Thomas Paine speaks still

-Of what avail will be a prosperous state of commerce, when the produce of it will be at the absolute disposal of an arbitrary and unchecked government, who may levy at pleasure the most oppressive taxes; who may destroy every principle of freedom; who may even destroy the privilege of complaining.

Thomas Paine, letter to the people of Pennsylvania 11/30/1787.


I received this quote this morning while I was going over the myriad of political events that occurred the evening of 6/10. My friend Ted sent it along to me as, like I, he sees how profound a statement it really is and how easily it can be applied to today’s political climate, on all levels.

Any person with even the most basic of logic skills can see the correlation to Mr. Paine’s Observation and the results of Tuesday night’s elections as well as, the State and Federal political situation.

Look closely to the Bond that was voted in statewide and ask at what cost do we create this Prosperous state of commerce? I fully understand the need to have good roads and bridges, but do we not collect enough revenue from the taxpayers of Maine to support the maintenance of said items?

The answer is yes, but because the Legislature has pilfered the highway fund recklessly and has misspent your tax dollars on other projects we now are told that we need to borrow millions of dollars to maintain the basics. This Bond will force the legislature to impose even more taxes and fees, as a bond is a loan, a loan that bears interest and must needs be repaid. Debt is a funny thing eh?

We have already witnessed “an arbitrary and unchecked government” in the 123rd Legislature’s handling of LD2477, the Dirigo funding scheme that we are all going to suffer many years into the future. Our “Representatives” chose to ignore an insurance reform bill that would have cut costs for insurance across the board, and chose to levy at pleasure the most oppressive taxes. This act in of itself, though egregious, is not enough to shout out the axiom “Taxation without Representation” but it comes damn well close, for the people are now left with but the hopes of a petition to get a referendum on the ballot. Those in the State House who decided to tax their constituents, who are already under a terrible burden as is, did not and do not represent their people. No, this one act does not allow us to call it out, but how many more have gone before it of the same character?

One may argue that our institutions are guaranteed by the principle of checks and balances, and they would not be totally incorrect. However, when the only recourse we as citizens have left at our disposal to protect our rights, traditions, and yes money is to vote out the very same person who swore to defend and uphold our needs, I say such a situation calls into question what balance there is in our Government as a whole.

Lastly, we must look to the concept of dissent and how it is handled and perceived today. A fine example for such a discussion is the Obama campaign. I use this only because it is one of greatest practitioners of the tactics in dealing with dissent and opposing views. If you take but a moment and look locally, perhaps a town meeting, or planning board, you will more than likely see the same.

“Who may destroy every principle of freedom; who may even destroy the privilege of complaining”

The first Amendment of the Constitution guarantees our right to free speech, so long as it does not promote armed rebellion or uprising against the State or Federal Government. To dissent is as natural to Americans as is breathing, eating and being human. There have been in the past, abridgements to this most fundamental of rights passed through the Supreme Court and the Congress, but they are usually overturned by the people. For the most part though, our government shies away from questions on the First Amendment as they know how strongly Americans feel about anything that hinders their right to express themselves “Appropriately”.

Over the past 15-20 years though, the right to speak ones mind has been curtailed through the use of George Orwell’s frightening “Doublespeak” of 1984 fame. What has happened is we as a people have allowed Political Correctness to become so pervasive that to question, let’s say Barack Obama’s associations, or his anti American rhetoric, you are labeled a Racist, or Bigot. If you voice dissent over your town councils Budget proposal, you are labeled a right wing trouble maker, etc. etc. etc. These assaults on ones personal character are so common place that we now find ourselves giving due to those who deserve it not out of fear. No one wishes to be called a racist anymore than one wishes to be called a Nazi, and rightly so. However, this tactic is not only inappropriate as it makes the questions at hand personal, but also because it hinders free speech, thus undermining one of the most basic of rights we enjoy and destroying “ the privilege of complaining.”

Allow me two examples;

About a month ago I saw report on the news that stated, the African-American (Black) community would feel that if Senator Obama did not get the nomination then it would be due to racism. How so could they not only come to that conclusion, but how would they be able to prove such a factor actually caused him to lose? There is no evidence to back it up nor is their any truth to the accusation whatsoever, but there it was on national TV. The same went for Hillary’s failed campaign, the day after she acquiesced to her Party’s wishes there was a panel of women on CBS talking about how sexism was what caused her to lose.

