We have not been told what considerations were taken into account as a result of the autopsy. Perhaps it is gunshot residue as Ronald Riml suggests, but we haven't been told this. And I think the residue might be something that could be faked. I think this case should be more thoroughly investigated, as I think if this conservative columnist had decided to take his own life he would probably have left a message behind explaining his action.
I don't know of any way that an autopsy can prove that a shooting death was a suicide rather than homicide. This man was a writer, and yet he didn't leave a final message. How would other conservative spokespeople feel about having their own death assumed a suicide in this way?
Thank you, Kerry, for sharing your knowledge about methadone treatment. Your question, "How many have driven anyhow when they were tired?" is a good one and should caution us against judging others. I myself am usually tired, but I never fall asleep at the wheel because I have the kind of nervous system that just doesn't fall asleep easily, even in bed (if it were easier for me to sleep I might not be so tired--sigh). Others may be wired differently. Not driving is not a very practical option for many people.
I would be sorry to see this incident used to handicap people who need methadone.
The SJ notified me of Jeff Johnson's comment, although it is addressed to Dan Breton, not to me, but here are a few thoughts of mine. Jeff writes,
> Why would the SJ not follow up with the victim's wife, and create
> some controversy in the story... that would sell more copies, and
> get more views.
I don't know why the SJ often tells only one side of a story that cries out for more views, but this is not the only instance of that tendency. My guess is that when they get a packaged report from some government agency it is easier just to publish or summarize the report than to do investigative reporting.
> Why would the SJ try to bury the arguably most exciting part of
> the story? Are they deliberately trying to cover for Northstar?
Again, I think it is just easier to ignore the part of the story that hasn't been put in their lap. I don't know whether the SJ would deliberately try to cover for Northstar, but I do think the Maine EMS office is doing that.
> Is the governor somehow involved?
I doubt it, but Dan would probably disagree with me. My own impression is that Franklin Memorial Hospital is used to being treated as if they were God, and this goes back long before the election of Paul LePage to the governorship. How we got into this situation I don't know, as I have been living in Maine only 7 years.
Since my first comment Scott Thistle, speaking for SJ, has said that "we did try to contact Mrs. Morse in Nova Scotia" but "we were unsuccessful in these attempts." It might help if I knew more about what these attempts amounted to.
Thank you for your response, Scott Thistle--I would like to know more about your attempts to reach Dana Morse. Is it your impression that she is deliberately ignoring inquiries? Or how seriously did you try? She seemed very determined, when this incident first occurred, to make her story known; but since then it has been impossible to learn her reaction to developments. I tried writing to her c/o the Chronicle Herald in Nova Scotia and asked them to forward my letter, but they did not reply, and I have no way of knowing whether she received my communication. I don't know her address.
I have no opinion on the political-partisan aspects of this. My beef is that Franklin Memorial Hospital/Franklin Community Health Network has way too much power and isn't meaningfully accountable to anyone. It's been that way as long as I've had any dealings with them, regardless of who is in office in Augusta. I want to get Dana Morse's reaction to this report, but somehow no newspaper has managed to include that in their story. Can someone please tell me her address? You can reach me at 299 High St., Farmington 04938, or at licia@qhpress.org, if you don't want to post it here. Thanks.
This is just outrageous. We are asked to believe that the only reason the ambulance crew dumped Dana Morse by the side of the road in a snowstorm, after she requested to sit in back with her dying husband, is that they thought she had said she wanted to be with her children! Her children weren't by the side of the road, and if this had in fact happened it wouldn't have taken the ambulance crew 3 months to come up with the story.
Where are the facts on the basis of which Maine EMS concluded that Ms. Morse's story was untrue and the EMTs' story was the truth? None are presented.
What is Dana Morse's reply? Didn't it even occur to Sun Journal reporters to ask her?
This is a delightful story. No wonder that Google should blow it now and then, as the saying goes, "To err is human; to foul up completely takes a computer!" What saddens me, however, is the pointless and irrelevant string of words spouted by the "Google spokeswoman," Deanna Yick, who shows no trace of a sense of humor or any understanding that she is not addressing a mere "inaccuracy," or that it isn't relevant (in this case) whether "the world is constantly changing." She is saying what she has been programmed to say. Let computers say what they are programmed to say: human beings should say something human, and organizations should stop programming their employees with "official lines." I run into this every day, and many cases of official-line-spouting are not as harmless as this one.
What a confused society we live in. Facebook is a fad, and some people are just not interested in it. Why should they be considered less qualified for a job?
This article cries out for the missing information: what were Frank Smith's demands? What was he trying to accomplish? What were he and the police negotiating about all those hours. There must have been something
It's hard to believe that nearly two months after the incident the investigators have not been able to learn anything beyond "clearing" two people who weren't involved. Are they afraid of offending FMH? Trying to come up with a whitewash and not succeeding? Or what?
It isn't any safer to be homeless than to live in a house with old wiring, and obviously the tenants would rather have a home. I have seen this kind of scenario played out in Farmington and Livermore Falls--and maybe we need new legislation to give local officials a sane sense of priorities--but as things stand officials seem to be preoccupied with enforcing a code, with no realistic concern for the human beings involved. The human beings could freeze to death in the street for all the officials cared. Or maybe someone has it in for Ms. Pratt. I wonder how many houses in Norway fail to come up to the code, whose owners are not targeted by officials because nobody has it in for them. I don't know any of the Norway officials personally and don't have any ill will toward them, but I recognize a destructive pattern here. We probably do need legislation to change that pattern statewide--so that nobody is deprived of their home. Meanwhile I urge the Norway officials to give priority to making sure that the occupants of that house have a place to live that is at least as good, before turning them out of doors.
I definitely favor the real-name policy and again applaud SJ for adopting it. SJ is the only paper where I feel comfortable commenting.
But please note that under the survey questions there is some sort of video (I guess that's what it is) which is just a a black box on my screen. I have no idea what I might see in it if I had high-speed internet connection, so I don't know whether you are losing any part of my response. We've run into this problem before. High-speed connection is expensive. Please make your web pages accessible to all of us.
FMH has certainly had enough time to check out the facts relating to Dana Morse's complaints: that they still have nothing to say effectively tells us that Ms. Morse is right. It's pathetic that our local hospital here in Franklin County can't do better than this.
It's now a new day since this article came out, and one more person is repeating the received wisdom at me as if I just hadn't seen the articles that everyone else has seen. Apparently it is not well known that there is another informed point of view, but this particular exchange cannot go on and on, on this page. If anyone is interested, check out http://www.leap.cc ("Law Enforcement Against Prohibition") for the perspective of a number of law enforcement people on why prohibition does more harm than good.
Yes, all drugs are dangerous, and some are addictive. But when a people cannot obtain them legally (whether because they lack a prescription or for some other reason) they are much more dangerous. Robberies of pharmacies are one of the results. Robberies of other people to get money to buy contraband drugs are another. Overdoses, contaminated drugs, association with criminals, also add to the dangers. If all drugs were legal, would people abuse them? Yes; people will abuse almost anything. But it would still cause less harm. The idea expressed by one person here that "absolute anarchy would reign" if all drugs were sold over the counter is just a popular myth. At one time we didn't have all these prohibitions; people make their own decisions about what drugs to use and obtained them without having to resort to crime, and absolute anarchy did not reign. Now we have an entrenched anti-drug industry which does not succeed in preventing drug abuse but uses a whale of a lot of our tax money, while our jails and prisons are made to support people who have no other reason to be in prison.
"We’ve got to get down to the facts about what happened,” Varone told the BDN in a Wednesday evening telephone interview. “Did the transporting EMS unit en route to a hospital leave a patient’s family member by the side of the road? If that did happen, what were the grounds? As a fire service leader, I’m struggling to come up with grounds to justify that. I’m not saying they didn’t have grounds, but we’d need to know what those grounds were.”
I don't have enough medical knowledge to offer an opinion about whether David Morse's death was hastened by any incompetence or negligence on the part of the ambulance crew, but of course that should be determined too, in light of the widow's observations. But we should not have to wait any longer to have a straightforward answer to the question about whether Dana Morse was left by the side of the road. Rebecca Ryder (president of FMH) put out a gooey statement today offering condolences but saying nothing on this question of how Morse' wife was treated. The incident happened over a week ago, and there has been plenty of time for hospital officials to ask the ambulance driver this question and give us an answer.
Jennifer Chretien writes,
"Hospital officials would have been extremely irresponsible to make any kind of public statement based on information they heard from a newspaper reporter."
Once again, they heard it from Dana Morse before she ever went to a newspaper. She had just been abandoned by an ambulance at a roadside, in the snow, with her husband dying. Do you think she didn't tell the ER staff what happened? Of course she did, as that's how she learned (after they phoned the ambulance) that her husband was dead and the ambulance had returned to Sugarloaf. The hospital should have launched its investigation immediately, if they cared. What on earth more do you think Ms. Morse should have done before going to the press?
"You may see it as stalling I see it as being smart."
Oh, that's real smart all right--but only if they are afraid of telling the truth. This incident happened a week ago--they've had plenty of time to say "Yes, we did what she said we did," or "No, we didn't do that, and here's what happened instead." Apparently it doesn't serve their interests to be honest with the public.
"Just because the ER staff had spoken to Mrs. Morse and told her that her husband had not come into the ER does not equal the hospital administration being contacted by the family or having any more detail about the situation."
She told them more than that, and they told her more than that. What do you want? If they needed more detail they could have contacted her.
"Why don't we let the facts come to light"
WE ARE NOT STOPPING THE FACTS FROM COMING TO LIGHT! But only Dana Morse seems interested in bringing the facts to light. Apparently some people don't like the facts as she has revealed them.
"before we play judge, jury and executioner to this ambulance crew and FMH as a whole."
Oh, good grief. We're talking about a rich, powerful organization which practically owns our community. They think they can get away with anything, and as long as the public looks the other way when their abuses are reported, they will go on thinking that.
This claim by a hospital official that "the hospital was not even contacted by any family member" has to be called in question in view of the following:
"Morse said that the ambulance dropped her off by the side of the road. She flagged down a passerby, who drove her back to Sugarloaf where she got her car and drove the hour to Franklin Memorial Hospital. She said emergency room crews at the hospital had no idea what or who she was talking about when she arrived."
Presumably they had some idea what she was talking about by the time she left, and all this was before Ms. Morse had any oportunity to go to the press. I think hospital officials are stalling because there is no excuse for the way their ambulance personnel treated Dana Morse.
The hospital should have known there was a problem before they read about it in the weekend press, since Dana Morse showed up there asking what happened to her husband, after she was abandoned by the ambulance and had to make her own way to FMH. She reported that they acted as if they didn't know what she was talking about. If they didn't, they should have found out promptly. I'm afraid it's all too typical of FMH to be interested only in their appearance and reputation, and in avoiding liability--but if this horrible abuse by their ambulance personnel didn't happen it's strange that as yet we've heard no denial of it from the people responsible. Being told that the hospital will "conduct an internal review" is little comfort.
I'd never heard of this guy, but he sounds like good news. I detest the bureaucratic mickeymouse that attaches to most medical practice these days and am definitely less likely to go to a doctor's office, for just about any condition, knowing that his staff are programmed to put me through all that stuff.
Hi, you friends at the Sun Journal--what is the map on this page supposed to communicate? IT DOESN'T SHOW MAINE! Also, there is no key to the meaning of the color coding of different states. And when I clicked on "Report map error" I was sent to some page that has nothing to do with the Sun Journal.
This is absurd. The Occupy group didn't ask the library to assume any liability for them. Far too many things are being done because someone imagines that someone else is going to sue them, when that was the farthest thing from the other party's mind.
"Evergreen Behavioral Services provides 24/7 emergency mental health response and community outreach services in Greater Franklin County. Its crisis team helps both children and adults stabilize a crisis by tailoring interventions to the person’s unique needs, strengths and situation."
This is not true, though I know this is what they advertise. Three and a half years ago I went to Evergreen's office on the hospital campus because I had been hit by a very severe depression--the kind that makes it impossible to get enough sleep. I told the lady at the desk that my problem was urgent. She said I should go home and wait for their "crisis" person to phone me.
When the crisis woman phoned she told me it would be at least 2 months before I could even get an appointment recorded with their only psychiatrist, and even then she had no idea how soon I could actually see him. She said the first visit would cost $300. I expressed incredulity that this was their idea of handling an emergency, but I can't describe how cold and unfeeling this woman was. She was not the least bit interested in my "unique needs, strengths and situation." She also didn't ask whether I was suicidal.
Thanks to God, I made it through this depression crisis, and when after more than 2 months Evergreen finally phoned back to see whether I wanted an appointment I told them to forget it. The next emergency patient that goes to them may be dead before Evergreen gets back in touch.
I hope the Jay selectmen will recognize that there are no homes that are more dangerous than homelessness and will respect people's right to live in their own homes. Those complaints they are getting merely mean that some people don't like some of their neighbors. It isn't the selectmen's job to drive some citizens out of their homes to please other citizens, even if the ones complaining have more money. And as for "illegal junkyards" please realize that most of us don't give a d---. Junk on a property is just one of the results of living in a low-income area. I care about the people who get harassed because snobs complain to the selectmen; I don't care whether everybody conforms to the letter of all the codes.
I was struck by the statement, "[Charlie Webster] acknowledged that the No on 1 campaign was at a disadvantage because the content of some of its advertisements was determined by outside groups. 'We couldn't control the message,' he said."
What business did they have publishing ads that they couldn't control the message of?
The other day I received a similar ad from "Maine Republican Party" in the mail: one of the worst political ads I've seen--rivaled only by the Republican attack on Cutler they sent me last year. Talks about everything but the issue.
There is no connection between the marriage issue and the voter registration issue, though to be fair "Equality Maine" started it by pushing a Yes on 1 stance.
