Dear Yo-Yo’s [sic]:
I just thought I’d write you to check if you are aware that to reproduce a magazine cover w/o that magazine’s permission is illegal, and that if, on top of everything else, that cover is a BOGUS one you are REALLY in trouble?
Sincerely,
Mr. Bernardo Figuerado
Gonic, N.H.
Dear Mr. Bernardo:
Once again we are overcome with gratitude: the Bard of Gonic deigns to enlighten us once again. It’s an honor and a thrill. Unfortunately our joy is tainted by the necessity of informing you that you are once—no, make that twice—again wrong.
The First Amendment gives us the right to free speech in general. Furthermore, 17 U.S.C. § 107 gives us the right to “fair use” of copyrighted material “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting… is not an infringement of copyright.”
You are right about one thing, though. We are, in fact, “REALLY in trouble.” Like Ahab lashed to the mast of the Pequod, our fate is indivisible from the nation’s—and one need only read the headlines to see how dire that is. Spoiler alert: Ahab drowned.
We have high hopes, though, that the sources of our troubles may, beginning as soon as this November, find themselves on their way to disempowerment and eventual comeuppance.
The Editor
–=≈=–
Annual Car Inspections?
To the Editor:
The purpose of our N.H. car inspection system is safety—it is not a question of whether we should have an inspection system, but what kind of inspection system. It needs updating, not tossing out. I believe the newly proposed system includes a three-year grace period for new cars where no inspections are necessary. Sounds very reasonable. Other such changes should be discussed.
An inspection that checks the wheels, steering, ability to brake, lights, car fluids—seems vital. I’m sure there are other things a competent mechanic could add to the list. We do not want cars out there that can’t stop or can’t see you or otherwise put others in danger from problems that a safety inspection could have foreseen.
If some kind of compromise is needed, let’s go the route of improving the system, not dumping it. I’d rather we didn’t live in the unsafe clunker capital of the U.S.
Michael Frandzel
Portsmouth, N.H.
Michael:
You’ll get no argument from us. You left out the emissions test, though. Considering the ongoing crusade to encourage environmental degradation in pursuit of looney libertarian ideals, we can’t help but wonder if dropping that may have been the real goal behind this move. Cynical? Ask Lily Tomlin’s writer, Jane Wagner: “No matter how cynical you become, it’s never enough to keep up.”
The Editor
–=≈=–
Guns on Campus, Then and Now
Dear Editor:
By now, most of your readers are aware of N.H. House Bill 1793 “prohibiting public colleges and universities from regulating the possession and carrying of firearms and non-lethal weapons on campus” in the Granite State.
It should be no surprise that some UNH and local officials have opposed this bill, but let’s look back to 1969 when I represented the UNH English Department on the faculty senate and was a member of that slumbering body’s faculty welfare committee.
Other than my lonely voice, that committee, and the rest of the faculty senate, had no objection to allowing the campus police from being armed with free war surplus M1 rifles, the standard combat rifle of the U.S. military in WWII and the Korean War.
Knowing the hostility of some campus police officers toward students opposed to the war in Vietnam, I objected to arming them with semi-automatic weapons that could fire eight rounds as fast as the trigger could be pulled for each round.
After I spoke to this issue at a campus rally, Mildred McAfee Horton, the president of the UNH board of trustees, summoned me to a meeting with John McConnell, the UNH president, to explain that those weapons were needed if UNH students opposed to the war in Vietnam tried to occupy Thompson Hall.
A year later, after M1s were used to kill and maim students at Kent State by poorly trained National Guardsmen, John McConnell apologized and admitted I was right to oppose arming the campus police with combat weapons.
Now let me travel back to 1952 when I joined the Junior ROTC at West Phoenix High School. We drilled with M1 rifles that had firing pins, but none of us thought to bring live rounds to campus in order to shoot our fellow students or teachers.
For four years, like some other cadets, I often walked or biked across campus with my own .22 caliber rifle in plain view to use the ROTC rifle range below the stadium in order to earn more NRA marksmanship medals. No one objected or felt threatened.
And some days, I brought my .22 target pistol to the range in my book bag.
The day I turned seventeen, I joined the Arizona National Guard, which allowed me to purchase an M1 rifle from the government, something not then available to most citizens not in the armed services or reserves.
That was then, this is now. We know private firearms need to be kept off all campuses.
Julian Smith
Durham, N.H.
