No matter what you saw in 'Glass Onion' there are different 'truths': Letters
Jan. 2 — To the Editor:
The opinion piece In the Jan. 1 Seacoast Sunday regarding thinking before speaking, and the notion of “truth” cannot go without response.
Ms. Alicia Preston Xanthopoulos spent a lot of time commenting on the "Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery" movie line, “It’s a dangerous thing to mistake speaking without thought for speaking the truth.”
She then went on to say that “ ‘truth’ is a point of fact, not an opinion,” and “that’s what bugs me about the current trend of terming things, ‘his truth,’ ‘her truth,’ or ‘my truth.' There aren’t different ‘truths’ based on the speaker. It either is or isn’t a fact.”
As an example, she quotes Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who said that “Our culture is deeply disdainful and unsupportive of women of color and working-class women (and LGBTQ/immigrant/etc.) from the bottom up.” Ms. Xanthopoulos’ head-scratching response was that Ocasio-Cortez “accused hundreds of thousands of Americans of being hateful bigots … That is dangerous. It is without thought. It is not even close to ‘truth’.”
Ms. Xanthopoulos, there are different truths, based on the speaker and their lived experiences.
The concept of truth is complex. What may be true for you may not be for me, based on cumulated knowledge, experiences and so many other factors. Your truth does not make you right over my truth, which may be contrary to yours. Your truth does not necessarily mean it is better, or that mine should be dismissed because it is different. Some examples:
If I am Christian, that Jesus is my Savior is a truth. If I am of another religion, that is not true to me at all.Some see pit bulls as mean, nasty dogs that should not be in existence. Others see them as yet another breed of gentle, loving pets to have.
Some see government dispersing funds for infrastructure, food and health care, supporting people who are addicted to drugs and more as (wasteful) expenses. For others, their truth is that these are investments.
Some believe the “truth” that the United States is a land of opportunity, that everyone has an equal chance of achieving their dreams and living the life they want. For others, that is a myth, not a truth.
Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez lives a very different life than you, Ms. Xanthopoulos. Her truth is not your truth. That does not make her wrong. Nor does it make you right, with a truth that trumps (sorry) hers.
This is a key point in thinking about discourse today: we need to understand each other’s truths, and how they came to be. We do not always have to agree, or change minds, but we do need to acknowledge and absorb that different lived experiences will mean different ways of seeing the world, including what is “true.” Whether daily personal interactions or setting policy, these are important considerations.
(Granted, there are some “truths” some hold that are just wrong. And where is the line between “opinion” and “fact” — and when does it matter? In addition, there is the notion of “willful ignorance." But those are other topics.)
Robin H. LeBlancDover
Trump party wants to do anything but govern
Jan. 4 — To the Editor:
While the Trump party, which now has a slim majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, failed to elect a speaker on each of three ballots yesterday, the first time in 100 years, they did manage to make some immediate changes in Congress. The first action taken by the new majority was to remove the metal detectors that were installed after the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. It is all a matter of priorities when you are in charge, and obviously removing metal detectors which could prevent a lunatic with a gun entering the Capitol, is more important than actually electing a speaker so the work of the people can actually begin.
Of course, as is obvious from their behavior even before taking control of the House, the Trump party has no interest in actually governing. A party that did not even have a platform for the 2020 election obviously has no ideas to offer and have no ability or desire to govern. As former Republican speaker John Boehner stated in a memoir about the current Trump party, “What they’re really interested in is chaos. …They want to throw sand in the gears of the hated federal government until it fails and they’ve finally proved that it’s beyond saving.” Since Ronald Reagan famously stated that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem," the Trump party has taken that statement as a call not to simply limit government, but to destroy it.
Unless something changes quickly, the next two years will be a disaster for the nation. The problems we face with regard to inflation, crime, immigration and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic will remain unsolved as the Legislative Branch becomes paralyzed by the Trump party. The only action by the House will be investigating Hunter Biden, Dr. Fauci, the Jan. 6 Committee members, impeaching President Biden, weakening the Office of Congressional Ethics, and anything else to avoid governing.
Rich DiPentima (LTC, USAFR, retired)Portsmouth
Portsmouth owes answers on McIntyre money
Jan. 4 — To the Editor:
I urge everyone concerned about Portsmouth’s future to attend a public hearing this Monday, Jan, 9 at City Hall on the city’s proposal to spend an additional $150,000 for costs related to the McIntyre project.
Remember, this was supposed to be a “public-private partnership” with Redgate/Kane paying for everything and costing the city nothing.
The city has already paid Redgate/Kane $2 million for an ill-advised settlement agreement to avoid another Kane lawsuit — for work that the National Park Service had rejected. In addition this agreement stipulates that the city shall “reimburse developers one-half of the third-party costs incurred to advance the project,” and “the parties acknowledge that public financial support from the city will be necessary to construct the Community Plan.”
How much has already been spent by the city on this project for legal/consulting/etc. etc.? And how much more will be? You, as a taxpayer, should know.
This agreement was approved by the current City Council on April 6, 2022 and this public hearing is the first public meeting about the McIntyre since then. Nine months! Where is the public transparency? Behind closed doors?Recently we’ve read that costs for the project could approach $150 million and that the city, through this agreement, will be on the hook for a significant part of it.
The prior development agreement rescinded by the current City Council on Feb. 10 gave the city certain protections against these costs and additional provisions for opting-out and cancelling. The current agreement doesn’t appear to have these provisions, except for the developer. Who’s really looking out for the city’s legal interests in this agreement?
In early 2020, the city hired The Survey Center, University of New Hampshire to conduct a survey on the McIntyre Project. 3,495 residents of Portsmouth took part. First of the Key Findings of the Executive Summary states: “A majority of respondents say that having larger, meaningful public open space in one piece between the Federal Building and Bow Street and having the post office return to its original location are among the two most important changes they would like to see with the current McIntyre Project.” Is this part of the new “Community Plan” which was voted on by less than 100 participants?
Isn’t it time to pull the plug on Redgate/Kane? It’s not too late. Final agreements have not been signed. Even considering new potential settlement costs, the city will come out way ahead in the long run financially and the project will be what residents in Portsmouth have asked for to begin with.
Pease attend the public hearing and make your voice heard regarding this important part of Portsmouth’s 400 years.
Bill HamiltonEliot, Maine (former Portsmouth business owner)
Why leash laws are needed
Jan. 3 — To The Editor:
Mr Robert Newby, on Nov. 30 of last year, you had a letter in these pages that claimed Portsmouth's dog leash law was "aggressively and inflexibly enforced on walkers of non-nuisance dogs.” Here’s a news flash: dogs are dogs. They are not people in dog suits.
In my work as a disaster housing inspector for FEMA, I have inspected upwards of 10,000 homes throughout the United States. I was bitten three times by dogs known as friendly breeds, and in each case the owner stated, “he has never done that before.” As I have looked back, each of these three instances made sense in dog world.
This number does not include the innumerable chihuahuas that grabbed my pant leg under the table. Many dogs would take exception to my presence in the house, but they were properly restrained and therefore posed no threat. We humans do not always know the effect we have on a dog we come across. A dog will attack to protect, out of fear, or because he’s in a bad mood and doesn’t like the look of you. That’s why leashes are always necessary.
There is no such thing as a dog that is under voice control 100% of the time. A dog will respond to a perceived threat and take matters into its own paws and use its God-given tool of sharp teeth and jaws that don’t let go.
Mark BrightonPortsmouth
This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: Letters: Despite 'Glass Onion' message, there are different 'truths'
