To the editor:

The Bartlett School Board has begun another year of managing our school district. They do this under the guidance of their "mission statement" which contains the phrase "fiscally responsible."

The principal proposed and they approved the staffing of the guidance department in Josiah Bartlett Elementary School at a level 167 percent higher than suggested by the state at a taxpayer penalty of 80, to $100,000.

The principal proposed and they approved the team teaching assignments in four small classes overstaffing them by four teachers at an average total taxpayer penalty of about $350,700.

The principal proposed and they approved a second office assistant in the face of a 21 percent enrollment decline during the last two years at a taxpayer penalty of about $50,000.

This outstanding personal management performance and leading the school to world class NECAP achievement levels (the Bartlett profile did not agree with SAU 9 records but who is counting .... ) certainly deserves the recognition of a contract extension for the principal with pay increases, a merit bonus and a standing ovation.

His refusal to lead his staff to work toward application as a school of excellence was apparently overlooked or not considered pertinent.

The Bartlett School Board has certainly given new meaning to "fiscal responsibility" and we wish them well in their dreamland future where everyone wins and there are no losers.

Henry F. Villaume

Intervale

To the editor,
Charles and Andrea Root, in their letter of May 8 warn of the “staggering implications” in passing a resolution calling for an amendment to the Constitution, stating that the rights granted under its articles are for “natural persons only.” I agree with that statement, although I think the implications would be “staggeringly beneficial” to our political process.
The Roots’ first claim is that such an amendment would strip corporations of rights currently protected by the First Amendment. That is a legal fiction. Corporations did not exist in 1791 and are not mentioned in the Constitution, and rights they have assumed have been due to that lack of mention. The founders, unaware of the future establishment of huge corporations, only stated that freedom of speech shall not be abridged. The only “entities” mentioned in the First Amendment are: the people and the press. It was not until almost 100 years later that the Supreme Court began its slow trek toward interpreting that lack of corporate mention as giving corporations the same rights as people. So, in reality, corporations had no First Amendment rights to begin with. That is not to say that corporations shouldn’t have some protections, or rights to advocate for their interests, and the locally passed resolution makes that possible.
The Roots claim the ACLU opposes this amendment and says it “would break the Constitution.” The article by the ACLU, however, talks about a different amendment proposal, with different wording, that would “limit individual constitutionally-guaranteed rights,” but the ACLU article does go on to say that, “The legal and policy questions raised by the link between concentrated wealth and political speech are numerous and complicated. We should be discussing the health of our politics, and we should be doing more to, for instance, provide for public financing and promote transparency without quelling anonymous speech.” The general consensus of the local Conway group was that public financing was preferred but impossible to fully implement without some ability by the legislature to somehow limit independent and corporate campaign spending, and therefore the need for a constitutional amendment.
The Roots quote “America’s leading First Amendment lawyer,” but for every lawyer on one side of the argument, there is a lawyer just as qualified who will argue the opposite. Remember, even in the “Citizen’s United” Supreme Court case the judges were split 5 to 4. The Roots’ claim that the New Hampshire resolution (HCR2) would render ordinary Americans and owners of business interests unable to speak, cannot be reconciled with the resolution that specifically states that constitutional rights for people, including free speech, are guaranteed.
Remember, we are a long way from restoring our republic’s reliance on the “people alone” as envisioned by the founders of our Nation. A resolution is simply an expression of the people’s will. It is not the final wording of an amendment, which our Constitutional process ensures will have many inputs and chances for changing prior to adoption by at least 38 states. When 69 percent of N.H adults favor such a Constitutional amendment, and only 22 percent oppose, shouldn’t that be a sign that people want some sort of campaign finance reform limiting corporate influence? UNH Poll available at: WeThePeople-MWV.org
Ken McKenzie
Eaton