Julian:
A minor quibble: you didn’t actually have to join the Guard to get a murder machine from the gummint—and you still don’t.
In 1903, about the time the U.S. Army adopted the bolt-action, .30-06 Springfield as its standard service rifle, Congress started a program for civilian marksmanship training. After WWI, vast numbers of war surplus Springfields were made available to the public through the 501(c)3 non-profit Civilian Marksmanship Program.
Civilians could just pay their dues to the CMP, get a little training, and cough up the dough. The Springfields are probably all gone by now—we used to have one, back in our mis-spent youth.
Post WWII, Garands became the hot item. Incredibly enough, this program is still in effect. Garands cost anywhere from $900 to $1,900, depending on condition and availability. Of course, since the M-16 became “America’s Rifle™”, only the most retro gun nuts want a clunky old ten-pound Garand.
The Editor
–=≈=–
When Truth Dies, Democracy Follows
To the Editor:
Jack Smith, the former special counsel who oversaw the investigation into President Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election, recently testified publicly for the first time before the House Judiciary Committee.
Committee member Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) warned: “Mr. Smith… Republicans are trying to rewrite history. … Perhaps the Chairman could muster the courage to call the four witnesses who I see… standing behind you, Mr. Smith. The four police officers who risked everything, life and limb… to protect the Republican members on the dais.”
Former D.C. police officer Michael Fanone was one of those protectors present in the hearing room. On January 6, 2021, Daniel Rodriguez repeatedly drove a stun gun into Fanone’s skull, causing him to lose consciousness and suffer a heart attack. Rodriguez was sentenced to over 12 years in prison. The judge called him “a one-man army of hate.”
After issuing his blanket pardon of Rodriguez and his fellow cop-beaters, President Trump claimed these violent felons did not attack anyone, and that, in fact, they were the ones who had been attacked. He further stated that pardoning them was “a great thing for humanity.”
Timothy Snyder, author of On Tyranny, argues that democracy cannot exist without history because it depends on citizens who can recognize patterns from the past, accept responsibility for what their nation has done, and choose better paths for the future.
Today, we are watching the Trump administration distort the facts surrounding the fatal shootings of Minneapolis residents Renée Good and Alex Pretti by ICE and U.S. Border Patrol agents. This revisionism isn’t just cynical—it’s dangerous. When politicians deny what happened in plain sight, they erode the public’s ability to tell truth from propaganda.
And when the truth is lost, so is our capacity to hold power to account.
Terry Hansen
Grafton, Wisc.
Terry:
This country has always had a two-tiered justice system. For evidence of this, one need look no further than the term, “white collar crime.”
Boost food from a store because you’re starving and you could end up on a path to the penitentiary.
The secret to a successful criminal career in the U.S. of A. has always been, “Think Big.” If you’re an entry-level crook, start by looting a Savings & Loan—but wait… . Belay that, that entire category of worthy and useful financial institutions is but a historical footnote, thanks to a bunch of bums back in the 80’s, few of whom ever did any time. Still, the principle holds. Always steal at least enough to afford better legal talent than the citizenry—which, let’s remember, is almost sure to be your eventual victim—has on its side.
While it is not yet as picturesque as the one onscreen in “Les Miserables,” our system of justice for the rich and injustice for the poor may be getting competitive, thanks to the inception of a third tier: those who are politically exempt from prosecution.
At the top, of course, is the Supreme Court’s Golden Boy—or Golden Calf—uniquely empowered to pre-emptively exonerate the worst criminals one might imagine. Eat your heart out, Victor Hugo.
The Editor
–=≈=–
It’s a Fair Comparison
To the editor;
During Trump’s first term some liberal pundits recommended that his critics avoid comparing him to Hitler or calling his supporters Nazis. They claimed that doing so would be inflammatory and divisive, making dialogue more difficult. The dialogue never came and now in his second term, the actions of Trump and his MAGA allies have made comparisons to Nazi fascists all too relevant. The recent activities of ICE in Minnesota serve as an example.
