As usual, you're misinformed. If you were planning your class reunion long before the Homecoming, how is it that you couldn't get the venue until AFTER I cancelled there??? The reason I cancelled is because our event attendance will exceed the fire capacity at the venue I had originally scheduled last Fall.
Your concern about taxes has been asked and answered...and you're correct in that you "used to serve", until townsfolk became tired of your politics and voted you out. It would appear that you haven't changed much since high school, which relates directly to the windmill reference - "Don Quixote, Man of La Mancha" by Cervantes. I'm quite certain that you never read it, but now might be a good time. Then take a look in the mirror.

The left want a higher rate applied to wealthy taxpayers yet their own rich hypocrites scream for higher taxes while secretly reveling in the tax breaks they have received. That way, they appear to be "keeping the faith" with a large portion of their constituency who pay no income taxes (and, in fact, get back more than is withheld from their incomes).
If you want true "tax equality", revise the Tax Code to eliminate ALL deductions and exemptions and apply a flat-rate income tax that applies to ALL taxpayers, even those who are living on government entitlements.

sorry, I also forgot about Alonzo.

That being said, if an employer does provide paid vacation days, and an employee is furloughed or terminated, AND the employer's policy allows unused vacation time to be paid, I agree that the length of the unused vacation should not extend the waiting period for unemployment benefits. That unused vacation time would have been paid if the employee had continued his/her employment and simply taken off the time accrued.
On the other hand, if a terminated employee receives any severance pay, his/her waiting period for unemployment benefits SHOULD be extended by the amount of severance paid.

Maine already produces more electric power than it consumes. So why are the western mountains being decimated by erecting all of these god-awful-ugly wind towers that will produce electricity for southern New England, New York and New Jersey??? If those areas are so desperate for additional power, build the monstrosities in the Berkshires or upstate New York. Don't allow those modern-day carpetbaggers to take advantage of you any longer. Just say NO!!

Martin owes Irving in bankruptcy proceedings, and now he's sponsoring a bill to help Irving's mining operations? I'm sure that there could be no possibility of a quid pro quo here, right?

you bemoan the proposal that welfare recipients be subjected to drug tests in order to receive the tax dollar-funded entitlements to which I contribute from my earnings at a job where I must take and pass drug tests to remain employed. I see nothing wrong with that proposal.

it takes two: one from each gender...unless we're talking about immaculate conception here. I agree that there are many males who don't take responsibility for the children they sire, but those are not men. When I was 20 and my 17 year-old girlfriend became pregnant, I married her and supported my daughter(s).
And I'll tell "these men to keep their peckers in their pants" when you tell women to keep their knees together. As I said, it takes two.

perhaps you'd care to grow a spine and point out the parts of my contention that are false. Hmmmm?

for pointing out the hypocrisy in the liberals' soap box diatribe. No one is trying to "restrict" women's access to contraceptives; conservatives simply don't want to involuntarily fund those medications.
And as for abortions, conception is not a disease; it is the result (except in the cases of rape and incest) of a conscious decision to engage in unprotected intercourse. Why should anyone other than the two people directly involved in the creation of that new life be unwillingly held financially responsible for either the termination or the sustainment of that life? I just don't understand the liberals' contention that there is a shared responsibility here.

The likelihood is very small that the availability of clean, sterile and professional environments in which to perform the legalized murders of innocent, unborn children will ever disappear. That being said, I can see no ethical, legal or moral responsibility for me to financially support the careless, callous and irresponsible mating habits of others.
Your extrapolation of public defunding of birth control and clinical abortions to "back alley" butcher jobs is a quantum leap in dissociated logic. Maybe hitting the Maui Wowie a bit too hard there, Steve?

probably has no members living in the affected area, so it's "not in their backyard".

Has that rascal been running around again stealing birth control pills and impregnating unsuspecting females by forcing them to submit to his unequaled manliness and irrestible s-e-x appeal? And is he then singlehandedly denying them the option of having that new life scraped and sucked out of them by Planned Parenthood, et al?
Or am I to gather that, since you have no credible argument to oppose my position, you simply play the "It's All Bush's Fault" card? Well, just so you know, I did not agree with everything the man did, but there comes a time when someone else owns the economy and all its eccentricities. W's time has passed. Move on.

there likely will be terminated pregnancies. And although I oppose that option, I am also unwilling to fund it either through increased insurance premiums or the additional tax burden of the Affordable Care Act. If the liberals want that option, I suggest they start their own "Kill the Kids" fund and pay for it from their own pockets.

Male bovine excrement, Senior Chief. Women have the choice, for now, to use contraceptives to prevent pregnancies, and to terminate the lives of unborn children if they choose not to use birth control - either their's or their partners'. What they want (and what many of us oppose) is the benefit of having someone else pay for their playtime mistakes. Insurance coverage for contraception and/or abortion means that the costs are spread out to all policyholders (or taxpayers under Obamacare), even if some of those policyholders/taxpayers are opposed to not just the financial implications, but the religious ones, as well.
Since I consider myself to be a member of the former - not the latter - group, I do not oppose the use of contraceptives (although I have to pay for mine), I do oppose the mandate that I be required to help pay for birth control for others - either through increased insurance premiums or increased taxes. And as for the unintended consequence of playing without protection...if you want to dance, YOU have to pay the fiddler. I don't.

take it one step further and regionalize ALL fire and police services? There must be some financial benefit to combining operations through the economies of scale. Just a thought.

"Voters need to get rid of politicians who are so narrow-minded that they believe their respective party is without question — always right on every issue — and vote lockstep with party leadership."

James, you have the first part of your statement correct: "Voters need to get rid of politicians..." We should demand implementation of term limits - say, one term for senators and three for representatives, six years for each. That period of time should be adequate for any elected member of congress to advance whatever promises he or she made during the political campaigns. After serving their six years, they should be forced back into the private sector WITHOUT the ridiculously exorbitant pensions and lifelong benefits.

