Covered Bridge Trail

Earlier this week I wrote about the proposed warming station for Strafford County. Last night we had our public forum on the warming station at the Dover City Council Meeting.

More Than Just a Walk in the Woods

Wooden sign marking the entrance to Don Black Trail, surrounded by autumn foliage and fallen leaves.


Last night’s City Council meeting got pretty lively when the conversation turned to the Don Black Trail—better known around here as the Covered Bridge Trail at County Farm. Several residents stood up to describe it as a mess, overrun by people using drugs and littering.

This morning, I decided to see for myself. I grabbed some gloves and garbage bags, figuring I’d do a little cleanup along the way—if there was any “paraphernalia” to be found.

Well, I did find something unexpected.

Skeletons. Bats. Gravestones. Ghosts hanging from the trees.
But not the kind the council was worried about.

A scenic view of a dirt path leading through a wooded area during autumn, decorated for Halloween with carved pumpkins and a sign for a Haunted Trail.

It turns out the Riverside Rest Home has set up a full-blown Haunted Trail for their residents and for the daycare center next door. When I ran into one of the employees out decorating, she told me how much she enjoys walking the trail on her breaks and how they’ve been having a great time putting the spooky display together.

A little further down the path, I met another woman walking her dog, Elsie (a very good dog, though a little wary of the carved pumpkin near the bridge). She told me she walks the trail nearly every day and hadn’t noticed any problems either—just the usual peace and quiet that makes the Trail such a gem.
Interestingly enough, I also learned that Police Chief Terlemezian had been out that same morning, checking things over.

A spooky Halloween display featuring a skeleton under a black umbrella, a decorative sign for 'Riverside Haunted Trail', and a carved pumpkin, surrounded by autumn leaves in a wooded area.

So while there’s always room for community concern and vigilance, what I saw on the Trail wasn’t danger or decay—it was life. It was community. It was people caring about the same public spaces we all share.

And, at least for this week, it’s also a pretty good place to get a Halloween scare.

A wooden sign welcoming visitors to a Haunted Trail, adorned with a straw hat and a carved pumpkin, set amidst autumn foliage and grass.

At Least We Owned The Libs…

AT LEAST WE OWNED
THE LIBS

by GINNY HOGAN

Sure, it was a huge bummer that they cut funding for fixing the streets in our town. We enjoyed going places. But, overall, it’s worth it for the tax cuts we expect any day now. I mean, at least we owned the libs. Libs love streets. Did you see that video of Trump dumping shit on libs marching in the streets? Got ’em!


Ah, dang. Groceries have never been more expensive. We really thought this was something Trump might be able to help us with. But the high cost of food is worth it so a transgender teen in Idaho can’t use the school locker room. Libs aren’t cheap to own, but the price is more than fair.


Wait, when they said they were going to dismantle the Department of Education, they were talking about, like, America’s Department of Education? The one that funds our schools? Shoot. Our kids will have to learn how to read from the back of cereal boxes. But at least the cereal doesn’t have Red Dye No. 2 in it. And as we all know, the libs are OBSESSED with Red Dye No. 2. Owned!

Owning the libs all the way into a measles outbreak? That’s called “keeping the narrative spicy,” and it’s NOT a bad thing.


Yes, we liked that restaurant. Yes, it would have been better if they hadn’t shut down, but half their staff got deported, so what are you going to do? At least all those dumb woke libs in LA and New York can’t eat at this Mexican restaurant in Columbus, Ohio, either.


Our cousin lost his soybean farm. We really thought the tariffs would help American farmers, but it turns out other countries just stopped buying our stuff. Stupid woke CCP. But you know what you can’t repossess? An ideological victory. I mean, except every four years, when the presidency changes hands. Whatever. The libs have been owned so hard they don’t even know what hit ’em.


So when they said they were axing “federal government jobs,” we just assumed they meant jobs in MARXIST blue cities. This is an unwelcome surprise. But you know what? This annoying liberal girl I knew in college cried in her IG story on election night. And we’ll ride that all the way to the bank (where they’ll hopefully give us a loan).


The water’s been brown for three weeks. It’s a drag, but I bet there’s an Ivy-educated lib walking around Bushwick in a really bad mood right now. So it’s totally worth it.