The ostensible reason for ICE’s presence in Minnesota is to enforce Trump’s immigration policy and apprehend dangerous illegal immigrants. ICE, however, has acted more like an occupying army than a police force. Their alleged “targeted enforcement” has randomly snatched brown-skinned individuals off the street including housewives, teenagers, and toddlers, denying due process even when their victims are American citizens. ICE agents have violently entered homes without judicial warrants in clear violation of the Constitution. ICE has persistently ignored judicial orders restricting their activities, giving a clear signal that they consider themselves above the law. When their belligerent and brutal enforcement has been opposed by ordinary citizens pursuing their first amendment rights to protest, ICE agents have reacted aggressively, throwing many to the ground, using pepper spray and tear gas at close range, and firing non-lethal weapons at non-threatening protestors. Citizen observers have been dragged out of their cars and threatened with arrest. ICE officials have demonized demonstrators, describing them as “domestic terrorists” without cause or evidence. Their overly militant responses have resulted in the needless deaths of two protesters. When trying to justify the shootings, Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino complained that calling agents names such as the “Gestapo” created a hostile atmosphere that induces violence. Bovino, however, has conflated cause and effect.
ICE tactics are reminiscent of Hitler’s use of the S.A. (Sturmabteilung) and Gestapo in Weimar Germany. The S.A. was a paramilitary force used by the Nazi Party to engage in violent confrontations with political and other internal opponents. In 1933, after Hitler became Chancellor, it was incorporated into the Weimar government, but its purpose stayed the same—to instigate conflict and chaos with perceived enemies who could be portrayed as existential enemies to public order. After S.A. leadership fell out of favor with Hitler, the S.A. was replaced by the Gestapo, a subsidiary of the S.S. (Schutzstaffel). The Gestapo’s purpose was to remove legal and social guardrails that safeguarded free expression and political opposition. After the suspension of civil liberties in 1933, they began the process of dismantling opposing political parties as well as any other source of dissent. Hitler used the Gestapo to bypass the legal system using tactics such as arresting those found innocent in court and sending them to concentration camps (sound familiar?). They arrested perceived enemies without warrants or judicial review. Hitler did not use the S.A. and Gestapo to enforce legitimately constituted laws. They existed solely to enforce his will and eliminate resistance to his ascension to power. ICE serves a similar purpose for Trump as indicated by his disdain for due process, civil rights and judicial constraint. The idea that ICE is being used as an instrument to implement an immigration policy designed to deport the “worst of the worst” is propaganda for his MAGA minions. ICE is a coercive instrument of Trump’s will, to be used as an instrument of coercion and retribution on political enemies. ICE has been used primarily in states with Democratic governors who have been demonized by Trump and MAGA sycophants as “radical leftists” and supporters of domestic terrorism. Thus, Minnesota Governor Waltz and Minneapolis Mayor Frey are threatened with a DOJ investigation, accused of impeding ICE investigations and instigating violence. Meanwhile, Republican states Texas and Florida which have vastly more undocumented immigrants have escaped ICE campaigns. The ultimate purpose of ICE tactics is not just to enforce immigration law; it is to instill fear and sow chaos to discredit Democratic leadership and set up a pretext for a Trumpian takeover. Billions of dollars have been lavished on ICE in this year’s budget, apparently with the purpose of establishing a private army for Trump. We are on the road toward authoritarian rule. The time to stop it is now.
Robert D. Russell. PhD
Harrisburg, Pa.
Robert:
“The time to stop it is now.” Couldn’t agree more. And who’s to do the stopping? In this instance, the buck seems to stop at the bottom. We do it, somehow. We are, most of us, good people. Together, we have a vast reservoir of power to resist. They can’t arrest us all.
The Editor
–=≈=–
The Rule of Law Matters
Dear Editor:
Out with the old, in with the new: time for reflection, perhaps resolve, certainly time to separate fact from fiction, truth from lies. Lord Chesterfield: “Lies and perfidy are the refuge of fools and cowards.”
A rather jarring beginning to 2026, watching innocent citizens murdered on the streets of their own city by masked thugs vaguely resembling police officers, under the ultimate direction of the President of the United States, whose chief duty it is to protect the Constitution and enforce the laws made by Congress, an obligation he is under oath to perform.
It seems those Americans receiving the brunt of the fault for the chaos and turmoil occurring in America are (unjustifiably) Blue State governors, mayors and citizens.
Reflecting on the last election, it was not Left-leaning voters who supported the president who incited an armed mob to attack our Capitol, kill and injure its defenders with the clear intent to overturn an election he knew he’d lost, thus preventing the peaceful transfer of power.
Neither did the Left support the president who stole highly classified documents (knowledge of which could cause grave harm to our nation), and then refuse to return them.