Let's get rid of career politicians and replace them with people who offer fresh perspectives and energy to get the job done.

"Many individuals and organizations that are opposed to a woman’s right to choose are also opposed to birth control for women." Of the "Many" opposed to a woman's "right" to end the life of an unborn child, some are not opposed to birth control - they are opposed to being forced to pay for it.
What are "men’s reproductive rights"?? Are you referring to the "right" to see your wife/partner/significant other abort your progeny without having any say in the matter?? Or, perhaps, is it "responsibilities" to which you allude? If that is the case then, yes, there are far too many men who do not take responsibility for their offspring. On the other hand, if you are referring to male contraceptives, that topic should be resolved BEFORE any activity takes place. It DOES take two to tango.
Bottom line? I'm unsure what point you are trying to make here.
B/T/W, if I wanted to obtain some male ED medication - Viagra, Cialis or Levitra, I would have to pay for it myself since my healthcare insurer does not carry it in the formulary approved by my employer...even though my wife could obtain birth control pills under my insurance. So forgive me if I don't empathize with women who have to pay out-of-pocket for contraceptives.

Sen. Snowe has, again, confirmed that she is not and never has been a Republican. This amendment has nothing to do with "denying access to birth control." It simply ensures that no employer should be required to pay for contraception. Obama's Affordable Health Care Act is the most blatant intrusion by the Government into the private business sector and the personal lives of Americans. It's time for that clown to exit stage left...and I DO mean left.

Unfortunately, you have now opened yourself up to an expected barrage of criticism, heckling, insults and implied threats from the legion of nanny-staters who pervade this paper's comments section. Good luck.

Ms. Dow, your position and that of your supporters in this comment section would be both credible and laudable if you were to add to your revulsion of taking a convicted murder's life with that of women who take the life of their unborn child through abortion. Of what crime were those fetuses convicted?

in addition to answering the questions in my comment below, why don't you explain how the promoting of wind power will save the economy of the area in the event of a mill bankruptcy and closure? And is wind power a factor that will prevent the mill's closure? Just what ARE the benefits of wind power to the River Valley? You keep avoiding my questions, leading me to suspect that either you don't have answers, or the answers are so contrary to the preferences of Rumford's voters that you are petrified of bringing them into the light of day for all to see.

Kevin,

Perhaps you and/or Frank could muster the intestinal fortitude to address the very basic questions I raised below. Is it because you don't have answers or that you feel those issues are inconsequential compared to the perceived economic boom promised by Angus and his cronies? Come on, man up and explain your position...or remain mute. Then we'll certainly have your answer.

Last sentence should read, "can't be honest". Fat fingers.

So maybe I was being presumptious in assuming that you are more intelligent than your comment would indicate. Sorry for the misperception.

Congratulations to Sgt. Holland for solving this crime of reprehensible destruction. Cemetaries should be places of honor, reverance and consolation for families whose members have passed. Willful disturbance and destruction of monuments and markers show lack of respect by the perpetrators and, most likely, a failure of the young man's parents to instill that value in their son. They (the parents) will undoubtedly feel the consequences more than the vandal because they will likely have to pay for the repairs, whereas the boy will have his criminal record expunged when he turns 18.
That being said, Sgt. Holland's comment that he hasn't "left a stone unturned" was probably not the best choice of words given the circumstances.

Frank, perhaps you or some other "pro" could provide a list of the benefits derived from placing these monstrous machines on the pristine mountains surrounding the town. Are you going to receive free electricity? Ad infinitum lease payments? Business and job growth?
As I understand it, Maine is currently a net producer of electricity, which means that all of that wind power is going to be exported to power-hungry southern New England, New York and points south. If they are so badly in need, why not put up wind towers in western Mass. and upstate NY?
All you have to do is look at the destruction taking place on Record Hill to realize that maybe the vote of the Town of Roxbury wasn't the best idea.
If the River Valley and surrounding areas aren't receiving the power generated by those wind towers, why should they have to endure the decimation of one of the attractions of the region - its natural beauty?

even for you.

Perhaps the poll workers in Boothbay would readily recognize you, but it is also likely that the workers in Lewiston wards know and recognize only a small percentage of their districts' registered voters.
So tell me please, Ron: Other than your personal aversion to proving your identity to a poll worker, what other realistic reason is there for opposing positive identification at the voting booth?

Shortly before February 1775, Benjamin Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Apparently we are now getting exactly what we deserve.

you state, "No, you don't have the final decision. If the state thinks your hurting you kids, DHHS will start making choice for you real quick." Too many times these days, the actions of a parent are considered "abuse" when viewed by authorities, medical practitioners, teachers and school administrators, and countless other "reason-with-the-child" do-gooders. My parents and their peers would have considered many of those actions "discipline" (including corporal punishment) and would have scoffed at the notion that ANYONE, other than themselves, had a right to determine what is and is not appropriate discipline. Granted, there were exceptions in those who carried punishment too far. But they were dealt with accordingly by authorities AND their neighbors. Most of my peers who were raised by parents who subscribed to the "spare the rod and spoil the child" philosophy turned out to be solid citizens and respected members of the community.
As for your statement, "But, I will grant your point with one requirement. Parents are responsible for making choice for their kids. They are also be responsible for the actions of their kids", I wholeheartely concur. If more people would accept responsibility for their personal decisions, this world would be a far better place to inhabit.

