Children are not removed just because of drugs By Gaia - 02/23/2011 - 11:23 pm If the only allegation is that the

parent is using drugs, children are NOT removed. You have to prove abuse or neglect in order to remove children. Just testing positive on a drug test is not proof of abuse or neglect. You are making a leap in logic that is not supported under NH law.
Log in

Someone who uses some pot passed to them by a friend, then flunks a drug test, is not necessarily abusing to vote or neglecting their children. But under the proposed law, he/she would lose their food stamps. Then their 3 kids WILL go hungry, and there's no abuse or neglect involved. view in original post The abolition was in name only By Gaia - 02/22/2011 - 2:56 pm AFDC was replaced by TANF - Temporary Aid to Needy Families. Emphasis on Temporary, which was the real reform here. view in original post check again By Gaia - 02/22/2011 - 1:51 pm 1. He never said he works for Penacook FD. 2. Your 4 year old is not working an accident scene. The adults who are working the scene should be able to read the word "Photographer." 3. Victims/Family have no right to screen the publication of photos/stories about things that happen in public settings such as on a highway. Makes no difference if someone died or not. Freedom of the Press. 4. As long as a photographer stays behind the crime scene tape, they can take pictures at murder scenes. Same freedom of the press applies. Log in
to vote Log in to vote

That said, he might have had less trouble if his helmet said "Press" rather than "Photographer." That would make it clear that he was not an employee of the FD taking pictures. (though I don't know why a FD photographer would have "Photographer" on their helmet. They'd just take the pictures.) view in original post One big difference here By Gaia - 02/22/2011 - 1:36 pm

The amount of trash we produce is almost completely under our own control. We don't have such control over whether we need fire or police services. We can decide whether to call 911, but we can't decide that today there will be no lightening strikes or home invasions. Log in
to vote

view in original post

Here's my prediction By Gaia - 02/21/2011 - 7:55 pm If this legislation passes, the state will, at first, give the non-unionized employees the same pay and benefits as the unionized, only because it will save the state money in the short run. They won't have to invest in changes to the computer systems that are already set up to deal with paying everyone the same way. Then... When the economy goes further south (or goes south again in the future), the state will decide that the non-unionized employees will not be getting their scheduled step increases this year. At the same time they will invest in system changes that will allow them to further limit non-union employees' wages and benefits. Log in
to vote

The next year, the non-union folks will be paying additional amounts toward their health insurance. And they'll be taking a few furlough days a year.... etc. etc. The non-union employees will be low-hanging fruit. Perversely, it may end up increasing union enrollment over time. view in original post actually... a lot of people do want special rights By Gaia - 02/20/2011 - 4:08 pm They want the right of marriage to be reserved for them and people who believe the same way they do. And they want the right of religious expression to belong to them and those who believe the same way they do. Any suggestion that there are different religious beliefs is treated as an attack. It's downright mind-boggling how reality gets warped for some folks. Disagreement is not the same thing as disrespect.

I am reminded of an adolescent wailing "you're not listening to me!" when they don't get their own way. 4 Yes, we are listening to you. We just don't agree with you. And "listening" is not the same thing as "giving in." view in original post and i would say... By Gaia - 02/20/2011 - 3:49 pm Stop trying to force everyone to accept your anti-gay religion and beliefs. If you claim to be Christian, it's hypocritical and discriminatory. Not to mention irrelevant. Time to face it. There is absolutely no cogent argument against same sex marriage that is not based on religious belief. The only thing that comes close is the claim that it's bad for the children. Even that argument is ridiculous. Unless you are prepared to propose a law banning gay people from having children, it's pointless to bring it up in the context of same sex marriage.

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

view in original post You're going to have to wait By Gaia - 02/18/2011 - 11:23 pm until she turns 18. Will she make it that long? view in original post Whoops By Gaia - 02/17/2011 - 9:21 am I didn't read every word, but I did notice they forgot to prohibit domestic unions between siblings and half siblings. view in original post After reading all commentary posts about the budget By Gaia - 02/16/2011 - 3:14 pm on all the various articles, I've come to the conclusion that doing just two things would end all of our budget woes for good: 1. Don't let anyone use a state car. 2. Don't let anyone come back to work after retiring. Come on people - these two measure, while they might save a little money, are just a drop in the bucket. Do you have any idea the scale of the savings that need to be realized? Cars and retirement are clearly just symbols to many people - you latch onto them as overwhelming evidence of irresponsibility, greed, corruption, ineptitude, and sloth rampant in state government. Can we try to be a little more realistic? view in original post polls By Gaia - 02/16/2011 - 3:07 pm 2003 poll - 8 years old, irrelevant. 2011 poll - national, not New Hampshire - irrelevant. view in original post What about my religious beliefs? By Gaia - 02/16/2011 - 3:05 pm Repealing the law could be said to trash my religious beliefs. My religion affirms the inherent worth and dignity of every person, including gays and lesbians, and supports their right to legal marriage. Log in
to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

Log in to vote

But that's beside the point. And so are your religious beliefs - they do not and should not enter into this

discussion. You need to come up with some other reason to deny gays the right to marry - something not based on religion - because in this country we cannot pass laws that are based soley on religious sentiment. view in original post Soo... By Gaia - 02/16/2011 - 2:55 pm They've only cut enough when agencies can no longer function and provide the services they need to provide? view in original post Please cite your source By Gaia - 02/16/2011 - 9:29 am Please show us the scientific poll results for New Hampshire (not California), that show New Hampshire citizens want the law repealed in this state. view in original post Once and for all By Gaia - 02/16/2011 - 9:26 am The state consitution does not allow the people to vote directly on this (or any other state-wide issue). The best we can do is state-wide polling to help our representatives see what the will of the people really is, and then pressure the reps to abide by it. By the way - that was me that clicked on your "like" button. It was a spastic mistake. view in original post A fair question By Gaia - 02/16/2011 - 9:13 am But why do you assume it went anywhere? Where is our budget right now? Have we spent all the money that was budgeted so far? view in original post A fair question By Gaia - 02/16/2011 - 9:13 am But why do you assume it went anywhere? Where is our budget right now? Have we spent all the money that was budgeted so far? view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

You're way too literal By Gaia - 02/15/2011 - 8:37 pm "Non essential" means that the state will not come to a standstill and no one will die if that office closes down for the day. Think clerical workers vs. direct-care staff at the state hospital or snow plow drivers. Another example - court personnel have several furlough days per year. It's not essential to have courts open 7 days a week all year long, but you couldn't actually eliminate them entirely. view in original post When I bought my home By Gaia - 02/15/2011 - 7:16 pm My taxes were $2200 a year, about 5% of my income at the time. Now, 20 years later, my taxes are $7200 a year, for the same house, - about 14% of my income. Was I supposed to be able to predict this? view in original post It'll still take personnel By Gaia - 02/15/2011 - 7:12 pm Setting the rate by the Federal rate doesn't eliminate the need for personnel to actually collect and process the taxes. There's absolutely no reason why an income tax can't be structured to replace a good portion of the property tax - particularly in NH where part of our property tax is a Statewide tax anyway. I agree that some people will get a "higher overall burden" of taxes - and that's exactly what needs to happen. We may be the 49th ranked state for "tax burden as a percent of income" (7.3%) but that ONLY because we don't have an income tax. Those who make a lot of money have a very low tax burden as percent of income. Those who make very little have a higher burden. This state is quite wealthy, so as a percent of total income, taxes are low. However, my personal state/local tax burden as a percent of income Log in is almost 14%, twice as high as the "average." I make about $55,000 a year and my house is worth about to vote $250,000. 0 I suspect the more wealthy of my neighbors, even if they have more valuable houses, have a state/local tax rate that's well under the average for the state. Someone who makes $300,000 a year and has a $500,000 house might pay $14,000 in taxes in my town, which is 4.6% of their income. This is fair and sustainable, how? view in original post [nods] yes, yes, that's exactly right By Gaia - 02/15/2011 - 6:46 pm Haven't had a snow day in 20 years. Don't expect to ever have one again. view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote

Log in to vote

In 25 years of state service By Gaia - 02/15/2011 - 12:52 pm I've never personally witnessed a job being created specifically for a retiree. I've only ever seen retirees rehired into their old positions, but at a part time rate with no benefits. I wonder how wide-spread your described scenario is. And what is the total fiscal impact? Log in
to vote

view in original post I truly don't understnd why this is a problem By Gaia - 02/15/2011 - 11:10 am A state employee is allowed to retire whenever they wish, within the retirement guidelines. They are also allowed to work at a part time job while collecting benefits - it's their right. (It's not like they're defrauding the system by collecting disability while working.) If that retiree went to work at Walmart, there would be no complaint.

At the same time, after an employee retires, the state has to decide whether to fill that position again. If they decide it can be done by a part-timer, why does it matter whether they hire someone fresh off the street or someone who has recently retired. They still have to fill the position. If they can save 1/2 the salary and all of the health benefits by making the position part time, rather than hiring a full time person and training them, wouldn't that be a good thing? Log in
to vote

Part-timers do not get the same benefits as full time employees. If they are "collecting benefits," it's the benefits they would have gotten as retirees anyway. Going back to work for the state part time doesn't add any benefits. What exactly are these employees doing that is somehow ethically or morally wrong, and how is it costing the state any more money than if they filled the position with someone different? view in original post Are you kidding? By Gaia - 02/15/2011 - 10:56 am

Do you want the highways plowed? Do you want someone to answer the phone when you call 911? Do you want someone to show up with equipment when your house is on fire or you're having a heart attack? Do you want a school for your children to be educated in or were you planning to do that yourself? Do you want a place for indigent mentally ill persons to go, or do you want them camping on your street? Do you want your child's day care center to be periodically inspected for health and safety? How about those restaurant kitchens? Do you want a Labor Board you can go to with your harrassment complaint? How Log in about a court system to process that complaint? to vote 11 Oh wait - were you being facetious? view in original post Why mention it? Simple... By Gaia - 02/15/2011 - 10:49 am It means they won't be filled and therefore there will be no money spent on them. If those positions were not being cut, we would have to budget for them. Now we Log in

to vote

don't. view in original post What? By Gaia - 02/15/2011 - 10:45 am Please point to the huge raises that state employees got any time in the last 4 years. view in original post How can we help you understand this? By Gaia - 02/14/2011 - 10:41 pm

Log in to vote

New Hampshire is not a referendum state. The people cannot have a direct vote on gay marriage. It's not the "Leftists" who prevent the people from voting directly, it's the state constitution. No one is stomping on your religious beliefs. You can believe whatever you want. Making gay marriage legal does not change that fact. You can still believe that homosexuality is wrong. My religion happens to believe that gay marriage is fine and dandy. If there were a law banning gay marriage, I would be unhappy, but I would not trot out my religious beliefs to defend my position and demand that the law be changed because my beliefs were "stomped on." Changes in law cannot be based solely on religious beliefs (either for or against). You have to come up with something else to defend your position, just as I do. view in original post A covenant goes two ways By Gaia - 02/14/2011 - 5:13 pm A covenant implies that both parties agree. If a covenant is extended to gentiles, those gentiles must agree to be part of the covenant. Otherwise, it's not a covenant. If I don't agree to that covenant, and prefer to covenant with a different god, or no god at all, I am not subject to those religious commandments. It's very simple. If I call myself a Jew or Christian, I must follow the 10 commandments. If I don't call myself a Jew or Christian, I don't have to. view in original post Not a problem for me By Gaia - 02/14/2011 - 4:43 pm I consider myself a liberal. I would support replacing the property tax with an income tax. If that results in eliminating some public sector jobs, I would still support it. I don't think you can simply "piggy back" on the federal system - it's not set up to collect taxes for the 3 states. You still need to have state employees in the Revenue Administration Department who are dealing with income taxes. Probably some of those who had been dealing with the property taxes would be
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

reorganized to now deal with income taxes. But, even if you could, and it meant that every public sector job that currently deals with property taxes were eliminated, it would still be worth it in the long run. And I say that as a unionized state employee. Maybe you haven't heard people "nattering" about eliminating the property tax because most of us who support an income tax do so with the understanding that it would replace the property tax, not just add to the tax burden. Replacement = elimination. Different words, same result. view in original post I will grant you that By Gaia - 02/14/2011 - 11:42 am You're right. view in original post Check your measurements By Gaia - 02/13/2011 - 6:30 pm A foot tall? Not quite. They're about 12 inches from tail tip to beak tip, but standing on a flat surface, are about 6 inches from foot to top of head. Just google an image of them and look for one that includes a human hand for comparison. The writer makes them sound like small raptors. view in original post Then they get a bill By Gaia - 02/13/2011 - 5:55 pm Just like if you don't have collision insurance on your car and you drive it into a tree. You pay the bill for towing and repairs out of your own pocket. view in original post Your own book By Gaia - 02/11/2011 - 10:08 am says the covenant was made with the house of Israel. Jeremiah and God are talking about the ancient Jews and their decendants. Why do you to presume to extend those laws to every person on the planet, whether of Jewish descent or not? Log in
to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

Log in to vote

view in original post Except that By Gaia - 02/10/2011 - 8:26 pm only the last 5 are about how to be a good citizen. The first 5 are about how to be a good Jew. They weren't meant to be forced upon non-Jews.

(I can honor non-judeochristian gods, carve images of them, say "Oh my God" because I have to work on 3 Sunday (or Saturday depending on your orientation), and ignore or mouth off at my parents (although I

Log in to vote

personally wouldn't want to), and still be a fine citizen. Or at least stay out of jail. Ok maybe I'll group the parental honoring thing in with the last 5 then I'll be a perfectly honorable citizen. See my point? I don't need to follow the specifically religous instructions in order to be a good citizen. view in original post And besides By Gaia - 02/10/2011 - 2:29 pm If you are to take the Bible at face value and believe that God actually carved out those commandments himself... These are still instructions to the Jews. They should not be interpreted as instructions to the whole world. Commandment 1: "I am the Lord THY god.... Thou shalt have no other gods before me. In other words all you Jews that I just led out of Egypt, there are other gods out there - the Egyptian, Babylonian, Roman and Greek, to name a few, but it's to ME that you owe your allegiance." His audience was Jewish. He was not talking to the Egyptians, Babylonians, Romans or Greeks. And he didnt say that the people who received the commandments should go and impose them upon other peoples, did he? Nope. This is Jewish law. Since we are a country of mixed religions, we cannot pass laws that are based solely on the sentiments of one religion, even if its the dominant religion. view in original post Wrong order By Gaia - 02/10/2011 - 2:02 pm Your commandment list is in a different order from mine. : ) I think he's talking about adultery and coveting. I'm still sure that his explanation would be a stretch. view in original post Excellent point By Gaia - 02/10/2011 - 10:03 am I've been saying for years that anti-gay marriage laws do nothing to prevent gays from raising children. You've put it even more succinctly. The "it's bad for children" argument seems to be only a cover for the "it's religiously immoral and it grosses me out" argument. The more we can discredit the "its bad for children" argument, the less they are left Log in with. to vote 4 I only pray that reason will prevail and the various legislatures around the country will, in the end, understand that the only real argument against gay marriage is a religious one - and that in this country we cannot pass laws based only on religious sentiment.
Log in to vote Log in to vote

view in original post The last five commandments By Gaia - 02/10/2011 - 9:38 am are instructions for how to be a good citizen. I have no problem with them. In fact, you will find some version or another of all of these instructions in just about every religion around the world. Neither the ancient Jews nor their descendents the Christians have a monopoly on eithics and prindiples of good behavior. The first 5 commandments are all about how to be a good Jew. I'm not a Jew. Nor Log in is my religion a descendant of Judaism. In this religiously free country I am not to vote required to follow those 5 rules, nor any other religious rule in the Bible, including 11 prohibitions against homosexual feels or acts. view in original post And yet... By Gaia - 02/04/2011 - 7:56 pm Neither you nor DZ has answered my question about why it's fair for others to benefit, free, from the union dues I pay? view in original post I can quit whenever I want By Gaia - 02/04/2011 - 1:07 pm But you are correct that I would have to continue to pay "fair share," a small percentage of the regular union dues. But why shouldn't I? Why should I get most of the benefits of joining a union without actually paying for them? Can you explain to me why it is fair for someone to get the benefits of a union-negotiated contract (paid for by union members) without actually paying for those benefits?
Log in to vote

Log in to vote

5 That sounds an awful lot like the "wealth distribution" and so-called "socialism" that so many conservatives are up in arms about. I pay for something out of my hard-earned pay-check, and others who choose not to contribute still get the benefits. My benefits. For free. From my paycheck. view in original post Excuse me? By Gaia - 02/04/2011 - 12:59 pm Everyone who lives within a legislator's district is a constituent. A legislator is obligated to listen to all voices, not just the ones that agree with him/her. "Taking out" people who don't agree with you sounds pretty "thug like" to me. Pot - meet kettle. view in original post

Log in to vote

Just remember the alternative By Gaia - 02/04/2011 - 12:57 pm For the State of NH, with it's 10,000 employees, the State would need to accomodate the fact that every worker will be negotiating his/her own salary and benefits individually. Computer systems will need to be changed in order to support those individual pay and benefit packages (as compared to a standardized pay scale and benefits). Each department or division would probably need to hire new staff to handle the negotiating and administering of 10,000 different packages. Would the benefits of dismanteling the union outweigh the costs? I also want to point out that the reason businesses are attracted to "right to work" states is that they know Log in to vote their personnel costs will be lower. Workers in those states make less, and have little ability to change that 4 situation because the power of the unions has been so diminished. So if your goal is to create a whole bunch of minimum wage jobs, and drag down the wages of every other company to the lowest common denominator, please support "Right to Work." Or as some would say "Right to work for Less." view in original post Because By Gaia - 02/04/2011 - 12:17 pm Union members already know that no one can be forced to join a union already - it's federal law. This "provision" of the proposed law is redundant, and is being waved around as some new protection they are offering workers. It's not. The problem is with the "fair share" provisions. "Right to Work" would deny the ability of unions to collect the cost of collective bargaining from non-members. If everyone could get the benefits of the collective bargaining agreement for free, it considerably lowers the incentive to join a union. If very few people join the union, the union will not have the funds it needs to operate, and to get that collective bargaining agreement. Then no one benefits.
Log in It seems to me that if the legislature wants to free workers from the burden of paying for collective to vote bargaining, they should also free those workers from the benefits of an employee contract. If they don't 6 join the union, they should not be subject to the union contract. However, I'm not sure the state is prepared to negotiate individually with 10,000 employees AND manage the results of those individual negotiations for pay and benefits.

A collective bargaining agreement is actually a money-saver for the state as it standardizes the pay and benefits management for all employees. view in original post I will add, however, By Gaia - 02/03/2011 - 3:28 pm that when a gay or lesbian couple reproduces, it's most likely on purpose, since it would require some kind of purposeful intervention. Or heterosexual adultery. In which case it's not the fault of homosexuality. view in original post
Log in to vote

Also By Gaia - 02/02/2011 - 9:20 am The Bible is completely silent on the subject of lesbians. Does that mean lesbian sex is not a sin? view in original post Don't be silly By Gaia - 02/02/2011 - 9:16 am Of course they can - they've been doing it for millennia. Where there's a womb, there's a way. view in original post It's all anectodal By Gaia - 02/01/2011 - 3:10 pm Please show me the numbers - exactly how much (what percent) of retirement payouts was due to employees getting"extra" due to overtime and leave payouts? How much did it inflate the "normal" pensions? view in original post Agreed. By Gaia - 01/30/2011 - 11:20 pm Understanding the perpetrator a little better doesn't mean that the Monitor or anyone else is excusing his behavior. You can have compassion for someone without "letting them off the hook." view in original post 1990? By Gaia - 01/28/2011 - 9:06 am Is that right? I was thinking the mall was older than that - more like 1980 ish. view in original post not the same thing By Gaia - 01/27/2011 - 1:57 pm Amendments and pages are not the same thing. Unless there's one page per idea. Apples and oranges. The point is "All those Republican Ideas" were not just "brushed aside." Plenty of Log in them made it into the to vote 2 view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

10

Log in to vote

off topic By Gaia - 01/27/2011 - 1:42 pm The programs mentioned in the article are not "Obama Care" and they are not provided or controlled by the government. view in original post accidental double-post By Gaia - 01/27/2011 - 9:46 am Too impatient with the "submit" button. view in original post off base By Gaia - 01/27/2011 - 9:45 am I see nowhere in this article any evidence of socialism. The government is neither supplying or controlling the health care provided. I see nowhere that you would not be able to choose your own doctor, even if every doctor in the country switched to a different way of delivering care and a different billing method. Don't you think that the current method of deliving and paying for medical care was once an "experiment?" Just because it's been this way for a long time does not mean it's the best way to do things. If it improves people's health and saves money, why label it "kooky" and dismiss it? view in original post I for one appreciate the article By Gaia - 01/26/2011 - 3:40 pm Yes, he committed a criminal act. Yes, he traumatized an 82 year old man. However, I am glad to read something about his background. The info here just validates what I've always said - these matters are never black and white. That said, I'm in no way excusing his behavior. Maybe there IS a reason to "feel sorry" for the perpetrator. You can have compassion without letting someone off the hook. He's still the perpetrator, and he still Log in traumatized his victim. But now I see more of his humanity. I, for one, am capable of holding both of these things in my conciousness the same time. He's a human who made a big mistake that, if he had survived, he would need to be held responsible for. view in original post perhaps the answer is... By Gaia - 01/26/2011 - 3:20 pm If the landlord is leaning toward creating accessibility, perhaps the answer is some kind of automated lift, 2
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

to vote

rather than a ramp? view in original post Just look around you By Gaia - 01/25/2011 - 5:37 pm As much as we'd like to say that we can all be responsible for managing our own health, one glance around at our general population should convince you that it's not so simple. Obesity, smoking, over use of alcohol, lack of exercise... they're all self evident.

Log in to vote

I'm curious - I understand you're a dentist. Doesn't your office spend a great deal of its time keeping your patients' mouths healthy? Wouldn't you say that regular preventive care, including regular cleanings is the Log in to vote best way to avoid disease, pain, and more expensive procedures down the road? Why shouldn't this model 1 be used by other kinds of medical professionals? view in original post Why do you call it socialized medicine? By Gaia - 01/25/2011 - 3:29 pm Could someone please explain to me why you think the above-described programs are "socialism?" Just because something is different doesn't automatically make it "socialism." I don't see anything in these programs that looks anything like "socialism" - They are about providing preventive care, being responsive to patients' needs, and communicating among the medical professionals in order to give comprehensive care. Socialism dictates how the care is paid for, not how it's provided. Methinks a few people in this discussion have simply chosen to wave red herrings and get people riled up about the imagined evils of a single-payer health system - which has nothing to do with this article. view in original post It's not the profits that are sucking up health care dollars By Gaia - 01/25/2011 - 3:13 pm It's all of the overhead for the insurance companies. They may not make much profit, but they sure take in and spend a lot of money just to pay for their very existence. view in original post The key By Gaia - 01/24/2011 - 11:01 am If we were to implement an income tax as a method for paying for state services in an equitable manner, the key would be to include a provision in the law that correspondingly reduces property taxes. You Log in could start with replacing the current state-wide property tax with an income tax. That would reduce to vote property taxes right off the bat, rather than simply adding another tax. 2
Log in to vote Log in to vote

view in original post I get it By Gaia - 01/22/2011 - 12:45 pm Thanks for the reminder that you are not using the transfer station for free. I think the angst is about the fact that we (the Hopkinton taxpayers) can't figure out if you are, in fact, paying your fair share. Without knowing how much trash comes from Webster residents, and how much you are paying to dispose of that trash, we don't know if your "fair use" fees are truly equitable. NB Hopkinton Selectboard - Perhaps the Town of Hopkinton could provide us with some facts and figures that will put taxpayer's minds at ease. view in original post Not paid for by taxes By Gaia - 01/22/2011 - 12:40 pm Remember, one of the goals of pay-by-bag is to eliminate the trash disposal expense from our taxes. I believe (if I remember correctly), as of Jan 1, no taxes are going toward trash disposal - it's being paid for with the bags. I'm impressed that you can include all of your recycling in your green bag - I can't believe the amount of paper that comes into my house just through the mail box, Log in to vote say nothing of packaging from the grocery store. I recycle a kitchen-size trash can 1 stuffed full of paper about every 3 weeks, and I don't even get a daily newspaper. view in original post Janet Ward is right By Gaia - 01/22/2011 - 12:33 pm Without pay-by-bag, the inevitable increases in disposal fees will be unfairly controlled by those who choose not to recycle, at the expense of those who do. Personally, I'm coming out pretty much even with pay-by-bag, with little additional trouble. I'm not a rabid recycler, but I'm sure I'm above average. I fill 1 small green bag a week. I have Dockham pick up both my trash and my recycling. They reduced the cost of trash pickup, which offsets the cost of the green bags. The most significant problem I had to overcome was finding a substitute for clay kitty litter, which is too bulky and heavy for the green bags. I switched to a pinebased litter, which is light in weight, renewable, cheaper than clay, and easily Log in disposed of in the green bags. to vote 2 My only other problem has been the fact that I have to be careful lifting the bags from the bin and cinching them. I have a roll of duct tape handy to make repairs, as needed. I will be very interested to see the town's numbers - although I'm not sure how informative they will be, only 4-5 months into the program. Transitional behavior will need to be taken into account.
Log in to vote

view in original post How long do you think it will take? By Gaia - 01/20/2011 - 9:31 am I remember the conservative wailing two years ago, a month or so into the Obama administration, complaining that he hadn't fixed the mess yet. How long do we give the conservatives to clean up the mess that's still hanging on from the Bush administration? And how do we know whether it's the conservative plan that's making a difference, or if it's just Obama's efforts finally paying off? How many times have you struggled with a jar lid before handing it to your partner, who opens it easily? How many times did you claim credit for "getting it started?" view in original post Let's assume for the moment By Gaia - 01/19/2011 - 12:58 pm that you are correct - Health care is a priviledge. Can you explain to me how a capitalist country can truly flourish if a large percentage of its citizens cannot access health care, and therefore cannot remain healthy? What does that do for the workforce? You need a healthy workforce in order for the owners and investors to make the kind of money they'd like to make. Log in
to vote

Log in to vote

11

Wouldn't health care for all be an excellent investment in the workforce, and therefore in capitalism? view in original post Let me see if I've got this right... By Gaia - 01/19/2011 - 12:47 pm You appear to agree with his approach (you sound like you would have welcomed it 4 years ago), but you had to get in some kind of dig because he's a democrat? [ eye roll ] view in original post It's rather insulting, I think By Gaia - 01/18/2011 - 11:00 pm for you to presume how another person might feel if their loved one were killed. I've seen plenty of examples of victims' family members speaking against the death penalty - either because one more death won't bring back their loved one, or because they'd rather the person live with the guilt for 60 years rather than having a quick release. And what about the Amish community that offered forgiveness to the shooter who killed a bunch of elementary aged children? Please don't assume that everyone sees the death penalty the same way you do.