To the editor:
On the front page of the May 8 Conway Daily Sun was the kindness-violence juxtaposition: two polar opposite messages, both struggling for breath ( like those fish before death) in a culture that doesn’t recognize it’s own accepted behaviors as violent. It’s a hard thing to grapple with since much of the modern economy requires a desensitization of sorts, to continue doing to the earth, to animals, to other nations that have required resources, what is being done.
There it was though, on the front page, “The Economics of Kindness,” Page 12, above photo of 3-year-old Devin Morril, with his father, Charlie, proudly holding up a dead fish at the Madison Children’s Fishing Derby. The 3-year-old just got a lesson in what we in the animal rights community call, “speciesism,” another word for, “anthropocentrism,” the consideration of humans as the center of the universe, masters over all others, to do with what we will, regardless of the suffering we inflict. We’ve been practicing it for thousands of years; religious and politically sanctioned violence. I doubt little Devin had any idea he caused the fish to suffocate. He beamed because of the attention he got, sadly, because fishing is considered fun, entertaining, and a wholesome past time for families. I did it myself with my own father, before I learned the truth about marine life and what humans are doing to our waterways and oceans.
Don’t humans have the “right” to take fish out of their homes, the water that gives them life, breath, because it’s “fun,” and for taste and economics? Is fishing a kind practice? Is it kind to place sharp hooks under water, to fool marine life into biting onto barbed hooks that pierce their lips, jaws, and drag their struggling, terrified bodies out of water, to slowly suffocate to death? The caption read, “Dozens of children up to 14, hooked into some fun” Fun? The victim of the hook did not have fun. Why is that not even a consideration? Please see investigations: Fish Slaughter, http://www.mercyforanimals.org/ and while you’re there, see the others, all forms of legalized, accepted, protected violence.
If another world is possible, what about encouraging children to be kind to all beings, be empathetic to the suffering all beings feel. Kindness, or violence, which is it? They are mutually exclusive.
Zoe Weil, founder of the Institute For Humane Education offers, “The World Becomes What You Teach,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sW5lJiJLlk . It will not be governments, politicians, or sadly, religious leaders, to guide us in making individual choices to be kind to one another, kind to the earth, and kind to nonhumans who have suffered long enough, it’s making the connections and choosing to end choices that cause others to suffer.
According to Dr. Brian Clement, eating fish is also very unhealthy. It isn’t kind to feed children mercury, dioxin, PCBs, or other compounds found in high doses in fish, and other nonhumans used for food.
Read his article here: https://bookpubco.com/featured-article/dangers-eating-fish-what-do-you-really-know
And another medical opinion here: http://www.hungryherbivores.com/2009/04/23/rethinking-fish-consumption/
To read about making kinder choices, and the connection between human and animal violence, see these books: “Blessing of the Animals, Celebrating Our Kinship With ALL of Creation, “ by Rev. Gary Kowalski; “Eternal Treblinka, Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust,” by  Charles Patterson; “The Holocaust and Hen Maidens Tale,” by  Karen Davis; “Children and Animals, Exploring the Roots of Cruelty and Kindness,” by Frank Ascione; “Above All, Be Kind,” by Zoe Weil; “Animals As Persons,” by Gary Francione and “Sister Species,” by Lisa Kemmerer.
The following websites also provide more information: http://www.societyandanimalsforum.org/beyond_violence.html ; www.all-creatures.org ; www.christianveg.com ; www.jewishveg.com ; http://www.catholic-animals.org/ ; http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/abuse_neglect/qa/cruelty_violence_connection_faq.html .
Laura Slitt
Bartlett

To the editor:
For the past four years we are told by our leaders, we don’t stand with Israel, and you read weekly by the Ms. Bruce, our left-wing nut herself in this newspaper, we don’t recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. I don’t say Ms. Bruce has said this, but her agenda supports the statement.
Well if this newspaper chooses to run or not to run the issue of the IRS, a government organization, targeting Jewish taxpayers, and even unfair targets of political organizations like the so-called right-wing organizations like “Tea-Baglican,” like any organization that includes the words patriotic, Constitution, 912 Project, and organizations like the “Tea Party,” I can only say watch out for the IRS. They will be handed the Obamacare legislation to start compiling your medical information and how this will lead to our state and local gun grabbing because the government will now have all of your personal information.
I would like to slant this towards political affiliations but why in 2011 would our government start these targets? Is it because we have a government that doesn’t recognize Israel and our long term affiliation and how we diss them as a country? Right-wing organizations with a 12-page questionnaires that these organizations had to fill out for the IRS. And now we have the president of the United States telling college graduates not to believe that we have a tyrannical government, and with Benghazi we also have a president that says he went to bed and let everyone else in his administration make decisions — to be the president, and let me know in the morning! Well, Mr. President, if you don’t want to be president it’s time for the impeachment to commence. This administration will start throwing low level staffers and media under the bus, and really they should be going after 2 people, Ms. Hillary “I Lied” Clinton, and our president.
So two articles will be coming, the downplaying of Ms. Bruce with her not saying or supporting the agenda, and how API will spin the Benghazi and IRS intimidations. More to come!
Ralph DeRosa
Madison