I was glad our "Yes on 1" signs were already on the lawn. They are the SAME physical signs that were on our lawn in 2009 when we joined in the People's Veto of the "gay marriage" law. No organizational logo on them: just "Yes on 1" in red letters, white background. My husband brought them out of the basement on Friday.
The media loves to have a name and a face to hang a story on, and every article about the marriage debate of 2009 treated Mark Mutty as if he were the leader of the huge number of Maine voters who opposed changing the definition of the word "marriage."
He was not. I don't know of a single person whose mind or vote was changed by anything Mutty said or did. Nor can I recall any election in which hundreds of thousands of Maine voters chose Mutty to be our official leader, or appointed him to any office at all.
But Mutty himself fully embraced his image as leader, and to now say that he was reluctant to do so is absurd. On his website, he claimed to be the chairman of an organization called "Stand for Marriage Maine," which he said had thousands of members. It actually had only TWO members in the normal sense of that term (which includes applying for membership and participation in organizational decision-making): the two were Mutty himself and a Baptist minister named Bob Emrich. But when I expressed my discomfort with this style of self-promotion I got no satisfaction from either man. They constantly asked for money, as if the outcome of the election would be a direct result of how many dollars Mark Mutty took in. And as election day approached they adopted (over my protests) the offensive tactic of making unsolicited phone calls.
I could go on and on about Mutty, but it got so frustrating trying to deal with him that when the time came to put a "Yes on 1" sign on my lawn I had one made at my own expense rather than using one that had "Stand for Marriage Maine" printed on it. If there is going to be another battle over this issue in Maine, I hope we will not let any man assume this kind of role, and I hope that the media will respect the fact that we vote the issues, not personalities or organizational slogans.
Our commenter who likes to tell us what would be done if only he ran the state, says,
"Well, Licia, when you have a public official who misuses their office to threaten and intimidate the public, it is a crime"
Perhaps so. But it would be up to the courts to decide whether that had happened in any particular case. In the situation we're discussing the Secretary of State merely pointed out what the law is. That's hardly a crime or a misuse of office. Our commenter adds,
"The 'form' was a one tactic to add a more legal method to intimidate."
There's no evidence at all for this, unless the fact that Dan Breton says so constitutes evidence. More likely, the form was provided just to make it easier for the recipients of the letter to withdraw their claim of Maine residence if that was the way they preferred to handle the issue. And nobody was intimidated.
"And just for your information, there is NO requirement that a voter get a driver's license,"
Of course there isn't. (How cheering--Dan and I do agree on something!) But if a Maine resident drives a car, they are supposed to get a Maine driver's license. If they don't drive, there's no issue.
"no matter what your clan leader says."
I don't have a clan.
"This man is supposed to represent everyone, not just one narrow minority."
If this means he is supposed to say only things which everyone approves of, no public official could possibly do his/her job under these terms. I think he is supposed to uphold the laws of the state, which include requiring residents who drive to get Maine drivers' licenses. Is this a law which only "one narrow minority" approves of? If so, it's news to me. I accepted it as the law of the state after I moved to Maine; so I went and got a Maine license. Isn't that what everyone else did (if they moved here)? If a majority of Maine residents disapprove of the state's motor vehicle laws, then perhaps our legislators can be persuaded to change them; but I have seen no evidence that most Mainers disapprove of the motor vehicle laws.
We've got a commenter here who informs us every time some public figure shows himself to be on the other side of a political issue from the commenter, that that public figure should be charged with a crime and kicked out of office. Let's be glad that this zealot doesn't himself hold an office.
And if creating a form is a crime, then every business, government agency, medical office or organization of every kind will have to be shut down.
I see nothing wrong with informing students who have declared that they reside in Maine what the laws of Maine are about driver's licenses and car registrations. Anyone who would wail that he or she is being threatened instead of just going and getting a Maine driver's license as the rest of us have to do is maybe not old enough to vote.
As for the ACLU, it would be nice to see them doing something about the gross violations of individual civil liberties that take place frequently in this area instead of acting as an auxiliary of the Democratic party.
I am tired of reading that college students are being "intimidated." College students, in my observation, are not all that mousy; and there is nothing to be afraid of. They are simply being asked to act like adults to the extent of making up their minds which state they want to claim residency in and behaving consistently with that decision.
If you don't have a car, nobody is going to penalize you for not registering a car. If you don't drive, nobody is going to penalize you for not having a Maine driver's license.
But if you do have a car, and you think you live in Maine, register it in Maine. If you do drive, and you think you live in Maine, but your license is in some other state, replace it with a Maine license. You won't even have to pass a road test.
It's a bit of a nuisance, but no worse than everybody else has to put up with when they move from one state to another.
This is a strange story. I hope Sun Journal reporters will dig for the needed facts to enable readers to make sense of it. Why would anyone make up a story like Goucher's?--let alone injure himself to support it? What are the "holes" the police claim to have discovered? and what was Goucher's answer to them? (And Kris Kucera--do you have some facts the public hasn't been given access to? If so, what are they? And if not, why have you jumped to the conclusion that it was Goucher who was in the wrong?) I hope Robert Goucher will write up his story in detail, including his experiences with the police, and send the account to the Sun Journal.
I've kept asking why this is a partisan issue, but I think the idea attributed to Democrats here is probably the reason: college students are "a group that more often than not votes Democratic." So some Republicans would rather fewer of them voted. I have generally been in sympathy with Republicans in recent years, but I don't join them in this. Students should vote where they live, and if they spend more time in the location of their school than in the state they came from, and are more aware of issues here, they should vote where they go to school. Republicans should put their efforts into persuading students of their policy positions, not into keeping them away from the polls. As for the new law about advance registration, if its purpose is to give town clerks time to screen college students, I don't think the clerks will do that. In my experience town voter lists are hopelessly out of date, and if you gave the clerks a year to update them, they would still be full of names of people who moved away long ago.
Sorry, I meant "Michael Kidd," not "Michael Peck." It's the policeman who was named Peck. (Isn't this the Jack Peck who spoke up a few months ago in favor of legalizing marijuana?)
How did the police "discover" that Michael Peck had "prepackaged marijuana, a pair of portable scales, a pipe and some type of knife." Were these things hanging visibly around Peck's neck? And if not, by what authority did the police search him? Sounds as if it's mighty dangerous to walk down Court St. if one is bleeding.
This judge is allowing public fear of sex offenders to override her judgment of what is fair and constitutional. A person commits a crime and serves their penalty--they should then be encouraged to live a better life, not labeled and turned into a pariah. I hope the U.S. Supreme Court will get at this type of case.
I wasn't there. But I can see no motive the Sparks brothers would have for inventing the story. Cardoza, of course, has the motive of defending the business organization she represents.
It is obviously a partisan issue, since Republicans are all on one side and Democrats on the other. But I have not been able to find out why this is so. What is it about advance registration that Republicans think their party will benefit from? What is it about same-day registration that Democrats think their party will benefit from? Most people don't even seem to understand the question. They tell me that Republicans like the new law because they are good guys, while Democrats oppose it because they are bad guys. Or else that Republicans like the new law because they are bad guys, and Democrats oppose it because they are good guys. This doesn't get me any further. There must be something in the historic emphases of the two parties that dictates the way they have lined up on sides on this issue, but I don't know what it is.
Ben Grant is apparently trying to discredit the Republicans when he describes Charlie Webster as "bragging about suppressing the vote of college students," but if anybody read the accounts of what Webster said they would know that Webster didn't suppress anyone's vote. For crying out loud--the UMF campus is only a block or two from the polls; students don't need buses in order to vote.
I have not made up my mind which way I will vote on this issue--it disturbs me that so much partisan political rhetoric is going into a question which should have nothing to do with party.
If the Democrats were really busing UMF students to the polls, that in itself is bizarre seeing as the polling place is only a block or two from the campus.
I'll be watching this one--but it seems worth pointing out that the voter lists I have obtained from the town of Farmington on two separate occasions were both badly out of date. If other municipalities don't do a better job of keeping their lists up to date it's no wonder if some people are on the lists in two places without their having voted in two places.
I like LePage, but I'm not with him on this one. I don't tell other people when to pray or what to pray about, and I don't expect anyone else to tell me these things. I pray when and as God leads me.
I believe that Franklin Memorial Hospital and its associated network are very much interested in technology and being "wired." They got this award last year too. But "wired" isn't what we need. We need more respect and consideration for human beings.
I do not want my health care managed by computers. One of my practitioners--a good person whose intentions were innocent, I'm sure--made the mistake of letting her computer write my prescriptions. The computer loused them up, and it took several months to straighten them out. The trouble could have been avoided if she had used the simple procedure--old-fashioned I suppose but it always used to work--of writing the prescriptions on slips of paper.
I could go on and on. It so happens that I used to live in a region with excellent health care, so that I have perhaps been more shocked by the failures of the local system since moving to Maine than people who have lived here all their lives. But in Pennsylvania no doctor, no staff person in a medical office, and no pharmacist ever needed me to recite my date of birth in order to serve me. Nor did any such person ever confuse me with another patient, despite the insistence that the local obsession with dates of birth is necessary to avoid misidentifications. I know all the programmed answers, for the staff people are trained to behave like computers themselves. Recently I had to recite my date of birth 4 times, to 3 people, just to get a routine mammogram.
What kind of doctor knows his patients by their dates of birth, and not by their names and faces?
I made a simple scientific statement that I would not expect to be controversial: that there is no way to change a biologically male person to a biologically female person. I condemned nobody and made no judgments about anyone, despite Susan's remarks. I only thought the comment was needed because some of the wording in the reporter's article suggests that she is unclear on the point.
I'm coming to suspect that the decision to fire those employees was made by a computer. I hope Bean executives are learning not to entrust important decisions to computers.
The word "marriage," with its meaning of a union between a man and a woman, was not invented by lawmakers. It goes back much further than any government we know of today. It is also not the property of any religion. People of all religions and none have been getting married and talking about marriage for as many centuries as anyone can trace. This is just common speech.
This entire campaign seems to depend on misusing the English language, just as it did in 2009. There is no question of "legalizing" "same-sex marriage," because "same-sex marriage" isn't illegal. When was the last time someone got arrested for committing "same-sex marriage"? The phrase is, however, a contradiction in terms because "marriage" means the union of a man and a woman. Not because the state says so--because that's the English language, which existed long before the state, as did marriage. Government doesn't invent language, and it doesn't invent marriage.
We haven't been told why the company thought the fired workers did something wrong. There must have been some idea that they had. Did they think these employees knew that the price was misprinted? If so, why? The story as it stands makes L.L. Bean appear both irrational and very unfair, but there must be something more to it.
There are a number of errors in your photo/map of the area where the crime occurred--the most conspicuous being that you have put a post office on Fairbanks Road, where there isn't and never has been a post office. Another mistake is that you have labeled part of Box Shop Hill "Main St." That isn't called Main St., it is all Box Shop Hill. And your map shows two roads going off Box Shop Hill that aren't there, and fails to show Poleyard Rd., which is there and goes off Fairbanks Rd. at the same spot where the north end of Box Shop Hill goes off it.
I suppose you will say that the errors are in your source, and that you have no software for correcting the map. But it that case it would be better not to publish it, as it makes you look foolish and might even be confusing to anyone who is trying to help the police. If you really want a map for this latter purpose it would be better to have someone who knows Farmington draw one by hand.
Melanie, what a long lecture you preached me in response to a very simple point. WE DON'T KNOW what was in Steven Lake's mind. In particular, the idea that his goal was "absolute control and domination" (as stated in this editorial) is not a "cold hard fact"; it is sheer speculation on the contents of Steven Lake's mind, which the editorialist doesn't have any more access to than you or I do, no matter how often that particular speculation gets repeated. And if one reads the editorial carefully one will find many other speculations about Lake's mind.
I was not saying that Lake's actions were morally justified. But just going on and on about what a bad guy he was, and giving free play to our imaginations in attributing motives to him, will not help us prevent the next domestic murder.
Most of the people who are so confidently telling us what Steven Lake's motives were, what sort of person he was, etc., never even met him. The man is dead; we don't have to judge him. Leave it to God.
So the Rumford voters didn't rubber-stamp everything that their selectmen recommended. What else is new? We've been back and forth on this one in Farmington. Some people feel that private organizations should be supported by individuals who choose to support them, rather than by taxes. I would guess that's why many voters didn't opt to have Safe Voices supported by tax money, but the SJ reporter could have asked a few if s/he had wanted to know.
Unless one of the people who have posted comments here is in a position to know more about this case than what we read in the media, I can't see that any of us should be judging the truth or falsity of what George Lake says.
In all the commentary I have seen on this tragic incident, nobody seems to be asking what, if anything, could have been done to reduce the pressures on Steven Lake that eventually led to his shooting his wife and kids, and himself. There seems to be a fear that if we ask this question we are condoning the killing, or blaming the victim, or something of the sort. I think it should be asked.
This is a very disturbing incident, as so far as I can learn Gerry McGlamery did nothing wrong. He had a disagreement with one of the selectmen--since when is this against the law? He telephoned one or more of the selectmen to find out when and where the town meeting would be, and he mentioned that he was organizing neighbors to vote out Russ Gardner and elect someone else instead. Since when is this a crime?!
He made no threats. He was thrown in jail to prevent him from attending New Sharon's town meeting. This is not a man who rants and raves; everything I have seen that he has written is rational and of reasonable length.
Why is there no group to protect the civil rights of local residents? There are many abuses of power committed around here, and the public seems to take the view that nothing can be done about it.
Steve Kaiser is far too fond of giving out deadlines to people who have suffered some accidental damage. The deadlines are unenforceable, and they are not what is needed anyway. Frankly it doesn't sound as if this situation needed either official action or a news article. The Cummingses have been sufficiently harassed since a disastrous fire destroyed most of their home. I wish them all the best in their trailer, wherever they ultimately decide to install it.
If hoping for everlasting life is a mistake, then it isn't just Camping and other people with end-time visions who are mistaken, it's the whole Christian tradition and several others. Probably most of the human race. And maybe we know as much about it as Leonard Pitts.