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

view in original post Those wait times seem reasonable to me By Gaia - 01/18/2011 - 10:52 pm I've waited comparable (or greater) times specialist care, surgery and imaging. And I have excellent insurance. Most referrals for these kinds of care are not emergencies. You seem to forget that Obama's original plan did open up the country for insurance competition including a reasonably priced "public option." The end result after all the Republican opposition and gnashing of teeth, is a far less effective law than the original proposal. view in original post Yes. Nosey. By Gaia - 01/18/2011 - 9:55 am If children had been put at risk, if something inappropriate was going on with students, or if your kids were being endangered in any way, you would have received notice of it. That's standard procedure in matters of child endangerment. So, if your children are safe, what other reason, besides pure nosiness, is there to open up the employee's files to the public?
Log in Log in to vote

I don't know the details of this particular case, any more than you do. I'm speaking in generalities - public to vote employees are entitled to the same employment protections as private employees. In the absence of any 0 danger to the public, there's no reason, other than nosiness, for the public to know why they are being terminated. view in original post And my point is... By Gaia - 01/18/2011 - 9:44 am The teacher's employer is the school district. The school district gets its operating capital from taxpayers. The Walmart worker's employer is the Walmart Corporation. The corporation gets its operating capital from customers and investers. I'm sorry, but you are not the teacher's employer, any more than you are the Walmart worker's employer. You do not have the responsibility hire, train, discipline, or terminate the teacher. Only the school district Log in has that right. to vote 1 Just because the employers get their operating capital from you (and your fellow taxpayers and Walmart shoppers) does not mean you are the employer or have the same rights as the employer. view in original post If the employee herself feels she's been wrongfully terminated.. By Gaia - 01/16/2011 - 2:59 pm She has recourse through the Labor Board and through the courts. Otherwise, I think we should presume that things are on the up and up. If they're not - if things are being covered up, the employee herself can

Log in

bring the facts out in the proper manner. The only other reason to release those details is to satisfy the curiosity of, frankly, nosey people who have no need to know. view in original post Public Employees are not public property By Gaia - 01/16/2011 - 2:54 pm Just because someone is paid by taxpayers, does not mean the taxpayers should be privy to everything about that employee's disciplinary or dismissal circumstances. State and federal laws protect the privacy of ALL employees, private and public, for a reason: human decency and respect for people's dignity.

to vote

By some people's reasoning, I have a right to know all the circumstances of the local Walmart employee's Log in to vote dismissal because I shop at Walmart and my purchases go to pay his salary. 1 view in original post My interpretation By Gaia - 01/14/2011 - 1:02 pm My interpretation of Common Grind's post is to point out how very wrong (wrong, wrong wrong) were all those people who were absolutely convinced that Mr. Smith shot an intruder in his own home, as a matter of self defense. They had made this presumption (and the presumption that Mr. Smith had his own weapon) before any details were released by the authorities, and were saying things like "Good shot, Mr. Smith." They may not be itching for a confrontation with an intruder, but they sure were itching for a philosphical confrontation with non-gun lovers and seemed almost gleeful that the Warner incident Log in would back up their beliefs. Now, as Common Grind points out, the silence in response to the truth is deafening. If it were summer, the sweet chirping of crickets would be equally loud. view in original post I'm saying By Gaia - 01/13/2011 - 11:03 am that giving states and/or towns free rein to give merit-based raises means the taxpayers have no control over that expense. If an employee does a great job, they would get a raise, even if the "merit based raise" pool has been expended for the year. In the alternative, I'm thinking it would be pretty difficult to provide those meritbased raises in an equitable (and adequate) manner if the budget simply provides a Log in pool of money for raises each year. Employee A deserves a 50 cent raise. Employee B deserves a 70 cent raise Employee C deserves a 25 cent raise. Oops, there's only money in the budget for $1 worth of raises - who's going to go without their raise? Or who's going to get short-changed, just because someone 0 5

to vote

to vote

else did a good job too? Longevity-based pay raises are the only way to control costs AND be fair to the employees. view in original post There's an extremely good reason for this By Gaia - 01/12/2011 - 9:31 am Pay scales and scheduled increments based on longevity are the ONLY way for towns and the state to properly estimate and control spending on personnel. When pay is based on longevity the state/town knows how much will be spent in any given year (and for several years down the road) on personnel costs. The alternative is a corporate, merit-based model. With that kind of model, the only way the state/town could estimate and control spending would be to allot a certain amount of money for merit-based raises, and let the various departments and agencies fight over it. That doesn't sound pretty (or especially fair.) I'm sure you wouldn't want to give the state/towns free rein to hand out merit-based raises at will. Therefore, we're back to option 1. view in original post why does everyone assume Mr. Smith did the shooting? By Gaia - 01/11/2011 - 4:26 pm Nothing in this article says Mr. Smith was the shooter. It could very well have been a suicide, considering it was a fatal head shot. view in original post psst... By Gaia - 01/10/2011 - 7:58 pm I think he was being facetious. view in original post Not so simple By Gaia - 01/10/2011 - 10:37 am In the 10-15 seconds that all this is happening, how do you know whether the other people with guns are in on the shooting? If they're not, then your approach works. If they are in on the shooting, then you've just made yourself (and people around you) a target by aiming a gun. The bottom line here is that these things happen extremely fast. People who are not trained in how to manage this kind of situation should not be pulling out guns and adding to the confusion and danger. view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Even it it's true By Gaia - 01/10/2011 - 9:45 am Even if it's true that Mr. Smith shot the man after a break-in, defending yourself with a gun in your own home is very different from taking guns out into the streets. In your own home you pretty much know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. Out in the street, (or in a grocery store parking lot), a bunch of armed amateurs are not going to help the situation. If 5 people pull out guns after the shooting starts, how do they know who to shoot? Shoot everyone with a gun? Shoot the others before they can shoot you? Talk about a nightmare! I come back to the fact that the Arizona shooter was taken down by two unarmed men who bravely tackled him, and no one got caught in any crossfire. I'm willing to bet those 18 people who got shot were all down in a matter of seconds - more guns would not have prevented their deaths/injuries and would probably have resulted in more injuries or deaths from "friendly fire." view in original post Um, no By Gaia - 01/09/2011 - 3:50 pm The congresswoman did NOT have any security. The only congress people who routinely have security are the very top escelon - the speaker and a couple others. I still can't see how having armed citizens could have helped the situation. I'm picturing myself with a gun in my belt. I see someone with a gun start shooting. I look up and see several other people suddenly pointing weapons. How do I know who the good guys are? Who am I supposed to shoot in order to bring Log in the situation under control? And how do I know that when I pull out my gun, one of the other armed to vote citizens isn't going to mistake me for a bad guy? 13 Nope - I don't think it would help. Wild West comes to mind. view in original post How did you miss them? By Gaia - 01/06/2011 - 12:08 pm They were at every hearing about the subject for the past 4 years. They were writing letters to the editor and responding to other's letters. They were writing to their representatives encouraging them to vote for the law. Perhaps the majority of people that you know are against same sex marriage. I have exactly the opposite experience. I belong to a church of about 300 members, and I would say that close to 100% were and still are in favor of same sex marriage. Most of my personal contacts outside of the church are in favor, or at least not opposed. Many people seem sure that if put to a referendum, same sex marriage would be defeated. I don't know - I 4 haven't seen any recent impartial polling. I do know that our perceptions of what "everyone" thinks are highly colored by the company we keep. Your personal "everybody" may not be the whole state's "everybody." view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote

tell me By Gaia - 01/05/2011 - 4:38 pm If you went to work for $15 an hour and fully paid benefits, then suddenly your employer told you you'd be getting $12 an hour, 3 fewer hours per week, and a 30% co-pay on your insurance, would you continue to come to work? Chances are, "no." You'd look for work elsewhere, and when you found it, you'd be gone. That's the very same thing as "No work because you can't get everything you want in pay and benefits." If you were promised a raise after 1 year of good performance, then your employer decided that you don't get the raise after all, even though you've performed well, would you just roll over and say nothing? Perhaps. If you really need the job and the economy is bad, you might stick around and say nothing. However, in a good economy you might decide to raise a stink. When public employee contract negotiations bog down and a contract expires (could be the fault of the employees or the employer), without an evergreen clause those promised raises will not happen. Doesn't the employee have a right to insist on that promised raise in return for continuing to show up for work? Doesn't he have the right to "raise a stink?" I know that the State Employee contract this year had a lot of concessions by employees - we were responsible in this time of economic downturn and did not ask for raises increases in benefits. I do agree that public employees should be sensitive to the economy when negotiating new contracts. With an evergreen clause, taxpayers can still deny new raises. They just can't renig on old promises. view in original post That's all well and good... By Gaia - 01/05/2011 - 4:08 pm but the existence or non-existence of an Evergreen Law has nothing to do with whether teachers are overpaid, underpaid, or paid just the right amount. Your true beef would appear to be with unions and union contracts. Eliminating the evergreen law will not eliminate unions and contracts. Log in
to vote Log in to vote

Ok, that nit has been thoroughly picked. I'll stop now. view in original post That's what Evergreen IS By Gaia - 01/05/2011 - 3:51 pm Evergreen is a guarantee that "they continue to follow the OLD contract." Without an evergreen law, it's up the the employer to decide whether to follow the old contract. view in original post Exactly where are these Death Panels? By Gaia - 01/05/2011 - 10:58 am Please prove to me that they exist.

Log in to vote

Log in

Yanno, not every change in the country requires an act of congress. Can you point to specific laws that Obama has broken? view in original post And? By Gaia - 01/05/2011 - 10:46 am Your rant about pay has what to do with the Evergreen law? view in original post You're way off track here By Gaia - 01/05/2011 - 10:43 am "Evergreen" has nothing to do with whether public employees are doing their jobs properly. "Work or be fired" is a totally separate issue. When a public employee contract ends, it ends for everyone - the hardworking majority as well as the occasional slacker. When that contract ends, everything that was negotiated in that contract also, technically, ends - wages, insurance, vacation accrual and use. Without evergreen, the employer can do whatever they want with the employees - pay employees whatever they want, take away negotiated benefits. Where does that leave the hardworking employees? It gives them a choice continue to work within the new framework, or go get another job. If those most valuable employees leave (becasue they ARE hardworking and deserve to be well paid), it will leave the less valuable employees to take up the slack. If they are unable to take up the slack, public services will necessarily deteriorate, and you guys will be the first to complain about it. Log in
to vote Log in to vote

to vote

Everyone keeps saying that if public employees are unhappy with their pay and 2 benefits they should just leave and "try the public sector." The opposite is also true - if citizens are reasonably happy with the services they are getting, they should continue to pay public employees what they are worth. Expecting to get high quality services for mediocre compensation totally unrealistic. In the end, Evergreen protects citizens by ensuring continuity of high quality services. Eliminating it will not suddenly make the slackers start performing, but you do risk losing the highly qualified workers. view in original post No, she doesn't. By Gaia - 01/01/2011 - 10:56 pm She points out what people are supporting if they choose to buy fur. She is clearly against the fur trade, but not once does she tell readers not to buy fur. It's not semantics (which is the study of the meaning of words) - it's your interpretation. Not one of these words or phrases actually means "don't buy fur." I chose not to take a position about the content of the letter. My only purpose was to defend someone who

Log in to vote

was being unfairly accused of an offense she did not commit. However, since you've asked, I agree with what she says. view in original post Americans were living large... By Gaia - 12/29/2010 - 12:26 pm Is it possible they were living too large? Beyond their means? I'm curious - what do you think the congress should have done differently during the past 4 years? What could the congress hve done that would have prevented the catastophes you list? view in original post Barbara didn't write the headline By Gaia - 12/29/2010 - 11:33 am Just a gentle reminder - Barbara did not tell anyone "Don't buy fur." A Monitor editor wrote that headline. Without the headline, the letter is purely informational, not directive. view in original post [snort] By Gaia - 12/14/2010 - 7:19 pm :) view in original post Retracted. By Gaia - 12/14/2010 - 1:12 pm I wish there were a delete function for when we think better of a hasty response. view in original post Of course you are free to worship as you wish. By Gaia - 12/14/2010 - 11:20 am Of course you are free to worship as you wish. That's one of the many wonderful things about living in this country. The only point that the pagans, heathens, and other non-Christians are trying to make is that we also are free to worship as we wish. Those who declare that there is a "war on Christmas/Christians" appear to be using a double standard: Christians have the right to celebrate as they wish in December, but no one else has that right. Any nonChristian faith expression is seen as an "attack," and that claim is simply baeless. In this country it does not need to be one or the other. It does not need to be Christian or non-Christian.
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

Religions can peacefully co-exist if only their followers will accept that everyone is free to worship as they wish. Religious freedom is not just for Christians. BTW, I understand that the vast majority of Christians in this country are willing to co-exist with other religions. It's the vocal minority that are giving their brothers and sisters in faith a combative and frankly silly reputation when it comes to the December holidays. view in original post I truly don't understand you By Gaia - 12/13/2010 - 6:24 pm You say "if you have a problem with Christians celebrating their holiday...." but NO ONE here has said they have a problem with Christians celebrating Christmas. You truly are making up a problem where none exists - you are creating this "attack" in your own mind, and the rest of us are left scratching our heads wondering why you're so out of sorts. view in original post Your point is apparently too simple for me to grasp. By Gaia - 12/13/2010 - 4:30 pm Exactly who do you think should be opposing the non-Christian holidays? Why must I, as a Pagan, be bothered by other people's religious celebrations? If you're Christian and want to celebrate Christmas, what concern is it of mine? Why must I oppose it? Are you saying I'm not truly Pagan unless I jump up and down and make a stink about Christmas? Really? For the last time - there is no assault on Christmas. Go ahead and celebrate it. Just kindly remember that not everyone celebrates Christmas, nor are they required to do so in this country. Please don't tell me I'm attacking you just because I don't join in your celebration, and I wish you a happy holiday rather than a Merry Christmas. I'm thinking a true assault would look much different - burning up your public christmas display, insisting 4 that all businesses stay open on Christmas for my convenience, throwing Christmas cookies back at you when offered to me, vocally boycotting the office Christmas party while announcing what a stupid holiday it is, and punching you in the face when you wish me Merry Christmas. I had a hard time coming up with that list... I really can't imagine doing any of those things. Merry Christmas.... And a peaceful season of returning light and hope to all. view in original post I see no damning of Christians here. By Gaia - 12/13/2010 - 1:34 pm For all we can tell, the writer is a Christian himself, although admittedly, I don't think that's the case.
Log in Log in to vote

Log in to vote

The writer is simply asking people to educate themselves before they complain about "attacks" that don't to vote

really exist, and to respect the fact that there are other traditions that come into play this time of year. I would say that your comment is yet another of the fabrications the writer is referencing. There's no attack here, yet you seem determined to be victimized by the letter. Furthermore, how can you possibly draw the conclusion that the writer is "against the higher power?" I can think of at least 4 other equally plausible situations: 1. He's Jewish. 2. He's Muslim. 3. He practices a non-Abrahamic faith such as Buddhism, Hinduism, an indiginous spirituality, or Paganism. None of these religions are "against the higher power." They simply see the higher power differently than the Abrahamic faiths (and most DO believe in a higher power!) 4. He's an atheist. Atheists are not "against a higher power." You can't be "against" something you don't believe in. (Put it this way, are you "against" the Greek God Zeus? No, you simply don't believe in him.) .... And a Merry Christmas to you too. Even though I don't celebrate it, I hope you have a nice one. Care to wish me a Happy Solstice? view in original post As a non-Christian, here's my strategy: By Gaia - 12/13/2010 - 1:13 pm If I know what holiday the other person celebrates, I wish them a specific happy/merry holiday, ie. Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, or Good Yule. If the person wishes me a Merry Christmas, I assume they celebrate Christmas, so I smile, and say "Thank you, same to you." If I don't know what they celebrate, and it's not the right time to ask, I simply offer "Happy Holidays."

Even though I don't celebrate Christmas, I refuse to be offended by someone who offers me the blessing of a "merry" season. I also think it would be rude if I pointedly foisted my own holiday on everyone else, Log in to vote knowing that they don't celebrate it. So I don't. 4 Occasionally, I get flack from someone who objects to "Happy Holidays," (So far, it's always been Christians). When I do, I smile and gently say "Christmas is not my holiday. I celebrate the Solstice. However, since I now know that you celebrate Christmas, I hope you have a wonderful one. Merry Christmas." view in original post Not everyone in Hopkinton is rich By Gaia - 12/10/2010 - 11:43 am You seem to think that everyone who lives in Hopkinton is wealthy, and that most of them are liberal, to boot. I happen to know that Mr. Brookfield is a retired public school teacher. I doubt he got rich on a teacher's salary.
Log in

Sailmaker, you need to stop painting with such a broad brush. There are residents to vote of all incomes and political persuasions in Hopkinton and Contoocook and it's 3 insulting to talk about all of them as if they all popped from the same mold.

view in original post but By Gaia - 12/08/2010 - 9:03 am "Bad" parents might also want to know that their daughter is getting an abortion and wouldn't want the government telling them they don't have right to know... view in original post rights & responsibilities - they go together By Gaia - 12/07/2010 - 2:39 pm Would it be too simplistic to suggest that if a minor becomes pregnant because a parent has not adequately exercised their responsibility for educating, modeling responsible behavior, protecting from harm, and/or building trust, then the parents should lose the right to be informed about any resulting abortion? Having unprotected sex or being raped and not being able to trust your parents enough to tell them, is Log in fundamentally different from developing a headache at school and requiring aspirin. The need for aspirin, to vote or a desire for pierced ears is not indicative of the relationship between the child and her parents. 3 view in original post Pardon? By Gaia - 12/03/2010 - 7:21 pm Exactly what do you mean by "full pension?" Yes a state employee (not a police or fire fighter) could retire at 52, but even with 32 years of service (assuming they started working for the state at age 20, and had no breaks in service), their pension would be about 50% of their average final compensation, and would include a permanent reduction of 3% for retiring before the age of 60. http://nhrs.org/members/ServiceRetirement.aspx view in original post Check again By Gaia - 12/03/2010 - 6:46 pm Palin's own Facebook page, which started the whole ridiculous scare campaign. Look at the second paragraph. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434 And Politifact called it the "Lie of the Year." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-l... BTW, exactly who are you calling a little wormy marxist? view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

Just stop it By Gaia - 12/03/2010 - 11:04 am There are, and there will be, no "Death Panels" under Health Care Reform. It's Palin spew, and it has no basis in reality. Why do people continue to believe and/or spread this crap? view in original post There's another level By Gaia - 12/02/2010 - 2:03 pm I consider myself a liberal. Even so, I will say that I am on the fence about the death penalty. I am one of those people who has a very basic sense of eye-for-an-eye justice. It may be related to my chosen religion (paganism), which strongly emphasises personal responsibility for our actions. ("Do the crime, do the time. No excuses. Make it right.") So, despite my liberalism, I'm not particularly offended by the thought of a murderer dying at the hands of the state. I get nervous, however, when we give the death penalty to someone who was convicted on circumstantial evidence and still maintains their innocence.. We know for certain that there are numerous people who were on death row until DNA evidence exhonerated them. Even DNA evidence is usually circumstantial it only proves a person was in the vicinity or touched, or had sex with the victim before or after the death. In most cases, it doesn't prove the person killed the victim. DNA is used to rule people out, not to rule Log in them in as perpetrators. Unless the case against the alleged killer was truly airtight, or he/she confessed, I am made nervous by the possibility of killing an innocent person. And even if the case seems airtight, how will we ever know whether the alleged murderer was elaborately framed? That's my objection to the dealth penalty, based on the fact that prosecutors, witnesses, judges and jury members are all fallible humans, and mistakes can be made. If the state is going to kill people, I want to make darn sure that person is truly guilty. view in original post Are you kidding? By Gaia - 11/23/2010 - 10:13 am Just what kind of democracy would this be if a proposed law, once defeated, could never be introduced again? Times change, people's opinions change, circumstances and technology change. Laws have to keep up. Something that doesn't make much sense today may very well make sense 5 years from now, and legislators must have the right to bring it up again. And again, if they wish. If it has no merit, it will get voted down again, and again. Nothing lost but time. However, when it's time has come, the legislation can Log in to vote be voted in, and the country made better for it. 1 (Imagine if the the first civil rights legislations, voted down, had been the last!) view in original post 3
Log in to vote

to vote

e-readers are not free! By Gaia - 11/19/2010 - 3:27 pm You have to pay for the device, then you pay for each book you download, unless the book is over 100 years old and has been released in an electronic version. E-readers might reduce traffic to bricks & mortar bookstores, but wouldn't explain the downturn in library Log in use. E-readers and Libraries do not meet the same needs. to vote 0 view in original post reminder By Gaia - 11/13/2010 - 9:17 pm The purpose of the program is to remove the transfer station and all costs of trash disposal from the town budget. The goal is to STOP using taxes to pay for trash. view in original post forgive me By Gaia - 11/10/2010 - 4:21 pm I've encountered way too many nits this week, and this one put me over the edge into picking mode. view in original post little editing problem there... By Gaia - 11/10/2010 - 4:20 pm Just why is it important to know that Kathy LaChance's children played with these children? view in original post Um By Gaia - 11/05/2010 - 5:35 pm Freedom of speech, press, worship, arms....are apparently not really rights by your definition. These "rights" most certainly are guaranteed by the government, through the consitution, and can be taken away by consitutional ammendment. It looks like you were attempting show a difference between apples and oranges, and only proved that they're both apples. view in original post because... By Gaia - 11/05/2010 - 5:31 pm same sex marriage has harmed you, your family, your friends, and the state as a whole, how?
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

view in original post Not quite By Gaia - 10/23/2010 - 10:25 pm Projects and grants are not the same as agencies. One agency can develop many projects and grants. view in original post Methinks there's plenty of By Gaia - 10/22/2010 - 2:30 pm Methinks there's plenty of that on both sides of the aisle. Sadly. view in original post Except for the fact that the By Gaia - 10/22/2010 - 8:54 am Except for the fact that the thing labled "Obamacare" is NOT what the president asked for at the beginning. Yes, he did sign it into law, but the end result was not what he'd been hoping for. He had a choice - start with this and hope that it could be improved along the way, or veto it and send it back for another 2 years of debate. view in original post Neither can anyone prove that By Gaia - 10/21/2010 - 4:34 pm Neither can anyone prove that we would have been just fine without the stimulus. Do you seriously think the economy would be "all better" by now if there had been no stimulus? view in original post seriously? By Gaia - 10/21/2010 - 4:30 pm She knows, as well as everyone else, that there's no reference to health insurance in the Constitution. Nor is there any reference to mandatory auto insurance, or ownership of automatic weapons, or abortion, or anything else that was developed in the 200+ years since the Consitution was written. It was not a Log in dismissal, it was understandable incredulity. view in original post Oh, ok - thanks By Gaia - 10/20/2010 - 4:17 pm Your first post said: "Residents may possess up to one ounce of marijuana for their own personal use in their home." Your second one said something different - Shall I assume your second post is the accurate one?
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

Log in to vote

to vote

view in original post confused By Gaia - 10/19/2010 - 11:31 pm This is a serious question: How can you grow 24 plants (or even 1 plant) yet keep the amount you posess under 1 ounce? Unless you harvest and dry them when they're really small? But then you wouldn't be able to get any seeds from them.... Help me understand? Log in
to vote

view in original post Then how do you explain this By Gaia - 10/18/2010 - 6:19 pm If the Courts kowtow to DCYF, how do you explain the fact that the court sent this particular child home? I assure you there are plenty of times that the court does not follow the Division's recommendations.

Yes, I know you had a difficult time with DCYF, who presumably became involved with your child and grandchild. I'm sorry about that. But to continue to insist that your experience is replicated in every single Log in other DCYF case is frankly ridiculous. You should also not speak for others. Saying "we ALL know" is to vote not only untrue, it damages your credibility. 3 view in original post Healthcare vs. Insurance By Gaia - 10/18/2010 - 2:31 pm I wish people would properly distinguish between "Government Health Care" and "Government Insurance." Healthcare and insurance are two different things. From my understanding, Medicare and Medicaid are health insurance, and the only government healthcare we have is the VA system, where the staff work for the federal government. "Obamacare" does not include any government-supplied healthcare. It's influence is over health Log in insurance - which is now controlled by corporations. Make no mistake, it's controlled - and through it, to vote your health care is controlled - by corporations with a profit motive and a responsibility to shareholders. 6 I honestly don't know which I prefer - but we should at least get our terms straight so we can be arguing about the same thing. view in original post Confidentiality By Gaia - 10/18/2010 - 2:14 pm DCYF did not make the law, but is bound to follow it. If you dislike the law, take it up with the legislature, but don't criticize DCYF for following it. Similarly, "gag orders" come from the Court, not from DCYF, which has not authority to "gag" anyone. view in original post
Log in to vote

Mistake? By Gaia - 10/16/2010 - 3:15 pm CPS brought a petition to the Court. The Court sent the kid home. Why is this CPS's misake? view in original post You can't legally see the affidavit By Gaia - 10/16/2010 - 12:10 am You shouldn't even have been able to see the redacted copy. The father committed a misdemeanor by releasing it. view in original post You need to catch up, and stop spreading unsubstantiated rumors By Gaia - 10/15/2010 - 11:50 pm pclemsc - The baby was examined by 2 independent physicians, including a sexual abuse expert. There were NO signs of sexual abuse. There was also no corroboration of the father's claim that the baby was "unresponsive" during the visit. Perhaps now that the baby is home, this inexperienced father will learn the difference between "deeply asleep" and "unconscious." My daughter had pseudo-menses at the age of 1 week. (look it up if you don't know what it is). I admit it can be disconcerting when you witness it without knowing what it is. However, people need to let this go the child was not sexually abused. Similarly, the Sheriff's department has not reported to any news outlet that they "took custody" from DCYF. I don't believe that happened. Most likely, they simply provided transportation to the hospital, in order to calm down two angry parents. (I will be clear - this is my assumption, I'm not pretending to state facts here.) The visit took place at the County administration building, in their visitation center. There were no hospital staff there. (why would there be?) That's just another example of the outrageous elaboration of facts that has been the norm for this story. Take the few known facts, then pile on speculation - then the next person repeats it like it's fact, and adds their own speculation. Not useful to anyone, except conspiracy theorists. Finally - the "gag order" was issued by a Judge, not by DCYF. Even if DCYF did want to "shut up" the father, it's the court that makes that order. To assume that the courts are in the pocket of DCYF and "do whatever DCYF tells them" is a slap in the face to the entire judiciary. And (this is important) that theory has been proven wrong in this case - Clearly the Court ordered something different from what was being requested by DCYF. The baby went home. What more proof do you want that the court is independent? view in original post Mistake? By Gaia - 10/15/2010 - 3:14 pm CPS brought a petition to the Court. The Court sent the kids home. Why is this CPS's misake?
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

view in original post I wouldn't make any assumptions if I were you By Gaia - 10/15/2010 - 2:52 pm The child going home does not automatically exhonerate the parents. In all liklihood, the child is still in the custody of the state, and is at home with supervision. Many people seem to think DCYF matters are black and white - either the parents are "guilty" and their kids are taken away forever, or the parents are "innocent" of anything, and the children get returned. There's plenty of middle ground - the parents can be have substantiated findings of abuse and/or neglect, and still have their kids at home, if the court feels that can be done safely. view in original post Simple By Gaia - 10/15/2010 - 2:43 pm It's against the law in NH to discuss child abuse and neglect cases with anyone who is not a party to the case. They are not criminal cases, and they are not public information. Was it really a "gag order," or did the court simply remind Mr. Irish of the law? view in original post How do you know that? By Gaia - 10/15/2010 - 12:34 pm How can you possibly know that the "accusations have been dropped." Whatever went on in that courtroom is confidential. Unless you see a copy of the court order, you cannot know. You cannot make an assumption that because the child went home, everything's been dropped, and that the parents have been vindicated. It is perfectly possible that the case is still open and the child has been placed at home with supervision, which would mean the accusations have not been dropped. view in original post No solution will satisfy all By Gaia - 10/15/2010 - 11:06 am There are clearly two camps here - those who feel the parents did absolutely nothing wrong, and are thrilled that the baby was returned - and those who feel DCYF did the right thing and are now afraid for the child's safety.

