We agree with Lowell Kjenstad’s letter that including the word “insurance” as part of the name of the new Bangor center is very disappointing. The generosity of Woodrow Cross and his business is certainly acknowledged, but wouldn’t it be more appropriate if the center were named either The Woodrow Cross Center or The Cross Center? Perhaps a plaque on the inside of the new facility could acknowledge Cross Insurance and its contribution.
Our family members and many in the community feel the same way about this.
Joseph and Nancy Taylor
Enjoy Maine lobsters
I’m shocked by the words, “local lobstermen and local wholesalers who purchase lobsters from Connecticut and Rhode Island waters say ‘buyer beware’ when dealing with soft shells from Maine” as quoted by Alex Nunes on the front page of the BDN, on July 31, in “Conn. lobstermen warn consumers about Maine soft shells.” No Maine lobsterman or wholesaler would ever say anything like that. Somebody is misquoting somewhere.
Could this knock on the Maine lobster be coming from competitors from Rhode Island and Connecticut?
Oversupply of Maine soft-shell lobsters is not because of poor quality, as implied by competitors. To start, we can thank our clear ocean water and global warming, which causes the lobsters to thrive and shed earlier. We have laws in Maine to protect the female lobsters. These “eggers” have notched tails to ensure that they always return to the ocean to carry on the tradition of lots and lots of lobsters in our Maine waters.
There’s also an oversupply of lobsters this year due to a Canadian market that wasn’t there to buy up Maine shedders. Canadian lobstermen set early (they normally don’t fish in the spring), and they were able to catch a lot of those earlier-than-usual shedders.
Locals and visitors who have eaten Maine lobster rolls know how sweet and succulent they are, better than any old-shell lobster from Connecticut or Rhode Island.
We’ll take a Maine lobster roll every time.
Two hundred jobs and power for 85,000 homes has been cited over and over when reporting anything about First Wind’s industrial turbine projects. Are these 200 new jobs for Mainers? Or are they the same jobs that build all projects? The Reed and Reed employee who testified at the Land Use Regulation Commission public hearing in Ellsworth when the Bull Hill project was being permitted stated that if LURC gave the OK the crew would move right over to Bull Hill after Rollins Mountain.
Are the 185 megawatts that are quoted as being produced by First Wind’s projects the capacity on paper or the actual production? In Maine, wind projects typically produce approximately 14 percent of their total capacity. This would then actually provide energy for far fewer homes.
Where are these homes? In Maine?
What does it mean to state “enough energy for 85,000 homes”? All the electricity they’ll use in a week? A year? Ever? It’s too vague a statement to be printed without clarification. These “facts” are reprinted with almost each news item covering wind projects in our area. Please find the answers for us.
Mary Ann John
The Maine media bias in favor of wind development has been obvious for some time. A recent BDN article served as a perfect example. The story of the truck losing its wind tower load in a ditch went the extra mile for the industry by devoting much of its space to promotional data for First Wind and the industry in general.
I don’t recall other stories reporting truck accidents including favorable factoids about the company or industry involved. When a logging truck loses its load, the related article doesn’t tell how many jobs were created by the logging job the truck was working. We don’t hear how many homes will be built by the company’s timber products.
But, with a wind tower in a ditch, we get a wind power sales pitch.
On top of that, the promotional data is misleading. The article said that First Wind’s projects in Maine could supply the “energy needs of 85,000 homes.” Hardly. Wind turbines supply electricity only. Maine homes use a variety of energy sources other than electricity, especially for things such as heating. Supplying all their energy needs with wind electricity would make the 85,000 figure much smaller.
The Maine media’s pro-wind bias might not change, but the objectivity and accuracy of the reporting should. A 2010 University of Maine poll showed that 79 percent of Mainers get their information on wind energy from newspapers.
With this type of reporting, it’s no wonder the Maine public’s wind energy IQ is so low.
Like all conflict-of-interest codes, it is rarely the commission of an act that causes trouble. It is the perception of what we could have done that creates the most turmoil.
For those who did not react when given a glimpse of Rev. Robert Carlson’s deepest secret, it’s their time to admit their guilt.
The mandated reporting law leaves little leeway in how we are supposed react when we encounter any knowledge of domestic or sexual abuse. By not taking action, we enable the perpetrator to continue the abuse.
The Maine State Police report on Carlson’s secret life shows there were some who knew of accusations against him. Had they come forward at that time, how many future victims could have been saved from abuse?
It’s time for those who enabled Carlson’s secret life to face their own judge and jury — the public. They may not have committed a crime, as District Attorney R. Christopher Almy said in a BDN interview printed in Saturday’s edition, but they certainly committed an act of omission. Their lack of concern caused as much damage at the perp did.
If they hold a high-level position within state or local government, where an individual’s credibility is critical to leadership, they can help the healing process by resigning.
Whatever possessed the powers that be to allow the word “insurance” on our beautiful new arena?
What will out-of-towners think when they see “insurance” on the building? Will they know it is our entertainment establishment and not a business building?
Just another faux pas for Bangor. Enough said. Am I alone on this?