Huge bummer: Our health insurance got cut. We kept hearing Republicans say that lazy good-for-nothings and illegals would stop receiving Medicaid checks every month. And we thought, “Yeah, we’re on Medicaid, but they never send us checks.” So we didn’t think it would affect us. Anyway, in the meantime, we’ll take comfort in the knowledge that the libs probably can’t see doctors either. I mean, all the hospitals in rural areas are shutting down, and coastal elites are famously concentrated in… look, whatever, they’ve been owned, okay?


All right, well… we can’t pretend this has turned out the way we imagined. But you know what? We heard that a gender studies department in Vermont had its funding reduced by 12 percent. And the video of our great president wearing a crown I posted to my knitting group’s Facebook page really pissed off all the libs on there. And that, in the end, is what matters most.

A Legal and Moral Imperative: Support the Emergency Warming Shelter

When we talk about community, we mean more than shared streets and town meetings. We mean shared responsibility for neighbors who are most vulnerable when New England winters turn brutal. The proposed Emergency Warming Shelter—transitioning from the temporary warming center at 30 Willand Drive to a purpose-built facility funded by the Tri‑City partnership and operated by Strafford County—is not only practical; it is our legal and moral duty.

Extreme cold events are not occasional inconveniences. They are life‑threatening emergencies for people without reliable shelter, heat, or access to hygiene. The existing temporary site—a former martial arts studio—was always intended as a stopgap. It lacks adequate bathrooms, showers, a kitchen and the design features needed to safely and humanely support people during extreme cold. Building a dedicated warming shelter corrects that deficiency and reduces foreseeable harm.

The resolution before the City Council is clear about scope and accountability:

  • The Tri‑Cities (Dover, Rochester, Somersworth) will fund construction.
  • Strafford County will operate the facility once built.
  • Opening the shelter during extreme cold will be decided by local Emergency Management Directors using established emergency‑sheltering criteria developed with state and federal input.
  • The facility’s use will be limited to a county‑wide, seasonal warming center unless and until a mutually agreed, suitable replacement is found.

Those guardrails matter. They ensure that taxpayers’ money is used for its intended, life‑saving purpose and that operational responsibility rests with the county agency best positioned to run a county‑wide service. They also create transparency and a clear path for public engagement if future uses are proposed.

Funding that honors past intentions and responsible stewardship Dover’s share of construction funding comes from two sources tied to charitable intent: proceeds from a Guppey family‑donated parcel (with a requirement that proceeds help those in need) and the sale of the current warming center (which was purchased with ARPA funds—no Dover property tax dollars). Using those funds to create a safer, more functional shelter respects donors’ intent and maximizes the impact of one‑time resources on an urgent human need.

Legally, municipalities and counties have emergency‑response duties and public‑health responsibilities. Morally, we have an obligation to prevent foreseeable harm. When a safer, better‑designed shelter can be built with clear operational oversight and limited, defined use, choosing inaction risks lives. The proposed facility addresses that risk directly.

Practical improvements that matter A purpose‑built warming center will provide:

  • Adequate bathrooms and showers for dignity and public health;
  • A small kitchen to meet basic nutritional needs during activation;
  • Design features for safety, privacy, and efficient operations during extreme weather.

These features are not luxuries; they are basic elements that reduce the spread of illness, protect privacy and safety, and allow staff and volunteers to provide services effectively.

No project is perfect. I share the desire for a site that’s even more accessible and closer to wraparound services. But the reality is that this proposal represents the best, feasible option now: funding is secured, operational responsibility is defined, and the timeline addresses an urgent need. As I tell my business teams: do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Approve a safe, dedicated warming shelter now—and continue advocating for improvements, better locations, and stronger supportive services going forward.

Support doesn’t mean we stop asking for better placement, more services, or continued transparency; it means choosing life and safety for neighbors in crisis. The agreement’s conditions also ensure that any change in purpose or location will require full vetting and public input—so approving this plan does not close the door on future community‑driven improvements.

Building the Emergency Warming Shelter is responsible stewardship of charitable funds, a practical step to prevent needless suffering, and a fulfillment of our legal and moral obligations to protect residents in extreme cold. Let’s move forward—compassionately, transparently, and with a commitment to keep improving.

NO KINGS — Not Left, Not Right, But American

One of the saddest things I saw after yesterday’s rally was how many people commented on my previous post without actually reading it. They skimmed a headline, jumped to a conclusion, and then piled on with their pre-made categories: Democrat vs. Republican, liberal vs. MAGA. That’s exactly the kind of thinking NO KINGS is here to break.