How does this apply? By using Race as the main factor the person arguing Obama’s case places the label of possible racist on those who agree not with their views. The opposition party then must be “extra careful” not to say or discuss anything that might be remotely, and I mean remotely, construed or twisted into a racist or biased statement. The debate becomes watered down and discourse hindered as each team dances around the fringes in an attempt not to offend. I am not saying one should go out and make racist or bigoted statements, I am saying that we as a society have allowed ourselves to become so attuned to “Doublespeak” that we can find the word Articulate given as a compliment, as racist. I call this “Hypersensitivity”. The same applies to the accusations of sexism in Hillary’s case. This type of behavior and societal acceptance creates a very real barrier to true honest discourse and dissent.

Even those who see this tactic for what it is, speak not often for the fear of the resulting attack that would sure to follow.

Thomas Paine’s words have truly passed the test of time, and if we look at them with “common sense”, another famous phrase he coined, we can take the lesson within them and try to retain the fundamental freedoms and privileges that so many have sacrificed for. Common sense is sorely lacking, but if more and more try to use it perhaps we have a fighting chance.

As my friend Carla says:

If Common sense was food, then there would be a lot of starving people around here.

Slainte’
Blighter

Gray Town Election

Town Elections are usually overlooked by the majority of residents in communities across America. Maybe voters feel that A Town Council is of little import, or perhaps that the body of the council is nothing compared to the High Politics of State and Federal Government.

However neither of those arguments or beliefs holds water, for that which is closest to home tends to have the greatest impact on our daily lives. To ignore or neglect town elections, you as a citizen place the governance of your community at risk. The people running for office in towns all across this state will, if elected, be making decisions on such things as, Zoning regulations, Budgets and spending, and ordinances that regulate you the citizen directly. I believe there is no greater Duty for voters of any community than to look to their own first by participating in local elections.

That being said, this Tuesday June 10th is of great importance to the citizens of Gray, as their town council has two 3 year seats and one 1 year seat available. All of the candidates have their Pro’s and Con’s but I feel that there are three who stand out above the rest and who can reign in the tax and spend budget put forth by the current Council.

First and foremost is Dick Walls; Dick is running for the one year seat against Phil Pulsifer and Tracy Scheckel. Dick is an avowed fiscal conservative with a 27 year background in finances with Chrysler Financial Corporation. He has lived in Gray these 20 years past and cares deeply for the well being of the community. Mr. Walls got my vote the last time he ran in 2005when he came up to me outside the polls and introduced himself whilst all the other candidates ignored the people filing inside. Dick will serve the Town and people of Gray with an unassuming and open manner that is much needed in the councils make up. He will work hard to readjust the 18.61% increase in the budget and get the towns priorities back on track. So when you are in the booth, remember, Dick Walls for the one year seat, he won’t spend your tax dollars wastefully to be sure.

Next is Andy Upham, Andy is an incumbent for one of the three year seats. He is currently vice-chair of the council and has served our community for the past three years with integrity, determination and intelligence. Andy was one of the two current councilors who voted against the budget on the grounds that it is shortsighted and does not promote the best interests of the Town. He has been steadfast and vigorous in his advocacy for the people of Gray. Andy has 25 years in the Telecommunications business and has shown nothing but a strong fiscal conservative voting record these past three years. His quiet respectful way of discussing topics is not to be mistaken for lack of strength when he believes strongly about an issue. He will tell you what he thinks, not what you want to hear, but always with a respectful and patient tone, or so has been my experience thus far. As I admire this last quality very much, I am voting for Andy as I hope you will as well.

Last, but most definitely not Least is Marchain “Skip” Crane. Skip is another incumbent on the current council and like Andy voted against and expressed dissent over the new budget. Mr. Crane worked hard to reduce the tax burden of the citizens as well increase efficiencies, and improve services. He is another person who not only understands business, as he is a small business owner himself, but also grasps the falling real estate market and the subsequent value of our homes. Skip Crane will continue to work hard for the people of Gray if re-elected, by using his experience, intellect and common sense. Skip is a Fiscal conservative who believes strongly that we the people of Gray deserve more from our council. He has my vote, as I believe he should have yours too.