Unless and until any action(s) by minor children or their parents affect your "life, liberty or pursuit of happiness", it's none of your business.

why don't you send your editorial to the Manchester Union Leader, the Concord Monitor, or even the Seacoast Fishwrapper..errr...Journal. I'm sure their readers would appreciate input from the editor of a Maine newspaper who should be more focused on the myriad problems in his own backyard rather than the fiscal policies of a neighboring state. New Hampshire does, indeed, have significant budgetary difficulties exacerbated by four years of unscrupulous spending and increased taxation by the liberal/progressive/socialist legislature. The voters finally woke up and threw them out giving the new conservative, veto-proof General Court a mandate to reduce spending, reduce taxes, and reduce the size of government. The cigarette tax reduction is one of many actions that will allow NH citizens to keep more of their hard-earned wages from the spendthrift liberal bozos who never met a tax or a spending program they didn't adore. Bottom line: put your own house in order before trying to change your neighbor's.

Haven't you seen the signs "Please don't feed the troll"?

While you usually do the research before putting yourself "out there", you missed the target on this one. No where in the Constitution are you explicitly entitled to the "right to vote". There have been many court decisions that have alluded to that premise, but none that has definitively held or sanctioned such a right. Take a look at this and get back to me: http://www.answers.com/topic/right-to-vote-1

I worked for a living ;-D

I agree with you that the DDG-1000 (like its namesake) is not the right fit for the Navy. That being said, BIW would not be completing their build if they had not competed for, and won, a full-and-open competition contract for the vessels. And the funds budgeted in FY 2010 and 2011 for DDG-1000 are only to complete the build of the last of three ships. No additional funds will be budgeted for this class of destroyer.

Unlike BIW, entities such as PBS and PP do not compete for tax dollars - they are simply handed whatever sums the left-leaning fools on the hill wish to give them. Since they are supposedly donation-based businesses, let them live or die by their benefactors and not by the average tax-paying citizen. The dire economic straits faced by this country warrant nothing less.

anyone entering the U.S. military relinquishes, on a temporary basis, certain individual rights and freedoms enjoyed by the greater citizenry. In order to offset some of those sacrifices, the military provides benefits and services unparalleled in the private sector. Even with those benefits taken into account, american service members' standards of living fall well below those whom they protect. You call it "socialized"? I call it the epitome of patriotism. Try another tack.

This is one of the most blatantly knee-jerk comments I've heard from you. The *quality* of education cannot be directly correlated to the amount of money spent; rather, it is dependent on the proficiency, attitude, resourcefulness and creativity of the educator(s). Over 50 years ago when I was a student in the school system where you live, we had one teacher per class - no "paraprofessionals" or "education technicians" - to manage classes of 30+ pupils. We had separate classes for special-needs children in order to address on their specific learning difficulties. Today, we "mainstream" most of those children, presenting obstacles to not only the teachers trying to maintain a concentration on the subject at hand but also to the students who must deal with the diverted focus of those teachers. No amount of funding can compensate for the lack of discretionary initiative or questionable curriculum in today's educational profession.
And as for the "continued tax break to the wealthiest people in the nation", unless I'm mistaken those "continued tax breaks" were extended to people of all economic strata.

for incommunicado for a while. Other fish to fry.

For all who have departed, I will miss your viewpoints - concurring AND opposing. While a majority of those who have left held opinions similar to my own, I also will rue the loss of those who dissented. The reason? They all provoked thought on a given subject and caused self-examination of my principles. Sometimes the result was affirmation; other times it was modification. In either case, stimulation of the mind was the product...and THAT is always a good thing.

So to the departed: your newfound silence is deafening. To the remaining: I may now be in the minority, but I will not be timid. Let the games begin.

but any day of the week I'll take a politician who doesn't speak out of both sides of his mouth depending on which audience he's addressing. At least we know where he stands even if it's not where you stand.

Ms. White, you're suggesting that the state determine the level of compensation for the CEO of a PRIVATE healthcare corporation? Why stop there? Let's dictate what the small business owner should earn. "Pete the plumber, Ernie the electrician, Mary the corner store owner: your job has been evaluated by the State, and it has been determined that you are earning too much money. Therefore, all net income over $__K will be confiscated by the State."
Ridiculous? You bet. If you're dissatisfied with the level of compensation for these executives, I suggest that you buy one share of stock and attend the annual shareholders' meeting where you can voice your opinion to the Board of Directors. I'm sure that they will take your objection as seriously as it deserves.

Patti,
Won't that open up the forum to more robo-spam???

you say, "Republicans got the nation into the mess it is in. They demanded the same tax breaks for the rich that the middle class has. Those tax breaks, given to the rich, will put this country into further debt that it already is." The only way the EXTENSION of the tax rate reductions for ALL Americans can "put this country into further debt that (sic) it already is" would be for the congress and president to continue their spendthrift ways. But if they reduce spending and eliminate the deficit (including the interest on the debt), the public debt will not grow.
You go on to say, "Republicans declared war on middle-class America when they held unemployment benefits hostage, and only agreed to pass that if tax breaks were extended to the rich. Where is the fairness in that?" I would submit to you: Where is the fairness in allowing tax breaks for some, but not all Americans? Is that fair? The top 5% of wage earners pay nearly 60% of the income taxes. And you want them to pay more? Is that fair? Maybe it's time to institute a flat tax - everyone in all income brackets paying the same rate with no deductions, exemptions or exclusions. Of course that means that those in the lower 40% who traditionally get back more than they pay in will now realize not only a loss of that "free" money, they will also have to pay a percentage of their income in federal taxes.
You want a "fair" tax system? Be careful what you wish for.

