Comments for: Tuesday, Oct. 2, 2012: Test abuse, new Congress and increased crime

Posted Oct. 01, 2012, at 2:15 p.m.

Core values betrayed I was chagrined to see the Sept. 18 BDN article about standardized testing irregularities at Orono Middle School. I equally deplore the system that drives educators to betray their core values. As we need gun control to deter violent crimes, we need test control to discourage educational …

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

      Ms. Ferrell and Mr. Longo, I long ago gave up on an overwhelming majority of Republican Senators doing anything that might help improve our nation’s economy.
      Faced with a choice of helping returning veterans earn positions as policemen and firemen or trying to assure Minority Leader McConnell’s goal of making President Obama a one-term President, 42 Republican Senators voted to block any discussion of the Veterans Job Corps Act of 2012 and thereby killed the bill.
      The Republican motto seems to be: “Ask not what you can do for your country, ask rather what you can do for your party.” 

    • Anonymous

      Now now chenard, you know that McConnell and his followers would gladly lay down your life for their country.

      • Anonymous

        LOL!!!

    • Anonymous

      What about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who feels it is his job to stop most GOP passed budgets and other bills before the full Senate has a chance to debate or vote on them.  He blocked the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011, the only bill that would have saved the credit rating of the United States from being downgraded.  Who’s the real party of NO?  Oh yeah, the same party that also took GOD out of their party platform and after they realized that wasn’t a popular move nationwide, they put Him back in to be greeted with a chorus of boos.  Really??  Is this the party we want running our country.  They are running it alright … into the ground.  Is this what we want for the future of the United States.  Romney/Ryan 2012!!

      • Anonymous

          Do you understand the concept of majority rule?  It is central to any democracy.  A majority in the House determines the legislation that will be considered; if that majority is being thwarted by the Speaker of the House, a majority of the House can sign a discharge petition and the matter comes up for a vote.
          Similarly, in the Senate, the party in the majority determines what will be presented to the Senate for possible action.  What the filibuster does is let a bare 41 Senators, who could represent as little as 11 % of the nation’s population, block a vote on any measure, no matter its popularity and no matter its support by a majority of the Senate.
          Complaining about Reed’s not presenting for a vote matters that only have the support of a minority of Senators is complaining about the failure to allow symbolic defeats for the Republicans.  That is different from Republicans blocking legislation that a majority of the Senate clearly wants to pass.   That has real consequences, as the Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans who would otherwise be hired as policemen and firemen are finding out. 
          How many times is God mentioned in the Constitution?  Not once.
          Why did the credit rating agencies downgrade the US?  Their own report cited Republican intransigence.
          The Republicans know they are losing the Presidential race and now realize that they will not retake the Senate.  Let’s put Paul Ryan and Vouchercare front and center for the next five weeks so that the Democrats can retake the House.

        • Anonymous

          I think you ought to take a look at the most recent Rasmussen poll which only has Romney down by one, but that is well within the margin of error.  So, I don’t think they are losing the presidential race nor do I think they will when America comes to it senses on November 6 and we elect Mitt Romney as our next president.  Do you really think people like the fact that gas prices have doubled in four years? They were starting to come back down but I see they have went back up again.  Do you really think people cherish 43 months of 8+% unemployment.  I really doubt it, when the alternative is Romney who has plans to implement policy changes that they estimate would create 12 million jobs.  A lof of people have disagreed with me, but the facts say otherwise.  This 43 months of unemployment at 8+% is four months longer than the COMBINED total of administrations from 1948 to 2008.  That is COMPLETELY unacceptable.

          Before you tell me that Rasmussen isn’t accurate, historically they have been the MOST accurate.

          • Anonymous

              Look at any poll composites (RealClearPolitics, Pollster.com, or FiveThirtyEight) and understand that the national lead for the President is about 4% and that it is even higher in the swing states.   
              The Great Recession is the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression.  By FDR’s re-election in 1936, unemployment was still 16%.  Pointing to the better economic progress since WW II ignores the fact that tax rates were higher then and Wall Street was closely regulated.  
              De-regulating Wall Street and lowering tax rates got us into this mess under Bush II.  Why would you want to double down on policies that are a proven failure?
              Put the Faux News Kool-Aid aside and join the reality-based community.   

        • Anonymous

          By the way, I do understand the concept of majority rule.  I also understand that one man is not a majority.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should not have been able to block the Republican Cut, Cap, and Balance Act by himself, but he did.  He prevented debate or a vote on this bill.  It may not have been passed by the Senate but that should have been decided by the other 99 senators, not just Harry Reid.