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

From what I've seen in the news, I can assume that the DCYF brought it's petition to court and one of the Log in following happened: to vote 1. The Division withdrew its petition (doubtful, given the history with the other kids). 3 2. The court dismissed the petition (in which case it's the court's decision to send the child home, not the DCYF's.) 3. The parties agreed (or the Court ordered) that the baby go home, with continued monitoring by the

DCYF. I suspect we haven't heard the last, and I pray for the child's safety at home. I hope that the Court didn't dismiss the case out of hand, and that there will be continued monitoring at the very least. view in original post Why do you assume DCYF flip-flopped? By Gaia - 10/15/2010 - 10:37 am DCYF brought the case to Court. The Court has the final say about what happens. The baby would not have gone home without a court order. view in original post @ politicalfreedom - You need to catch up By Gaia - 10/14/2010 - 11:09 pm http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/220349/baby-in-foster-care-sent-to... The baby was not sexually abused. She had a perfectly normal condition called pseudo-menses. (Google it). The Sheriff did not take custody - a deputy provided transportation to the hospital, probably to calm the hystrionic parent. Continuing to spread hysterical allegations helps no one - not the parents, not the child, and not the Oath Keeper's reputation. view in original post No constitutional rights were violated here By Gaia - 10/14/2010 - 10:53 pm If the child were taken into custody based solely on Mr. Irish's affiliation, I'd say you might have a case here. But the fact is, she was not. The affiliation was only 1 of 11 different points of evidence offered in the affidavit. (see my post above, called "Let it Go" for more on this.) Ownership of weapons is not a reason to take a child away from his parents. However, ownership of weapons in conjunction with a long history of domestic violence raises the risk level to the child, and is important for a judge to know. It would have been irresponsible of the social worker to leave out that fact. view in original post Or the real facts could be... By Gaia - 10/14/2010 - 6:17 pm The baby would be in imminent danger if she went home with two mentally ill parents who have a long history of domestic violence, and two other children who have been removed and are pending termination of parental rights. The baby has a perfectly normal pseudo-menses, and because the parents are hysterical, those in charge
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

Log in to vote

decide to have her checked out by a doctor in order to assure the parents (and the court, who will hear about this from the parents) that the baby is fine. The officials further decide to send the baby to the hospital in an ambulance so that the parents can't make any allegations that the DCYF worker did something to cover up evidence on the way to the hospital. There you go - perfectly rational and understandable. view in original post So... By Gaia - 10/14/2010 - 6:05 pm Therapists feel they're not getting enough business. So they somehow influence a state agency to "steal" people's babies, so that they, the therapists, can get more business. And the state says "sure, we can do that, because we know it's important for the therapists to have plenty of business - more important than keeping functional families intact. And it doesn't matter that it will cost the taxpayers Log in millions a year - those therapists have gotta eat." Uh huh. view in original post Sooo.. By Gaia - 10/14/2010 - 5:56 pm It follows that doctors always lie and tell parents their children are fine when they've actually be sexually abused? view in original post This is most likely NOT a DCYF case By Gaia - 10/14/2010 - 5:50 pm It says the police investigated and brought charges. It does not say that DCYF had anything to do with the case, other than to take a phone call. DCYF only investigates cases where the perpetrator is a household member. If the alleged per is not living in the same household as the victim, it's a police matter. So, I don't think this is intended as any kind of "damage control." Loudon Police are in charge of the case 2 and any information that's shared with the media. view in original post Let it go. By Gaia - 10/14/2010 - 4:42 pm The affiliation was noted as one of 11 different reasons why the baby might be unsafe in the parents' home.
Log in to vote Log in to vote

to vote

Log in to vote

DCYF did not ask for custody, nor did the Court grant custody based on that one item in the affidavit. In 2 hindsight, perhaps it was unfortunate that the social worker included that item, but we don't get to see the rest of the affidavit, so we can't really be sure if noting the affiliation lent support to other allegations. Imagine this scenario: (I'm making this up) 1. Bob is a member of the local gun club. 2. Bob has weapons in his home. 3. Bob has a diagnosed mental illness that includes paranoid delusions. 4. Numerous witnesses have heard Bob say that if his kids don't behave he's gonna get out his rifle. 5. Witnesses have heard Bob say that his gun club tells him he has the right to discipline his children the way he sees fit. Now, see how affiliation might be important in an affidavit? Shouldn't the judge be told that Bob is quoting his gun club's alleged views on child discipline? Of course, as I said, I have no idea how the Afflilation information was used in the affidavit, but it could very well have been pertinent when linked to other behaviors and statements. view in original post Your point? By Gaia - 10/14/2010 - 4:41 pm the vaccination controversy has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that the baby was probably deeply asleep. If the father thought the baby was in and out of conciousness, I'm sure he communicated this to the doctors who examined the baby. I'm also sure that the doctors took that into account when examining the Log in baby. Doctors say the baby is fine. End of story. view in original post For what purpose? By Gaia - 10/14/2010 - 4:35 pm What would be the purpose of "stealing" people's kids? Don't tell me it's to make money. The state does get federal matching funds to pay for some child protection services. However, the state has to spend a dollar of its own money in order to get a matching dollar from the federal government, and not all services are eligible for match money. There's no way the state can "make a profit" on taking kids into Log in to vote care. That's just delusional conspiracy theory stuff. 0 view in original post hmmm... By Gaia - 10/14/2010 - 11:18 am Still no coverage of this in the mainstream media. Could it possible be a NON-STORY? Could it possibly be there was no abuse found, no foster parents taken into custody, no Sheriff "taking over the case?" Both of these parents, by report, appear to be mentally ill. Why are you gulping their bait, hook, line and sinker?
Log in to vote

to vote

view in original post They won't explain it By Gaia - 10/13/2010 - 9:54 pm They're not allowed, and you know it. Confidentiality is a two-edged sword. DCYF cannot off the public any details that will "explain" their actions. They can't even refute allegations by parents. Parents can say anything they want, and DCYF cannot defend themselves publicly. Who gets hurt? All the kids that DCYF is protecting, because people get riled up believing lies, and distrust of the agency spreads. What we need is a bunch of young adults who have been in the system to tell their stories, so that the public can understand what DCYF does and how it changes children's lives for the better. Frankly, I hope the judge slaps a gag order on the parents, then jails their asses when the parents violate it. view in original post Here's the sad thing. By Gaia - 10/13/2010 - 9:48 pm No one involved with this case - the doctors, the DCYF, the sheriff - will be able to report the truth. None of them will be able to report that this was (most probably) a case of pseudomenses that the parents, who are mentally ill, blew out of proportion and used for their own purposes. No one will be able to say what really happened. And when the child goes back to her foster home (with a clean bill of health), it will be used a further evidence of corruption in the system, because it's not legal for anyone (ANYONE!) to discuss the matter with people who are not party to the case. The parents are breaking the law here. Has anyone considered this? Does that make you any more suspicious of their statements? view in original post () By Gaia - 10/13/2010 - 9:30 pm Withdrawn. Decided not to feed the snert. view in original post All but one of the 11 points By Gaia - 10/13/2010 - 9:17 pm All but one of the 11 points on the affidavit were blacked out. Useless for proving anyone's points about whether the baby was legitimately taken into custody. By the way, releasing this kind of information to anyone who's not a party to the case is incredibly against the law. Someone should have their ass arrested. Publishing the older children's names? Wrong! view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Please read the last line again By Gaia - 10/13/2010 - 9:11 pm It wasn't very graceful - too many negatives - but she's saying that DCYF gives all the info they feel may be relevant, and leave it up to the judge to decide if it IS relevant. view in original post Perhaps the fear of guns has By Gaia - 10/13/2010 - 9:08 pm Perhaps the fear of guns has something to do with the social worker who was shot dead in Nashua a few years ago, when he arrived for a scheduled home visit. Everyone needs to remember that the statements made by the parents on various web sites have not been vetted or evaluated for truthfulness by ANYONE. Unhappygrammy's comments in these forums are so extreme as to be laughable. Her broad, sweeping generalizations add nothing but hystrionics to the conversation. Even if everything she says about her own case were true, (and I question every one of her atements) she cannot possibly know what the average and usual practice of the agency is, because cases are confidential. She simply cannot know. Judges do what DCYF tells them? What an incredible insult to the judiciary. Parents aren't allowed to present a defense? Are you kidding? Does anyone really believe that? Please. view in original post We don't know if it's By Gaia - 10/13/2010 - 8:57 pm We don't know if it's relevant or not. Because of confidentiality, we won't ever know if it's relevant. Where do you get the idea that "the parent's haven't done anything wrong." According to the article, there's a termination of parental rights petition pending on Log in to vote the older children. You don't get to a TPR without doing something wrong. 0 view in original post Do you also believe that By Gaia - 10/12/2010 - 10:51 pm Do you also believe that suspected criminals should not be detained unless they've been found guilty in a court of law? The purpose of detaining a suspected criminal is to safeguard the public, preventing the suspect from perpetrating another crime, until guilt or innocence can be determined. The purpose of "seizing" a child from parents is to prevent further abuse or neglect, until guilt or
Log in to vote Log in to vote

Log in to vote

innocence can be determined. view in original post heh By Gaia - 10/11/2010 - 12:22 pm Didn't I just read somewhere that NH has the lowest unemployment rate in the nation? What shall we credit that to? The 100% Democratic control seems as good as any. view in original post Please remember By Gaia - 10/11/2010 - 11:49 am Webster residents are not dumping for free. They pay for the privilege through their taxes, and the town of Webster then pays a fee to Hopkinton. view in original post The "don't ask, don't tell" By Gaia - 10/11/2010 - 11:42 am The "don't ask, don't tell" policy refers to Dockham's decision to include apartment and condo trash with their commercial trash. I don't see a double-standard here. I see an attempt to comply with the town ordinance in the most efficient way possible. I also see that the solution is congruent with what one of the selectmen said at town meeting - that those living in apartments, condos, etc would have to work out their garbage disposal with their landlords. (My interpretation was that the cost of garbage disposal would be included in their rent.)
Log in The landlords cannot police their dumpsters to make sure that everything in there is in a green bag. The to vote only other solution is to treat the trash as "commercial." I think it meets that definition - the landlords are a 0 commercial endeavor, and residential trash is a byproduct of that endeavor. Log in to vote Log in to vote

As long as Dockham is paying the transfer station a tipping fee (which I'm sure they are), I don't see a problem. view in original post No, you don't - at least not after January By Gaia - 10/11/2010 - 11:25 am Please explain how you will be paying for anyone else's garbage. It won't be through your taxes, as of January. That's the whole point, which you seem determined to not "get." Unless you're buying green bags for the Kid, you will have nothing to do with the cost of his garbage disposal.

Log in to vote

0 This is NOT liberalism. There is no way you can call it liberalism unless you outright distort the facts, which I've seen you do here a number of times. It's really not helpful to the discussion, and is going to get you labeled as a troll.

Maybe that's your real motivation - stir people up with mis-information, then sit back and watch them react. view in original post What have you got against recycling? By Gaia - 10/11/2010 - 11:15 am Regardless, Pay by Bag is not a recycling program. No one is forcing you to recycle. One more example of the smog of mis-information and dis-information clouding the view in Hopkinton. view in original post I don't support the Westboro church By Gaia - 10/11/2010 - 11:00 am Their beliefs are polar opposite to mine, and their tactics are reprehensible. However, they have the right to their opinions, and they have the right to express them. It's not against the law to offend people. If it were, there would be a lot more people in jail. I feel bad for the Snyders, and for every family that has fallen victim to Pastor Phelps' crew. However, I don't think they have a legal case, and I think the Court should find for the Westboro church. The implications for Freedom of Speech are stunning if they do not. view in original post So you're in favor of socialized services? By Gaia - 10/06/2010 - 8:54 pm Great. Let's move on to medical care. I don't think it's unreasonable for taxes to pay for my medical care. But more to the point - Pay by Bag is an attempt to hold taxes down. You may not be fazed by the taxes you're currently paying for trash removal. But as the costs rise (followed by tax increases) at some point, you may decide that you'd rather not be paying for everyone else's trash disposal. Those who throw out a lot of trash will be slower to come on board than those who recycle a lot and throw away little. I throw away 1 bag a week. I'm glad I'm not paying for my neighbor, who tosses 2 trash cans full every week. He, on the other hand, is probably feeling victimized, because he now has to pay more than me for trash disposal. Oh dear, it's so unfair. Not. view in original post Not the taxpayers By Gaia - 10/06/2010 - 1:36 pm Except by voluntary donation. http://nhhistory.org/ Historical societies are independent non-profit entities. They are not state or municipal agencies. view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

ooh, hard ball By Gaia - 10/06/2010 - 1:27 pm Please prove that my statement is wrong. Liberal or conservative - political orientation has no bearing on facts, and calling me a liberal does not automatically make me wrong. That kind of black and white thinking is completely non-productive. Has it occurred to you that I, a self-described liberal, am in favor of a program that "de-socializes" trash disposal? The old method was completely socialist - (nearly) everyone pays in taxes, and the government takes care of your trash disposal needs. Along the way, people who throw away less (or make a lot more money) are subsidiizing those who throw away more (or make less money). The new method separates trash disposal costs from taxes or income. Everyone pays for exactly what they use, and nobody subsidizes anyone else. I ask you now - is pay-by-bag a liberal or conservative program? view in original post My bags are holding together fine By Gaia - 10/06/2010 - 1:12 pm I do have to be careful about how hard I pull when cinching up the ties. I also take care to pick them up by the top of the bag, not by the ties. I think this is true with other commercial bags of this design. That's why, years ago, I switch to the kind Log in with the four flaps that you just fold across the top and tie together. view in original post That's unfortunate By Gaia - 10/06/2010 - 1:08 pm Is it that they're "not interested," or that they don't have the power to enact such a contract without a warrant at town meeting? (Just asking - not automatically doubting what you say.) As I think about it, probably the town cannot talk to someone about a contract unless the contract has been put out to bid. Before such a contract could be put out to bid, someone would probably need to raise a warrant at town meeting to require Log in the select board to research the feasibility and fiscal impact of contracting out to vote curbside service (or having town employees do it), then present a proposal to the 0 town. The town would then need to vote on it at the next town meeting. Cumbersome, but not impossible. view in original post 1
Log in to vote

to vote

No, you don't By Gaia - 10/06/2010 - 11:10 am

This is the whole point of Pay-by-bag - your taxes will NOT pay for "dump" expenses. view in original post I'm under no delusion By Gaia - 10/06/2010 - 11:08 am I don't think that pay-by-bag will make taxes go down. There's always something to spend money on. However, trash disposal will no longer be a tax-supported service. Therefore, increases in the cost of that serivce will not cause taxes to go up. Other things may cause taxes to go up, but not trash.

Log in to vote

Log in

His point was that without pay-by-bag, we would definitely see tax increases that are directly tied to trash to vote removal. With pay-by-bag, we won't. 3 view in original post If I were Dockham Trucking... By Gaia - 10/06/2010 - 9:42 am I would be seriously looking at making a proposal to the town to provide contracted curbside pickup for all residents, for both trash and recycling - to be financed through pay-by-bag fees and income from recycling. How do other pay-by-bag towns pay for their curb-side pickup? Is it through pay-by-bag fees, or through Log in to vote property taxes? 0 view in original post March 13 was a Saturday. Where were you? By Gaia - 10/06/2010 - 9:34 am The meeting WAS held on a Saturday. It started at 9:00 in the morning, although they didn't get down to business until about 9:30. Here's a link to the minutes. http://hopkintonnh.gov/Pages/HopkintonNH_Selectmen/AnnualTownMeetingMin... Pay by Bag was Article 19, on page 14. view in original post I do share your view on single stream By Gaia - 10/06/2010 - 9:11 am It would have made the whole thing much easier, and much more palatable. As would curb-side pickup, but that would have meant that we either pay more for the bags, or it's added to our taxes. Wouldn't it be lovely if the town could figure out some economical way to contract out curbside pickup for all, to someone one local who already has the equipment, AND set us up for single stream recycling. But now that we've left the regional waste cooperative, I don't know how that might easily happen. view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote

Unfortunately, you ARE wrong By Gaia - 10/06/2010 - 9:06 am The minutes of the meeting are available to all: http://hopkintonnh.gov/Pages/HopkintonNH_Selectmen/AnnualTownMeetingMin... The article came up about 3:00 in the afternoon. Discussion / amendments took place. The vote happened about 4:00, and it was done. It did NOT come up again later. Does this help you feel any better about the way the vote occurred? I believe it was an excellent example of democracy in action. Everyone who voted on the matter was as fully informed as they could be, because they got a presentation of the facts and were exposed to lots of different opinions as well, at the town meeting. Putting this kind of vote to the ballot all but ensures that many people (busy as they are) will vote from their gut reaction, rather than from an educated position. view in original post Ahem. By Gaia - 10/05/2010 - 5:58 pm Please re-read the 4th paragraph view in original post Respectfully, By Gaia - 10/05/2010 - 5:50 pm We voted that all trash that goes into the town transfer station be in green bags. Don't you think that insisting that everyone put their trash in a green bag when it's not going in the hopper would be a little bit unconstitutional? Would you require a green bag if people are burning their own trash at home? I don't think Dockham is going to go out of business over this. My understanding is that they were having trouble making ends meet because of the increasing tipping fees. Now that they have no tipping fees, they Log in should be in much better shape. to vote 2 Can anyone tell us how much All Clear is charging? Dockham is down to $55 per quarter for trash pickup. view in original post One thing that people have lost sight of By Gaia - 10/05/2010 - 5:42 pm The main purpose of pay by bag was to save the town money. Less trash in the hopper means lower transportation and disposal fees. It was also intended to take trash disposal out of the tax bill. Increased recycling is a nice side effect, which should also increase the town's income. view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

Last week By Gaia - 10/05/2010 - 2:34 pm I got a yellow note on my trash can from Dockham's driver, reminding me that I needed to use green bags from now on. view in original post curious what you mean by "refuse to cooperate" By Gaia - 10/05/2010 - 2:19 pm What does that mean? Leave your trash out in non-green bags? Dockham won't pick them up (but will still take your money.) Try to bring your non-green bags to the transfer station? You won't be able to dump them. Switch to All Clear? Fine. If enough people do it, the only ones who will be hurt are Dockham and the other local hauler that's requiring the green bags. It won't hurt the town, because there won't be as much dump to tend and bring to the transfer station. Bring your trash elsewhere? Again, doesn't hurt the town. What's left? Let the trash pile up in your garage? Only hurts you and your neighbors. Dump your trash illegally? Well, that would be illegal, wouldn't it? Are you suggesting everyone should break the law? view in original post Please get your facts straight By Gaia - 10/05/2010 - 1:24 pm The vote did not take place late at night. It was 4:00 in the afternoon. It was voted on once at that Town meeting, and only once. There were a number of meetings about how to implement change. There was no "cramming." If you voted at town meeting (which I doubt, since you don't know the facts), then you are in the minority. If you didn't vote at town Log in meeting, you have no right to complain. If you are unhappy with the results, bring it up by petition for the next Town meeting, and see how it goes. view in original post I worry that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy By Gaia - 10/05/2010 - 10:59 am There's a very vocal minority that is against the program from the get-go. I worry that the negativity will spread and defeat the program before it even has a chance to be proven worthy for the town in general, and for the silent majority in particular. 4
Log in to vote

Log in to vote

to vote

Log in to vote

I'm down to 1 bag of trash a week. I could probably do 1 bag every two weeks, but I don't want the garbage sitting in my garage that long. I'm still using Dockham, and glad to see that he's dropping his price by $20 a quarter. That will just about pay for my bags. I'm satisfied. view in original post na By Gaia - 10/03/2010 - 3:30 pm na view in original post I don't know the case, but... By Gaia - 10/03/2010 - 3:03 pm Do you think his consequences will be limited to the 90 days for violating parole? Don't you think he will also be charged with the assault? Isn't it possible that the fact he was on parole helped to locate him, and therefore arrest him for the crime? Wasn't it a good thing that police had a "clear" voiloation with which to charge him, in order to immediately get him back off the street, while they complete the investigation of the alleged assault?
Log in Log in to vote

Do you think that the man would never have committed another crime if he had maxed out? It may not to vote have been this particular victim, but certainly there would have been another - and he might have been 1 allowed to wander around free for a few weeks while the investigation was conducted. This way, his butt is back in jail where it belongs, at least for the 90 day parole violation. view in original post My understanding By Gaia - 10/03/2010 - 2:55 pm is that parole is considered to be part of an inmate's sentence. Criminals are given a sentence, a period of time, which they must serve, either within the prison walls, or outside of it. Parole is the part that's served outside of the prison walls. Someone sentenced to 15 years, for example, may serve 10 in the prison, then 5 on the outside. If someone "maxes out" on their sentence, serving the entire time inside, there's no sentence left to serve on thes outside. They go free. Tacking on parole after someone has maxed out is the Log in to vote same as extending the sentence that the court gave them, and would not be legal. 4 view in original post The only nit I will pick By Gaia - 10/01/2010 - 1:06 pm Is in your last paragraph. A "flat tax," if that's what you're proposing, would naturally have a more negative impact on lower wage earners. Someone who makes $20,000 a year needs every dollar the can hang onto. Taking out 15% - $3500,
Log in to vote

would be a huge impact on that $20K wage earner struggling to meet their basic needs. That same $15% on someone who makes $100,000 (or 1M), has far less impact, because even after removing $15,000, they can much more easily meet their basic needs and still have extra for "lifestyle." Therefore, in order for everyone to be taxed equally, the tax rate would need to be very, very low - which means we probably could not meet our national budget needs. view in original post Please show me By Gaia - 10/01/2010 - 12:55 pm the proof that taxpayer money is being used to pay for abortions as we speak? Or that it will at some point in the future. view in original post You miss the point By Gaia - 10/01/2010 - 12:40 pm You miss the point. The point is not that they earned a lot of money and paid taxes on them. The point is that these people who earned a lot of money earned it from corporations that can file their taxes as "small businesses." Republicans are saying that letting the tax cuts expire will hurt the "small businesses" The reality is that most of the business we think of as "small businesses" - the mom & pop stores, private contractors, etc, earn much less than $250,000/year, which is the cut-off point to be affected by the tax change. Log in
to vote Log in to vote

The true "small businesses" will not be affected - the only ones affected will be those huge corporations with millions in assets, and millions in "profits" that are being (legally) claimed as personal earnings by the owners, rather than business profits. Bottom line - retiring the tax cuts for the wealthy will not hurt the "real" small businesses. It's Republican subterfuge. view in original post It's not quite that clear By Gaia - 10/01/2010 - 12:17 pm

An employee's extra contributions are first invested, then "matched." I'm sure the accounting would be a nightmare, but I still say the public is only entitled to know about the portions of an employee's retirement benefit that are (1) based on the employee's base salary and overtime, and (2) based on the the state's Log in "match" before investment. view in original post 0

to vote

I agree By Gaia - 09/30/2010 - 4:38 pm I'm a state employee. I have no problem with my salary and retirement benefits being made public. I do, however, agree with a previous that any additional retirement benefits that result from extra contributions I've made to my retirement account are my business, and my business only. Log in
to vote

view in original post I understand your frustration By Gaia - 09/30/2010 - 4:35 pm My guess would be that your report is not an "official" one. You're not a representative of the NHRS, so your information, accurate or not, is pretty much hearsay. view in original post Here's one State employee's opinion By Gaia - 09/30/2010 - 4:33 pm 1. I agree wholeheartedly with the poster who said the benefits that are a result of the employee's own contributions, above and beyond the mandatory, should not be public information. That's like saying every private employee's 401K should be open to inspection by the public. However, because state employee's salaries are public information, the retirement benefit that relates directly to their salaries should be public as well. 2. I believe that overtime should be included in the calculation of an employee's retirement benefits. If they worked the hours they should see the benefit in their retirement. My only caveat - there should be something in place that prevents employees/employers from purposefully padding the final three years of employment with extra overtime. I don't know how prevalent that practice is, but it Log in to vote shouldn't be happening at all. On the other hand, if overtime is being given 0 because there aren't enough staff, that's something that needs to be looked at too which is less expensive for the taxpayers - hiring more staff, or paying overtime? 3. I do not believe that the payout for an employee's accrued vacation and sick time should be included in the caculation of their benefit. Those one-time payouts do not represent "extra hours worked." They represent vacation and sick time not taken. You should get paid for those once, and that's all. view in original post And yet, you still haven't answered the question By Gaia - 09/21/2010 - 10:29 am Putting on your arrogance hat and calling someone stupid is not an answer to the question. I'd like to know too. You made a big claim, and I'd like to see the facts that back up your claim. Or at least an illustration of the theory. view in original post

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

In my opinion.... By Gaia - 09/21/2010 - 9:59 am Everyone has a right to be on Facebook. Everyone. It's what you do with Facebook after you're on it that's at issue. Facebook allows you to be completely private. You can have a group of friends, keep tabs on them, and let them know what you're up to. You can set your privacy settings so that only your firends can see your ostings.. Most people use that setting. (This takes care of the above concern about letting people know where you are and when your house is empty.) Things may not be as loose as Itsmyopinion thinks. Once you're set up, you need to be careful about who you "friend." I don't friend anyone (or accept friend invites from people) that I don't associate with regularly in real life. I want to be sure that everyone on my list can be trusted to understand and deal appropriately with everything I post online - including the fact that I'm going away for the weekend, or that I had a couple drinks too many last night. I also don't friend current co-workers. Even so, I don't ever post anything derroguatory about my job or my co-workers. I personally don't think teachers ought to friend their students - at least not until the student has graduated 4 and is an adult. It's just not good boundary setting, and it really limits what the teacher can responsibly post, knowing that students will see it. He/She would also end up in a position of having to report any illegal or questionable behavior by students that he/she learns about in Facebook. I don't know why a teacher would put themselves in that position, overall. An exception might be that a teacher sets up a facebook page that is specifically for school purposes. The discussions would have to relate to school assignments, events, etc. The teacher wouldn't be posting anything personal there, and wouldn't have access to the student's personal newsfeeds. The only thing they'd see from students is what the students specifically post on that page. view in original post Did you forget about Ayotte? By Gaia - 09/20/2010 - 9:37 am Tea-party endorsed. view in original post bull By Gaia - 09/20/2010 - 9:19 am Our debt is not due to social programs. If it were, we would have had debt in the Clinton years, and we didn't Our debt is currently due to starting and fighting 2 wars. view in original post but By Gaia - 09/15/2010 - 4:32 pm How were they supposed to cut back on spending and still pay for 2 wars? I dunno. Someone posted above that Bush pointed out in 2001 that the country was at the beginning of a recession. Perhaps that should have been taken into account before he got us into those two wars. Did he
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

13

think the wars were going to stimulate the economy? Does anyone care to make a case against the following statement: "If the country were not paying billions of dollars for 2 wars we would have been in a much better position to weather the housing bubble collapse and the credit crisis. Any recession caused by those two issues would probably be over by now, and Obama would be able to take the credit." view in original post because I don't produce much trash By Gaia - 09/10/2010 - 10:44 pm and therefore the cost of the bags will be minimal. I believe it will be less expensive for me to buy the bags and pay only for what I throw away, rather than subsidizing those who throw away more. All Clear will need to charge his customers based on the total volume of trash dumped, divided by the number of customers he has. Those who produce more trash will always make out better than those who throw out less. And vice versa. view in original post To set the record straight, once again By Gaia - 09/10/2010 - 2:05 pm The town meet was not held "late at night." It started at 9:00 am on a Saturday morning, and the article in question came up about 2:00 in the afternoon. The "handful" of people who voted on it (about 10% of the registered voters), should not be blamed for the other 90% not showing up.
Log in People seem to be remarkably angry at the "small minority" of voters who voted for the program to vote intimating that if more people had been there, either the program would not have passed, or the vote 1 would have been more legitmate. People seem to let the other 95% of voters off the hook. They don't seem to be angry at those who didn't show up to vote against it. Why is the anger focused on those who did? Log in to vote

view in original post I respectfully disagree By Gaia - 09/09/2010 - 4:52 pm No changes (either verbal or written) were made to the warrant article, which is what the people voted on. The selectmen did NOT in any way negate the vote at town meeting, or change it's outcome after the fact. They did quite the opposite - ensure that the intent of the original vote was not changed. It has nothing to do with semantics - a warrant article and an ordinance are two different things, arrived at by two separate processes at two different times, and with two different purposes. By your reasoning, it's Log in to vote like saying an insemination and a baby delivery are the same thing. 2 As for a 10% turnout - I'm curious why so many people seem think it's the fault of the 10% that the rest of the town did not turn out.

view in original post You miss the point By Gaia - 09/09/2010 - 4:41 pm The bag fee replaces the taxes. Trash disposal will no longer be paid for by property taxes. (I won't get into a discussion about whether my tax bill will go down - that's not the point. The town residents may very well vote next year to spend money in another area, thereby keeping our tax rate the same or higher. The two things are really not related.) Anyway, yes, I'm ok with paying a bag fee, and a hauling fee. The hauling is voluntary on my part. I don't Log in to vote have to unless I want to for convenience sake. Wtih the bag fee, I know that I'm paying only for what I 0 throw away, and not for what others are throwing away. view in original post easy By Gaia - 09/09/2010 - 4:26 pm I wasn't paying $70/ton. I was paying more because I dispose of "less than average" amounts of trash one kitchen bag a week, usually. Once in a while two. I was paying part of the freight for people who dispose of 4 or 6 bags a week. As long as Dockham lowers his rate by at least $1.50 a week, I personally come out ahead. A reward for recycling more and trashing less. Considering that, because of increased tipping fees in recent years, Dockhams fees to me have risen from 0 about $2.50/week to about $5.50/week for the trash (not including recycling), I have a reasonable expectation that I will at least come out even. view in original post Those who are willing to recycle By Gaia - 09/09/2010 - 1:41 pm will get a better deal by using the green bags and going with a hauler who charges less. Even if my hauling fee only goes down by $3.00 a week, if I use only 2 small green bags a week, I save 1.50 a week on the same services I was getting before (trash & recycling removal). Those who are not willing to reduce their trash output may make out better in the short run, but when the Log in tipping fees go up for hauler (as they most certainly will in the future), their hauling fees will increase to vote too. 1 view in original post I think Dockham will need to survey all of his customers By Gaia - 09/09/2010 - 12:57 pm I wouldn't want him to make an assumption that the 24 customers he lost represent a majority of his customer base. I, for one, would prefer to use the green bag, and continue to pay Dockham to come and pick up both my green bags and my recycling. I would just expect that
Log in to vote Log in to vote

he'll reduce his fees to reflect his zero-tipping-fee status. That reduction should balance out the purchase of the bags for me. I guess I should give them a call, and let them know. view in original post Dockham picks up recyclables. By Gaia - 09/09/2010 - 12:42 pm It adds $2 a week to my cost for trash pickup and I'm greatly satisfied with it. The other option, of course, is to drive them to the dump yourself. I do agree with some others who have commented that it would be nice if the town would make it easier to recycle by putting some recycling bins in a couple other locations around town. But I suppose that with the volume we're hoping for, it Log in wouldn't be just a few "bins," it would have to be a a bunch of large containers (so to vote we can separate), then they'd have to be transported to the transfer station 1 regularly. Either that, or put out a couple really big containers, and pay someone to separate the recyclables later. view in original post I voted in favor By Gaia - 09/09/2010 - 12:37 pm And I'm happy with the change the selectmen are making to the ordinance, because it more accurately reflects what I voted for. Remember - the residents voted on a Warrant Article, which is different from an ordinance. The Selectmen then had the responsibility to craft an ordinance that accurately reflects the warrant article. Log in The first try wasn't quite right, because the haulers found a loophole that would thwart the intent of the to vote warrant article. 2 The revised ordinance puts it right. view in original post It's my understanding By Gaia - 09/09/2010 - 12:05 am That the increased tipping fees was a response to increased fees at the incinerator. The incinerator charged the town more, the town then charged the haulers. Now, the transportation/incinerator fees will be paid by the bag fees, as well as hopefully increased revenue from increased recycling. Log in
to vote

view in original post It's simple. By Gaia - 09/09/2010 - 12:01 am The town residents voted on a warrant article that established the program. A warrant article is not an ordinance (a local law).