Another piece of journalistic junk undoubtedly written by someone who never served in the armed forces and was likely protesting the military while his peers were defending his right to protest...and subsequently compose an editorial opinion in a free press protected by people such as CAPT Honors. You obviously have no conception of the pressures and daily strife endured by our servicemen and servicewomen, nor do you understand the attempts, orthodox and extraordinary, by commanders to provide relief from those pressures to those serving in their commands. Unit morale and cohesion are as essential to success at the tip of the spear as are training and proficiency. Anything that threatens those qualities should and must be expunged, whether that threat be malfunctioning equipment, improper procedures, or unit members whose personal preferences and behaviors do not coincide with the unit as a whole. Before you take a pious, pompous approach to this situation, you should closely examine the reactions from CAPT Honors' crew, past and present, as to his ability to command, execute the mission and maintain high morale and esprit-de-corps.

tron is Dan Breton.

I read and analyzed the statistics presented in your citation, and the trends-versus-timelines do not support the author's contention. These are not my facts - they are yours. I haven't done anything more than examine data you, yourself, offered as evidence of a theory that cannot be supported by your material. It doesn't take a Wharton School economist to look at the statistical data and realize that the author is "cherry-picking" events from decades-old material in order to prove his thesis. Furthermore, the data do not include most of the 2000-2010 decade during which the greatest financial upheaval in our country's modern history occurred.
And regardless of the opinion of me held by some on this forum, there are others who will admit that while I lean to the right, I am far from being a conservative extremist. N'est pas, Ron?

your source is an organization whose stated goal includes: "Our goals are to close the growing wealth divide, to change the rules that tilt tax benefits increasingly toward the wealthy, to spotlight the role of race in economic inequality, and to serve as a forum where different races, different cultures, and people with varying degrees of wealth can come together to work for economic justice." Their vision includes, "We envision an economy where everyone contributes to society with their labor and everyone benefits from society's financial growth." This all sounds suspiciously similar to that familiar quotation, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
The "data" provided in the cited source attempt to justify the author's position that tax cuts do not stimulate economic growth. However, it must be agreed that there are many factors influencing economic growth with tax rates being only one. Each generation, each decade, each budget cycle has external stimuli that more greatly affect GDP, median wage, hourly wage and all other indices than tax rates. For example, in the 1974-1976 time frame, the Arab oil embargo caused the price of oil and gasoline to skyrocket when supplies were scarce (if you're old enough to remember odd/even rationing, you know what I mean) That single factor resulted in more economic turmoil than any other at that time. In November 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected president. In the two years following, GDP, median income and hourly wage all increased significantly, and unemployment dropped. In 1988, Bush the elder was elected and pushed additional tax rate reductions to their lowest levels in modern history. It was during his presidency that all leading economic indices dropped indicating that, perhaps, his cuts had gone too far. As the Clinton administration began its reign in 1993, the top tax rate was increased and all indicators went positive with the initial exception of hourly wage scales. Unfortunately, he was also the proponent of an initiative called "The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream”. That well-intentioned but strategically unsound fiasco, which contributed greatly to the housing bubble and bust, combined with the dot-com bubble and bust, the 9/11 tradegy and the misdirected war in Iraq during GWB's presidency to negate any influence over economic indicators by tax rates.
The bottom line is that one cannot take a factor such as tax rates and extrapolate their fluctuations to the economy as a whole. But even a cursory examination of the tables provided in your citation reveal no justification of the author's thesis and, in fact, suggest quite the opposite. Look again.

It is apparent that you are not of the conservative persuasion. While it is true that Cal
Thomas sometimes borders on the extreme right, the same can be said of other columnists in the opposite direction. Take Leonard Pitts, Jr. and his frequent bloviations about the mercenary, oppressive conservatives running roughshod over the poor, virtuous, entitled liberals. Neither of these two talking heads are worthy of complete credibility nor are they deserving of total excoriation. The only positive constant with both is their ability to stimulate critical thought and promote discussion which, in the long run, is the first step in finding common ground among differing opinions. I believe that the world would be a very boring place if everyone shared the same viewpoint.

and I don't expect to be in the near future. The onlt difference is that I may have to pick up the slack left by those who are afraid or otherwise unwilling to reveal their true identities in support of their opinions. We'll see.

Like you, I post to many newspaper comment forums besides the SJ - Concord Monitor, Manchester Union Leader, and the Portland Press Herald to name a few. Of these (at least until 2/1/11) the Union Leader, the epitome of conservative papers in New England, is the most restrictive in its rules for commentors. For EACH post you must enter your name/pseudonym, telephone number and email address, all of which are verified by the paper BEFORE your comment is posted online. Your comment shows your name/pseudonym and town of residence. And if the article being commented upon deals with political candidates, you MUST post under your real name or the UL will not allow your post.
Until the relatively recent sale of the PPH, there were many more commentors than there are today. Many of the regulars, on both sides of any given issue, were extremely intelligent, knowledgeable and well-spoken individuals who were capable of proferring their opinions in a clear, concise and factually accurate manner. Since the sale, a large portion of those commentors have left the site due to the PPH's metamorphosis from a left-leaning publication to a full-blown liberal rag. So if the PPH is your desired destination, by all means go and experience first-hand what journalism should not represent.

if you're so hell-bent on disclosing the details of Terri's and Ed's personal lives to the readership of this forum (which is made up of more than just the River Valley), why don't you "man up" and share a bit of your own personal history with all of us...or do you want to wait until someone identifies you and reveals any skeletons in your closet? To do less would indicate a propensity on your part to show your lack of courage much like the kids who hide behind snowbanks and lob ice balls at passing cars then scramble away if one of the assaulted stops to accost the vandals. As for a person expressing their PERSONAL opinion on a given matter and being reprimanded or otherwise denigrated for that basic constitutional right, any adverse action by their employer is indicative of a small-minded business owner (such as yourself, perhaps?) who lacks the self assuredness and testicular development to accept that people are individuals and not part of a collective ruled by oppressive tyrants. If an employer is so shallow as to suppress the opinion of his employee who expresses his personal opinion on his personal time and is willing to accept whatever repercussions result from that expression, the employer is not deserving of patronage and should fold up his tent before any further transgressions can occur. The freedom to express our opinions is an unequivocal and inalienable right that, once relinquished, will never be regained. That being said, along with this right comes the obligation to be honest, forthright, objective and - ultimately - accountable for their positions. Terri and Ed apparently have accepted those terms. How about you???
And just for the record, I now live in a town much much smaller than Rumford where everyone knows everything about everyone else, and I'm just as vocal in our town's management (or lack thereof) here as I am on this forum. I have no fear of identifying myself and expressing my opinions because they are my convictions, not some convenient, politically correct platitudes that serve only to gloss over a tarnished image. We already have too much of that at all levels of government.

