Proud, not outraged
Do I have this right? My governor is calling on me to be outraged about the fact that we take better care of our needy brothers and sisters than 45 of the other states in our union?
No sir, you obviously don’t understand my thinking. I’m downright proud of this fact. No sir, no “outrage” from me!
May Dirigo lead in developing the interdependence which only can weld us into true human community.
David Putnam
Brooklin
No ‘hollow middle’ here
The Legislature’s Transportation Committee voted Feb. 16 to allocate $300,000 in taxpayer dollars to determine the feasibility of a private toll highway across Maine, connecting New Brunswick with Quebec.
Who profits from this scheme? Cianbro Corp. and its investors. Canadian truckers moving imported goods from the port of Halifax to Quebec. Extractive industries taking Maine water and wood chips to East Coast shippers for export. Town officials of Searsport, who are vocal in their support for both an East-West highway and an LPG tank, along with a container port on Sears Island, are promoting these heavy industries for reasons that become obvious once the dots are connected (see defendingwater.net/maine).
Like the Searsport projects, the East-West highway would be an environmental nightmare. Consider the 230-mile route to be hacked out and paved through the North Woods: It would impinge on Moosehead Lake and other significant landmarks, destroying priceless wetlands and wildlife habitat and old-growth forests. Three major rivers and the Appalachian Trail would have to be bridged.
To Peter Vigue’s contention that his Canada connector would fill Maine’s “hollow middle,” we say that our heartland is not hollow. It is teeming with precious life — wildlife as well as human inhabitants who live there because they cherish its culture and undeveloped topography. For visitors from all over the world, these natural resources are a respite from industrialized society.
With voting imminent, our legislators must hear from us without delay, while there is still time to voice opposition to LD 1671.
Jody Spear
Harborside
Church, contraception, Obama
Mrs. Soneson’s letter on February 27 (“Whose choice”) at first upset me. I felt she was wrong to claim that her freedom of religion was being jeopardized by President Obama’s mandate. I believed that, in fact, the Catholic Church was actually imposing its beliefs upon its employees, many of whom are not members of the Catholic faith, by denying women employees equal access to health care (mandated birth control coverage for all insured women). The Catholic Church was guilty of taking away basic equal rights for women in this light.
However, after much soul-searching, I’ve come to understand Mrs. Soneson’s point of view, and why the Catholic Church, evangelical Christians and other conservative groups are so upset. I’ve reasoned that the Catholic Church is many things. It’s a body of church members (an organization); an institution with written religious doctrine; and as an employer, a business.
In its last two forms, it could be viewed as needing to follow the mandate. Yet since the Catholic Church is also a body of believers, it has a collective conscience, expressed by more than simply its doctrine. This collective conscience is made up of the hearts and minds and actions of its believing members. And here in America, these believing members are indeed American citizens.
Should President Obama be asking the Catholic Church, in this light, to provide vital health care benefits to women? I’m not sure. Is the church a body of members, an institution or a business?
Sally C. Jones
Hampden
Logical conclusions
Regarding the political hot button that Catholic bishops are pushing over freedom of religion and the right to refuse to provide contraceptives: Let’s take this to its logical conclusion.
If the bishops’ position prevails, this means that Jehovah’s Witnesses can deny coverage of blood transfusions; Baptists and other conservative churches that believe smoking and drinking are a sin can deny coverage of smoking- and drinking-related illnesses; Hindus can deny coverage of any disease such as heart disease that’s connected to an animal-based diet; and Christian Scientists can deny coverage completely for care that saves a practitioner.
If freedom of religion must trump an individual’s right to privacy and medical needs, as these bishops and members of Congress advocate, then here’s a suggestion: nationalize health insurance so no business or institution is responsible for directly covering an employee.
Health care then becomes the responsibility of the state and does not discriminate based upon race, creed, gender, employment, economic status or nationality of either the religious employer or the employee who may not share the same religious convictions.
Christine Talbott
Hampden
Population’s time bomb
We live on a finite planet. It took from the beginning of time until 1850 for the world to finally reach a population of 1 billion. Just 50 years later, it was estimated at 1.5 billion.
Then 50 years later, in 1950, it was estimated at 2.4 billion. Then 40 years later, it was estimated at 5.2 billion.
Then just 10 years later, in 2000, the world population was at 6,078,684,329.
While the rate of increase begins to slow at this point, it doesn’t mean the numbers don’t continue to increase. The estimate is that by 2050 there will be over 9 billion people on this planet. That is presuming nature hasn’t taken over and cut our numbers to something sustainable.
Nature’s method will be effective but probably not pleasant; possibly starvation or maybe an out-of-control virus. Or like rats when they get too crowded and start to kill each other off, some human might use nuclear war.
If God gave us brains with which to think, I presume he would like to see us start to use them.
Doris Watkins
Holden
Diocese hypocrisy
A recent news report in response to the news that Maine will have a second referendum on marriage equality quoted Bishop Malone of Portland’s Catholic diocese saying he was disappointed that supporters would bring such a divisive issue to vote again, especially since it detracts from more important concerns such as homelessness and poverty.
This is particularly hypocritical coming from the group that spends more resources blocking marriage equality and meddling in other peoples’ sex lives than it does lobbying on issues related to poverty and the economy. It also defunded a homeless shelter over its support for marriage equality and used bigotry and lies (the diocese’s Marc Mutty called it “hyperbole”) about harms to children to lead the movement to overturn legislation granting civil marriage rights to same-sex couples.
Elle Morris
Portland
Thank you, Christine; exactly what I was thinking.
David Putnam: Spoken just like a person who doesn’t have a dog in the fight. Me thinks your tax bill is non-existent.
Jody Spear: You are another environmentalist who will look to arrest any development while continuing the downward economic spiral here in Maine
Christine Talbott: Healthcare is the responsibility of the individual and not the state.
Elle Morris: The state should be out of the marriage business entirely and grant only civil unions to everyone. If you want to get “married” go to your church. Gays won’t go for this as they somehow believe that “mariage” is a vindication of their lifestyle
We’re not talking about the state, here; we’re discussing employers and what *they* can/can’t do (and why).
“Health care then becomes the responsibility of the state and does not discriminate based upon race, creed, gender, employment, economic status or nationality of either the religious employer or the employee who may not share the same religious convictions.”
She’s saying that only *if* “freedom of religion must trump an individual’s right to privacy and medical needs.”
One’s health is one’s own’s responsibility no matter.
One’s education is one’s own responsibility, but yet we have public education
One’s property protection is one’s own responsibility, but we have police
One’s fire protection is one’s own responsibility, but we have fire departments
One’s reading material is one’s responsibility, let’s close all public libraries
Transportation is your responsibility, let’s quit building public highways
Food and drug safety is your responsibility, chuck the FDA
Landing safely at BIA is your pilot’s responsibility, dump the FAA
Taking care that you don’t get flu every winter is your responsibility, get rid of the CDC that researches the next flu virus and provides you with inexpensive shots against flu
Staying safe at your work place is your responsibility, no need for OSHA
A decent wage is your responsibility, get rid of the NLRB
Cheap gas for you car is your responsibility, let’s get rid of all oil and gas subsidies
Your housing is your responsibility let’s get rid of the home owner subsidy
Getting supplies to run your home and business in a timely matter is your responsibility, toss the truck, transportation and highway subsidies that make the US a world leader in fast, safe and on time deliveries
Single payer, universal health care just like the above government services creates a healthier and more prosperous nation. Like education or police protection it is everybody’s responsibility because it improves life for every one. Doh!
