Dear Sir,
Effective immediately and in perpetuity, I hereby officially rename the water in my toilet bowl Lake Trump.
William D. Ehrhart
Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania
William:
Well, that’s settled. Neatly done. We notice that you make no claim to exclusivity. Given the near-ubiquity of such facilities in separate and distinct real estate parcels all over the nation—and the world—we see no reason why others who may be so inclined should not emulate your exquisitely appropriate designation.
The Editor
–=≈=–
Shaheen is a Pragmatic Democrat
To the Editor:
Having run in and been elected to local and state offices we know the effort that is needed not just to be elected, but most of all getting things done. The 2026 elections are important because they can shift the majority in Washington to the Democratic side, so that Washington Republicans and President Trump can be held accountable for their betrayal of voters and their corrupting influence in our country.
But for Democrats, it is also important to elect more independent-minded Democrats to change the direction of the party before the 2028 elections. With the Democratic Party facing low favorability with the public, it is hard to argue for more of the status quo. Nationwide, Democratic candidates are succeeding who are closer to the voters and their issues, whether it is affordability, healthcare, opposition to wars and, of course, the blatant corruption o the Trump administration.
These are candidates who are not ideological but pragmatic. As former Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill, Jr., often said: “All politics is local.” Voters are looking for candidates who know their personal challenges and want to improve their lives regardless of official party line. We believe that Stefany Shaheen is such a candidate.
Stefany was born and grew up in New Hampshire. She has served in many roles both locally and in our state and has raised her children here. Yes, she also received good advice from her parents. But she is her own person, and does her own thinking and deciding, even when it is different from what her Democratic Party suggests. She is not part of the Democratic Party bureaucracy.
She has served as Portsmouth City Councilor, addressing the needs of local residents and connecting with our county and state when issues warranted it. On the Portsmouth Police Commission, with whom one of us served, she showed her independent thinking and toughness, leading the police department’s recovery from the Goodwin-Weber scam debacle and pushing back against intimidation by ICE. She also championed, together with her mother, demands that proper water testing at Pease Tradeport be performed by the Air Force to identify and remediate the PFAS ( forever chemicals) contamination there. Voters in our congressional district are best served by an independent thinking member of Congress who will stand up to the President’s many outrageous actions, while also helping to lead the Democratic Party back to its roots serving the voters and not the donors.
Buzz Scherr, Portsmouth State Representative and Chair, Portsmouth Police Commission; Peter Somssich, former Portsmouth Democratic Chair (2006-2010) and former Portsmouth State Representative
–=≈=–
Is Musk an Icon? If So, of What?
To the editor;
Societies tend to elevate a selected few as icons to be treated with respect and deference. Icons stand for the shared values, beliefs, and identity of a society. When embodied in a person, an icon or avatar represents someone not only to be admired but also to be emulated. Many European countries raise living members of royal families to these positions as embodiments of a past glorious history. America, however, has no history of royalty, and so must create its own equivalent. In keeping with its Capitalist tradition, wealthy industrialists or financiers are often raised to iconic status. Warren Buffet and Elon Musk are examples.
Warren Buffet may deserve iconic status, but Elon Musk does not. Musk may be admired by the MAGA crowd and has received effusive praise following the IPO of SpaceX that temporarily made him a trillionaire, but he does not embody the values of an egalitarian society. Musk, as well as many tech billionaires, espouses a technocratic ideology. Technocrats believe that all material progress is the result of the application of scientific and engineering principles. They assert that virtually any problem can be solved using these principles. Consequently, governance should rest only with scientists and engineers that have the expertise to solve society’s problems. Democratic governments with their conflicting spheres of influence, bureaucracies, and regulations interfere with efficient engineering processes and should be replaced with technocracies. This is Technofascism and is inconsistent with the values of liberal democracy. To elevate Musk as an icon is akin to placing a colony of termites in the foundation of a wood cabin.
