Thanksgiving is but one of the holidays that center on the home. Kids always come home on the holiday making it one of the busiest travel days of the year. Gotta go to Grandma's house! It is a tradition. Home is where the heart is... and the turkey and stuffing. That's a tradition, too. Two helpings of everything and then a nap in that overstuffed chair.
There are other traditions on Thanksgiving starting with the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade with endless marching band, floats, and giant helium filled balloons in the shape of Snoopy, the Grinch, Pluto, Mickey, and a bunch of other characters that had nothing to do with Thanksgiving but now are a tradition. Of course Santa is a part of the parade to usher in the Christmas gift buying season which starts before your meal is completely digested.
Football has become a huge tradition on Thanksgiving. The Cowboys and the Lions have traditionally played on the holiday and recently the NFL increased the number of games two to three. Seems like a little too much tradition there. I think they did that so the men can stay on the sofa freeing up the ladies to go get an early start on the shopping.
Breaking the recently devoured turkey's wishbone is another holiday tradition that must be mentioned as this could be very helpful to any home owner trying to sell his house. The custom is that two contestants each grab the end of a bird's wishbone and pull. The lucky person getting the bigger piece is granted a wish. This tradition is much older than Thanksgiving itself and goes back many centuries originating with the ancient Italians called the Etruscans. The bone is technically called the furcular, which is formed from two clavicles fusing together. Clavicles are also known as collarbones and a few of them might get broken as well during one of the three football games this day.
The Etruscans really thought chickens were almost magical and that they could tell the future. Where that comes from no one knows. They used to draw a circle in the dirt, divide the circle into wedges, and assign each wedge a letter of the alphabet. Then they put chicken feed on the wedges and placed a chicken in the center of the circle. As the chicken ate the feed, a scribe would write down the corresponding letters in the exact order and the resulting message would reveal the future.
Anyway, when a chicken was killed they would put its wishbone in the sun to dry thereby preserving it so that they would still have access to the bird's fortune telling powers long after they ate it. This tradition was passed on to the Romans and then to the English who would rub the bone and make wishes. The English called this bone the "merrythought."
So if you are trying to sell your home this holiday season here's a fool-proof tip. Let your turkey's wishbone dry for three days (that is very important because the number three is very magical.) Then you get your realtor to come over and pull on the wishbone with you. No matter who gets the bigger half, you both (theoretically) will have wished for the same thing: a successful sale of your house. Now see, wasn't this a helpful tradition...
There were 112 homes that sold in the month of October in the towns covered by the real estate market report. The average sales price came in at $314,131. That's a pretty good month overall! There have been 839 residential homes sales through Oct 31 of this year at an average price of $315,000. That total is slightly off the 878 units sold last year for the same period at an average price of $305,806. Maybe we can make up the difference before the end of the year if everyone with a house for sale makes that wish.
Please feel free to visit www.lakesregionhome.com to learn more about the Lakes Region real estate market and comment on this article and others. Data was compiled using the Northern New England Real Estate MLS System as of 11/19/14. Roy Sanborn is a realtor at Four Seasons Sotheby's International Realty and can be reached at 603-677-7012.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00
How do you like the Journal's war?"
So boasted the headline of William Randolph Hearst's New York flagship that week in 1898 that the United States declared war on Spain.
While Hearst's Journal, in a circulation battle with Joe Pulitzer's World, was a warmongering sheet, it did not start the war. Yet the headline comes to mind reading the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial pages seem to have concluded that on Nov. 4 America voted for new wars in the Middle East, and beyond.
On Nov. 13, the Journal's op-ed page was given over to Mark Dubowitz and Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Assuming nuclear talks with Iran conclude unsuccessfully by the Nov. 24 deadline, they write, we have four options.
Two involve continued or tougher sanctions. The other two are a preemptive war featuring U.S. air and missile strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, or a U.S. attack to bring down Bashar Assad's regime. "Taking Mr. Assad down would let Tehran know that America's withdrawal from the Middle East and President Obama's dreams of an entente with Iran are over."
It would surely do that.
But taking down the Syrian regime could also lead to a slaughter of Christians and Alawites, an al Qaida-ISIS takeover in Damascus, war with Iran, and attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and across the Middle East.
Which raises a question: What is this FDD?
Answer: A War Party think tank that in 2011, according to Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss website and Eli Clifton of Salon, took in $19 million from five rabidly pro-Israel givers. Home Depot's Bernard Marcus gave $10.7 million, hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer $3.6 million. Sheldon Adelson, the Vegas-Macau casino kingpin, chipped in $1.5 million.
Last week, Adelson and media mogul Haim Saban spoke of plans to dump hundreds of millions into the presidential campaigns of 2016.
