Last modified: Sunday, June 10, 2007 12:11 AM EDT Editorials: Norton voters should stand against override; Entire pit bull breed should be exterminated; What of Scowcrofts? Cousin wants to know; Tell lawmakers to stop this threat to SS fund; Who sued whom? Letter got it wrong; Bipartisanship needed on climate controversy; Wrentham critic got reference all wrong; Advocate of leadership failed to show it himself; No explanation owed for speaking the truth. Norton voters should stand against override To the editor: Wake up, Norton taxpayers! Do you folks have money trees growing in your backyard? I don't think so. The June 26 override is just smoke and mirrors provided courtesy of the Norton School Department. The school department and also the school committee can't be trusted, they have no credibility, and they have absolutely zero accountability when it comes to spending your hard-earned dollar. Have you heard of a slush fund? Why can't all municipal employees pay more towards their health insurance? They do have the "Rolls Royce" of health insurance! Our property taxes should not be used towards funding the greedy school system that we have in Massachusetts! The school department uses propaganda and scare tactics and preys on the parents of our young children. Also, what happens to the people who are struggling to hold onto their homes? Have you folks noticed all of the mortgage foreclosures in your local newspaper? We all have to live on a strict budget; so should Norton and also the school department. Please get out and vote no on June 26 because an override is not just temporary...it's forever. Elaine K. Dahlgren North Easton Entire pit bull breed should be exterminated To the editor: So, are the citizens of the Attleboro area going to take a bit of courage by finally recognizing the utter worthlessness of pit bull dogs? This breed is less than worthless, and every one should be immediately exterminated for the good of man, woman and, especially, child. Why should normal, law-abiding people have to accept the risk of a "four-legged machine gun with a hair trigger" doing serious injury without warning to humans, especially to children? There is no excuse, or the least good reason, not to eliminate this scourge on society. Now. Gerald F. Chase Attleboro What of Scowcrofts? Cousin wants to know To the editor: I am a family historian from Preston, Lancashire, England, and I am researching the Scowcroft family, who came to the Massachusetts/Rhode Island areas in the early 20th century from Preston. If you are related or have any information, please contact me at xphile2868@gmail.com. All information will be greatly appreciated. Stephen Smith Preston, Lancashire, England Tell lawmakers to stop this threat to SS fund To the editor: In fiscal 2001, President Bush used the Social Security lockbox that Al Gore cherished throughout the 2000 presidential campaign. By the end of this fiscal year, Mr. Bush will have spent more than a trillion dollars in Social Security surpluses over the last five years. And he recently submitted a five-year budget plan that proposes to spend $1.2 trillion more in Social Security surpluses. Moreover, according to the latest trustees' report, the present value of Social Security's unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years is $4.8 trillion. Redeeming an additional $2 trillion in current trust fund bonds will almost certainly require dipping into general revenues, which would squeeze government operations everywhere else, including national security. Thus, the present value of Social Security's 75-year shortage is $6.8 trillion, and it's rising each year. Thus, the Bush administration should think twice about the U.S.-Mexico Social Security totalization agreement, which would have the effect of transferring an estimated $207 billion in Social Security assets by 2040 to 1.6 million Mexican workers and dependents. The majority of those cash benefits would go to Mexicans who worked illegally in the United States. According to a recent study by TREA Senior Citizens League, a Social Security advocacy group, $207 billion represents the price tag of paying Social Security benefits to (a) 827,000 aliens from Mexico who used "non-work" Social Security numbers to work illegally in the United States; (b) Mexican citizens who overstayed their visas here and worked illegally; and (c) illegal aliens from Mexico "who entered the United States illegally on or after Jan. 1, 2004, and worked for at least 18 months," provided that immigration amnesty passes and they gain work authorization. If Mr. Bush goes forward with his intention to sign this agreement, either chamber of Congress has 60 days to reject it. Both bodies should exercise that duty. Please contact your senators and tell them how you feel. Chris Lindehan South Attleboro Who sued whom? Letter got it wrong To the editor: I do not like to continuosly make the point that people need facts, not fiction, to base their beliefs on. Joseph Chabot on June 1 stated that people should get facts straight and once again talked about liberal fantasies including the election of 2000. He stated "Al Gore brought suit, not George Bush." Mr. Chabot, do you not check for basic facts before uttering absurdities; the case decided by the Supreme Court is "George W. Bush, et al., Petitioners V Albert Gore, Jr., et al." in which the court ruled 5-4 (with seven Republicans, including Bush Sr. appointees who should have recused themselves) that the "petitioner" (i.e. Bush) would suffer irreparable harm (i.e. lose the election) if the authorized recount continued. Is it too much to ask for an adherence to basic and commonly known facts; if a court in a foreign country consisting of judges appointed by a candidate's father ruled votes should not be counted (which no Supreme Court case had done before Bush v. Gore) because that candidate who everyone agrees lost the popular vote would also lose the "electoral" vote, all Americans would justifiably scream it is undemocratic. It should be changed ; we should have a President who is elected like every President in every other country and like every other elected official in the U.S.A. ; he who gets the most votes wins. It has happened four times to Democrats; someday it will happen to a Republican and then they will change their tune; they should not wait or try to justify with falsehoods the unjustifiable. Bill Darcey Mansfield Bipartisanship needed on climate controversy To the editor: President Bush has announced a new initiative to deal with global warming. The new majority in Congress, the one that promised it would try to