There is a fundamental flaw with technocratic ideology. Technocrats assume that engineered solutions will improve general welfare. History, however, shows that technological innovation does not necessarily benefit all. A common outcome is that the returns from technological change are extracted by economic elites rather than shared by society at large. This was the case during the Gilded Age when the Robber Barons profited extravagantly from innovative industrial technologies while the working class was immiserated. It is also true today. As Musk flirts with trillionaire status and the owners of tech platforms such as Meta, Amazon, and Alphabet dot the top ten richest list, the bottom third percentile finds it difficult to meet day to day living expenses and struggle to buy a house, pay catastrophic medical bills or send a child to college. Only government regulation improved conditions for the working class during the Progressive Era. It is sorely needed now to regulate renegade Techno Barons.
The perfumed princes of the current tech revolution are not the innovative geniuses that their PR agents portray. The technology that built their platform monopolies is the result of a knowledge revolution that was built over decades, from the labor of thousands, often in government or university labs. The techno billionaires are the lottery winners whose exorbitant profits are due to the knowledge created by many. The internet itself is a government invention that became the vehicle for the creation of Meta, Alphabet, Amazon as well as Tesla and Microsoft. Regarding Musk, it is ironic that despite his criticisms of government, he has not been shy in accepting its support. SpaceX was a struggling upstart whose survival was questionable until NASA, seeking to outsource its space cargo transport services, selected SpaceX as the supplier of low orbit supply vehicles. NASA provided guaranteed contracts and technical support that ensured SpaceX’s survival. Tesla likewise benefited from government dollars to the tune of a $465 million loan that enabled the acquisition of a factory to produce its early vehicles. It is estimated that SpaceX and Tesla have received $38 billion through various government programs.
Finally, if more evidence is needed that wealth does not ensure wisdom, Musk’s erratic and inept attempt to downsize the U.S. government as head of DOGE will provide it. Despite boasting of saving trillions, he and his minions produced no new efficiencies while destroying the capabilities of many agencies to respond to emerging threats. His destruction of USAID likely resulted in the deaths of many who were denied needed medicine and food. We should be careful who we select for iconic status.
Robert D. Russell, PhD
Harrisburg, Pa.
–=≈=–
New Hampshire’s Deadbeat Government
To the Editor:
Do you wonder why your property taxes keep rising? Over the past few years, voters have heard the term “downshifting.” This word is only shorthand to explain the State of New Hampshire’s sloughing off its financial burdens to the counties, cities and towns, forcing property taxpayers to pay these obligations instead.
As an example, when the State wanted to have all municipalities switch to the state retirement system for school, fire, town and police personnel, the State promised to pay 35 percent of the cost in return. The municipalities did switch, and the State then proceeded to cut the amount it paid into the retirement system every few years, and now pays nothing. This is nothing short of “bait and switch.” As it did so, the State cut taxes for the wealthy citizens and businesses, so that the revenue would not be available to pay the State’s share. The obligation remains, however, and property taxpayers are now forced to pay, through local taxes, the financial share of the State
This is but one example of many, which include revenue sharing, adequacy grants, school construction costs, etc. It’s past time for voters to understand just why their property taxes are going up and to hold the State responsible for its fair share of these commitments.
Remember, your vote is your voice. Be sure you are registered to vote, and then vote!
Lorraine L. Hansen
Rollinsford, N.H.
–=≈=–
Republicans Want High Deficits
To the Editor:
Donald Trump has served as president for less than 6 years, yet he is responsible for creating almost $11 trillion in debt. Our nation’s debt is now $40 trillion and Trump is responsible for over 25 percent of that. Trump and his party promised that their tax cuts would create roaring economies which would balance the budget. That was as true as Trump’s claim that Mexico would pay for the border wall.
Republicans call themselves conservative. They are not. They deliberately cut taxes for the rich with the intention of creating deficits. They then use those deficits to say the country needs to cut programs for the poor and middle class. The so-called Big Beautiful Tax Bill gave most of the cuts to millionaires, billionaires and corporations while kicking kids off school lunch programs, people off Medicaid, and making health insurance so expensive that 3 million people could no longer afford insurance through the Affordable Care Act.
