This is an open letter to members of Congress

You have all lost credibility with the voters of this country.

First of all, it should be totally illegal for Congress to give themselves raises of any kind. These benefits should be put to a vote on Election Day!

Second, why should we seniors expect Congress to protect Medicare and Social Security? All of you get free private insurance and your ridiculous pensions are paid for by us—the taxpayers.

Third, these tax cuts and rebates for the wealthy will affect the economy and have a devastating effect on retirees for years to come.

Yes, we support war efforts that have saved thousands of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we should help set up dependable governments in both countries. If no weapons of mass destruction were found, it is because Iraq sold them to or is hiding them in other countries.

Stop the fighting between Republicans and Democrats. Learn to work together. And, most of all, limit all the pre-election campaigning and rhetoric to six weeks before the election and limit the amount of money each party can raise for campaigns. Large corporations should only contribute $50,000 with no expectations of any privileges from government.

Also, there should be a limit on “gifts” that both parties may accept from companies and individuals.

Come on people shape up and straighten out our government.

An open letter to Allan Schadt

Dear Allan:

I am compelled to write this letter in response to the, statements made to me at the town meeting on July 13, 2004. When I asked for help to rectify the appalling conditions of our residence, 46 Summit Drive, you responded by stating you had helped me by spending a lot of money on council. I can’t help but feel you were ridiculing me. This was indeed an inappropriate answer. Any information and/or documentation that you can provide to clarify your response will be greatly appreciated.

I am a law-abiding, tax-paying constituent of this community. Everything I have done has been honest, lawful, and in good faith. From the onset of this dispute, you have treated me as an adversary. You were elected to your position as a public servant to have the best interests of all constituents. Consensus is you do not have the temperament or qualifications to be supervisor for the Town of Highland; you have become an encumbrance to your position. After speaking to many citizens, they are in complete accordance. Perhaps you should consider an alternate.

John Watters
Yulan, NY

Greenway raises the specter of land-use restrictions

To the editor:

State Senator John Bonacic (R-C-Mount Hope) is proposing legislation to turn the Upper Delaware River towns into a “Greenway” ostensibly to channel grant money to the river towns but actually to push for restrictive regional planning and zoning at the expense of local property owners.

Some politicians in the towns of Tusten, Cochecton, Delaware, Highland, Lumberland and Deerpark have tentatively agreed to support the Greenway proposal even though they are inadvertently selling out the homeowners, farmers and landowners who elected them to town office in the first place. The towns of Fremont and Hancock, which cover more than thirty percent of the river corridor, have categorically rejected the proposal.

As one prominent Town of Tusten resident said recently, “How would you like to own 100 acres in the Greenway and not be able to do anything with it?”

Do you think it can’t happen here? Consider the fact that current landholders within portions of the Adirondack Park blue line face just such onerous one house per 43 to 300 acre restrictions in what is actually another state park imposed in part on private land.

If you want to destroy property values and the real estate boom currently benefiting the river valley and all Sullivan and Delaware County residents, Senator Bonacic’s proposal is the way to do it.

[Editor’s note: The Upper Delaware Greenway legislation is being patterned after the Hudson River Valley Greenway. To learn more about that greenway visit hudsongreenway.state.ny.us]

To choose or not to choose: the ultimate question

To the editor:

John Kerry believes that life begins at conception; however, he and John Edwards support legal abortion in America— for the usual reason: a woman’s right to choose. An interesting grammatical note: “to choose” is an infinitive and always takes an object: “to choose” what? To choose to give birth to the child within her, or to choose to abort the child within her. Kerry is right: life begins at conception.

Evil actions are always performed for a perceived good: i.e. the right of the woman to choose. I have recently received an impressive volume published by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C.: Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race (2004).

In the book’s concluding essay, “Reflections of a German Scientist” by Benno-Muller Hill, his final sentence is “It must be made absolutely clear that science should never become the reason to justify injustice to a genetically defined group of human beings.”

Deadly Medicine is the medicine of abortion. The unborn are the defined group. The reason: a woman’s right to choose. The consequence: the denial of America’s very identity. We are a nation founded on the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with the right to life. Who are we as a people if we permit our own Supreme Court to guarantee us the right to murder our unborn?

A vote for Kerry and Edwards will help to continue the practice of abortion, that Deadly Medicine!

Farewell to Mike Johndrow

[This statement was read at Mike Johndrow’s last S.W. Board of Education meeting in June 2004]

Five years ago we merged into one district called Sullivan West. We hired you to lead us. You were up for the challenge. You did so much to facilitate our merger projects … I want to be more specific. It was a big job with many bumps in the road from the very beginning….

After the merger vote in 1999, we had to get our building project approved by voters, Professional contracts had to be conservatively settled. The site for the high school was obtained and then questioned, the water/sewer issues with Lake Huntington were discouraging, brand new SW budgets had to be passed and you went six for six on passed budgets, a great record for a superintendent in these difficult financial times. The State Education Department had to be dealt with in a big way, There was the mold and lead and historical preservation issues (who can ever forget those days). We made a plan for a 134K sq. ft. high school and we did it. We renovated three buildings just as planned despite the bumps in the road. This is an understatement of the obstacles and accomplishments.

To be fair you would say that you didn’t do this all on your own. I do remember the work many people put into literally moving this district around and setting it back up again. I have gotten to know you after spending much time with you, at student dinners, concerts and plays, school board conventions, not to forget the many, many school board meetings over the years.

I asked you several times how you stood all the challenges and kept on going and you told me you were an old-fashioned guy who believed in starting and finishing something. You have a great deal of integrity and optimism, two things Sullivan West desperately needed.

I have been in business and one of the most important things to have is an employee like you who treats the business as their own. Mike, you had put your heart and soul into this district and brought us incredibly far in just these five, “fun-packed” years.

That’s it, Mike, I know you are modest, but we don’t often get to hear good things said about us in public especially while we are alive but you deserve the accolades. I believe we all get put here for a purpose, and our school district is a better place for having had you here. You were the right person, at the right time for Sullivan West. This district owes you a tremendous debt of gratitude.

I have great respect for you and I thank you sincerely.