What does the pair want from our next president? According to the Washington Post's Phil Rucker and Tom Hamburger, action on Iran: "Saban said that fundamentalist Iranians represent a real threat. If necessary to defend Israel, and as a last resort, he added, 'I would bomb the living daylights out of the sons of bitches.'"
Echoed the 81-year-old Adelson, "I would not just talk. I would take action."
Last year, at Yeshiva University, Adelson, who pumped $150 million into the 2012 campaign, said the U.S.
should fire a nuclear missile into the Iranian desert as a warning to end their nuclear program, or the next atom bomb would be dropped on Teheran.
This billionaires boys club wants to buy U.S. foreign policy and a U.S. war on Iran. And the propagandists of FDD are paid to produce that war, in which they will not be doing the fighting and dying.
Back to the Journal. On Nov. 15, its lead editorial declared that the great "question before President Obama and Europe is how to stop the Napoleon of the Kremlin."
Putin is Napoleon? Has the Journal lost it?
Vladimir Putin is 62. By age 40, Napoleon's empire encompassed nearly all of Europe. France had swallowed Belgium, Holland, parts of Germany and the Italian coast to Rome. The emperor had alliances with Austria, Russia, Denmark, Sweden and a truncated Prussia. Virtually all the resources, industries and populations of Continental Europe were at the service of the French Empire.
Putin has reacquired Crimea, which belonged to Russia before the United States was a nation, and is about the size of Vermont.
Napoleon made it to Moscow. Does the Journal think Putin will make it to Paris, as Czar Alexander I did, or to Berlin, as Stalin did?
The Journal hails the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 18-0 vote to arm the Ukrainians, and urges Congress to do the same.
And what would be the result of U.S. heavy weapons arriving in Kiev? Would Putin recoil in shock and awe and scurry out of Crimea?
Probably not, as the Journal itself concedes, "In 15 years running Russia, Mr. Putin has never stood down."
And if Putin, seeing U.S. weapons arriving in Kiev, sent in the Russian army to annex Luhansk and Donetsk, took Mariupol on the Black Sea coast, established a land bridge to Crimea, and then offered to negotiate, what would Kiev do?
Even with U.S. weapons, Ukraine cannot defeat Russia.
What would we do? Accept defeat? Send U.S. advisers or troops into Ukraine? Launch strikes on Russian forces? Blockade Crimea? Are we really prepared for war with Russia, over Donetsk?
Since Nov. 4, the Journal and its neocon allies have been cawing for U.S. troops to fight ISIL in Iraq and Syria, for U.S. air strikes on Assad's regime, for bombing Iran, and for arming Ukraine to fight the Russians in a war that Kiev would surely lose.
Was this what America voted for on Nov. 4?
Is this what the Grand Old Party has on offer — endless war?
(Long-time conservative commentator Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.")
Last Updated on Wednesday, 19 November 2014 11:07
Soon after he was elected to his first term as president, Barack Obama was asked how he was to be judged. He replied that we could judge him by the people he has around him. Fair enough. Now let's look at just three of those who are part of his inner circle — Jonathan Gruber, MIT professor of Economics, Ezekiel Emanuel MD, physician, and the Reverend Al Sharpton. These three, and a number of others, have worked behind the scenes, helping the president manage his "shadow" government. No need to involve the President's Cabinet, which is made up of people who have been vetted and senatorial "Advice and Consent" granted. The people working in the background, without Senate confirmation and accountable only to the president, have aided in the development of "Regulations" that have the force of law but have not undergone the rigor of congressional debate and approval.
Article II, Section 2. Of the Constitution gives the president the ability to make cabinet-level appointments provided at least two-thirds of the Senate provides their Advice and Consent. The same holds true with the president's ability to make treaties with other governments, subject to the same two thirds majority Senate approval.
Former Alasda Governor Sarah Palin was ridiculed by Democrat leaders and the press when she said the there was a "Death panel" built into Obamacare. As things evolved, shadow government insider Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a key figure in developing Obamacare, now tells us that we should all die when we reach the magic age of 75. He says at that age, people have lived long enough, and should be willing to die as their continuation of life would present a financial/medical burden on society. Really?
In the last few days, Dr. Jonathan Gruber, like Dr. Emanuel one of the architects of Obamacare, has been shown telling the world that the Obama administration had to lie to the public about different aspects of the plan because the public was simply "too stupid" to understand it. He admitted that instead of the cost of health care going down, those financially able would be taxed significantly in order to subsidize those less financially able. As part of the hidden strategy, Dr. Gruber stated that the plan would tax the insurance companies, who would then pass on those costs to the consumers, and that would allow our devious politicians to demonize the insurance companies. He also said that if they had told the truth, the bill would not have passed — even in the Democrat-controlled Congress. However, once the bill was passed, with guidance from Dr. Gruber, regulations were written to include abortion services. Outrageously, those "regulations" called for the imposition of substantial financial penalties on religious institutions that refused to provide abortion coverage to their employees . . . even though to do so would violate the tenets of their faith. Those issues are still being litigated. It needs to be understood, that twenty percent of all hospital beds in this country are provided in facilities owned and operated by Religious entities. A crisis awaits.