The people of Gray have a great opportunity this Tuesday with this election. By voting for, and hopefully electing, these three fine men, the citizens of our fair town can take a stand for common sense, integrity, and responsibility. As the rest of the State wanders down the path of financial chaos, Dick Walls, Andy Upham, and Marchain “Skip” Crane will help us “look to our own” by being responsible and forthright. We need not follow the path of ruin that the tax and spend policies of other communities have gone down. Please come out and vote Tuesday June 10th and help us bring the light of reason to our town.

Slainte’
Blighter

Petitions are in.

Petitions are in…..

Well the Petitions I have been harping about have arrived and now it is Time to gather signatures.

We are petitioning to repeal the new Tax on Beer, Wine, Soda, and Insurance claims (LD2247) that our fearless leaders passed this past April.

Quite simply LD2247 means MORE TAXES for the Citizens of this State. There is no way to get around that fact or spin it into anything else. The legislature is asking for; $ 5 Million a year from the Fund for a Healthy Maine$ 3.6 Million loan from the General Fund (which will lose the people of Maine $180,000 in interest earned) $ 9.2 Million from a Soft drink Tax (this includes Soda, syrups, powdered drinks such as iced tea, and some Fruit Juices) $ 7.5 Million from a tax on Beer and Wine.$ 110 Million over the next three years from a new 1.8% “surcharge” (TAX) on paid health insurance claims

Please join me this Wednesday evening June the 4th at Gritty McDuff's fine brew pub on Route one Freeport Maine, and show your support by signing the Petition. You need only be a registered voter to add your name and voice. I’ll be at Gritty’s from 5-7:30 pm with petitions and, of course, a pint of Black fly Stout in hand.

If this gathering on Wednesday night is a success I will be attempting to set up more such events in the future.

It is of the utmost importance that we get as many signatures as possible on this petition, so I am not only asking one and all to come out and help by signing, but also for you to recruit as many friends and colleagues that you can muster and bring them along as well. We need to send a clear message to our Legislator’s that we the people of Maine can no longer support their tax and spend policies and that they need to look at other avenues of funding than our shrinking wallets.

I look forward to seeing all of my friends there as well as meeting new ones, however, if you are unable to attend but still wish to help, please comment on this posting or e-mail me and I will come to you.

Please come sign, and bring a friend or two as well, I’ll see you Wednesday night.

Slainte’
Blighter

Dirigo funding plan widely misreported

Much media attention has surrounded legislation funding Dirigo Health and health-care market reforms. Sadly, four articles published in different papers by different reporters trumpeted lobbyist assertions regarding the beer, wine, and soda taxes to fund Dirigo without appropriate fact-checking.Source

This Op Ed piece was published in the Portland Press Herald Wednesday past, the 14th. I am sure that the two authors, Rep. Sean Faircloth D-Bangor and Sen. Phil Bartlett D-Cumberland, are completely in earnest in their assertion that the media has distorted the facts surrounding the new Tax law. I am also betting that these two fine Gentlemen, are fully convinced that the law is for the greater good and that which these new taxes will fund, Dirigo, is a noble and needed enterprise.

To be a fair man I'll not take them to task on those particular issues as, opinions and beliefs vary, as does the conviction by which one defends said beliefs. No, I wish to address the contradictory and faulty arguments they put forth in defense of not only the tax, but also of their anger over the media's coverage. Allow me to address the latter first.

The primary contention of the article is that the media failed to research the new law to fund Dirigo sufficiently prior to going to press on several articles. The authors assert that the media relied upon the Lobbyists for the Beer and Wine industry as their main sources of information. I know not how they came to this conclusion but I daresay it is somewhat unfounded, for, as you may all know, I have been following this rather closely, and the Lobbyist of which the authors accuse of misinformation have been very quiet indeed. Probably because they did not manage to kill this legislation two years ago. In any event, if the authors had evidence of the fact that the Lobbyists did indeed mislead the media to manipulate the people would then it not have been in their best interest to add that to their piece?

I would have thought so, but evidently they felt not the need to back up their accusation of negligence with facts. Instead, the Representatives began to use misleading and somewhat false arguments in favor of the tax and Dirigo as a whole.

Let me begin with this quote;

It's important to remember that the focus of this legislation is on health care for people who need it, some of whom could die prematurely without coverage.
Those covered avoid expensive emergency-room visits that the rest of us pay for through higher premiums. By covering these people, Dirigo lowers costs imposed on the rest of us -- and saves lives.