I'm not expecting the verbal attacks to cease after implementation of the new policy; the only difference will be that those attacks will be attributable to an actual individual not some nameless, faceless antagonist. As for my personal information, I couldn't care less. They will have no more information about me after the change in TOS than before. And if they feel the need to come to my home to "discuss" anything, they can deal with my public relations associates: Glock, Browning, Walther and Mossberg. There is nothing I've done, said or thought (well, maybe I have to exclude thought) for which I won't take credit...or blame.
Inccidentally, if you purchased anything from Amazon or any other on-line retailer this Christmas, or if you use electronic banking or have a major credit card, your personal information is already on the internet. By simply posting to this forum, you are tied to an internet address, an ISP, a router and a terminal. The average teenage computer geek would have little trouble tracing a posted comment to a particular computer or web address making you "virtually visible" to those with the skills to find you. The only way to achieve complete anonymity is to get totally off the grid - which is nearly impossible in this day and age.

but didn't Ms. Palmer just author and sign a LTTE? If she is capable of submitting a letter to the editor (which appears in both the online AND print editions) under her own name, why should she have any difficulty becoming a verified commentor? And out of curiosity, what does your axe-grinding about CDBGs have to do with the content of her letter? If I'm correct about your nom de plume - vs - real name, it seems logical that you would want to get your name and views in front of as many potential Rumford voters as possible...given that the last election didn't turn out too well for you.

at the number of commenters who are averse to posting under their real names. While I frequently disagree with Ron's (veritas) opinions and never agree with Dan's (tron), I wholeheartedly agree with the use of their real names in their profiles. Thirty-five weeks ago, I changed my user name to my real name (even though my name was clearly posted in my profile) to demonstrate that I am proud not only of my name but of my opinions as well (regardless of how misguided some think they may be). In the final analysis, the only thing a person has is his/her word. Our republic was founded by people unafraid to identify themselves with their words to the point that one, John Hancock, reported stated that his signature on the Declaration of Independence was so prominent because he wanted to ensure that "... King George will be able to read that!" If you fear any reprisal for expressing your opinions, I would suggest that you keep them to yourselves.

Since the commenters on this board are quick to respond to only the contentious stories with their opinions for or against, I am pleased to provide well-deserved kudos to this group of students who took the time and made the effort to their community. Too often we read or hear of young adults who go the other direction regarding drugs, alcohol, crime and general mischief. These kids remind us that there is still a sense of community, civic pride and charity at a time of the year when those qualities should be paramount. To the parents and teachers of these young people, you are doing a great job, keep it up. To all the students, you should be proud that you have the kindness and generosity to positively impact the lives of senior citizens in your community.

The editor's note to the article reported that the photographer "contacted the families of the two soldiers he had photographed who later died of their wounds to make sure each family was aware of the pending publication of the photos..." There is no mention that he received permission from the families, only that they had been "made aware" of the pending publication of the photos. Not the same thing.

for the follow-up story that describes how the traumatized women were so distraught that they had to leave class, get some fresh air, and meet later for hamburgers and wings.

alternating the "home" field each year. Perhaps, East in odd years and West in even years, or vice-versa? Or how about playing the championship at the school with the best record in each class? If the two schools have identical records, toss a coin to decide the venue. Done.

The point is that while I may disagree with the message, the medium, or both, I would defend to the death their right to voice it. Once you begin prohibiting people from expressing their opinions - no matter how vile the message or disgusting the orator - where do you draw the line? Maybe begin censoring news outlets? Restrict religious observations and services? Condone illegal searches and seizures by police authorities? Allow the State to decide what's best for your children? (Ooops, too late for that one). Once you start down that slippery slope, it's extremely hard to stop before it's too late. Don't get me wrong - I may not agree with Mr. LaRouche, but I swore an oath as a member of the military some forty-odd years ago to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. So, until the Constitution is completely shredded, I will defend the rights of people like Lyndon LaRouche to voice his opinions even if I don't agree with the man or his message.

"Additionally, the town manager said, the Maine Municipal Association is circulating information about mandates — statutorily required municipal services in Maine — towns must adhere to but which come with costs to the town." This is a textbook example of the term "unfunded mandate" although neither the reporter nor Mr. Holt appears to have the intestinal fortitude to use that term. If the federal or state government imposes a statutory requirement upon a county or municipal government entity, the federal or state agency should provide accompanying funding. If funding is not provided, the county or municipal government should be under no obligation to follow the requirement, rather it should be decided upon by the voters.

Care to post a source that documents your contention?

Sorry there, diminutive one, wasting time and money has been the stock and trade of the leftist/progressive liberals in Maine for over 30 years. Don't try to lay off your own shortcomings on others.

Here we have another instance of a member of a foreign drug cartel, the Newfie Tokers, trying to illegally infiltrate our borders with their evil poison to addict our children, rape our women, pillage our dwellings and force us to partake of their vile drugs, all while wearing their outlandish garments (tuques and Canadiens jerseys), brandishing their hockey sticks, and devouring doughnuts and back-bacon washed down with two-fours of Molsons and LaBatts. Ridiculous? So are the marijuana laws in this country.

do not feed the troll.

