Drug problems
Maine has a prescription drug problem and a welfare problem. Thirty percent of Maine’s budget funds welfare programs, more than we spend on schools and new jobs. There are 22 programs. Sign up for one, your eligibility for the other 21 is automatically checked.
Washington County alone has almost 50 percent of its population receiving TANF, food stamps or Medicaid. Twenty-two percent of the convictions in the most recent session of Washington County Superior Court involved one or more drug charges, all of those involving scheduled (prescription) drugs. Maine currently requires individuals convicted of drug felonies to submit to a drug test before receiving welfare.
What about those who don’t get caught or are convicted of a misdemeanor? Most jobs today require applicants to submit to a pre-employment drug test. Maine residents who receive welfare should have to do the same. Current welfare recipients have expressed offense and outrage at the idea that they should have to submit to a drug test; that someone is implying welfare users are drug users. That’s hardly the case. Prescription drug users and abusers should not be allowed to have the same benefits as law-abiding people who are simply using the “hand up” that the state offers as a means to better their situation for their families and themselves. Its not an accusation aimed at those who receive state aid. It’s a means to ensure they receive the aid they qualify for, without wasting resources on people who illegally abuse drugs.
Andrea Ahearn
Holden
What marriage is about
We read Mr. Pinette’s OpEd (“Compromise is possible,” BDN, April 20) asking if there could be a “title” that would be acceptable to those of us in the gay and lesbian community who wish to marry. We appreciate and share Mr. Pinette’s wish for consideration and compassion toward one another.
Same-sex marriage is not only about rights and privileges, but also about love, respect, commitment, responsibility and family. These are what marriage is really about for all couples, regardless of sexual orientation.
There is a problem if different states arrive at various “titles.” Every state has laws that allow only “married” adults standing that many married man-and-woman couples take for granted.
Let us explain that we are a same-sex couple in our 70s. We grew up, the same as everyone else, believing that marriage was the ultimate commitment a person can make to another. We married in Vermont, but we want our marriage legally recognized in Maine.
Joy was with her previous partner for over 30 years, yet was not allowed to claim her body because she was not related to her. Lynn cannot name Joy as her pension beneficiary; her pension plan allows changes only for recognized marriages. These same types of written regulations, laws and rules exist in every state.
We were born and we have birth certificates. We will die and we will have death certificates. Please help us to be married and have legal marriage certificates from the state of Maine.
Lynn Smith
Joy Landers
Addison
Augusta vote
The Republicans in Augusta shirked their duty when they refused to return to work to address the governor’s line-item veto. After weeks of hard work and late nights to create a budget, they just then rolled over and played dead.
Imagine if you or I refused to go back to work because we couldn’t be bothered. How long do you think we would last in our jobs?
Who are these legislators, anyway? It seems there was a secret vote not to go back to work. If our elected officials vote on something that affects public policy, we have a right to know who they are. They don’t even seem to have the courage of their convictions to step forward to say who they are and why they voted the way they did.
Readers, get in touch with your Republican legislators and ask them if they were among those who refused to go back and why. Since it is the majority of Republicans, I am assuming it is all who are guilty of dereliction of duty until I hear otherwise.
Fortunately, we can “fire” these servants of the people next election.
Linda Buckmaster
Belfast
Kudos to councilors
Kudos to Councilors Charlie Longo and Joseph Baldacci for going on the record opposing an appearance by Ted Nugent in Bangor’s summer concert series. Nugent’s flagrant disrespect for our president and secretary of state is outrageous.
Bangor should not be held hostage by a concert promoter’s dire warnings should Nugent’s act be canceled. Ted Nugent’s remarks are an affront to the decent, good people of our city. We can and should do far better than simply staying at home to protest his appearance, regardless of the city’s contractual agreement with Waterfront Concerts.
Rev. Mark Allen Doty, Ph.D.
Brewer
Councilor Concert
As an Army veteran I took an oath to protect my country from enemies foreign and domestic. I would have to consider these two Bangor City councilors the latter for wanting to keep Ted Nugent from coming to Bangor. The secret service interviewed Mr. Nugent and cleared him of any wrongdoing. That should be good enough for them to let it go. The residents of Bangor deserve better than these two. Thank you Alex Gray for standing your ground.
Ron Cote
Old Town
John Paul mistake
“There is no room in the priesthood for those who harm children,” said John Paul II to the American church leaders 10 years ago (“This Day In History” BDN 4/23/2012). Wishful thinking that was! The events of the past 10 years have shown how mistaken John Paul was.
Thousands of cases of sexual children by Catholic priests have been reported in this country; hundreds of cases have been settled (Boston; Los Angeles; Tucson; Stockton, Calif., and other places) at a cost to the church of more than three billion dollars. In other countries, the record has been equally disastrous: Last year, Ireland closed its embassy at the Vatican following the reports of sexual abuse of thousands of children and coverups by religious authorities; in Belgium, Pope Benedict failed to defrock bishop Vangeluwe of Brugge, even after he admitted on French television that he sexually abused two young boys.
In our own state of Maine, contrary to John Paul ‘s promise, bishop Malone is keeping secret a list of priests who are credibly accused of sexual abuse.
Robert Gossart
Salisbury Cove
The problem with Mr. Nugent is that he is a loose cannon, appears to lack self control and likes to promote his political view points in places where he can’t be refuted. When his concerts start there is some question as to whether it will be a Country/Western concert or a political rant.
If the Bangor counselors wish to hold a rude political spectacular then they should hire rude political partisans. If the purpose of the Waterfront Concerts is to provide music then musicians that eschew threatening political ranting and stick to playing music should be hired.
The loose cannons are on the Bangor city council.
More like cheap fireworks: One never knows when they will go off.
Sally, the Bangor counselors do not hire the entertainers that perform at the Waterfront Concert Series, Alex Gray does.
If you don’t like the talent Alex Gray hires, don’t go. It really is that simple.
You can also write letters, urge boycotts, or call Mr. Gray. That is all the councilors did and they are perfectly within their rights to do so.
Never said they couldn’t or shouldn’t have done what they did.
I see your point about a concert-turned-politcal tirade. One would hope he sticks with what he was hired for. I really couldn’t care less about his political views, although I personally don’t agree with most of what he has said.