Absolutely correct! Flat_lander’s bizarre statement “One’s health is one’s own responsibility no matter,” makes me wonder if he/she would do away with hospitals, doctors, etc. Does flat_lander do all his/her own home medical treatments with herbs gathered in the woods? There is a weird Ayn Rand-anarchist idea out there among the right-wingers that we are all on our own and we are not a part of any human society at all. Everything is your individual responsibility, so humans should never co-operate with one another in groups. Git rid of the government — we don’t need roads or fire departments or city water lines. How bizarre!
Perhaps that should be, “a vindication of their CHOSEN lifestyle”.
CHOSEN Lifestyle, many women who use birth control, happen to be married, and also poor, and working. They are taking responsibility, to not add a child they can’t afford. This should make you proud. Also and I was one of them, who took birth control of other reasons, other than preventing pregnancies.
If there were responsible they wouldn’t be pregnant in the first place.
So you are agreeing with searoses.
EJ, have you ever met a sin that you didn’t love?
Stone caster, extraordinaire.
And we choose this lifestyle…why, exactly? Let me help you with that answer. Because we are, by nature, attracted to persons of the same gender. And like straight people, most of us want to find someone to spend our lives with. Marriage is often a big part of that.
If you want to argue any of that with me, go ahead. But keep in mind…I’m gay and you’re not. You don’t know what it’s like. You can only parrot the conservative talking points.
If anything needs to go back into the closet, it’s the bigotry that still infests our society. But then again, it never was in the closet. Prejudice has always been loud and proud.
Your side just re-packages it as “morality”.
Really, could you CHOOSE to sleep with a man and enjoy it? Could you CHOOSE to spend the rest of your life with a man, for richer, poorer, in sickness, in health. No, Why because you were not born gay…..even the Pope says that 10% of all people are born gay. Lesbians statistically stay together longer than anyone and raise healthy children. There are NO reported cases of sexually transmitted disease among lesbians. No one chooses to be gay and if they do they are stupid because the abuse is horrible.
Actually, anyone can choose anything they want, to the point of even believing that their choice is not a choice at all. The power of the human mind is simply amazing, completely misunderstood and underestimated. And when Satan gets into a person’s mind, disguised as intelligence, beauty, desire, greed, or whatever, the weakness of the human can be very easily fooled into believing just about anything.
Of course, that’s what I believe. And I just might be the one that’s being fooled. But, I seriously doubt it.
I agree that the power of your mind to believe what you want to believe, despite the facts, is, indeed, simply amazing!
When the facts are lacking, one must go on their beliefs. And the facts are severely lacking.
You chose your religion — that’s your chosen lifestyle, EJ — but gays don’t choose to be born gay. No man wakes up in the morning and says, “I’m not attracted to men, and I am attracted to women, but I think I’ll CHOOSE to fall in love with a man I’m not attracted to, so that I can get kicked out of my family, scorned by my church, fired from my job, and get beat up on the street.”
You can say it, but you can’t prove it. So it’s not a fact.
Prove that God exists.
It would be much more difficult to prove that He does not.
And yeah he looks like an old white man with a flowing white beard and his son, the Jew, was a blonde with blue eyes and white skin.
What a load of junk.
Consider the logic, EJ. Would a guy who IS attracted to women, and is NOT attracted to men, DECIDE to fall in love with a man he’s NOT attracted to, just so he could get kicked out of his family, condemned by his church, fired from his job, and get beat up by teenage goons? No! Of course not! Just consider the logic, EJ, if that’s possible for you.
Gays won’t go for this as they somehow believe that “mariage” is a vindication of their lifestyle….What??????
I know–what lifestyle would that be–the one where consenting adults have sex outside of marriage? Heterosexuals NEVER do that, do they? And homosexuals don’t have much choice in the matter right now. I give flat_lander 3 points for his other responses, but the last one doesn’t fly….
Good responses. Based on logic and reality, not “feelings”.
Ms. Talbot, thank you for your letter. Unfortunately, our newest “Bishop,” Senator Susan Collins, just voted in favor of the Blunt Amendment that would have allowed any employer to deny his employees types of health care that offend his religious beliefs. “Bishop” Collins should abandon any pretense of being a moderate. She has allied herself with the theocrats and against more than 60% of the American public. Senator Snowe had the decency to put the interests of Mainers first and voted against the Blunt Amendment. “Bishop” Collins smartly saluted and put party solidarity above those she claims to represent.
Watching Collins defend her vote this morning on the senate floor was cringe worthy. Let’s hope that Snowe uses the remaining time of her senate tenure to reestablish her integrity with votes like the one she took today.
Susan has always been to the right of Olympia, but I was aghast at this vote by her.
Even for Susan it was bad. I’ve really lost the little respect that I did have for her. She’s nothing but a panderer.
She hasn’t yet sold her soul, but she is leasing it out at a high price.
LOL Maybe it’s on a lease to buy program.
How much would I have to pay to buy Susan Collins’ soul? Is it worth acquiring, or has it been leased for so long that it has lost its market value?
She sold her soul to Joe Lieberman a long time ago.
Sally C Jones: When an organization ministers to its members in order to increase their understanding of their relationship to God they are a church. And as such they are exempt from the contraceptive coverage issue.
When an organization takes tax money, hires the general public, provides a non religious service such as a colonoscopy to the general public they are a not a church no matter who “owns” the business and they are not exempt from the law that says give your female employees full health care coverage.
How hard is that to understand.
I agree. Also, President Obama never asked Catholic churches to cover contraception in their employee health plans. As for Catholic hospitals, they still don’t have to cover contraception directly — only the insurance companies would cover contraception. I think that’s a fair compromise. Finding the right balance in the separation of church and state can be a bit tricky sometimes, and not everyone is going to be happy.
Help me out here: does not the insistence that the Catholic employer offer a plan that covers birth control make that employer complicit in the commission of what is, to his or her belief, a mortal sin?
For example, if I am underage and I get a fake id and buy myself liquor, get drunk, get in an accident and kill someone then I am solely responsible (let’s say it is a really good fake id that a store employee couldn’t be expected to identify) for causing that death. On the other hand, if I give some cash to my neighbor, who is of legal drinking age, and he gets the booze for me, I drink it, get drunk, get in the accident causing the death of another, isn’t that neighbor in part responsible legally for that death due to his part in purchasing the booze?
Personally, I think Obama is pandering to the woman vote over this issue–and I think he thought he had the Catholic bishops in his pocket because they supported the health care bill.
The ruling was first decided in 2000 by the EEOC, based on the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibited discrimination. In that case it was determined that if a health insurance policy covered prescription medications of any kind, then it must also cover birth control and other prescriptions for women’s health. It is already the law in 28 states, including Maine. No one protested during the 8 years of George War Bush’s term. Now it is an election year and the republicans have seized on the issue in order to energize their ultra right wing base. Evidence of that was clearly expressed when Congressman Darrell Issa held a hearing with a panel of all males and refused to allow anyone to testify regarding the necessity of birth control and related prescriptions for a woman’s health.
The EEOC ruling only has the force of law if someone sues based on the ruling and the court agrees. The courts have not consistently agreed. And the courts who do rule in favor of the EEOC’s position only have authority over the specific case in question, or over the jurisdiction of the court’s district. Nobody was protesting during the Bush administration because the ruling was not enforced for the most part. Those who chose not to obey the ruling were not called on it. But Obama’s mandate has the force of law behind it for all institutions.
Furthermore, just because nobody objected then does not mean they can never object in the future. They are objecting now–perhaps because the sweeping nature of Obama’s mandate is more repugnant than previous attempts to force employers to cover contraception. Perhaps it’s politics for some, but not for all. The Catholic Bishops supported Obama on health care. They didn’t support his original contraceptive mandate.The states who mandate coverage of contraceptives also enforce it sporadically and not all states mandate coverage for all employers–some offer exemptions to some extent for religious institutions.If the issue were about birth control access, I would think your last statement is relevant. But it isn’t. It concerns the dogma of the Catholic Church and the constitutionality of mandating an employer to purchase a product–any product–that violates her beliefs.