Log in to vote

The select board had to write the ordinance as an accurate reflection of the warrant article. 0 The first try wasn't quite there - people were able to find a loop hole that thwarted the intent of the warrant article. The select board had to tweak the ordinance so that it did accurately reflect what the voters voted for. Here's a link to the minutes of the town meeting. The article in question is #19, and the final article, as voted, is on page 16. http://www.hopkinton-nh.gov/Pages/HopkintonNH_Selectmen/AnnualTownMeetin... view in original post 10% turnout By Gaia - 09/08/2010 - 11:52 pm There are 4687 registered voters in Hopkinton. According to the minutes, the vote was 259 to 236. That means 10.5% of the voters came to the meeting and stayed to vote for this article. While I agree that's a pretty low turnout, what rate of turnout would make you feel like it was not a travesty? And who's fault is it that there was only a 10% turnout? It was certainly not the fault of those 259 people who voted for the program, so why are you blaming them? view in original post Of course we were paying for it... By Gaia - 09/08/2010 - 11:29 pm ...but in a completely random way - as a percentage of property value for whatever amount of trash you want to throw. One person might pay $50 a year to throw out 4 bags of trash a week. In another part of town, they might pay $200 a year to throw out 1 bag a week. (Numbers completely made up, but you get the idea.) Those Log in who have more valuable property, and those who recycle a lot are paying the freight for those with less to vote valuable property and those who don't pay attention to recycling. 1 view in original post but... By Gaia - 09/08/2010 - 11:22 pm by my observation, by and large, it's not the left-leaning residents who have a problem with the program. It seems to be the libertarian types (keep your rules out of my trash can). view in original post 1 person, 1 vote By Gaia - 09/08/2010 - 11:20 pm You are only allowed to be a registered voter on one town - otherwise people could vote in political elections in every town they own property in - that defeats the one person, one vote philosophy of the country.
Log in to vote Log in to vote

Log in to vote

view in original post Check your math By Gaia - 09/08/2010 - 3:16 pm In addition to what the above replier said... Check your math. Even if each family used 3 of the really big bags a week (3 x 1.25 = 3.75), it still only adds up to less than $400,000 3.75 x 52 x 2000 = 390,000. Most people will use less. I'm in a two person household, and expect to only use 1 small bag (.75) a week. That's only $39 a year. Given the occasional 2-bag week, maybe I'll spend $50 a year on bags. view in original post simply put By Gaia - 09/08/2010 - 3:00 pm Increased recycling saves money. So yes, it's both. view in original post What makes the bags cost $1.25? By Gaia - 09/08/2010 - 2:47 pm You're not paying for the bag. You're paying for the priviledge of throwing your trash in the bin at the transfer station. The cost of running the transfer station, transporting the trash, and incinerating it in Claremont is what determines the cost of the bag. view in original post I never saw so much re-writing of history By Gaia - 09/08/2010 - 2:30 pm I never saw so much re-writing of history as is going on right now in Hopkinton. The voters were not lied to. Green bags were never voluntary. The word voluntary does not appear in the warrant article that was voted for. The word mandatory DOES appear in the article. Very clearly. The only voluntary thing that was discussed at town meet was the fact that people Log in could continue use a hauler if they wanted to. Buying and using the bags was to vote always mandatory. The way you get your trash to the transfer station is (and will 3 be) up to you. view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

redundant post. By Gaia - 09/08/2010 - 2:25 pm previous poster got to it first. I wish there were a delete button. view in original post Check your definition By Gaia - 09/08/2010 - 8:56 am Can you not see that pay by bag is the complte opposite of Socialism? Pulling out the "S" word to shock people and win them over to your side doesn't always work particularly when your motives are so transparent. view in original post the recycling rate in Hopkinton is 17% By Gaia - 09/08/2010 - 8:54 am That does not equate to "most if not all reisents recycling already." view in original post And which school system do all the conservatives attend? By Gaia - 09/06/2010 - 1:37 pm This pointless liberal/conservative bashing has got to stop. You do not win any liberals over to your point of view by calling them stupid. Try using a reasoned argument once in a while. view in original post Please get your facts straight By Gaia - 09/05/2010 - 10:53 pm The town meeting, at which this was voted in, was held on a Saturday, during the day. The meeting was over by about 5 pm or so. view in original post It seems pretty simple to me By Gaia - 09/05/2010 - 10:50 pm Dockham has more than one kind of customer. Private residents, like me, could be required to use the bags. Businesses that have dumpsters could continue to pay that premium for un-bagged trash. view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

Ok, that makes sense. By Gaia - 09/05/2010 - 10:43 pm

Maybe you're right, assuming that's how it will work in the future. view in original post Perhaps you misunderstand By Gaia - 09/05/2010 - 10:39 pm Glass, aluminum, steel cans, mixed paper, cardboard, 1 & 2 plastic are all being recycled. The only thing that's going in the recycling bin, then into the trash hopper, are those "other" plastics. view in original post I didn't say I support it. By Gaia - 09/05/2010 - 10:37 pm I was just answering a question. Perhaps "recyclable" was a poor word choice, but I think your attack is a little misplaced. I don't represent the Town and I didn't have anything to do with that decision. While personally I can't help but be glad that I don't have to pay to dispose of my yogurt containers, I absolutely see your point. view in original post Let met get this straight By Gaia - 09/05/2010 - 1:14 pm You're against a program the makes people to pay for the services they get, and doesn't make them pay for the services other people get?. You don't see the "old" method of paying for trash disposal with property taxes as socialism? view in original post only partially right By Gaia - 09/05/2010 - 1:09 pm

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

For now, until there is a market for plastics other than #1 and 2, all those non-marketable plastics are being tossed into the hopper. Everything else is being properly recycled. This was a compromise for people who complained that we were being urged to recycle, but the town wasn't accepting a good number of recyclables. We're allowed to put them in the recycling bin, rather than paying for them to be Log in disposed of in green bags. to vote 1 view in original post Perhaps Mr. Dockham should survey all his customers By Gaia - 09/04/2010 - 7:53 pm He's got 1400 customers, and 24 left. What about the rest of us? Months ago I decided to stay with Dockham, through the rising fees, figuring that Log in Pay by Bag would allow him to eventually lower his fees, if everyone's required to to vote use the bags. Now? I don't think I want to continue paying the high fees that he has 0 to charge due to tipping fees. I'd rather pay for one green bag a week and haul my

own trash and recycling to the transfer station. view in original post Please explain By Gaia - 09/04/2010 - 7:32 pm Please explain how Webster's taxes go down? The town is still being charged to use the transfer station, and those fees get passed on to residents. Same as always. view in original post I fail to understand why you're not against this By Gaia - 09/04/2010 - 7:30 pm You accuse liberals of crossing the line into socialism, yet you whole-heartedly endorse a socialized trash program. Why? Why do YOU pick and choose the things you're against? view in original post Excellent point - "socialized trash disposal has been eliminated By Gaia - 09/03/2010 - 2:07 pm In the old days, the rich were subsidizing the poor for trash disposal. No more! view in original post Definition please? By Gaia - 09/03/2010 - 2:03 pm What do you mean by "paying for their trash service?" If you mean curb-side trash pickup, yes, about 75% of the residents voluntarily pay for someone to come and pick up their trash. They don't have to - they could bring their own trash to the dump for free if they wanted.
Log in Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

If you mean "taxes to run the dump," then no, our taxes are no longer used to run the dump. It's paid for by to vote income from recycling, bag fees, and tipping fees assessed on those who do not use the bags (Webster 0 residents and commercial haulers who don't require the bags.) view in original post I'm sorry - that's not accurate By Gaia - 09/03/2010 - 1:59 pm Yes, the measure was defeated in the previous year. By 2 votes. It did count - for that year. However, in the second year, the measure was passed by at least 30 votes, and it was not "late into the meeting." If I remember correctly, it was about halfway through, and I stayed for several articles after that Log in one. There's absolutely nothing wrong with bringing up the same issue in consecutive years. Two years in a row does not consitutue "wearing down the opposition," and the vote was not taken "late at night." The 0

to vote

meeting was held on a Saturday. it started at 9:00 am and went to about 5:00 pm. Long, yes, but not late at night. view in original post Here are the facts about the vote in Hopkinton By Gaia - 09/03/2010 - 1:58 pm A link to the minutes of the town meeting: http://hopkintonnh.gov/Pages/HopkintonNH_Selectmen/AnnualTownMeetingMin... Pay by Bag was Article 19, which is on page 14. The article passed with votes of 259 YES and 236 NO. (A total of 495 voters) For comparison, the first written vote at the town meeting, for article 5, had a result of 453 YES votes, 56 No.. That means 509 people voted. So, it looks like 14 people left the meeting before the Pay by Bag vote Log in to vote (or didn't vote in the article.) 1 There are 4,687 registered voters in town. They all had an opportunity to attend the meeting and cast a vote. view in original post So? By Gaia - 09/03/2010 - 11:48 am Number 1 - this program was voted on at town meeting, which was very well attended. More people at the meeting approved it than disapproved it. If you were there, and voted, great. Time to accept the will of the majority of people who bothered to attend. If you didn't attend, and didn't vote, you have no basis upon which to complain. (IMHO) Number 2 - So? There are still plenty of other outlets. Number 3 - Again, I say, "So?" You can put whatever you want in the town approved bag, including other 0 bags. It's not like the town is telling you what you need to line your trash bins with. Do you really think that the black Hefty garbage bags you were using were the problem to be solved? view in original post Surely you haven't forgotten By Gaia - 09/01/2010 - 4:41 pm Surely you haven't forgotten the abortion clinics that have been bombed, and the abortion doctors who have been murdered in the name of Christianity? It doesn't matter whether it's one person murdered or 3000. The point is that these terrorists did it in the name of their religion.
Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Just as I do not condemn all Christians because of the acts of a few, I do not condemn all Muslims for the 1 acts of a few. Just because there hasn't been large-scale murder in the name of Christianity, doesn't mean it couldn't

happen. (Oh, wait.... There were those crusade things...) I'm not bashing Christianity. I'm saying that all religions have extremists. Denying the whole religion the right to practice their beliefs in the way (and place) they want, in reaction to those extremists, is not right. Or logical. view in original post Perhaps an assumption on my part By Gaia - 09/01/2010 - 4:30 pm But my impression is that he's comparing Ayotte to his preferred candidate. Speaking of assumptions, how did you come up with the idea that the writer is a liberal? It doesn't say so in the letter. view in original post Look again Patriot By Gaia - 08/31/2010 - 8:38 pm I don't think he's a radical leftist - he's supporting Lamontagne, a republican. view in original post What if her husband were running? By Gaia - 08/31/2010 - 8:30 pm I'm not voting for Ayotte, but I have to take exception to what appears to be a pretty chauvanist position. What if Ayotte's husband were running for office? Would you be saying that that he should not be commuting to Washington and leaving his babies behind 6 days a week? And would that be a reason not Log in to vote for him? view in original post So, would you object to a new Christian church By Gaia - 08/31/2010 - 4:42 pm Would you object to a new Christian church built 2 blocks from ground zero? As you pointed out, Jews and Muslims died at the site, so perhaps we should be banning ALL attempts to build something religious close by? I'm wondering - if a Christian terrorist group bombed a 10 story building containing an abortion clinic, killing 100's of innocents in the process, would you object to a Christian cultural center built 2 blocks away? view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

to vote

On second thought... deleted. By Gaia - 08/26/2010 - 4:20 pm

wish there were a delete button. view in original post I'm not sure it's racism, By Gaia - 08/22/2010 - 11:01 pm

Log in to vote

but I absolutely agree with you about the double standard. Any Democratic president would probably be taking the same beating about the economy, regardless of race. It's certainly, at the very least, selective memory. It hasn't taken long for certain folks to forget that George Bush was behind the GM bailout, and now they insist that we just let that go and stop blaming him for anything at all. When people refuse to give the recovery the time it needs and instead lob baseless complaints and accusations, I find it hard to take anything they say seriously. There are no magic wands to be waved to make everything all better. view in original post I beg to differ By Gaia - 08/22/2010 - 1:27 pm Health care has not been nationalized - not even close. Nothing in the current health care reform law will cause your doctor to recieve his/her salary and marching orders from the federal government. Heath care and Health Insurance are two very different things. Student loans have not been suddenly nationalized. We've had governement-backed loans for decades, ant that has ALWAYS been federal money. The only thing the law did was remove the middle man, and the Log in cost of supporting the middile man, from the application and payment process. It's like we can now buy to vote wholesale, rather than having to pay retail. You're also free to continue getting loans from private 9 instiutitions if you want. view in original post "Tolerance" By Gaia - 08/19/2010 - 9:18 am I understand it's the writer who used the word; it's not necessarily a word used in Target's vocabulary. "Tolerance" is a troublesome word for me. IMHO, it's not enough to "tolerate" people who are different, although I suppose we need to start somewhere. "Acceptance" is a better word, and the next thing to strive for universally. My hope is that at some point in Log in to vote the near future we won't be using either of the words to describe our behavior toward minotirities of any 5 type - it'll just be a non-issue. view in original post Don't you know? By Gaia - 08/06/2010 - 3:30 pm Every time a gay couple gets married, it causes a "traditional" marriage to flounder.
Log in Log in to vote

view in original post once upon a time By Gaia - 08/06/2010 - 11:47 am

to vote

nearly everyone believed that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. In fact, the dominant religion of the time said it was blaphemy to believe otherwise. However, the collective opnion of all those people did not make those beliefs into fact. The world was not flat, and the sun did not revolve Log in around the earth, despite everyone's opinion to the contrary. view in original post Yup. By Gaia - 08/05/2010 - 9:14 pm And a couple thousand years ago, traditional marriage meant an arranged marriage where a father literally gave his daughter to a man, who probably had other wives as well, and viewed all of them as chattel. view in original post No points awarded By Gaia - 08/05/2010 - 8:58 pm You have not answered the basic question. How does banning gay marriage prevent gay people from bearing and raising children? And I was not comparing interracial marriage to gay marriage. I was simply pointing out that banning the practice did not prevent interracial couples from having children. So what if gays can't have children "on their own?" They have them. Often. As is their right. Couples past the age of menopause can't have children on their own. Does that mean they shouldn't get married? People of all sorts have children out of wedlock. There is NO requirement, legally or biologically, for people to be married before having children. Your argument is an illusion based on the wild premise that gays can't have children unless they're married. I think. As best I can figure out. I do know it's totally illogical. view in original post Please, please, explain to me By Gaia - 08/05/2010 - 11:31 am Please explain how banning same-sex marriage will prevent same-sex couples from raising children? On the surface, the children seem to be your biggest concern. Perhaps what you're really looking for is a way to prevent same sex couples (and perhaps single persons) from raising children? Did banning interracial marriage prevent people from having mixed-race children? Nope. The only thing you're doing for children when you ban the marriage of their parents, is to keep those children in an "illegitmate" status, and give other people state-sanctioned reasons to torment them about their parents. 1

to vote

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

If you really care about those children, allow their parents' relationships to be normalized. view in original post You are right By Gaia - 08/05/2010 - 11:09 am That's what happened with state of NH employee insurance. After same sex marriage was legalized, same sex partners had 6 months (I think) to either get married, or get off the employee's insurance. view in original post We're paying for a service, not just for the bag By Gaia - 07/18/2010 - 10:06 pm The whole point of pay-to-throw is to charge for the privilege of sending trash to the incinerator. The actual cost of the bags is irrelevant. view in original post So, would you object to a new Christian church By Gaia - 08/31/2010 - 4:42 pm Would you object to a new Christian church built 2 blocks from ground zero? As you pointed out, Jews and Muslims died at the site, so perhaps we should be banning ALL attempts to build something religious close by? I'm wondering - if a Christian terrorist group bombed a 10 story building containing an abortion clinic, killing 100's of innocents in the process, would you object to a Christian cultural center built 2 blocks away? view in original post On second thought... deleted. By Gaia - 08/26/2010 - 4:20 pm wish there were a delete button. view in original post I'm not sure it's racism, By Gaia - 08/22/2010 - 11:01 pm but I absolutely agree with you about the double standard. Any Democratic president would probably be taking the same beating about the economy, regardless of race. It's certainly, at the very least, selective memory. It hasn't taken long for certain folks to forget that George Bush was behind the GM bailout, and now they insist that we just let that go and stop blaming him for anything at all. When people refuse to give the recovery the time it needs and instead lob baseless complaints and accusations, I find it hard to take anything they say seriously. There are no magic wands to be waved to make everything all better.
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

view in original post I beg to differ By Gaia - 08/22/2010 - 1:27 pm Health care has not been nationalized - not even close. Nothing in the current health care reform law will cause your doctor to recieve his/her salary and marching orders from the federal government. Heath care and Health Insurance are two very different things. Student loans have not been suddenly nationalized. We've had governement-backed loans for decades, ant that has ALWAYS been federal money. The only thing the law did was remove the middle man, and the Log in cost of supporting the middile man, from the application and payment process. It's like we can now buy to vote wholesale, rather than having to pay retail. You're also free to continue getting loans from private 9 instiutitions if you want. view in original post "Tolerance" By Gaia - 08/19/2010 - 9:18 am I understand it's the writer who used the word; it's not necessarily a word used in Target's vocabulary. "Tolerance" is a troublesome word for me. IMHO, it's not enough to "tolerate" people who are different, although I suppose we need to start somewhere. "Acceptance" is a better word, and the next thing to strive for universally. My hope is that at some point in Log in to vote the near future we won't be using either of the words to describe our behavior toward minotirities of any 5 type - it'll just be a non-issue. view in original post Don't you know? By Gaia - 08/06/2010 - 3:30 pm Every time a gay couple gets married, it causes a "traditional" marriage to flounder. view in original post once upon a time By Gaia - 08/06/2010 - 11:47 am nearly everyone believed that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. In fact, the dominant religion of the time said it was blaphemy to believe otherwise. However, the collective opnion of all those people did not make those beliefs into fact. The world was not flat, and the sun did not revolve Log in around the earth, despite everyone's opinion to the contrary. view in original post Yup. By Gaia - 08/05/2010 - 9:14 pm And a couple thousand years ago, traditional marriage meant an arranged marriage where a father literally 1
Log in to vote

to vote

gave his daughter to a man, who probably had other wives as well, and viewed all of them as chattel. view in original post No points awarded By Gaia - 08/05/2010 - 8:58 pm You have not answered the basic question. How does banning gay marriage prevent gay people from bearing and raising children? And I was not comparing interracial marriage to gay marriage. I was simply pointing out that banning the practice did not prevent interracial couples from having children. So what if gays can't have children "on their own?" They have them. Often. As is their right. Couples past the age of menopause can't have children on their own. Does that mean they shouldn't get married? People of all sorts have children out of wedlock. There is NO requirement, legally or biologically, for people to be married before having children. Your argument is an illusion based on the wild premise that gays can't have children unless they're married. I think. As best I can figure out. I do know it's totally illogical. view in original post Please, please, explain to me By Gaia - 08/05/2010 - 11:31 am Please explain how banning same-sex marriage will prevent same-sex couples from raising children? On the surface, the children seem to be your biggest concern. Perhaps what you're really looking for is a way to prevent same sex couples (and perhaps single persons) from raising children? Did banning interracial marriage prevent people from having mixed-race children? Nope. The only thing you're doing for children when you ban the marriage of their parents, is to keep those children in an "illegitmate" status, and give other people state-sanctioned reasons to torment them about their parents. If you really care about those children, allow their parents' relationships to be normalized. view in original post You are right By Gaia - 08/05/2010 - 11:09 am That's what happened with state of NH employee insurance. After same sex marriage was legalized, same sex partners had 6 months (I think) to either get married, or get off the employee's insurance. view in original post

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

We're paying for a service, not just for the bag By Gaia - 07/18/2010 - 10:06 pm The whole point of pay-to-throw is to charge for the privilege of sending trash to the incinerator. The actual cost of the bags is irrelevant. view in original post here's how By Gaia - 05/21/2010 - 10:47 am The insurance company that processes State employee health claims knows exactly how much money every provider charges for each procedure. The cost can vary widely from provider to provider. For example, one medical office may charge $500 for a mammogram, while another charges $1000, (I don't know the actual cost of a mammogram - I'm just making up numbers here.)If the employee knows she needs a mammogram, she can call the insurance company and ask which providers charge less, and register to use the lower cost provider. When she Log in to vote then gets her mammogram at the lower cost provider, the state saves $500 over 0 what they might otherwise have paid, and they send part of that savings (either $50 or $100) to the patient. The state still saves $400 on that procedure. view in original post dangerous generalizations By Gaia - 05/13/2010 - 9:28 am It is clear to me from your posts (and from your screen name) that your own child had his/her children taken by DCYF because of abuse or neglect, his/her rights were terminated, and you were not considered as a placement resource. That sounds like a very dis-empowering situation.However, it's inaccurate to generalize ALL child removals as inappropriate based just upon your own experience. You are also wrong about the funding for child removals. The state cannot be "making money" on each child removal, simply because the state must spend its own Log in money before it can get the match money from the federal government. The to vote federal match money is 50% or less than what the state spent.'Nuff said. I won't 0 engage further with either you or Stewie this time around. You two obviously have axes to grind, and I probably won't change your minds, but the general public needs to hear the other side.as well. view in original post moved. By Gaia - 05/13/2010 - 9:27 am Moved to the right spot in the thread. view in original post Thanks By Gaia - 05/12/2010 - 6:34 pm Thanks for that comment Shannon. People need to hear about what the State really does for kids.
Log in to vote Log in to vote

Congratulations on your success, and I wish you continued good fare. view in original post The article was not clear By Gaia - 05/12/2010 - 6:32 pm

Log in to vote

NFI North is a residential center for kids removed from their homes. I presume the other providers in the lawsuit are similar programs. It's not like the Boys & Girls club where kids go during the day.Kids are in these programs due to abuse or neglect, or because their delinquent behavior cannot be managed in their own homes. By the way, the State DOES bill parents for services. Most courts order parents to reimburse the state for services provided to their kids, within their means to do so - sort of like calculating child Log in support. However, very few parents have the means to completely pay back the services that have been to vote provided. The state gets back a fairly small percent. 0 view in original post Uh huh... By Gaia - 05/12/2010 - 6:25 pm Sorry, but that's just nuts. Exactly how is the State making money when it must pay for out-of-home care of these kids (group homes and foster homes), and pay the salaries of the case managers working with the kids? The federal money you're referring to is "match" money. When the state expends money in certain categories, like residential care, the federal government matches the amount spent. In other words, if the Log in bill is $100 a day, the state pays half and the federal government pays half. Exactly how does the state to vote make money that way? 0 view in original post Just stop it By Gaia - 05/07/2010 - 9:33 am The government is not running health care. It's passing laws about health insurance. Big difference.Let me know when your doctor starts get paid by and taking his or her marching orders from a federal government employee. view in original post Do you not see By Gaia - 05/07/2010 - 9:16 am Do you not see all of the spending cuts that are being made to try and balance this budget? What are your suggestions for additional, or different cuts? view in original post Nonsense By Gaia - 05/07/2010 - 9:14 am I've never seen anyone give up a raise because they would have to pay a portion of it back in federal taxes. Why would it be different for a state income tax? Log in
to vote Log in to vote

Log in to vote

view in original post Um... By Gaia - 04/20/2010 - 9:44 pm I think 603Lady is saying the town of Henniker is full of poop in making their claim. view in original post READ people By Gaia - 04/20/2010 - 1:56 pm Other than simply being trolls, why is everyone coming down on the union and state employees?. The union is trying to offer MORE money-saving proposals than the state is, and the state is turning them down. The state says they can save 1.8 million with some changes to the health care benefits.

Log in to vote

The Union is saying they can save ELEVEN million with different changes, and the state doesn't want to accept the proposals. Log in
to vote

So going by your logic, we fire all of the "ungrateful" state employees and union members, and the state 0 saves 1.8 million instead of 11 million. READ! view in original post Exactly! By Gaia - 04/20/2010 - 10:03 am SouthEndKid - you need to read the article again. ALL of the cost saving measures outlined were proposed by the union. It's the state that won't agree to them. The state proposes 1.8 million in savings. The Union says, "no thank you, we prefer 11 million, and here's what we're willing to give up in order to achieve that. The State whines: "you're being unreasonable and are not serious about coming to an agreement." ::facepalm:: view in original post and politician By Gaia - 04/01/2010 - 9:24 am She's made a couple runs at Congress and governor too. http://www.iop.harvard.edu/Programs/Fellows-Study-Groups/Former-Fellows/... view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote

... By Gaia - 03/26/2010 - 3:05 pm ...and another example of improper use of "which" by Millenia. Heh. view in original post Wrong on nearly every count By Gaia - 03/26/2010 - 9:50 am The writer's use of "that" in your first example is absolutely, unequivocably correct. (No, I don't have a thesaurus in front of me. I just happen to have a decent vocabulary). Here's the basic rule: You can only use "which" if the clause that follows can be left out without substantively changing the meaning of the sentence. http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/which-versus-that.aspx Your de-comma'd sentence - "Bradley a former Congressman should realize that Federal law trumps state law." - is also wrong. You need a comma after Bradley and after Congressman, because "a former Congressment" describes Bradley. Just because there are a lot of commas in a sentence doesn't mean they're incorrect. Your suggestion of using "in this editor's opinion" is simply laughable. It's an EDITORIAL, clearly labled. Log in to vote The reader does not need to be reminded that it's an opinion piece. 0 The rest of your comments are simply opinions. I, personally, did not find anything objectionable about the writer's style. Now, what's your real beef about this editorial? It looks to me like you couldn't come up with any good responses to the writer's points, so resorted to attacking writing style. view in original post You've missed (or chosen to ignore) my point By Gaia - 03/23/2010 - 11:03 pm Yes, my insurance plan is good. But I can't cover my young adult children. Privately insured people have this benefit, and State employees do not. I was refuting the previous poster's statement that NH law says everyone with insurance must be able to cover their young adult children, "no exceptions." view in original post I will grant you a point on that. By Gaia - 03/23/2010 - 2:02 pm However, what everyone seems to forget is that every single one of us working people, either through our taxes or our insurance premiums, is already paying for the "wannabes" to get health care. An uninsured person does not get preventive care, and when things become a crisis, they go to the emergency room. Log in They cannot be turned away, yet they cannot play. Who pays for it? We do. When they have their own insurance, their medical costs should go down - through getting preventive care and avoiding expensive ER visits. So yes, we'll be subsidizing them, but not to the same degree that we do 0
Log in to vote Log in to vote

to vote

now. view in original post There ARE exceptions By Gaia - 03/23/2010 - 1:57 pm Any company or entity that is "self insured," like the State of NH, does not have to extend that benefit to its employees. State employees have not had the same benefit as privately employed persons. view in original post How, exactly, will you be paying for this? By Gaia - 03/23/2010 - 10:18 am 1. What kind of world would we have if not for painters, singers, actors and writers? They all have to start somewhere. 2. If these young people are getting coverage on their parents' policies, and their parents and parents' Log in employers are paying for those policies, how is it that you and your children are paying for those benefits? to vote 0 view in original post What is "traditional marriage?" By Gaia - 03/19/2010 - 2:36 pm Over the millenia, traditional marriage has NOT been "one man, one woman." Even in the Bible, tranditional marriage was one man, many women. Traditionally, marriage was an economic arrangement, having little to do with love, or even respect for the women involved. If that is what you're advocating for, fine.
Log in to vote Log in to vote

However, if you are advocating for a more modern definition of marriage, like "one man and one woman, 0 bound together forever on the basis of love and mutual respect," please don't call it "traditional marriage." Doing so is disingenuous at best. view in original post Not convinced By Gaia - 03/19/2010 - 11:01 am You have not given me any evidence that the laws you list are forcing you to change your beliefs. None of these laws or incidents forbid you from believing the basics tenets of your religion. They do, however, limit the public expression of them, especially when that public expression forces others who may not share your beliefs to endure them, or when it breaks laws such as trespassing, truancy, disturbing the peace, or a myriad of others. Log in
to vote

As for the rest of your answer, you personally may be willing to tolerate some civil discourse, but there are plenty who don't. Any questioning of the religion is considered an attack, and the person being questioned instantly claims to be a victim of some vast anti-Christian movement.