Gabriel found God sitting in the usual place--still looking at Maine.
"Why are you looking at it now?" he asked. Isn't everything there the way you want it?"
"Oh, it's fine," said the Most High; "but the rest of the world still isn't satisfied. ... They want an event they call a 'Rapture.' They talk about it all day long--instead of coming to Farmington where they could enjoy life. I didn't even put that word in the Bible, but nobody remembers that."
"What are they looking for, then?"
"They have this idea that a bunch of people will be snatched out of wherever they are: seats in movie theaters, jail cells, passenger seats in trains and planes, I suppose; and they especially want to be grabbed from behind the wheels of automobiles, leaving their vehicles to cause crashes--which doesn't seem very Christian to me--but their hearts are set on it." ...
"Where do they want to be snatched to?"
"They want to meet me in the air. I have no idea why, as I have nothing going in the air."
"Oh. Can't you just tell them that?"
"No--they'd never believe me. It's simpler to just go through the motions and let them meet me in the air--and then we can all go someplace where we can have more fun."
"So whom are you going to rapture?"
"Oh, everybody, of course. I wouldn't want anyone to be left out."
from Farmington! Farmington!
Licia Kuenning
299 High St. (licia@qhpress.org)
Systems in which the patient pays someone other than the doctor are a mess. If your doctor overcharges you, your issue should be with him/her. But if someone else is collecting the money, the doctor doesn't care, and neither does the agency collecting the money. I've seen enough of this already in Franklin County.
Dear Gerry McGlamery,
I was notified by e-mail this morning that you had replied to my comment of March 18. I was glad to get a chance to read your story, but it is too bad that probably nobody else will read it, since nobody will be looking at a March issue of the Sun Journal.
Please let me know your address; I would like to learn more about this situation. We have a good-old-boys club in Farmington too, but I don't think they would go so far as to make a secret of the time & place of a town meeting.
Let's support Paul LePage in his efforts to bring more jobs to Maine. The people who criticize everything he says and does have no answer to the problems he's trying to solve.
With all the speculation about LePage's motives the obvious is mostly being overlooked. What is his goal?--to bring businesses to Maine that will hire Maine workers. He did something that was sure to generate huge amounts of publicity--that most of it is hostile publicity makes no difference for this particular purpose. He made national news where the executives of every corporation will read it and be made aware that the governor of Maine is sympathetic to management. It is, after all, management that makes the decision where a business will locate. Whether the strategy will work remains to be seen, but people who predict that it will fail because the executives will be scared off by the contempt expressed by liberal commenters are just engaging in wishful thinking, it seems to me. And those who predict that it will lead to 15 hour work days are being silly: really drastic changes in the labor laws are unlikely, and LePage hasn't proposed any.
No, Dan: Governor LePage is addressing the general public. If he were only addressing a select group of his supporters it would not have been announced publicly. The problem is that not everyone who has TV has Time Warner Cable; and not everyone has a computer; and those who have computers don't all have high speed internet connections without which watching an audio/video program doesn't work. I don't know what percentage of the public is getting left out by this arrangement, but I think it is substantial, and it has nothing to do with who is or is not a supporter of Paul LePage. I'm sure Democrats are as likely as Republicans to have Time Warner Cable or high speed internet.
As for your statement that the advertisers will be campaign contributors, I don't know where you are getting your information, but it seems more likely to me that they will be commercial businesses. Though perhaps it doesn't matter.
I will not keep replying to Dan Breton if he continues to use my questions as an occasion to pour out his contempt for Paul LePage or to make assertions with no factual basis. I posted because I really would like information, and I hoped that maybe the reporter who wrote the article would realize that essential information (about how to view the program) had been left out and would take the trouble to supply it. If I can't get it here maybe I will write to the Governor.
In reply to Linda Pelletier--it's my understanding that the broadcast will be paid for by advertisers.
Dan, thanks for the suggestion, but I can't see going to a local library and asking to have a computer there broadcast a speech. Libraries prefer quiet; and in any case if I can't watch it at home I'm not inclined to bother.
I'm not one of these people who automatically expresses scorn at anything Paul LePage says or does, but I am quite baffled by his choosing to address the people of Maine via a medium many of us don't have access to. Does he actually think that the mainstream media would censor his talks? And would they?
Please explain exactly when and where we can view this. I cannot view videos on my computer. I don't know what Time Warner Cable is, but I get my TV through Bee Line Cable. Can it be viewed with Bee Line Cable? If so, when, and what channel?
I read this story hoping to find out why McGlamery felt a need to leave hostile messages on the selectmen's answering machines. After all, in my experience, there is such a thing as a legitimate grievance against selectmen, and it can be very hard to get a hearing for it. I didn't hear McGlamery's messages, and maybe if I did I would have agreed that they went too far; but I wasn't given that chance because the reporter apparently never bothered to ask McGlamery for his side of the story. Why not??!! And please don't tell us that it's "confidential." Confidentiality should apply to protecting the weaker party from exposure that he doesn't choose, not to protecting the more powerful party from public scrutiny. McGlamery has a right to tell his side of the story. He isn't required to, but apparently in this case he wasn't even given the opportunity.
It's a mistake to think social problems can be solved by changing the English language. Mental retardation exists. If we don't call it that, it will still be called something, and whatever term is used will quickly acquired unpleasant connotations, because the thing itself is unpleasant.
I am old enough to remember when the R-word replaced the F-word ("feeble minded"). It was back in the '50s, and the same arguments were made for the R-word that are now being made against it. Before that, the F-word had replaced the I-word ("idiot"). My poor sister, who is so retarded she doesn't know any of these words, is just as disabled no matter what you call her disability. I agree that "retard" as a noun referring to the retarded person is not polite; but if this group is also trying to do away with "mentally retarded" and "retardation" in the belief that this will somehow help the people, or their families, who suffer this disability, I think they are confused.
I don't see the point of quoting people who don't know any more about BPA than what they have read. My own life experience makes me all too aware that the FDA and the media can go off the rails driving useful products off the market, so I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that something is harmful because they say so.
I have been supportive of Paul LePage, but this incident troubles me as I see no valid reason why the issues involved in firing Dora Mills should be "confidential." Are we really supposed to believe that there was something wrong with her, and LePage is being considerate of her reputation by not revealing what it is? Has he told her what it is? Or is it his own reputation he is protecting by not revealing his motives? These are two public figures, and I think the public has a legitimate interest in knowing what's going on.
My hearty approval for the change in policy. I have been using my real name in comments all along, and for those who are scared, nothing bad ever happened to me or my family members as a result. I don't hesitate to express controversial opinions. The only people who attack me for it are the anonymous ones, and they do it on line. I'll be glad to see an end to the ugly, irresponsible comments and a switch to a responsible forum among people who stand behind their words.
By Licia Kuenning, unverified — Sun, 10/31/2010 - 07:45
When patients refuse to pay their bills, one question that should be asked, but almost never is, is Were the bills reasonable for the services performed? We had a doctor here in Franklin County who routinely overcharged her patients. I was not warned before I went to her nearly two years ago. She spent about half an hour with me, did nothing that couldn't have been done by a nurse, and her bill was over $1,000. It came down to $656 after I got my low income deduction, but it was still more than twice what made sense, and I refused to pay it. I repeatedly told the billing department at Franklin Memorial Hospital that I would pay a bill that was (a) reasonable in amount, (b) accurate, (c) written in plain English. But I never got one. The bill remains unpaid, the amount still remains on my record though I otherwise have excellent credit, and the doctor has left the area to exploit the people of Skowhegan. When we talk about the cost of health care, please lets not forget to look at whether charges are just too high. Doctors are no more immune to the faults of greed and dishonesty than the rest of the human race.
So how did the police find these guys, seeing as nobody saw them come and go when the marijuana disappeared. Did the pot leaves have serial numbers on them?
I would be delighted to see the trestle restored over a stream just north of the paper mill site. It's the only spot between Livermore Falls and Farmington where one can't get through on the trail at present.
If he hasn't learned how to speak out of both sides of his mouth, God bless him; he may be the only plain-spoken politician left. I'll vote for him. As for where Obama should go, well, I don't even believe in hell, but the expression "go to ..." is a well established idiom. Maybe we should take nominations for the places we would most like to send people we disagree with! :-)
By Licia Kuenning, unverified — Wed, 09/29/2010 - 07:57
Someone has said, "The test of a civilized society is how it treats its convicted criminals." It is truly horrible to think of such gross abuse being practiced in Franklin County. If we do not demand that our corrections officers behave like civilized human beings we are no better than criminals ourselves. I commend Jonathan Hull for taking this case and hope very much that the truth will be brought out and any abuses ended.
My husband and I independently felt the house shaking briefly yesterday afternoon. He asked me whether I had felt it--this was before either of us had heard about the earthquake in Canada. It was very mild, and we didn't report it to anybody.
I was glad to see many comments in the May 28 SJ supportive of Roger LaPlante and his family. Unfortunately many of those who commented did not identify themselves so that other supporters could get together with them. Someone who called himself "Stanger" wrote, "I am lining up people as we speak to stand in the way the day they try to tear this building down." I would stand with him, but I don't know how to contact him. I don't know what day they will try to tear the building down, and I don't know whether "Stanger" is this person's real name. He gave no address or contact information of any kind.
I suppose some people think it's cool to post comments anonymously just because other people do it, or because they are afraid of getting unwanted mail if they give their street address or e-mail address. Well, that can happen; but it seems to me a small price to pay if one cares about a cause. There is naturally more credibility to messages whose authors have the courage to identify themselves.
I would like to hear from people who are supporting the LaPlantes. Please give me your address. If I even had Roger LaPlante's address I would at least send him a contribution.
Licia Kuenning (299 High St., Farmington)
The Occasional Pussycat licia@qhpress.org
Of course this story should be in the news. The public needs to know when citizens' basic rights are being violated, and the right to live in one's home must be upheld, whether the building is safe or not. Does anyone think it any safer to be homeless?? Neighbors also need to be alerted that this family needs help.
Conservatism about dress codes has nothing to do with Christianity, except that some Christians seem to confuse whatever cultural norm they are promoting with Christianity. There is nothing in the Bible that says nakedness is a sin or that certain parts of the body are required by God to be covered. The creation account in Genesis makes it clear that God created us naked, and when He looked at all He had made He saw that it was good (Gen. 1:31). Hence the man and woman were naked and were not ashamed (Gen. 2:25). It was only after they had rebelled against God by eating the forbidden fruit that they became ashamed of their nakedness and tried to cover it with fig leaves. God didn't tell them to do that. It was a human idea--and human cultures have held various norms about clothing throughout history. None of them divinely ordained. I think it shows more appreciation for the goodness of God and His creation to recognize that our bodies are good, not shameful.
I misunderstood the earlier SJ article as saying that John Stevens had invited the SJ to publicize his past. If he only asked for help and the paper used the opportunity to dig up his criminal record and publish that, it was a shabby trick. As for "conservatives," the word seems to have a variety of meanings, but I think of myself as a conservative in many ways, and I try to help people. I'm a follower of Jesus, if that's conservative. If I didn't feel called to contribute to a particular needy person (because one can't help everybody), I certainly wouldn't insult him or spit on him.
I think too much media attention is being given to organizations, as distinct from issues. When we vote on Question 1, we are not voting on which organization we like best. I knew where I stood on this issue before I ever heard of any of these organizations, and the same may be true of most voters. Certainly "Stand for Marriage Maine," although they talk as if they had some official authority to speak for all the Mainers on the Yes side of the issue, has no such authority. We never elected them. And I have been sufficiently turned off by their tactics that when I put a "Yes on 1" sign on my lawn I had it made by a local sign shop rather than using one that says "Stand for Marriage Maine."
Every few days I get another mailing from Marc Mutty or Bob Emrich. They say many things I agree with, but the punch line is always, "Send us money." They talk as if the number of Yes votes on Question 1 will depend on the number of dollars sent to Marc Mutty. I don't think it does. I wrote a pamphlet, "There is no Right to be Agreed with," and printed and distributed it at my own expense to thousands of voters. Many have told me it's the best thing they have read on the subject, and I recently learned of a favorable comment even by someone on the other side. But Marc Mutty, after praising the pamphlet to the skies, refused to contribute to my costs or to distribute the pamphlet because I would not give him control of the printing! Good luck to him, but I don't want his logo on my publication.
This reminds me of an incident that occurred between my two of my tenant families about 14 years ago. One couple complained that their 4-year-old daughter had been sexually abused by the other couple's 5-year-old daughter. Within a few days a doctor, the police, the DHS, and a network of gossipy neighbors had all somehow become involved, the father of the 5-year-old had threatened to kill the father of the 4-year-old, and the latter was making plans to move. But I doubted that either of the little children at the heart of the storm knew what it was all about. They only knew they weren't allowed to play with each other any more. I see this kind of thing as an example of societal hysteria about sexual child abuse. Real child abuse is a serious matter--but what two little children do to each other is not sexual abuse.
I notice that in none of the other comments on this article is the writer's real full name given. Someone who posts as "tron" complains that the two 6-year-olds and their parents are anonymous. Really, tron, why not set an example by identifying yourself when you post? And I am voting Yes on 1 (though not a member of any "crowd") but this incident has absolutely nothing to do with that issue. I also agree that this incident wasn't worth putting in the newspaper.
I continue to object to the term "legalize" to refer to changing the definition of a common word. It makes it sound as if "same sex marriage" were illegal, like possession of marijuana, and could land one in jail if one were caught doing it. But nobody was ever arrested for committing "same sex marriage," since there is no such thing: it is precluded not by law but by the common meanings of the words. In fact the problem with "same sex marriage" is not that it is illegal, but that it is a contradiction in terms. There are always people who want to murder the English language, and there is no law against doing that either--but it isn't like wanting to do something illegal.