Maybe we should ask the catholic hospitals if gyncological services are performed at their hospital. If D&C’s are part of that service.
If the Catholic institution chooses not to invoke its first amendment rights, then they don’t have to. It doesn’t mean that those who do choose to do so should not be able to.
I appreciate your question, and there is no easy solution. The Catholic Church itself, in their health plans, doesn’t have to cover contraception. Period.
Catholic Hospitals are different. they employ the general public, and they serve the general public. They don’t have to directly cover contraception. Their hands are not on it. But insurance companies will have to cover contraception. I know you’re not happy with that, and I know the bishops are not happy with that. Sometimes you can’t get everything you want. You got half a loaf. That’s why balancing the “establishment” clause with the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment is tricky. The Catholic bishops want to violate the “establishment” clause by not letting insurance companies offer the public (who work for, or go to, Catholic hospitals) any coverage of contraception. They say that their proposed violation of the establishment clause is protected by the free exercise clause. It’s tricky, I know. Not everyone will always be happy.
When I first started reading that letter I was scared it was you Miz Sally. I’m so glad it isn’t!
LOL msallyjones would never confuse a business with a church.
I have been thinking of converting my business into a church. That way I wouldn’t even need the Blunt Amendment to deny health care coverage to employees who need to reverse the near-lobotomies they have suffered from watching too much Faux News. It is against my new religion for anyone to listen to Faux News.
LOL I say go for it.
Just imagine the property and income tax you could save if you also declared you are exploring for oil.
When an organization covers up child sexual abuse and ignores for years that one of its Bishops in Los Angeles has fathered a family, is it a church or a business or something else?
I don’t believe in God but I always end up defending the right.
Can you honestly say that even 10 percent of ALL catholic priests are doing wrong?
If so, can you show me the numbers.
The Church is outdated and I can’t stand even being in a Church But I do believe that the overwhelming majority have done nothing wrong and want nothing more then to serve the parish.
GROW UP. ARGUE ON THE MERITS, NOT ON CYNICAL CHILDISH NONSENSE.
A small minority of ministers of every faith have sexually abused children. Sexual abuse of children is not “childish nonsense” as you would have it. I have closely followed the scandal both here and in the rest of the world concerning Bishops who have simply reassigned abusing priests. It is only because it is the world’s largest church that we hear so much more about Catholic cover-ups.
Christ, at Luke 4:23, said “Physician, heal thyself.” I ask the Catholic Church to stop fighting the sex abuse claims brought against its various Dioceses and deal with its own problems. It should not inject itself into the medical choices the non-Catholic employees of its affiliated hospitals and universities make.
The Catholic Church should heal itself and rethink its opposition to birth control. I can accept its opposition to abortion. However, if we want to make abortions rare we need to make birth control widely available.
I’m certainly NOT taking any form of abuse lightly.
What i’m saying is that anyone that paints the entire church in that light is doing so for nothing more then political reasons.
Every time the church is involved in ANY discussion the abuse stuff comes out as though ALL Priests, not just a a MINUTE percentage were involved.
I agree, they’re out dated, they are becoming less relevant every year but I don’t have to call them names every time they are mentioned.
Thrill, the child molestation issue is relevant to the contraceptive issue. The Church says that paying for contraception interferes with their freedom of religion, making them participate in sin, as it were. The rest of the world is telling the Church that they no longer have standing to discuss moral positions after participating in, denying and and then shielding the deep immorality of molesting and violating children trusted to their care.
It is very similar to a woman complaining about having her freedom to go to bars curtailed after killing three people in a drunk driving accident.
the rest of the world with the exception of the U.S. republicans and a few conservative democrats..
I’m really not disputing that.
What I object to is the MASSIVE GENERALIZATION. Once again, I don’t believe in God and yet I see the good work they do.
It’s as though you can”t even begrudgingly give them any respect and that everyone involved with the church is an evil person.
I’m sorry, I try to put aside my personal opinion of religion.
I dont believe it is massive generalization to accuse an entire church of immorality when the head of the church and all the hierarchy are involved in covering up or staying silent about crimes against the smallest and weakest and least able to cry out.
Your comment mentioned no church, just “conservatives”
Does this mean you equate all conservatives with religious zealots?
Once again, You and I agree on just about everything.
The difference is that I have no interest in pointing fingers. Just on how to get these morons in Washington to do the right thing once in awhile.
Don’t you suppose that the prohibition of marriage in the Catholic church contributes to the incidence of pedophilia among priests by attracting a certain subset of individuals so motivated? The same subset might also be interested in coaching, scouting and any profession or avocation that gives them access to their prey.
You do not see anything close to the same incidence of pedophilia in other ministries or the rabbinate.
BTW – Contraception is an issue that is between a women and her doctor. Everyone else should butt out.
If the church healthcare plans didn’t cover Viagra and Cealis you would have riots in the streets.
Pedophiles gravitate to positions where parents will trust them with their children. Instances of pedophilia are certainly not limited to the Catholic church, as I can think of two Protestant ministers right off the bat from this area who were guilty of such.
It also occurs in the various scouting organizations, although apparently not as much as in religious groups.
And I agree with you on all except one point. You cannot hold every Catholic responsible for the actions of a very small portion of the faith . A faith I do not subscribe to, mind you.
I have to ask why no one talks about the good the church does. And they do a lot. But hey, let’s fixate on what .001 percent have done. It fits with a political motivation, RIGHT?
Your attempting to twist my words as though I were dismissing the child abuse case is offensive.
That’s it, I’ve decided all members of the DNC are JUST LIKE ANTHONY WEINER.
Get away from the mirror and pull your pants up.
Does that sound fair to you.?
How any parent can send their child to a catholic church is way beyond my ability to understand. How many children have been abused? All over the world it ranges into the thousands. Thousands!! Percentage is too high. The cover-up and denial alone is a reason not to send them there.
The CC actually has the highest numbers of sexual abuse. I believe this is because A. The age of consent in the Vatican is 12. B. They have a weird idea of normal sex.
God is American.
Personally I think the concept of, “God” is the greatest example of mass hysteria we have.
When it comes to the Catholic church, many of it’s most devout followers live their lives absent the bible until it serves their purpose. People purporting to be Christians calling other people names? Is that how the religious follow the word of their bible?
And Jesus was a white man.
Jesus was a Semite, like Jews and Arabs. Are Semites considered white?
shhh! That is supposed to be a secret. He is always pictured with white skin.
yeah, with blue eyes and long light brown hair. so ridiculous!
With blue eyes.
” The international numbers get
higher as courts order release of documents in American and European dioceses.
“The percentage of paedophile priests is 20 to 200 times higher than the
incidence found in the secular population,” according to a report by Vania Lucia”
Google the report
Heard anything about the Roman Catholic Church pedophilia cover up ?
Right so….. Hundreds of millions of Catholics are ALL responsible for the cover up.
Is it even5 percent? Ten? One?
Can you ;please give me a list of every individual that I should now despise?
do not go off the deep end….. please remember that this conversation is about the Catholic Church
with THEIR holier than thou attitude denying to follow the law of the land and provide their employees with healthcare coverage… coverage passed and codified by the US government…. they do not have to agree that it is the right thing to do but when they are operating businesses they do have to obey the law… not that complicated, simply a matter of labor law, not one of Church law.
Unfortunately the letter of the law is on their side.
I really couldn’t care less either way at this point.
