I hope this new Congress and this new administration understand their full responsibility over the next next four years and into my grandchildren’s future.
From the signs my grandkids carried on Jan. 21, I’m certain they would hold our leaders accountable. Human history continues to be at a crossroads. We must think, plan and legislate for the longer term, far beyond election cycles.
Len Reitsma
Canaan
Stand Up in Piermont
Piermonters, where are you? A couple years ago at an annual School District Meeting you all showed up in droves to “protest,” question and oppose the money being spent, (your taxpayer dollars) to send a Piermont student to a different school due to a disability. Today, when the town is steadily accruing a legal bill that is over $40,000 and growing due to Selectman Terri Mertz taking the other board members to court, you are not there!
Now the same Selectwoman’s husband is on your ballot for selectman. George Mertz, who is fully behind this money-sucking, time-consuming lawsuit, wants you to vote for him in March. You should not consider voting another Mertz into office, or anyone they may sponsor as a write-in candidate. Consider whether or not a husband and wife on the Board of Selectmen is a conflict of interest or in our best interest. I ask you not to listen to rumors and accusations running willy-nilly around town or depend just on what you read in the local papers. I ask you to attend the meet the candidates night March 4 and get to know the people who are on the ballot. Ask them how they feel about the tough issues Piermont has and will be facing: What are their goals for the town? How do they feel about property owners rights?And what about the questions facing the town about yard sale and junkyard laws?
So what say you, Piermonters? Is it time to get informed? Is it time to question? Is it time to stand up?
Rebecca Bailey
Piermont
About Massage for Cancer Patients
I’m writing to clear up some confusion regarding information in a recent Jim Kenyon column (“Public Trust at Risk,” Feb. 8). Kenyon made the point that Dartmouth-Hitchcock and the Norris Cotton Cancer Center could have credibility problems stemming from the controversy over how money from the annual Prouty fundraising event has been spent. But the example used to help illustrate the point was not quite right.
In the column, he referred to a former DHMC patient who had received free, in-home massage through the medical center while she was in treatment for her cancer several years ago. To my knowledge, DHMC and NCCC have no such programs. The massage service was provided to that particular person by The Hand to Heart Project, a small nonprofit program that is independent from the medical center and receives no funding from it, through the Prouty or any other avenue.
DHMC does have well-established programs providing massage to inpatients and to outpatients while they are getting chemotherapy or waiting for radiation appointments. Those are among the many services and programs supported by the Prouty. The Hand to Heart Project works only with people outside the hospital, primarily in their homes.
I appreciate the opportunity to clear this up. Hand to Heart is a few months from completing its 10th year of providing massage and compassionate touch to people with cancer. We offer the service to people who are getting treatment with expectations for full recovery, and to people who have ended treatment and are approaching the end of life. To everyone who has supported our program over the years, my heartfelt thanks.
Steve Gordon,
Executive Director, The Hand to Heart Project
Cornish
Give Obama Some Credit
Reading Dick Tracy’s forum letter (“Give Obama No Credit,” Jan. 30), I am reminded, once again, that those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it.
Can’t you at least say Barack Obama was an honest man who inherited a nearly financially (and possibly socially) bankrupt country? That he took us out of two disastrous wars in the Mideast and resisted the temptation to start a third?
By the way, where were you when Reagan tripled the national debt in large part by giving disastrously large tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans?
Anyone would say “balancing the federal budget my first year in office is my top priority as president” would get my vote and I suspect yours.
Giving anyone no credit is a way of denigrating them in a way that you would object to if it was applied to you.
Matt Cardillo
Sharon
Talking About Addiction
The following sentence, which opened the Valley News front-page story, “DHMC Doctor Accused of Stealing Drugs,” (Feb. 7) strikes me as misleading: “A Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center anesthesiologist accused of stealing powerful pain drugs for his personal use and falsifying medical records has voluntarily stopped practicing medicine and entered a program for doctors with addiction, alcohol and other behavioral problems.”
Do some doctors enter the program in question because they spill alcohol, or perhaps can’t afford it? Either would be an alcohol problem distinct from addiction, as implied by your opening sentence. A phrase I find to be both accurate and educational when discussing various substance use disorders is, “addiction to alcohol or other drugs. In this example: a program for doctors with addiction to alcohol or other drugs, and other behavioral problems.