This is getting ridiculous. What children will learn in school about homosexuality and marriage cannot be determined by looking at the curriculum, and it cannot be determined by looking at the laws. Janet Mills doesn't know any more about it than anyone else, and she certainly cannot "set the issue to rest." It's a language issue, and children learn language from all the people they associate with, including school teachers. If "marriage" in legalese comes to mean something different from what it has always meant in English, teachers who have bought into the propaganda will feel free to say that a man can "marry" another man, or a woman another woman. They might hesitate to say this if the "gay marriage" law is defeated. And yes, if it is not defeated, I think we will see a great increase in home schooling and private schools.
It is worth remembering that no organization or person has any official status whatsoever as speaking for any segment of the voting public on the Question 1 issue. There was never an election held by Maine conservatives electing Marc Mutty to speak for them, nor an election by the liberals electing Jesse Connolly to speak for them. These much-quoted individuals chiefly excel in their ability to get their names in the media--and I guess our friends in the media know better than I how they manage to do that. We didn't choose them, and I couldn't care less where either organization gets its funds. Far too much of the campaigning consists of organizations criticizing each other and/or soliciting money, instead of focusing on the issues. Meanwhile I suspect that very few of the votes cast on this ballot question on November 3 will be the result of Mutty's or Connolly's efforts. I think most of us knew what we thought about the issue before we ever heard of those guys.
Another person who also doesn't use his real name but calls himself "dead dog" (maybe we should take him at his own evaluation?) says
"Responding to Licia Kuenning's accusation of selective enforcement. When Mr Batzell started taking in homeless and transients the use of the property changed from residential to to boarding house or something along those lines."
It didn't change. Joel has been taking in homeless people for over 30 years. At times he has even gotten calls from the town office when they were looking for a place for someone to stay. You write,
"Other old houses that don't meet the newest building codes are grandfathered because they are still being used as a single family residence. When the use of a building changes it must be brought up to current codes."
The use of the building didn't change. It has been the same for over 30 years. The code changed in 2007; that isn't Joel's fault, but it gave those who hate Joel their opportunity to harass him. Then you say,
"Planning boards and code enforcement officers will usually give a variance for a narrow hall or low ceiling if everything else meets code standards. Those are two of 11 violations. In addition to those two there are four more violations that have not been corrected. Mr Batzel should have fixed them instead of griping about what can not be easily changed."
Once again, "dead dog," you don't know what you are talking about. You don't know what has been corrected and what has not--you only know what you see in articles, which are never entirely accurate. And Joel does very little griping at any time.
"The town should not be responsible to fix what Mr Batzel did to his own building."
Joel didn't do anything to his own building, except try to keep it maintained, and make improvements at the demand of town officials. All of which is difficult when you have a rambling old structure, ill health, and little money.
"If you inspected all of the old buildings in Farmington I doubt you would find any others with holes in the floors and ladders to access different floors."
Are you kidding? The only hole in the floor (it was probably there when he bought the building) is the one for the ladder (and there's only one ladder that I have ever heard of), and these things were NOT among the alleged "violations." If you inspected all of the old buildings in Farmington I doubt you would find even one that comes up to all the stipulations of the 2007 code. Their owners could all be dragged into court if somebody were out to get them. Then you say,
"If Batzel had done things right with the proper permits he would not be in this position."
And again you are completely ignorant. Joel had his building inspected in 1991, and it passed all the requirements at that time. In 2007 a new code was adopted. Maybe some day you will be old, poor, and in weak health, and your building won't come up to some new code. Then maybe you will understand just what an unfair thing is being done here. You continue,
"Maybe the town would have said the building can not be used as a homeless shelter but must stay in residential use but the current problems would not be there. The town has given him more breaks and extensions than I would have."
Considering that Joel didn't do a single thing wrong, it shouldn't be necessary to give him "breaks" and "extensions"; he should have been left alone. And before they kick the homeless out onto the street they should find some other accommodation for them--at present there is none.
"It's time to get a court order that sets a firm deadline or the building will be razed at the owner's expense."
Dead dog, it's time that someone in charge of removing garbage takes your carcase out of the street.
And isn't it interesting that the most ignorant posts on internet forums almost always come from people who conceal their identity? Use your full real names if you have something worth saying and know what you are talking about.
Someone who apparently is ashamed to identify herself so uses the pseudonym "greatgramgover" writes.
"It is not welective enforcement it is the law and Joel Batzell has gotten alot of help with the buiklding but he expects everything handed to him on a silver platter for nothing."
This is completely untrue. Then she continues
"Well to begin with the building at 103 Bridge street in west farmington the former Lyons Garage where cars were repaired for yearsa should never have been allowed to been made over for people to live in."
Your opinion, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the present case. 103 Bridge St has been a residence for 32 years. You write,
"I have known of joel Batzell for many many years
You say you have known OF Joel Batzell, meaning I guess that you have heard about him at second or third hand. There are many false stories going about. But I have known Joel Batzell himself for many years. Then you say,
"and he has always been a mental case because of drugs and alchol use like many others in the state but he never has tried to improve his life and become a productive tax paying citizen."
You don't know what you are talking about; you are just repeating hearsay, with no consideration for the human being you are attacking, who at least tries to help other people. But you go on,
"He continues to add junk to the yard over there so it looks like the town dump and is an eyesore for all to see as they go across the bridge."
Actually, he has cleaned up the yard quite a bit. But again this is irrelevant to the present case. Joel is not being prosecuted for having a yard that you don't like to look at. That isn't illegal anyway. (If ugliness were illegal, the first people to be hailed into court ought to be those like you with ugly spirits who attack harmless people in public forums.) He is being dragged into court because his old building doesn't meet the standards of a 2007 code, and that is selective enforcement because it isn't being done to other owners of old houses, in general. You add,
"It is time that the town official and the judge shut the place down and had the mess cleaned up and the building destroyed. If one cannot help themselves no one else can help them either ."
How profound. Maybe it's time that you were tarred and feathered and dragged down routes 2 & 4 behind a truck.
I have been following this case closely. The first thing that needs to be noted is that this has not been "a yearlong effort to resolve State Fire Marshal concerns." The State Fire Marshal is not the source of the animus against Joel Batzell, though Farmington officials pretend that he is. The Fire Marshal is just an excuse, and someone in the Farmington town office brought him into it for that purpose.
Joel is right that there are numerous old houses which cannot realistically be brought into conformity with the 2007 code, especially if they are owned by low-income people, as probably the majority of old houses are. In general, NOBODY EXPECTS THEM TO. We are dealing here with selective enforcement--if somebody doesn't like you, then they suddenly become very concerned about the fire safety of your home. They think that you or those who live with you would be much safer on the street! Sure. A law that lends itself to selective enforcement is a bad law, and that is the extent of the State's fault in this situation, but the responsibility for oppression of an innocent homeowner is still squarely in the Farmington town office.
Another misleading statement in your article is, "The inspection was held after a visitor to the building fell through a hole in the floor that was used to access another floor by use of a ladder. The visitor made a complaint." This version has long since been rebutted, and surely it is time that reporters got on board. The visitor was a young woman who was seeing one of the many transient homeless people that Joel takes in from time to time: the young man was temporarily staying in a room at 103 Bridge St. Apparently she and the homeless man got drunk or stoned on drugs, and the woman fell down a ladder. But that the woman then wrote a letter to the State Fire Marshal is beyond belief; and Joel stated at the very first Selectmen's meeting where these issues were discussed that the complaint had not been filed by that woman or by anyone connected with Thoughtbridge. Nobody attempted to refute what Joel said; we just got evasive comments such as "it doesn't matter who complained." They don't want to admit who it was, as that would interfere with their shifting the blame for their cruel actions to the Fire Marshal. There has never been any evidence that the woman filed any complaint. I think it was filed by the Farmington town manager, but I urge any reporter who really wants to report the news to insist on PROOF of who filed the complaint and not be put off until she gets it.
None of the alleged "violations" listed by the Fire Marshal had anything to do with the much talked-of ladder.
Joel is quoted as saying, "If the government wants people to meet the new standards, then it should help low-income people make that happen." Indeed they should. How would you like to be told that you should make your halls 2 inches wider and your ceilings 1 inch higher?! But I fear Joel is being overoptimistic if he thinks that a court hearing will get any fairer press coverage than the proceedings to date have gotten. What we are dealing with is SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT. It all depends on who likes you or dislikes you. This is what we should not tolerate.
Obviously a change in the legal definition of "marriage" will affect what children are told in schools and elsewhere. The kids will now be told that certain homosexual couples are "married," whereas before they were not told that. The subject will inevitably come up--it doesn't have to be in the formal curriculum for that to happen. I am astonished at the denial on this subject--does anyone really think that children are unconscious of what everybody else is talking about?
First of all, the issue is not about "allowing" gays to marry or to do anything else. The issue is about whether we will speak English. Gays are already allowed to do all the same things that other people are allowed to do. But homosexual relationships are not called "marriages" because that's not what the word means. I would not be surprised if there are lots of homosexually-oriented people who are quietly standing by watching the absurdity of this debate and knowing that nothing of importance can depend on redefining common words. By insisting that only if we change the English language can gays be happy, those pushing this program are insulting gays.
As an example of how silly it gets, one commenter wrote, "Force gays to live lies leading to marriages of unhappiness and deceit?" Nobody is forcing gays to do anything at all. They make their own choices, as the rest of us do. If they lie, that's their choice, and I hope the writer isn't saying that all gays are liars. There are lots of people who are honest about their sexual inclinations, and also lots of people who don't go around talking about their sex lives, since it isn't other people's business. And if anyone makes an unhappy marriage, that too is their responsibility, and their partner's.
Incidentally, although I will vote Yes on question 1, I don't think anybody should give money to "Stand for Marriage Maine." That "organization" (it is really just two men with the backing of Bishop Malone) seems to exist primarily to glorify itself and to collect money. If the new law is vetoed they will claim that "We did it," but it won't be true. It will have been done by Maine citizens voting their consciences. Help to educate the public by refuting fallacies when you hear or see them.
Sources I recommend include Jeffrey Satinover, MD, "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth"; The Witherspoon Institute, "Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles"; and my own pamphlet, "There is no Right to be Agreed with."
I am not a Catholic, and I plan to vote YES on Question 1, but I regret the focus on money by the people most in the media on this issue: Marc Mutty of the R.C. Diocese of Portland and Baptist pastor Bob Emrich. I keep getting their fund appeals, but they never give an account of what has been done with the money they receive. I strongly suspect that the number of Yes votes on 1 will not be determined by the number of $$ collected by Mutty.
I have written a pamphlet ("There is no Right to be Agreed with") discussing why the new law should be rejected. It doesn't get into religion at all. I'd be glad to send a copy to anyone who requests it from me (299 High St., Farmington 04938; e-mail: licia@qhpress.org)
This is exactly the same kind of overreaction to complaints that motivated the same town manager, last June, to ban "political activity" on town property--only that time he got enough stiff notices from respected organizations, to the effect that he was infringing on Constitutional rights, that he withdrew the ban and apologized. It seems this guy just can't resist showing off his power.
People doing psychic research in cemeteries are not doing any harm. Their beliefs about what happens to the human spirit after the death of the body are different from mine, and perhaps different from those of other people in this discussion--but this is a subject on which honest people can differ without being at all disrespectful to anyone.
I believe in the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting. I do not believe there are such things as ghosts. But the idea of ghosts has always fascinated people, and it makes good material for stories. I wrote a ghost story myself once. If I believed in ghosts, and I thought there was a ghost in a nearby cemetery who wanted to talk to me, I would go there and listen to it. Wouldn't that be the charitable thing to do?
There wouldn't be a petition if an issue weren't controversial--and any time there is a controversial issue there will be people making misleading statements about it, or people making statements that those on the other side think misleading. I don't think the Secretary of State should have his time wasted. If the information on the printed petition is accurate, that should be good enough: read it before you sign it.
If a person represents himself in court, it is probably because he can't afford a lawyer. That doesn't make him an idiot, or unworthy of respect. It's true he is not the first to try a religious defense, and that has never succeeded before. I am skeptical about the claim of marijuana being part of anyone's religion; but then I think marijuana should be legal anyway.
Recent Comments
Not another!
Sad. Too many good Farmington stores have been closing.
Still think it should be investigated
We have not been told what considerations were taken into account as a result of the autopsy. Perhaps it is gunshot residue as Ronald Riml suggests, but we haven't been told this. And I think the residue might be something that could be faked. I think this case should be more thoroughly investigated, as I think if this conservative columnist had decided to take his own life he would probably have left a message behind explaining his action.
Should be investigated
I don't know of any way that an autopsy can prove that a shooting death was a suicide rather than homicide. This man was a writer, and yet he didn't leave a final message. How would other conservative spokespeople feel about having their own death assumed a suicide in this way?
I wonder too
And why are we suddenly getting so much more detail about this encounter than we ever got before? Where was the information hiding?
The fact remains that there were no witnesses to this encounter besides Ryan Rosie and Justin Crowley-Smilek.
Thanks
Thank you, Kerry, for sharing your knowledge about methadone treatment. Your question, "How many have driven anyhow when they were tired?" is a good one and should caution us against judging others. I myself am usually tired, but I never fall asleep at the wheel because I have the kind of nervous system that just doesn't fall asleep easily, even in bed (if it were easier for me to sleep I might not be so tired--sigh). Others may be wired differently. Not driving is not a very practical option for many people.
I would be sorry to see this incident used to handicap people who need methadone.
Re: Jeff Johnson's comment
The SJ notified me of Jeff Johnson's comment, although it is addressed to Dan Breton, not to me, but here are a few thoughts of mine. Jeff writes,
> Why would the SJ not follow up with the victim's wife, and create
> some controversy in the story... that would sell more copies, and
> get more views.
I don't know why the SJ often tells only one side of a story that cries out for more views, but this is not the only instance of that tendency. My guess is that when they get a packaged report from some government agency it is easier just to publish or summarize the report than to do investigative reporting.
> Why would the SJ try to bury the arguably most exciting part of
> the story? Are they deliberately trying to cover for Northstar?