I also see some evidence of insular and somewhat paranoid thinking: "I would not have a problem celebrating any Jewish holiday, they have some fine feasts days as well as other holy days established by God. But why would I participate in celebrating in any other God than the God of Abraham, Issac and jacob?" I was not suggesting you should celebrate any other holiday. I'm saying that when someone like me prefers to celebrate the Winter Solstice and Spring Equinox rather than Christmas and Easter, I should not be seen as anti-Christian. Non-Christian is NOT the same as anti-Christian, and this is a distinction that many people do not seem to understand. view in original post Fabulous By Gaia - 03/19/2010 - 10:28 am I stand in awe, Concord King. While I'm not a full time atheist (I travel back and forth between atheism and paganism), this was beautifully expressed. It's especially poignant for me because, when I do believe in god(s), I see them as being expressed in the natural world - earth, trees, stars, galaxies. That "star dust" if you will, is that bit of the divine that binds everything together. Have you ever tried Unitarian Universalism? A poetic soul like your's would surely be appreciated there. Atheist yes, but certainly spiritual. view in original post What's wrong with Spring Street? By Gaia - 03/18/2010 - 3:40 pm Last time I was over there, it looked fine to me. It's a working-class neighborhood, but not in disrepair. view in original post Yes, because the state vehicles cost us 47 Million a year By Gaia - 03/18/2010 - 12:40 pm I understand your frustration about this, but seriously, it's a drop in the bucket. We could park every single state car, and still need to cut 46.8 million dollars. I'm not saying it shouldn't be looked at. Just saying it's not the magic bullet you're implying. view in original post "Leave them alone?" By Gaia - 03/18/2010 - 10:29 am Unfortunately, "leaving them alone" often seems to mean: - never mention that any religion other than Christianity exists - never dare to venture an opinion that religions other than Christianity may have some merit Log in - never publicly celebrate any religious holiday other than the Christian holidays to vote - never, ever point out any of the myriad inconsistencies in the Jewish/Christian 0 Bible. - never question that a document written thousands of years ago by human beings is anything other than the exact word of god.
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

- never attempt to resist Christian proseletyzing. Please. Spare me the accusations of "attacks." Since when does civilized questioning, or exhibiting a preference (or even tolerance) for other religions qualify as an attack? Also, please give me an example of recent laws that have required Christians to change their beliefs? I'm dying to hear. view in original post Wow. Just.... wow. By Gaia - 03/15/2010 - 3:32 pm Who will this hurt? I don't get your reasoning. If you want to pay more, be my guest. It's not my pocket book it's coming out of, and your bird-flipping is along the lines of "sticks and stones." Methinks there's a big old tantrum going on at Liamd2's house. view in original post Excuse me? By Gaia - 03/15/2010 - 12:56 pm You are not responsible for me. We are now all responsible for our own trash, and to pay for our own trash. You are no longer paying for my trash disposal. That was the OLD method - where our property taxes paid the landfill tipping fees. Second - I believe Webster will still be paying the same fees they were paying before. They're not getting a free ride on our coat tails. Third - Did I ONCE whine about people not recycling? Please find that quote in my postings and show me. Fourth - I'm not concerned about knowing how those who left would have voted, but YOU seem to be. You're convinced they were mostly "no" voters. I'm simply saying we can't tell how they would have voted and that you're full of it if you think you do know. And finally - last year the article lost by 3 votes. This year is passed by significantly more than that. Still a small margin, but passed is passed. Just as failed was failed last year. Tell you what, if next year you still feel the same way about the situation, feel free to bring an article to the warrant by petition. view in original post Nice blame deflection By Gaia - 03/15/2010 - 10:54 am Are you saying only the "yes" voters had the constitution to make it all the way to 1:00? Are you saying only the "yes" voters had the foresight to pack a lunch? Are you saying only the "yes" voters thought about looking at the warrant to see how far down the article was in the list? Come on. I was at the meeting. A vast majority of voters stayed through the PAYT article, and there's
Log in to vote Log in to vote

Log in to vote

absolutely no way to know how those few who did leave would have voted. Quitcher whining and conspiracy theories and take some responsibility for yourself. view in original post Calm down Don By Gaia - 03/15/2010 - 9:45 am You seem to be misunderstanding this whole thing. Dockham has publicly announced that he is in favor of Pay-as-you-throw. The town reached an agreement with him that if PAYT passes, he will have NO tipping fees whatsoever for any trash he brings to the transfer station in the special bags. He will be able to dispose of them for FREE. This means he will be able to pass that savings on to his customers and to LOWER the cost of trash pickup. All this was explained in George's letter to the editor last week, and at town meeting. PAYT has saved Dockham Trucking, and will probably save you money as well. view in original post I'm thinking... By Gaia - 03/14/2010 - 11:04 pm Because the Dockhams ARE smart, they will provide customers with one price for the service of picking up both recyclables and trash. I also suspect the price will come down a lot, because he will have NO tipping fees for trash in the special bags. (He's currently charging just $2 a week to pick up recycling.) I'm expecting my overall trash bill to come down significantly because of this. view in original post Retirement system is not part of the state contract By Gaia - 03/11/2010 - 12:42 pm The union and the state employee's contract have nothing at all to do with the Retirmeent System. They don't address ANYTHING about retirement, and have absolutely no control over it. The Retirment System is controlled by state law and the legislature, not the union contract. view in original post non sequituer By Gaia - 03/09/2010 - 1:07 pm What do the unions have to do with this? They have no control over the state retirement system or the rules governing it. Eliminating every union or union employee would not change the fact that the cities and towns seem to expect that ALL state residents, regardless of where they live, should be contributing to the retirement
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

benefits of all municiple employees. I live in Hopkinton, but I'm expected to help pay for Concord's police officers and teachers? Jeez, sounds pretty socialized to me. :) view in original post It's not one or the other By Gaia - 03/05/2010 - 9:57 am Don't you think it's possible to feel sympathy for the man, AND believe that he should be locked up and kept off the streets? Jeez, the two things are not mutually exclusive. view in original post minimalist might be good By Gaia - 03/02/2010 - 11:46 am With the size of the world population, and the resources we have to go around, "minimalist" living may be the more ethical and responsible, and sustainable way of life. view in original post deleted By Gaia - 03/01/2010 - 11:30 am deleted. Dang, I wish there were a delete button for posts. view in original post 55 states? By Gaia - 03/01/2010 - 11:24 am Where did those 5 states come from? view in original post "Always?" By Gaia - 02/26/2010 - 10:06 am As soon as I see the words "always" or "never" in a post, I pretty much assume that the writer has a personal bias in a situation. Parental rights are very difficult to terminate in NH, as they should be. Look at the number of children who are returned to their families every year by DCYF and the Log in Courts - it far, far outweighs the number of children who end up being placed for to vote adoption. 0 view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

You presume too much By Gaia - 02/24/2010 - 4:03 pm There is absolutely nothing in this story that tells us what the child's current legal relationship is with her biological father. You don't know who has custody, who has guardianship, and what the father's rights are to her. In New Hampshire, the only reason to terminate a parent's rights is to free the child for adoption (because neither parent is able to safely care for the child, and it is in the child's best interest to be placed with a different family.) I don't know the specifics of this case, but if the child is with her biological mother and is safe with her, there is no reason to terminate the father's rights, because Log in she's not going to be adopted. Leaving the father's rights in place also preserves to vote any rights of inheritance or to social security benefits that the child may have. 0 (There's no good reason to sever that legal relationship if the biological parent is not going to be replaced by an adoptive parent. Why make an orphan of the child?) Court orders can keep a parent away from a child until he/she is of age, if safety is a concern. You don't have to terminate parental rights to achieve that. view in original post We already do By Gaia - 02/23/2010 - 2:35 pm Those people are already getting health care, and most of them have insurance. I don't understand your point. view in original post two different answers here By Gaia - 02/23/2010 - 2:25 pm We have one person saying that Jesus was a Jew and followed the laws of moses, therefore he would have naturally be against homosexuality. We have another saying that Jesus created a new covenant for those who would become Christians, and Jewish law no longer applies. Which is it? view in original post And what did Jesus have to say about homosexuality? By Gaia - 02/22/2010 - 1:29 pm Not a darn thing, as far as I can tell. Perhaps Christians are supposed to do what Jesus did - ignore homosexuality, and not get their knickers in Log in to vote a twist about it. 0
Log in to vote

Log in to vote

view in original post No problem By Gaia - 02/22/2010 - 1:17 pm If your religion forbids homosexual relations, do not engage in them. Your god will be happy with you. However, do you really think that you're going to go to hell because other people that you have no control over are engaging in homosexual relations? I don't think so. Worry about your own house, and let others worry about theirs. view in original post You got a tax cut of either $400 or $800 this year By Gaia - 02/22/2010 - 11:31 am Remember last spring when you started getting a few more dollars in your weekly paycheck?. Multiply that by the number of weeks that were left in the year, and it came out to $400 per person ($800 if you're married and are the only one working). You got it in bits and pieces rather than in one obvious check (a la Bush tax rebates), but you got it, none- Log in to vote the-less. 0 view in original post Two wars prosecuted by the Bush administration By Gaia - 02/18/2010 - 11:29 am (justified or not) is what set our economy up for failure. The bursting of the housing bubble pushed it over the edge. One disaster or the other might have been manageable. The double whammy took us down for the count. Log in
to vote Log in to vote

view in original post That's your belief By Gaia - 02/11/2010 - 10:12 am It's not mine. You can't pass laws based soley on religious belief. Besides, are you going to try to tell me that your neighbor's same sex marriage will cause you to go to Hell? view in original post Just one SEA By Gaia - 01/29/2010 - 11:02 am

Log in to vote

As the previous commenter said, it's a different bargaining unit. Different state employees are divided into different bargaining units. Most employees are covered by the largest bargaining unit - and that's the one Log in

that rejected furloughs last year. The Judicial bargaining unit has it's own contract with the state, and votes to vote 0 accordingly on it. The SEA assists both units with their own bargaining with the state. Different needs/wishes of the various bargaining units result in differing contracts. view in original post It's the old "YDC" By Gaia - 01/23/2010 - 7:30 pm The Youth Detention Center in Manchester modernized, built a new secure building, and renamed it Sununu Youth Services Center. They house juvenile offenders. Why is the State in this business? Because it's required by law to provide secure detention for youth who pose a danger to the community. view in original post How does it affect you? By Gaia - 01/08/2010 - 12:53 pm Same-sex marriage affects YOUR life and YOUR paycheck how? view in original post yup By Gaia - 01/05/2010 - 11:14 am Should be Jan 1, 2011. view in original post This country is screwed up in the health care arena By Gaia - 12/30/2009 - 12:34 pm I was listening to NPR a few weeks ago and they had on a public policy expert from Canada. She said that the bill that created the National Health Service in Canada was 8 (thats EIGHT) pages long, so "everyone knew what it said." I have a co-worker who is a citizen of a Scandanavian country. She says her country's health care system may not be perfect, and because it's a small country, the system probably wouldn't translate wholesale to a larger country but, "by God, when you're sick you can go to the doctor, and when your kids are sick you don't have to choose between taking them to the doctor or feeding them." From what I've seen, the main thing standing in the way of universal health care is Log in to vote the rather uniquely American attitude that "I earned this money, and I'm not going 0 to let you have any of it to pay for health care for someone else." Yet, we all fork over income-based taxes for national defense, maintaining national parks, insterstate highways, police and fire protection, public education, Social Security, food, housing and medical care for the disabled and poor, and every other thing that the federal and state governments provide to the people. (I know, much of our tax base in NH is not truly income-based, but there's at least a rough correlation between income and the value of your house.)
Log in to vote Log in to vote

Log in to vote

So many things in this country are paid for by our taxes. Why the huge opposition to including health care (not health insurance!) in the list? view in original post It's a sin for Jews & Christians to worship other gods By Gaia - 12/24/2009 - 2:22 pm It's clear to me that the old testament, a Jewish document, was written by Jews for Jews. Its laws are for Jews (and later for Christians), not pagans. Since I am not Jewish or Christian, I do not believe it is a "sin" for me to worship other gods. Notice that the bible does not deny the existence of other gods? You will always have a problem using a Judeo-Christian document to convince someone from a nonAbrahamic faith of anything. Would your mind be changed by emphatic quotes from a Buddhist, Hindu, or Native American about what "sin" is, or is not? Or for that matter, of a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon, both ostensibly Christian? Probably not. Same goes here. Using the bible to preach to us is pretty much useless. I don't mean to be disrespectful, just stating the facts as I see them.
Log in As for what the Horned God promises - it's not salvation. Pagans, for the most part, do not believe in to vote original sin, so we don't believe we need to be saved from it. Many (most?) of us believe in some version 0 of "what goes around, comes around," and that our afterlives (and future lives) will be guided by our behaviors while we are living. Behavior is far more important than belief in the divinity of a particular individual who was born 2000 years ago.

In the end, no one can really say what the truth is in religion. This is why they call it "faith," to distinguish it from "provable fact." Perhaps you'll be right. Perhaps I will. Perhaps it'll be something neither of us ever dreamed about. Maybe we'll find out when we die. Maybe we won't. There's little point fighting over it now. view in original post It's not socialized medicine By Gaia - 12/23/2009 - 4:10 pm The bill that's about to be voted on is not socialized medicine. So why even bring up the allegedly substandard socialized medicine of other countries? Can you say "red herring?" view in original post Satanic? By Gaia - 12/23/2009 - 9:55 am Satan is a Judeo-Christian concept. Pagans don't have any such figure of ultimate evil in their pantheons. Each deity is, within him or herself, a range of "good" and "not so good," just like people, and nature. We have no need to polarize deity into ultimate good and ultimate evil. Log in
to vote Log in to vote

view in original post

Exactly what did I prove? By Gaia - 12/22/2009 - 7:59 pm That pagans exist? Existance is the same as sneaking? view in original post Whoops! By Gaia - 12/22/2009 - 7:49 pm Apparently I have major dyslexia today. Jirdex... JustSaying.... They're both J names! Sorry Jirdex, you're off the hook. view in original post Nice of you to defend Carol By Gaia - 12/22/2009 - 9:58 am But she is a Witch - in the religious sense. She's a pagan of the Wiccan/Witch persuasion. view in original post re-written and moved. By Gaia - 12/22/2009 - 9:43 am I seem to have this ongoing problem with posting in the wrong spot.... view in original post I saw no bashing By Gaia - 12/22/2009 - 9:42 am It was a respectful letter. Jirdex, on the other hand.... (smirk) I don't understand why so many Christians are so seemingly paranoid in these matters. Chrisitanity is the dominant culture (not jus the dominant religion) in the US. It is in no danger of being outlawed, and in no danger of being swept away in a tide of paganism (or any other religion). Yet every time someone gently reminds the dominant culture that they are not the ONLY culture, and injects a few historical facts, someone else inevitably freaks out and claims they are being attacked. It must be exhausting. Or maybe that's the cause that certain people have latched onto. The thing that makes their lives worth living - defending the faith against all comers - real or imagined. By the way. I'm pagan and I do not sneak. I'm not trying to take over anything. Just carve out a little space for myself where I can worship in peace, while allowing everyone else to do the same. view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

That was fabulous By Gaia - 12/22/2009 - 9:21 am Thank you. I keep wondering why it's ok for Christians to insist I have a Merry Christmas, when my holiday is actually the Winter Solstice. Not that I mind being wished a Merry Christmas - good wishes are good wishes, regardless of the actual words. But.... there does seem to be a huge double standard here.
Log in to vote

Serious question that perhaps a Christian can answer. Would you be more offended by being greeted with 0 "happy holidays" than "happy Solstice?" Or are you like me - you want to be given the leeway to express your own holiday greeting, but don't really care what people say back? view in original post Huh? By Gaia - 12/18/2009 - 9:25 am I could make little sense of that post, but will respond to the only two clear points you made. 1. Jesus was a Jew. Of course he would approve of a menorah. The incident that it commemorated happened only 200 years before his birth. 2. A menorah is not an object of idolotry because it does not represent God. It symbolizes an incident, not a divine being. view in original post What money? By Gaia - 12/18/2009 - 9:09 am Where is this magical inflow of money you keep talking about? Do you have any idea how much money DCYF SPENDS on housing and treatment of children in its care? If a child is on Medicaid, treatment money goes directly to the provider. Housing money comes out of the state coffers - tax money and matching grants from the federal government. Where do you think this money is ending up? It's not in the pockets of the employees or managers, that's for sure. You talk as if DCYF is a for-profit entity. Get a grip. Ask any legislator. They'd be thrilled if no child abuse or neglect existed, because then the state would not have to spend any money on mitigating it. "Making up" child abuse or neglect is not a money-maker for the state - it's a money-drainer. view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote

Another failed attempt at sarcasm By Gaia - 12/16/2009 - 11:05 am You're right. My point was that there are other things that need to be considered if you build "worker housing." Local jobs, and transportation to get to them are essential. But I don't think those things are anyone's wish list in Hopkinton town government. ("sure, we'll build low cost housing, but you gotta look for a job elsewhere.) Seems like the better order to do things in would be: create jobs, THEN create worker housing. Then transportation if it's needed. view in original post "Affordable Housing" requires public transportation By Gaia - 12/15/2009 - 3:44 pm No point in building the housing if there's no plan for public transportation, both within town, and to Concord, where the jobs are. view in original post Nope By Gaia - 12/15/2009 - 3:33 pm The political appointees get paid the best. Far more than the rank and file who have been around for 20, 25, or 30 years. Of course those with greater longevity get paid more. It's the same in the private sector, isn't it? If you stick around, you show up, and you perform adequately, you get periodic raises. Why should it be any different in state service? Please give me some references that support your claim that "most receiving this scam money are retired on active duty..." Your broad sweeping stereotypes don't cut it here. Show me some actual facts and evidence, rather than your own jaded conjecture. view in original post 41% By Gaia - 12/14/2009 - 11:00 am And exactly 41% was taken from mine. Would you like to see the stub? view in original post 15 minutes - yup By Gaia - 12/07/2009 - 10:45 am I went in during lunch hour last Friday to renew my license, and was out of there, temp license in hand within 15 minutes. Probably closer to 10. view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

You said it - COST PER YEAR By Gaia - 12/01/2009 - 9:08 am I have to assume you're being facetious in your post. You've outlined a cost per year. The $700,000 to buy the conservation easement is a one-time expense, not a yearly one. view in original post About Y2K By Gaia - 11/30/2009 - 12:59 pm The reason it was "a complete bust" is because for the 3 or 4 years leading up to it, programmers spent hundreds of thousands of hours combing through code and making the updates necessary to avoid a problem on 1/1/2000. If not for the dire warnings, there would have not have been the massive effort to correct the problems, and we might very well have had a global crisis.
Log in Log in to vote

The warnings were accurate and necessary. Fortunately, the IT world took them to heart and did what they to vote needed to do. 0 view in original post Hint to MOO2YOU69 - lower the caps By Gaia - 11/25/2009 - 9:15 am It's really difficult for many people to read things that are posted in ALL CAPS. I'm sure you've made an interesting point, but I just can't force my way through it to find out. view in original post Give it a rest By Gaia - 11/19/2009 - 9:00 am You're not even a Hopkinton resident. Your opinion means squat. Sorry. view in original post Can't they vote for themselves? By Gaia - 11/18/2009 - 3:54 pm Do you know how they would vote, or are you deciding what's best for them? All of them? view in original post Again I posted in the wrong spot By Gaia - 11/18/2009 - 3:53 pm Moved view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

If you're planning to move out By Gaia - 11/18/2009 - 2:57 pm Perhaps you shouldn't vote in this matter, since it will not affect you, or your children. view in original post First amendment rights By Gaia - 11/17/2009 - 10:46 am First amendment rights don't guarantee that there will be absolutely no consequences for speaking out. They only guarantee that the congress can't pass laws against speaking out. When someone says something offensive, he/she should expect the general populace to react, and to apply consequences. He can say it all he wants. He just can't go to jail for it. But he can be fired, and he can have other people exercise their first amendment rights to call him a bigot. view in original post sooo.... Let's try a little word substitution.... By Gaia - 11/17/2009 - 10:41 am "If being black (or asian, or Jewish, or female, or blond) wasn't wrong, then there wouldn't be all the derogatory names that go along with it. They all need to get over it and realize that we will never accept their way of life." And don't try to tell me that sexual orientation is a choice, while race, gender and hair color are not. Do you remember the moment you chose to be straight? Was there ever a choice to be made? view in original post Duh By Gaia - 11/17/2009 - 10:28 am Perhaps because the "well-heeled" are the exact people who have large tracts of land that can be preserved. Who has lots of land? the rich people! Know any poor people with lots of desireable land? view in original post 750-800 layoffs, or 19 Furlough Days plus 250 layoffs. By Gaia - 11/13/2009 - 10:26 pm Actually.... :) view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

Sorry By Gaia - 11/13/2009 - 10:25 pm Moved to proper spot. Wish there was a delete button. view in original post I doubt we can get those jobs back By Gaia - 11/13/2009 - 10:24 pm Ostensibly, most of them were a result of "restructuring" to meet other budget goals. view in original post We were told By Gaia - 11/13/2009 - 10:22 pm We were advised by union leadership to take the governor at face value, and to expect the layoffs he promised. We knew that 250-300 layoffs would happen even if we voted for the furloughs. We were reminded that every time the going gets tough in the state, the answer is to ask state employees for concessions, rather than resolve our obvious funding problems. We were advised to read everything, and vote for ourselves, rather than simply toeing the union line (or any other line.) view in original post The union did not miscalculate By Gaia - 11/13/2009 - 10:13 pm State employees got the best of two rotten choices. We did not get a paycut (furloughs), AND the only layoffs were the ones that had been promised even if we voted for the furloughs. We absolutely did not miscalculate. We came out the best we could given the choice we were given. view in original post It was never a choice between layoffs and furloughs By Gaia - 11/12/2009 - 9:17 am We were told from the beginning that there would be 250-300 layoffs (mostly in Health and Human Services) REGARDLESS of how we voted. So, the choice was: 19 Furlough days plus 250-300 layoffs OR No Furlough days plus 1000 layoffs. It turns out SEA members voted correctly because what did we get? No furloughs and the original
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

promised 250 layoffs. Looks like we got the best of 2 rotten choices. Those 250 layoffs were ostensibly needed because of reorganization of departments. The fact that the departments were able to meet the budget requirements with just the reorganization tells me that the State bargained in bad faith. Either they KNEW that the furloughs/additional layoffs were not needed, or they did not do their homework properly. view in original post Cool! By Gaia - 11/10/2009 - 11:23 am Thanks for the info. I'm going to try this. view in original post Want the amenities of a larger town? By Gaia - 11/06/2009 - 9:15 am Move to a larger town. Why are you living in Hopkinton if it doesn't have what you want? Many of us live there because it is NOT Concord. It doesn't have all the retail and coffee shops and traffic. You want a department store nearby, move. Don't spoil it for the rest of us. Log in
to vote Log in to vote

view in original post I assume you're being facetious By Gaia - 11/05/2009 - 10:47 am The Bohanan property is not exactly "in town." It's not even on the way to Concord. You want a plaza? Let's buy some property from the Houstons and expand the Park Avenue plaza out into the corn field. view in original post Hmmm By Gaia - 11/05/2009 - 10:41 am Just the other night I was driving home on Route 103, going up Diamond Hill in Concord, when I saw a black something standing on the shoulder on the other side of the road and thought, "wow, that looks like a pig." I thought I must have been Log in imagining things. Now I wish I had turned around and gone back to look. view in original post Huh? By Gaia - 10/30/2009 - 9:43 am You say the cities and towns have shirked their duties, but you think the State should be held responsible for taking up the slack? Huh? It may not be the employees' fault that their employers didn't pay into the fund, but in the end it affects 0
Log in to vote

to vote

Log in to vote

ALL employees served by the fund. If the system goes under because the cities and towns have been getting a free ride, then State employees, who'd employer HAS been contributing correctly, will be screwed as well. I don't agree with the lawsuit. If the municipalities want to play, they need to pay their fair share. And if they'd been paying their fair share all along, the state might not have had to raise their contribution rate. view in original post Why did union members vote for layoffs? By Gaia - 10/29/2009 - 11:00 am Because we were told by the governor's team that 250-300 layoffs were guaranteed, even if we voted for the furloughs. If we had been given the facts, including the fact that the governor was going to allow departments to be "creative" about how to achieve the savings, things might have been different. Why didn't the Executive office KNOW that the $25M savings could be accomplished in with those guaranteed 250-300 layoffs? Why didn't they KNOW how the layoffs would shake out before they were implemented? If they had done their homework, the negotiations would not have been so contentious, and we would have a fair state employee contract in place today. view in original post State retirement fund By Gaia - 10/29/2009 - 10:47 am I've read in the past that the NH State Retirement System has been in financial trouble partly because counties and towns have not been paying their fair share into the fund. Does this mean they haven't even been making their 65% they were supposed to pay? And if that's the case, can we expect that they will increase their contributions at this point, or continue to under-fund their part of the deal?
Log in Log in to vote

If the cities and towns are under-paying, they should have no expectation of full payouts for their retirees. to vote Retiree pensions should be reduced commensurate with reduced contributions to the Retirement System. 0 view in original post If only we'd been given that choice By Gaia - 10/28/2009 - 4:22 pm The governor promised layoffs regardless of whether the contract was approved. It was just a matter of how many layoffs. According to the governor, 250-300 layoffs would occur due to program closings and reorganization. It was made clear to us that taking the paycut (furloughs) would NOT save those 250-300 jobs. view in original post
Log in to vote

Who's crying and moaning? By Gaia - 10/28/2009 - 3:28 pm I don't see ANY state employees in these forums "crying and moaning." I do see lots of people SAYING that state employees are whining, complaining, crying, moaning. Let's look at the reality folks. 200 State employees got laid off. For the most part, they are rolling with the punches and moving forward, like other people who have been laid off. The public is so convinced that state employees are whiners, that they are attributing whining where there 0 is none. view in original post Free food By Gaia - 10/28/2009 - 9:58 am Nice way to get free food delivered, LOL. I love pie. view in original post I object By Gaia - 10/28/2009 - 9:41 am "After state employees voted down a proposed contract, Gov. John Lynch was required by legislative mandate to make $25 million in personnel cuts. " The governor promised layoffs, regardless of how the union voted on the contract. If the contract had been ratified, the above sentence could easily have been "After state employees voted for a proposed contract, Governor John Lynch carried out layoffs as a result of program closures and reorganizations." Don't blame state employees for this. If the legislature had found a way to fund all the programming the state wants, we would not be in this position. view in original post Reducing and Reusing By Gaia - 10/28/2009 - 9:34 am There's three parts to the equation - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. People who are trying to reduce their trash output will do all three. Some of the savings probably comes from people changing their buying habits buying things with less packaging, for example. Some things that might have been trash before might be reused several times before being thrown. I suspect a good deal of the reduction, particularly during the growing season, is kitchen and yard waste. It's probably ending up in compost piles rather than in the trash. Unfortunately, in the early stages of this program, there may also be several tons of trash piling up in people's garages and basement, as people are unsure how to deal with it. Concord should come up with a plan for how to help these folks clean out - something that balances affordability with personal
Log in to vote Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

responsibility. view in original post misdirected anger By Gaia - 10/27/2009 - 1:46 pm It's the Monitor that's writing the stories. State employees are not lining up asking for their stories to be told. They are interviewed, and they answer questions. The Monitor writes the story and prints it. Do you really think Bill Champagne has been telling dozens of reporters his "I didn't cry" story?" He was interviewed once, the Monitor printed it in two different stories, and YOU have been repeating it every chance you get. How does the Monitor's interest in this story (and your complaining about it) equate to State employees going on and on about it? They're not the ones keeping it alive! And by the way, statements like "the union did you no good" are ignorant at best. You were not in the thick of things with the negotiations and the vote. You're just looking in from the outside and have no basis on which to judge. My personal opinion, having been through it all first hand? The union's recommendation and the resulting vote were the absolute best we could have gotten out of this nasty situation. We got the 250 layoffs that were promised REGARDLESS of how we voted, and we didn't get a paycut. The $25M in personnel costs were accomplished. If you have a problem with the state budget and your dwindling dollars, take it up with the governor and legislature, not state employees who have no control over it. view in original post By the way, you're wrong... By Gaia - 10/27/2009 - 9:23 am State employees did NOT vote to lay themselves off. The letter writer is absolutely correct when she says the layoffs would have happened even if the contract had been ratified. We were told in no uncertain terms that the layoffs were required due to reorganization and closing of programs. Ratifying the contract Log in would NOT have saved those jobs. view in original post Double standard By Gaia - 10/27/2009 - 9:12 am When the Monitor ran stories about the layoffs at the Eagle Tribune and Precision, interviewing some of the affected workers, I didn't see any comments about how whiney and greedy those workers were. In fact, I'm not seeing a lot of whining from State Employees. I do see a lot of Log in people SAYING that State employees are whining. Saying it over and over doesn't to vote make it so. 0 Even Ms. Crowley's letter is not whining. It's simply trying to set the record straight about how the layoffs came about. It does not say "woe is me, we've been 0
Log in to vote

to vote

unfairly laid off." A number of my co-workers have been laid off or demoted. I see not one of them whining. They are sad, understandably worried, and a bit shell shocked, but they are going about their jobs quietly and professionally, finishing out their duties the best they can before their final day on the job. view in original post Once again - it was not a choice between layoffs and furloughs By Gaia - 10/25/2009 - 4:00 pm It was a choice between layoffs plus furloughs, or just plain layoffs. We were promised 250-300 layoffs even if we voted for furloughs. So, we got the 250-300 promised layoffs, and no furloughs. We were clearly told that voting yes for the contract would not save those 250-300 jobs. Log in
to vote

Of course, hindsight is always 20/20. If we had been told the "real" numbers up front, instead of being bullied with the figure of 750 layoffs (in addition to the 250), we would have a contract right now, with furloughs and no layoffs. view in original post We didn't "give up" the rights By Gaia - 10/24/2009 - 5:47 pm