For anyone who has looked at his/her household budget and come to the realization that there is more month than there is income, the solution is to either spend less money or increase income. Simple economics, right? Given that budget deficits occur when the dollars spent exceed the dollars received, add together all of the deficits and you have the debt. Of course, the debt takes on a life of its own due to the interest that must be paid to the holders of the debt. The first step in rectifying the problem is to reduce spending thereby reducing the budget and, hopefully, the defcit. Then if the budget cannot be reduced to a point where revenues exceed expenses, raise taxes to achieve that goal...but ensure the tax increases are evenly spread across the income brackets. Currently, the top 25% account for 66% of the income earned, but they pay 85% of the taxes. On the other hand, the bottom 50% earn 13% of the income and pay only 3% of the taxes (Source: IRS 2004). Many in the lower half receive more in tax refunds than they pay in withholding. You want equity? Let's institute a flat tax for EVERYONE. Start at 10% and adjust from there. There would be a great hue and cry from the top and bottom ends of the economic spectrum. But most American taxpayers would see a reduction in the amount paid in income tax, and the tax structure would be equitable. Just my opinion.

"All you have to do is pretend to know what you're talking about and that makes you corrdct." Obviously words of wisdom from one who has personal experience in the subject area.
Incidentally, the REAL Tea Partiers share no common political affiliation (as you so fervently wish to be the case). They are, quite simply, average Americans who became totally dissatisfied with the arrogance exhibited by the congresses and administrations in their unbridled spending, increased taxation, and growth of government by BOTH major political parties.

You're a Democrat who was more than happy to see Baldy win with only a plurality. But now that a *Republican* (gasp, the horror of it all) has won with a plurality, you're up in arms. Well, you are certainly entitled to try changing the election process, but given the composition of the incoming legislature, you might have better luck praying for divine intervention...or are you possibly an atheist or agnostic?

I suspect that the anti-casino folks will tell Mr. Bailey that his services are no longer needed...and there goes his livelihood. Maybe he can get a job as a croupier or blackjack dealer.

Couldn't the same be said about same-gender marriage?

Your reply to Mr. Theriault's letter either dismisses his viewpoint or wholeheartedly supports it; it's difficult to discern. Perhaps if you'd try adding a bit of dialogue, people would know which side of the debate you endorse. But then, when I look at the history of comments in your profile, I see that you respond in a similar way to most letters on which you comment. So, I really shouldn't be surprised.

Ms. Rogers,
You state, "Out of those 1,700 employees, how many will be management level and earn enough money to live a middle- or upper-middle class lifestyle? How many will be earning minimum wage or a dollar or two above it and be able to live a life of constant struggle?" I would ask you which is better - 1700 people working (at any wage level) or 1700 people living off tax dollars paid by others who do work?
And as for your comment that "an awful lot of people will have to lose their money to pay those employees...", no one is forcing the gamblers to put their money down in a game of chance. It is their choice.

You state: "An Oxford casino doesn not help L/A or Androscoggin county." Some would disagree with you. The unemployment rate in L/A, like most of the state, is higher than it should be. However, if you look at Oxford County as a comparison to L/A, you have to agree that the job situation is much worse in far western Maine than in the Androscoggin valley. Many people living in Oxford County look to the L/A area as their primary shopping destination. So if more of those people are employed, it follows that more money would be spent in the twin cities area thereby increasing tax revenues, allowing expansion possibilities for businesses, and even providing housing opportunities for casino and ancillary business workers, which in turn raises property tax revenues...all without the inherent problems that accompany casinos and legalized table gaming. Try removing the blinders you're wearing and take an objective look at the Oxford proposition. You might be surprised at what you see.

Ms. Chandler, like many other dissenters on this topic, you condemn gambling and casinos yet offer no viable alternative...much like most of the candidates for public office. I doubt that anyone would dispute your contentions about the downside of casino gambling. But until you or another naysayer can propose a different solution to the employment problem, the casino option seems to be the only one on the table.

You state: "We believe in investing in Maine through initiatives that will truly aid small businesses, improve educational performance, promote energy efficiency, enhance connectivity, and overhaul our health care system." Those are very lofty goals, against which no argument can be made. That being said, would you now explain the details and the mechanics bringing those goals to fruition? Like so many others posting to these boards, you are quick to condemn casinos (devil's work???) without offering any concrete alternatives. So please explain how you will achieve those noble objectives.

There are a couple of questions that I would like someone to answer...intelligently:
1) How is it that an underage female can seek and obtain (with the concurrence of a doctor or judge) an abortion without notifying her parents, but that same young lady cannot get a piercing or tatoo without parental consent?
2) Why is it that the same people who favor a woman's right to end the life of an unborn fetus are the same people who vehemently oppose the termination of life for a convicted murderer?
Conundrums

For many years now, the federal government has awarded competitive contracts based upon "best value" rather than "lowest bid". Some selection factors used in these solicitations would appear to be subjective, rather than, objective in nature. Nevertheless, for the most part contract awards have resulted in superior goods and services...even though the initial cost of the award has been more than the amount proposed by the lowest bidder.

It is apparent (except to those whose vision is narrowed by their extreme viewpoints) that Mr. Smith was commenting on the acquisition, conversion and use of private lands by the state. He felt no need to expound on his preferences of candidates for elected office, but you obviously felt the need to attempt a hijacking of this LTE to suit your own political needs. Try sticking to the subject at hand.

It matters not which party is responsible (although in this case I believe that the tax increase is due to the expiration of Republican tax cuts and refusal to renew them by Democrats). A tax increase - any tax increase - in the current fiscal climate is inexcusable. Not enough money to fund everything? Cut some programs and reduce spending. Simple!

