Death with dignity, police station delays and anger over pardons: Letters
Relieve the suffering of the dying in New Hampshire
Jan. 25 − To the Editor:
I am a retired clergywoman, with many years of experience working with the terminally ill. I am also the widowed spouse of a dear man who, despite having excellent hospice care at the end of his life, had much unrelieved suffering and a traumatic death. HB 254, the NH End of Life Freedom Act, gives qualified terminally ill, mentally competent adults who are able to self-ingest medication the compassionate, ethical health care option of obtaining a medication to experience a peaceful, painless death at a time of their choosing with their loved ones by their side. It breaks my heart that my husband did not have access to this option, one he wanted when his time was short and his suffering was great.
With over three decades of the safe practice of Medical Aid in Dying in other states in our country as precedent, we know such laws to have been administered responsibly, because of the many guardrails in place. One must go through a rigorous qualifying process, full of checkpoints. No one can make this decision for anyone else, and one must be able to self-administer the medication, which is mixed into liquid and ingested. This compassionate option is a blessing, a comfort, and a personal decision, allowing the time of death to be a peaceful passage, should a qualifying person choose to exercise it. I find it entirely compatible with my religious belief. My religious freedom is impeded by those who would oppose this legislation. I urge our NH House members to support HB254.
The Reverend Mary James
Durham
More: 'We treat our pets with more respect': Dying NH doctor's wish for death with dignity
They put their lives on the line and Trump pardoned their attackers
Jan. 23 − To the Editor:
I am writing to express my deep concern for all those who were directly affected by the attacks on Jan 6, 2021. I believe that the pardons of the perpetrators re-violates and re-traumatizes all of the victims and all of us who care about them.
As a psychologist I know that life can hand out betrayal and heartbreak. Usually, with enough time and support most people are resilient enough to heal from these painful hurts. However, when the source of betrayal and heartbreak is our own country, I worry that the hurt will seem unbearable to those who put their lives on the line for their country. I want them to know that their lives matter, their loyalty and bravery matter and that people of conscience care about, support and honor them.
Donna Melillo
Portsmouth
Trump freed insurrectionists. Are you still proud of voting for him?
Jan. 23 − To the Editor:
Shame.
That's what anyone who voted for our current president should feel today − shame. This bully, this so-called man, who has slithered back into the oval office has unleashed more than 1500 criminals so they can proudly tour the very Capitol building which they attacked and boast that they can now buy ****ing guns and seek retribution for their prison time. This bully has even suggested he will invite these lowlifes whom he refers to as victims and patriots to the White House to thank them for their actions.
This is the bully who claims that other countries have emptied their jails and their mental institutions of criminals so that they can be free to invade the United States when it is the bully himself who is emptying our jails of traitors and criminals.
And when Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde, the Episcopal Bishop of Washington, dressed down this bully from the pulpit of the National Cathedral at a prayer service for the new president in front of God and the nation asking him to have mercy on the vulnerable population that he is now targeting, he lashed out at her, demanded an apology, and called her a radical left hard line Trump hater which resulted in numerous wishes for her death.
It is hard to believe that the small majority of Americans (no not by any means a mandate) that turned their backs on January 6th and voted for this bully are citizens of a country that I grew up loving and being thankful for. I have heard some of his supporters say they realize the bully is not a man of great character, but they like his policies. Well look at his policies now. Are you proud of having voted him back into office? You must realize that you have made a horrible mistake and that the bully now in power could care less about you and your misguided support. And yes, you should be ashamed.
Carl Vancelette
Barrington
Portsmouth can't afford more police station delays
Jan. 26 −To the Editor:
Costs for Portsmouth's Community Policing Facility increased by at least $2.5 million, without any changes to the plan. Why? The $43M estimate was based on breaking ground in 2024. It is now 2025 and with the new Blue Ribbon Municipal Building Committee, ground breaking won't occur until 2026. Two years of inflation increases this estimate to $45.5 million+. We'll also have two more years of abatement, sick time, worker's compensation and FMLA claims, low morale, hiring and retention challenges and other issues.
