A global warming con
The theory of global warming being caused by man is now called anthropogenic global warming, or AGW, and we’ve been brainwashed by all media that the majority of world scientists support this view. This is not true.
A rising tide of credible global scientists have shown a great correlation between sunspot activities and rise in Earth temperatures. The second startling fact they demonstrate is that increased greenhouse gases follow the rise in earth temperature; they do not cause it. They also report that scientists who do not support the UN-approved version of AGW have their funding cut off. No wonder so many scientists are aboard the UN train.
It is obvious to me that AGW is being promoted by the new world order to scare Americans into surrendering more of our Constitutional powers to the federal government and to cripple more of our economy. Let’s not forget the Helsinki Accord of decades ago wherein 16 world class scientists asked the UN not to disseminate the AGW theory because of these same good reasons.
A new documentary by Martin Durkin titled: “The Great Global Warming Swindle” proves that Al Gore’s AGW is a political theory, not the scientific one it pretends to be.
Let’s tell our legislative leaders that we don’t buy into scare tactics; we want proven scientific theories, not political ones advising the nation about global warming.
Robert Bruce Acheson
Principle above politics
It’s a shame that some Republicans are criticizing our Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins for their bipartisan work in Washington. As a Republican, I am proud of their efforts. Both have stated the GOP has to return to its “big tent” approach in order to compete as a healthy alternative to the Democrat party. I agree.
In the past two elections, Maine voters overwhelmingly re-elected Sens. Snowe and Collins not because they’re Republicans but because they consistently put principle above politics. They are proud Republicans who take a moderate, common sense approach to problem solving and our party is better because of them.
On redemption centers
Maine voters passed the bottle bill more than 31 years ago to reduce roadside litter and cut back on landfills. The owner-operators of bottle redemption centers have not had a raise in the handling fee since 1990. Since the bottle bill started, we have had approximately 19 minimum wage increases and two more scheduled for 2010 and 2011. In the past three years our bags have gone up $10 a roll because of the cost of oil. We have nowhere to pass on these costs. Our income is fixed by the state and we are just trying to survive.
The distributors of Pepsi, Coke etc., have a lot of clout with legislators. They have lobbyists fighting for their interests and all we have is a couple of senators and legislators willing to stand up for us. We have had numerous meetings to find common ground. We would reach an agreement and the next meeting we agreed to disagree because the distributors changed their minds.
All we are asking is to get a 1-cent raise. The distributors are saying ½ cent for themselves. How do they charge you the consumer ½ cent? They don’t, the distributors will charge the consumer 1 cent, pay us ½ cent and keep the other ½ cent for themselves.
We are asking Maine consumers to call the governor’s office, the state House and Senate leaders’ offices and tell them you are in favor of LD 397.
Who is to blame?
In February, the University of Maine community suffered a tragic loss with the death of freshman Dylan Lyford.
Two young women age 19 and 20 were charged with furnishing a place for minors to consume alcohol. Both pleaded guilty and will pay a fine and perform community service.
Are these charges applicable? Can we expect minors to govern themselves? Can we expect individuals blatantly violating the drinking age to look out for and govern one another’s behavior? Can we expect young adults to blow the whistle on each other, or to turn their backs on their friends? Have we prepared these young people to take the necessary preventive steps to save lives?
The real issue is that this generation is ill-equipped to deal with the unexpected and challenging aspects of life.
Our mourning leads to a cry for justice but are these young women really responsible for this accident? Is it realistic to charge these women with furnishing a place for a minor to consume alcohol if we have not charged someone with “furnishing the alcohol”? Without someone providing the alcohol to young Mr. Lyford, then there are no charges of furnishing a “place.”
We can make a concerted effort to promote self-esteem; sound decision making skills; assertiveness; self-efficacy and responsible substance use among young people both through community-based initiatives as well as in the schools through embedded curricular reform. If the community takes an educative and preventive approach to issues such as these then perhaps together we can all take a step toward preventing such tragedies.
Small TV picture stinks
In the middle of April, the local channels I receive from DirecTV became reduced in size. This reduction produces a picture that fills about 80 percent of the TV screen. This applies to both flat screen digital TVs and older analog picture tube TVs.
DirecTV explains that this is their standard picture format throughout country. Suggestions they made to change picture proportions produced the equivalent shape of a football when a basketball is broadcast. This is not acceptable.
This reduced-size picture is not caused by our local broadcasters. It is a result of either a lower quality (lower cost) up-link or similar lower quality (lower cost) satellite broadcast. As a regular TV viewer, a 20 percent reduction in size may seem like a tolerable thing. But next winter, when we have storm-caused school closings, which further reduce the received picture by another 20 percent, the resulting picture will have been reduced by about 40 percent on local viewing.
I think this stinks.