But, really, Ted Nugent? I cannot say I have heard one of his songs. I will have to YouTube him, but couldn’t Bangor “class it up” a bit and get some better grade entertainers? It’s the 2nd biggest city in Maine. Raise the bar a little bit.
======
Okay, just went to YouTube and listened to a few Ted Nugent selections. Not my kind of music. Perhaps, for that genre he is good. Beats me. I think if I had to attend, ear plugs would be needed. Really, really, loud.
Never mind. Mis-post.
Linda Buckmaster–I agree with you that our legislature did not represent us when they decided to misinterpret the rules to allow them to not deal with the governor’s ill conceived line item vetoes. I asked my senator why he flip flopped and he hid behind the cost savings of reconvening for a true vote–$15,000 per day. Apparently this is the official Maine Republican Party excuse for this cowardly lack of action. I will recommend that after we replace all these corporate shills in November, that we task our new representatives with defining “must act’ for future line item veto situations. The precedent set by the 125th is untenable.
Let see spend $15,000 per day to make you “feel” happy and validated, when the legislature is scheduled to have a session to “finish” up their work in a few days. To call a special session to handle this situation sounds like a play out of the Democratic play book. Adjourn the legislature and call a special session to what, get their way. Unfortunately when this question was placed on the ballot this “situation” never occurred to anybody. Live with it until the legislature returns and save some bucks. If you don’t like the results, make sure you get out the vote for your party this fall.
My feelings and validation have nothing to do with it. The question is, does the legislature abide by the constitution or does one party make up its own rules off the cuff. The republican leadership set a very dangerous precedent by railroading these cuts through and don’t tell me the timing was just a coincidence. I may have been born at night but it wasn’t last night.
The question is what to do with the line item vetoes the Governor used as approved by the voters of Maine. Some as yourself feel that a special session needs to be called immediately. The Constitutional amendment passed by the referendum is not clear as to whether immediate action is required or not. Nor has a “definition” of immediate action been established. The Republican leadership didn’t railroad anything just declined to drop everything and reconvene until that “trailer” session is held. And the Comment does one party make up its own rules one just needs to look back over the last three decades to see how that works.
How about this: the “flip flopper” thought the bill overall should be passed, but was happy with the specific line veto, and thus cast his/her vote by opting not to return.
Lynn, Joy, Linda, Robert: good letters.
To Mr. Gossart: Bishop Malone believes he has a higher duty than that of releasing the names of convicted sex offenders–a duty to his church to protect as many of them as he can. Yet he and so many other Catholic leaders worry about gays having the right to marry as if that were a real threat to anyone in their respective communities. Such illogic but so compelling to those who insist that the Catholic Church’s anti-gay marriage values be imposed on the rest of us in Maine and elsewhere.
I’m confused (I know, I know, it doesn’t take much so take it easy on the smart remarks) – so, by not allowing people to spend the night at the local library is infringing on free speech, and we are going to crucify Mr. Nugent for partaking in his right to free speech?? I am not condoning the comments, but take a look at the comments presented here about Obama on a daily basis(and good or bad, a president should warrant some respect – kind of like peeing on the flag) – should we run everyone out of town? If you don’t like him or his music, then don’t buy a ticket. The daytime and nighttime radio personalities (Limbaugh, Imus, OReilly, etc) make borderline anti-American attacks on the president daily, and most aren’t insisteng they be thrown out.
Here’s the problem. Mr. Nugent bills himself as a musician. He gets hired to make music. People come to a concert expecting to hear music. Instead they are likely to hear Mr. Nugent indulge in a political polemic. Not only that Mr. Nugent doesn’t share his political stage with anyone who might care to discuss a different political view point. He has a captive audience who came to hear music and instead have to endure a political rant about guns from a gun totting fanatic.
Now if they want to give Mr. Nugent a platform from which to threaten the president, promote the carrying of guns and the NRA that’s fine have a political rally and bill it as such. Whoever is in charge of hiring performers for the Bangor Waterfront Concerts has to decide if they are going to put on a concert or a political rally.
Nugent fans know him and his music and are glad to pay the price of a ticket for the complete Nugent package why do you have such a problem with that???
I don’t. Read my correction above. As long as everybody knows they are going to listen to music, crude language and inane raving about something that isn’t happening, I’m good. Sell tickets. Listen to idiots. This is America, enjoy.
I can only wonder when your denial of what is going on in america and what Obama is doing is going to end. I hope soon for your sake so you will have a little time to prepare for whats ahead if he happens to win re election
So, why don’t you enumerate what we in America are denying. I don’t have time to complete a research as I’m busy fighting to keep Republicans from legislating women back to the 19th century.
If I have to break it down for you apparently you are too blind to see the forrest through the trees or you feel the country is in great shape and feel Obama is doing a good job. In either case there is not much hope for you
So you can’t break it down to show why you are so afraid of Obama?
Well, you can’t blame them for not saying aloud that the country should be run by white, christian, conservative xenophobic males with high school educations. It tends to identify them as bigots. LOL
Sally plenty of musicians from both sides of the aisle use the stage as a political forum. Bruce Springsteen, John Mellencamp, etc…have all done it and continue to do it.
And I guess you didn’t get the memo from the Secret Service so trust me on this, no threat to the President or Secretary of State occurred at the NRA convention. The Secret Service investigated it and determined no threat occurred. If they found a threat did occur Mr. Nugent would have been arrested on federal charges and very likely still be in a jail cell today.
Alex Gray is in the entertainment business. He hires entertainers to perform. If he makes the wrong choice in who to bring, people will not go and he will lose money. If he makes the right choice he will make money. It’s really that simple and if you don’t like it you are not required to go.
What Nugent said were foul-mouthed implied threats — but may not have been 100% explicit as threats (although his foul language was very explicit). I’ve tried to quote on this page what he said, but the BDN says they have to review it to see if it passes their standards (even though I modified his foul language).
The Dixie Chicks got boycotted by radio stations and had to cancel concerts because they said of President Bush 43, “We’re embarrassed the president is from Texas.” What they said was extremely mild compared to what Nugent gets away with.