The Blue Ribbon Committee will consider better space utilization, a significant challenge. Based on the Space Needs Assessment, the latest version of the Community Policing Facility proposes a 31000 SF addition. Let's assume the municipal building footprint remains the same to eliminate any Connors Cottage view impact. One option has the entire first floor becoming the police station. Another takes all floors of the newer section that faces the mill pond. Even with hybrid proposals, multiple city departments would still move off campus. But the City Council wants a common campus. So it appears the Committee is doomed to fail.
The LA wildfire disaster spotlights how slowing investment in public safety needs has major consequences. Bad policies, cutting budgets and special interest pandering all contributed to significant property damage and loss of life. Rebuilding from these recent disasters also increases construction costs across the country, which impacts our Policing Facility.
We can't afford any more delays. Stop kicking the can down the road. Pick it up and recycle!
Jim Fernald
Portsmouth
Shame on congressional delegation voting for Laiken Riley Act
Jan. 23 − To the Editor:
Shame on our Federal Representatives Senators Hassan and Shaheen, Representatives Pappas and Goodlander, for voting for the Laiken Riley Act.
In this bill, proposed as some sort of "fix" to curb crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, is the erosion of due process for suspected criminals. The bill provides that anyone may suspect someone of a crime, round them up, and send them off for deportation. All of this without seeing the inside of a courtroom or any provisions of due process our country provides. Are we to allow vigilantes to administer this street justice or accusations to people they think are undocumented? Are we to allow the xenophobes of the Trump Administration to smudge our Constitutional rights? I urge our representatives to get out of their bubbles more and talk with folks in the immigrant communities. You'll find hard working, dedicated people who came here for a better life and means to support their families. You'll find children wanting a free and fair education in our schools.
To be sure, there are criminals in our country but not disproportionately in the immigrant communities. I want to be inspired by leaders in these times, not angry for their capitulation of eroding our freedoms.
Scott Nichols
New London
Send your letters to opinion@seacoastonline.com
Please keep letters to 250 words or less. Submissions must include the writer's first and last names, city or town and a daytime telephone number (which is for verification purposes only and will not be published). Send letters or commentaries to opinion@seacoastonline.com. Letters from Seacoast-area writers addressing local topics will be given priority for publication.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
a few seconds ago
- Forbes
The U.S. Message To Australia And Japan
The United States is, not surprisingly, concerned about alliance burden-sharing and security commitments, recently focusing on Australia and Japan and their respective views toward Taiwan. U.S. Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby has raised this issue in conversations with Australian and Japanese leadership, asking these two U.S. allies to clarify their security commitments to Taiwan in the event of a mainland Chinese attack. The U.S. itself has long maintained a posture of 'strategic ambiguity,' deliberately avoiding specifics about its potential response to such a scenario. Colby's initiative aimed to signal regional unity in the U.S. effort to preserve the status quo between Taiwan and the mainland. It also carried a practical appeal: encouraging U.S. allies to strengthen their defense capabilities. Burden-sharing remains a perennial challenge in alliances, driven by the natural temptation for partners to save on defense expenditures and, relatively speaking, benefit from the U.S. defense budget. Partners tend to underinvest in their own defense, relying on the U.S. security umbrella. Here lies the paradox: neither Japan nor Australia can independently defend Taiwan. Only the United States possesses the military capacity—and therefore the credibility—to deter the People's Republic of China. Only the U.S. can impose long-term costs on China. Whether Australia or Japan increases or decreases its defense spending, the sole indispensable component of deterrence remains U.S. credibility. Japan knows this. Australia knows this. The U.S. knows this. Most importantly, China knows this. So why would Japan or Australia seek to strengthen their security commitments to Taiwan when doing so offers no meaningful advantage to Taiwan but risks provoking China? While Colby's outreach stirred debate in both countries, officials reiterated their positions of not formalizing any commitment to a hypothetical conflict. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese stated that Australia would not commit troops in advance to any conflict. That ambiguity reflects a desire to maintain strategic flexibility and avoid premature entanglement in a potential war. This conversation unfolds at a moment when the Trump administration is challenging or reshaping long-held positions and procedures in the Asia-Pacific and beyond. As Trump imposes higher tariffs on both Australia and Japan, the U.S. signals a shift away from its traditional role in alliance leadership and regional problem-solving—making itself a less attractive partner by reducing predictability and increasing the cost of engagement. Much of what the U.S. is attempting in its trade relationship with Australia is viewed as unnecessary, counterproductive, or even in bad faith. The U.S. has a Free Trade Agreement with Australia that eliminates tariffs on nearly all bilateral trade. In fact, the U.S. currently enjoys a trade surplus with Australia—one of Trump's stated trade goals. Rather than leading with a call for increased commitment to Taiwan, the U.S. could have pursued a less controversial approach: encouraging Japan and Australia to expand joint military exercises, enhance maritime surveillance, or simply boost defense spending without direct reference to China. By centering its request on Taiwan, the U.S. chose the approach least likely to elicit a positive response from its allies. The Trump administration's outreach to Japan and Australia appears to have resulted in diminished confidence in the U.S. and reduced credibility regarding Taiwan. The paradox is that the U.S. may still see incremental increases in both countries' defense budgets in the coming years—but driven by concern about the U.S., not concern about China.
New York Times
a few seconds ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Minimizes Summit Papers Left in Hotel
The Trump administration this weekend downplayed a report that officials left in a public area of a hotel documents describing the confidential movements of President Trump and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia during their meeting in Alaska on Friday. NPR reported earlier that the documents were left on a printer in the Hotel Captain Cook in downtown Anchorage, near Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, where Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin had their meeting about the war in Ukraine. The documents were produced by the Office of the Chief of Protocol, a position held by Monica Crowley, a former Fox News personality who served in Mr. Trump's first term. The papers were found around 9 a.m. on Friday and sent to NPR by a guest of the hotel, who was granted anonymity. They listed the sequence of events, which included a smaller meeting with Mr. Trump, Mr. Putin and their top foreign policy advisers; an expanded meeting and working lunch with several cabinet officials; a news conference; and an interview between Mr. Trump and Sean Hannity of Fox News. The documents also included a lunch menu for a three-course luncheon held 'in honor of his excellency Vladimir Putin.' Green salad, filet mignon, and halibut Olympia — a humble local favorite — were on the menu. But since the lengthy day of meetings was cut short on Friday, the expanded meeting and the working lunch were bypassed in favor of an abrupt news conference between the two leaders, who did not take questions. The White House and State Department have both derided the documents as a glorified lunch menu. 'Instead of covering the historic steps towards peace achieved at Friday's summit, NPR is trying to make a story out of a lunch menu. Ridiculous,' Tommy Pigott, a State Department spokesman, said in an email. The White House did not respond to a request for comment on Sunday, but NPR reported a day earlier that an administration spokeswoman had characterized the papers as a 'multipage lunch menu' and not a security breach. The papers included precise times and locations of each meeting, as well as the phone numbers of several administration officials. Eliot A. Cohen, a former counselor in the State Department who served in the Bush administration, said in an interview that the administration had been both 'sloppy' and 'incompetent' in leaving behind the materials. 'Above all, they don't have process,' said Mr. Cohen, who is now an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'A well-drilled bureaucracy doesn't do these things.' But he added that the materials did not seem high-level or reveal state or military secrets. 'My guess is the Russians already have everybody's phone numbers,' Mr. Cohen said.