Nor did the Left promote the president who pardoned more than 1,500 insurrectionists whose actions on January 6th led to deaths or injury to scores of defenders of the Capitol, protecting the Vice President, and Congress.
Nor does the Left champion a president who brags about assaulting women and was, in fact, found civilly liable of sexual abuse and defamation.
No, it’s the Right, and it’s this president, in collusion with the Supreme Court and Republicans in Congress who are responsible for chaos, unrest and national turmoil, including the cold-blooded murder of innocent American citizens exercising their constitutional right (perhaps duty) to resist tyranny.
Neither are news organizations obliged to print letters that express opinions put forward as “evidence,” notions that have been proven false time and time again.
A writer may opine the political Left is responsible for all the chaos and disorder in America, that’s his right, but printing fabrications dressed up as truth is a venture credible journalists should try to avoid.
Trump’s Administration claims to enforce our laws but, as countless writers have observed, what Trump alleges is not law enforcement, it’s authoritarianism wrapped in a flag, shielded by lies and enabled by everyone who supports Trump or remains silent.
Trump continually violates the Constitution and disregards checks and balances (without which) transparency and accountability are lost. Exhibiting nothing but contempt for the rule of law, the Trump Administration is the political and moral equivalent of a crime family that lies to cover up its malfeasance.
As made unquestionably plain by the English philosopher, John Locke, in 1689, “Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins.” By granting Donald Trump immunity for his many crimes (placing him above the law), the Roberts Court (with the approval of the Republican Congress) opened the door to tyranny. Donald Trump had simply to walk through it.
David L.Snell
Franklin, N.C.
David:
Dire, but accurate. Nothing more needs to be said.
The Editor
–=≈=–
Taxing Bicycles And My Patience
To the editors:
A bill, HB1703, currently pending in the New Hampshire House would impose a $50 annual registration fee on every bicycle, including e-bikes. HB1703 is bad for N.H. and its residents.
HB1703 would generate revenue by taxing residents and visitors who bicycle in N.H. It does not project the amount of revenue it would raise, does not protect the collected funds so that they would only be used for “bicycling infrastructure,” and, tellingly, does not even begin to define what “bicycling infrastructure” is.
HB1703 would discourage cycling in N.H. for residents who look to find healthy ways to exercise. HB1703 would discourage tourism that focuses on bicycling. HB1703 would put an undue burden on residents who rely on bicycles as their primary transportation. HB1703 would hit families who bicycle with undue taxes, as each bike the family owns would be taxed—four bikes = $200 each year. HB1703 would especially hurt those residents who have no means of even knowing that they are supposed to pay a $50 tax to retain their right to bicycle in N.H., and when caught in non-compliance, would tax them even further—$150: $100 fine plus the $50 registration tax.
HB1703 is clearly legislation designed to merely raise revenue that will end up in the general fund, and may then be used to fund tax breaks for big corporations, and not funding public education as the N.H. Constitution requires.
What sort of person would propose such a disgusting piece of legislation for New Hampshire and its residents, and how did such a person ever get elected to the N.H. House?
I strongly oppose HB1703 for all the above reasons, and I hope HB1703 never sees its way to a vote in the legislature.
Paul Cully
Dover, N.H.
Paul:
We share your disgust. This proposed legislation plumbs new depths of gratuitous stupidity. Doing the wrong thing, for the wrong reason—or for no reason at all—at the expense of people doing the right thing. It’s the N.H. GOP’s “New Hampshire Advantage” in action: give to the haves, take from the have-nots.
The Editor
–=≈=–
N.H. House Committee to Citizens: “We’re Not Listening”
To the Editor:
On January 29 2026, members of the N.H. House Legislative Administration Committee voted to suppress the voices of N.H. citizens by finding HB 1114, regarding documentation and preservation of public comments, “Inexpedient to Legislate.” Thank you to the three members of the Committee who supported the bill.
There were 501 comments posted online in support of the bill, one opposed, one neutral. Six N.H. legislators testified in favor of the bill, including five Democrats and one Republican. There was no in-person or written testimony in opposition to the bill presented at the public hearing. Concerns expressed by opposed committee members at the Executive Session were trivial and inconsequential, and could have been easily resolved by minor amendments.
Many of the people who posted online support for HB 1114 told compelling stories of demanding work schedules, disabilities, age related challenges, family caregiver responsibilities, and other issues that prevented them from traveling to Concord to testify on a bill. They stated that remote, online testimony is the only realistic option that they have to participate in the legislative process. The members of the Committee who voted to kill this bill have made it perfectly clear that they don’t give a damn about these citizens.
