Do what is right
While much has been said about the harmful effects of ethanol fuel additives to engines, there has been little mention of the ethical, moral and economic ramifications of burning food for fuel.
Under the Federal Renewable Fuels Standard, which requires U.S. fuel companies to ensure that 9 percent of their gasoline pools are made up of ethanol this year, approximately 40 percent of the United States’ 2012 corn crop will go to ethanol production, a crop that has been greatly reduced by drought.
As with any commodity, price is driven by supply and demand, with the net result being higher prices for corn-based food products, livestock feed and ethanol fuel additive. The higher cost of livestock feed has already resulted in markedly higher costs for meat and dairy products.
While rising food prices in the U.S. will pose an inconvenience for most and hardship for many, it is unlikely anyone will starve to death as a result. This is not the case in many economically disadvantaged nations.
I have always found the notion of using food for fuel objectionable. When, however, others’ lives stand in immediate jeopardy because of our politicians’ thirst for power and corporate thirst for money, the concept becomes completely unconscionable and morally repugnant. I urge President Barack Obama to suspend the RFS ethanol mandate immediately. In the words of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “The time is always right to do what is right.”
Larry Balchen
Jonesport
Senators must speak up
Will U.S. Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe stand with people from Maine, or will they align themselves with Rep. Paul Ryan and rest of the extreme right-wing leadership of House Republicans who are looking to cut off 300,000 kids from free school lunches when one in five live in poverty?
They need to speak up against Ryan and his colleagues’ heartless budget approach that reneges on last summer’s debt ceiling deal to cut military spending. The debt ceiling deal was a compromise because it mandated equal cuts to military spending and social programs. If these cuts are rolled back under the Ryan and House Republicans’ plan to block the required Pentagon spending, then the required deficit reduction will come on the backs of children, the working class and the poor.
America has the world’s biggest economy and most advanced and powerful military. No other country, including China, comes close. Reining in the Pentagon budget won’t change that. Our military and defense spending played a significant role in increasing the national debt over the last decade. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan contributed to record deficits. The U.S. defense budget is six times that of China’s and equal to that of more than the next 17 highest spending countries combined.
We cannot afford for Collins and Snowe to follow the extreme right wing GOP leadership in Congress and play partisan games with our budget.
John Sweet
Mount Desert
Vote yes in November
I am writing in response to a letter from Susan Mendell from Palmyra that ran on Aug. 29. Mendell takes issue with an earlier BDN editorial whose author states, accurately, that legal rights come from government.
Mendell’s letter tries to detract from the purely legal issues at hand by insisting that the concept of government-created laws is “sophomoric” and “ludicrous.” (This kind of religious sputtering is becoming the trademark of opponents of marriage equality.) There are few tenets of our government that are more clearly understood than the separation of church and state. By the time we’re sophomores in high school, we all know that it’s the government (not the church) that makes the laws. (Is that what she meant by “sophomoric”? Probably not.)
Rights are legal constructs — period. The BDN is right: Religious beliefs are beside the point. I am not religious, and I don’t have to be to enjoy full protection under the law. Those laws should be fair to everyone. Maine’s gay and lesbian families matter just as much as Mendell’s does.
Please do the right thing and vote yes on question one in November.
Penny Guisinger
Trescott
Virtual high schools
During the last several years, there has been a lot of discussion regarding public education reform. Recently, Maine has approved the creation of 10 public charter schools. There is also discussion of a “school choice voucher” system in which parents in Maine could transfer their children to public, private or religious schools using local and state taxpayer dollars.
Another proposal is to use local and state taxpayer dollars to contract with out-of-state “virtual” high schools in which students could obtain their high school education “online.”
Reform and change are always necessary and usually difficult to achieve. As we strive to make positive changes in our public schools, it is important that Mainers define what we truly want from our education system. Historically, the U.S. has provided tuition-free public education for all students, the promise of equal educational opportunities regardless of race, gender or economic or social status, a commitment to the potential of upward mobility for all members of society and the advancement of democratic principles and values.