CNN
a few seconds ago
- CNN
White House signals strong momentum toward peace in Ukraine but many questions linger
President Donald Trump's foreign envoy Steve Witkoff — one of three American participants in Friday's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin — described on Sunday several major agreements reached during the Alaska talks that he said created strong momentum toward a peace agreement with Ukraine. Witkoff told CNN that Putin had signed off on allowing 'robust' security guarantees as part of an eventual peace accord, including a provision that would provide for a collective defense of Ukraine by the United States and Europe should Russia attempt another invasion. 'We agreed to robust security guarantees that I would describe as game changing,' Witkoff told Jake Tapper on 'State of the Union,' adding the Russians had also pledged 'legislative enshrinement' of a promise not to invade Ukraine or another European country in any forthcoming peace plan. Neither provision has been mentioned in Russian accounts of the summit. Witkoff's public description of Friday's summit was the most fulsome yet of what was discussed for nearly three hours behind closed doors in Anchorage. Trump will meet Monday at the White House with Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky and several European leaders to discuss the matter in more detail. Still, many questions remained about how the US is assessing Putin's seriousness about reaching a deal, whether his promises can be trusted after a track record of violating previous peace agreements and what exactly Trump is willing to offer to ensure Ukraine isn't invaded again. Heading into Friday's meeting, Trump said he would be disappointed if a ceasefire wasn't reached and threatened 'severe' consequences on Russia if Putin didn't end the fighting. But as he departed, Trump said he was no longer aiming for an immediate ceasefire and declared 'we don't have to think' about sanctions after the talks. Witkoff said significant progress during the summit led Trump to abandon his push for an immediate ceasefire and instead work toward advancing a larger peace agreement. 'We made so much progress at this meeting with regard to all the other ingredients necessary for a for a peace deal that we, that President Trump, pivoted to that place,' Witkoff said. The other US participant in the talks, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, offered a more guarded assessment of how close a peace agreement may be. 'We made progress in the sense that we identified potential areas of agreement, but there remains some big areas of disagreement. So we're still a long ways off,' he said on ABC's 'This Week.' 'We're not at the precipice of a peace agreement, we're not at the edge of one, but I do think progress was made.' He said later on CBS' 'Face the Nation' that any agreement to end the war would cause disappointment on both sides. 'It may not be pleasant, it may be distasteful, but in order for there to be an end to the war, there are things that Russia wants that it cannot get and there are things that Ukraine wants that it's not going to get,' he said. The agreements Witkoff described will be at the center of meetings Monday between Trump and Zelensky. A large delegation of European officials — including the leaders of France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Finland, the European Union and NATO — will accompany the Ukrainian leader for the talks. European leaders have been pressing Trump to follow through on his threat of tough new economic penalties on Russia, but Rubio cautioned such steps could scuttle progress on a peace deal. 'The minute he takes those steps, all talks stop,' he said. 'The minute we take those steps, there is no one left in the world to go talk to the Russians and try to get them to the table to reach a peace agreement.' A breakout session during Monday's talks at the White House will explore options for security guarantees for Ukraine that would ensure Russia is unable to re-invade the country once a peace deal is in place. Zelensky and European leaders have said such assurances are necessary as part of a peace accord. Witkoff said the clause agreed to by Russia — akin to NATO's 'Article 5' agreement that an attack against one country is an attack against all — was a workaround for Russia's insistence Ukraine never be able to join NATO. He described it as the 'first time we had ever heard the Russians agree' to such a provision being included in a peace deal. What the United States would contribute to the effort — versus the the Europeans — remained unclear. Trump has previously stated clearly that American troops won't be on the ground in Ukraine, and has said the onus is on European nations to take the lead in protecting it. Some officials believe a robust security infrastructure for Ukraine could make it easier for Zelensky to accept some of Russia's demands for land concessions as part of a peace deal. Putin has not abandoned some of his maximalist ideas, including that Ukraine give up the entire eastern Donbas region, where Russia currently occupies large swaths of territory. But Witkoff said Putin did make some concessions on his land requirements, suggested the Russians now see 'land swapping' occurring at the current frontlines of the war rather than the administrative boundaries of at least some of the five regions long in Putin's sights. 'The Russians made some concessions at the table with regard to all five of those regions,' he said, adding the issue would be discussed with Zelensky on Monday and 'hopefully we can cut through and make some decisions right then and there.'
