The River Reporter Online - Letters to the Editor

[EDITOR'S NOTE: The River Reporter welcomes letters on all subjects from its readers. They must be signed and include the correspondent's phone number. The correspondent's name and town will appear at the bottom of each letter; titles and affiliations will not, unless the correspondent is writing on behalf of a group.

Letters are printed as they are received, or at the discretion of the editor, and without correction to grammar or spelling. It is requested they be limited to 500 words; correspondents may be asked to cut longer letters. Deadline is 1:00 p.m. on Monday.

Just a quick note to say that I thought Laurie Stuart’s editorial on the “W” article was the best thing written about it.

I don’t think that we share much of a political view but we agree on many things you said so well.

To fulfill my citizen’s obligation toward our community and to be on top of all the happenings in the Town of Lumberland, I regularly attend the monthly meetings of our town board.

In this matter, I would like to express my disappointment. Besides town board members and town officials of different departments, only approximately 10 to 12 citizens of our town are taking part in these meetings. As far as I was informed, according to the latest census, there are about 1,930 inhabitants in our town.

If we want some progress and improvement in Lumberland, we need to come to these meetings and provide our ideas for the betterment of our town. We have to be more involved and share our experiences: be at town affairs, in different organizations, churches, ensembles or schools. They are desperately in need of new and young members and will greet everyone with open arms.

We should not rely on the status quo, we need to focus on the better and brighter future. It’s a fact that our community is more distinct than it was 10 to 20 years ago and therefore we need to explore new ideas to develop a coherent and workable plan. Our supervisor and town board members will be glad to hear from you. These meetings are open to the public and your suggestions will be greatly appreciated. And most important: it’s your town.

The “bare bones” budget recently passed by the State Legislature is bad news for just about every public program in New York State. But it is particularly devastating to health care, because it calls for the state’s family planning funds to be cut by more than 40 percent, and for the Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Service program to be wiped out entirely. At present, only about a third of the women in New York State who need family planning services are getting them. If Governor Pataki signs this budget, the number will fall even lower.

Family planning funds cover a wealth of vital services besides pregnancy counseling; in fact, they represent the principal source of health care for many New York women. If these funds disappear, thousands of women will have to go without the care they need, including breast and cervical cancer screenings, HIV testing and tests for sexually transmitted infections.

This austerity budget does a major injustice to the people of this state. Every one of us should urge Governor Pataki and the Legislature to negotiate a new budget that serves New Yorkers instead of harming them.

Summertime is fast coming to a close and soon the children will be back in school. On behalf of Morry’s Camp, we would like to thank our neighbors and friends for making our campers, counselors and staff feel welcome in your community, as they reflect on another wonderful summer.

Located in Glen Spey, Morry’s Campers have greatly benefited from the beautiful surroundings of the Upper Delaware River, with bordering streams, woodlands, marshlands and small lake. Without your help and support, our campers would not have the opportunity to retreat from the inner-city streets and playgrounds for a chance to learn and grow in nature. The following are comments by young Morry’s Campers, on the topic of “The Difference Between Camp and Home,” which focused on the country experience.

“I don’t get to run around a lot at home, and at camp, I get to see all of the animals. We never had enough space to play games at home. At camp, we have so much space that we can play all kinds of games outside. It is much safer, and that’s why I like Morry’s Camp.”

Thank you for opening your hearts and allowing our youngsters to get to know the peace and tranquility of Glen Spey and the neighboring areas, along with the kind-hearted and considerate people who live here.

While I mention a book, this letter is about the logical thoughts generated by the book. –A.C.E.

Is your life worth protecting? Or the lives of your children? If so, whose responsibility is it? When confronted with a criminal attack, is your first thought to call 911? Ask Rosie O’Donnell or Sarah Brady, and they’ll say it should be.

But ask Jeff Snyder, and he’ll answer with a question that reframes the firearm debate, and gets to the heart of the ethical dilemma: “If you believe it is reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, is it not hypocritical to have someone else do it for you? Are you absolved of all blame because your taxes have paid for it?”

Every once in a while, a book comes along that defines a society. “Nation of Cowards” (Accurate Press, Lonedell, MO), by New York attorney Jeff Snyder, is one of these. A seminal treatise on liberty in the tradition of Madison and Jefferson, “Nation of Cowards” is about the constant struggle between individual rights, and the inherent, incremental tyranny of government, written in language so eloquently simple that even a youngster can understand.

Snyder’s book is not about “guns.” As he aptly notes, “To speak about the gun as though it were a protagonist in the human drama... is to both ignore and obscure the reality that character and individual choice are responsible for the results.”

Nor is Snyder’s book about crime. It’s about the ethics of our response to change.

Today, Americans live in a society where crime is exploited as a justification to impose limitations on our liberty. Instead of facing the problem head-on, we have permitted our fear of crime, and our desire for safety, to turn the force of the law against those innocent of wrongdoing by criminalizing harmless activities. That trivializes behavior which is truly immoral.

On the folly of creating “crime” to fight real crime — like outlawing the victimless act of carrying guns into schools and post offices, which in and of itself harms no one—Snyder asks, “Are there some places where it is acceptable to murder or threaten others with firearms?” Because if the creation of “gun-free” zones can succeed in controlling murderers and criminals, why not just “declare all individuals bullet-free zones and make our county a safer place?”

What does the existence of gun licensing laws, “instant-check” procedures prior to the purchase of a gun, and the banning of classes of guns reveal about the character of our fellow citizens? How many more laws will it take until the rest of society’s peaceable citizens are redefined as criminals?

A society that deprives its citizens of the means to protect themselves is not civilized, but barbarous. And the government that causes this to happen is but “an accomplice of murderers, rapists and thugs.”

As Snyder points out, there was a time when the belief that life was a gift from God was widely embraced, and not to defend that life when threatened with violence was to hold God’s gift in contempt. This is no longer the case, and that’s the crux of the problem in America today: “Crime is not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd technicalities. The defect is there, in our character. We are a nation of cowards and shirkers.”

To the old refrain “with rights come responsibilities,” Snyder adds a new twist, and a warning: the loss of rights is always preceded by a rejection of personal responsibility, and the shifting of that responsibility onto “unaccountable and nameless others,” i.e. government. His conclusion: “Liberty can be preserved only by retaining responsibility.”

That responsibility includes defending not just our nation, but our communities, our families and ourselves, as well.

Alan C. Eisen
Yulan, NY
P.S. Before responding to this letter, I would urge modern-day statist “liberals” to read the book.