The Supreme Court now has another issue pertaining to the plan under review. That is, the fact that the law, as written, identified that subsidies would be paid by the exchanges in each state, and no mention was made that if there was no exchange in a state that the subsidy would be paid by the federal government. In a number of situations, the president has arbitrarily changed the law, without allowing Congress and the Senate to change or amend the law as the rules dictate. The president moved various dates specified in the law in order to avoid any political consequences during election periods. In this case, he arbitrarily changed the law to allow for federal subsidies to be paid when there is no state exchange. Essentially, Constitutional provisions for enacting laws have been by-passed as the president has dictated his will be done.
The Reverend Sharpton has been consulted many times with regard to naming a replacement for Attorney General Holder. Sharpton has a history of inflaming racial tensions by making unjust and untrue claims. In the Twana Brawley case, he named a police officer as one of the alleged rapists and the officer committed suicide, even though Brawley admitted she had made up the whole story. In the same case, Sharpton was found guilty of defamation when he falsely claimed a prosecutor was at the alleged crime scene. He was also the instigator of two anti-Semitic hate crimes — one resulting in the death of an innocent Jewish student visiting from Australia, and the other resulting in the deaths of seven people and the wounding of several others. Now isn't he just the kind of person we want offering counsel to the president?
Our democratic republic was founded as a government of, by, and for the people. The actions of this administration's shadow government have continually abridged the freedoms belonging to the people. Such actions put us on the path to a dictatorship. If you disagree, please consider that the president has been and is now preparing to by-pass the Congress on the matter of immigration. Be prepared to cede our nation's sovereignty to a dictatorial "open borders" policy.
(Bob Meade is a Laconia resident.)
Last Updated on Tuesday, 18 November 2014 12:36
A year ago, when the federal government shutdown due to politics and gridlock in Washington, Concord politicians wagged their fingers down south to DC. In New Hampshire, both parties worked together on several pieces of legislation, including passing a state budget 24-0 in the Senate.
But in the aftermath of the 2014 midterm elections, political logic suggests that next year it will be Washington politicians working together and pointing their fingers up north at the political gridlock in New Hampshire.
The hot Potomac fever will now be on the Merrimack.
Structurally Washington and Concord will look the same next year. Both feature Republicans dominating the House and Senate with a Democratic executive on top. The difference, however, is that in Washington President Barack Obama is a lame duck and not running for president anymore. In Concord, Gov. Maggie Hassan is most assuredly running for something in two years, whether for re-election or to take the local GOP's biggest name: U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte.
Since Obama has just 793 days left in office his political incentive is to focus on what he can do for his legacy. This might mean unilateral executive action like he is proposing to do on immigration this upcoming week or working with the Republican Congress on a broader immigration bill, on a veteran's jobs bill, tweak the health care law, reform Social Security, or pass some kind of tax reform bill.
Republicans also have the political incentive to work with Obama. As is stands the only approval rating lower than Obama's is the national approval of Republicans. Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry pointed out in New Hampshire that in the midterm election, voters weren't exactly voting for Republican ideas. Exit polls prove Perry right, with 6 out of 10 voters said they are dissatisfied with Republicans. (The same percentage said they were dissatisfied with Obama.)
Heading into the 2016 presidential election, Republicans in Washington are already talking about the need to stand for something other than just opposing Obama's agenda. With control of Congress they will be called upon to propose their own ideas that Obama can accept, amend or reject. This is particularly true of potential Republican presidential candidates, who need to add legislative achievements to their resume.
Either way, in Washington there is the incentive of both sides to talk.
In Concord, there is incentive to stay in their own corners and complain about the other side. In theory, Hassan wouldn't reject signing into law some major piece of legislation, but politically she cares more about her approval rating number than the number of bills that become law.
The sad reality of politics is that is it often better for a politician's approval ratings to not get something done if they can convince voters that it is someone else's fault. For Hassan she can tell voters that if only Republicans didn't block her agenda everyone in the state would have a job and that all Nor'easters would be confined to ski areas. She might be right or might be wrong, but at least she will have someone to blame if the state goes in the wrong direction.
This is part of the reason why this week's vote on who Republicans will pick to be House Speaker matters. Both of their options — Bill O'Brien and Gene Chandler — have their own baggage from previous stints as speaker. However, O'Brien is the more polarizing option. Fearing Hassan would just make O'Brien a boogeyman, it is not surprise that Ayotte forcefully endorsed Chandler last week. Ayotte and Republicans want to keep the focus and criticism on Hassan and minimize how much it goes the other way back on Republicans.