A graphic featuring a crown crossed out with red brush strokes, accompanied by the bold text 'NO KINGS' beneath. The design symbolizes opposition to monarchy and concentrated power.

NO KINGS isn’t a partisan slogan. It’s not a clever way to score points against the other team. It’s a simple, stubborn declaration: we are not a monarchy. Not now. Not ever.

What NO KINGS means

Say it plainly: the movement isn’t about which party holds power. It’s about refusing to hand our institutions and our country over to a personality or an ideology that demands unquestioning loyalty. It’s about insisting that power be accountable, that leaders be temporary servants, not permanent rulers. The Founders gave us a republic for a reason — because concentrated, unaccountable power breeds corruption, violence, and the erosion of freedom.

Don’t fall for the trap

I saw people say they’d be okay with a king — as long as that king hates the same people they hate. That’s exactly the trap. Choosing a monarch who shares your list of enemies feels satisfying in the moment, but it hands the tools of oppression to someone else. When you cheer a leader because they attack your foes, you tacitly accept that the leader will also be able to turn those tools on anyone who becomes inconvenient.

Fear is a tool

Don’t be afraid. That’s the other play in this game: scare you into submission. They want you terrified of ANTIFA, painted as the boogeyman. So let me ask plainly — who stormed the Capitol on January 6? Was it Antifa? Or was it a mob that believed it was justified by a leader’s lies?

Being anti-fascist is not a crime; it’s an ethic. If opposing authoritarianism and protecting democracy makes you “anti-fascist,” then yes — I’m proud to stand on that side. My grandfather fought fascists in World War II. He didn’t pick sides for sport; he stood against a system that crushed dissent, stamped out rights, and murdered millions. Does that make him the enemy of anyone who defends tyranny today? It shouldn’t.

A painting depicting a man standing and speaking in a public meeting, surrounded by attentive audience members, showcasing a moment of civic engagement.

What we stand for

NO KINGS is for people who believe in democratic norms: the rule of law, free and fair elections, a free press, peaceful transfer of power, and institutions that limit abuse. It’s for those who will not accept threats, intimidation, or lies as the currency of governance. It’s for those who will call out abuses whether they come from the left or the right.

If you showed up at the rally, you probably felt that: a cross-section of Americans fed up with cults of personality and unwilling to trade a fragile freedom for the illusion of tribal safety. If you read the signs and listened to the speeches, you heard families, veterans, students, and workers saying the same thing in different words: No one is above the law. No one gets to remake the country in secret or by force. No leader is owed worship.

A black flag featuring the text 'We the People' at the top, followed by the phrase 'NO KINGS IN AMERICA' in bold, colorful lettering, with stars and stripes design at the bottom, set against a green outdoor background.

Plain asks

  • Read before you shout. If you want to oppose a movement, oppose it on its terms.
  • Stop pretending democracy is mere partisanship. It’s a fragile contract we renew every day.
  • Don’t be fooled into loving a strongman because he roughs up your enemies.
  • Be unafraid to be anti-fascist. Opposing tyrannical methods is patriotism.
  • Show up, speak up, and insist on accountability from every side.

NO KINGS is a reminder and a covenant: we will not hand our republic to a crown, whether it’s literal or figurative. We will argue. We will protest. We will vote. We will hold leaders to account. Not now. Not ever. No kings.

We the People: A Call Against Tyranny and Loyalty

NO KINGS

Colorful graphic with the text 'NO KINGS' in bold letters, accompanied by decorative elements including a crown and stars.

For nearly 250 years, America has stood for one simple, powerful idea: we do not bow to kings.

The truth is in the name of the protest itself — NO KINGS.

It doesn’t matter if you’re Republican, Democrat, or Independent — this isn’t about party. It’s about principle.

A Nation Built on Limits — Not Loyalty

When our founders declared independence, they weren’t just rejecting a monarch; they were rejecting the very idea that one person should ever hold absolute power.

They understood that freedom depends on limits — limits on government, limits on leaders, limits on ego.

Today, that same fight continues.

There are those who would have us return to the rule of one man — not through lineage, but through blind loyalty.

We’ve seen leaders who demand fealty, who call anyone who disagrees traitors, who use the machinery of government to punish opponents and reward friends.

That is not democracy. That is monarchy in a new disguise.

To the Most Loyal Among Us

To the most MAGA among us: maybe you supported some of Trump’s policies. Maybe you believed he spoke for you.