Ron, I'm waiting for your rebuttal backed up by facts, cites and sources. The basis for Mr. Wells' complaint goes back to October 12, 2008 when Mr. Obama was quoted as saying to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (aka Joe the Plumber), "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too… My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off [...] if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody." (source: Wikipedia) So, while Mike may not have quoted then-candidate Obama exactly, I believe that he captured the essence of the now-President's socialist agenda.

Congrats on hanging in there, Lenny. It's a long way from Swain/Isthmus Road to Gouldsboro and from that twin-pickup Harmony (or was it a Silvertone?) to where you are now. Good to know you're doing OK.

No value judgement in my statement; merely stating fact. If homosexuals want equality in the military, they need more than just the repeal of DADT.
Incidentally, your avatar isn't clear enough to identify your rating - is that a BM1?

I'll chip in to a fund from citizens who want to return the White House to its intended function - the people's house.

It must be - I have to agree with Jonathan on this one (never thought I'd live to see it LOL). The federal government has no business being involved in elementary and secondary education in any way, shape or form. Further, I have to question the state's involvement in a service that should be managed, funded and provided by local governments. Almost fifty years ago when I was attending public school in Maine, we had local superintendents and local funding that resulted in an education that ranked Maine in the top 5% of schools nationwide. Since then, the quality and resultant ranking of education in Maine has steadily fallen thanks to the "collective" mindset of educators and administrators. If nothing else, this should serve as proper warning of the ills that result from the abdication of authority and relinquishment of responsibility by local voters, school boards and administrators. The U.S. Department of Education should be abolished, the Maine Department of Education should be restricted to collecting and distributing statistics about schools' and students' performances, and the resultant savings in federal and state tax dollars should be returned to the municipalities who know better than anyone in Augusta or Washington DC what is best for the students and schools in their respective cities and towns.

from a Democrat?

since you are willing to castigate those with opposing viewpoints for using an alias or nom-de-plume, you wouldn't mind doing the same for those who share your opinions and philosophies? You know who they are, right? I'll be anxiously awaiting the first instance.

While the concept of enacting a curfew may seem a reasonable idea in the prevention of youth crime and mischief, the practicality leaves much to be desired - especially when it comes to citing parents and guardians for the youths' infractions. On the one hand, it is admirable that the town attempts to make parents responsible for their childrens' behavior while, contrarily, the liberal courts and legislatures have rendered parents effectively impotent in enforcing the curfew. When a 13 to 17 year-old disobeys his or her parent/guardian and goes out or stays out after curfew, what recourse does that parent have? Timeout? Get real; when did THAT ever work except on the pre-school set. Ground them? The kids are already going out when they shouldn't. What additional restrictive power does grounding hold? Take away their cell phones? They will simply borrow a friend's phone and never break stride. So what good does it serve to cite parents for their kids' behavior?
Growing up in the River Valley over a half century ago, we had a curfew as well. And although we feared the police detaining us or taking us to the "station" to await pickup by our parents, we had a greater fear of the punishment that awaited us at home. Parents back then were free to administer "corrective action" in its myriad forms without the threat of governmental intervention in what is surely a parent's domain - the right to discipline your offspring. Were there instances of parents going too far in their punishment? Of course. But that will never change regardless of the laws and ordinances imposed by the permissive, reason-with-the-child Dr. Spock-ers and their minions. The kids back then who continued to offend usually paid a visit to a "reform school" (I think it was in Gray at that time) not a "youth development center".
If you truly want to reduce or, maybe, eliminate the mischief and vandalism perpetrated by kids today, try removing the shackles from parents who know better than the state what form of discipline should be imposed.

Sorry, Rambo, I didn't get your name in that last post...or did you lose your "stones" over there?

You and several other Democrat denizens of this forum are really becoming tiresome and tedious with your stereotyping of Republicans as wealthy, silver-spoon elitists. Many Republicans, as well as even more of us Independents, are merely low- and middle-income citizens, veterans and patriots who have served our country but have grown weary and angry at past and present administrations and congresses that have continually and increasingly turned a deaf ear to our complaints of unrestrained spending and the corresponding borrowing and taxation that accompanies it. Admittedly, the individuals you cite did not serve in the military, and used whatever means possible to avoid the draft. However, during the years of the Vietnam conflict, there were as many of my Democrat friends as Republicans who avoided the draft through deferments or extended "vacations" in other countries only to be granted amnesty. Contrary to your implications, Democrats do not exclusively own the higher ground based upon military service. In fact, I'd lay dollars to doughnuts that more currently serving members of the armed forces vote or lean to the right than the opposite. And by the way, since you have proclaimed your veteran's status on these boards in order to demonstrate your courage, why is it that you are so reluctant to use your real name in either your username or your profile? Afraid that someone might actually contact you outside the anonymity afforded by this medium?

How about, "New Hampshire - buy all you want with NO SALES TAX."

Queenie, your posts are normally very well thought out and constructed, and your logic is usually sound. But I think you missed the mark on this one. Yes, there are people who are disabled and unable to perform manual labor, but maybe they could be engaged in clerical or administrative tasks. The point expressed by the author is that some welfare recipients are merely lazy and unwilling to seek gainful employment that would contribute to the state's revenue stream rather than drain from it. Those who truly are incapable of working should be assisted through the welfare system; those who are simply goldbricking should be forced to work for their benefits.

There's no need to reread the statement. As written, it says that he "was arrested by Sgt. Tracey Higley on a warrant charging failure to appear for fishing without a license on Franklin Street, meaning that the violation originally occurred on Franklin Street. What the writer probably intended to say was that he was arrested on Franklin Street on a warrant charging failure to appear for fishing without a license. Just another example of the degradation of the English language.

you and your hero, Mr. Pitts, should read the article at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870442350457521203141793679...
It shows that for lack of a $500,000 device, many millions or, potentially, billions of dollars will be spent in stopping the runaway well and cleaning up its impact. Two other major oil-producing nations, Norway and Brazil require the device; the U.S. does not. Hmmm, sounds like a government regulation problem to me.

