Nelson Lebo, in his recent Chronicle contribution, uses the Wanganui North Rotary Club as a "normal" example of a community "not willing to challenge the dominant paradigm".
The average Whanganui resident may wish to consult a dictionary in an effort to put that into everyday language. He appears to be encouraging us to ignore local needs and aspirations in favour of controlling climate change and wealth inequality.
I would suggest that a group of Rotarians in Whanganui has a better chance of alleviating the needs of its community than having any influence in changing wealth inequality.
To suggest that Rotary can be accused of "inertia" shows a lack of knowledge of what clubs are achieving, and Nelson would not have to look far to find families that have benefited from the efforts of Rotary.
One prime example is the annual food bank drive, held recently and organised by Wanganui North club. This may not eliminate wealth inequality in the city, but it will reduce a real need.
And Nelson may not be aware that the virtual elimination of polio throughout the world resulted from a worldwide campaign. This is just one of the projects initiated and sponsored by Rotary International.
I could itemise the wide range of community projects undertaken by Rotary, but in answer to Nelson's criticism I would suggest that world and nationwide social problems are best tackled by those with the expertise and involvement in their chosen field to make progress.
We may well be prepared to actively support any initiatives that arise, but in the meantime we will continue to work for the local community.
Wanganui North Rotary Club
Wow! I am so pleased letters to the editor (Wanganui Chronicle, November 4) rate so highly in popularity.
Although Jim Hubbard no longer appears, we all move on. I have always tried to write with the acerbic wit of his cartoons and promise I have a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by my bed!
Largely, the need to "personalise" incursions into literature is contrary to my view. I urge the younger generation to pick up the pen and write with intellect and a touch of humour.
Now some plaudits for 2017 must go to the sports arena, lest they be forgot. The Wanganui Rugby Team and their triple win in the Heartland Championship, and Wanganui Athletic and their equally meritorious third placing at the World Masters Tournament "on aged legs". You have the recognition of your peers. Congratulations!
In response to Terry Sarten's column (Chronicle, November 4):
I pick up on Terry's comment on the World Trade Centre and 9/11 being a conspiracy theory.
Before the US election, Donald Trump hinted at letting the truth about 9/11 out. He has not done so yet, but the internet is full of docos on the subject.
As a scientist, I like to have solid scientific proof of conspiracy theories before making up my mind. A doco I watched recently was a group of physicists, architects and engineers examining the collapse of the buildings.
The free-fall time for the tops of those buildings, if they had been dropped from an imaginary sky crane, would be eight seconds.
The building fell in 10.4 seconds, which means the bottom two-thirds of the twin towers, undamaged, put up almost no resistance to the descent of the tops.
All three groups of experts expected that the descent should have slowed to zero after a few storeys and the tops come to a halt or more likely toppled sideways.
Molten metal similar to that found in thermite welding was found congealed in the ruins. White smoke and falling white hot liquid can be seen on the collapse video.
So even if burning jet fuel weakened the structures enough to weaken the steel support, it is accepted that burning jet fuel in air will not - and cannot - melt steel.
Then there is building 7 - it collapsed in its own footprint, creasing as it fell. Creasing is a demolition experts' term for what can clearly be seen happening to building 7. The building was on fire, but not a bad fire like Grenfell Towers.
So there you have a scientific perspective - do you come to the conclusion that I do? And I believe the BBC reported the collapse of building 7 half an hour before it had happened.
It is sadly too often apparent that once we elect a person to the government, either central or local, the appointee rapidly ignores our views and wishes. Consider this: When was the last time an elected councillor sought your view, opinion or wishes on the matter of any council matter?
Also soon forgotten is the one clear fact that they were elected to represent us, the ratepayers, not to pursue their own hidden agendas nor to blindly accept and "rubber stamp" the decisions of others. We, the ratepayers, elected them and pay them to make the decisions, be they hard or soft, not to dodge doing so by squandering our rate payments upon the employment of others to make those decisions.
Another unacceptable developing trend is that highlighted in Zaryd Wilson's "Our view" column (Wanganui Chronicle, November 2): When those we elected resort to puerile claims in defence of their refusal to disclose their voting on matters upon which we expect them to represent us.
It is just too childish to argue that they are not disclosing their votes "... to protect the privacy of donors who wanted to remain anonymous ...". How could disclosure of a "for or against" vote reveal names of coy donors? It cannot, as it will only show how the councillor voted and leaves us with the unsavoury aroma of councillors not voting as we would wish or, even worse, a deliberate subterfuge to avoid any accountability to us, the ratepayers.
I accept that there will times when the government discussions must be kept private, but at no time can there ever be a need for those we elect to represent us to keep secret their voting from us. Never, never, never!
Send your letters to: The Editor, Wanganui Chronicle, 100 Guyton St, PO Box 433, Wanganui 4500; or email email@example.com