But ask yourself — do you really want him, or anyone else, to rule as KING?

How long will it be before he comes after you for disagreeing?

How long before troops are ordered into your cities under the excuse of “maintaining order”?

We fought a revolution to prevent exactly that.

We swore allegiance not to a man, but to a Constitution.

And that Constitution begins with three words: We the People.

Liberty and Justice — For All

Every schoolchild knows how the pledge ends:

“…with liberty and justice for all.”

Not for some. Not for one man. For all.

That’s who holds the power — We the People.

Not kings. Not billionaires. Not bullies with golden crowns and fragile egos.

Stand Together

So when you see a NO KINGS protest — go.

Go not as a partisan, but as an American.

Stand beside your neighbors, your coworkers, your friends — left, right, and center — and say together what generations before us have said:

No. Not here. Not now. Not ever.

Flag featuring the phrase 'We the People' and 'NO KINGS IN AMERICA' in bold, colorful typography against a black background, displayed outside in a garden setting.

Trump and the GOP: The Truth Behind the Government Shutdown

The government shut down will affect all of us. In big ways and small. We all know that Trump will cave because that is what he does. We also must acknowledge that Trump and the GOP who effectively control all branches of government are 100% to blame.

BUT WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT SHUT DOWN? In short, we had to shut it down to keep a functioning government open.

While searching to explain it I came across this Substack from Robert Reich. Professor, writer and former Secretary of Labor.

I’ve been directly involved in government shutdowns, one when I was secretary of labor. It’s hard for me to describe the fear, frustration, and chaos that ensued. I recall spending the first day consoling employees — many in tears as they headed out the door.

In some ways, this shutdown is similar to others. Agencies and departments designed to protect consumers, workers, and investors are now officially closed, as are national parks and museums.
Most federal workers are not being paid — as many as 750,000 could be furloughed — including those who are required to remain on the job, like air-traffic controllers or members of the U.S. military.
So-called “mandatory” spending, including Social Security and Medicare payments, are continuing, although checks could be delayed. (Trump has made sure that construction of his new White House ballroom won’t be affected.)

There have been eight shutdowns since 1990. Trump has now presided over four.
But this shutdown — the one that began yesterday morning — is radically different.
For one thing, it’s the consequence of a decision made in July by Trump and Senate Republicans to pass Trump’s gigantic “big beautiful bill” (I prefer to call it “big ugly bill”) without any Democratic votes.
They could do that because of an arcane Senate procedure called “reconciliation,” which allowed the big ugly to get through the Senate with just 51 votes rather than the normal 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster.

The final tally was a squeaker. All Senate Democrats opposed the legislation. When three Senate Republicans joined them, Vice President JD Vance was called in to break a tie. Some Republicans bragged that they didn’t need a single Democrat.

The big ugly fundamentally altered the priorities of the United States government. It cut nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act — with the result that health insurance premiums for tens of millions of Americans will soar starting in January.

The big ugly also cut nutrition assistance and environmental protection, while bulking up immigration enforcement and cutting the taxes of wealthy Americans and big corporations.
Trump and Senate Republicans didn’t need a single Democrat then. But this time, Republicans couldn’t use the arcane reconciliation process to pass a bill to keep the governing going.
Now they needed Senate Democratic votes.

Yet keeping the government going meant keeping all the priorities included in the big ugly bill that all Senate Democrats opposed.

Which is why Senate Democrats refused to sign on unless most of the big ugly’s cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act were restored, so health insurance premiums won’t soar next year.

Even if Senate Democrats had gotten that concession, the Republican bill to keep the government going would retain all the tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations contained in the big ugly, along with all the cuts in nutrition assistance, and all the increased funding for immigration enforcement.

There’s a deeper irony here.

As a practical matter, the U.S. government has been “shut down” for over eight months, since Trump took office a second time.

Trump and the sycophants surrounding him — such as Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and, before him, Elon Musk and his DOGE — have had no compunctions about shutting down parts of the government they don’t like — such as USAID.

They’ve also fired, laid off, furloughed, or extended buyouts to hundreds of thousands of federal employees doing work they don’t value, such as at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (The federal government is already expected to employ 300,000 fewer workers by December than it did last January.)

They’ve impounded appropriations from Congress for activities they oppose, ranging across the entire federal government.