Let’s ask a few people if they even remember what they’re fighting about.
Doesn’t really matter to people anymore.
I do not believe anyone is accusing the Catholic church members of abuse or coverup. It is the hierarchy, those in charge of church rules, who are guilty of hiding pedophelia cases and the priests who commit them.
Yes, at least 10%. They even have a facility in Canada where they send them.
Okay, so what about the other 90 percent?
Oh it’s a church alright. Growing up in the Catholic Church decades ago everyone knew the head priest of our church (I forget the term for this) was having an affair with a married woman, and nobody cared. Now I wonder if he was doing it to gain access to her children!
The Church of “Do as I say, not as I do” perhaps?
I know a woman who’s mother used to make out in the front seat of a car with a priest with her sitting in the back.
Actually they didnt cover child abuse because the age of consent in the Vatican is 12.
The Blunt Amendment has failed in the Senate. The law and logic triumph over religion,repression and raving lunacy. Praise Jeebus!!!!
By three votes. Scary.
“Should President Obama be asking the Catholic Church, in this light, to provide vital health care benefits to women?”
Churches were NEVER required to and now even religious institutions are allowed exemptions. Yet people are still complaining about this? Seems like it has more to do with politics than actual moral qualms.
This is not really a new ruling. It was decided in 2000 by a ruling of the EEOC. No one complained during the Bush war years. Now it is election time and the republicans have such idiots running and so few solutions to the real problems, jobs, jobs, jobs, that they have seized on this to try to motivate the ultra cons.
Ya .know I don’t disagree with you.
However, I don’t see the DNC doing ANYTHING either.
Enough of the name calling and SIMPLE MINDED attacks.
How is that so many can be so blind? Or do they just pretend to be blind?
Actually the “Compromise” does nothing.
Devil’s Advocate: many of these hospitals SELF INSURE Which means they WILL be paying for contraception.
Everyday I support the Church less on this issue because of the hypocrisy involved but I do understand that the “Change” is nothing more then semantics.
Either way, the issue is nothing more than politics.
To those who choose to make it political YES.
Sally Jones – Congratulations for having the ability to think logically. So many on here, especially on the left, are incapable of such a process. You should have coffee with Christine Talbott.
Doris Watkins – Man will probably intervene before nature has a chance. We are, after all, very destructive and inhumane, especially when it comes to those we take power over; like the unborn, elderly, poor, and handicapped. Have you seen the movie, “I Am Legend”?. Could come true one of these days.
Elle Morris – SSM is divisive, as well as unnatural and immoral.
EJ, Sally C Jones is not thinking, she is ruminating. And, you’re quite right, the left doesn’t ruminate. Unlike conservatives that have only a tenuous understand of the difference between fact and opinion, those on the left look up information, research facts, read multiple opinions, reach conclusions and end written comments with conclusions, not with silly conservative opinions pretending to be deeply thoughtful question.
I have been looking for a thoughtful conservative commentator on these posts, but feel as unproductive in that search as was Diogenes.
I’m hurt…..
LMAO, Oh yea, your all about facts, You NEVER needlessly call people names.
Trust me, your NOT above it, Your DOWN IN IT.
Oh girl, please. Calling someone’s relationship unnatural and immoral is alright as long as it is in generic terms? Come on.
Hey Thrill, how about you stop yelling? Makes you come across as foolish.
Hey, how about you comment on what I say and not the fact that I capitalize on occasion to STRESS my point.
I don’t call names. However, I’d be willing to make an exception for you, if you’d like.
J, Sally C Jones is not thinking, she is ruminating. And, you’re quite right, the left doesn’t ruminate. Unlike conservatives that have only a tenuous understand of the difference between fact and opinion, those on the left look up information, research facts, read multiple opinions, reach conclusions and end written comments with conclusions, not with silly conservative opinions pretending to be deeply thoughtful question. A little condescending don’t you think? Didn’t call em a name but you certainly slammed them with your superiority complex. By the way, If I look through a few topics I have seen MANY mean spirited comments on your part .Not based in fact (How could it be? Do you know every member of the RNC? )Do you know even .0001 percent of all republicans?? If not how exactly can you make a statement on how ALL members think and react. Once again, i’m very liberal on social issues but I cannot support a party that wants to throw good money after bad. I’d support more spending if I thought those in office had a clue, I DON’T I come up with ideas such as drug testing for those asking for assistance I get shouted down and it’s explained to me that people have rights. All I see in that stance is denial. If we enable people without taking them by the hand, improving their chance of success we are doing them a disservice but NOOOOO, god forbid we try to improve our society. Improve the lives of those addicted not to mention the real victim’s, the children.
Yes, I am occasionally condescending. So? Condescension is the appropriate response to comments that simply parrot sources of mindless bigotry. If posters feel indignant about being condescended to they should spend more effort on researching their subject.
If you were directing your comments to ONE individual I could accept that.
You’re making sweeping generalizations.
“Unlike conservatives that have only a tenuous understand of the difference between fact and opinion”
You’re arrogance betrays you.
(All of “those people” are dumb)
You are not special. and I don’t recall you flashing any credentials indicating I should accept your word as gospel.
Your nothing more then another guy that preaches tolerance as long as you share their opinion. If not, well…….See the second paragraph.
By the way, “Understand”? really. Wow wouldn’t expect that of a perfect person.
Respond all you want. I see what I see, if you have any humility you have got to admit i’m on the right track.
Ya don’t, do ya?
I did not make a sweeping generalization. I addressed my comment specifically to those conservatives who consider their opinions to be facts. It is not my fault if this is a major problem among conservatives.
And, no, I do not admit you are on any track since I have no hard evidence of your trackfulness or your tracklessness. And, I’m rather dubious that my humility has very much to do with it.
Yes, msally, you are often right. But you are too often condescending. It makes you seem very small.
EJ, easy on the “immoral” and “unnatural” regarding SSM, please. I suspect that , if asked, most Americans would disagree with you. Polls are trending toward equality.
Divisive? Yes, very. But I remain optimistic that folks like yourself will step out from behind your walls of prejudice soon.
I don’t live by polls. I live by my beliefs. And my belief that the homosexual lifestyle is a choice. I would also defend a person’s right to make that choice, but do not believe that a person’s choice should be used to change traditions of laws. As for being unnatural, that is a given, because it goes against the laws of nature. Immoral? To me, yes. To some others, no. To others, who cares. That’s just the way it is.
And I am not prejudice. I am opinionated and strong in my beliefs and faith.
I have read many of your comments and would certainly agree that you are opinionated. In the interest of a better understanding of your worldview, would you be willing to answer a few questions? You have made mention here and there that you are an older gentleman living in Florida. Is that correct? Are you a “native” Mainer? How much time, if any, do you spend in Maine? Where in Maine are you from? I would like to know more about you and your views in the future and some basic biographical information would be very helpful. Thank you, EJ.
I was born and raised in Northern Maine. But, with the lack of opportunities that existed when I graduated from high school, and the fact that I didn’t have the money to go to college, I joined the military and made a career. I alway had Loring on my dream sheet, but never got stationed there. And I was heartbroken when Loring was closed, primarily because the closing was nothing more than a political move where the Maine reps gave in to those in NY, and the operating costs for the base were fudged to make it look too expensive to remain open (I know this for a fact). Closing Loring devastated the area. But, that’s another story altogether.
I love the state of Maine, and always will. I mourn for her decline, especially the decline in the Northern part of the state. Every time I come back to visit family, I’m saddened by how much the area has deterioriated. No jobs. No industries. Family farms disappearing. Depressed people. Poverty. So few willing to risk it all to get something going. And the natural beauty of the state being defiled by those 400 ft tall monstrosities that won’t pay for themselves for 20 years. But, that, too, is another story.