All that said, like in Washington, New Hampshire Republicans still have to deal with the fact they don't have majorities so large they could override votes on major bills. If Republicans continue to push bills that would make their base happy they are risking that a Hassan veto would play well for them. It is possible that it will, but it is often hard to take on a governor no matter which party holds the office.
As a new Congress and a new Legislature is sworn in there could be a lot more handshakes in Washington and bruises in Concord.
(James Pindell covers politics for WMUR. You can see his breaking news and analysis at WMUR.com/politicalscoop and on WMUR-TV.)
Last Updated on Tuesday, 18 November 2014 10:10
In July of 1941, after Japan occupied French Indochina, the Roosevelt administration froze Japan's assets in the United States. Denied hard cash, Japan could not buy the U.S. oil upon which the empire depended for survival. Seeing the Dutch East Indies as her only other source, Japan prepared to invade. But first she had to eliminate the sole strategic threat to her occupation of the East Indies — the U.S. battle fleet at Pearl Harbor.
FDR's cutoff of oil to Japan was thus a primary cause of WWII in the Pacific, which led to hundreds of thousands of U.S. war dead, the destruction of Japan, Mao's triumph in China and a U.S. war in Korea.
A second stunning use of the oil weapon came in 1973. Arab members of OPEC imposed an embargo in retaliation for Nixon's rescue of Israel with an airlift in the Yom Kippur war. Long gas lines helped to bring Nixon down.
Now the oil weapon appears to be back in America's hand.
Due to the substitution of natural gas for oil in heating homes and buildings, horizontal drilling, and hydraulic fracking, which enables us to bring oil and gas out of shale rock in places like North Dakota, U.S. production has exploded. We now produce more oil than Saudi Arabia and the benefits are not only economic, but geostrategic.
Cuba excepted, there is no more hostile regime in Latin America than Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro, the successor to Hugo Chavez. Oil accounts for 95 percent of his nation's exports. Iran is almost wholly dependent upon oil sales for hard currency. Russia is the oil and gas supplier for much of Europe.
With the price of oil having fallen from over $100 a barrel to below $80 this week, all three nations are suffering plunges in revenue. The United States and Europe are also punishing Russia and Iran with sanctions on their energy sectors.
Iran's production has fallen sharply. Oil-drilling equipment and the latest U.S. drilling technology that Russia has sought to bring on stream its vast Arctic reserves are being denied to her.
As the oil weapon was used by us against Imperial Japan and by the Saudis against us, we are now wielding this sword. We should remember that it is double-edged.
While it would seem natural for Saudi Arabia, the largest producer in OPEC, to cut production to tighten the oil market and let prices firm up and rise, the Saudis have continued to pump as the price has fallen.
What is Riyadh's game? Is the Saudi strategy to let prices fall to where it is no longer profitable for Americans to begin new fracking? Are the Saudis thinking of doing to the new oil-producing champion, USA, what we are doing to Venezuela, Russia and Iran?
Riyadh may want to let the price of oil sink below where it makes sense for energy companies to prospect for new sources of oil or invest more billions in expanding production.
Are the Saudis out to cripple us with an oil glut?
Today, not only are Iran and Iraq producing below potential, so, too, is Libya. And we have been bombing ISIS' oil facilities in Syria.
A contrarian's question: Would we not be better off if these countries not only restored oil production, but also expanded production and put more oil on the market than they do today?
Demand creates supply, and a world oil market where there is more supply than demand would seem to be to America's benefit. For we remain the world's largest consumer of petroleum products. And surely it is to our benefit to enlarge both the reserves and production of oil and gas in North America.
Price pays a huge role in creating, and shrinking, supply. And price, Adam Smith notwithstanding, is something we can control and manipulate, even as China manipulates its currency.
In "America's New Oil Weapon" in National Review, Arthur Herman of the Hudson Institute urges the United States to take bold steps to increase our supplies of oil and gas.
We should relax the rules on drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which has 10 billion barrels of oil locked up. We should use as an economic weapon against OPEC the 700 million barrels in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We should allow the export of oil from the United States to enable us to cope with OPEC cutbacks. We should build the Keystone XL pipeline, and the other oil and gas pipelines between us and Canada now sitting in limbo.
What Herman is urging upon us is a new nationalism, a new way of thinking about international economics that puts the U.S. and its allies first, and uses our economic leverage to advance national rather than global interests.
Something the GOP Congress might think about when Barack Obama asks them to surrender their right to amend trade treaties with fast track.
(Syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan has been a senior advisor to three presidents, twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000. He won the New Hampshire Republican Primary in 1996.)
Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00