Yesterday, on the first day of the shutdown, Vought announced that the administration was freezing some $26 billion in funds Congress had appropriated — including $18 billion for New York City infrastructure (home to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries) and $8 billion for environmental projects in 16 states, mostly led by Democrats.

All of this is illegal — it violates the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 — but it seems unlikely that courts will act soon enough to prevent the regime from harming vast numbers of Americans.
Vought is also initiating another round of mass layoffs targeting, in his words, “a lot” of government workers.

This is being described by Republicans as “payback” for the Democrats not voting to keep the government going, but evidently nothing stopped Vought from doing mass layoffs and freezing Congress’s appropriations before the shutdown.

In fact, the eagerness of Trump and his lapdogs over the last eight months to disregard the will of Congress and close whatever they want of the government offers another reason why Democrats shouldn’t cave in.

Were Democrats to vote to keep the government going, what guarantee do they have that Trump will in fact keep the government going?
Democrats finally have some bargaining leverage. They should use it.

If tens of millions of Americans lose their health insurance starting in January because they can no longer afford to pay sky-high premiums, Trump and his Republicans will be blamed. Months before the midterms.

It would be Trump’s and his Republicans’ fault anyway — it’s part of their big ugly bill — but this way, in the fight over whether to reopen the government, Americans will have a chance to see Democrats standing up for them.

Rejecting the ‘Blue Scare’ in Local Politics

A Local Call to Reject the “Blue Scare”

As Dover’s Ward 3 councilor I want to expand on a warning that should concern every resident who cares about good government and a healthy civic culture. Our nation has a long and painful history of allowing fear to do the work of reason — and we are beginning to see echoes of that history here and now.

Fear as a Political Weapon

Throughout American history, fear has been used to short‑circuit debate and chill dissent. The early 20th‑century Red Scare and the McCarthy era in the 1950s are stark reminders of what happens when suspicion and paranoia replace facts and open discussion. People lost livelihoods, reputations, and even basic freedoms because they were labeled “un‑American” for asking tough questions or holding unpopular views. Those episodes weakened our democracy and left scars that lasted generations.

A New Scare: The “Blue Scare”

Today we are witnessing a different but related phenomenon: a “Blue Scare.” Rather than accusing citizens of communism, some political actors and media outlets now demonize people for being Democrats, liberals, progressives, or for not being sufficiently aligned with the MAGA movement. Support for causes like affordable housing, public education, or healthcare becomes a reason to brand a neighbor as disloyal or dangerous. The result is the same: conversation collapses into caricature, and complex policy debates give way to tribal shaming.

Why This Matters Locally

This isn’t just a national story; it plays out in our city meetings, on neighborhood sidewalks, and across the wards of Dover. When we allow partisan fearmongering to set the tone, we undermine the very processes that produce practical solutions. Projects stall. Trust erodes. People stop attending meetings or offering ideas because they fear being attacked for their political identity rather than critiqued for their proposals.

I see better outcomes when residents engage respectfully. In Ward 3, when neighbors come together—regardless of party—we accomplish real things: potholes get fixed, housing gets built, fields get finished. Those achievements are the product of conversation, compromise, and the willingness to put community needs above partisan point‑scoring.

How We Can Resist the Scare

  • Keep the focus on policy: Debate the merits of proposals — costs, benefits, trade‑offs — rather than attacking the people who propose them.
  • Call out fearmongering: When you hear rhetoric meant to frighten or dehumanize, name it. Remind people that our democratic duty is to listen and to challenge ideas, not to silence or ostracize neighbors.
  • Build cross‑partisan relationships: Reach out to people who vote differently. Attend events, volunteer on local projects, and find shared priorities that transcend party labels.
  • Model civil discourse: As elected officials and as citizens, we set the tone. Use facts, cite sources, and treat opponents as fellow residents, not enemies.

A Local Pledge

I believe Dover succeeds when we refuse to let fear guide our politics. I pledge to continue inviting residents from every background and political stripe into conversation. My priority as a city councilor is pragmatic problem‑solving—roads, housing, schools, public safety—that improves daily life for everyone.

The Red Scares of the past are rightly remembered as national embarrassments. If we are honest with ourselves, we already see the outlines of a contemporary shame: a Blue Scare that trades substance for spectacle and loyalty tests for policy discussion. Let’s refuse to repeat that mistake.

Join the conversation, share your concerns, and help build the pragmatic, inclusive Dover we all want. Together, we can ensure our disagreements stay rooted in policy and purpose — not in fear or exclusion.