Debt during Trump’s remaining years as president will increase faster as he is asking congress to increase defense spending from $900 billion to $1,500 billion a year. Interest rates investors are demanding to buy our debt keeps rising. We are already paying $1 trillion a year in interest payments and Trump is adding $2+ trillion a year to the national debt.
The time has come to reverse those tax cuts for billionaires and corporations and restore programs for the poor and working class.
Walter Hamilton
Portsmouth N.H.
–=≈=–
Destroying U.S. Research
To the Editor:
As an American and former head of a scientific research group at a renowned institute of the Max-Planck Society in Germany, I have been following the attempted destruction of research institutions and overall academic science in the U.S. by this administration in total disbelief and deep anxiety.
Since World War II, the U.S. has invested large amounts of money in scientific research conducted at independent universities and federal agencies. This funding helped the U.S. to become the world’s leading scientific power and has led to a plethora of novel discoveries and the invention of numerous breakthrough technologies that have benefited the world. Moreover, the high standards of research in the U.S. have attracted thousands of the best and brightest foreign PhD students and postdoctoral fellows, and these highly motivated researchers have often played valuable roles in further advancing top quality research programs in numerous elite U.S. universities, particularly in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). The numerous executive orders by Trump to drastically slash research funding, and the appointments of several totally unqualified persons (Robert F. Kennedy Jr., just to name one) to head vital federal agencies, will surely have a long-term negative impact on the quality of U.S.-based science and education. Cuts in grant funding have already resulted in the abandonment of research projects, the layoff of valuable staff and a halt to new graduate student admissions. Thousands of scientists in the U.S. have already lost their jobs or grants.
Science is an international endeavor and other countries are increasing their efforts to attract talent. Australia, Canada, the E.U., France, the Netherlands and the U.K. have already launched programs to draw researchers from the States. Switzerland, Germany, and Denmark are also actively recruiting. Thus, the United States’ diminishing appeal may result in a “brain drain” that could strongly affect its innovative edge in basic and applied research and in the medical sciences. This could have detrimental effects when it comes to the subsequent development of, i.e., effective new medications, novel medical treatments and various technological innovations, thereby severely affecting the future health of all Americans.
If this continues, I predict that within the next 5 to 10 years the U.S. will lose its competitive edge and will no longer be viewed as the prime destination for the most talented young scientists from around the world.
Equally horrifying to me is the shameful dragging of Dr. Anthony Fauci in front of a Senate ‘Inquisition’ committee for apparent wrong doings. Dr. Fauci is regarded by scientists world-wide as one of the top experts in virology/immunology, and whose actions over several decades as head of the NIH have helped save the lives of millions across the globe. Incompetent conspiracy theorists now seem to directly aim at highly regarded scientific leaders in order to undermine science policies that have proven so successful in the past. U.S. politicians must wake up and take action before this administration and its stooges totally destroy fact-based science and education.
Dr. Imre E. Somssich
Cologne, Germany
–=≈=–
Berliont: A Standout
To the editor,
Carleigh Beriont is a stand-out candidate for N.H. District 1 in Congress.
I recently attended a debate between the candidates. I came to the forum as a concerned citizen at a time of governmental dysfunction and when our world feels upside-down everywhere.
Carleigh Beriont was seated among the other candidates, but it quickly became clear when the microphone was handed to her, that something special was in the offing. Stepping forward, her intent gaze fully embraced the audience. Speaking briskly, but with clarity and distinction, her answers went straight to the heart of the question—not with platitudes and statistics, but of issues shaping our daily lives as people seeking dignity and respect. The topics varied:
• On the need for a new immigration policy, not faceless armed men roaming our city streets spreading anxiety and fear.
