over the age of 18 will be able to bear arms and to help protect his country, just as our revolutionary fathers had before us. The American people will strive to be what Benjamin Franklin and his contemporaries imagined, a well armed militia, to battle our foes in the year 2009.

J. Westerman Davis Jr.
Written for Mrs. Quinney's AP English class
Written after the style of Jonathen Swift's essay "A Modest Proposal"

In reference to the front page story on 7/10/09 concerning
"Teachers Luring Candidates"; it sounds to me like Ms. Fitzgerald is
surprised by this alleged course of action. Is she kidding?? She didn't think her opponents would lobby to find candidates who
would be pro?? As a resident and a taxpayer, I have watched the
school committee meetings on local cable and it seems that no matter when I tune in, Ms. Fitzgerald is always either arguing with her fellow committee members (Mr. Bevilacqua, etc.) or proposing
illogical solutions. (laying off 580 teachers). I also question her mathematic skills, if she thinks " 7 is equal to one million"; I begin to see why we have budget problems!