We shouldn’t broadcast our secrets
To the editor:
On March 27, the ABC nightly news broadcast information concerning the new head of the CIA clandestine unit.
ABC gave the gender of the person, age range and a city where the person served overseas. Although this information can be acquired by foreign intelligence agencies, we should not be helping them identify our intelligence personnel.
During World War II we safeguarded information which could have benefited the enemy and jeopardized the well-being of our military and civilian government personnel. We operated on a “need to know basis.” A phrase describing the secretiveness of information was “loose lips sink ships.”
Since World War II, the media has had increasing access to our military planning and operations in the cause of transparency and in compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, and government agencies have been too willing to provide information to reporters and others. The media does not seem able or inclined to refrain from disclosing sensitive information which could hurt this country. It seems all they care about is the “scoop.”
Our federal government agencies and the media have to do a better job of not disclosing information which could place people and operations in harm’s way.
Donald A. Moskowitz
Players provide an entertaining evening
To the editor:
Thank you, once again, Pinkerton Players, for an outstanding performance! This year’s play, “Once Upon a Mattress” was so very entertaining. The singing, dancing and acting entertained us so much. The orchestra, as always was wonderfully professional, and the stage hands did an outstanding job as well.
Please know how much your audiences appreciate your dedication and hard work! I never miss a performance — always a class act!
Limiting carbon emissions pays off
To the editor:
For over five years now, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) has demonstrated that a market-based approach to limiting lower carbon dioxide emissions in the electricity generating sector can make significant environmental progress while benefiting our economy. In fact, an independent report by the Analysis Group found that the investment of RGGI proceeds from the first three years puts $1.1 billion in electricity bill savings back into the pockets of consumers in the RGGI region and keeps $765 million in the local economy due to reduced fossil fuel demand.
In 2008, New Hampshire joined the RGGI to lower carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning power plants. These emissions pollute our air and are a key component of the climate changes we have been witnessing lately. To accomplish this goal, RGGI allows electricity producers to purchase allowances to exceed agreed upon limits in a multi-state allowance market. Each state then uses the proceeds from the sale of allowances to invest in energy efficiency programs and offer customer rebates.
After its 2012 review, the RGGI states, including nine states in New England and the Northeast, are proposing to reduce the regional emissions limit to better reflect the current level of regional emissions. This proposal, HB 306 as amended, was approved by the New Hampshire House last week. Derry’s Rep. Mary Till joined the majority vote, 190 to 156. The bill is now in the Senate.
Emissions since the RGGI’s inception have decreased due to several factors. State investments in energy efficiency have reduced electricity demand and the need for new transmission and generation in the region, saving rate payers increased energy prices. Due to lower natural gas prices, electricity producers have invested in gas power plants (with much lower emissions) to supplant generation from coal in the region. The lower energy costs from using natural gas have opened the door to other energy suppliers to move into the New Hampshire market and compete head-to-head with PSNH.
According to the Department of Environmental Services, the proposed decrease in the emissions limits envisioned in HB 306 will lead to about a 3-percent reduction in typical residential electric bills. It also means that towns like Derry will see their energy bills decrease, which is good for taxpayers.
Thank you, Rep. Till, for voting in favor of New Hampshire’s environment and economy.
Government arms purchases troubling
To the editor:
It’s Sequester Season, that period of idiot-induced suffering inflicted upon the American taxpayer by inept, foolish and even nefarious elected officials. Our meat supply is now unsafe due to inspector furloughs, as is our porous border to the south. The military budget is being chopped, leaving those who protect us without protection when it comes to getting paid for their service and sacrifice. “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” an evil hag once intoned.
So, with all these “selective” austerity measures being deployed to maximize taxpayer suffering, what is the Department of Homeland Security planning to do with enough small arms ammunition to support a 20-year shooting war? And why are armored assault vehicles known as MRAPs (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles) from the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns now appearing on the streets of American cities, bristling and ominous? If Dianne Feinstein thinks an AR-15 looks “threatening” enough to ban under the etymology of “assault weapon”, how does she propose that we quietly acquiesce to these actual “assault weapons”?
Is the president raising a private army on our own soil for his personal deployment, Congress be damned? What are we to make of the actions of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano?
Whom is she planning on “protecting” on the streets of America with all these battlefield vehicles (read: tanks) and guns? If there is any kind of domestic threat that requires such an incredible stockpile of munitions, shouldn’t the American people be alerted to it?
As an admitted cynic of government (particularly this administration), I initially thought that the open order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition was an attempt by the White House to dry up the supply available to law-abiding gun owners while also driving prices sharply higher. It would be one way to exercise gun control by circumventing the legislative process. If you can’t buy bullets for your gun, what good is it? That was until the armored personnel carriers started showing up on Main Street America. What does Homeland Security intend to do with these mine-resistant, bullet-proof combat vehicles?
This has every appearance of the government engaging in an arms race — with its own citizens. The very thought of that is chilling in the land of the free and home of the brave. Congress needs to pull Napolitano out of her bunker and start asking her whose standing army she is fitting out with our money.