• On childcare and the need to help young parents whose childcare expenses rise to the level of a second mortgage, making it difficult for even two working parents to pay the monthly bills.
• On healthcare, where doctors are trapped in a web of insurance bureaucracy and patients are asked their d.o.b. again and again, wondering whether they can afford care if they truly fall ill.
With her thoughtful intelligence and articulation, Carleigh’s messages resonated within the room, often with a resounding applause of approval. Her extra-wide smile acknowledged the moment with grace and humility. It is eminently clear, even within a body of 435 representatives, Carleigh would shine.
Sheldon Perry
Rochester, N.H.
–=≈=–
Women’s Stake in the Upcoming Elections
To the Editor:
As both parties fight for supporters in the upcoming primaries and mid-terms, it seems to me the concerns of one important constituency are being mostly ignored: that of women.
I would argue that, by its actions, the current administration has effectively set women’s causes back years. The frequent debasement of women reporters in presidential press conferences, the ugly smears about their appearance and “nasty” behavior show how little respect this president has for women. Many of the president’s appointees show the same attitude. Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, for example, has obviously targeted women, (and black) military officers in unexplained purges and denials for promotion. To add further insult, Pete Hegseth is a member of an Idaho based religious sect that believes a woman’s place is in the home, and questions whether they should even be allowed to vote!
Even more concerning, the “anti-DEI” and “anti-Affirmative Action” stance of this administration places a bullseye on the backs of women, as well as people of color. The clear message is that most women in positions of authority would never be there without the aid of DEI and Affirmative Action programs. Obviously, the administration’s belief is, based on merit, men (white men) should hold these positions.
Based on the actions of this administration, it’s hard for me to understand how any woman could cast a vote for any member of a party that so disrespects and denigrates women.
Cynthia Muse
Rye, N.H.
–=≈=–
Maura Will Fight for the People
To the Editor:
In just a couple weeks, voters across New Hampshire’s First Congressional District will be heading to the polls for the September primary elections. As a student, I have seen firsthand how bad representation at the state and federal levels affects the everyday lives of people right here in New Hampshire, and that is why I support Maura Sullivan for Congress. Just this year, my school district needed to end the contracts of over a dozen teachers due to inadequate funding and rising healthcare costs. I see seniors in my town struggling every day to get by due to rising costs and higher property tax bills. I see my grandmother, who has diabetes, not able to afford her insulin and medication that is vital to her health. We need to elect candidates who will tackle these issues, not play political games and follow party lines. I trust Maura to fight for better and more affordable healthcare, lower costs, and for the people, not profit.
In a short time, many of my peers and I will be heading to college, needing to buy a home, have the funds for groceries, utilities, and everyday life expenses. Right now, I have concerns about how I will do these things because too many members of Congress care more about the wealthy and well-connected than working- and middle-class families.
Maura Sullivan knows and has faced these issues. She worked her way through college on an ROTC scholarship. She served our country in uniform and deployed overseas, and she worked under President Obama to help veterans and expand healthcare access. Maura will fight for the people of New Hampshire, not billionaires and big corporations. I know that Maura Sullivan is the candidate we can trust to bring a new generation of leadership and actually get things done for the people. I hope you will vote for Maura on September 8th.
Anthony Pelletier
Merrimack, N.H.
–=≈=–
Urrutia—Dedicated to Accountability
To the Editor:
We’re about to vote in the N.H.1 congressional primary, while living through a profound crisis that threatens democracy in our country. According to historian Heather Cox Richardson, this crisis is more severe because the Supreme Court is helping the president accrue ever more power, while Congress, controlled by the Republican majority, refuses to rein in the president. In a time when our constitutional checks and balances are gone, how do we figure out which N.H.1 candidate best meets this perilous moment?
What this constitutional crisis requires—most of all—is accountability. We cannot move on to rebuild our democracy until the lawbreakers—from the president to cabinet secretaries on down—are held accountable for their crimes and corruption.