As we debate the future of public education in Maine, I hope we do not implement policies and reforms that benefit only students most likely to succeed in the first place or implement policies and reforms that relegate those least likely to succeed to second- or third-rate modes of education. I encourage all Mainers to pay attention to the debate on education reform and support measures that endorse a commitment to access, opportunity and quality schooling for all children from every background.
Craig King
Topsham
Vets deserve more
I am a Vietnam veteran who has lived in Calais for four years. The care I have received from the people at the Calais Veterans Clinic has been excellent. They are a dedicated, hardworking staff who go above and beyond what is asked of them, and they have worked for too long without a permanent doctor.
It is time for someone to assign a doctor to the clinic. It is ironic that Washington County has the most veterans than any county in Maine and no doctor permanently assigned to our clinic. The staff has done their best to help us veterans, but they can only do so much. We veterans deserve more. It is time to give us what we need and are entitled to receive.
Christina Fritz
Calais
Ms. Fritz, you are so right about the need to support our veterans.
Sadly, Governor Romney, in his acceptance speech at the GOP convention, failed to mention his support for the troops. When asked by Bret Baier of Fox News to explain that glaring omission he could only say that “You talk about the things that you think are important.” Clearly, to Romney, the troops are not important. Perhaps to him they are cannon fodder.
Good to know you watch Fox news. I’m sure Mitt hates the troops as much as Obama hates free enterprise
First it is FAKE-News (now let’s be accurate here), and next, the idea that Mr. Obama “hates” free enterprise is as delusional as the wild and ridiculous nonsense about his birth certifiate upchucked by the Birther-In-Chief Bad-Hair Man the right wingers just lllllllllllove oh so much. Right wingers thrive on pure delusion as they sell themselves off to their corporate masters. And MittTwit RobMe? He’s a job-killing cardboard JOKE. If he was just oh so wonderful, why didn’t he run for re-election in Massachusetts?? It’s because he didn’t have a snowball’s chance in a volcano of being re-elected with his poll numbers in the toilet there. Wonder they didn’t run him out of there on a rail.
My post never suggested that R-money hated the troops: it quoted him as saying that this issue wasn’t “important.” When your own sons have elected not to enlist, it is easy to see the troops as being other people’s children.
Thanks to something called the internet, I can access R-money’s ridiculous statement on Faux News without having to watch its flight from reality.
But his sons are doing something much more important for America, making sure that their dad is elected President.
That is a truly sisyphean task for the sons of R-money.
very, very funny !
Thanks.
John Sweet, how many meals should the tax payers buy for these children? I’m going out on a limb and guessing that virtually all these children who are getting free breakfast and lunch plus after school snacks come from families that are already being paid to feed their children.
Call me a heartless old coot, but I see no need to pay for anything more than 21 meals a week for disadvantaged individuals. It especially irks me that I have to agree with Paul Ryan on this.
As a child who got free lunch, there were 5 of us, we didn’t get food stamps. My mom worked 11 to 7 my dad was a woodcutter. I was in charge of getting everyone up and ready for school, including my self. hot lunch was a god sent.
Apparently you weren’t among those who were getting food stamps. What I’m talking about are those that are.
Do you feel it’s a god send to pay for 31 and sometimes 36 meals a week? Especially when you know they are, like everyone else getting 21?
I think that you would be surprised at the miniscule amount of money that these programs cost. The food stamp program was rejiggered in the early 90’s by George McGovern and Bob Dole. It was a way to support agriculture and people in need. It was a true act of bi-partisanship for the good.
In this matter I disagree with you and Paul Ryan.
With the Fed and State govenments cutting funding for schools, the costs of operating these schools is falling on the property owners that support their local schools.
That being said, what is the purpose of a school? I was always under the impression that they were built to educate the communities children. We already have agencies that have the job of insuring for the welfare of our children. Their families are subsidised in part or totally if they qualify for aid. IMO it is not the responsibility of the schools or the local tax payers to feed someones child. That is the parents responsibility. If said parent can’t perform that responsibility, there are agencies out there for them to turn to.