This is discriminatory and it is a violation of the sacred constitutional right of N.H. citizens to participate in the legislative process. The lawmakers who voted against this bill will be held accountable. November is just 10 months away.
Jean Slepian
Stoddard N.H.
Jean:
This, from a committee controlled by the party that’s always complaining about being governed by some snooty “elite.”
The Editor
–=≈=–
“Paging Doctor Mengele…”
Dear Editor:
In another striking assault on public health, Dr. Kirk Milhoan, the new head of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) who was recently appointed by Secretary RFK, Jr. has recommended that both measles and polio vaccines be voluntary and not required for children to attend school.
Dr. Milhoan, a pediatrician, stated that the risk of polio is not the same as in previous years because our sanitation is improved, and that should be considered against the risk of taking the vaccine. Sorry, Doctor, but we already know the risks. The risks of getting a serious complication from the polio vaccine are miniscule compared to the consequences of potentially contracting polio.
Among people who contract polio, the risk of developing the paralytic form ranges between 1 in 200 cases, to 1 in 3,000 cases, depending on the virus type. The risk of a serious reaction from the Oral Polio Vaccine is 1 in 2.4 million. From the Inactivated vaccine, the risk is 1 in one million. (Philadelphia Children’s Hospital).
Dr. Milhoan also suggested that deaths from the current measles outbreaks, “would be helpful for understanding disease risk.” He stated, “What we’re going to have is a real-world experience of when unvaccinated people get measles. What is the new incidence of hospitalization? What’s the incidence of death?”
This is akin to proposing a biological experiment on children to see how many unvaccinated children need hospitalization and how many will die. Unfortunately, we do not need this type of unethical and immoral experimentation on children to know how many will die or need hospitalization. We have enough data from those years before we had the vaccine to completely understand the horror.
Unfortunately, this is not the only unethical child experiment planned by Mr. Kennedy. He has proposed a study in the poor West African nation of Guinea-Bissau to test his own Hepatitis B theories. The study would divide 14,000 newborns into two groups. Half would receive the Hepatitis B vaccine at birth as recommended, the other half at six weeks. They would then study the rate of Hepatitis B in the two groups. (Scientific American, January 15, 2026.) Such a study would never be permitted in the U.S. because of the enormous ethical and moral violations. They want to use children as guinea pigs to test their theories regarding vaccines.These sick proposals by Mr. Kennedy and Dr. Milhoan remind me of the shameful Tuskegee syphilis study many years ago.
Rich DiPentima, RN, MPH
Portsmouth, N.H.
Rich:
We suppose we should be grateful, one year into Trump 2.0, that we’re still able to feel outraged.
The Editor
–=≈=–
The Cell Phone as a Defensive Weapon
To the Editor:
Minneapolis residents Renée Good and Alex Pretti were fatally shot by ICE and U.S. Border Patrol agents. President Donald Trump called Pretti an “agitator and, perhaps, insurrectionist.” Without evidence, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller labeled him a “domestic terrorist” and a “would-be assassin.”
Notably, a frame-by-frame analysis by CNN shows that shots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were all fired while Pretti lay incapacitated on his back.
George Orwell, author of the dystopian novel 1984, observed that “atrocities are believed in or disbelieved in solely on grounds of political predilection. Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence.”
In fact, Trump’s Department of Justice filed a motion challenging a judge’s order that barred the destruction of evidence in the Pretti case.
I strongly encourage watching the 2025 documentary “2+2=5.” The film explores Orwell’s life and applies his ideas to recent events like actions by the Trump administration, Gaza, immigration, and the treatment of the Rohingya in Myanmar. His insights are timeless.
It’s crucial to recognize that selective memories of aggression have long been used to justify state violence. We owe a debt of thanks to those who document, protest, and refuse to look away. Without them, the truth of what happened to Alex Pretti and Renée Good might never have come to light.
Terry Hansen
Grafton, Wisc.
Terry:
It may be that, come January of 2027, we non-members of the Cult of Trump may finally get a little help from the U.S. Congress in the struggle to save this country.
We’d be fools to wait around for that, though. And if we have any hope of ever seeing that help arrive, we’re going to have to fight like hell from now through Election Day.
Orwell wrote, “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” Geting someone to believe it takes a cell phone.
The Editor