Did the Secret Service investigate what Nugent said? Yes
Did the investigation result in any charges being brought? No
Is the investigation still open? No
If people want to boycott Nugent’s concerts, call radio stations and tell them not to play his music, call radio station sponsors and tell them they will boycott their products and services unless Nugent’s music is taken off the air, etc…have at it.
The Dixie Chicks are but one example of “left” leaning entertainers that have used the stage to discuss/rant/rage about “right” leaning politicians/policies. Others include Springsteen, Mellencamp, West to name three. Historically entertainers have used the stage to sing/discuss/rant/rage about social issues and politics. Dylan, Peter, Paul and Mary, etc…are two that come to mind.
Did Nugent make a poor choice of words? No question he did.
Did his choice of words make a point? Yup and we are still talking about it.
Sounds like the premise for that book “Shut Up and Sing.”
You are a little confused. The library did allow the OWSers to camp there, it was the right-wingers who wanted them out.
OK a correction and an apology. It appears that everybody is aware and goes to a Nugent concert looking forward to quite a bit of political ranting along with the music. That being the case, everybody knowing exactly what happens, then there is no reason why Mr. Nugent should not play at a Bangor Waterfront Concert.
I was unaware that Mr. Nugent’s behavior at the NRA convention was not an aberration but a regular part of his concerts. I was under the erroneous impression that people went to his concerts for the music and were unaware that he might indulge himself in a political rant or two. In which case it would have been unfair to ask Bangor music lovers to endure an unexpected political rally promoting the Second Amendment, gun possession, concealed weapons, the NRA and death threats associated with the coming election.
However, since everybody appears to delight in his political rants/concerts I see no reason not to invite him to Bangor. I probably won’t attend.
There were no death threats made ,if there were the secret service would not have cleared him.He stated that he would be dead or in jail, this is in no way a death threat.He is a true american who supports the constitution and our rights, unlike the administration running this country at this time, unless you agree with Obamas meetings with the muslim brotherhood. Obama is selling this country out and Uncle Ted is not afraid to speak out against it.Nugent is much more interesting to listen to than your blubbering liberalism!!!!
No death threats were made? Nugent held up three fingers and said “Read between the lines.”
And what was the conclusion of the Secret Service investigation?
That Mr. Nugent was a rude, crude, misinformed buffoon but that he had the right to say that if President Obama were reelected he, Mr. Nugent, would be “either dead or in jail”.
And the threat to do bodily harm is where?
Perhaps conservatives are so literal that unless someone say in so many specific words that they are going to do bodily harm to someone they don’t consider it as a threat. However, the rest of the thinking, knowing world has the ability to understand exactly what the words “I’ll be dead or in jail” mean when referring to the president.
Note: Mr. Nugent appears to know the literary short comings of his admirers. That’s why he told them to read between the lines. JD apparently is incapable of doing so even when instructed by his mentor.
Sally, Sally, Sally I am not a conservative and Nugent is not my “mentor”. I have exactly one Nugent song on my iPod out of 1900+.
If Nugent made a threat he would be in jail. I am sorry that you cannot comprehend that but that is a fact. The 35 year old man in Bar Harbor made a specific threat and was arrested. That man said I am going to do this if this isn’t done. Nugent made no such claim.
You don’t like Nugent or conservatives and that’s pretty easy to see. But I still haven’t seen you admit that “left” leaning actors, singers, etc…also use the bully pulpit to make political statement and rant about what is right and wrong with opposing political parties.
The fact is Sally no threat was made. Again Nugent made a deliberate choice of words. Words that he knew would garner attention. Nugent is not a dumb person, he used words that would gain him publicity and rile up the base of both political parties and he succeeded in both case.
You didn’t read the link I gave you did you? It explains why comments like Mr. Nugents are considered threats and are investigated by the Secret Service.
One cannot read a link or anything that wasn’t posted until after my comment was made.
Conservatives are fine, my dad was a conservative. What I don’t like are opportunists like Nugent, Palin, Coulter, Geller, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck et al. who pander to the worst in human nature for political or monetary gain. Stirring up a crowd of loonycons at an NRA convention into a white hot anger over patent lies is destructive, uncivilized and counter to the spirit of democracy that the originators of the Constitution had in mind. And while you may consider his performance innocent good fun,others are reacting to the hate speech and interpreting it in their unstable minds as a call to action. Self indulgent hate performances like those Mr. Nugent puts on often have unintended consequences. Ask ex Representative Giffords.
And I don’t care for people putting words in my mouth that have not been posted by me. NO WHERE HAVE I SAID OR IMPLIED THAT NUGENT’S COMMENTS WERE “INNOCENT GOOD FUN”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And since you are seem to be more interested in making wild claims and accusations about posters, have a wonderful weekend. I know I will.
Read for meaning JD I said “you MAY consider his performance good fun”
I’m glad you don’t. However, from you protestations about Mr. Nugent one has to assume you approve of his political rants and hate speech.
I have not made any wild claims. You may be thinking of Mr. Overtaxedagain who appears to think the Muslim Brotherhood is about to take over the US political system. That does seem a bit wild.
He said more than that, something about shooting a coyote and other veiled threats. It’s called inflammatory rhetoric and incitement to violence. It’s all here http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/apr/19/context-ted-nugent-saying-if-obama-wins-i-will-be/
They concluded that Ted Nugent’s remarks were threatening enough to prompt a Secret Service investigation. Your tax dollars at work.
“The Secret Service, which is tasked with protecting the U.S. president, senior officials and other figures, confirmed the meeting with Nugent.
“The Secret Service interview of Ted Nugent has been completed,” agency spokesman Brian Leary said. “The issue has been resolved. The Secret Service does not anticipate any further action.”
Earlier Leary said the agency respected freedom of speech, but also had a responsibility to “investigate intent.”
I don’t see where it says he didn’t make threats. Do you?
A kid in Bar Harbor recently was arrested for publishing a bomb threat on April Fools Day. He also said he was “kidding,” but he still has to appear in court.
And those tax dollars were used appropriately…Bob, if threats were made he would have been arrested. Period, end of story. The fact that he is still walking around a free man tells me that the Secret Service found no evidence of a threatening nature.
The “kid” (he is actually an 35-year-old adult but if you want to call him a “kid” that’s fine) actually demanded “payment of 1 million Dollars or I will Blow up the Hospital.