They were taken away. The Administration suspended the personnel rules that provided bumping rights. The employees had no say about it. The "limited bumping rights" that would have come with a contract also meant that we would need to swallow other unpalatable provisions along with them. view in original post Advances? By Gaia - 10/21/2009 - 3:18 pm I presume that the same rules that cover unwanted heterosexual advances should cover the unwanted gay advances. Why is it that people assume that just because someone is gay they somehow either have a higher sex drive, or they have weaker boundaries? Gays are just as capable as of appropriate sexual boundaries as straights are. But maybe that's the problem..... There are a lot of straights who are not capable of appropriate sexual boundaries. Should gays be held to a 0 higher standard than straights? As I said - apply the same rules to both populations, and there shouldn't be a problem.... unless straights are getting away with things they shouldn't be getting away with.
Log in to vote Log in to vote

view in original post And By Gaia - 10/21/2009 - 9:55 am It's even more obvious what his motivations were when you remember that HE asked the legislature to order him to cut $25M in personnel costs. view in original post That would be shop steward. By Gaia - 10/21/2009 - 9:52 am Did you not know your own title? view in original post Perhaps... By Gaia - 10/21/2009 - 9:15 am Perhaps "brown" was simply an adjective, not intended as a species name - as in "small brown mouse," or "big brown dog." As passionate as you were in that post, I still didn't see a reasonable defense of this hunting method, other than the fact that it's legal, hunters have a right to do it, and if you take it away something else might be next. I'm admittely not a big hunting fan. But I have a lot more respect for the solitary hunter who, through skill Log in and patience, locates his prey and brings it down with a single well-placed gun or bow shot. The animal to vote isn't needlessly terrified before being taken, and the hunter actually has to do some work. 0 Perhaps it is a slipperly slope when you start banning certain hunting practices, but I'm not opposed to a line being drawn with this particular practice. view in original post The state portion of property tax By Gaia - 10/20/2009 - 1:08 pm The state has the power to eliminate the state portion of the property tax if it were to replace it with an income tax. view in original post If the state team had given the union the right info By Gaia - 10/17/2009 - 11:44 pm If the state team had given the union accurate information about how many layoffs would actually be required, I can assure you we would have a contract today. If they were able to accomplish the savings one day after the vote was counted, surely someone could have gathered up the information before the ballots Log in to vote went out. 0
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

The layoffs were always on the table. We were told that even if we voted for the furloughs, 250-300 would be laid off. view in original post A yes vote would not have saved those jobs By Gaia - 10/17/2009 - 11:59 am The governor made it clear there would be 250-300 layoffs even if we did vote for furloughs. Now that the dust has settled, I believe state employees got the best of two rotten choices. We do not have furloughs, AND we have only the guaranteed 250-300 layoffs, rather than the threated 750 extra layoffs. Log in view in original post They don't.... By Gaia - 10/16/2009 - 5:48 pm They bargain on behalf of all state employees who are in no union, and are not in a different union. Nonmembers do get all of the benefits of the contract that's bargained on their behalf. They have the choice of joining if they wish. Which leads to to point out that the "fair share" payors never seem to complain about all the raises and benefits that have been secured for them - they only come out of the woodwork when we are denied a decent contract. view in original post Or... By Gaia - 10/16/2009 - 5:42 pm He though the threat of 750 would be more likely to get us to agree to furloughs than the threat of 250. If so, he predicted wrong. Too bad he hadn't just been straightforward from the beginning. view in original post I don't think any of us By Gaia - 10/16/2009 - 4:27 pm I don't think any of us thought the governor was bluffing. The union leadership, in fact, was very careful to tell members that we should assume that he was serious about layoffs. Now that the dust has settled, I believe the union voted the right way. We were presented with the following two rotten choices: Accept furloughs for everyone, PLUS layoffs for 250-300, or Decline the furloughs, and accept layoffs for 205-300, PLUS a possibility of up to
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

to vote

750 more layoffs. As it turns out, we got the best parts of both rotten choices. No one got furloughed, and only the original, guaranteed 250-300 layoffs. As for "pissing and moaning" - I'm really not seeing much of that from state employees, but I do see lots of accusations of whining from the outside (shrug). view in original post Numbers By Gaia - 10/16/2009 - 4:19 pm There are about 6500 union members (not all state employees are members of the union - their choice). Of the 6500, about 80% returned a ballot. The 2800 who voted "no" represented 60% of those who voted. Log in
to vote

view in original post It was complicated, and difficult By Gaia - 10/16/2009 - 4:13 pm It was not a simple choice of "give me furloughs or lay me off." It was closer to:

Give me guaranteed furloughs for EVERYONE, plus guaranteed layoffs for 250-300, vs. Give no one furloughs, plus guaranteed layoffs for 250-300, plus a probability of layoffs for an additional 750. Neither choice was particularly palatable. Both would be hurtful - One would hurt everyone moderately, plus some a lot. The other would hurt 10% of the workforce alot, but spare the rest. Believe me, not everyone can absorb a paycut of any size these days. I find it very interesting (and gratifying) that, in the end, state employees got the best parts of both rotten choices. No one is getting furloughed, AND there's only 300 people affected by layoffs, transfers and demotions. I personally believe SEA members voted correctly this time, and wish the state team had provided accurate numbers regarding the possible layoffs. If they had, we probably would have a contract today that includes moderate furloughs and no layoffs. view in original post Clarification By Gaia - 10/16/2009 - 4:02 pm It was a typo - I meant to say that $20K a year is a LG4. I see how you might have misinterpreted what I wrote as $20/hour. My apologies, view in original post
Log in to vote

Log in to vote

I voted against it By Gaia - 10/15/2009 - 10:53 pm even though my job was at risk. I'm not sorry. People need to understand, the choice was NOT furloughs or layoffs.... it was furloughs and layoffs, or just plain layoffs. view in original post $20,000 a year still = a $14 cup of coffee By Gaia - 10/15/2009 - 3:13 pm I based my $30/week on $45,000 a year. Even at the lowest labor grades ($20 is about a LG4), the hit is still much higher than a cup of coffee a week. I only wish to point out the gross exaggeration in the original statement.
Log in Log in to vote

Also remember, a 3.65% paycut hits someone making $20,000 a lot harder than someone making $45,000 to vote - because a lot of the fixed costs like housing and transportation are not proportional between the two pay 0 levels. What it really means is that the lower paid people have a lot less discretionary spending available to them. It's easier for a higher paid person to give up $30 than for a lower paid person to give up $14. view in original post Not a glorified position By Gaia - 10/15/2009 - 12:54 pm (Sorry Diana for tossing this out there - I hope that since you give your name, which can be looked up in the public state personnel directory, you won't mind. Stewie needs to be put in his place on this one.) Diana is an Executive Secretary, which is a Labor Grade 11. I don't know where she is in the step scale, but the hourly wage (for 37.5 hours per week) ranges from $13.12 to $16.46. view in original post I think it remains to be By Gaia - 10/15/2009 - 12:06 pm I think it remains to be seen whether the state can survive with the layoffs. The number of layoffs is much lower now that originally advertised. If services continue uninterrupted, AND the remaining workers are not burning themselves out taking up the slack then yes, the positions should be eliminated. But today, I Log in think it's too early to tell. view in original post There's no bumping. By Gaia - 10/15/2009 - 12:04 pm There's no bumping anymore. 0
Log in to vote

to vote

view in original post sure - a $30 cup of coffee By Gaia - 10/15/2009 - 12:02 pm Check your math. view in original post Offhanded? By Gaia - 10/14/2009 - 9:57 pm

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Not really. I'm just stating the facts, not passing any judgement about them. People have suggested that layoffs should be used to get rid of deadwood. I'm just saying that's not possible under current personnel rules (which have the weight of law.) Log in
to vote

view in original post "Its about you and only you" By Gaia - 10/14/2009 - 6:29 pm Dare I say that for all of the people complaining about how the union members voted, because of the way it will affect the writers.... It seems to be about you, and only you. Apparently state employees are supposed to bend over backward and sacrifice all kinds of things personally so that the public is not inconvenienced.

State workers did not create the fiscal crisis. State employees did not create the staffing problems, and Log in state employees did not bring us to the point that we had to make the decisions we had to make. This was to vote the legislature's fault. Please place the blame for reduced services where it belongs - on the legislature 0 and the governor for asking for a $25M personnel reduction. view in original post If only... By Gaia - 10/14/2009 - 6:19 pm If only the people who have an opinion about this had actually made this kind of point, and said exactly how our decision will affect THEM, I would not have made the comment. "I wish you had approved the contract because the lines are already long and my time is valuable," is a very different statement from "You're all selfish, greedy ingrates who don't know how good you have it, and you're idiots for voting no." All I've seen, until I posted the comment, is personal attacks about our motivations and our characters. It's easy to get defensive. Bear in mind that furloughs and layoffs will both affect services to the public. It's a matter of opinion about which is worse: Trotting off to the DMV to find the office
Log in to vote

closed on a Monday, or finding the office open but the lines a little longer. And one more thing - I can provide excellent service to the public AND make difficult decisions affecting my co-workers. The two things are not incompatible. You cannot assume that I provide substandard service just because I voted no on the contract. One does not necessarily follow the other. As for throwing others under the bus - I'm at risk of layoff too. I still voted no. view in original post I respect this response By Gaia - 10/14/2009 - 6:00 pm You give a reason why it makes a difference to you. Your's is the only response I've seen here, in 2 weeks, that spells it out. The rest of them simply offer the opinion that state employees are, let's see.... Greedy, selfish, ridiculous, stupid, unrealistic, demanding... They attack our motivations and our characters, rather than telling us how our decision actually affects them. view in original post again, what difference does it make? By Gaia - 10/14/2009 - 4:18 pm As long as the savings are accomplished, why does it matter to non-state employees whether it is by layoffs or furloughs. The savings are accomplished either way, their tax contribution is the same, either way. How the savings are accomplished should only be of concern to the people affected - state employees. view in original post Why should non-state employees have an opinion? By Gaia - 10/14/2009 - 2:42 pm I don't mean to be rude, it's a serious question. Why do so many people who will never be affected by the state contract feel they should weigh in on how union members should have voted? As far as you're concerned, it shouldn't matter how the savings are accomplished, should it? Does it really make a difference to YOU whether people you don't know get a paycut or laid off? Methinks perhaps this is just another opportunity to bash state employees, by pointing out how stupid, greedy, or ridiculous they allegedly are. How small. When times get tough, make yourself feel better by bringing someone else down. view in original post Thank you By Gaia - 10/14/2009 - 1:25 pm for the clarification. You're right. I think I must be getting paranoid reading all of the vitriole and now I'm
Log in Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

seeing it everywhere. view in original post At least an income tax would By Gaia - 10/14/2009 - 11:19 am At least an income tax would be fairly applied to everyone (not just state employees) and we'd expect to see something in return for it - better services, lower property taxes... something. view in original post yet the majority did vote against it By Gaia - 10/14/2009 - 11:08 am The majority of people who returned ballots voted against the contract. A far more scientific measurement than what you saw on a bulletin board in one department. view in original post And if they don't follow their own rules By Gaia - 10/14/2009 - 10:48 am they should expect to be sued. view in original post How did we know? By Gaia - 10/14/2009 - 10:02 am Because we were told: Furloughs plus 250-300 layoffs, OR No furloughs and 750 layoffs plus an additional 250-300. We cannot read minds. If the governor had really meant "furloughs plus 100 layoffs," and said so, you'd have seen the contract ratified in a heartbeat. view in original post Why? By Gaia - 10/14/2009 - 9:55 am

to vote

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Because negotiators met over and over with the state team without making any progress on certain items. With time growing short, and pressure from the state team to "just put it before the members," the union team threw in the towel. They agreed to the contract, but they were never happy with it. They were simply Log in doing what the state team asked - putting it before the members. The members spoke. view in original post 0

to vote

Personnel Rules By Gaia - 10/14/2009 - 9:47 am Personnel rules say that layoffs must occur in a "last in, first out" manner. Layoffs cannot be based on performance, they must be based on seniority. Interestingly, bumping rights were established because the state would not follow its own rules in layoffs. Log in As long as the personnel rules are followed, there's no need for bumping rights. to vote 0 view in original post Not blind By Gaia - 10/14/2009 - 9:36 am I object to your characterization that union members "blindly followed their leadership." I, for one, spent 10 agonizing days weighing out both sides, educating myself, looking at the pros and cons before finally voting No on the last possible day. I have my own brain and my own thoughts, as do the rest of the union membership - as evidenced by the fact that 40% broke with the union's recommendation. You can't just blithely say that the other 60% were sheep. Log in
to vote

This was a difficult decision, and the union's recommendation was one one small factor in it. view in original post The governor said there would be 250-300 layoffs, regardless of whether the contract was ratified. He said if we took the furloughs, it would avoid an additional 750 layoffs. Now we see that the layoffs, in the absence of furloughs will be.... TA DA.... 250300. I feel completely vindicated for having voted no. Nobody has to take furlough days (i.e. a paycut) AND we are facing the same number of layoffs that would allegedly have happened even if we had taken the furloughs. It looks pretty clear to me that the governor was holding those 750 jobs over our heads as a scare tactic. How come they're no longer necessary? If only he had bargained in good faith, we might have had a contract that traded a few furlough days for a limited number of layoffs, and everyone would be happy. Except for the governor, who perhaps was determined to punish state workers for declining to give back their raise in January. view in original post Actually, he's waivered already By Gaia - 10/13/2009 - 4:22 pm Suddenly this afternoon, the layoff count is down to 250, with an additional 50 demoted into lower paying positions. It's looking pretty clear right now that the union members voted the right way.
Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Members were told that if they took furloughs there would only be 250 layoffs. If they didn't take furloughs there would be 750, plus the 250 that would happen either way. Now look how it's turned out - State employees will not be getting furloughs, AND there are still only 250 layoffs. Think perhaps the governor was using a scare tactic that didn't pan out for him? view in original post How big was your organization By Gaia - 10/13/2009 - 1:34 pm Did you ever work for an employer with 11,000 employees? How do you think "every man for himself" would work in a company that big? Do you think you could make your needs and your voice heard against the 10,999 other employees who are all looking for more money? And could you be sure that people who made more money than you actually got raises because of their performance, and not some kind of Log in favoritism? to vote 0 view in original post Nonsense By Gaia - 10/13/2009 - 1:30 pm There are currently 40 positions posted at the personnel website, and only one of them is director level. I got my first state job knowing absolutely nobody in state service. I applied, I qualified, I interviewed well, and I was hired. None of my subsequent jobs had anything to do with who I knew - again, I applied, I qualified, I intereviewed well, and was hired. My only advantage in the subsequent jobs was the fact that I got to apply while the job was posted "in house," rather than waiting until the general public got a stab at it.
Log in

And why didn't you apply when state jobs WERE considered secure? Could it be that they couldn't pay to vote you enough to do the job in question? Or that the position gets no respect from the public? Or that no 0 bonuses would be paid during economic good times? Or that simply you could be paid better and get more respect doing the same thing in the private sector? view in original post So now it's down to 300 layoffs By Gaia - 10/13/2009 - 1:19 pm When push comes to shove, the governor now says it'll be about 300 - not the 750-1000 he previously threatened with. Sure looks now like he was using scare tactics to get his own way (his way or the highway.) Of course this will be packaged and PR'd so that it looks like HE saved the day by coming up with some other surprise source of savings at the last minute. I'm thinking union members did the right thing - They were threatened with 750 layoffs +300 layoffs if they didn't take furloughs, and 300 layoffs if they did take the furloughs.
Log in to vote

So, they voted against the contract and look - it's 300 layoffs, and no furloughs. Looks like those furloughs weren't needed after all. view in original post SEIU and SEA are the same thing. By Gaia - 10/13/2009 - 12:43 pm The SEA is a chapter of the SEIU. No conflict here. view in original post Unemployment compensation facts By Gaia - 10/13/2009 - 12:33 pm State employees who are laid off will NOT collect from the same pool of money that other unemployeed collect from. (The "Unemployment System") The state is self-insured. The state itself will pay the unemployment benefits. No federal dollars involved.
Log in Log in to vote

Another reason why going through with layoffs is just wrong-headed. Where are the savings after the state to vote pays out all the accumulated leave time AND the unemployment benefits? 0 view in original post It's not greed. State By Gaia - 10/13/2009 - 9:20 am It's not greed. State employees have not asked for any increase in salary or benefits, and were in fact ready to give up 3.6% of their pay for the next two years, despite the fact that it's really not the state employee's responsibility to balance the budget. It's not greed. It's drawing a line in the sand against a steady erosion of wages and respect, and the constant expectation that they will roll over and accept it - all the time doing more with fewer resources. For all of you who think State employees have it so great - why aren't you applying for state jobs? Seriously? view in original post It's not greed. State By Gaia - 10/13/2009 - 9:20 am It's not greed. State employees have not asked for any increase in salary or benefits, and were in fact ready to give up 3.6% of their pay for the next two years, despite the fact that it's really not the state employee's responsibility to balance the budget. It's not greed. It's drawing a line in the sand against a steady erosion of wages and respect, and the constant expectation that they will roll over and accept it - all the time doing more with fewer resources. For all of you who think State employees have it so great - why aren't you applying for state jobs? Seriously?
Log in to vote

Log in to vote

view in original post moved to proper spot. By Gaia - 10/13/2009 - 9:16 am moved to proper spot. view in original post the 37.5 hour work week By Gaia - 10/13/2009 - 9:01 am The 37.5 hour work week was a cost-saving measure enacted years ago. In response to a need to balance the budget, they took 2.5 hours per week in wages away from employees. Don't you think state employees would rather work those 2.5 hours and get paid for them? It's one of those things that employees gave up and never, ever got back. Can you blame them for holding the line this time? Every Log in time something is sacrificed, it never comes back - it's gone forever. to vote 0 view in original post Not just contractual By Gaia - 10/11/2009 - 8:21 pm It's state law as well. view in original post "floating holidays" By Gaia - 10/11/2009 - 9:46 am A number of years ago most state employees got 2 "floating holidays" a year in exchange for working on Columbus Day and Fast Day. The FH's can be used like vacation days, but if they're not used in the fiscal year, they're forfeited. Perhaps the State Troopers did not get those floating holidays? view in original post How about a tunnel under? By Gaia - 10/04/2009 - 6:26 pm Might be safer in the winter. view in original post sort of By Gaia - 10/04/2009 - 6:23 pm You get paid time off later, you don't get the money back unless you manage to save an equal number of vacation days, instead of using them. Then you get the money back when you leave state service. Long term loan, if you don't give in to the temptation of taking the time off instead.
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

Log in to vote

view in original post Clarification By Gaia - 10/02/2009 - 4:30 pm Just so that no one gets the wrong idea... union dues are NEVER used for "political contributions." The SEA has a Political Action Committee - SEA-PAC, that takes voluntary donations separately from union dues. view in original post No raises in the contract By Gaia - 10/02/2009 - 8:56 am I presume you're talking about the 5% we got back in January - one that we waited a year and a half for. We didn't "just" get a raise - that was months ago, and 2 years in the making. To be clear, there is NO across the board raise in the proposed 2 year agreement, and in fact we will have Log in 3.65% pay cut in EACH of the next two years if the contract is ratified. to vote 0 view in original post 2% raise? By Gaia - 10/01/2009 - 10:16 pm Where do you get that? There's absolutely no across the board raise - in fact it freezes wages during the second year, so that people don't get their scheduled step increases. When you combine that with a 3.65% pay cut for each of the next 2 years - you can't say we're getting raises. Here's the facts: 3.65% paycut for all unclassified employees during the first year. 4% raise for SOME employees during the first year. No raise for anyone during the second year. No guarantee that we make up any ground in the next biennial contract. view in original post county and municiple By Gaia - 10/01/2009 - 4:34 pm county and municiple employees who volunteer to do the ballot counting. view in original post Pre-existing conditions By Gaia - 10/01/2009 - 12:42 pm Here's what makes sense to me.
Log in Log in to vote Log in to vote

Log in to vote

When this whole plan rolls out, people can get insurance regardless of any pre-existing conditions. In fact, to vote

they MUST get insurance. They can't just buy insurance when they get sick. Going forward, people can change their plans, even if they have pre-existing conditions. The main requirement is that everyone has insurance. This should take care of the problems people have cited here - as long as the two requirements go together. view in original post Why? By Gaia - 09/29/2009 - 9:44 am Why do you guys feel the need to kill them? Until they prove a threat to humans, why not leave them in peace?

The same thing could be accomplished with a reward for photographic evidence. Take its picture. Then Log in prove the loction by matching up rocks and trees from the picture with the rocks and trees in the location. to vote 0 view in original post Comment removed by contributer By Gaia - 09/28/2009 - 1:47 pm After thinking it through again. view in original post The SEA is a chapter of the SEIU. By Gaia - 09/28/2009 - 1:44 pm Chapter 1984 to be exact. The name of the organization is: SEIU Local 1984, State Employees' Association. view in original post Summing up the choice. By Gaia - 09/28/2009 - 1:43 pm For state employees, it's NOT a choice between layoffs or furloughs. If it were that simple, most of us would easily go with the furloughs (ratify the contract). Instead, it's a choice between (1) Drawing a line in the sand, demanding that the state look at more responsible ways of doing busines or
Log in Log in to vote Log in to vote

(2) Taking the contract and allowing poor fiscal management practices to continue and probably escalate. to vote 0 It's a much bigger issue than appears on the surface. view in original post

Summing up the choice By Gaia - 09/28/2009 - 1:39 pm For state employees, it's NOT a choice between layoffs or furloughs. If it were that simple, most of us would easily go with the furloughs (ratify the contract). Instead, it's a choice between (1) Drawing a line in the sand, demanding that the state look at more responsible ways of doing busines or (2) Taking the contract and allowing poor fiscal management practices to continue Log in to vote and probably escalate. 0 It's a much bigger issue than appears on the surface. view in original post That's just inaccurate. By Gaia - 09/27/2009 - 4:08 pm That's just inaccurate. State employees, union and otherwise, are for the most part in favor of furloughs, with their 3.5% paycut. We are willing to bite the bullet, and have been for months. The controversy is over the most recent bargaining and scare tactics, not over whether employees should share the pain with the rest of the Log in state. to vote 0 view in original post Um, no. By Gaia - 09/26/2009 - 11:18 pm BC/BS is a federation of private and publicly traded for-profit companies. view in original post Not taxpayer funded By Gaia - 09/26/2009 - 9:36 am Employees pay 5% of their paychecks, mandatory. I believe new hires after July 1 will pay 7% (unless that changed when I wasn't looking.) Employee contributions are then invested to create income and fund pensions. view in original post How significant? By Gaia - 09/25/2009 - 12:07 pm People who retire within the next 3 years will not get thoses days back. And it's not an increase in pay when those days come back, it's just additional vacation days.
Log in Log in to vote Log in to vote

The decrease in pay is 3.5% per year for two years. Since the retirement pension is based on an average of to vote the past 3 year's wages, that average would be 2.4% lower, over 3 years. 0

That means a retiree's pension will be 2.4% lower FOREVER, not just for the 2 years of the biennium. If someone has worked 20 years and is expecting, say, a $25,000/year pension, that's $600 a year. If the retiree lives a good long life and collects for 30 years after retirement, that's $18,000 lost. Not insignificant for such a small pension. view in original post Yes, the state is exempt By Gaia - 09/25/2009 - 10:52 am The state is exempt from a lot of laws that apply to businesses. Included the layoff rules, and the requirement to provide insurance for an employee's adult child, up the the age of 26. (People employed in the private sector now have the option of covering their unmarried kids, up to the age of 26, whether they're full time students or not. State employees do not get this benefit because the state is "self-insured.")
Log in

That's the same reason why the state (not the feds) will be paying the unemployment benefits for any state to vote employee that gets laid off. 0 view in original post Again, I'm not understanding the logic By Gaia - 09/24/2009 - 9:38 am People seem to be saying "vote no on the contract, because layoffs are not the answer." Voting No will guarantee at least 750 layoffs. Going evergreen will NOT prevent layoffs - it will guarantee them. Voting Yes will substitute furloughs for most of the layoffs, thereby minimizing the layoffs. view in original post No, you won't replace them By Gaia - 09/24/2009 - 9:24 am Laid-off employees are not "fired" employees. The positions are not automatically available for filling. That's the purpose of layoffs - to create long term or even permanent vacancies and save money. view in original post I don't see your logic By Gaia - 09/24/2009 - 9:20 am Voting No will not fix any of the problems you've outlined. In fact, there will be MORE layoffs if employees vote down the contract. view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

presumably By Gaia - 09/23/2009 - 4:20 pm to enable the closing down of whole buildings or work areas, in order to realize savings on heat/cooling/lighting. view in original post um.... sarcasm By Gaia - 09/23/2009 - 3:36 pm Sorry that sarcasm does not always work well in print. Unless I see something very scary in the contract, I expect I will vote yes. I was trying to make a point about the position I see some of the "no" voters taking. Log in
to vote Log in to vote

view in original post Governor Lynch is a mean man By Gaia - 09/23/2009 - 2:54 pm with a big ax. He hasn't played nicely in the sandbox, so I'm not going to dignify his behavior with a mature response. Instead I'm just gonna lay my head on this here chopping block.... If I close my eyes and stay very still, maybe he'll get to someone else before he gets to me.... ~ "no" voter, with intact dignity, but missing a head view in original post Getting rid of the union By Gaia - 09/23/2009 - 10:43 am I don't think people understand what they are saying when they advise "get rid of the union." The union is not some omnipotent third party that makes decisions on behalf of state employees, or tells them what to do. The union IS state employees. The bargaining team IS state employees, and the union leadership IS state employees. SEA employees do not do the bargaining or make decisions about the contract. Their role is to support the state employees who are doing the bargaining and making decisions, with research, answering procedural questions, logistical support, etc. Without the union, the state employees would have NO voice in the workplace. They would not have ANY decisions before them right now - except whether to stay or quit. The governor, legislature, or management would make all the decisions and simply tell workers how it's going to be - what the wages will be, what the benefits will be (or not be), who gets laid off and how, who takes furlough days and when... And it could change at the drop of a hat. In private employment situations, many people get individual contracts that they negotiate with their employers. The contract outlines the expectations on both sides, and gives legal recourse to both sides if the agreement is not honored.
Log in to vote

Log in to vote

10,000 individual employees cannot have 10,000 individual contracts in state service. This is why we have collective bargaining, to get some of the the same employment securities that other people enjoy. The union is not evil. It's simply a tool to protect worker's rights and interests. view in original post I think you have it backward By Gaia - 09/23/2009 - 10:26 am Voting yes to the contract will (hopefully) minimize the layoffs. view in original post You really have no clue By Gaia - 09/19/2009 - 12:45 pm I don't know where you get your "facts." You have no clue the volume of work produced by state employees, day after day, year after year. The number of clients and patients cared for, data entered, computer code written, licenses issued, provider checks mailed, citizens protected, daycare centers, elevators and restaurants inspected.... You have no clue. When you actually have some facts to present, I'll be happy to look at them. Your uneducated opinion means absolutely nothing. Sorry to be blunt. You've been spewing crap for far too long here. view in original post Why not? By Gaia - 09/19/2009 - 12:27 pm Because furloughs actually accomplish greater savings - the cost of heating/cooling/lighting whole buildings. view in original post Read it again By Gaia - 09/15/2009 - 9:48 am According to the story, Johnston struck up the conversation with the oil-changer, not the other way around. Not everyone in the state knows about Terrill Park Drive or it's reputation. Why are you looking for dirt where there is probably none? The important thing is that he reported the crimes. view in original post I will grant you the point By Gaia - 09/14/2009 - 4:00 pm You make a reasonable argument. VA benefits are an enticement or incentive to serve.
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

Log in to vote

view in original post I see lots of backpeddling By Gaia - 09/14/2009 - 12:03 pm and stalling for time now that it's clear the governor won't be getting his hands on the malpractice fund money. I'm waiting for the full-blown "Plan B" to make it's appearance any day now - and it's likely to take an even bigger bite out of state employees. view in original post Not really. By Gaia - 09/14/2009 - 11:41 am Active duty soldiers provide for the common defense. Once they're veterans, the common defense part of their lives is over and the consitution doesn't touch them in the same way.

