As they appeared in The Exeter News-Letter
Exeter News-Letter Columns 2004
Exeter News-Letter Columns 2003
Exeter News-Letter Columns 2001
Susan McLaughlin Doesn't Deserve to be Released
By Ken Goodall
(As printed in the Exeter News-Letter on Tuesday, 12/17/2002.)
There are two NH women working to free a convicted killer. Susan
"Sam" Cook McLaughlin was found guilty of being an
accessory to murder and sentenced to life in prison with no
possibility of parole. It seems that these women feel that
McLaughlin has paid her debt to society and now deserves to be
free.
One of the women, Cilla Clements, a school teacher and writer
from Raymond NH who met McLaughlin while working on a story about
imprisoned women, feels that "She's paid her debt, and she's
turned her whole life around,"
What other choice did Susan McLaughlin have while sitting in
prison? It's not hard to see the error of one's ways while living
in a jail cell. That's the point of prison, isn't it? So now that
McLaughlin has been a good little girl for 14 years in prison,
should she now be set free? What about the wife and children of
Robert Cushing, the victim in this heinous crime? It's been 14
years for them with out their husband and father, and he will
never come back. Why should McLaughlin get off so easy?
In my opinion, McLaughlin did get off easy. As complicit as she
was in this crime, I would not have a problem with capital
punishment in this case. Luckily for her, a very active opponent
to the death penalty in NH just happens to be Renny Cushing.
Renny is the late Robert Cushing's son and he has served as the
director of Murder Victim's Families for Reconciliation and
lobbied against the death penalty in NH.
I would not be as forgiving as Renny Cushing. I am sure that he
was satisfied with the life sentence with out the possibility of
parole, but I would like to think that he could not and would not
support the release of one of the murderers of his father.
Susan McLaughlin and her husband Robert McLaughlin, an 18-year
veteran of the Hampton Police Department, conspired to kill their
neighbor Robert Cushing in 1988. Not only did she drive the
getaway car, but also she stood and watched while her husband
fired two rounds from a shotgun into Mr. Cushing's chest.
According to prosecutors, their plan was so elaborate that they
used disguises and brought more than one weapon with them to
commit the crime.
It is beyond me how anyone can feel that a person who conspired
to kill another human being could possibly pay off his or her
debt to society. Susan McLaughlin not only drove her husband to
the victim's home, but she witnessed the brutal and merciless
crime first hand.
The other woman working to free
McLaughin is Julie Normand, a Goffstown NH resident. "I feel
she's guilty of all the charges against her, but there are
extenuating circumstances," according to Normand.
What kind of "extenuating circumstances" could possibly
exonerate someone who assisted and witnessed the brutal slaying
of another human being?
The women even have a letter from a forensic psychologist who
says that Cook may have suffered from Stockholm Syndrome at the
time of the murder. Stockholm Syndrome is named after the city
where hostages felt some allegiance toward their kidnappers and
didn't want to testify against them.
I can accept this as a reason why an abused person may not report
the abuser to the police. I can even understand how this may lead
the victim to avoid testifying against their abuser, but when the
abuser turns their violence against another, that is where this
Stockholm Syndrome excuse loses all credibility.
I knew a man who ran a sporting goods store in Pittsburg, NH, and
this man would give you the shirt off his back. After misjudging
the weather, my group was faced with camping in sub-zero
temperatures, and this man offered us a heater for free just to
be sure that we were OK. We had cold weather bags and extra
clothes, so we didn't take him up on the offer.
I had heard stories about his drinking and that he may have been
a mean drunk. I wrote it off as small town talk. A few years ago
he started after his wife, who I also know, and she shot him. She
was found to be acting in self-defense. The Stockholm Syndrome
may explain how this woman stayed with this man, but obviously a
line was crossed.
Susan McLaughlin crossed a similar line when she stood by during
the murder of Robert Cushing. There are no syndromes, there are
no extenuating circumstances; there is only a murder. A murder of
which, Susan McLaughlin was an accessory. That is my side of the
story.
Mourning
the Death of a Good Bill
By Ken Goodall
As printed in The Exeter News-Letter on Friday 11/22/2002 (Column appears in Print Version
Only):
It is with great sadness that I must announce the death of my
bill. My bill was HB1189, relative to the plea of Guilty, but
Insane. HB1189 came before the Criminal Justice and Public Safety
committee in January of this year, and was sent to a sub
committee for study. That committee recommended that the bill not
be resubmitted for legislation in 2003, thus bringing a swift but
painful death to my bill.
When I testified at the hearing, I felt like David versus
Goliath. There were a couple people that offered support, but the
majority of doctors, lawyers, and representatives that spoke were
against expecting an insane person to be considered guilty of
anything. They felt that a lack of understanding and
comprehension of right and wrong was a good enough reason not to
consider someone guilty of a crime.
My feeling all along has been that the Insanity Plea is a lie, a
total falsehood. Even though a person may not understand or
comprehend that what they did was wrong, they still committed the
crime. So even though they don't comprehend what they did, they
are still guilty in my opinion, thus the plea of Guilty but
Insane.
The but in the plea of Guilty, but insane, gives the courts and
the juries the leeway to offer a secondary sentence less than
that of a criminal who understood what they were doing. I fully
understand that we, as a society, do not expect those who lack
the capability to understand right from wrong, to suffer the same
consequences as those who purposely and with intent, break the
law.
From the testimony that I heard at the hearing, I would say that
many people felt that NH already handled the insanity plea fairly
well, and that there were very few cases that ever went to court.
"There are very few cases of not guilty by reason of
insanity in NH" according to Assistant Attorney General Ann
Rice, who also said that in NH "juries decide sanity".
For this reason, she believes that it would take a constitutional
challenge to remove the insanity plea.
This is where I made a mistake in my research. Although I believe
that the Assistant Attorney General was mistaken in her statement
that "juries decide sanity", she was correct that it
would have required a constitutional challenge. Article 15, the
right of the accused, under the NH Bill of Rights, clearly states
that "No subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled,
or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out
of the protection of the law, exiled or deprived of his life,
liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law
of the land; provided that, in any proceeding to commit a person
acquitted of a criminal charge by reason of insanity, due process
shall require that clear and convincing evidence that the person
is potentially dangerous to himself or to others and that the
person suffers from a mental disorder must be established."
Due to article 15 of the NH Bill of Rights it would have taken a
constitutional challenge to amend that article to allow for a
change in the plea. Although it does state "but by the
judgment of his peers, or the law of the land", so I don't
believe that juries must decide sanity. It seems that this
sentence also allows for the decision to be made by "the law
of the land".