I read the BDN online and comment on issues that I am passionate about. I talk quite regularily with family and friends throughout the state. I’m still connected.
E.J.
Sure wish you were still here in Aroostook. We could use your vote to help keep the momentum of “moving to the right” strong and certain!
Yes you need more uneducated people up there.
I’ll take uneducated over immoral anyday. However, I am neither.
So you ran from it instead of sticking in and helping. So you dont pay taxes in Maine because you cant get what you want here. Funny, myself and my partner both graduated from here, make over 6 figures with jobs from here, raise and educate our children here (one did leave for college in NH just to experience life a little) and we contribute to the state of Maine even though we are discriminated against. Basically, EJ, if your are not part of the solution stop being part of the problem.
“Ran”? No. I served my country for over 20 years. I helped secure your freedom to make the choices you make and live the life that you live. I put my life on the line for every other American; hundreds-of-millions of them that I would never meet in person. I went where I was told to go and did what I was told to do for 2 decades. I, and my fellow men and women in uniform, sacrificed for this country. And we would do it all over again. I have never “ran” from anyone or anything.
Thank you for your response, EJ. I is easy to stereotype individuals one does not know based on comments that they might make on these often contentious comment boards. Now that I have a bit more biographical context, I will take a more nuanced view of your opinions. It would be very interesting to hear more of your thoughts on the Loring closure and its effect on Northern Maine. As regards wind mills-you are, in most cases, right.
If it is a choice why dont people ‘change’ when they are teased unmercifully, beaten, and denied so many things others have? I was one o these people and it ‘changed me for a little while until I almost died from the lies and the hiding. I am an out, proud lesbian woman in a healthy monogamous relationship. Please open your mind.
I don’t live by polls, either. But I do live as a gay person, and nothing’s going to change that. It doesn’t go against nature, it’s simply a variant.
That’s something people like yourself can’t seem to understand. Once you do, maybe you’ll finally appreciate what gays are fighting for.
How do you feel about your chances in the upcoming election?
I think if everyone in the state voted, it would be in our favor. But in reality, it may come down to what the weather is like that day.
unfortunately your belief is not based on biological evidence, no matter how well meaning you may mean to be….. and I too defend will anyone’s right to their opinion, but Sir you are quite clearly a prejudiced man no matter how you may be fooling yourself to think otherwise.
White Queen, Ms. Jones is incorrect that the Catholic Church is being asked “to provide vital health care benefits to women.” It is being asked not to meddle in an insurance contract between a corporate insurer and employees of a hospital with Catholic affiliation.
The mandate placed upon the insurer actually lowers the cost of the insurance for the hospital.
Tell me, logically, whether you would support a Hindu hotel magnate in his attempt to prohibit his employees from buying health insurance that covers cardiovascular disease. Eating all that beef and bacon is a sin and the Hindu hotel magnate is actually paying more for insurance that covers strokes and heart attacks.
That’s funny. An insurance contract between a corporate insurer and employees….I think you left out the extremely vital link here–the employer who negotiates and pays a large portion of the premium.
As for the Hindu example: The Hindu would have the right to present his argument before a court. Just as the Catholic has the right to present his.
As the contraception mandate actually decreases the cost of the policy, the employer no longer has a dog in this fight.
Do you really want your employer controlling what medicines you might buy? Are you a serf or a free person?
If the employer were only concerned about cost…but what if they were concerned about being complicit in an act that violates their religious belief? My employer has the right to control the hours I work, within reason, the wage I am paid, the scope of my job responsibilities and the provision of health insurance and what it covers. I have the right to work there, or somewhere else, or establish my own business. I also have the right to use my wages to buy birth control if I want it.
Your employment has been regulated in a host of ways: FLSA, Title VII, etc. This is a question of gender equality.
If the Catholic Church is paying for the majority of an insurance policy, they have every right to meddle in it, whether it costs them more to do so or not. If I were them, I wouldn’t even be fighting this battle. I would have given notice that health insurance would no longer be offered due to government intrusion.
As for the Hindu, you’re comparing apples to oranges. The Catholic Church is not attempting to prohibit employees from buying any kind of health insurance, they just want control over what the Church is paying for. I think most people would say that if the Hindu can find an insurer who will write a policy consistent with his beliefs that’s fine, it’s up to an employee to determine whether they will accept those conditions or not. But it really isn’t a religious matter, it’s a matter of liberty vs government control. This shouldn’t even be a religious argument and these freedoms shouldn’t be limited to religious employers. If I own the ABC Corporation and want to provide a policy that excludes contraception, chemotherapy, and broken bones, the government ought to stay out of it.
Gee, a crappy movie is the best you could come up with? The BOOK the movie is based on is a classic. Will smith has had three good parts. the rest are, “The fresh prince of Independence day.” The Fresh prince of I Robot”, and many other BAD movies.
Too bad really, he is talented, see, “Six degrees of Separation”
But it appears easier to play himself with his LAME witty Repartee.
If you wanna reference the end of the world on film there are MANY better, Smarter, examples.
See, Vincent Price, Charlton Heston, heck, even Burgess Meredith.
P. S. I’m waiting with Baited breathe for the end. can’t wait to see how some people act.
I truly do believe that someday, Soylent Green, WILL be people.
I liked “Seven Pounds”, “Hancock”, and “Pursuit of Happiness”.
I’ll give ya 2 outta 3…”Pursuit” Was great.” Seven pounds” was pretty good.
I’m a comic fan boy going back to the early 70’s. I wanted Hancock to be good but it missed the mark for me.
That’s all right. The “Avengers” is about to release. Can’t wait for that one. Marvel is doing an exceptional job on their movies. And they haven’t hired Will Smith for any of them. haha
DUDE, you have no idea. I have collected comics since the early seventies. Hell I have a poster of Captain America’s first modern appearance framed in my living room.
The Avengers have always been my favorites. You have no idea how exited I was to see a child’s imagination come to life through SOME of the recent movies.
Not to mention the great job done bringing THE WATCHMEN to the big screen.
Peter Pan Anyone?
SSM and homosexuality is the most natural thing in nature. SSM was prominent in most communities and civilizations. These civilizations came to an end only when western societies came in and tried to end it. Do your homework please. Jesus spoke more of slavery than he ever did of homosexuals.
Jesus never spoke of homosexuality. But, through His chosen messenger, Paul, the issue of homosexuality was addressed. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 spells out many sinful lifestyles that people back then were living. Verse 11 of the same chapter quite clearly proclaims that we, as humans, have the power to turn away from our chosen paths through the power of the Lord Jesus Christ.
As for civilizations coming to their end, how did the western societies take down the Greek and Roman Empires? Simply put, they didn’t because they didn’t exist at the time. Both the Greek and Roman Empires came to their end shortly after they both allowed an ‘anything goes’ attitude amongst the people, especially in the upper class. The upper class became selfish, greedy, and immoral, and the lower class became more and more dependent on the upper class. Both Greece and Rome crumbled from the inside. Much like what is happening in this country.
Greece and Rome collapsed under the weight of their wealth, not because of decadence. It relied on foreign mercenaries to fight most of their latter wars and lost the ability to defend itself without the use of mercenaries. Once teh mercenaries figured this out it was only a mtter of time before Rome fell to either outside enemies or internal enemies.
Rome and Greece had always had an ‘anything goes’ attitude even in the beginning of the empire.
The Chinese empire is the longest living and their attitudes toward homosexuality were open until the West came in and changed it. Greece and Rome were strong until Europe came in and told them they were bad and divided them amoungst themselves.
Actually it was Confucius that made wide ranging changes to the Chinese moral code. Including things like relationships between men and women as well as homosexuality.