Once the funds are secured, Private Message me for Further
Instruction”.
If you don’t see the difference, well that’s not my issue.
(I’ve met him, he acts like a kid.) I see the difference as the country being held hostage and pandering to these right-wing Tea Party gun nuts. Just my opinion.
No, jd, threats WERE made. The Secret Service investigated the threats and said the situation had been resolved. Meaning, not that no threats were made, but, that the person making the threats did not intend to carry out the threats and would stop making threats to add excitement to otherwise boorish performances.
OK Sally, be specific what was the threat? Did he say what he was going to do? Did he say how he was going to carry it out? Did he make any specific threat?
What he said was HE was going to be in jail or dead if President Obama was re-elected in November. Please educate me. What was the threat?
While you find Nugent’s comments “rude, crude, misinformed buffoon” the Secret Service found NO threat. People who make threats against the President get arrested. The ability to carry out the threat is secondary to the threat.
JD. This link may help you understand what the Secret Service considers threats, what they do in cases like Mr. Nugent and how they conduct interviews. It a very informative site. I hope it helps.
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/PI_Guide.pdf
Good link. Thanks.
An actual threat implies intent. Until the investigation, they were words which could be construed as a threat, and because caution is wise when the President is concerned, an investigation was launched. When the Secret Service investigated, they found no evidence of intent, and thus concluded there was no threat.
By the way, I think Nugent is a self-promoting baffoon, his music mediocre, and gun nuts to be just that. BUT, I believe free speech is the cornerstone of our democracy, so I support his right to speak freely (as long as he has no intent to threaten the President).
I too believe in freedom of speech. I believe in criticism. I believe in dissent. I believe in discussion. But, I also believe when you disagree and criticize you need to be factual not inflammatory and dishonest. When performers and politicians , make irresponsible accusations, espouse violence as a political solution and inflame unstable minds there are consequences. Ask Rep. Gabby Giffords.
What meetings with the muslim brotherhood? What are you referring to?
Obama inviting them to the whitehouse for a meeting thats what meetings.. look it up it is pure fact
It’s reflective of the Arab Spring – democracy flourishing. We all say we want all these countries to be democracies – well, guess what, we have to deal with the people’s choice. America likes to think it can control the world, but it can’t. Obama’s dealing with the reality. It doesn’t say where they met and they didn’t meet with Obama, but mid-level officials.
Facts are so disturbing. LOL
do you not understand the agenda of the muslim brotherhood???? pretty scary that you could accept this all in the name of Obama
Why don’t you tell us what the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood is, according to you.
Twenty hours have gone by with no agenda from overtaxedagain. Don’t have a clue do you!!! You are just hyperventilating over another high emotional impact phrase from the Lonnycons.
OK, I have no problem with Obama inviting the new leaders of Arab nations to the White House. The whole “Obama is/loves Muslims” is annoying and stupid.
BUT, have we really taken a critical look at the outcome of the “Arab Spring”? I’m not sure people are better off.
No, I agree there hasn’t been a deeper look at where it all is now. I doubt if people are much better off. Women maybe? I don’t know.
Well, that’s a little harsh. I don’t think that people who disagree with that stance are NOT true Americans. And the president “selling this country out” remarks. They mean nothing as that accusation is thrown by the opposition during every presidency.
Can you explain in your own words, not something copied from loony conservative web sites, such as Beck’s “The Blaze”, exactly how President Obama has sold out this country. The phrase ‘sold out’ appears to be another loonycon term with lots of emotional impact but very little meaning. Perhaps you could begin your explanation by defining ‘sold out’.
Sally – I like the term, “loonycon.” May I borrow that? Right on the mark. And, quite right, the loonycons seem to react purely on an emotional level and not on a factual one. There is some deep-seated gut reaction to Obama that they just cannot seem to shake. And, their reactions come off as just bizarre and really bordering on the edge of sanity.
Logic and critical thinking just do not seem to exist with this crowd. If Obama “passed” solid gold bars, the loonycons would complain that he’s not doing it fast enough, the bars really aren’t shiny enough, and now he’s driving down the price of gold on the world markets just like a foreign-born, Muslim, socialist, Democrat would do! Aiiii-yeeee!!!
We have a clinical term for these people: Nuts.
Loonycon is available to the general public for appropriate use. LOL
How about “loonylib” for people like Alec Baldwin and Barbra Streisand? It’s even got alliteration!
Works for me. There are loons on both sides of the aisle.
Ha! Yes! That is absolutely true! :o)
I prefer “bed wetting”, but some here REALLY take offense. Personally, I don’t think the extremists on either side have a sense of humor…
My understanding was that this was nothing new and that people know his politics and that he’s like this.
The perceived attack on the 2nd Amendment is a real concern to a lot of Mainers and a popular singer who shares that concern is a rare thing. To some people, telling Mr. Gray to cancel Mr. Nugent’s performance because of that unpopular opinion was just another in the series of attacks.
There has not been an attack on the Second Amendment. In fact the Supreme Court recently acknowledged that the Amendment assures Americans the right to own and carry firearms. The NRA has been trying to gin up antagonism against President Obama with this issue. Every month there is a new article in their magazine about what the president is about to do. The whole thing is nonsense. President Obama has not even suggested any gun control laws, let alone advocated for one. He has been almost completely silent on this topic. People like Ted Nugent and the NRA members are way off base in accusing President Obama of trying to take their guns away. It simply isn’t so. It does sell tickets to watch jerks insult the president.
Exactly right. I have heard zero about gun control from Obama or his administration. Yet, the Obama haters keep banging that drum. The deal is, no one is listening.
Nugent was paid by the NRA to spew this paranoid cr*p to sell guns. IMHO (please don’t ask for a source) his statements had to be scripted, vetted, and rehearsed. There is no way these were spontaneous, off the cuff remarks. The NRA’s marketing and legal teams probably figured out just how much he could get away with, and everybody laughs all the way to the bank.
I probably wouldn’t go across the street to see TN play, but I will travel a fair distance to hear him speak.
He is a true American and not ashamed of his country.
Unlike our “esteemed” first lady.
How many true American child molesters do you know ??? And do they all defecate in their underwear for days so they can avoid being inducted into the US military ???