Well, due to the decision of the criminal justice and public
safety committee, by a vote of 14 to 0, to not recommend the bill
for legislation in 2003, these points are now moot. I am quite
upset that not one voting member of the committee could see the
reasoning to at least correct the injustice of calling someone
innocent, when in actuality they did commit the crime.
I would like to thank Marshal "Lee" Quandt and Matthew
Quandt for sponsoring HB1189. Lee lost his bid for State Senator
of District 23 and Mathew won re-election to his seat in the NH
House of Representatives. I appreciate their efforts to change
the insanity plea to Guilty, but Insane; even though several
states have adopted such legislation, NH is just not ready for
it, yet.
November 8th will always be a sad day for me from this day
forward. It's the day that I learned a valuable lesson, and lost
a good bill, My bill, HB1189, relative to the plea of guilty but
insane, gone but not forgotten. That's my side of the story.
Patriot Day About Spirit of Americans
By Ken Goodall
As printed in The Exeter News-Letter on Friday 9/13/2002 (Column appears in Print Version Only):
On September 5th President George
W. Bush proclaimed that September 11th from this day forward
would be recognized as Patriot Day.
According to the President's proclamation "On this first
observance of Patriot Day, we remember and honor those who
perished in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. We will
not forget the events of that terrible morning nor will we forget
how Americans responded in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in
the skies over Pennsylvania with heroism and selflessness; with
compassion and courage; and with prayer and hope. We will always
remember our collective obligation to ensure that justice is
done, that freedom prevails, and that the principles upon which
our Nation was founded endure."
Some people are upset that the President used the name of a
missile system to honor the victims and survivors of 9/11. A
Patriot is and always has been "one who loves his or her
country and supports its authority and interests". Patriots
were also the one's who won our freedom and gave birth to this
country. The missile was named after these Patriots, as was
September 11th.
This doesn't mean that a patriot can't question some of our
country's authority or disagree with some of its interests. A
patriot is anyone who fights to make things better, goes to work
everyday, and works to be a productive part of society.
True patriots also pull together in bad times and some risk their
lives or lose their lives trying to help fellow citizens. Many of
the people in those buildings helped others to get out, not just
firemen and police but everyday citizens who rose to the
occasion.
Whether they were Muslims, Jews, or Catholics, the terrorists
didn't care. There are many people in this country who don't
believe in our alliance with Israel, but the terrorists didn't
care. There are many people in this country who don't believe in
what we are doing in the Middle East, but the terrorists didn't
care.
America pulled together, possibly like never before, and that is
patriotic.
Is Patriot Day a good name for September 11th? Maybe not. Was it
a political move? Probably, since both parties play political
games, there may have been a political reason for naming it
Patriot Day. I may have gone with Never Forget, Never Forgive
Day.
The people in the World Trade Center may not have known it, but
they were fighting a war. They were standing tall and working
together to over come the terror that was instilled by Arab
Muslim Terrorists. Like our military personnel on the USS Cole
who fought to save their ship, and show those terrorists that
they would not win. They brought their ship home and now she is
back in service.
The people in those buildings may not have known that it was a
terrorist attack, but most of them would not allow fear to
overshadow their duty to help others and try to help as many
others as they could. That was a war against fear and even though
they may not have known at the time, it was a war against
terrorism and all it stands for.
The terrorists thought that they could instill fear into the
American people, but they failed. Instead they instilled
patriotism, heroism, and camaraderie that will bind us together
for years to come.
Those buildings could hold around 20,000 people each, and the
fact that we only lost 3000 is a tribute to the patriotic and
heroic efforts of everyone involved. I may not agree with calling
it Patriot Day, but every one of those people who rose to the
occasion to help others, is not only a hero but a patriot too.
The word patriot comes from the Latin, pater, meaning father or
forefather. The founding fathers were not our fathers, but the
fathers of our ideals, principles, and dreams. I see the victims,
survivors, and heroes of 9/11 as the new patriots. They pulled
together like the minutemen of the American Revolution and they
have brought a new resurgence of patriotic feelings.
The people in the World Trade Center became victims, and many
became heroes, but in my book they also became patriots. They are
the forefathers of a new feeling of patriotism. Always remember
and never forget, Patriot Day. That is My Side of the Story.
People Need to Act Responsibly
By Ken Goodall
As printed in The Exeter News-Letter on Friday 8/6/2002:
There is a new disease out there
and it's not a new germ or virus, but fat. Yes I said fat. In
April of this year the Internal Revenue Service classified
Obesity as a disease. Now people who are obese may deduct their
weight loss programs and it is retroactive back to 1998. They
will of course have to have medically valid reasons for deducting
weight loss programs.
This idea of classifying an addiction as a disease is not new. As
far as I can tell it started in 1956 when the American Medical
Association classified Alcoholism as a disease. I don't see
alcoholism itself as a disease, it may cause diseases but it is
not a disease. Of course that's just one layman's opinion.
The AMA "endorses the proposition that drug dependencies,
including alcoholism, are diseases" and also
"identifies alcohol and nicotine as drugs of addiction which
are gateways to the use of other drugs by young people"
The Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary defines addict as one
whom devotes or surrenders (oneself) to something habitually or
obsessively and addiction as a compulsive need for and use of a
habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol). Well
it seems that they may have to change that definition in order to
accept obesity as a disease, although I suppose that food could
be considered a habit-forming substance in some cases.
The problem with accepting addictions as diseases is that these
are choices made by people who just can't say no. They can't say
no to smoking, they can't say no to alcohol, they can't say no to
drugs, and now they can't say no to food. The answer to these
addictions is simple, as Nancy Reagan said, "Just say
no!"
Now there is a group of people in New York, lead by Caesar
Barber, who also have a problem saying no. They can't say no to
McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, or Kentucky Fried Chicken, so
they are suing these corporations for making them fat.
"They said, '100 percent beef.' I thought that meant it was
good for you," said Barber.
In 1999 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta
did a random telephone survey of over 100,000 people to examine
changes in the prevalence of obesity among U.S. adults from 1991
to 1998. One conclusion that the CDC came to was that "a
major contributor to obesity - physical inactivity - has not
changed substantially between 1991 and 1998."
Were these fast food chains the cause for these peoples physical
inactivity? I think not, and I certainly hope that the New York
Courts see it that way as well. At some point the court system
should hold the plaintiffs and their lawyers responsible for
court fees when cases are found to be frivolous. This case would
definitely fit the bill.