Log in to vote

That said, I'm NOT saying we should abolish the VA. I'm just taking exception to your suggestion that the Log in VA meets the constitional requirement to provide for the common defense. to vote 0 view in original post soooo By Gaia - 09/12/2009 - 10:27 am Hundreds of people should lose their jobs, citizens should get fewer services, AND the state should pay unemployment to all of those laid off workers because you're tired of hearing about it? (Yeah, the STATE pays the unemployment compensation, not the federal government.) view in original post Some basic misunderstandings here... By Gaia - 09/12/2009 - 10:20 am 1. State workers are not "government," per say. They are service providers. All those things the state does for the citizenry - plowing roads, protecting children and elders, caring for the mentally ill, issuing driver's licenses. "Less government" in this case means longer waits, longer lines, and more opportunity for vulnerable people to die. 2. The state is "self insured." That means laid off workers will not get federal unemployment checks. Their unemployment compensation will come directly out of state coffers. Where's the savings there?
Log in to vote

Log in to vote

3. No one is ever better off collecting unemployment. You don't get your full salary - not even close. For 0 people living on the edge already, the cut in income will put many over that edge into irreversible debt or bankruptcy. view in original post

About the birthers By Gaia - 09/10/2009 - 1:28 pm Has anyone pointed out that it doesn't matter one whit if the president was born outside of the US? His mother was an American citizen. That makes him an American citizen End of story. So.... if he's a US citizen regardless, what motivation would he have to fake his birth certificate? It's beyond me. view in original post It's the "invincibility" thing. By Gaia - 09/10/2009 - 1:14 pm Kids are not stupid. It's not that they don't understand the possible consequences. It's that they are adolescents and risk-taking of all sorts is higher among adolescents because many of them have a basic mindset that "it's not going to happen to me." This mindset applies to all kinds of things - getting pregnant, getting an STD, breaking a neck diving into a quarry, driving too fast while talking on a cell phone, shoplifting.... It's all in the same bucket of high risk behaviors. view in original post they're not the same thing By Gaia - 09/10/2009 - 12:58 pm Wherever I look I see people treating "government run health insurance" like it's the same thing as "government run health care." Am I missing something? view in original post *sigh* By Gaia - 09/09/2009 - 1:09 pm I'm once again lamenting the lack of a "thumbs down" option. Apparently the president is not allowed to talk politics to the kids, unless it's the "right" kind of politics. view in original post it's not DHHS doing the requiring By Gaia - 09/02/2009 - 3:45 pm DHHS doesn't mandate reporting. That's the legislature. It's state law. Child protection is a federally mandated activity. Here are some very interesting statistics comparing NH child protection numbers to the national average. NH is certainly not overstaffed, compared to the rest of the country:
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

http://www.firststar.org/research/profiles2.asp The "Child Maltreatment" number is the number of founded reports that year (2007, I think): 948. The average number of investigations per assessment worker that year was 117. Considering that there are only 260 workays in a year, that's a pretty high caseload. view in original post And from the other side... By Gaia - 09/01/2009 - 10:00 am The thing that state workers are getting in return is..... keeping their jobs. I don't know what the latest count is, but the last time I heard, well over 50% of states had instituted some kind of furlough program for employees. This may be "unheard of" in New Hampshire, but it was probably unheard of in most of those other states too. Tough times sometimes demand unusual solutions. Yes, I could get paid more for what I do in the private sector, but I've voluntarily traded higher pay for the excellent benefit package we get. Even with the $30 we now pay bi-weekly, our insurance benefit is worth many times what most private employers are offering. I will not whine about my pay and benefits. Voting no on the contract means that 750 people will lose their jobs. That's not good for anyone - not the employees, not the economy, not the Employment Security personnel who will need to process those claims. I've done the math for myself. Even though the furloughs amount to a 5% paycut, I'll also be getting an earned step increase in January, which is a 4% raise. I won't get the next step increase the following year (per proposed contract), but at least it's not as bad as it could be. We've been without raises in the past. Holding the line is better than losing a job. view in original post just stop it By Gaia - 08/31/2009 - 9:08 am The public option is not a free handout. It's not welfare. People would need to pay a premium, just like for the private insurance. Presumably, the premium would be less than private insurance, because the public option would not need to make a profit. Log in
to vote Log in to vote

view in original post You know as well as I do By Gaia - 08/30/2009 - 11:11 am

You know as well as I do that she was referring to the folks who were throwing tea bags at demonstrations earlier this year. I didn't know the "alternate" meaning until you supplied the link. I'm sure the congresswoman doesn't either. You're making an issue where there is none and ascribing intent that does Log in not exist. view in original post 0

to vote

Nice! By Gaia - 08/28/2009 - 1:16 pm Cool addition. I look forward to it. view in original post Not getting the connection By Gaia - 08/28/2009 - 1:14 pm Where's the religious freedom connection? Is it against the mother's religion to send the child to public school? view in original post Not enough information By Gaia - 08/27/2009 - 3:29 pm I can't tell you whether I'd support the cost of her in-house treatment without knowing how far out of line it is with other medical/psychiatric treatment that other prisoners are entitled to under law. But that completely misses the point of my post. I was never advocating for or against the state paying for her treatment. My only point was that force feeding in this instance is inappropriate in the extreme. Saying I'm against force feeding does not mean I'm willing to "pony up" for whatever expensive treatment she wants.
Log in And since we're on the subject - As far as I can see from the article, the woman didn't even ASK for the to vote state to pay for her treatment. It looks like she was just asking for supervised release from prison so that 0 she could get the treatment. Maybe she's planning to pay for it herself. Maybe she's covered by insurance that would pay for it. Log in to vote Log in to vote

Seems to me people here may be getting their fiscal knickers in a twist over a non-issue. view in original post You can't tell from the picture By Gaia - 08/27/2009 - 12:16 pm The original article (which I looked up) stated the smoke was coming from the back of the house. The picture is of the front of the house. The article says the first floor was heavily charred with damage estimate at $100,000. All you're seeing in the picture is the exterior. I suspect that the reason the structure is still standing at all (and the fire did not spread to the woods and surrounding homes) is because Mutual Aid was requested and delivered. With all of the people and equipment power provided, it still took 40 minutes to put out the fire.
Log in

No single small town has enough volunteers and equipment to handle every single fire. That's why there's to vote a Mutual Aid Compact. Hopkinton/Contoocook uses it as well, to help manage fires in Hopkinton and 0 minimize their damage/spread. Mutual aid does not call out ALL of a neighboring town's volunteers and equipment. Usually just one crew from each town, but more if it's a HUGE incident. There are still people and trucks left behind to cover. And if that town gets a big fire while one crew is out, they can call mutual aid themselves. It's

worked well for many decades in NH. view in original post People can disagree all they want By Gaia - 08/27/2009 - 9:07 am It's a free country. When people disagree with me, I do not automtically pronounce them "mis-informed." In this situation, however, it seems that many people ARE underinformed, and making judgements anyway. If they DO know what they're talking about, then they are very clearly and willfully advocating Log in torture of this woman. That's a worse offense than jumping to conclusions without knowing the facts. view in original post And once again... By Gaia - 08/26/2009 - 3:50 pm you are so predictably assumptive. I did not once advocate for expensive off-site treatment at the taxpayer's expense. I'm one of those taxpayers too. The judge is doing the right thing by having her medically evaluated. I hope they will be able to come up with humane treatment that can be provided within the walls of the NH state prison system. My observation was about the audacity of people who know nothing about the woman or her disorder, and who are neither medical nor psychological experts, advocating for force-feeding. In this situation, their "cure" amounts to torture. It's akin to placing an insect-phobic prisoner in a small space with a bunch of bugs, to get him to talk. And those who callously remarked she should be allowed to starve to death? When did embezzlement become a capital crime? If "liberalism" equates to basic human decency, I'll wear the label with pride. view in original post I'm astounded by all the experts here By Gaia - 08/26/2009 - 9:49 am What an amazing display of armchair psychiatry. Does any one of you actually understand this disorder? No, I didn't think so. People die of anorexia, even when they're not in prisons, and are getting all the "attention" in the world. Anorexia Nervosa is believed to have the highest mortality rate of ANY psychiatric disorder. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/72500089/abstract?CRETRY=1&SR... We know this woman was diagnosed well before going to prison. It's not about getting attention. It's about control over one's own body. I can Log in imagine that this kind of obsessive/control issue can only be exacerbated in prison, to vote where people have extremely little control over what happens to them. 0 None of us knows the whole story here. But really, you need to know what you're talking about before you jump to the kind of horrible judgements you're making about this woman. Isn't it enough that she's serving 15 years for her crime? Why do you feel she should be psychologically tortured as well, by force feeding? Do you really believe that people should lose their basic rights to proper health care 0

to vote

Log in to vote

(not to mention human dignity) when they are incarcerated? Are we running an Iraqui prison here? view in original post The public option is not "Free" By Gaia - 08/25/2009 - 1:58 pm You've misunderstood the public option. It is NOT free to the recipient the way Medicaid is. People would have to buy in and pay a premium, just like with private insurance. But presumably the rates would be a bit lower because the premium Log in does not have to provide a profit to the insurer. view in original post what if... By Gaia - 08/25/2009 - 10:49 am In the same vein, what if the government-run health care specifically did NOT place a bureacrat between me and my doctor? Why must those things be inevitably linked? Is this just a presumption without a lot of thought put into it? Or is it a purposeful scare tactic? I challenge us to look at that presumption. Do other single-payer systems have said government bureaucrat? And if so, is it really ANY different from the insurance company bureaucrat mentioned by Phishfood? view in original post huh? By Gaia - 08/24/2009 - 3:16 pm I don't see ANY reference in the article or comments saying the driver of the sedan was "elderly." view in original post Hey Sarah By Gaia - 08/23/2009 - 4:35 pm Richard Dean Anderson has only gotten better looking, although his character was not as "brainy" as MacGyver- you've apparently missed his 9 years in Stargate-SG1. He got more gray and distinguished looking as the season went on.... quite yummy, actually. view in original post it's simple By Gaia - 08/21/2009 - 2:13 pm however many people are uninsured - 47 million, 30 million, whatever it is - all of those people ARE getting health care now. They're getting it in emergency rooms after they've become critical, because they Log in don't have insurance to go to a pcp before it becomes a crisis. Treating those same people earlier, with to vote simpler interventions = "better" healthcare, not "more" healthcare. 0
Log in to vote Log in to vote

to vote

Log in to vote

view in original post 10 years ago this arrest would not have been possible By Gaia - 08/21/2009 - 11:11 am Without Enhanced 911, the dispatcher might have had no idea where to send the police. Pretty cool, and I'm grateful for the technology. view in original post on the surface By Gaia - 08/21/2009 - 10:39 am On the surface it seems like recycling car parts is responsible. But how responsible is it, really, to keep a gas guzzler going for another couple years? IMHO, getting the guzzlers and polluters off the road is more responsible. As far as common sense goes - harumph. Common sense and anectdotal stories are no substitute for hard facts. I've got anectdotes of my own - the three people I know who took advantage of CFC can well afford the new vehicles. I didn't take advantage of it because, alas, I can't afford another car payment. These Log in stories, like yours, prove nothing. Bottom line - I see through your ranting. You don't like the program, but you embellish the scanty facts with broad, confident statements about the harm it will do to the country, with no facts to back up those statements. That's called fear-mongering. view in original post Hmnmm By Gaia - 08/20/2009 - 12:57 pm When did socialism equate to "lack of freedom?" Are you less free because the government offers a way to send mail? Are you less free because some people are able to get a rebate when they buy a new car? If the government offers a health care plan, but you're still allowed to have private insurance, how are you Log in less free? Socialism is not the same thing as communism, or facism, or all those other isms that people are frightened of. view in original post Proof? By Gaia - 08/20/2009 - 11:16 am Proof that the people buying new cars can't afford them? Or is this just your wild and pessimistic imagining?
Log in Log in to vote

to vote

to vote

Which is more important - a bigger pool of used parts, or a nudge twoard upgrading all cars on the road a to vote bit so that we reduce emissions and our dependence on foreign oil? 0

Final point - If the cash for clunkers program didn't exist, all those used cars would not have ended up in the pool of parts anyway - they'd still be on the road, polluting the air, and not available to the used parts market. view in original post The president has repeatedly said By Gaia - 08/20/2009 - 10:58 am that "more health care" is not necessarily "better health care." So why should he be trying to prove that we can provide "more health care" with less money? That's not what he believes! view in original post Not as bad as it sounds By Gaia - 08/20/2009 - 9:06 am Yes, it's a 21% tax rate increase, but most everyone's assessment went down. A lot. So it's a higher rate but on a lower assessment. Mine went down about 18%. If the average went down 17%, perhaps I'll come out about even on my actual tax bill. view in original post It was that big old "but" that got me By Gaia - 08/19/2009 - 10:19 am "The intentions were certainly good-hearted, but ,,,," This kind of language can't help but sound like negative criticism. And then, you said "You must contact legal guardians to convince them to provide tax records, along with other relevant information." This is simply untrue, which I pointed out. Log in
to vote Log in to vote

Log in to vote

While I appreciate your clarification in the comments, most people are not going 0 to see them. Respectfully, you should have said what you meant in the first place. view in original post you don't seem to get it By Gaia - 08/19/2009 - 10:15 am The Obama plan specifically puts end-of-life care decisions in the hands of the patient, in consultation with medical professionals and family members. Many patients now have these end-of-life discussions with doctors, and it's a good model that the president wants to expand to everyone. Having a discussion and knowing what ALL the options are can only be a good thing - it's not intended to advocate for one course of treatment over another, or to push a patient in a direction he/she Log in to vote is not willing to go. And it certainly does not involve anyone from the government 0 or insurance companies. view in original post

All good points By Gaia - 08/19/2009 - 10:04 am It amuses (and mystifies) me that so many people who are protesting any kind of single payor/socialized medicine in this country are already benefiting from the socialized branches of medicine that we already have. I'm also saddened that the conversation has somehow turned from "health care reform" to "health insurance reform." And that certain politician have apparently decided that health care, the most important Log in domestic issue we have, is the one they're going to dig their heels in on, just to stymie the president and to vote bring him down. 0 Some things are just way more important than which party is in office - why don't the politicians get that? view in original post Next year... By Gaia - 08/17/2009 - 10:23 am Instead of buying your tomato plants, pick up a packet of seeds and start them indoors, under lights, in March. An inexpensive setup involves two cinder blocks, turned on end, a 5-foot section of closet shelfing (the plastic-coated wire kind) set on top of them, and a shop light hung from it. Stack another set of cinder blocks and shelving on top if you need more space. Use full spectrum light bulbs, or one bulb at the "low" range, and one at the "high range." Even if you only plant 6 tomato seeds out of the package, you're still getting 6 plants for a couple bucks, and you're avoiding disease. If you like a variety of plants, team up with your neighbors to start several different kinds indoors, then swap when it's time to plant. view in original post hmmm By Gaia - 08/17/2009 - 10:02 am My understanding is that the conference was for kids 14 and older. Certainly enough time for many of the youth to start their college planning. Your youth may have been too old, but does that mean it was a loss for the rest of the kids there? If your foster child just came into care, how does the state start earlier? And if they've been in care for a while, there are other options as well - schools run these kinds of "get into college" seminars, the NH Higher Education Assistance Foundation is available anytime to help teens with their college apps and financial aid, and they run a conference every spring - Destination College. Final point - when a child has been in foster care, and therefore in state custody, you do NOT need the parent's financial information. The FAFSA has a checkbox - if the youth was in foster care, you skip all of the parent's financial info. view in original post
Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Your SEA dues By Gaia - 08/13/2009 - 11:16 am Your dues are NOT used to fund political activities. There is a separate source of money, funded through donations to SEA-PAC, that pays for this kind of thing. The SEA is not allowed to used dues for political activities. Log in
to vote

view in original post Clarification By Gaia - 08/13/2009 - 9:51 am I'm not sure I understand your question, but I will try to clarify my answer. The poster above complained about "false balance," since the writer said both sides are offering exaggeration and hyperbole. The poster went on to say that, in the article, he only saw hyperbole from the right, and none from the left. I pointed out that some of the "left" hyperbole was the statement that if you want to keep your insurance, you can. In fact, there's nothing saying that your current employer has to keep offering the same insurance, so there's no guarantee that you can keep your insurance if you want it. I believe that to be true - there's no guarantee you can keep your insurance. However, I'm not against the proposals as presented so far. I just understand that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and I'm satisfied with the truth as I see it. Better? view in original post It's an income tax By Gaia - 08/12/2009 - 1:23 pm But as I stated above, Canadian style health care is not being considered in ANY of the bills before the Senate. view in original post keeping your insurance if you like it By Gaia - 08/12/2009 - 1:19 pm That's one example of hyperbole on the left. She talked about that in the article. view in original post Canadian-style health care isn't even on the table... By Gaia - 08/12/2009 - 10:19 am ... so why is everyone getting their knickers in a twist about it? view in original post

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

A traffic cop By Gaia - 08/10/2009 - 9:24 am would have been appreciated at the end of Langley Parkway this morning. I spent 12 minutes on the parkway because of the detour from Pleasant Street, making me late for work. view in original post I won't argue too much with that By Gaia - 08/05/2009 - 10:58 am Although I would see it slightly differently. It's not so much raising taxes - it's changing the income source. Probably people's taxes will not go down. I'll grant you that. However, going forward, a "use fee" is a more equitable way of paying for trash pickup. It treats trash like a utility, and people pay only for Log in what they use - like electricity and water. view in original post The whole point By Gaia - 08/05/2009 - 10:18 am ... is the cost of the bags. You're not paying for the bag (which is not that expensive to produce), you're paying for the privilege of putting your trash in the bag and throwing it in the incinerator. Your complaint is equivalent to "taxes are too high." Recycling pickup is free. You don't even have to separate your recyclables - just put them all in a container and put them out at the road. C'mon now... surely you must be able to do that? view in original post He fraudulantly appropriates other people's property? By Gaia - 08/01/2009 - 10:23 am Embezzle? I think you were looking for imbecile? {snort} view in original post Why? By Gaia - 07/31/2009 - 10:46 am Why does the Monitor persist in calling these "reviews?" They're not. They're summaries. view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

to vote

Which building? By Gaia - 07/31/2009 - 9:26 am There are at least a dozen "old New Hampshire Hospital buildings" on the hospital campus. Which one are they talking about? The Main Building has a lot of unoccupied space - is that the one they mean? view in original post Uh huh... By Gaia - 07/28/2009 - 4:10 pm And did you happen to venture out onto I-89 on Sunday? I did, not having heard the news. It took me 65 minutes to get from Davisville to Market Basket It's normally a 10 minute trip. Just because the south bound traffic is greater, doesn't mean there was no volume going north. This article was absolutely dead-on accurate. view in original post um.... By Gaia - 07/28/2009 - 9:50 am Ever noticed the license plates on I-89 northbound cars on Sundays? Mostly Vermont, some Canadian, the occasional New York... A few people do live north and west of Concord, yanno, and sometimes they venture south for vacation and recreation. view in original post You're wrong. By Gaia - 07/27/2009 - 10:16 am Union dues are a percentage of a person's wages. When wages go down because of furloughs, workers will pay lower union dues. The union WILL lose just as much money through furloughs as they would through layoffs. It's a 5% payroll deduction, either way. view in original post Not sure I buy that. By Gaia - 07/26/2009 - 11:02 am The union will lose money with furloughs, as well, because union dues are based on gross wages. Wages go down, so do the union dues. view in original post Everyone By Gaia - 07/25/2009 - 2:47 pm My understanding is that every state employee will be furloughed, from top to bottom. Anyone who works
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

Log in to vote

in a worksite that shuts down on weekends and holidays will be part of the worksite shutdowns. Anyone who works at a site that's open 365 days a year will forego holiday pay. That covers everyone. view in original post It wasn't rejected By Gaia - 07/24/2009 - 11:40 pm That's the problem with the governor's statement. The idea of furloughs was not rejected by the union negotiators. The state and union had not yet agreed on the number of furlough days, but they hadn't rejected it. The governor misled the public, possibly with the intention of scaring state employees into "turning on" the union. view in original post It won't put out the fire By Gaia - 07/24/2009 - 9:35 am But it does make an exciting and dramatic display. And gives the appearance of "doing something." view in original post No exceptions By Gaia - 07/24/2009 - 9:05 am I have not seen one state employee on these boards (or in state offices) saying they should be exempted from "sharing the pain." Within a few days you will most likely see that the union membership will have voted to accept furloughs (i.e. paycuts)and wage freezes for the next TWO YEARS. What I don't understand is why people are so gung ho to see layoffs. Why is it that furloughs are somehow not as good a solution, even if they save the same amount of money? Layoffs are bad for everyone. Why whould we increase unemployment in the state? I see over and over that private sector employees think that public employees are overcompensated and overly benefitted. WHY? Shouldn't EVERY employee have those kinds of benefits - leave time, retirement, insurance, etc? Why not work toward getting those kinds of benefits for yourself, with your employer, rather than trying to take them away from others? Dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator helps no one in the long run. view in original post Ok, who pays for By Gaia - 07/23/2009 - 4:04 pm Ok, who pays for investigation of child or elder abuse? The complainer or the complainee? Or how about the arrest, prosecution, and incarceration of criminals? Who pays the folks who take applications for welfare and unemployment benefits? Or the plowing of the interstate highways? Do you raise the tolls on snowy days? Not well thought out, I think. view in original post
Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

You're missing some information By Gaia - 07/23/2009 - 2:06 pm The vast majority of state employees are all for furloughs - up to 2 a month, for a 2 year period. That's a 10% reduction in pay. Please don't say that we're out of touch and unwilling to "share the pain," or believe we should be exempt. We're willing to comrompise and to take a hit along with the rest of the workforce.
Log in

The Governor, unfortunately, has given inaccurate information to the public when to vote he says the union doesn't want to consider furloughs. That's just not the case. 0 view in original post Bad headline. By Gaia - 07/23/2009 - 9:18 am These are not reviews, they are summaries. view in original post Sifting through the bits By Gaia - 07/23/2009 - 9:10 am and reading between the lines tells me that the SEA and governor only seem to differ with regard to the number of furlough days, and possibly WHO would be affected by the furloughs. This is very different from the governor's inflammatory comments that the "union leadership does not appear to want to adopt this approach." Telling his department heads to prepare a plan B "just in case," is one thing. Talking about the SEA's position during bargaining is quite another. It's bullying, it's a violation of the mediation agreement, and it's an attempt to get SEA members to turn on the union. Dirty politics, Governor. view in original post What bottom line? By Gaia - 07/22/2009 - 9:34 am I don't understand what you're saying? Are you saying DCYF didn't take the children into foster care because they were trying to save money? This is another typical "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. If the kids were taken away, you'd have people screaming that DCYF over reacted. DCYF did the right thing. If there are relatives who can safely care for the children, why traumatize the children further by placing them with total strangers? It's not about money. It's about doing the right thing for children and their families. If the place got cleaned up and the children can safely be at home, that's where they belong. By the way, you can't tell from this story whether "child neglect charges" were filed or not. It's possible the family will have to go to court on the children, even though they weren't removed from the home. That
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

way, the family is monitored for a while to help ensure they keep their home safe for the children. Not every child abuse/neglect court case results in children being removed. view in original post Thanks By Gaia - 07/21/2009 - 10:44 am I was wondering where the heck they got those numbers - and it wasn't just the monitor, it was NHPR too. Maybe the spokesperson who gave out those numbers didn't explain them well. view in original post I doubt it By Gaia - 07/17/2009 - 8:53 am It may be a threat, but I don't believe it's an empty threat. If there's no other way to achieve the $25M in personnel savings, layoffs will happen. view in original post Don't be an... By Gaia - 07/16/2009 - 12:18 pm *** (Terms of Service prevent me from typing it.) You could say the same things about anyone who works in the private sector - they work on the days they are scheduled to work, they have certain days off during the week, they have certain paid holiday and vacation days. Have you forgotten that the weekends and furlough days are UNPAID? It's not an additional vacation day Log in for god's sake. On any given Monday I'd much rather be working and getting paid than sitting at the beach to vote unpaid and sunburnt, while my work piles up in the office. Deadlines won't change. 0 Unless you're independently wealthy, you'd be saying the same thing. view in original post no By Gaia - 07/16/2009 - 12:16 pm I don't believe the union is asking for no layoffs ever in the future, they're asking for no layoffs in this biennium, in exchange for the furloughs. view in original post No, they wouldn't By Gaia - 07/16/2009 - 10:55 am That's the issue. The state would rather not lay off employees, because it's expensive to do so, and they'd have to lay off a lot to achieve the needed savings. The state would rather do furloughs, but that requires
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

the consent of union members. Hence the negotiations. view in original post Layoffs are very bad for the state as a whole By Gaia - 07/15/2009 - 3:30 pm As a state employee, I'm disappointed that the legislature did not explore other sources of income, like gambling, but now that we're down to it... I think that accepting furloughs over layoffs is the responsible thing for state employees to do. Laying off hundreds more people will only depress our economy further. 12 furlough days in a year would put us back to pre-January 09 wages. 24 a year is almost 10% - a big chunk of money, but better for the economy in the long run than lots more layoffs. (and therefore better for us as individuals.) And yes, furloughs need to be shared by every single state employee, including the governor and his staff. Those workplaces that close down on weekends and holidays should close for furlough days, so that we can realize some additional savings on heating/cooling & electricity. It's gonna be a long two years, but I'm happy to be working. view in original post It's your typical vicious cycle By Gaia - 07/14/2009 - 9:44 am Businesses can't hire until people spend. People need to have job security before they feel they can spend. It probably doesn't matter where you break the cycle, as long as you break it somewhere. view in original post Answers By Gaia - 07/10/2009 - 9:19 pm Yes, layoffs can occur by governor's order. Yes, the furloughs (for classified employees) require the union to agree. Union members have a say in the contract, because they must vote on any contract approval. We are also able to give our opinions to the bargaining team ahead of time. As union members we have much more "say" than if there were no union and everything were decided unilaterally by the governor and/or legislature. The 5.5% is the paycut that individual workers would take if furloughed 12 days per year - it's not the savings to the state. I don't know how many furlough days it would take to achieve 10% savings for the state, since there are other costs involved as well. view in original post
Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

I agree that you can look at By Gaia - 07/10/2009 - 9:07 am I agree that you can look at it many ways. My only point was that, as a block, state employees are taking a bigger hit because 100% will be affected by furloughs/paycuts, as opposed to something less than 100% for the private sector. You have to admit there are many private employees who have seen absolutely no Log in difference in their work hours or compensation. to vote 0 view in original post What's your point? By Gaia - 07/10/2009 - 9:04 am Other than arguing for the sake of arguing? I never said state employees should be getting bonuses or commissions. I merely pointed out that they don't. State employment has risks, as stated above. Private employment has a different set of risks - higher highs means lower lows. Employees in the public sector don't benefit from the "good times" in the same way that private sector employees benefit. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for them to expect to take a little less of a hit in the bad times - Lower highs and higher lows, if you will. When private sector employees hit bad times, they should not expect state employees to share the same pain they are sharing. We've got our own version of pain, thank you very much. view in original post Then you must be a socialist :) By Gaia - 07/09/2009 - 8:19 pm My only point is that the two things are two sides of the same coin, yet those who promote sharing the wealth are called, perjoratively, socialists, and those promomoting sharing the pain are not. I just found it interesting. Log in
to vote Log in to vote

view in original post Let's talk numbers here By Gaia - 07/09/2009 - 3:58 pm So, what percent of the nations's workforce has been laid off in the last year? 5% or so? What percent of the nation's workforce has had a reduction in pay? I don't know. But it's nowhere near 100%. There are two options before us for State employees - lay off 10% of the workforce, or give (nearly) everyone a 5% paycut in the form of furloughs. Apples to apples, NH state employees are being hit harder than the average non-state worker. If furloughs are the answer, state employees have a 100% chance of getting furloughed. That's not the case for nonstate workers.