“child molesters”?? You would be able to provide the docket number and conviction for that statement would you not?
He’s on record bragging about having sex with multiple underage females. LOL… to listen to him he should have sung “Jail Bait”. …I take it ,you accept his means of avoiding service in Viet Nam as fact. You should seeing he is also apparently quite proud of that also.
“He’s on record bragging about having sex with multiple underage females.”
Well that begs the question why hasn’t he been arrested or charged?
~~~~~
Many, many young men during the Vietnam era avoid the draft. Some went north to Canada, some received any number of deferments, some joined the National Guard, others went to extreme lengths (Nugent being one of them) but they ALL avoided the draft.
I would also like to know why he hasn’t been charged. But if he isn’t a pedophile then why on earth would he brag about it?
He is not the only musician that has been accused of this sort of behavior. I was shocked to learn that Peter Yarrow of Peter, Paul and Mary was convicted of, and served three months in prison for, taking “improper liberties” with a 14-year-old female fan in 1970. He later apologized for the incident: “In that time, it was common practice, unfortunately –– the whole groupie thing.” President Carter granted him clemency for the incident.
Good answer to a question I didn’t ask.
Not the same. That is cause. I am not talking about someone who is high or drunk on the job. I am talking about regular people who have done nothing to indicate that they are breaking the law yet must prove their innocence to a private party.
Background checks on people are not the same as drug tests or credit checks.
Did you mean to reply to patom1 by any chance?
Uh, I think so….! I am replying in email, so it may not have gone in the right sub-tread. I was replying to the comment about being able to fire someone who is drunk or high on the job, which was not my point.
JD… way back up in the thread… I responded to someone who thought Ted was a ” Great American “… I have no issue with my statements. For the record… Did you notice he was told not to show up at the REO Speedwagon , Styx performance at the US ARMY installation at Fort Knox’ KY scheduled for June ??? Wonder why.???
And I wonder if the Department of Defense still paid him for his non-performance as he had a contract?
Except draft dodging is in direct conflict with the politics he now espouses. He’s a hypocrite, and yet folks like DangRightMr seem to hold him in high regard.
As to his history with underaged girls, it doesn’t make him a pedophile or child molester, and it is par for the course among some rock stars, but it does make him morally bankrupt (particularly bragging about it).
Yes it is…and many, many people do things in their youth that they spend the rest of their lives trying to correct or going to the opposite extreme trying to make it right. I am not saying that is the case here but many people change over time.
You have a very unusual idea of the American character.
What about the First Lady? What are you implying?
Linda Buckmaster, not only did the Republican/MHPC/ALEC/Tea Party hold an anonymous vote to avoid their duty. They also demonstrated cowardice in not having the courage to face their constituents with their cowardice.
In the last election, I as a Democrat, crossed party lines to vote for Repubicans in Washington County. I can only say that that mistake will not happen again. Until I learn exactly who voted and how they voted in an anonymous vote, I can only assume that all Republican candidates are cowards.
How silly you sound. The BDN misinforms in their editorial and the liberal foot soldiers fly off on a misinformed tangent. Please learn the facts and the truth on this issue.
Please enlighten us with the facts if you have them.
Who voted?
How did they vote?
Were all members of the ligislature asked to vote?
Do the rules of the legislature say that there will be a vote on the vetos within 5 days?
Is it silly to want to know who is voting?
Or is it silly to just sit back and play dead?
It wasn’t a vote – it was a poll. Several members had already left for vacations. Should they have been forced to come back for a roll call vote to see if they wanted a roll call vote when they were already scheduled to convene in just a few weeks? There was no requirement to have a vote in 5 days. By not coming in, we “took action.” However, these issues are for the 2013 budget – plenty of time to do whatever they want in May.
I know, I know, that is a lot of information for you and it contradicts your conspiracy theory but common sense dictated to NOT attempt to pull members back in for this silliness. This is just another tempest in a teapot right up there with mural-gate.
So are you proposing that we change the operation of the legislature? The party in power can just have a poll amongst their members to decide bills? I know that this is the way you might like things done as long as your party is in power.
If you think the operation of the legislature is all silliness then maybe you should send them all clown outfits to wear as a uniform.
You still haven’t come up with the who and how of the poll. You seem so well informed on the matter that I felt sure that you would have that information to share in your apparent condescending manor.
First – do you understand that there are many many votes that are not recorded? Why arent’ you squawking about those votes?
Second – do you understand that some members had left on vacation?
Third – do you understand that the legislature can address these exact issues at the scheduled session in May?
Fourth – I learned condescention from the Democrats. Sometimes one picks up bad habits. I am going to try very hard not to pick up hypocrisy, arrogance, self-imiportance, anger, guilt and hatred of all who are politically not aligned with me.
Still no answer as to the who and how. Just a vague some of them went on vacation.
Who and how – Telephone to Republican members. Telephone to minority leadership. Ok. And? Please read my comments again as you obviously don’t have a clue about this process or the legislative process in general.
You obviously are quite comfortable with anonymous polls making legislative decisions.
Happy trolls to you.
Again, there are many votes that aren’t recorded. If you want all votes on every subject to be a roll call vote and recorded, good luck.
Andrea Ahearn, it is easy enough to verify ones employment or source of income from court records. If someone is convicted of drug related crimes while supposedly living off the state, they should be removed from the list of those who are eligable for state benefits.
Should be removed from eligibility, but aren’t. Have to keep those “client” lists full so the pay checks keep rolling in.
Hey Rev. Do a little research into the story. It has nothing to do with threatening the pres. It is about Freedom
Freedom, yes, but no class. As grandmother used to tell me, “you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.” TN? Just crude.
Agreed. Ted’s mouth runs faster than his brain
It’s an all too common problem for many.
Great letter, Joy and Lynn. That’s what marriage is: “love, respect, commitment, responsibility and family”-for straight people and gay people.
Pre-employment drug testing for most jobs is invasive and is just one more front where employers have control over their employees. It many cases (and of course I’m not talking about school bus drivers and jetliner pilots) it is less of an issue of ensuring safety than it is policing the employees. Credit checks and coercion to participate in wellness programs are other examples where the individual is at the mercy of the employer.