With all these so-called diseases of today being accepted by the
IRS for tax deductions, this means that he government is not
going to be getting a lot of money that they expected. What will
they do? They'll raise our taxes naturally.
What about Medicare, Medicaid, and other insurance companies?
They are going to have to cover these addictions now too. After
all if they are classified as diseases, so how could any
insurance company refuse? They can't and they won't, so they will
be looking for more money to pay for these services also.
Now I am no fountain of strength. It took my Dad being put on
oxygen to get me to quit smoking, but I never expected the
government to pay for me to stop. I took personal responsibility
for my actions, and this is something that a lot of people should
start doing. Too many people look to the government to help them
over every bump in the road.
Well the government isn't some rich uncle. The government is all
of us, and many of us are tired of spending money for bad choices
made by people who expect the government to save them. They
should start saying no to government handouts and start accepting
personal responsibility.
It's all of us who will end up paying for those that can't or
won't say no. They won't say no to eating too much, smoking too
much, or drinking too much, and we won't be able to say no to
higher taxes and medical insurance payments.
Oh well, what are you going to do? I think I'll go to the bar and
have a drink and a smoke, but of course only after stopping at
Burger King, I mean, after all, I wouldn't want to drink on an
empty stomach. That's my side of the story.
By Ken Goodall
As printed in The Exeter News-Letter on Friday 7/19/2002:
Your Hobby is fishing and hunting.
Theirs is STOPPING YOU. Nothing has made this more clear than in
Eric Orff’s column in the July/August issue of New Hampshire
Wildlife. New Hampshire Wildlife is the official publication of
the New Hampshire Wildlife Federation. Orff is a wildlife
biologist living in NH, He is a member of the Board of Directors
for the New England Outdoor Writers, and is an avid fisherman,
hunter, and conservationist.
In his column titled "New Hampshire Sportsmen Under
Attack" Orff describes the actions of one anti-hunter whose
obvious hobby is one of attempting to stop trapping and hunting
in NH. This woman has used the Right to Know laws to scan the
files of the NH Fish and Game Department and has attempted to
change rules and regulations regarding trapping and hunting in
the state.
At one point a group of animal rights activists, including this
woman, attended a NHF&G Meeting on proposed changes to
wildlife control operations and one of the people speaking
threatened to sue the department if "their" version of
the regulations were not adopted. This woman in the past has
recommended that a conservation officer accompany trappers each
day to make sure that no laws are broken.
This is how far people, like this woman, are willing to go. If
they can’t ban the activity, they want to regulate it out of
existence. In New Hampshire, trappers are required to obtain
landowner permission to trap on their land and to submit it to
their local conservation officers. These are kept on file at the
NH Fish and Game Department. Under the Right to Know this woman
has acquired many of these documents.
The NHF&G Department has written to the landowners to
forewarn them that this information about them has been released
to this woman. It’s all legal and there is nothing that can
be done about it. What this woman does with this information is
anyone’s guess. If certain groups involved in animal rights
get this information, the law means nothing to them, and they
will let these landowners know it.
Landowner permission is not required for hunting, yet, but it is
required if a hunter wishes to erect a permanent tree stand on
someone else’s property. Right now this is only between the
landowner and the hunter and the hunter must have the written
permission with them while in this stand. At some point copies of
landowner permission may have to be supplied to NHF&G and if
it is, it will also become subject to the Right to Know laws.
One suggestion by Orff is to change our laws regarding landowner
permission now before it’s too late. Written Landowner
permission could still be required to be on the person of the
hunter or trapper. The law could be changed so that it would not
be reported to NHF&G. This would keep it out of the hands of
people like this woman, and keep the landowners free from any
possibility of harassment.
The majority of sportsmen spend their free time enjoying their
sport. Some take an active part in defending their sport and
working to keep fair laws in place and land open to enjoy their
sport. Animal Rights activists like this woman spend their free
time fighting to ban certain activities and trying to regulate
others into oblivion.
So while you are hiking your trap line, sitting in your tree
stand, or fishing in your boat, just remember that there are
people like this woman out there who have their own hobby and
that is to stop you. They are reading laws, looking for
loopholes, and trying to create regulations to make it much more
difficult for you to fish, hunt, or trap.
Many groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and
the Humane Society of the United States spread their agenda in
the media using misinformation and misconceptions. Whenever I
point out some of these issues to some of the more moderate
animal activists they ask, "Who else can we support?"
I always suggest The New Hampshire Wildlife Federation. They work
to save endangered species, re-introduce species that have
disappeared in New Hampshire, and to protect conservation land
across the state. Of course they work with sportsmen as well, and
understand the concept of sustainable use of our natural
resources.
The New Hampshire Wildlife Federation Pledge: I pledge myself, as
a responsible human, to assume my share of the stewardship of our
natural resources. I will use my share with gratitude, without
greed or waste. I will respect the rights of others and abide by
the law. I will support the sound management of the resources we
use, the restoration of the resources we have despoiled, and the
safe-keeping of significant resources for posterity. I will never
forget that life and beauty, wealth and progress, depend on how
wisely we use these gifts... the soil, the water, the air, the
minerals, the plant life, and the wildlife.
The NHWF is located at 54 Portsmouth Street, Concord, NH 03301
and their phone number is (603) 224-5953.
The NHWF website is http://www.nhwf.org/
Contact NHF&G about this attack on sportsmen’s rights
and ask them to correct this loophole that makes landowner
information available to people like this. The e-mail address for
NHF&G is info@wildlife.state.nh.us and their website address is http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us.
That is My Side of the Story.
By Ken Goodall
As Printed in The Exeter News-Letter on 7/2/2002:
If New Hampshire resident, Howard
C. Hedegard Jr., of Dear Child Publications has his way, the NH
Child Protection Act will have a much bigger bite. Mr. Hedegard
has started a petition to make the failure to report child abuse
a felony charge. Currently the failure to report child abuse in
NH is a misdemeanor.
The death of Kassidy Bortner of Rochester, NH and the deaths of
other babies in NH prompted the petition, which already has over
1000 signatures on it. Chad Evans, the boyfriend of Kassidy's
mother, Amanda Bortner, was convicted in December of
second-degree murder and multiple counts of assault. It is
alleged that Bortner had knowledge of some of the abuse going on
against Kassidy.
Amanda Bortner had been scheduled to appear in Strafford County
Superior Court for a plea and sentencing hearing on two
misdemeanor counts of endangering the welfare of a child. Bortner
changed her mind and decided to ask for a jury trial. Her trail
is scheduled for November 4th of this year.