Source please.
Here is a link that does a pretty good job and btw it proves jersey correct regarding homosexuality and me correct regarding Confucius role in relationships between men and women. Homosexuality (and i don’t usually delve into this subject) was ok in pre-western times but was considered ok as long as the relationship didn’t interfere with manly duties like , ” produce heirs to maintain family lineages.” Otherwise it was just never brought up.
http://www.patheos.com/Library/Confucianism/Ethics-Morality-Community/Gender-and-Sexuality.html
Thanks.
I don’t believe anything that Paul wrote. He never knew Jesus so he has no authority as far as I’m concerned. I only care about what Jesus said.
The sainted Paul has been a problem for all women through the ages. He’s the reason for 2000 years of Christian misogyny
You make same sex marriage divisive. Your bigotry gives you leave to judge others without foundation.
Why should I care who you marry? Why should you care who I marry? How does it effect you you one way or another? As it happens I have been married for over 30 years, does that make a difference? Would it matter if I had been married to a man rather than a woman for that time?
Why do you care?
All good questions. None of which EJ has answered.
Not only should the church, any church, not be exempt from laws governing the treatment of employee’s, it should not be exempt from property nor income taxes either. Ditto for any non-profit, particularly a viable company such as Jackson Labs which has the unmitigated nerve to call itself non-profit! The religious right is always talking about government pandering to special interests but their hypocrisy know no bounds when it comes to their own.
I don’t believe in God but your not accounting for the fact of how much money and time the Catholic Church gives. They give a lot.
As long as they stay out of politics I would rather see them given tax exempt status then Media Matters, Wouldn’t you?
Sally C Jones, the Catholic church is a foreign entity, based in Italy, and controlled by foreigners. Perhaps the Catholic church officials in this country should be registered as foreign agents, especially if they intend to determine public policy and US law.
It’s more than just an entity. It is a country with an elected head and a representative ruling body. It send out and receives ambassadors from other countries; it has a seat at the UN; it has it’s own laws, own police force. It has a huge treasury, lends money to other countries and it involves itself intimately in the business of foreign countries stopping short of making treaties. I believe it coins its own money, although I think it is just ceremonial.
Yet the “conservatives”, those calling themselves real Americans, will defend the intrusion of the church into American government.
I’m just trying to point out the hypocrisy of the right wing when they defend a foreign oil company seizing American land by eminent domain in order to ship their foreign oil through pipes made in India to be exported to Europe. Add to that they will defend a foreign quasi-government dictating American policy and laws.
Once again, I am forced to ask: What policy and what laws is the Catholic Church dictating to America? And what are they threatening to do to America if the government doesn’t comply with their demands?
The Vatican is its own principality, and it is the home of the Pope, who is the head of the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church is catholic–individual believers living throughout the world, attending their parish church. Now, in China, the Catholic Church is allowed to exist as long as they say nothing about public policy. Is that what we want in America, where freedom of religion and freedom of speech are enshrined in our founding document?
Hypocrisy comes in many guises and one of them is the proposition that we should shut up the speech of those we don’t like, or those we disagree with.
Wandi, I admire your vigorous defense of the Church. I admire your deep religious attachment to your faith and your church. What I don’t admire is your intense efforts to equate faith with church. ‘Faith’ is private, internal and created by the spirit within you. ‘You are defined by faith. ‘Church’ is public, external and created by man. It is not ‘faith’ and it does not define you, and it can be wrong.
“Church” is simply a brand. Let’s say your brand of soda is “Fizzy”. If Fizzy started adulterating their drink it would in no way reflects on your character. You may still drink Fizzy, even though you acknowledge they broke laws; but Fizzy owns the problem not you
It’s the same way with the brand of ‘church’. They are fallible. They deserve occasional criticism. This in no way diminishes you or your faith. The problem belongs to the church not to those of the faith.
Thank you for your admiration. To be honest, although I am Catholic, I haven’t been a practicing Catholic for many years. I am an advocate for Constitutional freedom, even when I don’t agree with the opinion of others.
The issue is balancing the establishment clause against the free exercise clause, and finding the right balance. It isn’t always easy. I think Obama got it right on the second try.
The Catholic Church wants it’s “free exercise” rights protected. That’s natural. And the Church itself doesn’t have to, even through insurance, provide any contraception coverage. Hospitals are a different creature, because they employ and serve the general public. The Bishops want to — through the insurance companies that do business with the hospitals that serve and employ the public — establish their doctrine on contraception as public policy. The Obama Administration thought that was going too far.
Ya know what??
I have long professed my preference for animals over people but this is getting ridicules
Just as NO ONE goes to AN WAR and yet 12 people are demanding we don’t drill there..
We have MILLIONS of acres of unspoiled land here in Maine. I don’t know if the highway is a good idea or not but I WILL NOT BASE MY DECISION ON THE WILDLIFE AFFECTED. I say put it to a vote. Let the people decide on the FACTS. Not on the idea that an OWL may be displaced-sic-
Distruction of wetlands causes less water to be cleansed of pollutants, more flooding and more erosion of arible (ie farm land) so it is important to protect wetlands whether you like them or not.
An alternate route has already been okayed.
I’ll tell you what’s going on. president Obama will OK the pipeline immediately following his re-election. I respect him but he is nothing more then your average politician.
I don’t think Obama will OK the pipeline. He was against it but wanted to wait until after the election cycle to stop it. The Republican’s called him on it by requiring him to make a decision in 90 days. The Republican’s thought he would OK it to avoid the political ramifications but Obama stopped it anyway, so I don’t believe he will OK it after the election.
I’d love to hear from a PRACTICING Catholic woman that uses Birth control.
Since the Left claims that 98% of all Catholic women use some form of birth control, it shouldn’t be difficult to find a few.
If that women was sure that she would face not punishment from the Catholic CHurch you might get one.
Not really we see em’ everyday. One can assume there are at least a couple of women who fit that description that post here .
Now, whether they want to talk about it, that’s a different story.
Jody Spear
Why is it any of your concern what we choose to do in the northern part of the state?
I suggest you turn your attention to your own area and we in the rural parts of this state will continue to do the same.
Come on David… ROBthePUBLICans believe in the “every man for himself” idea…so long as they get to rip you off as well…
Jody Spear, maybe we could ban the use of cars and trucks and revert to horse and buggy. It is obvious that you would like Maine to be similar to Afghanistan with little or no modern infrastructure, populated with backward looking people.
I don’t neccessarily agree with a private enterprise building a highway that should be built by the government. But a modern, limited access highway should be built, the sooner the better,
Gee, Washington county might prosper a little from this. We can’t have that.
Doris Watkins, you are correct. God gave us brains and wants us to utilize the brains we have to solve the problems we face. There was a time when we needed to produce more people just to make up for the losses in population due to epidemics and high infant mortality, with a few wars thrown in for good measure.
Here we go again. We don’t agree with the White, Heterosexual, Conservative, Christian Male so we get his post removed. What are you liberals afraid of ? Could it be the truth?
Getting hit in the eye with a stone?
No way you are white.
Maybe white, but sure not a Christian.
Not truth Amcon…… boredom. Your screeds bore us. We’ve heard them all. Find a new site to annoy.
Doris, Our human technology allowed us to grow our worldwide population. There is no reason to think that technology and the proper employment of our resources will not allow that to continue. I guess i have more faith in people and the natural process than you do.
one third of child bearing age woman in China have had an abortion to try to control the overpopulation issues there.
Summary: It is estimated here that, as of 2008, about 28% of
U.S. women ages 15-64 have had abortions. This figure has risen from
2.8% in 1973 to 11% in 1980, 19% in 1987, 24% in 1994, and 27% in 2001.