Right, I have not met a single person in this fair state that does not know the new taxes are for to fund Dirigo. I agree it is important to remember that fact for it shows how inefficient the Dirigo program is. I also find that the above arguments, though emotive, contradict. "Some who could die prematurely" & " and saves Lives" Does it save lives? or does it have the possibility to save lives? You see by using the word " Could" in the first part, they detract from the second and do nothing to further their cause, no it simply causes confusion, perhaps that is the goal.

What is not confusing at all is the implication of the above statement that, " the costs associated with this tax are justified and that if you do not support said tax then you don't care for the people who are on the program". This is far from the truth, and to be honest a ploy, nothing more. The people of Maine understand as well as anyone the needs and costs of the Uninsured, to imply that they care not for their fellow citizens is rather low. The need for some kind of coverage is not in question.

Dirigo has failed in it's promise to cover the 130,000 Uninsured people of this State and to become self sustaining. That is a fact, pure and simple. To date about 14,000 individuals are covered by the program which is a far cry from what we were led to believe would be the case. No emotive " people will Die" scenario, straight information. I believe that the new law is egregious in that it is asking the tax payers of Maine to pay out more in subsides to Dirigo than a normal single payer policy could be.

It is this simple fact that has incurred the anger of the voters. Dirigo has failed, and now instead of seeking viable alternatives the Democratic Legislature says to it's people, you should pay more. Being a practical people, Mainers object to this logic. There is no need to continue funding that which does not work.

As these two Gentlemen continue on with their thesis they state:

First, none of the articles, including an article in this paper entitled "Drink tax repeal drive weighed," noted that 100 percent of Maine brewers are exempt from the beer tax.

This statement is a complete and utter falsehood, for the law specifically states;

1. Excise tax on malt liquor. An excise tax is imposed on the privilege of manufacturing and selling malt liquor in the State. The Maine manufacturer or importing wholesale licensee shall pay an excise tax of 25¢ per gallon on all malt liquor sold in the State that is manufactured by a manufacturer that produced a total of less than 100,000 barrels of malt liquor in the previous calendar year and 54¢ per gallon on all other malt liquor sold in the State.

So, though the Maine brewers will pay less than the larger out of state manufacturer, pay they will. Of interesting note is the fact that the above law actually hinders the Brewery industry's growth by doubling the tax once a manufacturer reaches 100,000 gallons. Business friendly Maine at it's finest.

I find it somewhat hypocritical of Rep. Faircloth and Sen. Bartlett, to make such a blatantly false statement whilst accusing the Press of not checking their facts. I for one would have thought these two Gentlemen should have at least looked at the law prior to writing their article, they did vote for it after all. I suppose that the need for fact checking rests with others, and is not their responsibility.

One last, and yes, long winded point before I lay this piece to rest. The creative and ingenious turn of phrase put forth by these two righteous souls that I found so captivating was " the Law of Beer Inertia".

I Quote;

Second, not one article reported on studies showing the effect of beer taxes. The "law of beer inertia" holds that adults who buy beer tend to continue to buy beer. However, studies show that higher taxes do deter a key group of people from drinking: minors -- precisely the group that society wants to dissuade from consuming alcohol.

The minute I read that highlighted phrase I smelled a rat, and as it turns out my nose was right again. Seeking out " the Law of Beer inertia" on the net for many an hour, I found no such theory or law, in either the scientific or economic world. No Bother, it seems these two men believe that by giving their particular argument, as to alcohol consumption and how taxes influence that consumption, such a grand pseudo-intellectual sounding title, it gives credibility and validity to their ideas. Perhaps, in some circles it does. I am sure that those of like mind with Rep. Faircloth find this theory quite enlightening and empowering.

I however, am not of like mind nor of status. Coming from rather simple stock I am forced to deal in reality and in so doing must dismiss this "Law" for what it is, HOGWASH, or Kool Aid if you prefer. No underage drinker ever actually calculated the tax on beer, even if they happened to be so obtuse, they certainly did not make a final purchase decision based upon a tax. The audacity to even suggest that such is the case is ridiculous and disingenuous. If as they state " Studies show" this to be then I say the studies are as faulty as the Senator's and Representative's reasoning. All one has to do is think back to your own youth.

But I must not be too harsh for these Gentlemen have given me reason to pause, contemplate and devise mine own theory of " Beer Inertia".

Blighter's Law of Beer Inertia; The more beer one consumes, the greater the possibility of that person becoming inert.