Mr. Hedegard's petition states "We, the undersigned
residents of the state of New Hampshire, wish to express our
shock and horror at the brutality and suffering endured by
Kassidy Bortner in the weeks prior to her death. In memory of
Kassidy, as well as the other three babies murdered in New
Hampshire last year and the three infants whose deaths are under
investigation, we ask you, our legislators, to revise the New
Hampshire Child Protection Act, which is clearly ineffective. We
petition you to seek strict penalties for parents and others who
do not report suspicion of child abuse. Further, when serious
injury to or death of a child occurs, we demand that individuals
with reason to suspect abuse be prosecuted as accessories to a
felony if they do not report their suspicions."
Anyone, who knows of actual abuse to children and does nothing to
stop it, obviously lacks human decency and basic courage. Even if
a person lacks the courage to intervene, the least they could do
is notify the police to stop the abuse. To make this law a felony
though, may be taking this a step too far. This law already
includes civil penalties that could be instituted if a person is
found guilty of having prior knowledge of the abuse.
Of course a big question of mine is if this law already has
ramifications for those that refuse to report child abuse, then
why hasn't anyone in the Catholic Church been charged?
According to the Child Protection Act under Persons Required to
Report, it states that "Any physician, surgeon, county
medical examiner, psychiatrist, resident, intern, dentist,
osteopath, optometrist, chiropractor, psychologist, therapist,
registered nurse, hospital personnel (engaged in admission,
examination, care and treatment of persons), Christian Science
practitioner, teacher, school official, school nurse, school
counselor, social worker, day care worker, any other child or
foster care worker, law enforcement official, priest, minister,
or rabbi or any other person having reason to suspect that a
child has been abused or neglected shall report the same in
accordance with this chapter."
The law includes "priest, minister, or rabbi or any other
person having reason to suspect that a child has been
abused", in other words, not only the professions mentioned,
but anyone with knowledge of child abuse is required, by law, to
report it. In the section titled Abrogation of Privileged
Communication, it states "The privileged quality of
communication between husband and wife and any professional
person and his patient or client, except that between attorney
and client, shall not apply to proceedings instituted pursuant to
this chapter and shall not constitute grounds for failure to
report as required by this chapter."
According to the law there is no protection for Priests,
Ministers, or Rabbi's when it comes to the knowledge of child
abuse. So why has absolutely nothing been done by the NH Attorney
General? There have been enough cases of these problems in the
Church, but no charges have been filed for failing to report the
abuses.
This law that requires us to police our neighbors opens the door
to some serious accusations. Average people will have to decide
what is and isn't abuse. Can yelling or screaming at your child
be considered abuse? It could be by some people. Is spanking
abuse? A lot of people believe it is. What recourse is available
to those that are wrongly accused?
What next? Speed kills and someone speeding may kill several
people. Are we now going to be required by law to report people
that are speeding? After a bouncing ball comes a running child.
In order to "Save the Children" we may need a law to
require reporting speeders. Where is this kind of legislation
going to take us?
We cannot legislate morality or decency. In trying to do so the
legislature has put us on a very slippery slope. Neighbors
watching neighbors and friends watching friends. Common sense and
decency already require people of good conscience to report
abuse. People that know of abuse and do nothing about it, lack
conscience.
The people that didn't report abuse in the Kassidy Bortner case
will have to live with it for the rest of their lives, as will
the officials of the Church. Let's not make it a felony if every
parent that loses their patience and screams at their kids or
slaps a child for mouthing off to them is not reported. There is
a difference between discipline and abuse. A felony of this kind
may cause parents to have second thoughts on discipline and could
cause more children to grow up with a lack of conscience and
knowing right from wrong. That is my side of the story.
As Printed in The Exeter
News-Letter on 6/25/2002:
Cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden under the eighth
amendment to the United States constitution. For a victim of
murder, it would not be classified as punishment, but being
murdered is certainly cruel and unusual. The sentence for such a
crime should be no less.
On Thursday, June 20th, the United States Supreme Court ruled
that executions of mentally retarded criminals are cruel and
unusual punishment violating the eighth amendment. So according
to the standard, if a person found guilty of murder can show that
they have an IQ under 70, then they will not have to face
execution.
Now that's one test that most people will to want to fail.
With this new ruling, a person, who is possibly mentally retarded
and commits the cruel and unusual crime of murder, will avoid the
death penalty completely. That is how the U.S. Supreme Court
views justice.
Another interesting point to this case is the statement of
Justice John Paul Stevens, who authored the opinion of the court,
and stated that "It is fair to say that a national consensus
has developed against it"
Since there are 38 States that have the death penalty, then the
national consensus agrees to the use of the death penalty as a
deterrent and 20 of those still execute mentally retarded
convicted murderers. That is 53% of the States that have the
death penalty that execute the mentally retarded and 47% that
don't. That is not a national consensus.
Since the last election, the death penalty has come up on several
occasions with President Bush's history of allowing over 150
executions while he served as Governor of Texas. An interesting
fact that seemed to miss most major news outlets was an act by
then Governor Clinton, when he flew back to Arkansas during the
1992 election for an execution.
That execution was of a man named Ricky Ray Rector who was
convicted of killing two people in Arkansas. One person that he
killed was the result of an argument over two dollars.
Gloria Rubac, an anti-death penalty activist, wrote "In 1992
when Clinton was running for president, he made a point of
leaving the campaign trail to go back to Arkansas for an
execution, sending a strong message to the American people that
he was in full support of the death penalty. The victim was a
mentally retarded man named Ricky Ray Rector"
Well there it is, "The victim was a mentally retarded man
named Ricky Ray Rector" The Victim? Wait a minute; let's try
The Criminal, The Murderer, The Cold Blooded Killer, but not
"the victim"
It's the same old liberal claptrap calling guilty criminals
victims. Ms. Rubac goes on and on about the horror of the death
penalty and the conditions of prisons, but what you won't find is
one word about the real victims. Not one word about the two
people that Ricky Ray Rector killed. Not one word.
What she didn't say was that Rector killed a doorman at a dance
over two dollars, and when a police officer went to Rector's
house to arrest him, Rector shot and killed the officer in cold
blood.
It was reported that before Ricky Ray Rector's execution, he took
his desert and put it under his bed and said, "I'm going to
eat it after my execution," Would Rector have been
considered mentally retarded? Yes, but you see he wasn't when he
committed his crime, his retardation was the result of a gunshot
to the head, a self-inflicted gunshot.