In 2008, of women ages 40-55, about 40% have had abortions in their
lifetimes.
Abortion should only be legal in the case of rape or the mothers life. I am not an abortion proponent. I do believe in contraception and abstinence before adulthood and age of responsibility and preferably marriage. I am just making the statement that people are afraid of overpopulation and the result of that.
Actually, the majority of “voluntary abortions” in China are because of the sex of the child. “Forced abortions” on the other hand, are what you might be talking about. Either way, I doubt that the women having the abortions are concerned that much with overpopulation. But, I might be wrong.
The reason why the sex is an issue is because they are only allowed one child due to overpopulation. This is why they abort the girls.
As the population grows, the amount of ariabl eland decreases because the same land we use to grow food also has to house the people. As more land is taken for housing there is less land for growing food.
Also because of the ‘improvements’ to food production the food we eat is becoming less nutritious. For example Brocolli does not have the nutritional value it once did. Most vegitables that are not organically grown do not have the nutritional value of even 20 years ago so we have to eat more of it to get the nutritional requirements we need. All genetically altered food is less nutritious and in some cases possible dangerous to the end user, people.
There was an article a couple weeks ago that stated the FDA was being asked to allow genetically engineered Salmon to be grown. The Salmon matures in one year instead of two or three years which sounds good until you learn that most of the weight of Salmon is a less nutritious meat with a higher water content then natural Salmon.
Not to mention that the fresh water of this planet is already being stretched to the limit between human consumpion, industrial use and agricultural use. Most of the planet does not have the fresh water reserves to support both increased human population and increased agricultural and industrial use. Water distribution on this planet is uneven, to say the least, with the fastest growing populations having the least safe and secure water sources available to them.
Eighty-seven percent of fresh water is currently used for agriculture and it is unlikely that the water needs of agriculture will decrease in the future.
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/freshwater_supply/freshwater.html
There is a limit to the amount of healthy nutitious food that can be grown on this planet. We are at or near that limit and things will get worse insteadof better.
OK I see what you are saying.
Most of your post falls under my proper employment of resources comment.
I know that when there are great die-offs from starvation, for instance, we as a nation still dump excess food down the hopper.
Then Ethanol as an example, we are using our food for fuel… pretty dumb IMO. Prices rise making food costly to the consumer.
Countries like Zimbabwe used to be net exporters of food. politics.
I still say the problem is not too many people but how the resources are used.
I just don’t buy into this “finite” resources stuff. It has been proven untrue for oil and I’m sure its untrue for other resources as well.
Potable water is an environmental issue and and you may be right here if we don’t encourage clean-up and responsible usage.
Every resource on this planet has afinite amount of it. The more we use the harder it is for us to find and utilize it.
The oil we are currently using and drilling for is getting much more expensive and dangerous to get at. Eventually we will run out of available oil, maybe not oil itself but we may not have the technical means, money or the will to get at it.
Actually, if you think about it none of the resources are finite in the long run. Resources run in a never ending cycle, unless they are artificially depleted without consideration taken for renewal. Now, oil would take a long time to renew…so it isn’t feasible or sustainable to think we can just keep using it and not develop an alternative resource for energy. But we are developing alternatives to oil.
Sorry–can’t continue–got a crying baby to tend……
Jody, You forgot other beneficiaries of the Cross-Maine highway. The people of central Maine that will increase business connections to our friends across the border. The boom in cottage industries that always accompany new infrastructure improvements connecting other financial centers. The state of Maine Tax base that will collect revenue with every passing vehicle that did not pass this way before.
I think your opinion represents that of a modern day Luddite.
Bishop, if the public subsidizes it the public should own it.
Please stop calling me your pet names.
Besides what part of private do you not understand. You are able to tax profits and no doubt part of the “study” would be what percentage goes to the state. Just like the Hollywood slots deal. For a person with such a vocabulary you are remarkably short sighted.
I agree Cheesecake. Except that you mistakenly referred to the den of iniquity as Hollywood Slots. It is Hollywood Casino now. I seem to remember them promising to remain a slots parlor to get their foot in the door. Probably just confusion and “misremembering” on my part.
I am not a Hollywood Casino supporter. I was merely suggesting that the state is likely to require certain additional revenue in order to let it go forward as the appropriations committee did when the “Hollywoods” came to Bangor.
It always stuns me when folks who want to be able to tax existing business out of existence
forgo the opportunity to tax a new business because they believe it should be a money pit not a money maker. All the time wanting more for social services.
Sorry if I implied that you were a supporter of casinos. I was making light of the name change! lol.
k done :)
No public monies went to explore the Hollywood Slots deal.
We have done a better job in this country having the government own the roads it pays to be built than letting subsidized private entities do it. Contrast the Interstate Highway System with the nationwide railroad system. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
Not the point. Do you want additional tax revenue or not?
Obviously your vaunted National Highway System has not done very well for Maine. The government would never fund a highway like that these days. The only option left is private. Look at it this way… the proposed highway cuts through some of the most impoverished places in Maine. There are always cottage industries along highways that provide jobs. The government has no intention of doing anything andprivate concerns would.
As for you no public money went to explore the Hollywood slots deal are you sure you don’t want to reconsider that false statement.
I want publicly-owned roads. We’ve done a whole lat better with roads in Maine than with railroads. It is anti-tax zealots like you that make it difficult to build highways.
Pray tell me what public money went directly to Hollywood Slots?
But the government is unwilling to, and incapable of, doing it. The government has failed Maine people by keeping this proposed highway on the back burner for 40 years. They won’t the private sector will.
As for the money, we are talking about the “study” money and you know it. Are you certain that no state “study” money was available for the slots. If you say no, you are a liar.
The Federal Highway Administration uses a formula to determine whether public money is being spent appropriately when deciding to build a highway or not. If it is not cost effective for the entire region they do not build it. You aren’t saying you are for irresponsible federal spending are you?
Since private concerns still want an east/west highway even though the federal government has already done a feasibility study and determined it to be an inappropriate allocation of tax dollars, then it’s common sense that private concerns should pay for their own preliminary and feasibility studies
The feasibility study involves things like environmental concerns, regulations and the sorts of things that concern government including licensing and liability, not the profitability end of things. You can bet the money side has already been done or people would not be lining up to invest in it. Actually it was done in 2008 and I will bet its already been updated.
No,I believe it takes into consideration the economic impacts of communities it goes through or connects. At least it used to. I don’t know why they would abandon that part of a feasibility study. Especially if they are being asked to determine it on the basis of economic development for a region.
You are probably right but wouldn’t that again be part of the study that government should concern itself with? Would be best at?
But my understanding is that the study had more to do with government responsibilities. To be honest $300k doesn’t seem near enough to do all the things the two of us believe it does.
I was speaking to a gentleman the other day, former state Senator, that expressed concern for the wild areas up by the western border with Quebec. He posed his concern that wilder areas stayed wild to P Vigue. Peter simply said that he wouldn’t put an exit near those small towns. Northern New Hampshire has done a masterful job fitting the highways into the environment. I vacation up there every summer because our back areas though more wild simply don’t have the accommodations and events that NH does.
We have traveled that Coburn Gore route every year for almost 40 years going to a camp in Ontario. The roads through Maine have improved considerably along this route until they actually are pretty good now. But the only development we have seen in that time has been in expanded farming and lumbering on the Canadian side. There has been no development on the Maine side in 40 years, even the area around Sugarloaf has grown only a little. There are actually fewer gas stations, motel and restaurants. Something is lacking, either an entrepreneurial spirit or resources or financial backing; but it’s not lack of continuing improvement of roads. I honestly don’t see what the proposed highway is trying to do other than connect Montreal with St. John.