There are people who use drugs, sure, but requiring random drug tests of people, whether students, office workers, or assistance recipients simply because abuse does occur is an example of blanket accusations of criminal behavior and the subsequent proving one’s innocence. Is that really how it’s done here in America?
If you show up for work drunk, does your employer not have the right to fire you? Or is it now the employers responsibility to pay for rehabilitation for you?
If you show up under the influence of drugs, does your employer have the same rights as above?
If you are an employer, you would want to run background checks on your future employees.
He’s talking about random drug testing, not background checks.
Either way, it doesn’t matter to me. I had random drug tests when I drove truck for a living. Didn’t bother me because I didn’t have to worry about passing and I didn’t have to study.
Lynn and Joy, Thank you for sharing you story, as the sharing of stories is the foundation needed to create change in society. You two lovely ladies have seen many changes over the course of your lives and another change will be witnessed in Maine in November! May your first dance at your Maine wedding be the first of many more to come!
Lynn & Joy – Thank you for your letter. I don’t know if the average person on the street understands just how many long-term same-sex relationships exist. I have been in one for 15 years and have a 12 year old daughter. I have attended many anniversary parties for 35 years or more of being together. There is one famous couple here in the DC area that met during WWII. It is a letter like yours that addresses the very basic issues that only legal, civil, marriage can resolve.
I know the latest effort is focused on fairness to families and that is a good thing. I tend to come from the legal viewpoint where logic and critical thinking prevail, but what seems to motivate people more are letters and stories from people such as yourselves. And, that is good.
But, as we all know, the cold hard facts of the law bump up against the common sense of day to day life. I have tried hard to explain to the religious crowd that SSM has nothing to do with them and will have no effect on their lives. I have found no objections to SSM except from those who claim a religious argument against it. When asked for a valid reason against SSM that does not involve religion or some offense to their perception of morality (which really is embedded in religion), I get no response. That is because there are no valid objections.
With regard to the legal aspects, the church does not own the word “marriage.” It thinks it does, but it does not. As everyone knows, a straight couple may go to City Hall, pay their $2.00 for a marriage license, and be married by a Notary Public, with no mention of god or religion. From that point on, doing nothing more, that couple is married in the eyes of the law. That is all that matters and that is all we are asking for. No one is planning to, nor could due to our U.S. Constitution, force any religious organization to perform a religious marriage ceremony in any church. Of course, the ceremony in a church is just that – a ceremony or rite, that carries no legal weight whatsoever. Those rights are granted through the issuance of a state-sponsored marriage license. Trying to explain this logic to the religious crowd is like trying to teach a cow to dance. It just wastes your time and annoys the cow.
But, as was pointed out, we need, for legal reasons, to use the word “marriage,” as it is the legal term for a couple being legally married. We cannot use another word that is “exactly the same as marriage” because if it were exactly the same, law dictates you use that term. Some want the term “Civil Unions” to be used. No. Won’t work. Very simply: Marriage is recognized by the State, all other States, the Federal government, and all other countries. Civil Unions are not recognized by all other States, nor by the Federal government, nor by all other countries. Therefore, (again, that evil logic creeps in here) civil unions are not equal to marriage. And, really, what we are talking about is semantics. If the churches could get their knickers untwisted and realize they do not own the word “marriage” we might make some progress. The deal legally is that the marriage contract must be blind to the genders of the participants. It just has to be. We do not have “marriage” and then “inter-racial marriage.” A couple is married, case closed, regardless of the gender, their color, their faith, or whether one or both partners previously were married. Again, the logic behind this is solid.
I am hopeful this November we will see logic, sanity, and fairness prevail. And, like you, we would like to have a marriage certificate. I hardly think this is too much to ask.
Robert – what surprised me about the whole priest sexual abuse problem was the reaction by the laity. They were shocked this occurred! This was common knowledge in the gay world. Movies such as, “Jeffrey,” alluded to it. Yet, despite the 800 pound gorilla in the room, people ignored it.
I won’t waste anyone’s time going over the endless number of reported cases, the coverups, the $2B+ (that’s with a “B”) spent in payoffs by the American Catholic church over the decades, or how this was not just an “American problem” but extended all the way to the Vatican and other countries as well. The church’s own report indicates these numbers and issues. It really is appalling. That said, I still see denial on the part of the laity, at least to the extent to which this problem has permeated the RCC ranks.
From the outside looking in, the institution looks very wounded and in complete denial. The German Pope (if stereotyping is to be considered) seems to be “ordering” compliance. We all know how well, historically, that works – a German issuing orders. The debacle with the nuns in the USA, the strict adherence to not using birth control, the adamant refusal to stay out of the same-sex CIVIL marriage issue, the refusal to ordain female priests, and on and on, seems to be receiving a fair amount of push-back from the laity and even the local priest level. Look in Washington state where 3 (?) Catholic churches have decided to not collect signatures against the same-sex civil marriage repeal effort, in defiance of the “recommendation” from their Bishop. When announced at a Sunday service that no signature collection would be made, the laity gave the priest of the church a standing ovation! There seems to be a huge disconnect between the mandatory edicts of the church and the laity who are living in the 21st century.
This backlash by upper management plus some other telling examples – the tearing down of an historic church in Waterville (St. Francis, I think?) with plans to replace it with senior housing, makes me wonder about the financial stability of the church. It is clear to the outside observer that St. Francis was a financial liability and wasn’t pulling its own weight due to low attendance and increasing maintenance costs. Flattening this bit of history and replacing it with profit-making senior housing appears a bit “off” to me. And, I’m not even Catholic.
So, are we witnessing the slow slide to obscurity and insignificance of the Catholic church in the USA? The last bunch of photos I saw of the inside of a Catholic church showed many more pews than people and lots more white hair than dark.
I think the more I read your comments the more I’m convinced your vendetta against the Church is mainly due to its stand against homosexuality. If it weren’t for this I don’t think you would see the Church any different than any other church or institution. But you’re so fixated on the Church that you are determined to tear it down at all cost. Well, I’ve got bad news for you. The Church has come a long way to correct the problem of sexual abuse – incidentally, mostly caused by homosexuals – within its confines. Sexual abuse, however, which is just as pervasive in other institutions and in society in general as it used to be in the Church, remains relatively unresolved in those institutions. Of course you totally ignore this fact because you seem bent on singling out and discrediting the Church. Truth be said, with you it’s all about the Church’s influence and how this influence is a deterrent to the gay agenda, isn’t it?