Again, I think it is just easier to ignore the part of the story that hasn't been put in their lap. I don't know whether the SJ would deliberately try to cover for Northstar, but I do think the Maine EMS office is doing that.
> Is the governor somehow involved?
I doubt it, but Dan would probably disagree with me. My own impression is that Franklin Memorial Hospital is used to being treated as if they were God, and this goes back long before the election of Paul LePage to the governorship. How we got into this situation I don't know, as I have been living in Maine only 7 years.
Since my first comment Scott Thistle, speaking for SJ, has said that "we did try to contact Mrs. Morse in Nova Scotia" but "we were unsuccessful in these attempts." It might help if I knew more about what these attempts amounted to.
Contacting Mrs. Morse
Thank you for your response, Scott Thistle--I would like to know more about your attempts to reach Dana Morse. Is it your impression that she is deliberately ignoring inquiries? Or how seriously did you try? She seemed very determined, when this incident first occurred, to make her story known; but since then it has been impossible to learn her reaction to developments. I tried writing to her c/o the Chronicle Herald in Nova Scotia and asked them to forward my letter, but they did not reply, and I have no way of knowing whether she received my communication. I don't know her address.
What's her address?
I have no opinion on the political-partisan aspects of this. My beef is that Franklin Memorial Hospital/Franklin Community Health Network has way too much power and isn't meaningfully accountable to anyone. It's been that way as long as I've had any dealings with them, regardless of who is in office in Augusta. I want to get Dana Morse's reaction to this report, but somehow no newspaper has managed to include that in their story. Can someone please tell me her address? You can reach me at 299 High St., Farmington 04938, or at licia@qhpress.org, if you don't want to post it here. Thanks.
Outrageous
This is just outrageous. We are asked to believe that the only reason the ambulance crew dumped Dana Morse by the side of the road in a snowstorm, after she requested to sit in back with her dying husband, is that they thought she had said she wanted to be with her children! Her children weren't by the side of the road, and if this had in fact happened it wouldn't have taken the ambulance crew 3 months to come up with the story.
Where are the facts on the basis of which Maine EMS concluded that Ms. Morse's story was untrue and the EMTs' story was the truth? None are presented.
What is Dana Morse's reply? Didn't it even occur to Sun Journal reporters to ask her?
"Official line"
This is a delightful story. No wonder that Google should blow it now and then, as the saying goes, "To err is human; to foul up completely takes a computer!" What saddens me, however, is the pointless and irrelevant string of words spouted by the "Google spokeswoman," Deanna Yick, who shows no trace of a sense of humor or any understanding that she is not addressing a mere "inaccuracy," or that it isn't relevant (in this case) whether "the world is constantly changing." She is saying what she has been programmed to say. Let computers say what they are programmed to say: human beings should say something human, and organizations should stop programming their employees with "official lines." I run into this every day, and many cases of official-line-spouting are not as harmless as this one.
Insane
What a confused society we live in. Facebook is a fad, and some people are just not interested in it. Why should they be considered less qualified for a job?
But what were his demands?
This article cries out for the missing information: what were Frank Smith's demands? What was he trying to accomplish? What were he and the police negotiating about all those hours. There must have been something
What is taking so long?
It's hard to believe that nearly two months after the incident the investigators have not been able to learn anything beyond "clearing" two people who weren't involved. Are they afraid of offending FMH? Trying to come up with a whitewash and not succeeding? Or what?
Priorities
It isn't any safer to be homeless than to live in a house with old wiring, and obviously the tenants would rather have a home. I have seen this kind of scenario played out in Farmington and Livermore Falls--and maybe we need new legislation to give local officials a sane sense of priorities--but as things stand officials seem to be preoccupied with enforcing a code, with no realistic concern for the human beings involved. The human beings could freeze to death in the street for all the officials cared. Or maybe someone has it in for Ms. Pratt. I wonder how many houses in Norway fail to come up to the code, whose owners are not targeted by officials because nobody has it in for them. I don't know any of the Norway officials personally and don't have any ill will toward them, but I recognize a destructive pattern here. We probably do need legislation to change that pattern statewide--so that nobody is deprived of their home. Meanwhile I urge the Norway officials to give priority to making sure that the occupants of that house have a place to live that is at least as good, before turning them out of doors.
Favor real-name policy
I definitely favor the real-name policy and again applaud SJ for adopting it. SJ is the only paper where I feel comfortable commenting.
But please note that under the survey questions there is some sort of video (I guess that's what it is) which is just a a black box on my screen. I have no idea what I might see in it if I had high-speed internet connection, so I don't know whether you are losing any part of my response. We've run into this problem before. High-speed connection is expensive. Please make your web pages accessible to all of us.
They've had plenty of time
FMH has certainly had enough time to check out the facts relating to Dana Morse's complaints: that they still have nothing to say effectively tells us that Ms. Morse is right. It's pathetic that our local hospital here in Franklin County can't do better than this.
Check out LEAP
It's now a new day since this article came out, and one more person is repeating the received wisdom at me as if I just hadn't seen the articles that everyone else has seen. Apparently it is not well known that there is another informed point of view, but this particular exchange cannot go on and on, on this page. If anyone is interested, check out http://www.leap.cc ("Law Enforcement Against Prohibition") for the perspective of a number of law enforcement people on why prohibition does more harm than good.
Illegality makes them more dangerous
Yes, all drugs are dangerous, and some are addictive. But when a people cannot obtain them legally (whether because they lack a prescription or for some other reason) they are much more dangerous. Robberies of pharmacies are one of the results. Robberies of other people to get money to buy contraband drugs are another. Overdoses, contaminated drugs, association with criminals, also add to the dangers. If all drugs were legal, would people abuse them? Yes; people will abuse almost anything. But it would still cause less harm. The idea expressed by one person here that "absolute anarchy would reign" if all drugs were sold over the counter is just a popular myth. At one time we didn't have all these prohibitions; people make their own decisions about what drugs to use and obtained them without having to resort to crime, and absolute anarchy did not reign. Now we have an entrenched anti-drug industry which does not succeed in preventing drug abuse but uses a whale of a lot of our tax money, while our jails and prisons are made to support people who have no other reason to be in prison.
Yes, but
If the drugs weren't illegal, people wouldn't have to rob pharmacies to get them.
How about it?
I agree with Curt Varone's comment:
"We’ve got to get down to the facts about what happened,” Varone told the BDN in a Wednesday evening telephone interview. “Did the transporting EMS unit en route to a hospital leave a patient’s family member by the side of the road? If that did happen, what were the grounds? As a fire service leader, I’m struggling to come up with grounds to justify that. I’m not saying they didn’t have grounds, but we’d need to know what those grounds were.”
I don't have enough medical knowledge to offer an opinion about whether David Morse's death was hastened by any incompetence or negligence on the part of the ambulance crew, but of course that should be determined too, in light of the widow's observations. But we should not have to wait any longer to have a straightforward answer to the question about whether Dana Morse was left by the side of the road. Rebecca Ryder (president of FMH) put out a gooey statement today offering condolences but saying nothing on this question of how Morse' wife was treated. The incident happened over a week ago, and there has been plenty of time for hospital officials to ask the ambulance driver this question and give us an answer.
Jennifer Chretien
Jennifer Chretien writes,
"Hospital officials would have been extremely irresponsible to make any kind of public statement based on information they heard from a newspaper reporter."
Once again, they heard it from Dana Morse before she ever went to a newspaper. She had just been abandoned by an ambulance at a roadside, in the snow, with her husband dying. Do you think she didn't tell the ER staff what happened? Of course she did, as that's how she learned (after they phoned the ambulance) that her husband was dead and the ambulance had returned to Sugarloaf. The hospital should have launched its investigation immediately, if they cared. What on earth more do you think Ms. Morse should have done before going to the press?
"You may see it as stalling I see it as being smart."
Oh, that's real smart all right--but only if they are afraid of telling the truth. This incident happened a week ago--they've had plenty of time to say "Yes, we did what she said we did," or "No, we didn't do that, and here's what happened instead." Apparently it doesn't serve their interests to be honest with the public.
"Just because the ER staff had spoken to Mrs. Morse and told her that her husband had not come into the ER does not equal the hospital administration being contacted by the family or having any more detail about the situation."
She told them more than that, and they told her more than that. What do you want? If they needed more detail they could have contacted her.
"Why don't we let the facts come to light"
WE ARE NOT STOPPING THE FACTS FROM COMING TO LIGHT! But only Dana Morse seems interested in bringing the facts to light. Apparently some people don't like the facts as she has revealed them.
"before we play judge, jury and executioner to this ambulance crew and FMH as a whole."
Oh, good grief. We're talking about a rich, powerful organization which practically owns our community. They think they can get away with anything, and as long as the public looks the other way when their abuses are reported, they will go on thinking that.
Hospital should have known about it
This claim by a hospital official that "the hospital was not even contacted by any family member" has to be called in question in view of the following:
"Morse said that the ambulance dropped her off by the side of the road. She flagged down a passerby, who drove her back to Sugarloaf where she got her car and drove the hour to Franklin Memorial Hospital. She said emergency room crews at the hospital had no idea what or who she was talking about when she arrived."
Presumably they had some idea what she was talking about by the time she left, and all this was before Ms. Morse had any oportunity to go to the press. I think hospital officials are stalling because there is no excuse for the way their ambulance personnel treated Dana Morse.
Hospital being evasive
The hospital should have known there was a problem before they read about it in the weekend press, since Dana Morse showed up there asking what happened to her husband, after she was abandoned by the ambulance and had to make her own way to FMH. She reported that they acted as if they didn't know what she was talking about. If they didn't, they should have found out promptly. I'm afraid it's all too typical of FMH to be interested only in their appearance and reputation, and in avoiding liability--but if this horrible abuse by their ambulance personnel didn't happen it's strange that as yet we've heard no denial of it from the people responsible. Being told that the hospital will "conduct an internal review" is little comfort.
Cheers!
I'd never heard of this guy, but he sounds like good news. I detest the bureaucratic mickeymouse that attaches to most medical practice these days and am definitely less likely to go to a doctor's office, for just about any condition, knowing that his staff are programmed to put me through all that stuff.
Map problem
Hi, you friends at the Sun Journal--what is the map on this page supposed to communicate? IT DOESN'T SHOW MAINE! Also, there is no key to the meaning of the color coding of different states. And when I clicked on "Report map error" I was sent to some page that has nothing to do with the Sun Journal.
Preposterous!
This is absurd. The Occupy group didn't ask the library to assume any liability for them. Far too many things are being done because someone imagines that someone else is going to sue them, when that was the farthest thing from the other party's mind.
Bunk
"Evergreen Behavioral Services provides 24/7 emergency mental health response and community outreach services in Greater Franklin County. Its crisis team helps both children and adults stabilize a crisis by tailoring interventions to the person’s unique needs, strengths and situation."
This is not true, though I know this is what they advertise. Three and a half years ago I went to Evergreen's office on the hospital campus because I had been hit by a very severe depression--the kind that makes it impossible to get enough sleep. I told the lady at the desk that my problem was urgent. She said I should go home and wait for their "crisis" person to phone me.
When the crisis woman phoned she told me it would be at least 2 months before I could even get an appointment recorded with their only psychiatrist, and even then she had no idea how soon I could actually see him. She said the first visit would cost $300. I expressed incredulity that this was their idea of handling an emergency, but I can't describe how cold and unfeeling this woman was. She was not the least bit interested in my "unique needs, strengths and situation." She also didn't ask whether I was suicidal.
Thanks to God, I made it through this depression crisis, and when after more than 2 months Evergreen finally phoned back to see whether I wanted an appointment I told them to forget it. The next emergency patient that goes to them may be dead before Evergreen gets back in touch.
Respect people's homes
I hope the Jay selectmen will recognize that there are no homes that are more dangerous than homelessness and will respect people's right to live in their own homes. Those complaints they are getting merely mean that some people don't like some of their neighbors. It isn't the selectmen's job to drive some citizens out of their homes to please other citizens, even if the ones complaining have more money. And as for "illegal junkyards" please realize that most of us don't give a d---. Junk on a property is just one of the results of living in a low-income area. I care about the people who get harassed because snobs complain to the selectmen; I don't care whether everybody conforms to the letter of all the codes.
Who writes the ads?
I was struck by the statement, "[Charlie Webster] acknowledged that the No on 1 campaign was at a disadvantage because the content of some of its advertisements was determined by outside groups. 'We couldn't control the message,' he said."
What business did they have publishing ads that they couldn't control the message of?
Yes on 1 - again
The other day I received a similar ad from "Maine Republican Party" in the mail: one of the worst political ads I've seen--rivaled only by the Republican attack on Cutler they sent me last year. Talks about everything but the issue.
There is no connection between the marriage issue and the voter registration issue, though to be fair "Equality Maine" started it by pushing a Yes on 1 stance.
I was glad our "Yes on 1" signs were already on the lawn. They are the SAME physical signs that were on our lawn in 2009 when we joined in the People's Veto of the "gay marriage" law. No organizational logo on them: just "Yes on 1" in red letters, white background. My husband brought them out of the basement on Friday.
Good analysis
This is the best analysis of LD 1376 that I have seen.
But someone loused up the headline. Rooks is in favor of the People's Veto.
Drug testing?
This is not right.
Mutty was not our leader
The media loves to have a name and a face to hang a story on, and every article about the marriage debate of 2009 treated Mark Mutty as if he were the leader of the huge number of Maine voters who opposed changing the definition of the word "marriage."
He was not. I don't know of a single person whose mind or vote was changed by anything Mutty said or did. Nor can I recall any election in which hundreds of thousands of Maine voters chose Mutty to be our official leader, or appointed him to any office at all.