I am not in favor of the death penalty in every murder case but
when the evidence is overwhelming, the brutality is evident, and
it is beyond a shadow of a doubt, then the death penalty is a
deterrent that is 100% effective.
I have read the anti-death penalty propaganda and how many
innocent people have been found innocent after being on death
row. Well the system worked, and eventually these people were
cleared. Ms. Rubac states in her article that the death penalty
is used against innocent people.
Name One? That is all that I ask, name one?
The only case that I have ever heard of is the Sacco and Vanzetti
Case. After looking into the story, it appears that they may not
have been so innocent after all. I checked out the Sacco and
Vanzetti Case and though the trial may have been questionable the
results may not have been.
According to Encyclopedia.com, "new ballistics tests
conducted with modern equipment in 1961 seemed to prove
conclusively that the pistol found on Sacco had been used to
murder the guard." So if Sacco did it and no one has ever
found any more proof, I'd say Vanzetti is guilty by association
and justice was served.
I have read many stories where friends or family members have
proclaimed the innocence of someone in prison. They write
letters, make phone calls, and sometimes continue the battle to
prove the person's innocence for years and years, until finally
something breaks and the truth comes out.
If just one innocent person was executed, it seems that there
would be at least a couple people somewhere that would cry out to
clear the name of the innocent person. With all of these
"Victims" being executed, isn't it funny that we never
hear of anyone crying out that the execution was an injustice and
that an innocent person had been executed?
All I can say is that the recidivism rate for murderers who
receive the death penalty is zero and that is my side of the
story.
Borders Blur, Balance Tilts When Politics is Involved
As Printed in The Exeter News-Letter on 6/18/2002:
The law states that political districts need to
maintain populations within a certain percentage of each other.
Now the time has come for redistricting to keep this balance
intact. Unfortunately when Politics is involved suddenly the
lines of borders become blurred.
The problem is that playing politics often causes issues to come
to a stand still and forces courts to become involved. When lines
are crossed either by political bodies or by the courts
themselves, it's the people who pay the price. In my opinion
lines were crossed when the courts tried to establish what an
adequate education means in New Hampshire.
When the court decided adequacy, it left the NH legislature with
tough choices to make regarding the way property taxes pay for
education in NH. The legislature creates laws and the courts
interpret them. If the courts interpreted the word
"Adequate" differently than the legislature, then the
legislature should have created a law defining the word more to
their original intent.
Instead the legislature and Jean Shaheen, the governor of NH,
allowed this issue to fester until the courts had to intercede.
When the issue arose at election time, the governor, in her
infinite wisdom, set up a blue ribbon commission that would not
report until after the election. The legislature continued to
delay taking action until finally, with school budgets close to
coming to an end, an emergency tax plan was put into place to
temporarily fix the problem. That temporary plan is still in
effect.
The same kind of inaction by the NH legislature that put
education funding into a tailspin is the same inaction that has
put redistricting into the hands of the court. The inability of
the Democrats and Republicans to come to some sort of agreement
has left an issue in the hands of the court, again. The theory of
give and take is a part of everyone's lives, but it seems that
the NH legislature has forgotten this theory.
That theory doesn't work in Massachusetts where political
districts look more like lightning bolts grasping up Democrats to
keep the powerful seats in Democratic hands. The Massachusetts
Congressional district map looks like a warped version of a
jigsaw puzzle. Representative Barney Frank's district starts in
Newton, MA, and narrowly runs from town to town all the way to
Fall River and New Bedford.
Some kind of regional order should be maintained and using the
census data of the population, NH should be able to redistrict in
such a way to keep regional areas somewhat uniform. Whether the
NH courts do it or they force the legislature, like little
children, to stay in their rooms and not come out until they
reach an agreement, NH, by law, must redistrict.
The Republicans, using their majority power, created an initial
plan that would have created more Republican seats, but they must
have known that Governor Shaheen would veto the plan. Governor
Shaheen rather than exuding her power and forcing the legislature
to deal with the issue allowed it to pass through the legislature
only to veto it when it got to her desk.
The Democrats on the other hand were playing political games of
their own. They wanted to introduce election reform into the
redistricting plans. Instead of dealing with the single issue
they wanted to add another to the mix, and add reforms that might
have helped them regain some power in the NH legislature. Neither
side was willing to give and the Governor sat back and watched.
This inaction is reminiscent of the education-funding crisis when
NH schools almost ended up with no budget. The legislature then
passed an emergency funding bill establishing a set property tax
rate and allowing certain towns to become receiver towns and
certain towns to become donor towns depending on their
established education funding needs. This was and is a band-aid
at best.
In April of this year, in regards to supplying the students in NH
an adequate education, the NH Supreme Court stated that
""we conclude that the state needs to do more
work." Well it seems that the court can just carbon copy
that same statement in regards to redistricting as well.
We elect representatives to represent us in the decision making
process of running the business of the State of New Hampshire,
well it seems that the NH legislators have been lax in their
duties in allowing these important issues to fall into the hands
of the courts. I had hoped that the legislature would stand up to
the court in the Claremont case and fix the education-funding
problem. They didn't.
Now I would like the NH Legislature to take a stand and work out
some compromises to the redistricting issue, but again it seems
that they won't. We send these men and women to Concord to make
the tough decisions. Isn't it about time that they made some?
That's my side of the story.
Are You Ready for the Country?
As Printed in The Exeter News-Letter on 6/11/2002:
The allure of the country is the rural setting
and the beauty of a natural life among back roads and country
stores. Small towns, small schools, and a country store where the
clerk actually knows your name. Yes, it's a drive to go to the
grocery store and a drive to bring the kids to a movie, but your
living in a quaint, country town away from the hustle and bustle
of the city.
Along with the country lifestyle come some concessions, like not
knowing when your quaint little back road will get plowed or
whether or not you'll have curbside trash pick up. These are
issues that people need to consider when making the move to the
country. They need to consider the answer to the question
"Are you ready for the country?"
For some small town residents visiting the dump, or excuse me,
the recycling center, is a ritual where you meet your neighbors
and even local politicians who go there to hand out flyers and
get to know their constituents. When asked why the town doesn't
have curbside pick up, the politician will answer, "Well
that would be hard to do, you see we don't have curbs."
Then when questioned on getting the roads plowed, they'll explain
how the state roads get plowed first and that not too long ago
the back roads were still dirt. Some people that move to the
country forget to answer the question, "Are you ready for
the country?"