          • Anonymous

              Any time the Senate Democrats disagree with Harry Reid’s decision, they can quickly set him straight.  That is how any representative democracy works.  The Act in question would have created a second Great Recession.    

  • Anonymous

    Deborah Ferrell & Charles Longo Jr, your letters speak of the true problem in this country. We need to replace all the extreme factions of Congress both left and right.

  • Anonymous

    Yea Herbert, personal responsibility is such a bad concept.  Did you get your obama phone yet?

    • Anonymous

      hahahaha, awww, still trying to find something that compares to the 47% comments?

    • Anonymous

      Right after you turn in your conservative phone (callers unfortunately too numerous to name).

      How did Dr. Hoffmann’s comment deny personal responsibility?

    • Anonymous

      I paid taxes for 55 years, now I don’t, and Mitt writes me and many like me off.  What a stuck up individual and he has no compassion for anybody who is not in his perceived class.  This jerk should just start on demolishing his house in Cal. and getting his elevators installed and never again run for any political office.  That by the way includes dog catcher.  

    • Anonymous

      Yes, I’ve gotten my copy of the email that “the righties” are circulating about “the Obama phones”.  The federal program to provide limited cell phones and service to low-income people started way back with President Reagan and has continued. Whether or not we agree with it, several administrations and Congresses have had the opportunity to do something about it.

      • Anonymous

        It’s turned into another entitlement and Obama is using it to buy votes.  Remember the lady who thought Obama was going to take care of her mortgage.  That’s the kind of info groups like Acorn put out there.

        • Anonymous

           http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

    • pbmann

      You mean from the program started under Bush?

  • Anonymous

    Good letters all, thanks.

  • Anonymous

    ” Listen to the Maine Education Association, the teachers in Chicago…..”     hmmmmm

    • Anonymous

      They cared so much about the students that they wouldn’t teach them.  It’s right up there with “destroying the village to save it.”

      • Anonymous

        For a *whole* week — isn’t that just ghastly (not).

        • Anonymous

          I completely agree.  It was a labor action by employees with grievances, and a strike might have been appropriate.  But let’s not say it’s “about the kids.”

  • Anonymous

    Charlie, It is my understanding that our current Bangor police officers are underpaid compared to their peers in nearby cities. It would seem to me that if these folks are properly payed that would attract the right candidates without federal involvement. That should be your focus.
    What your “money from Washington” solution does is create a “need” the moment that money runs out.

    I am grateful that the city has kept a cap on property taxes and that policy should continue. It is time we looked at other city departments and decide where our priorities lie.

    Of course, crime would go down if we didn’t facilitate drug use.

  • Anonymous

    Charlie,

    You are missing the issue – crime in Bangor has nothing to do with veteran’s unemployment – it has everything to do with our generous general assistance programs and drug additiction – and unfortunately our willingness to try to “treat” drug offenders.

    We need more police. We need less transients living off the system. And we need fewer drug treatement facilities that encourage people to come to Bangor.

    At least, you recognize the crime problem. Geoff Gratwick doesn’t think we have a problem.

    • Anonymous

      Yes, maybe transients (many of whom are vets) and drug  abusers (many of whom are vets) will just disappear or go die somewhere else.  That way you will save money.  Of course, hiring more police will offset the savings realized when troubled folks just magically disappear off the planet.

      • Anonymous

         I see so this is a program to hire “troubled vets”. I didn’t catch that.

        • Anonymous

          I didn’t say that.  You presumed it.

    • Anonymous

      Charlie misses a LOT of things.

    •  Isn’t Charlie advocating hiring veterans to work in the Bangor Police Dept????? Yes he is. :D

  • Anonymous

    Laura Cowan May

    You should post a sign on your lawn saying “PROUDLY UNARMED”.

    You can put it right next to your “OBAMA/BIDEN” sign.

  • Anonymous

    Charles Longo, I have no idea what your first paragraph, and the rest of the letter, about Veterans and unemployment, have to do with each other.  I’m sorry, but this doesn’t pass the muster.  It sounds like you’re saying that Veterans are disproportionately responsible for the increase in crime (drug-related crime, even).  Surely, you don’t think that is the case, do you?

    I’m sorry, but let’s not even begin to think that just because they are veterans, they are more prone to crime.  They may very well be -less- prone, but I’m not sure we should make that blanket statement either.

    Your letter is, effectively, saying that A+7=Rose Petals.  It makes no sense.

    Let’s deal with crime the right way.  With the criminals.  

Similar Articles