All joking aside, this last bit about Beer inertia is important in that it is indicative as to how our Representatives think. The article expresses ire and angst against media bias, when that bias falls not to that particular groups favor. OK I'll say it Liberal. It spews forth misinformation at every turn of phrase and does nothing to really address the issues surrounding the new Tax law or Dirigo as a whole.

This OP Ed Piece, is simply Kool Aid, nothing more. It attempts to justify the actions of a tax and spend government with falsehoods and emotive arguments. The writers must honestly believe that the people of Maine are simply too lazy or besotted, with their sinful beer consumption, to see the God's honest truth of the matter.

Fortunately for us, Representative Faircloth and Senator Bartlett, will be sharing the tax burden with us. Kool Aid is also to be taxed under this law, as they are such grand purveyors of the drink I am sure the State's Coffer's will be filled to over brimming with their contributions in no time.

Slainte'
Blighter

Interesting Parade Float

This Float was part of a parade in Germany. My fried Rob sent me the photo and I immediately thought how poignant and amusing.

In any event I've posted the link to the source as well the comments on this display are absolutely enlightening. Source Hillary's backside

I very well could go into all of the symbolism and meaning of this but I shan't, in this case the old adage " A Picture is worth a thousand words" holds true.

Slainte'
Blighter

Senator George Mitchell pays tribute to Paisley

Senator George Mitchell pays tribute to Paisley

Ian Paisley must be given credit for finally delivering power sharing in Northern Ireland

Senator George Mitchell has said.

As the First Minister prepares to step down from the Northern Ireland Executive, the former Maine Senator paid tribute to the 82-year-old North Antrim MP who walked out 11 years ago from the negotiations which led to the Good Friday Agreement.He said: "I have to say it has been a pleasant surprise seeing what has happened."

Senator Mitchell, who chaired the Stormont talks, continued"Dr Paisley deserves credit for doing the right thing at the right time."

He was speaking ahead of a conference at Queen`s University in Belfast later this month about how peace in Northern Ireland was achieved.

Source

I found this small piece from UTV interesting for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is Senator Mitchell’s, seemingly faulty Memory.

Either George Mitchell has forgotten that it was Dr Paisley who coined the phrase “ Never, never, never” or he is simply playing lip service to his audience. Maybe he feels that the “Good Doctor” really did help in bringing about the peace process, but I for one am unconvinced.

Senator Mitchell also gave Hillary Clinton a pass on her claim that she had “helped to bring Peace to Northern Ireland.” It seems the Senator believes that anyone who says they did something to that effect , though the evidence points to the contrary, is deserving of the accolades and credit that the Nobel peace prize laureates John Hume and David Trimble received for their work on this monumental accord.

This revisionist viewpoint on, what I feel, is a very great event in the history of Northern Ireland, is not only shameful, as it cheapens the hard work of those who actually took part, but also shows a lack of character, in that through revisionism, the Senator is pandering to persons of power, or perceived power. I have long respected Senator Mitchell; I have held him in high regard for a man of principle, intellect and determination. Thus my anger and ire over this latest of statements.

Ian Paisley walked out of the assembly in protest when Sinn Fein was allowed in on the talks after the IRA cease fire. Then his Democratic Unionist Party began a campaign of vilification against the UUP that was then David Trimble’s party. It was not pretty to say the least. Though Ian Paisley and the DUP finally agreed to sit down and talk with Republicans, it was not during the GFA talks, but 11 years later when the good doctor was magnanimously offered the First Minister’s seat in the new Assembly.

Hillary Clinton did even less.

According to Lord Trimble formerly David Trimble.

Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played.”
"I don't know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around," he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely "the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets" during elections. "She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don't want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player.

She did have tea with some Women’s groups that were already sitting down to meet, and she made a grand speech at Musgrave Park in Belfast while planting a Tree. The park was supposed to be a “Peace park“(I’m still laughing about that) where Children of both Nationalist and Unionist families could play together. The park is still empty, almost as empty as her rhetoric.

So, Senator Mitchell is giving these two individuals undue credit for their roles in the Peace process, one an avowed wrecker, the other a tea drinking opportunist. Whatever his motivation, intentional or not, he is cheapening and weakening the standing of those fine people who actually did work hard to accomplish the accord. Maybe if I call him and tell him about my Friend in Belfast he will afford me accolades in his next speech. Wouldn’t that be grand?

Slainte’
Blighter