One new resident of a small town in N.H. went into the town
clerk's office to ask about getting their water turned on. When
they asked the clerk, the clerk replied, "Well first off,
you are going to need a plumber. You see we don't have town water
here. You have a well." This new resident definitely didn't
answer the question, "Are you ready for the country?"
A club in Hollis, N.H., The Lone Pine Hunters Club, has been
taken to court by a group of Hollis residents calling themselves
Residents Defending Their Homes. The club has been in Hollis
since 1966, longer than many of the residents in this group. They
are upset that the club has gotten busier, but with all of the
"No Trespassing" signs and the sandpits closing, clubs
like Lone Pine are the safest places to shoot.
The Residents Defending Their Homes claim that the club exists
illegally and was not given a variance. The club applied in 1966
for a building permit and was told by the building inspector that
they would need a variance. When the club went to the Hollis
Zoning Board, the board said that they did not need a variance
and signed a letter to the club stating so.
During the Hollis Zoning Board meeting of December 14th, 2000 the
lawyer representing the Residents Defending Their Homes was asked
if he was representing any abutters to the Lone Pine Hunters
Club, his answer was no, he wasn't. One thing that this lawyer
should have asked his clients was "Are you ready for the
country?"
When people come to the country in the fall, they see cows in one
field and corn growing in another. It's a beautiful picture of
the country life. They follow their dream and move to the
country.
Then in the spring, when it's time for the farms to fertilize,
they wonder what in the world that awful smell is. They don't
realize that it is the smell of spring, the smell of the country.
They never answered the question, "Are you ready for the
country?"
When you choose to live in the country you accept the fact that
you won't make as much money or pay as much in taxes. You accept
the fact that your kids may have a longer ride to school.
If you want your kids to get a certain level of education, you
live with traffic, you live with construction, you make a little
more money, you pay more taxes, and you'll have computers in your
school.
If you decide to live in the country and live with a few less
amenities, make sure that you can answer this question
truthfully, "Are you ready for the country?" That is my
side of the story.
As Printed in The Exeter News-Letter on 6/4/2002:
It's the age-old question of what determines
character traits, Environment or Heredity? The Humane Society of
the United States (HSUS) has taken the side of
"Heredity".
This has been the case in the fate of the 43 Pit Bulls seized
from an alleged dog-fighting ring in Newton, NH. All of the dogs
have been euthanized.
Pit Bull recovery organizations and animal advocates had offered
to save some if not all of the animals, but experts decided that
these dogs were too far-gone.
I understood the decision to euthanize these pit bulls, but when
the HSUS got involved, I seriously started to question my belief.
Now, who were these so-called "Experts"? Since some of
these experts are associated with the HSUS, those dogs were
doomed right from the start.
Of course the dogs aren't to blame, the owner is. Christopher
DeVito, the Newton resident, was scheduled to go to trial last
week on 37 counts of cruelty to animals. He is accused of
breeding and training the dogs to fight. His trial was postponed
until September after a court hearing last week.
Once the dogs were trained to be fighting dogs, the chances of
rehabilitation were slim; therefore the euthanasia of these dogs
is understandable.
But, eight of these 43 Pit Bulls were puppies. These puppies
could not have had much training to be fighters (if they had any
at all), but even the puppies were put to death.
The Humane Society said it felt that this was the most Humane
choice. Yes, really humane- it didn't give any of those
"Domestic" dogs a chance. If they had been wolves,
groups like the Humane Society of the U.S. would have spent
thousands to relocate them.
One animal rights group, the Defenders of Wildlife provides a
compensation program for livestock killed by wolves. So, animal
rights groups pay for damages caused by wolves when livestock or
pets are killed, but these eight puppies whose only mistake was
being born Pit Bulls, are now dead.
Hillary Twining of the Humane Society said "We strongly
believe that any dog that has been specifically bred or
conditioned for fighting should not be placed for adoption,"
So instead of adoption, the only other choice was Death?
When it comes to manmade animals this is what the Humane Society
wants. Just 43 more dead domestic dogs, in their view.
Twining went on to say "It's an issue of nature versus
nurture, you cannot rehabilitate what's genetically
programmed."
So since Pit Bulls were genetically programmed then She must want
all pit bulls euthanized. Just another excuse to get rid of
manmade domestic animals. Really Humane.
Well Ms. Twining, German Shepards were bred as Guard Dogs and
Sentry dogs, so are they next? What about Akitas? They were bred
in Japan to take down bears. That is a horrible thing to do with
a dog, so maybe Akitas should go too. Once these dogs were
"Genetically bred" they were doomed, weren't they, Ms.
Twining?
There were other experts besides those from the HSUS involved in
this decision to euthanize these dogs. The People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Massachusetts SPCA also had
their own Animal Behavior Experts who took part in the decision.
PETA has run advertisements such as "Got Prostate
Cancer," showing Rudi Giuliani with a milk mustache when he
was first diagnosed with prostate cancer. PETA also passed out
"Un-Happy Meals" containing a Ronald McDonald doll with
a bloody ax, to children in McDonald's parking lots. It ran
billboards near colleges containing "Got Beer" ads- ads
which claimed that drinking beer was better then drinking milk
from abused cows. Locally, PETA recently showed graphic
slaughterhouse films to students in front of the Portsmouth
Middle School and allegedly told students, "This is what
life is like on most farms. This is where most bacon, where most
hot dogs and other products come from."
Now, PETA, which claims not to support violence, has added Gary
Yourofsky to their payroll. Yourofsky the founder of the group
Animals Deserve Absolute Protection Today and Tomorrow (ADAPTT)
stated last year that he "would unequivocally support"
the death of "animal abusers" in arson fires." On
his group's website he writes, ""If people kill animals
for food, clothing, research or sport, then they are killing God.
Many people erroneously believe that God embraces the misery and
murder of animals. But, the truth is, when you cause misery to
animals and take part in their murder, you are causing God misery
and murdering his soul." It seems that Yourofsky's new
employer has just put him on the wrong side of God, with the
murder of the Pit Bulls.
The Massachusetts SPCA website states "Today the MSPCA
continues to rescue, shelter, protect, heal, and advocate for
more animals than any other American humane organization"
That may be true but what did they do to "rescue, shelter,
protect, heal, and advocate" for these ill-fated pit bulls?
Not one option to save at least the puppies could be found by an
organization claiming to be an "advocate" to animals.
Despite the billions of dollars that these Animal Rights' groups
take in, when it really comes down to the Animal's Rights, they
are no where to be found.