Only one candidate has made accountability the center of his campaign—Christian Urrutia. An attorney with a Master’s in International Relations, Urrutia has practiced international and human rights law, and was Special Counsel in Biden’s Pentagon, working on compliance with the Geneva Conventions and support for Ukraine in its fight for freedom. He joined the N.H. Army National Guard in his 30’s because he believes in public service, and has become the trial defense attorney for N.H. Army National Guard.
Urrutia is dedicated to accountability. He says our freedoms “erode when corruption is excused, when power goes unexamined, and when the law is bent to serve the powerful … Congress must act.” He has the moral courage to act, and I’ll be voting for him on Sept. 8th.
Chuck Hotchkiss
Durham, N.H.
–=≈=–
“More of the Same Won’t Fix This”
To the Editor:
Carleigh Beriont is a union organizer, teacher, local elected leader and mom of two who has spent her life strengthening communities and fighting for working families.
My husband and I hosted the first of several coffees in our garden with Carleigh for our friends and neighbors over a year ago. The thing we love best about Carleigh? She listens. At house parties she asks—what are some things that you wish politicians understood about you and what keeps you up at night. Then she pulls out her clipboard, listens and takes notes.
New Hampshire and this country do not need another legacy candidate. We don’t need another big money candidate beholden to corporate donors. That’s what we mean when we say “More of the Same Won’t Fix This.”
What we need is someone like Carleigh, someone who will represent working families and retirees. If you’re looking for a candidate who has real experience in governance, policy solutions and answers to all the problems facing our country, Carleigh Beriont is that person. Please go to her website for more information.
Ginger Hankins
Wolfeboro, N.H.
–=≈=–
Beriont and Medicare for All
Dear Editor,
We are supporting Carleigh Beriont for Congress. We applaud Carleigh’s initiative to support Medicare for All. We need a single payer system that provides healthcare for all. We believe that every individual deserves high quality healthcare. Carleigh is intelligent, hard working and honest. She has demonstrated her ability to reach consensus among the Hampton Select Board that she chairs. We need someone like Carleigh in Washington to represent us with integrity and compassion.
Henry and Suzanne Sonneborn
Rye, N.H.
–=≈=–
Christian Urrutia: An FDR Progressive
To the Editor:
You’d think that any politician worth a vote would fight to ensure that people in need have safety nets. That’s what the 1930s New Deal agenda delivered, in Social Security, pro-labor law, and finally Medicare (in the 60s), providing a foundation for our people and economy to thrive during post-WWII decades. That’s a “progressive” agenda. It was mainstream for half a century. Why is this label seen as radical?
Christian Urrutia, N.H.1 candidate for Congress, doesn’t care about labels. As he said in a WMUR interview, “I’m all for fixing people’s problems.” A plain-vanilla “progressive” platform is based on common sense and decency. It’s what we want for every American, regardless of the luck they were born into. Because luck is unevenly distributed, ensuring basic rights and opportunities gives individuals who work hard the chance to grow into their potential.
To get there, we must hold accountable those who have attacked and destroyed our fundamental democratic institutions. Urritia understands that most of the problems facing us are complex and won’t be solved overnight. He’s passionate about the issues, but reason rules his arguments. He’ll stand up for us in Congress. He has the chops to do so. He’s shown courage as a military member, a JAG defense attorney, and a legal defender of human rights. Let’s put that courage to work to shape an America that will benefit us all. He’s got our vote on September 8.
Dan and Kathy Bean
Durham N.H.
–=≈=–
A Mash Note
Dear Editor –
Your paper is still the Beacon of Light in such a dark world….
I still send them to my sister in the North Country of N.H. to pass them on.
Bill A.
Higganum, Conn.
Dear Bill:
We spend so much time mocking and deriding our “betters” that we often find it hard to take ourselves seriously. Speaking very deliberately here, for all of us who collaborate on this project, it is tremendously gratifying to hear that what we do has value and meaning for you. Thank you.
The Editor