I keep equating and east/west highway with what I know about Rt 17(I 89) in the southern tier of NYS. It was built to encourage development in an area of small remote towns. It’s been built for about 30 years and nothing has developed along it. I think maybe roads follow development not the other way around.
Perhaps you are right but if what you say is a myth, that myth came about during the 50’s and 60’s when business sprang from whole cloth around the newly developed highway system.
I jump back to the beautiful highway system in New Hampshire and many if not most of the vacation business you find there would not exist except for the highway.
That’s interesting about the development in NH. The same thing has not happened on the route out to Coburn Gore even though there has been development on the Canadian side. I wonder what is different?
Highways connect people. And even if they didn’t I would not mind taxing the hundreds of trucks per day that pass between NB and QB and then come back.
If you are concerned at all about the environment consider the diesel saved on 3 or 4 hours traveling across Maine. Now multiply that by hundereds per day. I don’t know what a truck uses per hour but they can’t get more than 5-7 MPG.
Doris Watkins,
You really believe all that dooms-day gloom? Agriculture technology has improved over the years to allow for more to be grown in a smaller area. This has allowed populations to thrive, and advance. If we’re responsible with land use, and build vertically, we’d have no problems. There are large swaths of land that is still uninhabited here in the United States, as well as across the world.
If we worked together instead of continually being at war for stupid rivalries, idiotic “new and better” ideas, add plain greed and ignorance… Well, you’d have a wonderful place to live, and still able to go camping. But everything on paper can be a utopia. I’m sure you long for the days when we as a race get our population under control. The problem is, how do you implement that? Who decides who gets to reproduce and who doesn’t? What kind of cold and cruel government would possibly impose such a burden on its subjects? Or even just have a large part of the population die off, like that whole World War II “thing” that happened, ya know?
I know you Georgia Guidestone types. Do me a favor and start with yourself. Get everyone that thinks like you do to drink the cool-aide. Be virtuous and lead by example, warrior of Gaia! I only half-kid here, but I do so in order that you open up your eyes and recognize the venom of that thinking, to think that mankind is a cancer upon the Earth. We have yet to figure out how everything works, it isn’t solid science yet, don’t jump the gun and do things to lower the “surplus population,” us “useless eaters” as I’ve heard from time to time.
P.J. O’Rourke once remarked that population control people work under the mantra that there is “too much of you, and just the right amount of me.”
As the population grows, the amount of ariableland decreases because teh same land we use to grow food also has to house the people. As more land is taken for housing there is less land for growing food.
Also because of the ‘improvements’ to food production the food we eat is becoming less nutritious. For example Brocolli does not have the nutritional value it once did. Most vegitables that are not organically grown do not have the nutritional value of even 20 years ago so we have to eat more of it to get the nutritional requirements we need.
There was an article a couple weeks ago that stated the FDA was being asked to allow genetically engineered Salmon to be grown. The Salmon matures in one year instead of two or three years which sounds good until you learn that most of the weight of Salmon is a less nutritious meat with a higher water content then natural Salmon.
Not to mention that the fresh water of this planet is already being stretched to the limit between human consumpion, industrial use and agricultural use. Most of the planet does not have the fresh water reserves to support both increased human population and increased agricultural and industrial use.
There is a limit to the amount of healthy nutitious food that can be grown on this planet. We are at or near that limit and things will get worse insteadof better.
Fear not, the Japanese recently figured out how to make hamburger out of human feces.
Eewww!!!
I was going to say “sad but true” but in trying to find a link to the story it looks like it might be a hoax. Sorry!
Well, that certainly is the best news of the day. LOL
Did you find that story at Onion.com :)
It would not be feasible to make hamburger out of anytype of feces. Not enough nutrritional value left in it and the texture would be all wrong…. not to mention the yuck factor. :)
If crops are grown sensibly then there is plenty of resources and no need to deplete the land. What makes no sense is that we have millions of people living in a desert in California and Arizona, and we divert precious water resources so they can maintain lawns and golf courses.
Crops are grown all over the world, in areas that have plenty of resources to areas that do not. Tehcrops grown in central Asia and sub-Saharan Africa are not regions with plenty of resources. Most of the regions with plenty of resoureces also have large populations of people that require room to live in that takes away from the arible land, which is less than 15% of the Earth’s land mass.
As for being sensible with how we grow crops, please explain to me why we are growing Rice in the Arizona desert near the Mexican border. Rice requires the most water of any domestic grain grown for food. We are taking so much water from the Colorado River that it no longer reaches the Pacific Ocean, most likely this is a violation of International Law with Mexico but who are they to demand that we stop wasting water from the Colorado River.
Of using food grains to make Ethanol. A study was done that showed Hemp was a much more efficient source of fiber for creating Ethanol and could be grown in the areas between crop fields and othe land not suitable for growing crops. There was also a US Department of Agriculture report that stated 1 acre of Hemp could make as much paper as 4.1 acres of trees. But because of the stupid policy of anything from Hemp being bad were are not being sensible.
I’m against any Genetically Modified Organisms. I try to keep that funky stuff out of my fridge. Sadly, agribusiness has left us with cheap food that isn’t as good as it
once was. Their greed is causing dietary problems to people who aren’t
aware of the potential and untested risks GMOs may have on humans. Is it any wonder that we have more and more cases of diabetes and obesity-related problems in the age where we put things in our diet that we shouldn’t eat?
Also, I’ve seen a web ad for information on a guy who claims to have grown literally 1 million pounds of food on just 3 acres of land, and yet to see any news to the contrary. Still looking into it though. I’m sure the big agribusinesses would love to introduce legislation in an effort to shut people like him down if they started to see a dip in profits…
Doris – maybe we should build more abortion and euthanization facilities , we can give tax credits or other bennies to the families that have members who choose to use these?
How about we just allow birth control to help keep families at a more reasonable number of say 2 kids per family not eight or ten, as is now the case in sub-Saharan Africa and central Asia. This would allow the population to stabilize itself and maybe even slowly lower the population to a more sustainable number.
I rate your post as 95% made up with remaining 5% hysteria
Oops. I guess I shouldn’t have insulted Rachael Maddow. The lefties love her.
It’s not lefties. Nobody likes your disgusting language.
I will admit I need to read up on it some more, but I am confused as to the issue itself of an insurance of a Catholic company-organization-whatever offering birth control coverage. Because an insurance has coverage does not mean you have to utilize it. Maybe my insurance covers sex changes, and I am fine with my orientation – it doesn’t mean I have to go have one. I guess I am missing the arguement here. Sorry. Even though I could be Catholic, but I want to ensure that I do not add to the world’s populations, and yes, for goodness sakes, I like having sex with my spouse, because of the “Catholic religion is against birth control” means I am out of luck (scratching head here) if I work for a church organization-company-whatever??. And…having sex with my spouse without making a baby is a mortal sin? Am I getting it?
I’m not making it divisive. I’ve offered civil unions with all the marriage trimmings if only the tradition of marriage stays between one man and one woman. Trouble is, nothing will be good enough as long as there is a shred of morality and God in the marriage square.
As for your questions, if I had no morals or Christian beliefs, I wouldn’t care.
certainly not the ‘last word’ but here is an excerpt from Wikipedia simply to say that others thru the ages have had other views on marriage
Various marriage practices have existed throughout the world. In some societies an individual is limited to being in one such couple at a time (monogamy), while other cultures allow a male to have more than one wife (polygyny) or, less commonly, a female to have more than one husband (polyandry). Some societies also allow marriage between two males or two females. Societies frequently have other restrictions on marriage based on the ages of the participants, pre-existing kinship, and membership in religious or other social groups.