But Mutty himself fully embraced his image as leader, and to now say that he was reluctant to do so is absurd. On his website, he claimed to be the chairman of an organization called "Stand for Marriage Maine," which he said had thousands of members. It actually had only TWO members in the normal sense of that term (which includes applying for membership and participation in organizational decision-making): the two were Mutty himself and a Baptist minister named Bob Emrich. But when I expressed my discomfort with this style of self-promotion I got no satisfaction from either man. They constantly asked for money, as if the outcome of the election would be a direct result of how many dollars Mark Mutty took in. And as election day approached they adopted (over my protests) the offensive tactic of making unsolicited phone calls.
I could go on and on about Mutty, but it got so frustrating trying to deal with him that when the time came to put a "Yes on 1" sign on my lawn I had one made at my own expense rather than using one that had "Stand for Marriage Maine" printed on it. If there is going to be another battle over this issue in Maine, I hope we will not let any man assume this kind of role, and I hope that the media will respect the fact that we vote the issues, not personalities or organizational slogans.
A few things that shouldn't need to be said
Our commenter who likes to tell us what would be done if only he ran the state, says,
"Well, Licia, when you have a public official who misuses their office to threaten and intimidate the public, it is a crime"
Perhaps so. But it would be up to the courts to decide whether that had happened in any particular case. In the situation we're discussing the Secretary of State merely pointed out what the law is. That's hardly a crime or a misuse of office. Our commenter adds,
"The 'form' was a one tactic to add a more legal method to intimidate."
There's no evidence at all for this, unless the fact that Dan Breton says so constitutes evidence. More likely, the form was provided just to make it easier for the recipients of the letter to withdraw their claim of Maine residence if that was the way they preferred to handle the issue. And nobody was intimidated.
"And just for your information, there is NO requirement that a voter get a driver's license,"
Of course there isn't. (How cheering--Dan and I do agree on something!) But if a Maine resident drives a car, they are supposed to get a Maine driver's license. If they don't drive, there's no issue.
"no matter what your clan leader says."
I don't have a clan.
"This man is supposed to represent everyone, not just one narrow minority."
If this means he is supposed to say only things which everyone approves of, no public official could possibly do his/her job under these terms. I think he is supposed to uphold the laws of the state, which include requiring residents who drive to get Maine drivers' licenses. Is this a law which only "one narrow minority" approves of? If so, it's news to me. I accepted it as the law of the state after I moved to Maine; so I went and got a Maine license. Isn't that what everyone else did (if they moved here)? If a majority of Maine residents disapprove of the state's motor vehicle laws, then perhaps our legislators can be persuaded to change them; but I have seen no evidence that most Mainers disapprove of the motor vehicle laws.
Summers didn't do anything wrong
We've got a commenter here who informs us every time some public figure shows himself to be on the other side of a political issue from the commenter, that that public figure should be charged with a crime and kicked out of office. Let's be glad that this zealot doesn't himself hold an office.
And if creating a form is a crime, then every business, government agency, medical office or organization of every kind will have to be shut down.
I see nothing wrong with informing students who have declared that they reside in Maine what the laws of Maine are about driver's licenses and car registrations. Anyone who would wail that he or she is being threatened instead of just going and getting a Maine driver's license as the rest of us have to do is maybe not old enough to vote.
As for the ACLU, it would be nice to see them doing something about the gross violations of individual civil liberties that take place frequently in this area instead of acting as an auxiliary of the Democratic party.
Act like adults
I am tired of reading that college students are being "intimidated." College students, in my observation, are not all that mousy; and there is nothing to be afraid of. They are simply being asked to act like adults to the extent of making up their minds which state they want to claim residency in and behaving consistently with that decision.
If you don't have a car, nobody is going to penalize you for not registering a car. If you don't drive, nobody is going to penalize you for not having a Maine driver's license.
But if you do have a car, and you think you live in Maine, register it in Maine. If you do drive, and you think you live in Maine, but your license is in some other state, replace it with a Maine license. You won't even have to pass a road test.
It's a bit of a nuisance, but no worse than everybody else has to put up with when they move from one state to another.
We need more facts
This is a strange story. I hope Sun Journal reporters will dig for the needed facts to enable readers to make sense of it. Why would anyone make up a story like Goucher's?--let alone injure himself to support it? What are the "holes" the police claim to have discovered? and what was Goucher's answer to them? (And Kris Kucera--do you have some facts the public hasn't been given access to? If so, what are they? And if not, why have you jumped to the conclusion that it was Goucher who was in the wrong?) I hope Robert Goucher will write up his story in detail, including his experiences with the police, and send the account to the Sun Journal.
Return the medicine
Surely since the police know that marijuana was stolen they could find it and return it to the man who was robbed?
I think that's the reason
I've kept asking why this is a partisan issue, but I think the idea attributed to Democrats here is probably the reason: college students are "a group that more often than not votes Democratic." So some Republicans would rather fewer of them voted. I have generally been in sympathy with Republicans in recent years, but I don't join them in this. Students should vote where they live, and if they spend more time in the location of their school than in the state they came from, and are more aware of issues here, they should vote where they go to school. Republicans should put their efforts into persuading students of their policy positions, not into keeping them away from the polls. As for the new law about advance registration, if its purpose is to give town clerks time to screen college students, I don't think the clerks will do that. In my experience town voter lists are hopelessly out of date, and if you gave the clerks a year to update them, they would still be full of names of people who moved away long ago.
Correction
Sorry, I meant "Michael Kidd," not "Michael Peck." It's the policeman who was named Peck. (Isn't this the Jack Peck who spoke up a few months ago in favor of legalizing marijuana?)
Why was he searched?
How did the police "discover" that Michael Peck had "prepackaged marijuana, a pair of portable scales, a pipe and some type of knife." Were these things hanging visibly around Peck's neck? And if not, by what authority did the police search him? Sounds as if it's mighty dangerous to walk down Court St. if one is bleeding.
Not a fair decision
This judge is allowing public fear of sex offenders to override her judgment of what is fair and constitutional. A person commits a crime and serves their penalty--they should then be encouraged to live a better life, not labeled and turned into a pariah. I hope the U.S. Supreme Court will get at this type of case.
Someone is lying
I wasn't there. But I can see no motive the Sparks brothers would have for inventing the story. Cardoza, of course, has the motive of defending the business organization she represents.
But why?
It is obviously a partisan issue, since Republicans are all on one side and Democrats on the other. But I have not been able to find out why this is so. What is it about advance registration that Republicans think their party will benefit from? What is it about same-day registration that Democrats think their party will benefit from? Most people don't even seem to understand the question. They tell me that Republicans like the new law because they are good guys, while Democrats oppose it because they are bad guys. Or else that Republicans like the new law because they are bad guys, and Democrats oppose it because they are good guys. This doesn't get me any further. There must be something in the historic emphases of the two parties that dictates the way they have lined up on sides on this issue, but I don't know what it is.
Partisan rhetoric
Ben Grant is apparently trying to discredit the Republicans when he describes Charlie Webster as "bragging about suppressing the vote of college students," but if anybody read the accounts of what Webster said they would know that Webster didn't suppress anyone's vote. For crying out loud--the UMF campus is only a block or two from the polls; students don't need buses in order to vote.
I have not made up my mind which way I will vote on this issue--it disturbs me that so much partisan political rhetoric is going into a question which should have nothing to do with party.
meow
meow
Can't they walk?
If the Democrats were really busing UMF students to the polls, that in itself is bizarre seeing as the polling place is only a block or two from the campus.
Are the lists up to date?
I'll be watching this one--but it seems worth pointing out that the voter lists I have obtained from the town of Farmington on two separate occasions were both badly out of date. If other municipalities don't do a better job of keeping their lists up to date it's no wonder if some people are on the lists in two places without their having voted in two places.
Prayer is between me and God
I like LePage, but I'm not with him on this one. I don't tell other people when to pray or what to pray about, and I don't expect anyone else to tell me these things. I pray when and as God leads me.
Sad
This is very sad. Who made this decision to protect some of us from the rest of us? I don't recall voting on it.
"Wired" is not what we need
I believe that Franklin Memorial Hospital and its associated network are very much interested in technology and being "wired." They got this award last year too. But "wired" isn't what we need. We need more respect and consideration for human beings.
I do not want my health care managed by computers. One of my practitioners--a good person whose intentions were innocent, I'm sure--made the mistake of letting her computer write my prescriptions. The computer loused them up, and it took several months to straighten them out. The trouble could have been avoided if she had used the simple procedure--old-fashioned I suppose but it always used to work--of writing the prescriptions on slips of paper.
I could go on and on. It so happens that I used to live in a region with excellent health care, so that I have perhaps been more shocked by the failures of the local system since moving to Maine than people who have lived here all their lives. But in Pennsylvania no doctor, no staff person in a medical office, and no pharmacist ever needed me to recite my date of birth in order to serve me. Nor did any such person ever confuse me with another patient, despite the insistence that the local obsession with dates of birth is necessary to avoid misidentifications. I know all the programmed answers, for the staff people are trained to behave like computers themselves. Recently I had to recite my date of birth 4 times, to 3 people, just to get a routine mammogram.
What kind of doctor knows his patients by their dates of birth, and not by their names and faces?
I stated a simple fact
I made a simple scientific statement that I would not expect to be controversial: that there is no way to change a biologically male person to a biologically female person. I condemned nobody and made no judgments about anyone, despite Susan's remarks. I only thought the comment was needed because some of the wording in the reporter's article suggests that she is unclear on the point.
Surgery won't do it
Neither surgery nor hormones will make a male biologically female. There is no way to make a make biologically female, or vice versa.
Perhaps a computer did it
I'm coming to suspect that the decision to fire those employees was made by a computer. I hope Bean executives are learning not to entrust important decisions to computers.
Definition of marriage
The word "marriage," with its meaning of a union between a man and a woman, was not invented by lawmakers. It goes back much further than any government we know of today. It is also not the property of any religion. People of all religions and none have been getting married and talking about marriage for as many centuries as anyone can trace. This is just common speech.
Misuse of words
This entire campaign seems to depend on misusing the English language, just as it did in 2009. There is no question of "legalizing" "same-sex marriage," because "same-sex marriage" isn't illegal. When was the last time someone got arrested for committing "same-sex marriage"? The phrase is, however, a contradiction in terms because "marriage" means the union of a man and a woman. Not because the state says so--because that's the English language, which existed long before the state, as did marriage. Government doesn't invent language, and it doesn't invent marriage.
What we haven't been told
We haven't been told why the company thought the fired workers did something wrong. There must have been some idea that they had. Did they think these employees knew that the price was misprinted? If so, why? The story as it stands makes L.L. Bean appear both irrational and very unfair, but there must be something more to it.
Map is incorrect
There are a number of errors in your photo/map of the area where the crime occurred--the most conspicuous being that you have put a post office on Fairbanks Road, where there isn't and never has been a post office. Another mistake is that you have labeled part of Box Shop Hill "Main St." That isn't called Main St., it is all Box Shop Hill. And your map shows two roads going off Box Shop Hill that aren't there, and fails to show Poleyard Rd., which is there and goes off Fairbanks Rd. at the same spot where the north end of Box Shop Hill goes off it.
I suppose you will say that the errors are in your source, and that you have no software for correcting the map. But it that case it would be better not to publish it, as it makes you look foolish and might even be confusing to anyone who is trying to help the police. If you really want a map for this latter purpose it would be better to have someone who knows Farmington draw one by hand.
Reply to Melanie MacArthur
Melanie, what a long lecture you preached me in response to a very simple point. WE DON'T KNOW what was in Steven Lake's mind. In particular, the idea that his goal was "absolute control and domination" (as stated in this editorial) is not a "cold hard fact"; it is sheer speculation on the contents of Steven Lake's mind, which the editorialist doesn't have any more access to than you or I do, no matter how often that particular speculation gets repeated. And if one reads the editorial carefully one will find many other speculations about Lake's mind.
I was not saying that Lake's actions were morally justified. But just going on and on about what a bad guy he was, and giving free play to our imaginations in attributing motives to him, will not help us prevent the next domestic murder.
I know presumption when I see it, too
Most of the people who are so confidently telling us what Steven Lake's motives were, what sort of person he was, etc., never even met him. The man is dead; we don't have to judge him. Leave it to God.
Not sure why this is news
So the Rumford voters didn't rubber-stamp everything that their selectmen recommended. What else is new? We've been back and forth on this one in Farmington. Some people feel that private organizations should be supported by individuals who choose to support them, rather than by taxes. I would guess that's why many voters didn't opt to have Safe Voices supported by tax money, but the SJ reporter could have asked a few if s/he had wanted to know.
We don't know
Unless one of the people who have posted comments here is in a position to know more about this case than what we read in the media, I can't see that any of us should be judging the truth or falsity of what George Lake says.
The question nobody is asking
In all the commentary I have seen on this tragic incident, nobody seems to be asking what, if anything, could have been done to reduce the pressures on Steven Lake that eventually led to his shooting his wife and kids, and himself. There seems to be a fear that if we ask this question we are condoning the killing, or blaming the victim, or something of the sort. I think it should be asked.
Civil rights issue
This is a very disturbing incident, as so far as I can learn Gerry McGlamery did nothing wrong. He had a disagreement with one of the selectmen--since when is this against the law? He telephoned one or more of the selectmen to find out when and where the town meeting would be, and he mentioned that he was organizing neighbors to vote out Russ Gardner and elect someone else instead. Since when is this a crime?!
He made no threats. He was thrown in jail to prevent him from attending New Sharon's town meeting. This is not a man who rants and raves; everything I have seen that he has written is rational and of reasonable length.
Why is there no group to protect the civil rights of local residents? There are many abuses of power committed around here, and the public seems to take the view that nothing can be done about it.
Good luck to the Cummingses
Steve Kaiser is far too fond of giving out deadlines to people who have suffered some accidental damage. The deadlines are unenforceable, and they are not what is needed anyway. Frankly it doesn't sound as if this situation needed either official action or a news article. The Cummingses have been sufficiently harassed since a disastrous fire destroyed most of their home. I wish them all the best in their trailer, wherever they ultimately decide to install it.