The tiny town of Newton, N.H., is left with a huge bill for
keeping these dogs alive as long as it did, and the only option
that these animal welfare experts could offer for these dogs was
death.
There was one group, and maybe more, that could have saved some
of these dogs, but thanks to the Humane Society of the U.S. and
other so-called animal rights groups what we have is 43 dead
dogs.
There are some at the Humane Society who work to improve the
welfare of pets. Yet, even the HSUS can't keep track of it's own
policies. The HSUS publicly opposes The Pit-Bull Protection Act,
which would ban ownership of any Pit Bull in Washington, D.C.
It's statement of opposition says "This legislation
overlooks the issues of responsible pet ownership as the root of
human/animal conflicts."
Tell that to the eight dead pit bull puppies. That's my side of
the story.
I visited The Vietnam Memorial,
The Wall, in Washington D.C.. As we approached the wall people
were talking and looking around the park, young and old alike. As
we got closer to the wall it got quieter and quieter. The long
line viewing the names on the wall was totally silent.
A few approached to rub a pencil over a piece of paper and others
just left personal items to honor their lost ones. These actions
could not help but move anyone standing nearby. I was awestruck
by the number of people standing there, and the total silence
along the entire wall.
Now there is a "Virtual Wall" on the Internet to honor
those who died in service to our country.
In 1998 Winstar Communications and The Vietnam Veteran's Memorial
Fund created "the Virtual Wall", an Internet website in
honor of the men and women who lost their lives during the
Vietnam War. Visitors can view an interactive image of the wall
and zoom in on the names on the wall.
Visitors may add their own personal memorials to the names on the
wall and even get a Virtual name rubbing. There is no charge to
post on the site of The Virtual Wall and by doing so you may
enter remembrances of those people you knew that lost their lives
and even create your own personalized "My Virtual Wall"
to keep track of postings to those you knew.
Each name on the Virtual Wall links to a personal profile of that
person. It is also possible to link the names on the wall with
the person that you are viewing. For instance, you can link your
loved one with Others with the same last name who died in
Vietnam, other soldiers from the same state, others who died on
the same day, others who died in the same area of Vietnam, and
others in the same branch of service.
For anyone who has any interest in The Vietnam War and those who
died there for America, this site is a must see. The internet
address for The Virtual Wall is http://www.thevirtualwall.org
.
According to the Smithsonian Institute"In the fall of 1982,
a U.S. Navy officer walked up to the trench where the concrete
for the foundation of The Wall was being poured. He stood over
the trench for a moment, then tossed something into it and
saluted. A workman asked him what he was doing. He said he was
giving his dead brother's Purple Heart to The Wall. That was the
first offering."
A book "Offerings at the Wall" is a collection of
pictures and stories of items left at the Wall. The Smithsonian
Institute has many of these items on exhibit. Some of them can be
seen on their website located at http://photo2.si.edu/offerings/offerings.html .
To All who served and are serving our country now, I say THANK
YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY!
5/31/2002
Belated Birthday Wishes to News-Letter
As Printed in The Exeter News-Letter on 5/24/2002:
On April 23rd the Exeter News-Letter celebrated
it's 172nd birthday and in honor of the occasion the paper came
out with a new and improved format. Incorporating a new modern
look with a front-page banner printed in old English Script that
has been around since the beginning. I too would like to honor
the News-Letter's birthday with a little of my own history with
the paper.
My Great Uncle was Joe Marston and he worked at the News-Letter
for most of his life. He was a typesetter. One of my elementary
school field trips went to the News-Letter and I got to see my
Uncle working on one of the presses. The press that he was
working still used block letters that had to be arranged one at a
time to form words. Little did I know that I would end up in the
same building years later.
Not long after I graduated high school I worked at the
News-Letter for a while. I worked "Catching and
Jogging" newspapers coming off the press. Catching involved
grabbing the papers as they came down the conveyor belt off of
the press and then they would be jogged or shaken in stacks until
they were in neat bundles. Then they would be bundled and tied to
be sent out on the paper routes.
At that time articles and advertisements would be printed out on
paper and then "cut and pasted" onto sheets to be
photographed. The typed pages would be cut into sections to fit
the layout of the newspaper. These sections would be glued or
pasted into place. After all the text was cut and pasted onto the
sheets the pictures would be fit into their perspective
positions.
At this point the sheets would be placed into a machine that
burned the images and text onto a sheet of thin metal or Printing
Plate. This plate would be fastened to a drum on the press; one
plate would hold two pages of the newspaper. One side of a single
press would print on the top of the paper and the backside of a
single press would print on the bottom of the paper. One press
would be printing four pages of the paper.
If you have ever noticed, the front page and the back page of the
paper are on one side of a single piece of newsprint and then the
second page and the second to the last page are on the backside
of that same piece of newsprint. The burned part of the printing
plate would retain ink and as the press rolled the newsprint
would slide under the drum as it turned leaving the ink on the
paper. Several presses would be running the separate pages at one
time.
Along with catching the completed newspapers at the end of the
press, when the presses weren't running I was responsible for
loading the rolls of newsprint onto the presses. The rolls of
newsprint are about four feet tall with a hole in the middle for
a shaft that attaches to the press. The rolls would get rolled
onto a cart and then shims would be hammered onto the shaft to
secure the roll. Then the newsprint would be rolled to the press
and then two people would use levers to hoist the roll onto the
press. That is basic printing press 101.
Charles and Harry Thayer ran the News-Letter. I remember Harry, a
volunteer fireman for the Exeter Fire department, would go
running through the pressroom every time the alarm sounded.
Someone would always yell, "Why you running Harry, is there
a fire or something?"
Of course at the company Christmas party he would get the plastic
fire engine and the matching firemen's helmet. I had hoped to
move into another department at the time but there was nothing
available, so eventually I moved on. That was the end of my
history with the paper until a year and a half ago when I started
writing this column.
Being the News-Letter's anniversary I looked into some of the
history of the paper on the internet. I came across the Mitchell
Archives, a business that deals in the preservation and sale of
historic documents and newspapers. The archive has an edition of
the Exeter News-Letter from December 15th, 1835. In this issue
the paper ran President Andrew Jackson's State of the Union
Address running on the front page and taking up fourteen columns.
The cost for this issue is currently $235.