It makes me wonder what children are learning from the current system. Are they learning that when they become adults and have children that it’s not their responsibility to care for their children? Is it not the parents responsibility to send their children to school with a breakfast in their stomach? How hard is it to cook a couple of eggs and toast? Pour a bowl of cereal? Make french toast or pancakes? Is it that hard to pack a lunch or provide lunch money for your child or is that the responsibilty of the tax payer?
How about the children that come to school in less than clean clothing? Are we next going to be asked to do their laundry?
Yes, children need to be taught a lesson. Children with full stomachs learn a lot better, and actually want to be in school.
You have made yourself clear.
A hungry child has problems paying attention in class and learning what they need to know. A child in dirty clothes, while unfortunate, odes not affect their ability to learn.
So you are assuming that every child that comes from a family that qualifies for the program is not being fed at home. There fore it is the tax payers responsibility to feed them at school.
I wonder how these children survive infancy to make it to school age? I wonder how they survive durning weekends and summer vacations while school is not in session? If in fact these children are being starved at home, why aren’t you leading a campaign to have all children that are in families that qualify for food stamps etc. taken from these abusive homes?
Unfortunately just because a child’s parents are gettnig food stamps does not mean that htey are getting a decent meal to start the day off. Some parents are not home to make breakfast, they could be at work before their children go to school or be less than responsible, or the parent may just not know how to be a good parent. Either way the child should not suffer.
Trust me, at age 6 I was perfectly capable of pouring a bowl of cereal. If the parents aren’t home then who is babysitting these children? If you have proof that the parents are less than responsible, you should be turning them in to DHHS.
I have worked in the school lunch program, I seen kids come to school know that the last meal they ate was what was giving them for lunch the day before. This world’s a sad place, and you don’t know whats out there until you’ve seen it. Some of these kids would not eat if not for what they get at school. so to answer your question. I school lunch and or breakfast keeps just 1 child from going hungry they can have my tax dollars.
If you have proof that these children are not being fed at home, I would think that you would have the courage to advocate for those children and turn their parents in for child abuse. We have agencies that are supposed to look into child abuse, let us use them. I know that most parents are affraid to raise their voice or god forbid give their children a swat on the bumm in public for fear that DHHS will show up on their door step. We are paying for DHHS, use them.
Not all those kids who get the free lunch come from homes that have supplemental food stamps.
Those lunches and breakfast for these children often are the only truly nutritional meals some of these children receive.
It’s a pet peeve of yours this school lunch program, but it is essential and it is beneficial. You simply don’t like kids eating outside of the home apparently.
“Those lunches and breakfast for these children often are the only truly nutritional meals some of these children receive.”
In this day and age of agencies that are there to help, is there any excuse that the parents can’t feed their own children?
If I’m not mistaken, Dover-Foxcroft was going to implement a program to send the children home on the weekend with a back pack full of food. They made a statement that over 50% of the children in that school district qualified for this program. Something in my mind says this is an out of control situation.
I forget which President or politician said, “it takes a village to raise a child”. At what point in time did it become the villages responsibility for almost every aspect of child rearing? Are there any people out there that still feed their children and sacrifice to insure that their children have decent clothing and a warm home with food in their stomachs?
Some of these kids are in terrible homes, That is not there fault. But I guess you think it is, your right, screw the kids, they should just go hungry. Its not the kids fault that they are starving. If people do not wan to pay a little more in taxes to help children, then we stink as decent humans.
It must be nice to have all your roads, bridges, and schools in such good shape that you can afford to be giving out that kind of food.
Hillary Clinton is the one who said It Takes a Village. Is the village responsible for that much support of the village’s children? Because if so, I will expect quite a bigger say in that support, and, frankly, I’ll have more say over how many children other residents get to have. With freedom comes responsibility…with support comes control.
Yes, we are feeding hungry kids too much, we need to stop and all our problems will be solved.
We are not feeding kids too much. We are PAYING to feed them too many meals.