Life
If hoping for everlasting life is a mistake, then it isn't just Camping and other people with end-time visions who are mistaken, it's the whole Christian tradition and several others. Probably most of the human race. And maybe we know as much about it as Leonard Pitts.
pussycats
meow
Why not a cheerful prophecy?
Gabriel found God sitting in the usual place--still looking at Maine.
"Why are you looking at it now?" he asked. Isn't everything there the way you want it?"
"Oh, it's fine," said the Most High; "but the rest of the world still isn't satisfied. ... They want an event they call a 'Rapture.' They talk about it all day long--instead of coming to Farmington where they could enjoy life. I didn't even put that word in the Bible, but nobody remembers that."
"What are they looking for, then?"
"They have this idea that a bunch of people will be snatched out of wherever they are: seats in movie theaters, jail cells, passenger seats in trains and planes, I suppose; and they especially want to be grabbed from behind the wheels of automobiles, leaving their vehicles to cause crashes--which doesn't seem very Christian to me--but their hearts are set on it." ...
"Where do they want to be snatched to?"
"They want to meet me in the air. I have no idea why, as I have nothing going in the air."
"Oh. Can't you just tell them that?"
"No--they'd never believe me. It's simpler to just go through the motions and let them meet me in the air--and then we can all go someplace where we can have more fun."
"So whom are you going to rapture?"
"Oh, everybody, of course. I wouldn't want anyone to be left out."
from Farmington! Farmington!
Licia Kuenning
299 High St. (licia@qhpress.org)
We should just pay the doctor
Systems in which the patient pays someone other than the doctor are a mess. If your doctor overcharges you, your issue should be with him/her. But if someone else is collecting the money, the doctor doesn't care, and neither does the agency collecting the money. I've seen enough of this already in Franklin County.
How can I reach you, Gerry?
Dear Gerry McGlamery,
I was notified by e-mail this morning that you had replied to my comment of March 18. I was glad to get a chance to read your story, but it is too bad that probably nobody else will read it, since nobody will be looking at a March issue of the Sun Journal.
Please let me know your address; I would like to learn more about this situation. We have a good-old-boys club in Farmington too, but I don't think they would go so far as to make a secret of the time & place of a town meeting.
Thanks and good luck,
Licia Kuenning
licia@qhpress.org
"All my cats are in one basket."
Support LePage
Let's support Paul LePage in his efforts to bring more jobs to Maine. The people who criticize everything he says and does have no answer to the problems he's trying to solve.
He got what he was after - Publicity!
With all the speculation about LePage's motives the obvious is mostly being overlooked. What is his goal?--to bring businesses to Maine that will hire Maine workers. He did something that was sure to generate huge amounts of publicity--that most of it is hostile publicity makes no difference for this particular purpose. He made national news where the executives of every corporation will read it and be made aware that the governor of Maine is sympathetic to management. It is, after all, management that makes the decision where a business will locate. Whether the strategy will work remains to be seen, but people who predict that it will fail because the executives will be scared off by the contempt expressed by liberal commenters are just engaging in wishful thinking, it seems to me. And those who predict that it will lead to 15 hour work days are being silly: really drastic changes in the labor laws are unlikely, and LePage hasn't proposed any.
2nd reply to Dan Breton
No, Dan: Governor LePage is addressing the general public. If he were only addressing a select group of his supporters it would not have been announced publicly. The problem is that not everyone who has TV has Time Warner Cable; and not everyone has a computer; and those who have computers don't all have high speed internet connections without which watching an audio/video program doesn't work. I don't know what percentage of the public is getting left out by this arrangement, but I think it is substantial, and it has nothing to do with who is or is not a supporter of Paul LePage. I'm sure Democrats are as likely as Republicans to have Time Warner Cable or high speed internet.
As for your statement that the advertisers will be campaign contributors, I don't know where you are getting your information, but it seems more likely to me that they will be commercial businesses. Though perhaps it doesn't matter.
I will not keep replying to Dan Breton if he continues to use my questions as an occasion to pour out his contempt for Paul LePage or to make assertions with no factual basis. I posted because I really would like information, and I hoped that maybe the reporter who wrote the article would realize that essential information (about how to view the program) had been left out and would take the trouble to supply it. If I can't get it here maybe I will write to the Governor.
Replies to Linda Pelletier and Dan Breton
In reply to Linda Pelletier--it's my understanding that the broadcast will be paid for by advertisers.
Dan, thanks for the suggestion, but I can't see going to a local library and asking to have a computer there broadcast a speech. Libraries prefer quiet; and in any case if I can't watch it at home I'm not inclined to bother.
I'm not one of these people who automatically expresses scorn at anything Paul LePage says or does, but I am quite baffled by his choosing to address the people of Maine via a medium many of us don't have access to. Does he actually think that the mainstream media would censor his talks? And would they?
Where do we view it?
Please explain exactly when and where we can view this. I cannot view videos on my computer. I don't know what Time Warner Cable is, but I get my TV through Bee Line Cable. Can it be viewed with Bee Line Cable? If so, when, and what channel?
But what does Gerald McGlamery say?
I read this story hoping to find out why McGlamery felt a need to leave hostile messages on the selectmen's answering machines. After all, in my experience, there is such a thing as a legitimate grievance against selectmen, and it can be very hard to get a hearing for it. I didn't hear McGlamery's messages, and maybe if I did I would have agreed that they went too far; but I wasn't given that chance because the reporter apparently never bothered to ask McGlamery for his side of the story. Why not??!! And please don't tell us that it's "confidential." Confidentiality should apply to protecting the weaker party from exposure that he doesn't choose, not to protecting the more powerful party from public scrutiny. McGlamery has a right to tell his side of the story. He isn't required to, but apparently in this case he wasn't even given the opportunity.
Decriminalize pot
I'm for it.
Words are not the problem
It's a mistake to think social problems can be solved by changing the English language. Mental retardation exists. If we don't call it that, it will still be called something, and whatever term is used will quickly acquired unpleasant connotations, because the thing itself is unpleasant.
I am old enough to remember when the R-word replaced the F-word ("feeble minded"). It was back in the '50s, and the same arguments were made for the R-word that are now being made against it. Before that, the F-word had replaced the I-word ("idiot"). My poor sister, who is so retarded she doesn't know any of these words, is just as disabled no matter what you call her disability. I agree that "retard" as a noun referring to the retarded person is not polite; but if this group is also trying to do away with "mentally retarded" and "retardation" in the belief that this will somehow help the people, or their families, who suffer this disability, I think they are confused.
What makes these ladies experts?
I don't see the point of quoting people who don't know any more about BPA than what they have read. My own life experience makes me all too aware that the FDA and the media can go off the rails driving useful products off the market, so I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that something is harmful because they say so.
Misuse of "confidentiality"
I have been supportive of Paul LePage, but this incident troubles me as I see no valid reason why the issues involved in firing Dora Mills should be "confidential." Are we really supposed to believe that there was something wrong with her, and LePage is being considerate of her reputation by not revealing what it is? Has he told her what it is? Or is it his own reputation he is protecting by not revealing his motives? These are two public figures, and I think the public has a legitimate interest in knowing what's going on.
Reject expensive "renovations"
As yet, I've seen no evidence that the Farmington police couldn't just use the building donated to them, as it is.
Congratulations
My hearty approval for the change in policy. I have been using my real name in comments all along, and for those who are scared, nothing bad ever happened to me or my family members as a result. I don't hesitate to express controversial opinions. The only people who attack me for it are the anonymous ones, and they do it on line. I'll be glad to see an end to the ugly, irresponsible comments and a switch to a responsible forum among people who stand behind their words.
Were the bills reasonable?
When patients refuse to pay their bills, one question that should be asked, but almost never is, is Were the bills reasonable for the services performed? We had a doctor here in Franklin County who routinely overcharged her patients. I was not warned before I went to her nearly two years ago. She spent about half an hour with me, did nothing that couldn't have been done by a nurse, and her bill was over $1,000. It came down to $656 after I got my low income deduction, but it was still more than twice what made sense, and I refused to pay it. I repeatedly told the billing department at Franklin Memorial Hospital that I would pay a bill that was (a) reasonable in amount, (b) accurate, (c) written in plain English. But I never got one. The bill remains unpaid, the amount still remains on my record though I otherwise have excellent credit, and the doctor has left the area to exploit the people of Skowhegan. When we talk about the cost of health care, please lets not forget to look at whether charges are just too high. Doctors are no more immune to the faults of greed and dishonesty than the rest of the human race.
Congratulations!
Now, if they would just make this much effort to deliver the contemporary mail.
How did they find them?
So how did the police find these guys, seeing as nobody saw them come and go when the marijuana disappeared. Did the pot leaves have serial numbers on them?
What's Ringer's version?
You only tell us what's in the police report. Ringer's version might be different; why didn't you ask him?
Trail bridge
I would be delighted to see the trestle restored over a stream just north of the paper mill site. It's the only spot between Livermore Falls and Farmington where one can't get through on the trail at present.
Cheers, LaPage
If he hasn't learned how to speak out of both sides of his mouth, God bless him; he may be the only plain-spoken politician left. I'll vote for him. As for where Obama should go, well, I don't even believe in hell, but the expression "go to ..." is a well established idiom. Maybe we should take nominations for the places we would most like to send people we disagree with! :-)
Abuse of prisoners
Someone has said, "The test of a civilized society is how it treats its convicted criminals." It is truly horrible to think of such gross abuse being practiced in Franklin County. If we do not demand that our corrections officers behave like civilized human beings we are no better than criminals ourselves. I commend Jonathan Hull for taking this case and hope very much that the truth will be brought out and any abuses ended.
Shaking
My husband and I independently felt the house shaking briefly yesterday afternoon. He asked me whether I had felt it--this was before either of us had heard about the earthquake in Canada. It was very mild, and we didn't report it to anybody.
Where are they now?
When you publish a story like this, why not include an address where the family can be reached, in case readers want to send them contributions?
Where are the Christians?
Madeleine asks, "Where are the Christians?"
Madeleine, I'm a Christian. I live at 299 High St., Farmington, ME 04938-1732.
Now, WHERE ARE YOU?
Licia Kuenning
licia@qhpress.org
Join supporters
I was glad to see many comments in the May 28 SJ supportive of Roger LaPlante and his family. Unfortunately many of those who commented did not identify themselves so that other supporters could get together with them. Someone who called himself "Stanger" wrote, "I am lining up people as we speak to stand in the way the day they try to tear this building down." I would stand with him, but I don't know how to contact him. I don't know what day they will try to tear the building down, and I don't know whether "Stanger" is this person's real name. He gave no address or contact information of any kind.
I suppose some people think it's cool to post comments anonymously just because other people do it, or because they are afraid of getting unwanted mail if they give their street address or e-mail address. Well, that can happen; but it seems to me a small price to pay if one cares about a cause. There is naturally more credibility to messages whose authors have the courage to identify themselves.
I would like to hear from people who are supporting the LaPlantes. Please give me your address. If I even had Roger LaPlante's address I would at least send him a contribution.
Licia Kuenning (299 High St., Farmington)
The Occasional Pussycat
licia@qhpress.org
Right to one's home
Of course this story should be in the news. The public needs to know when citizens' basic rights are being violated, and the right to live in one's home must be upheld, whether the building is safe or not. Does anyone think it any safer to be homeless?? Neighbors also need to be alerted that this family needs help.
Licia Kuenning
The Occasional Pussycat
kuenning-licia@voicenet.com
licia@qhpress.org
Not about Christianity
Conservatism about dress codes has nothing to do with Christianity, except that some Christians seem to confuse whatever cultural norm they are promoting with Christianity. There is nothing in the Bible that says nakedness is a sin or that certain parts of the body are required by God to be covered. The creation account in Genesis makes it clear that God created us naked, and when He looked at all He had made He saw that it was good (Gen. 1:31). Hence the man and woman were naked and were not ashamed (Gen. 2:25). It was only after they had rebelled against God by eating the forbidden fruit that they became ashamed of their nakedness and tried to cover it with fig leaves. God didn't tell them to do that. It was a human idea--and human cultures have held various norms about clothing throughout history. None of them divinely ordained. I think it shows more appreciation for the goodness of God and His creation to recognize that our bodies are good, not shameful.
Topless march
Will the counter-demonstrators be marching bottomless?
I misunderstood the earlier
I misunderstood the earlier SJ article as saying that John Stevens had invited the SJ to publicize his past. If he only asked for help and the paper used the opportunity to dig up his criminal record and publish that, it was a shabby trick. As for "conservatives," the word seems to have a variety of meanings, but I think of myself as a conservative in many ways, and I try to help people. I'm a follower of Jesus, if that's conservative. If I didn't feel called to contribute to a particular needy person (because one can't help everybody), I certainly wouldn't insult him or spit on him.
I think too much media
I think too much media attention is being given to organizations, as distinct from issues. When we vote on Question 1, we are not voting on which organization we like best. I knew where I stood on this issue before I ever heard of any of these organizations, and the same may be true of most voters. Certainly "Stand for Marriage Maine," although they talk as if they had some official authority to speak for all the Mainers on the Yes side of the issue, has no such authority. We never elected them. And I have been sufficiently turned off by their tactics that when I put a "Yes on 1" sign on my lawn I had it made by a local sign shop rather than using one that says "Stand for Marriage Maine."
Every few days I get another mailing from Marc Mutty or Bob Emrich. They say many things I agree with, but the punch line is always, "Send us money." They talk as if the number of Yes votes on Question 1 will depend on the number of dollars sent to Marc Mutty. I don't think it does. I wrote a pamphlet, "There is no Right to be Agreed with," and printed and distributed it at my own expense to thousands of voters. Many have told me it's the best thing they have read on the subject, and I recently learned of a favorable comment even by someone on the other side. But Marc Mutty, after praising the pamphlet to the skies, refused to contribute to my costs or to distribute the pamphlet because I would not give him control of the printing! Good luck to him, but I don't want his logo on my publication.