The paper can not actually be seen on the website but I looked
for President Jackson's address and found his State of the Nation
address given on December 7th, 1835. In it I found a section
where he stated that "In the example of other systems
founded on the will of the people we trace to internal dissension
the influences which have so often blasted the hopes of the
friends of freedom. The social elements, which were strong and
successful when united against external danger, failed in the
more difficult task of properly adjusting their own internal
organization, and thus gave way the great principle of
self-government."
It's quite extraordinary how historical speeches transcend time.
This speech is apropos right now with the government taking away
some of our rights for our own good after September 11th. The
idea of self- government is for the people to keep control and
not give more to the Government. As Benjamin Franklin said in
1759, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Wow, 14 columns devoted to the President's State of the Nation
address. The newspapers today could never get away with that.
Well there is a little of my history with the Exeter News-Letter
and a little Exeter News-Letter history too, and of course it's
my side of the story.
Humane Society Not Affiliated with Local SPCA
As Printed in The Exeter News-Letter on 5/7/2002:
Although the name would lead one
to believe that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is
affiliated with your local Humane Society, this is not the fact.
Even the HSUS's own documents state that "The HSUS does not
oversee local animal shelters or societies." They do set up
recommended policies and guidelines that local Humane Societies
may or may not decide to follow. The HSUS does affect local
Humane Societies in other ways though, and that is through their
fundraising efforts. With twenty eight percent of HSUS donations
going directly toward more fundraising, this is quite an
overpowering force that limits the availability of donations for
local organizations.
The HSUS has grown to be the largest Animal Welfare organization
in the country and has done so by tugging at the heartstrings of
pet owners everywhere. Of course the reality is that the HSUS has
been leaning more and more towards being an Animal Rights
organization and limiting the use and ownership of animals
altogether. In my first investigation of the HSUS I wrote a
letter to newspapers titled "Pet Owners Beware of the
HSUS" This letter pointed out the many instances where the
HSUS actually worked against pet owners.
The HSUS took issue with my statements that had been printed in
several newspapers and Joanne Bourbeau, the HSUS New England
regional director responded stating that ""Pet Owners
Beware of the HSUS" is grossly inaccurate and
misleading." She also claimed that "The HSUS is an
animal protection organization not an animal rights
organization." and that "We are not a vegetarian
organization; in fact, we promote non-factory farms that use
humane animal husbandry practices."
In my reply to the HSUS I pointed out that the National
Association for Humane and Environmental Education (NAHEE), the
HSUS's youth education division, and it's Teen division called
HumaneTeen, both have several links to Animal Rights
organizations and Vegan websites. Veganism is one step beyond
Vegetarianism in that Vegans avoid all meat and any meat
by-products. The HSUS may not be a Vegetarian or a Vegan
organization, but they certainly promote it.
The HSUS website states that "responsible" pet owners
get their pets neutered. To claim that any pet owner that doesn't
do this is irresponsible led me to ask the HSUS these questions,
"As for the HSUS's position on pets, the HSUS may want to
save the pets that are alive now, but if every responsible pet
owner must neuter their pet, then where will the next generation
of pets come from? Will your organization judge who is allowed to
have litters, and also who is allowed to have these pets when
they are born?"
Also regarding adoptions at shelters, "Right now a lot of
shelters will not give a pet to a household where no one is home
during the day. In today's world most couples both have to work,
so if a husband and wife work then they can't adopt a dog. My
family and I have had several dogs and cats, and they were left
home alone during the day. These animals were great animals and
did no damage. Why deny an animal a home when the alternative is
euthanasia?"
These questions seemed to get the attention of the Main office of
the HSUS in Washington, D.C.. Kathy Bauch, the Director of
Project Management replied "Since you seem incapable of
grasping facts and continue to state inaccuracies about The HSUS,
we consider further correspondence with you to be useless and
will not engage in it." Were my questions out of line? I
don't think so. They seemed like reasonable questions to me.
The HumaneTeen Flashpoints section includes a request for teens
to take a course on Animal Rights at the University of Rochester,
N.Y.. According to the University's website "In this course
we will attempt to thoughtfully and carefully answer"
questions like what are animal rights and do animals have rights?
These questions will be "thoughtfully and carefully"
answered by the teacher, Nathan Nobis. In a review of the book
"Defending Animal Rights" on Amazon.com he wrote,
"animals, like humans, have the right to be treated with
respect and so not used by humans for food, clothing,
experimental subjects, or entertainment."
In a review of the book "Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: The
Human Cost of Experiments on Animals", Mr. Nobis states that
"The Greeks clearly show that animal experimentation is not
(and never has been) necessary for human health and that, in
fact, human health and safety is often compromised by animal
experimentation." Thanks for that intellectual statement Mr.
Nobis, but my mother would probably not be alive today if it
wasn't for animal testing and that's one trade off that I would
take every time.
This is the teacher that the Humane Society of the United States
is recommending teens to go to and learn about Animal rights. Of
course the HSUS is not a Vegetarian organization or an animal
rights one either. The HSUS just wants to teach the next
generation about animal rights.
One of the main sponsors of the annual Animal Rights conference
has been none other than the HSUS. At the 2001 conference Howard
Lyman was indicted into the Animal Rights Hall of Fame. Lyman is
the "Eating With Conscience Campaign" director with the
HSUS. His name may be familiar; he was the Vegetarian on the
Oprah show when the meat industry, for her comments about tainted
beef, sued her and Lyman.
Some of the events at the 2001 animal rights conference
co-sponsored by the HSUS include things like how to get
attention, Legally and otherwise, Dealing with Law Enforcement,
arrests, jail time and grand juries. One course asks if the
animal rights cause can justify lying, cheating, and stealing to
reach their goals. On the last day Wayne Pacelle a vice president
of the HSUS said that "We want to put them into prison, we
want to take away their right to vote, we want to take away their
right to own a gun." He later stated that he was referring
to felony animal abusers, although the title of his presentation
was ""Sport Campaigns (Hunting, fishing, rodeos,
cockfighting, bullfighting, greyhounds." All of which are
legal in at least some areas of the United States.
Seems like the Humane Society of the United States is the one
being "grossly inaccurate and misleading" doesn't it?
If anyone really wants to donate money for animals where it will
do the most good, look for your local Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty of Animals, your local Humane Societies, and if you
can try and find "No Kill" shelters. When you donate to
a No Kill shelter you know your money is going to save animals,
and that's My Side of the Story.
' Designed by Bowana.
Copyright © 1998-2003 All rights reserved.
Information in this document is subject to change without notice.
Other products and companies referred to herein are trademarks or
registered trademarks of their respective companies or mark
holders.
Back To NH Outdoor News