Regrettably you’re not alone in your effort to tear it down. There are and will be more like you who will continue to attack it only on account of its influence. This has been going on since the beginning of the Church and will no doubt continue. In the meantime the Church will continue to be force in the world to reckon with with its message of unmerited salvation to all who are open to it. As one who joined its ranks (something I swore I’d never do) some time ago, I can tell you from my own experience that it has a lot to offer to each and every living person regardless of their state in life.
Reporting and stating the facts is no vendetta. Of course, I find the sexual abuse issues appalling while their stance against same-sex marriage is the ultimate in hypocrisy. But, I hold nothing against the church as long as they stay out of my business and that of the State, which they have not of late. My dislike is not restricted to the RCC. They just happen to be the biggest targets and the ones most involved in meddling in secular affairs. You see, I simply do not care about churches and religion as long as they leave alone people who are not members of their faith. Again, they have failed miserably in this common courtesy. You seem to think I target the RCC when the RCC simply is the biggest target with the most offenses. It is classic Catholic denial. I would also say it is very presumptuous on your part to think your church is the only church being called to question on its behaviors. There are other churches, even though I was told by one Catholic friend that her church was the only “true” church. Uh-huh.
With regard to sexual abuse being done by homosexuals, two items. The report from the church itself indicated abuse of both male and female children. They also lowered the age of what is defined as pedophilia to an artificially low number in direct opposition to what legal and medical communities feel is the age limit. Furthermore, I would propose that the abuse that is done against children is not completely because they are children and the offenders are all classic pedophiles. My suspicion is that the children simply are targets of opportunity. They are under the control of the priests and they are unlikely to “tell” for fear of retribution or simply naivete. A priest making a sexual pass at a 25 year old woman or man might result in a far different outcome than against a child.
You might also ponder the question – why are there so many homosexual-attracted priests in the church? I mean, assuming you believe the cases are all because of homosexual activity and not target-of-opportunity pedophilia. What’s the explanation for that? Apparently, they aren’t following church doctrine either, nor I guess, are their superiors who shuffled them from church to church, caring not a whit for the victims, and instead just protecting the church. Sounds like what went on at Penn State with Sandusky.
The church’s (all of them – not just the RCC) influence in deterring the “gay agenda” (whatever that is) is waning each day. Just look at the numbers – don’t even listen to my points – the numbers, the attitudes of the laity, the reaction of the nuns to this recent grilling by the Pope, the priests defying the Bishops. Hey, I didn’t do any of this – I’m just reporting what is in the news. How can you possibly tell me that the laity is 100% on board with doctrine when 98% of the Catholics use/have used birth control and that is a “mortal sin?” Looks to me like the laity is none too pleased. Look around in the pews – how many young families with 10 kids are there? I realize when people become Catholic a set of blinders are pop-riveted to the skull, but I ask you to simply look at the facts. That’s all.
You are entitled to do whatever you may wish to do with whichever church you so choose. The line is drawn when your church (or any other) starts donating millions of dollars to influence secular law that affects ALL of society and not just the laity. Keep your church business in church and we all will be far better off. Apparently, Bishop Malone got the message. Aside from his pastoral letter, he has dropped any further involvement with the effort to prevent same-sex marriage from becoming law (that’s SECULAR law, by the way) in Maine.
I wish you the best. I hope you find comfort in the RCC, but let others decide if they want to follow its doctrine, rather than have it being forced into our legal system for everyone, whether or not they want it.
Church will continue to speak out on moral issues whether you agree with them or not. I happen to disagree with you on most issues of the day. Will I be your next victim?
That said, I hope the Church will continue speaking out on issues. It’s part of its mission. It’s not part of its mission to remain in the closet where apparently you want it to be. The good news for you is that if you don’t like its message you don’t have to accept it. It very simple. But your ongoing rant against it, week after week, month after month, is really getting old and stale, not to mention that it is very bigoted. The excuse, “I’m just reporting what is in the news” is a poor one. It’s not an appropriate excuse to single out repeatedly anyone or any one institution for misbehavior as if it is not going on elsewhere. That’s being hypocritical! The real reason for your unreasonable stand, that is, your apparent vendetta, against the church has a lot more to do with its stand against homosexuality than all the other issues you bring up against it, including no less the sexual scandal.
By the way, have you ever notice I rarely argue against a change in the definition of marriage from a religious perspective? Also, have you seen me putting down homosexuals? Not really. The reason for that is simple. I don’t need to and I don’t intend to.
What happened in 2009 was a travesty. There is no defense for the church having dumped millions into overturning a civil law just to satisfy its interpretation of morality. Up until that moment, I could not have given a tinker’s damn what your church or any other church said or did. It was all so much background static.
And, yes, I will continue to rant on against the injustice and bigoted behavior of your church and others. “The good news is I don’t have to accept it?” Who are you kidding??? Your church waltzed in, spearheaded the charge against a lawfully enacted civil rights law, got it repealed through lies and innuendo, and I don’t have to listen to it?
Here’s the deal: Before the 2009 repeal, we were destined to have CIVIL marriage ceremonies. After the 2009 repeal, we were not. How did this affect you either way? It did not. It did affect many others in the State. The behavior was to impose your church’s view of morality on everyone in the State regardless of whether or not they attended your church. You cannot paint yourself as the victim here. No one believes it for a minute.
If I am “singling out” one institution, please provide me with a list of others of any significant size, and I will be sure to run down the facts on them, as well.
You don’t see the hypocrisy of your church with its sex scandal and its attitude toward civil marriage for gay couples? It calls gay people “sinners” yet the activity of a large number of its own members are criminal? What am I missing here? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. The sanctimonious and self-righteous attitudes I hear from the religious crowd are beyond the pale.
I’m sorry you find my rantings “old and stale.” Given the number of “Likes” I receive, currently at a 4:1 ratio of Likes:Comments, I will consider your view in the minority.
(And, my thanks to those who have “Liked” me, all 3917, so far.)