I persist in attempts to point out this distinction because recovery rates from addiction to alcohol and other drugs continue to be low, although effective treatment exists and an informed approach can save lots of lives and lots of money. Meanwhile, the Valley News is hardly alone in offering various misrepresentations about addiction and recovery; in fact, the New York Times remains similarly afflicted.
Meanwhile, best of luck to the physician in your story. Many among us face challenges like this every day, and some come to regard such crises, in time, as the beginning of newly meaningful lives.
Chris Weinmann
Norwich
The Vetting Process
In defense of President Donald Trump’s ban on refugees, supporters often cite the need for vetting. Indeed, in a piece in the Feb. 2 Valley News (“Trump Voters Defend Recent Executive Acts”), a number of Trump supporters repeated this now-tired refrain. Of refugees, Leslie Lougee of Massachusetts said, “They need to be vetted.” Richard Lougee agreed, saying, “Letting these people in from all over the place from these countries … they’ve got to be very, very careful.”
The truth of the matter is that “they” were being “very, very careful” before the ban was signed. The process was already lengthy and thorough. On average, the vetting process took 18 to 24 months (but could take years).
If you are interested in understanding the process, Natasha Hall explained the process in a Washington Post blog (“Refugees are already vigorously vetted. I know because I vetted them.”)
For those of you concerned about the safety of admitting refugees to the country, Hall went on to cite a Cato Institute study that explained that out of the millions of refugees taken in by the United States over several decades, refugees killed just three people in the 1970s (before the modern screening process was even in place) and that the annual chance of being killed in a terrorist attack committed by a refugee is 1 in 3.6 billion.
In short, the idea of vetting did not originate with President Trump. The process was established, effective and working as it was designed to work –– to keep us all safe, while at the same time welcoming people like my ancestors who came to this country looking for opportunity and a better life.
I don’t blame anyone for wanting to feel safe and I don’t blame people for not realizing that a solid vetting process was already at work. (In fact, until we discussed the vetting process in my classroom last fall, I was not as familiar with the process as I probably should have been.)
But I think a thorough understanding of the vetting process can go a long way to allaying people’s fears and turning supporters of the refugee ban into opponents.
And when they do come to oppose the ban, I hope they will join me in doing everything possible to have the ban repealed.
As President Obama noted in a Jan. 16 letter to my seventh-grade students, “Americans are big-hearted, understanding, and compassionate. We have always asked what we can do to help, and we lend a hand to those in need.”
This grandson of an Irish immigrant still believes that. And he still believes that his is not a minority view.
Joseph J. Deffner
Thetford Center
Support Fairlee Bond Vote
To The Editor:
In response to the Feb. 9 Forum letter regarding the Fairlee Town Hall Bond proposal from John Wetzel and five others, some clarification is in order.
Point one: It was said that passage of the bond would mean higher taxes for the next 20 years on top of a 27 percent increase in the municipal rate in the previous two years. In fact, the tax rate will be lower if the bond proposal passes, as it will no longer be necessary to fund the capital budget for Town Hall repairs as has been done in the past. The tax rate increase of 27 percent included the Lake Fairlee Dam reconstruction, the rebuilding of Quinibeck Road, Town Hall roof structure repair and a new slate roof and deferred maintenance of town infrastructure. It is important to note that of the 18 towns in Orange County, Fairlee’s 2016 municipal tax rate is the fourth lowest.
Points two and three regarding bond interest: Current interest rates are historically low. Reliable institutions have given estimated quotes and the town will bid to get the best rate possible. The longer the town waits to bond, the higher the rates will most likely be.
Point four: That taxpayers lose control of spending by the town. Taxpayers are the town. Budgets are voted on by taxpayers. Fairlee’s low tax rate is a testament to the efforts of the town’s elected officers, who are also taxpayers and are prudent with spending.
Point five: That proposed improvements include projects not essential to meet fire codes and the Americans with Disabilities Act. All remaining improvements are necessary and intertwined for the Town Hall to be compliant.
Point six: That the town is likely to have other essential capital projects in the future. Towns always have projects needing funding. The Town Hall has been on the back-burner for years. Damage from the 1947 fire wasn’t repaired until 2015. Please vote yes on Tuesday. Let’s have 2018 Town Meeting in our own 350-seat auditorium!
Dan Ludwig, Noël Walker, Russell Smith, Russ Collins, Robert and Eunice Edmands
Fairlee