I received a mailing today from the Independent and Unendorsed Democrat Candidates today and I got this sick feeling that people might actually vote for a platform of the following:

1) No Sewers
2) Initiate the Wastewater Management District, which offeres education, tracks maintenance schedules ahd helps obtain low interests (yep interests) loans to eligible citizens in need of updated septic systems
3) Restore "Rainy Day" Fund
4) Protect our Citizens and our Small Businesses
5) Advocate for and ensure East and West Main Road safety
6) Restore Open, Honest, and Respectful Government

Point one is certainly a point of contention where there is no easy answer. Sewers would undoubtedly be expensive, possibly disproportionately so to the part of town that received them, and could make parcels of land previously un-buildable available for development. From the Projo:

The state Department of Environmental Management has said that sewers at the north end of town are the only approach guaranteed to correct pollution in surrounding waters over the long term.

So the question that no one seems to be able to address is whether the individual homeowner or the town is accountable to the DEM and the State, and what the penalties will be to either party if the problem is not rectified? It is a fine idea to encourage people to replace their antiquated waste disposal systems, even provide low cost loans for it. I guess it is not clear from this tax payers point of view whether a slow incremental fix will sufficiently solve the problem before any kinds of penalties kick in. We have heard that "do nothing" is not an option; but "do nothing" is what we continue to do because we don't have clear consequences. Does anyone know the consequences? (aside from the fact that it is probably not the best idea to eat shell fish from or swim in the waters on the North End of Portsmouth?) "No Sewers" sounds like McCain "I'm not going to raise your taxes!" Situations change with more information.

Rainy Day Fund. Where do you start? Rainy day fund depleted to cover operational expenses after the "Tent Meeting" indiscriminately reduced the town side budget? (What does endorsed by the PCC mean to you?) It clearly is an import issue when seeking funding for projects through bond issue. As we look to develop and maybe even move forward on a Town Center or West Side Plan, there will be a need for funding and the cheaper it is to borrow the better it will be for the taxpayer. So how exactly would this be done and where would the operational budget be cut to divert funding to the reserve? Those details don't have to be presented in a flyer.

Bullets four and six seem to imply that our current town government doesn't protect our citizens or small businesses. They also talk about restoring Open, Honest, and Respectful Government implying that it is not currently so. One current Councilwoman's voter card goes as far as to say "STOP ALL BACKROOM DEALS". If there are backroom deals being made will you please name names and provide evidence? Let's see them in a letter to the editor of the Projo, NDN or ST, one by one, if they exist. That would be sure fire way to get rid of the incumbents, wouldn't it?

In this election the electorate needs to know how candidates would govern, why they would govern that way, and how they would manage the business of the people of Portsmouth. Local does matter and we need to do more than just check the box of the part we are affiliated with or vote because we identified with a single issue on a flyer.

This mailing is hitting my shredder without further consideration as I hope it will yours. I'm sure that John will ask the questions of who paid for this advocacy that originated from Ms. Staven's address. Shouldn't that be a footnote on the letter to voters?

Portsmouth Sailor

Interesting post, John. Just a couple of observations:
I'm somewhat troubled by the quote you chose from John Walcott's recent speech:
"Does the truth lie halfway between say, slavery and abolition, or between segregation and civil rights, or between communism and democracy?"
I'm troubled because this question doesn't really make sense. It employs the use of a type of mental shorthand that's far too common in writing and speechmaking. Slavery exists... that's the truth. Is slavery morally wrong? I certainly think so, but that wasn't the question, was it? Things get cloudier still in the next phrase. Better to ask if segregation is less moral or desirable than integration... civil rights is much too broad a term. Then we go from cloudy to positively muddy in the last phrase, where the term communism is used as the opposite of democracy, when a better opposite would probably be fascism... and there's still no real question here, because the word "truth" has been substituted for the word "morality" in framing it. The two terms are not interchangeable.
Words matter. They have specific meanings, and to use them haphazardly or incorrectly does not strengthen the argument that truth "is not subjective."
I think it's high time for the study of semantics to become part of every child's education. When people truly understand what they read and what they hear, society as a whole will be a lot less gullible than it is today. For those of us who already deserted the halls of academia, I believe that a semantics primer should be on everybody's reading list. I recommend "The Tyranny of Words" by Stuart Chase. It was originally published in 1938, but you can still get it on Amazon. It's a wonderful introduction to semantics, entertaining and a little disturbing, too.
Now, as to the criticism of your journalistic integrity - whatever THAT term means - I read your blog on a semi-regular basis because you write about local politics, and you attend meetings that I cannot or will not attend. While I don't necessarily agree with your point of view, I think you make an earnest effort to record some of what happens at these meetings. That said, I don't think you strengthen your street cred when you do the namecalling thing: the "tailgunner Gleason" and now the "fail Mary" moniker. Whatever my opinion of these women might be, I think that in some sense these references say less about them than they do about their creator.