be bi-partisan and open-minded, immediately shot it down. Within a couple of hours of the president's speech, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was joined by a member of Massachusetts' own ultra-left wing delegation, Ed Markey, and together they said basically it's the left wing liberal way or the highway. Of course they had to revise history a bit to get you there. One of their initial comments was that President Bush rejected the Kyoto Treaty. Although this statement is 100 percent true, it is a bit disingenuous. The Kyoto Treaty was negotiated by, guess who, Al Gore during the Clinton Administration. As our Constitution says, all treaties must be ratified by Congress. In a Senate that was controlled by Tom Daschle, a vote was cast as to whether to send the treaty up to Congress for ratification. That vote was 95 to 0 against sending it up. Kyoto was dead in the water before President Bush even took office. The reason for not ratifying it made tremendous sense then and now. Kyoto excluded China, India, and most other Third World countries. The president's new proposal involved getting the top 15 countries, including India and China, together to come up with a proposal that would work. I personally do not believe in global warming. I have no objection to cleaning up the planet, however, and cleaning up pollution, and some of the items those who believe in global warming advocate, follow similar paths. What we need is a genuine attempt at compromise. If reduction of greenhouse gases can be accomplished by a reduction in the use of fossil fuels, allow the U.S. to build nuclear power plants. The reason this can't happen is because the environmental lobby wants it both ways and right now, they control all politics in Washington. Until we start acting in a truly bipartisan way, nothing is going to happen. Joseph Chabot North Attleboro Wrentham critic got reference all wrong To the editor: Ravi Nadkarni was consistently inaccurate in his recent letter ("Call it what you want, but this is negativity," June 2). He claims I suggested during a town meeting that the board of health is destroying property values in Wrentham. The only reference I made to the board of health on the floor of town meeting was when I reflected on the fact that we have the right to remove the president of the United States, but not a member of the Wrentham Board of Health. I never suggested that the board of health is destroying property values and have never made a single comment about the board's agent, William Domey. In fact, there are so many inaccuracies in Mr. Nadkarni's letter that one can only conclude he either didn't pay attention during the discussion or is intentionally taking comments out of context and misrepresenting my remarks. As I stated at town meeting, I believe Wrentham needs elected officials with effective management skills to tackle the challenges ahead. Officials must be able to work well with department heads and board members with whom they don't always agree. They must be trained to manage activities and topics in which they have no personal expertise. These skills are essential to success in today's business world and are even more critical in local government, considering the dependency on elected volunteers. Unfortunately for Wrentham, there are a limited number of elected officials in critical leadership positions in Wrentham that have the training, skills or experience to meet these critical demands. As property owners in Wrentham, we can't afford an extended period of management shortcomings that manifest themselves in perennial service cuts, expanding classroom sizes and declining property values. We can no longer afford for our elected boards to act as a training program for well-meaning volunteers that lack the necessary management skills and experience to handle our problems. I sincerely hope all Wrentham elected officials (including Mr. Nadkarni) rise to the occasion in the coming years. Should that not happen, Wrentham voters need to realize what's at stake and take decisive action. Richard Dion Wrentham Advocate of leadership failed to show it himself To the editor: Praise Babel that the mythical silent majority has found a tongue in Richard Dion ("Cost of failed leadership rising," June 1). Earlier this year, Dion quit as a Wrentham selectman to focus his "can-do" persona on destroying any pesky remnants of an elected town government with a recall petition designed for enactment by a mob. I can sympathize with his frustration; it's a lot more fun to snipe from the bushes than it is to expose the fact that you haven't got a clue how to solve the fiscal problems of this town. Dion, who, just a few years ago was the self-appointed oracle of the local moral majority, has latched on to a phrase made infamous by Richard Nixon. As Grand Moralizer, Dion branded all opposing views with the sin of "negativity," vowed to strike down The Abomination (as manifested in the apparition of Selectman Jennifer Firth) and anyone else who trafficked in the ways of the serpent. Dion now seems to be our own Tricky-Dick. Witness then-selectman Dion's conspicuous silence as Firth blundered stupidly and regrettably into speculations that a Wrentham police officer may have written some threatening comments about another Wrentham selectman on a right-wing blog site. Dion knew about this blog in March 2005 and knew any such rumor was untrue. He knew because a resident made him aware of the blog site in an e-mail. Dion informed police who, in turn, investigated - you guessed it - the resident. Divine intervention shut down the blog site within days, confirming the adage: interrogate the messenger and the message will take care of itself. If Dion had showed some leadership, Firth may not have taken this walk-in-the-woods; saving reputations, press ink and tax dollars. Funny how things turn out; Dion quits, Osolnik gets fired, the conservation commission quits en masse, yet elected government plods along, indifferent to the special interests of Dion and his radical fringe. One need only recall that Dion was one of five to vote for the proposed zoning changes in late 2005, while over 700 members of the vocal majority sent that stinker back to the bottomless pit. John Wilson Wrentham No explanation owed for speaking the truth To the editor: Jimmy Carter had no reason to explain his remarks in describing President George W. Bush's behavior, performance or skill as commander in chief. I remind all readers of what George Orwell once said, "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes an act of rebellion." Frederick M. Morth Rehoboth