Too many meals? Ok how many meals are the correct amount? One, two, three or more?
When I was a kid I ate 1 meal, it just lasted all day.
Three meals a day is the norm. Those on food stamps or TANF or whatever you want to call it are given enough to feed their family 3 meals a day or 21 meals a week. Now their children are given a free breakfast and lunch when they go to school, which the taxpayers are also paying for. Question to you, how many meals are enough?
If you could be sure that every child whose parents get SNAP, TANF is something entirely different, is getting 3 good meals a day then you would be correct but that is not the case. Like I said some parents are not home when their child(ren) are getting ready for school becuase of work to make sure that they get a good breakfast and have something for lunch and others have parents that don’t really care if they get 3 good meals a day.
Should those children go hungry just so we save a little money on taxes, and in the grand scheme of the cost of education, free or reduced lunches are a very small part of the budget.
So it seems that we are assuming that every child that comes from a family on assistance is not being fed at home and has parents that are incapable of feeding their children a breakfast and packing a lunch?
As Bill Clinton just said in his convention speech. ‘It’s arithmatic’.
Craig King, IMO the push for vouchers, cyber, choice, etc. is ultimately a money grab for my property tax dollars. I am totally against any of my property tax money leaving my community and school district. I don’t have any children in school but my tax dollars are part of what supports our local school.
So those tried at Nuremberg as war criminals should have been exonerated because they acted under the “legal constructs” available to them?
Since Ms. Guisinger believes that the source of rights are laws, she, apparently, believes the source of words are in current usage. She might look up the word “sophomoric” or, better yet, start with “sophistry” to gain an understanding that language, like our laws, come from an even deeper source than her current vocabulary.
John Sweet of course you are right, but do not bet on our senators to do the correct thing.
Snowe is almost out the door and this, her last term, has not been a distinguished one.
Collins has not stood up to the tea party and there is no reason to expect that she will.
I wish that Collins were gone with Snowe.
John Sweet– The Republicans are screaming that these cuts will costs a large number of jobs, now I
know that can’t be true as the Republicans say government can’t create jobs. Wait a minute we seem to have a conflict, now isn’t that surprising to see that from the Republicans, I wonder what bull they will come up with now?
Larry Balchen – Ethanol is a fraud. The production of Ethanol causes more pollution that it saves, and it causes engine problems, reduces mileage, and ruins small engines, particularly 2 cycle engines. It was the push for environmental idiots and the backing of liberal politicians that bought us this fraud. I agree with you that it needs to be stopped immediately, and permanently. But, y0u know that Obama isn’t going to stop it, so vote in Romney and demand it from him. At least he’ll listen.
John Sweet – I see you’ve been chugging the left wing kool-aid. You’ve got your facts all wrong.
Corn farmers pushed the Ethanol farce, big farms and their lobbyist.
And they continue to do so. They are a powerful lobby.
Good letters all.
Craig King’s comment on “virtual’ schools it timely. There are other factors that also need to be considered when thinking about on-line education.
Cost: On line schools demand and get the entire per pupil amount from the local school district. Per pupil cost includes everything,teachers, administration, and supplies right down to the last office paperclip and the last brush stroke of varnish on the gym floor. The entire amount goes to the for profit on-line corporation.
Quality: Most on-line education is poor quality. The educational material is poorly written and badly presented and the monitoring and follow up is often off line or unavailable because monitors/teachers are overwhelmed with as many as 120 students. Many monitor/teachers are not accredited teachers.
Results: Check out the studies that have been done. With the exception of very bright, internally or externally motivated students the results show that most on-line students do poorly, much worse than traditional students.
Corporate ownership: On-line corporations are owned and controlled by people from the banking, finance and real estate development. These are the same people that have been telling Americans that public education is a disaster and private education is the answer.
Think about it. Now that we have allowed charter schools into Maine, very school district is going to feel the push from these corporations to buy into their on-line education because they stand to make huge amounts of money.
Thank you. You are exactly right.
Are you a cheerleader by chance?