Here we go again. The Church did what it had to do in California and other places. It spoke out on a moral issue of grave concern. It helped clarify an issue, and the voters in California apparently agreed. The Church’s views were not “imposed” on the voters anymore more than opposing views were “imposed”. Quite frankly the debate that occurred in California gave the voters an opportunity to hear all sides of the issue and weigh in on it. Now you are blaming the Church for somehow doing something horrific when it was simply exercising its conscience.
I too speak out on matters of conscience. Also, when I enter the voting booth I don’t leave my conscience behind – God forbid that I do. Any American who would leave their conscience behind hardly deserves the right to vote. Now I am not advocating that we should go around to determine who is leaving their conscience behind when voting. No, what I am simply stating is that Americans should be encouraged to search their souls before rendering their votes rather than, say, simply “vote their pocketbooks”, for instance.
That said, therefore, why are you repeatedly singling the Church for discrediting when it is attempting to exercise its conscience? If there is a strong argument for “gay marriage”, don’t you think that maybe the voters will catch on and vote accordingly? If everyone went around like you do trying to kill the messenger, there would be no message and therefore no debate. In fact, there would be no democracy because the existence of democracy assumes the free airing of views without fear of denunciation, reprisals, intimidation, and/or violence.
Another view.
How can the church hierarchy be more offended by the nuns’ impassioned advocacy for the poor than by priests’ sordid pedophilia?How do you take spiritual direction from a church that seems to be losing its soul?It has become a habit for the church to go after women. A Worcester, Mass., bishop successfully fought to get a commencement speech invitation taken away from Vicki Kennedy, widow of Teddy Kennedy, because of her positions on some social issues. And an Indiana woman named Emily Herx has filed a lawsuit saying she was fired from her job teaching in a Catholic school and denounced as a “grave, immoral sinner” by the parish pastor after she used fertility treatments to try to get pregnant with her husband.Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York recently told The Wall Street Journal that only “a tiny minority” of priests were tainted by the sex abuse scandal. But it’s a global shame spiral. The church leadership never recoiled in horror from pedophilia, yet it recoils in horror from outspoken nuns.In Philadelphia, Msgr. William Lynn, 61, is the first church supervisor to go on trial for child endangerment. He is fighting charges that he may have covered up for 20 priests accused of sexual abuse and left in the ministry, often transferred to unwitting parishes.Somehow the Philadelphia church leaders decided that the Rev. Thomas Smith was not sexually motivated when he made boys strip and be whipped playing Christ in a Passion play. Somehow they decided an altar boy who said he was raped by two priests and his fifth-grade teacher was not the one in need of protection.Instead of looking deep into its own heart and soul, the church is going after the women who are the heart and soul of parishes, schools and hospitals.The stunned sisters are debating how to respond after the Vatican’s scorching reprimand to the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the main association of American Catholic nuns. The bishops were obviously peeved that some nuns had the temerity to speak out in support of President Obama’s health care plan, including his compromise on contraception for religious hospitals.The Vatican accused the nuns of pushing “radical feminist themes,” and said they were not vocal enough in parroting church policy against the ordination of women as priests and against abortion, contraception and homosexual relationships.In a blatant “Shut up and sit down, sisters” moment, the Vatican’s doctrinal office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, noted, “Occasional public statements by the L.C.W.R. that disagree with or challenge positions taken by the bishops, who are the church’s authentic teachers of faith and morals, are not compatible with its purpose.”Pope Benedict, who became known as “God’s Rottweiler” when he was the cardinal conducting the office’s loyalty tests, assigned Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle to crack down on the climate of “corporate dissent” among the poor nuns.When the nuns push for social justice, they’re put into stocks. Yet Archbishop Sartain has led a campaign in Washington to reverse the state’s newly enacted law allowing same-sex marriage, and he’s a church hero.Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of Network, a Catholic lobbying group slapped in the Vatican report, said it scares the church hierarchy to have “educated women form thoughtful opinions and engage in dialogue.”She told NPR that it was ironic that church leaders were mad at sisters over contraception when the nuns had committed to a celibate life with no families or babies. Given the damage done by the pedophilia scandals, she said, “the church’s obsession, at times, with the sexual relationships is a serious problem.”Asked by The Journal if the church had a hard time convincing the flock to follow its strict teachings on sexuality, Cardinal Dolan laughed: “Do we ever!”Church leaders behave like adolescent boys, blinded by sex. That’s the problem with inquisitors and censors: They become fascinated by what they deplore.The pope needs what the rest of us got from nuns: a good rap across the knuckles.
Oh my, let’s not employ facts to your ‘logic’, that would be creating an excuse. There is substantial evidence that the Church has and continues to work against the Gay community. You support that. Then, you play the victim card. I have read your posts and I would say that they are already stale.
The Church is tearing itself down. They need no outside help.
Why not just let their priests get married? There is nothing in the Bible that states they can not.
I heard it had something to do with inheritance. If a priest married and had a child then the child stood to inherit his father’s assets, and perhaps his role and power. No hierarchical organization would ever want that. BUT, here’s the deal for the era – if the priests went out, had sex, had illegitimate children, those children would never be allowed to inherit any estate. It was well-known that “bastard children” (the term of the times) stood to inherit nothing.
I’m sure it was all cloaked in some religious mumbo-jumbo – just like the fish on Friday deal. Fish sales were down so banning meat on Friday got people to buy fish.
That’s what I heard from Catholic friends but what do I know? The study of the RCC history hasn’t been high on my list of reading material.
After reading a few articles about Longo, I have to question ask what Bangor residents were thinking. Really, this guy seems like an immature goof.
” Mommy…Mommy…how come the christians always march against marriage but never march against divorce??? Someday, when I grow up, can I get a divorce just like you and Daddy??? And…Mommy…what does ‘hypocrite’ mean??? “
Let’s see – the “threat to marriage.” Well, considering same-sex marriage is still pretty rare, and the number of straight couples marrying at all is now down around 50%, you have to wonder just what is the real threat to straight marriage? Divorce hovers around 50%, too.
There is something else going on. I really don’t think it is the threat of same-sex marriage. After all, the religious crowd says we only account for 3% of the population. I think it would be wildly optimistic if 50% of that 3% decided to marry in a same-sex marriage. So, that leave 1.5% of the general population. Pretty small group.
No, just a wild guess. It must be something else.