Northwoods, Son: if you stop responding to the troll's ridiculous postings, maybe he'll go away. The only reason he puts anything up on these boards is to elicit a response. It's apparent that he lives in an alternate reality, so just leave him there. Boycott tron.

So tell me, you who hides behind the three letters at the butt-end of the alphabet and the fabricated name in your profile, what is a "real american"? Is it someone who unselfishly donates his or her time and energy to the memory of both living and deceased veterans, or is it someone who snipes at those people from the anonimity provided by this forum?

As for the American Legion, there is no requirement that a member had served overseas in a combat zone (that's a requirement of the VFW). There are tens of thousands of veterans who served during the Vietnam conflict but never set foot "in-country", just as there are many who have served during the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns but never put boots on the ground in the sandbox. That should not lessen the value of their service nor diminish their level of commitment to those who are actually in harm's way. Anyone who provides service to our country is deserving of our respect and gratitude - whether it is as a member of the military or as a participant of one of the public service agencies e.g. the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, VISTA, etc.

The bottom line is that all citizens of this country owe a debt to it for providing the freedoms and prosperity taken for granted by too many. That debt can be partially repaid through service to the country, and continued through volunteer efforts in patriotic, civic, charitable and fraternal organizations like the American Legion, VFW, DAR, Red Cross, Lions, Kiwanis, and countless others. And if holding memberships in those types of organizations incurs derisive labels such as "John Bircher" from small-minded individuals who believe themselves to be the "real Americans", so be it. We are secure in our citizenship and the costs of that privilege.

Ron, do you dispute that illegal entry into our country is a crime?  Do you dispute that the statutes against illegal immigration are not being enforced?  Do you deny that the inner-city welfare class are predominantly voters for the Democrat party?  Who, besides the illegals, benefits from their remaining in the country?

I am not seeking to deny anyone their rights.  But since you raised the matter of Title 8, you might want to visit Sec. 235(b) and Sec. 240.

As for my understanding of the Constitution, I would be more than happy to converse with you on its content and precepts as well as the "interpretations" by revision-minded, activist jurists on the SCOTUS.  And as for my status as a loyal American, my DD-214 and Honorable Discharge from the Navy will evidence that.

What part of the word "illegal" as in "illegal immigrant" is not understood by the Left?  These people broke the law by entering the U.S. without proper documentation - that represents a CRIME.  Are we or are we not a nation of laws respected, for the most part, by law-abiding citizens?  If the issue were alleged crimes by the conservative right, people such as Mr. Sirota would be screaming for the immediate arrest, conviction and incarceration of the offenders.  Yet in the case of illegal immigrants, the progressive, liberal Left takes umbrage at any attempt to enforce the existing laws against illegal imigration.  Why???  Could it be that the Left sees the illegals as potential voters and thus worthy of all possible support that includes casting a blind eye to existing laws?

Mr. Thomas, if you had presented your DD-214 instead of your military retired ID, you would not have been denied.  And pay no attention to xyz; he's approaching the same "troll" status as tron and SSDD.

Veritas, I've seen you respond forcefully and adamantly to opposing viewpoints but never with such unfettered animosity.  Are you just having a bad day, or are you being infected with the same crudeness exhibited by Tron, xyz and SSDD?  It's very disappointing that someone with your obvious intelligence is resorting to such base behavior.  Lighten up a bit, huh?

I would hope that one member of the congressional delegation picks up on this and takes action to see that Mr. Gagnon is appropriately commended for his actions.  This type of selfless patriotism is sorely lacking in today's society, and perhaps a congressional (or presidential?) commendation will inspire more people to put respect for our country near the top of everyone's list.  Bravo zulu, Mr. Gagnon. 

While the young woman was well within her rights to appear topless in public, she certainly is not exhibiting good taste...the same as any male who strolls topless in a commercial or business environment - it's not appropriate conduct.   For xyz and others, I wonder how you would feel if your wife, daughter, sister or mother decided to follow this behavior.

On the lighter side, it certainly gives a whole new meaning to the businesses that post signs saying, "No shirt, no shoes, no service". 

While the author's concern and enthusiasm are commendable, he should take another look at the history of FDR's presidency.  Granted that the W.P.A. put people back to work, but at what price?  The breadth and depth of all those taxpayer-funded "make-work" jobs were so expensive that it took our entry into WWII to artificially resolve the near-bankruptcy of this country.  The Local Jobs for America program is the W.P.A. reincarnated.  On the surface it appears to be a cure for the economic woes being experienced by millions of Americans, but if you look deeper, you see that it is nothing more than a placebo - not a panacea.  The money required to fund such a program would have to be generated through increased taxation or federal borrowing (which put us in this predicament in the first place).  Proponents point to the increase in income tax revenue as an offset, but even a cursory glance at that point shows its folly.  The tax revenue is being derived from tax dollars that pay the wages earned by program participants.  In other words, we would be taking water from one well to pour into another and deluding ourselves that we are making progress.  These jobs would contribute nothing to the fiscal stability of America; we would simply be robbing Peter to pay Paul.  But then, that's exactly what the liberals/progressives/socialists want us to do.  One need look back little more than 20 years to see the effects of this mentality on the Eastern Bloc countries.  Russia, the former Soviet Union, nearly collapsed under the weight of a state-run economy, and it wasn't until the seeds of capitalism sprouted in that region that their economies began to recover.  Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said, "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."

So while the author should be lauded for taking an interest in the dismal state of the U.S. economy, he should conduct a bit more research before wholeheartedly endorsing a program based upon a failed economic model.