This reminds me of an
This reminds me of an incident that occurred between my two of my tenant families about 14 years ago. One couple complained that their 4-year-old daughter had been sexually abused by the other couple's 5-year-old daughter. Within a few days a doctor, the police, the DHS, and a network of gossipy neighbors had all somehow become involved, the father of the 5-year-old had threatened to kill the father of the 4-year-old, and the latter was making plans to move. But I doubted that either of the little children at the heart of the storm knew what it was all about. They only knew they weren't allowed to play with each other any more. I see this kind of thing as an example of societal hysteria about sexual child abuse. Real child abuse is a serious matter--but what two little children do to each other is not sexual abuse.
I notice that in none of the other comments on this article is the writer's real full name given. Someone who posts as "tron" complains that the two 6-year-olds and their parents are anonymous. Really, tron, why not set an example by identifying yourself when you post? And I am voting Yes on 1 (though not a member of any "crowd") but this incident has absolutely nothing to do with that issue. I also agree that this incident wasn't worth putting in the newspaper.
I continue to object to the
I continue to object to the term "legalize" to refer to changing the definition of a common word. It makes it sound as if "same sex marriage" were illegal, like possession of marijuana, and could land one in jail if one were caught doing it. But nobody was ever arrested for committing "same sex marriage," since there is no such thing: it is precluded not by law but by the common meanings of the words. In fact the problem with "same sex marriage" is not that it is illegal, but that it is a contradiction in terms. There are always people who want to murder the English language, and there is no law against doing that either--but it isn't like wanting to do something illegal.
This is getting ridiculous.
This is getting ridiculous. What children will learn in school about homosexuality and marriage cannot be determined by looking at the curriculum, and it cannot be determined by looking at the laws. Janet Mills doesn't know any more about it than anyone else, and she certainly cannot "set the issue to rest." It's a language issue, and children learn language from all the people they associate with, including school teachers. If "marriage" in legalese comes to mean something different from what it has always meant in English, teachers who have bought into the propaganda will feel free to say that a man can "marry" another man, or a woman another woman. They might hesitate to say this if the "gay marriage" law is defeated. And yes, if it is not defeated, I think we will see a great increase in home schooling and private schools.
It is worth remembering that
It is worth remembering that no organization or person has any official status whatsoever as speaking for any segment of the voting public on the Question 1 issue. There was never an election held by Maine conservatives electing Marc Mutty to speak for them, nor an election by the liberals electing Jesse Connolly to speak for them. These much-quoted individuals chiefly excel in their ability to get their names in the media--and I guess our friends in the media know better than I how they manage to do that. We didn't choose them, and I couldn't care less where either organization gets its funds. Far too much of the campaigning consists of organizations criticizing each other and/or soliciting money, instead of focusing on the issues. Meanwhile I suspect that very few of the votes cast on this ballot question on November 3 will be the result of Mutty's or Connolly's efforts. I think most of us knew what we thought about the issue before we ever heard of those guys.
This kind of thing happens
This kind of thing happens because there are too many restrictions on drugs.
Another person who also
Another person who also doesn't use his real name but calls himself "dead dog" (maybe we should take him at his own evaluation?) says
"Responding to Licia Kuenning's accusation of selective enforcement. When Mr Batzell started taking in homeless and transients the use of the property changed from residential to to boarding house or something along those lines."
It didn't change. Joel has been taking in homeless people for over 30 years. At times he has even gotten calls from the town office when they were looking for a place for someone to stay. You write,
"Other old houses that don't meet the newest building codes are grandfathered because they are still being used as a single family residence. When the use of a building changes it must be brought up to current codes."
The use of the building didn't change. It has been the same for over 30 years. The code changed in 2007; that isn't Joel's fault, but it gave those who hate Joel their opportunity to harass him. Then you say,
"Planning boards and code enforcement officers will usually give a variance for a narrow hall or low ceiling if everything else meets code standards. Those are two of 11 violations. In addition to those two there are four more violations that have not been corrected. Mr Batzel should have fixed them instead of griping about what can not be easily changed."
Once again, "dead dog," you don't know what you are talking about. You don't know what has been corrected and what has not--you only know what you see in articles, which are never entirely accurate. And Joel does very little griping at any time.
"The town should not be responsible to fix what Mr Batzel did to his own building."
Joel didn't do anything to his own building, except try to keep it maintained, and make improvements at the demand of town officials. All of which is difficult when you have a rambling old structure, ill health, and little money.
"If you inspected all of the old buildings in Farmington I doubt you would find any others with holes in the floors and ladders to access different floors."
Are you kidding? The only hole in the floor (it was probably there when he bought the building) is the one for the ladder (and there's only one ladder that I have ever heard of), and these things were NOT among the alleged "violations." If you inspected all of the old buildings in Farmington I doubt you would find even one that comes up to all the stipulations of the 2007 code. Their owners could all be dragged into court if somebody were out to get them. Then you say,
"If Batzel had done things right with the proper permits he would not be in this position."
And again you are completely ignorant. Joel had his building inspected in 1991, and it passed all the requirements at that time. In 2007 a new code was adopted. Maybe some day you will be old, poor, and in weak health, and your building won't come up to some new code. Then maybe you will understand just what an unfair thing is being done here. You continue,
"Maybe the town would have said the building can not be used as a homeless shelter but must stay in residential use but the current problems would not be there. The town has given him more breaks and extensions than I would have."
Considering that Joel didn't do a single thing wrong, it shouldn't be necessary to give him "breaks" and "extensions"; he should have been left alone. And before they kick the homeless out onto the street they should find some other accommodation for them--at present there is none.
"It's time to get a court order that sets a firm deadline or the building will be razed at the owner's expense."
Dead dog, it's time that someone in charge of removing garbage takes your carcase out of the street.
And isn't it interesting that the most ignorant posts on internet forums almost always come from people who conceal their identity? Use your full real names if you have something worth saying and know what you are talking about.
Someone who apparently is
Someone who apparently is ashamed to identify herself so uses the pseudonym "greatgramgover" writes.
"It is not welective enforcement it is the law and Joel Batzell has gotten alot of help with the buiklding but he expects everything handed to him on a silver platter for nothing."
This is completely untrue. Then she continues
"Well to begin with the building at 103 Bridge street in west farmington the former Lyons Garage where cars were repaired for yearsa should never have been allowed to been made over for people to live in."
Your opinion, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the present case. 103 Bridge St has been a residence for 32 years. You write,
"I have known of joel Batzell for many many years
You say you have known OF Joel Batzell, meaning I guess that you have heard about him at second or third hand. There are many false stories going about. But I have known Joel Batzell himself for many years. Then you say,
"and he has always been a mental case because of drugs and alchol use like many others in the state but he never has tried to improve his life and become a productive tax paying citizen."
You don't know what you are talking about; you are just repeating hearsay, with no consideration for the human being you are attacking, who at least tries to help other people. But you go on,
"He continues to add junk to the yard over there so it looks like the town dump and is an eyesore for all to see as they go across the bridge."
Actually, he has cleaned up the yard quite a bit. But again this is irrelevant to the present case. Joel is not being prosecuted for having a yard that you don't like to look at. That isn't illegal anyway. (If ugliness were illegal, the first people to be hailed into court ought to be those like you with ugly spirits who attack harmless people in public forums.) He is being dragged into court because his old building doesn't meet the standards of a 2007 code, and that is selective enforcement because it isn't being done to other owners of old houses, in general. You add,
"It is time that the town official and the judge shut the place down and had the mess cleaned up and the building destroyed. If one cannot help themselves no one else can help them either ."
How profound. Maybe it's time that you were tarred and feathered and dragged down routes 2 & 4 behind a truck.
I have been following this
I have been following this case closely. The first thing that needs to be noted is that this has not been "a yearlong effort to resolve State Fire Marshal concerns." The State Fire Marshal is not the source of the animus against Joel Batzell, though Farmington officials pretend that he is. The Fire Marshal is just an excuse, and someone in the Farmington town office brought him into it for that purpose.
Joel is right that there are numerous old houses which cannot realistically be brought into conformity with the 2007 code, especially if they are owned by low-income people, as probably the majority of old houses are. In general, NOBODY EXPECTS THEM TO. We are dealing here with selective enforcement--if somebody doesn't like you, then they suddenly become very concerned about the fire safety of your home. They think that you or those who live with you would be much safer on the street! Sure. A law that lends itself to selective enforcement is a bad law, and that is the extent of the State's fault in this situation, but the responsibility for oppression of an innocent homeowner is still squarely in the Farmington town office.
Another misleading statement in your article is, "The inspection was held after a visitor to the building fell through a hole in the floor that was used to access another floor by use of a ladder. The visitor made a complaint." This version has long since been rebutted, and surely it is time that reporters got on board. The visitor was a young woman who was seeing one of the many transient homeless people that Joel takes in from time to time: the young man was temporarily staying in a room at 103 Bridge St. Apparently she and the homeless man got drunk or stoned on drugs, and the woman fell down a ladder. But that the woman then wrote a letter to the State Fire Marshal is beyond belief; and Joel stated at the very first Selectmen's meeting where these issues were discussed that the complaint had not been filed by that woman or by anyone connected with Thoughtbridge. Nobody attempted to refute what Joel said; we just got evasive comments such as "it doesn't matter who complained." They don't want to admit who it was, as that would interfere with their shifting the blame for their cruel actions to the Fire Marshal. There has never been any evidence that the woman filed any complaint. I think it was filed by the Farmington town manager, but I urge any reporter who really wants to report the news to insist on PROOF of who filed the complaint and not be put off until she gets it.
None of the alleged "violations" listed by the Fire Marshal had anything to do with the much talked-of ladder.
Joel is quoted as saying, "If the government wants people to meet the new standards, then it should help low-income people make that happen." Indeed they should. How would you like to be told that you should make your halls 2 inches wider and your ceilings 1 inch higher?! But I fear Joel is being overoptimistic if he thinks that a court hearing will get any fairer press coverage than the proceedings to date have gotten. What we are dealing with is SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT. It all depends on who likes you or dislikes you. This is what we should not tolerate.
Obviously a change in the
Obviously a change in the legal definition of "marriage" will affect what children are told in schools and elsewhere. The kids will now be told that certain homosexual couples are "married," whereas before they were not told that. The subject will inevitably come up--it doesn't have to be in the formal curriculum for that to happen. I am astonished at the denial on this subject--does anyone really think that children are unconscious of what everybody else is talking about?
First of all, the issue is
First of all, the issue is not about "allowing" gays to marry or to do anything else. The issue is about whether we will speak English. Gays are already allowed to do all the same things that other people are allowed to do. But homosexual relationships are not called "marriages" because that's not what the word means. I would not be surprised if there are lots of homosexually-oriented people who are quietly standing by watching the absurdity of this debate and knowing that nothing of importance can depend on redefining common words. By insisting that only if we change the English language can gays be happy, those pushing this program are insulting gays.
As an example of how silly it gets, one commenter wrote, "Force gays to live lies leading to marriages of unhappiness and deceit?" Nobody is forcing gays to do anything at all. They make their own choices, as the rest of us do. If they lie, that's their choice, and I hope the writer isn't saying that all gays are liars. There are lots of people who are honest about their sexual inclinations, and also lots of people who don't go around talking about their sex lives, since it isn't other people's business. And if anyone makes an unhappy marriage, that too is their responsibility, and their partner's.
Incidentally, although I will vote Yes on question 1, I don't think anybody should give money to "Stand for Marriage Maine." That "organization" (it is really just two men with the backing of Bishop Malone) seems to exist primarily to glorify itself and to collect money. If the new law is vetoed they will claim that "We did it," but it won't be true. It will have been done by Maine citizens voting their consciences. Help to educate the public by refuting fallacies when you hear or see them.
Sources I recommend include Jeffrey Satinover, MD, "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth"; The Witherspoon Institute, "Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles"; and my own pamphlet, "There is no Right to be Agreed with."
I am not a Catholic, and I
I am not a Catholic, and I plan to vote YES on Question 1, but I regret the focus on money by the people most in the media on this issue: Marc Mutty of the R.C. Diocese of Portland and Baptist pastor Bob Emrich. I keep getting their fund appeals, but they never give an account of what has been done with the money they receive. I strongly suspect that the number of Yes votes on 1 will not be determined by the number of $$ collected by Mutty.
I have written a pamphlet ("There is no Right to be Agreed with") discussing why the new law should be rejected. It doesn't get into religion at all. I'd be glad to send a copy to anyone who requests it from me (299 High St., Farmington 04938; e-mail: licia@qhpress.org)
This is exactly the same
This is exactly the same kind of overreaction to complaints that motivated the same town manager, last June, to ban "political activity" on town property--only that time he got enough stiff notices from respected organizations, to the effect that he was infringing on Constitutional rights, that he withdrew the ban and apologized. It seems this guy just can't resist showing off his power.
People doing psychic research in cemeteries are not doing any harm. Their beliefs about what happens to the human spirit after the death of the body are different from mine, and perhaps different from those of other people in this discussion--but this is a subject on which honest people can differ without being at all disrespectful to anyone.
I believe in the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting. I do not believe there are such things as ghosts. But the idea of ghosts has always fascinated people, and it makes good material for stories. I wrote a ghost story myself once. If I believed in ghosts, and I thought there was a ghost in a nearby cemetery who wanted to talk to me, I would go there and listen to it. Wouldn't that be the charitable thing to do?
There wouldn't be a petition
There wouldn't be a petition if an issue weren't controversial--and any time there is a controversial issue there will be people making misleading statements about it, or people making statements that those on the other side think misleading. I don't think the Secretary of State should have his time wasted. If the information on the printed petition is accurate, that should be good enough: read it before you sign it.
If a person represents
If a person represents himself in court, it is probably because he can't afford a lawyer. That doesn't make him an idiot, or unworthy of respect. It's true he is not the first to try a religious defense, and that has never succeeded before. I am skeptical about the claim of marijuana being part of anyone's religion; but then I think marijuana should be legal anyway.