Log in to vote

view in original post I wonder what the difference is By Gaia - 07/09/2009 - 12:24 pm ... between "sharing the pain" and "spreading the wealth." Shouldn't "sharing the pain" also be considered a "socialist" value? Why is it socialist only when you're talking about making poor people wealthier and wealthy people poorer? Log in
to vote

view in original post only one quibble or two By Gaia - 07/09/2009 - 12:06 pm "When the Dreaded Private Sector (DPS) falters, eventually that pain resonates down to public employees. When the DPS succeeds, most of us do not care what the public sector does - that is the benefit of public employment. "

In reality, when the DPS succeeds due to good economy, many employees reap the benefits of bonuses, profit sharing, higher commissions, etc. The DPS not only doesn't care, it doesn't pay attention to the fact that during good times, public employees just continue to work at the same wages and benefits as before no bonuses, no profit sharing. At the same time, they are spending money and contributing to the success Log in of the DPS. You are correct that it's all about choices - public employees make a choice to take on the risks associated with public employment. I think the letter writer is just asking the citizenry to understand that at this moment, state employees are suffering too, and in ways that may not have occurred to members of the DPS. view in original post It seems to be a cop thing. By Gaia - 07/07/2009 - 9:13 am They refer to male suspects as "gentlemen," too. view in original post stereotypes and gross generalizations By Gaia - 07/02/2009 - 11:17 pm 1. It's simply not true that "we have all taken real, (huge in come cases) pay cuts and or have lost our jobs." Please show me the evidence and statistics that show that even 25% of the NH workforce has taken a paycut or lost their job. 0

to vote

Log in to vote

2. The mindlessly repeated mantra about workers at DMV, court house, highway workers... My god, how many people have actually had that experience? And if they have, was it truly "every time" they go to a Log in state office. I can honestly say that in living in NH for almost 50 years, I have NEVER been treated rudely to vote by a state worker, been made to wait unnecessarily, or felt that those working with me were slacking off. 0 I guess if you keep repeating the same thing over and over, people start to think it must be true... It's just not.

view in original post you gotta have evidence! By Gaia - 07/02/2009 - 10:59 pm In order to remove a child from a home, DCYF needs to get a court order. In order to get a court order, you have to have reasonable evidence of abuse. In the absence of an eye witness, and a child who is too young to tell the CPSW what happened, where do you think they're going to get the evidence? If the child had been taken from the home on a "hunch," we'd have a raft of people here saying that DCYF just grabs children for no reason at all. Hindsight is 20/20. It looks like DCYF acted (by calling the police) as soon as they had more credible evidence of abuse. We really know nothing about the mother's situation. All I can say is consider the possibility that the mother was afraid of the abuser, and that she herself may have been abused. Unless you've been in that situation, I don't think you can really pass judgement about what she "should" have done. view in original post I hear you, Sara By Gaia - 07/02/2009 - 4:27 pm My third paragraph says it all. I've been infected by the negativity. I will try to snap myself out of it. *turning off the whine switch now* I am, however, reminded of that old saying - something about "we've been doing so much with so little for so long that we are now qualified to do anything with nothing." Or something like that.
Log in I guess I just want people to appreciate the fact that State workers will be working harder for less pay. to vote (Just like many people in the private sector) And most will not complain about it - they'll just do it. Also, 0 most state workers are already working their butts off to get the job done with the resources we've got. I think in the end I fear that when the public sees no difference in services, they will assume that we could operate indefinitely with reduced staff and pay. This will be especially true for the anti-stateworker folks who make those broad statements about how "every" state worker is overpaid and underworked. Log in to vote

view in original post If the answer is furloughs... By Gaia - 07/02/2009 - 11:11 am I predict that the state will not have the guts to do what some other states are doing - actually close down state offices a couple days a month. If they shut down the government now and then, citizens might actually get an understanding of where their tax dollars go, and what happens when services are underfunded. Log in
to vote

Instead, they'll make individual employees take off two random days a month, so that the public sees little or no difference in services, while those still in the office work harder to pick up the slack. People talk about "spreading the pain," and that State Employees should not be immune to the pain. Fine. But

why then make the public immune to the state employee's pain? It's a morass.... And now I've been infected. So many people seem to be focusing on making everyone miserable instead of finding a way to lift everyone out of the pit. "If I've got cancer, it's only fair for you to have cancer too." *sigh* Now I'm doing it too. If only it would stop raining. view in original post Name one... By Gaia - 07/02/2009 - 10:00 am The US Postal Service. Where's the money coming from? Presumably from premiums paid by subscribers. I've not heard that the proposal is for "free" health care. It would be just another Log in paid option, but one that does not have a profit motive attached. to vote 0 view in original post Context is everything. It's a police/arrest report... By Gaia - 07/01/2009 - 3:51 pm ...and not intended to imply guilt or innocence. If he's found innocent, the Monitor does not need to say they were wrong - they never said he was guilty in the first place. They're just passing along what's in the police report. As for your questions - read it again. The alleged victim DID call the police after being bitten, and the police found him when he was walking down the street. Also, sexual assault and rape are not the same thing. Sexual assault involves unauthorized contact with specific body parts. Rape implies penetration, by any means. So no, the Monitor and police are not saying the woman was raped. They're saying the man had unauthorized contact with one or more of those specific body parts. view in original post That's the law By Gaia - 06/29/2009 - 9:42 am By law, DCYF can only investigate families. If you have a concern about a non-family member abusing a child, call the police - that's their job and I'm sure they'll be happy to help you. view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote

Everyone's taxes went up... By Gaia - 06/27/2009 - 8:27 pm Not just the governor's neighbors. The town was in the midst of a revaluation of all properties. My taxes nearly tripled too... and I'm nowhere near the hill. view in original post It costs more to execute someone By Gaia - 06/24/2009 - 9:22 am than to give them life in prison. Because of society's ambivalence over the death penalty, we spend an extraordinary amount of money to ensure the defendant's rights and "make sure we get it right" in court. It's much less expensive to give them life without parole. view in original post correction Jirdex By Gaia - 06/19/2009 - 3:09 pm You wrote: "no atheist, secular, pagan, Wiccan or any other culture promotes gay marriage either." I can't speak for the atheists, but you'll find that Wiccans and other pagans are overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage. Beyond that - "Because we've always done it this way" is one of the absolute weakest arguments for continuing any practice. It doesn't take into account the fact that societies are always changing and evolving. You can't stay stuck in the past on something as vital to humanity as the ability to marry the person you love. I'm still waiting for a legitimate argument against gay marriage: something other than "we've never done it in the past" and "God doesn't like it." view in original post It wasn't a 12% raise By Gaia - 06/19/2009 - 2:40 pm You may be confused by the fact that many state workers also got a "step" raise at the same time in January. There was the 5% negoiated raise for everyone, then, for some, an "annual increment" that amounted to about 4%. This is built into the wage scale. Workers start out low on the payscale then, pending performance review, get a step increase every year for 5 years. Then another after 2, then 3 years Log in - "maxing out" after 10 years. to vote 0 view in original post No one's saying you can't lay off state workers By Gaia - 06/17/2009 - 10:26 am They're saying that when layoffs do occur, the state should follow the rules that have been set up to guide layoffs - rules designed to protect worker's rights and prevent the employer from targeting specific people Log in (rather than specific positions) for elimination. to vote 0
Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

view in original post Tired of the Family Budget Metaphor By Gaia - 06/17/2009 - 9:23 am Every time I hear someone say "Tom and Mary have to live within their means," I roll my eyes. The argument is always that Tom and Mary have to cut spending in order to match their income. That's not the only solution to balancing a family budget. My personal solution has been multipart: I cut expenses as much as I could. I worked like the devil to be promoted to a better, higher paying job AND I started a part time home business to bring in a little more income. Then my car died and I chose to replace it with a new, gas-efficient Yaris, taking on a car payment in the process. The Yaris is not very expensive as new cars go, but was probably a mistake in the long run, because when my property taxes also went up, I found myself living paycheck to paycheck again. So now I have some choices to make - see if there's more spending I can cut, raise my rates on my business, go Log in back to school for a Master's (and hope for an even better job), work more hours in my business, buy to vote lottery tickets.... 0 My point is that it's just not black and white. You need a combination of both spending cuts and additional income in order to get yourself out of a deep budget hole. Personally, I'm liking the idea of gambling pretty well. It's a great deal of income that doesn't "make" anyone pay anything extra. All of the spending to fund it is discretionary, and does not target any particular demographic for additional mandatory money-sucking. I've not heard that other states that have gambling have experienced a significant decline in lifestyle. If it were all that bad, would they have continued to use gambling as a income source, or would they have phased it out? view in original post Equal treatment? Are there laws governing poppy seeds on bagels? By Gaia - 06/15/2009 - 4:03 pm There's an easy solution to this. Slice the bagel in half. Toast it. Spread cream cheese in the middle and put the pieces back together. Then cut the whole thing in half from top to bottom. You and your wife each get a half a top and a half a bottom. Same thing applies to muffins - slice it from top to bottom, and each person gets half of the desireable muffin top. Oy. If only my problems were as difficult as how to successfully share a poppy seed bagel... (Have I changed the world as we know it?) view in original post One example By Gaia - 06/15/2009 - 3:52 pm US Postal service. Is there any for-profit company out there that will send a letter across the country and deliver it to the intended's doorstep in one day for less than 50 cents? Remember also that the USPS is Log in NOT taxpayer funded. They are completely self supporting. to vote 0
Log in to vote

view in original post Where did you get the school connection? By Gaia - 06/12/2009 - 10:33 am The only school connections in this whole article were references to where the interviewed youth go to school, and one about a school prom. I don't think you can take from this article that the schools are in any way endorsing or allowing open discussion and/or expression of sexuality, or that any discussion of sexuality was impeding their ability to learn about other things. As for a 14 year old knowing she's gay - did you have any doubt about your heterosexuality when you were 14? Did you ask yourself, gee, I wonder if I'll grow up to marry a man or a woman? Of course not you knew you'd marry, or be attracted to, or date, or whatever, someone of the opposite sex. It didn't occur to you that it would be otherwise. It's the same with gay youth. They know, very early, who they are attracted to. Remember - it's not a choice. And it's not like everyone starts out straight then some people "turn" or "decide to be" gay. They Log in to vote are gay from conception. 0 I understand your angst about how young kids are when they are exposed to sexuality of all sorts. But talking about how it "should" be is, I'm afraid, like shutting the barn door after the horse has escaped. Sexual talk and exposure to all kinds of sexuality is everywhere - not just at schools. It would take a complete societal makeover to change it. But the fact that it's everywhere should lend credence to the idea that a 14 year old can recognize him or herself as gay, much earlier than the days when no one talked about it and a gay youth had no way to label their feelings. view in original post Instead of accusing one another of "hate".... By Gaia - 06/11/2009 - 4:26 pm It might be more constructive to examine and evaluate behaviors. People have the right to hate whomever they want. It is not hate, the emotion, that hurts others. It is the behavior exhibited as a result of the emotion. Criticizing someone for hating another group is about as meaningless and impotent as praising someone because they have warm fuzzy feelings toward a group. So what? It's behaviors that count. Some of the objectionable behaviors I've seen during this debate are:
Log in

Name calling (on both sides) to vote Telling others they are wrong/bad/evil because they have not complied with the 0 dictates of a religion or belief system that is not their own. (on both sides) Applying double standards - "It's ok for one group to behave this way, but not ok for the other group." (on both sides) Perhaps we could start with these two suggestions for constructive discourse: 1. Focus on behaviors, not perceived emotions or motivations. 2. Consider that there is an important difference be "faith" and "fact." A strong belief in something is not the same as provable fact, especially when it comes to religion. Neither side can prove they are right. Neither side can prove the other is

wrong. Religion (or anti-religion) cannot be used to pass (or not pass) a law or prove a legal point. view in original post The Unitarian Universalist By Gaia - 06/10/2009 - 9:47 am The Unitarian Universalist church is not a Christian denomination. So you are right - we are not Bible based, and we do not "believe in" the Gospel as the only source of religious wisdom. If we claimed to be a Christian church you'd be right we would be a joke. But we don't, so we're not. Until 12 years ago I had no idea that there were actual churches that are not Christian, Jewish or Muslim. I discovered UUism then, and was incredibly grateful - I no longer had to be a hypocrite in a Christian church, struggling to believe something that I just could no longer believe, yet still be able to be a part of a community that helps people and works for justice in the world, and helps me develop my own spiritual and religious beliefs. If I can do one thing in the world, I hope it is to gently educate people that (1) the "Big Three" Abrahamic faiths are not the only "legitimate" religions in the world Log in and (2) there is a big, important difference between "faith" and "fact." A very to vote strong belief in the teachings of one's religion is NOT the same as provable fact. I 0 hope I can convince people that it's incredibly important to understand that difference. When they do, it becomes easier to accept that "other" religions may have some wisdom too, and cuts down on a lot of the fighting - "You may be right, I may be right, we may both be right. Or we may both be wrong. There's no way to know for sure, so I'll believe what seems right to me, and let you believe what seems right to you. No one needs to get their nickers in a twist." The Concord UU church's website has a nice, concise explanation of Unitarian Universalism - what it is, and what it isn't: www.concorduu.org/beliefs.htm. view in original post hmmm.... chimp.... By Gaia - 06/08/2009 - 9:20 pm Chimp, Methinks you paint with a very broad brush. While I'm not Christian, I do believe in a divine presence in the universe. I don't think I'm brainwashed I've come to my conclusions without any undue pressure, after going through first an agnostic, then atheist, then agnostic (again) phase. On any given day, my inner atheist may come roaring out and say some pretty scathing and mean things to me - along the lines of "how can you be so stupid as to believe in Log in to vote this?" But then I remember.... 0 Faith and Fact are two very different things. The only time I think people are guilty of "stupidity" (to use your word), is when they forget this difference. I can't prove the gods exist. You can't prove they don't. It's a matter of faith - for both of us. You have

faith that there is no "sky fairy." I have faith that something exists that is greater than the sum of our parts. Faith is not stupid. Blind faith, without an acknowledgement that I COULD be wrong is... not very well thought out. I would invite you to consider that you could be wrong in your atheism. I'm not saying you are. I'm saying we can't really know. Accepting that faith and fact are two different things takes a whole lot of pressure off... and allows people to co-exist and work together toward something productive, rather than getting their knickers in a twist about who's right, and who's wrong. view in original post I'm curious why you think it's not a church By Gaia - 06/08/2009 - 6:25 pm Granted, UU churches have a strong community (social) aspect. So do other churches - as evident in coffee hour, pot luck dinners, book groups, knitting groups, and a myriad of other church sponsored activities that are not primarily focused on worship. We have services every Sunday, led by ministers who are trained in standard divinity schools and seminaries. One big difference I have discovered between UU churches and the Christian churches I have attended in the past is that the minister will not tell you what you MUST believe. Instead, the minister, and the various ministries of the church, provide information, support, and a safe place to explore your own spiritual leanings. And the space to change your mind if you find that a particular path is no longer making sense. I will say that as a UU, I get out of it only what I am willing to put into it. No one spoon feeds me my spirituality. This is a rough adjustment sometimes, for people who expect to open their hearts and have religion dumped in and neatly arranged for them. In my experience, many people who felt they didn't get Log in anything out of a UU church were either in the wrong UU church for them, or their expectations were misguided. (And I'm sorry about the man who's UU minister was a bad role model. Ministers are humans to vote 0 too, but I agree he should not have been smoking in front of the children.) People who belong to UU churches may have a wide range of beliefs about the nature of the divine. We also have a share of atheists. But the majority certainly do believe in God(s) in one way or another. When you combine a belief in the divine with support for members and outreach activities that help improve larger community, that sounds like a church to me. What's missing for you, to truly make it a legitimate church? (Belief in Christ or the Gospels cannot be a requirement, otherwise you'd have to say that Jewish synagogues are not churches either.) view in original post Huh? By Gaia - 06/07/2009 - 5:39 pm Who's saying same sex marriage is not good enough? view in original post
Log in to vote

I give more because I can, not because I must... By Gaia - 06/06/2009 - 1:25 pm A couple years ago at town meeting, a woman stood and said that her property taxes were now 35% of her income. A man, following her, admitted that his property taxes were only about 2% of his income. I'm in the middle somewhere, at about 18%. When I retire, I expect my property taxes will probably be up around the 30% mark. So much for working hard... when I finally draw retirement, over half will go to keeping a roof over my head (taking into account taxes, mortgage, insurance, etc). Yeah, I know, it's all about the career you've chosen, and how big a house you buy. Get a small house, pay less. Get a mansion, pay more. But why should I have to downsize during my retirement just to afford the taxes? Shouldn't I get to keep my house AND have a decent standard of living? Or inheritance - shouldn't I be able to keep the nice house that my parents left me, even if I've chosen a lower paying public service career? As my income has slowly risen over the years, I've paid more income taxes. I've also given more to charity, just because I'm able to. I guess I don't see income taxes as a punishment. It's not that I "should" pay more because I make more. It's that I'm able to pay more. There were times when I couldn't contribute much to my church, or to the SPCA, or NHPR, or any of the other organizations that make my community a better place to be. I was grateful then to those who were able to give more, to keep the community going. Now I'm trying to take my turn to support my community - at a higher rate than those who cannot give as much. Even so, I'm not wealthy and I never will be. I've chosen to put my drive and ambition into my public sector career. Others put their drive into building widgets, or wealth. Less wealth does not mean less drive, less ambition, or less worth as a citizen. Following your logic, I could easily say, "why should I be punished with proportionatly higher property taxes, just because I've chosen to serve the public?" It occurs to me that one of the reasons people are able to make a lot of money in this country is because of the structure put in place through tax dollars. You are able to become wealthy because of the people who came before you and paved the way with their income tax contributions to society. It's not just hard work that pays off. It's hard work and living in a country that allows people to be enteprising and get ahead. Our taxes support the structure and culture that allows individual wealth to happen. So in a way, higher income taxes on the wealthy is payback on a loan that was extended... the support that allowed them to get wealthy in the first place. view in original post Errr.... I only asked a question By Gaia - 06/05/2009 - 4:55 pm for discussion's sake. I didn't actually advocate.... yet. C.Dog, please don't ascribe actions to me that I have not taken. It's impolite. And inaccurate. view in original post Let's pay for federal spending with a property tax! By Gaia - 06/05/2009 - 3:29 pm I wonder how the anti-income tax folks would feel if suddenly the federal government decided it was going to base our federal taxes on our property, rather than on our income. Hmmm....
Log in to vote Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Why is it ok to pay for federal spending with an equitable tax, but not state spending? In that light, C. Dog may actually have a point. Why use property taxes for local spending either? Why do we pile on to this regressive property tax like it's the only floating object in a sea of barracudas? view in original post Hint for reading these very loooonnnnngggg threads By Gaia - 06/05/2009 - 3:17 pm Set the view to "collapsed" and the order to "date - oldest first." Makes it much easier to find your way around! view in original post I say this very gently, and with respect for your beliefs. By Gaia - 06/05/2009 - 2:51 pm Granite State Guy, I think you've missed BlackDruid's point. When he talks about "Nature's God" he's not talking about the Biblical god. The Bible contains one way to approach the divine. There are many, many people who believe that there are other ways to approach the divine that have nothing to do with the Bible. Like BlackDruid, I see the divine as manifest in nature and the natural world. I have not interpreted the Bible to suit my own views, I've circumvented the Bible completely. It is not part of my belief system, and I don't take it into account. I'm not saying the Bible is wrong. I'm saying we can't possibly know for sure what religious approach is correct. Or even whether there's "only one way to believe." This is the difference between "faith" and "fact." It's an important distinction.

Log in to vote

Personally, I fall on the side of "There are many ways to approach the divine, and in the end, it's how we treat each other, and how we treat the natural world that will make a difference to (the) God(s). If anything Log in to vote makes any difference to them at all." It's what makes sense to me. 0 You are free to believe as you wish and I will not tell you you are wrong. Although I might evaluate your behavior in terms of your stated belief system, and point out any hypocricies I find. You are also free to tell me I'm wrong. Free speech and all that. But you're likely to get further with me by trying to understand where I'm coming from first and remembering the difference between faith and fact. Finally, when we differ in our beliefs, I ask that you not make the mistake of thinking that I am messing with your religion, or slicing and dicing your religion to meet my own needs. There are lots of religions. I have my own, and it's not related on your's. view in original post Not an expert, but... By Gaia - 06/05/2009 - 9:53 am Seems to me if they eliminated the "state" portion of our property taxes, and replaced it with an income tax, it would be ok. Everyone's property taxes would go down, and what they do pay would fund their

Log in

to vote town budgets. Then, people who make a lot of money would probably pay more to the state, and those 0 who don't make much money will pay less. Chances are, many people, in the middle, would pay about the same. It would certainly eliminate the concept of "donor towns" from the education fundng equation.

Also keep in mine, state income taxes are deductible on your federal tax return, so you don't lose that tax deduction by switching from property to income tax. view in original post non-scientific Facebook poll By Gaia - 06/04/2009 - 4:26 pm I've been extremely interested to see that, as of last night 83,000 had responded to a Facebook poll question "Should same-sex marriage be legalized." At that time, it was 80% yes, and 20% no. That's a really big margin for a large sample. Granted, the sample is skewed in a couple ways - the users of Facebook tend to be younger (although the majority are probably legal adults). And, the viral spreading of Facebook polls means that invitations to Log in take the poll will be disseminated to the voter's friends, people who are likely to vote the same way. to vote Therefore, a lead is likely to grow. 0 However, 80% is pretty darned amazing. view in original post Sounds pretty paranoid to me, but... By Gaia - 06/04/2009 - 2:14 pm Let's take these one at a time. Universal acceptance - Sounds like a basic human longing - to be accepted for oneself. "Lifestyle" implies choice, which is not a factor in homosexuality. Do you have a "heterosexual lifestyle?" Did you conciously choose to be heterosexual? Don't you want universal acceptance of your heterosexual lifestyle? (In fact, don't you already have it?) Discrediting of scriptures = Freedom of speech. It's a right granted by the constitution. You are also free to attempt to discredit other religious texts that support acceptance of gays, but I'm thinking that in the long run it's nicer to just live and let live. On both sides. The "discrediting" you speak of is probably a reaction to those who use religion as a blunt instrument to bash people they don't agree with. Muzzling of clergy & media - See above. Freedom of speech applies to clergy & media as well. They're safe, regardless of any "agenda" that may or may not exist. Granting of special privileges - Huh? I see no one asking for special rights, only equal rights. Please, I'm dying to know what special rights gays are seeking. Pedophilia - This is a non-starter. Gays and Lesbians are just as disgusted by pedophilia as anyone else. Except the pedophiles. There is NO correllation between homosexuality and pedophilia, except in the minds of the uneducated.

Log in to vote

Indoctrination - again, paranoia from the uneducated. Homosexuality is not a "club" that's seeking to swell their ranks. And even it it were, sexual orientation is not a choice - you might as well be saying that horses are attempting to indoctrinate cows into their herds. Even if they tried, they're not going to succeed in making cows into horses. And the horses understand this already. And while we're on the subject of choice - please explain to me why so many people would be motivated to CHOOSE to be gay? Why would they choose to be discriminated against, reviled, hated, and abused? If it were a choice, wouldn't just about everyone choose the far easier path of hetersexuality? 10% of the population is not an insignificant number - they can't all be masochists. view in original post the more I read your posts... By Gaia - 06/04/2009 - 1:42 pm the more I come to believe you are, at heart, an anarchist. At least that's the impression you're giving me. Since you haven't told us your proposal, I have to assume that you believe there should be NO laws governing marriage. Or no ability for anyone to marry. Or the opposite, that anyone can declare that they are married, without government issued licenses. However, even in those situations, marriage wouldn't have any particular rights or responsibilities attached to it. Or would it? I don't know, because you don't tell us. I'm giving up now - you've managed to antagonize me enough. Until you make it clear what you stand for, I'm not going to respond to your trollishness - lurking under bridges and tossing out rocks that are just meant to stir people up or feel stupid because they're somehow missing such a big and obvious point. So, please either make your big and obvious point, or just leave people alone. {steps out of the troll's path, and refuses to attempt mind reading any longer} view in original post Not so... By Gaia - 06/04/2009 - 11:44 am Lynch said he opposed gay marriage. He never said he would veto any gay marriage bill. The mark of a leader is the ability to put one's own personal beliefs aside long enough to look at the situation, listen to others, and make a decision that is best the people you lead. There's a name for rulers who take into account only their own beliefs and feelings - they're called dictators. view in original post Bigamy is illegal because By Gaia - 06/04/2009 - 11:33 am traditionally, bigamy (and polygamy) viewed women as inferior and as posessions. The man who had the Log in most wives and cattle won. We have moved away from polygamy (which IS the Biblical definition of
Log in to vote

Log in to vote

to vote

marriage) to monogamy in order to respect the rights and worth of women. That being said... There is a difference between polygamy and "group marriage." I suppose it is possible that at some point laws may change to allow groups of consenting adults to enter into group marriage - a situation where all of the involved adults have equal rights in the relationship. Frankly, I don't know how the "bible following" Christians could speak against it - after all, so many of the Old Testement personalities had multiple wives. It would be returning, in some ways, to a biblical definition of marriage, and one step closer to the way of life they say they want. As for age - we've drawn an arbitrary line in the sand that says you're ready to make decisions for yourself when you're 18. Used to be 21. That changed during WWII, so that more men could enlist inthe army. Now we live "age of consent" at 18. I think there does need to be a line somewhere so that we have a legal standard. However, most states have laws that allow people to marry younger than 18 with parental consent. It's probably a sufficient compromise. After all, if the 15 year olds are really in love, and really that mature, they'll be able to maintain their relationship and still be in love and prepared for marriage 3 years later when they turn 18. view in original post This is tiresome By Gaia - 05/31/2009 - 10:09 pm I'm not afraid to defend my position. The problem is, you seem to have assumed that I HAVE a particular position - that legalized same sex marriage results in equality for everyone. I've never said that. You are the one who keeps putting that statement in other people's mouths. My answer to your question, as I understand it is, it does not necessarily create equality for all people. But it gives more people the benefits of marriage, and allows them the dignity that comes with being treated the same as others who are seeking to marry consenting adults to whom they are not closely related. (I know this is not the same as equality for all.) As for the "marriage goodies," personally, I don't understand why married people get a lower tax rate than singles. It probably goes back to the days when most wives did not work, so the husband had an extra "dependent." These days, as long as everyone can deduct their children, I don't think there should be any special tax privileges for marrieds. But that's off topic. Speaking of dancing around questions - I see you didn't answer mine. What exactly is your position? I'm particularly interested in your proposal for an alternative to government controlled marriage licenses. (Unless you're proposing that NO ONE should get all of the economic and legal benefits of marriage.) Is your problem with the word marriage? I wouldn't have any trouble at all with a law that gives everyone a civil union license from the state, and leaves marriages to the churches. But if you're saying govs should not be involved in either, I'm at a loss to imagine the alternative. Unless no one gets to be married, or civilly unionized. Please step off the Jeopardy Show, and do NOT state your answer in the form of a question. Thanks. view in original post Help me out here By Gaia - 05/30/2009 - 3:26 pm C.Dog,

Log in to vote

I've read your 2 questions over and over in these forums and, respectfully, it feels like you are saying "I see that you believe in apples. Can you explain to me why you don't believe in oranges?" Your approach to the questions makes it very hard for people to answer - you haven't really said what you believe. Phrasing your beliefs in the form of a question is convoluted at best. As others have suggested, I suggest that you write your own letter to the editor outlining your opinions. Then people will understand exactly what you are proposing, and can respond in the proper context. You may find you have many compatriots here, if only you will make your position clearer, and less confrontive. Perhaps I do believe in oranges, I just can't tell yet, because I don't really understand what the orange looks like. What do you propose as an alternative to state-issued marriage licenses? view in original post Gays / Children / Adoption By Gaia - 05/26/2009 - 2:13 pm It is clear from some of the posts here that there are people who are woefully underinformed. Here are some facts for you: 1. It's already legal in this state for same sex couples to become foster parents and to adopt. It's been legal for at least 10 years. Maybe 15. 2. Many, many, many gay and lesbian couples are already raising children. I don't think that marriage equality is going to make a whole lot of difference in the number of gays/lesbians who are raising children. What it WILL do is provide those children with some of the same securities that the children of straight couples enjoy - "legitimacy," the knowledge that if one parent dies, the other does not have to go to court to get custody, child support orders upon divorce, and eventually a reduction in the amount of abuse they get from other children - the same way that mixed race children have experienced fewer problems as their parents' relationships have become more accepted. I've decided not to worry too much about whether the law gets passed this year. Same sex marriage is coming - if not this year, then next. Or next. I predict that within 20-25 years it will be federal law. The vast majority of today's older teens and young adults support marriage equality. These will be the voters and lawmakers of tomorrow. If we're smart, we will also redefine civil union - In my opinion, the ideal situation would be to grant civil union licenses to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. The civil union license gives all of the rights and responsibilities that are currently reserved for marriage, including those at the fedreal level. Then, if the couple wants, they can also have their union blessed in church that recognizes their union as a marriage. No one's religious rights are tromped on, and everyone gets the legal benefits of what we call marriage today. view in original post Sara By Gaia - 05/20/2009 - 4:54 pm " if you're smart about it - don't scribble on walls, don't tell people the real reason you don't want their business, don't express any opinions that someone, somewhere, somehow objects to - then you can

Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Log in

probably slide under the radar and avoid legal unpleasantness." Exactly. As I pointed out in an earlier post, a self-employed service provider does not have to give a reason for declining business. "I'm sorry I can't accomodate you, but I have a colleague who may be able to," followed by a referral, should be all that's needed. If, on the other hand, you say "I'm not doing your wedding because your gay lifestyle offends me and makes me want to puke," might give someone fuel for a lawsuit. Think about it this way. If you were against inter-racial marriages, how would you decline the business? Use the same tactic for same sex marriages. Does this infringe on "free speech?" Probably. I'm not an attorney or legal expert. It's a fine line to walk. But this issue really is not about free speech. It's about ending a discriminatory practice while granting protection (special protection!) to a group that wants no part of promoting the practice. view in original post "If she was a young man addicted to heroin you would call for he By Gaia - 05/20/2009 - 4:31 pm Um, no. If it were a he, addicted to heroin I would call for addiction treatment while he's serving time. I never suggested Ms. Douville should not be punished for her crime. I believe that punishment is warranted. However, in this special circumstance, sending her to a male prison would subject her to the great likelihood of assault, rape, even death at the hands of other inmates - she would be at a far greater risk than a straight, non-transgendered man would be. She would, in effect, have additional punative effects for being transgendered. She should be punished only for the crime she committed, not for her transgender status. "Cruel and unusual" comes to mind here.

to vote

Log in

Transgender status aside, I empathized with Ms. Douville because of her heart-felt statements of remorse. to vote If she had not taken responsibility, and if she had not had an exemplary record since the crimes were 0 committed, I might not have had such kind words to say. Although I would still advocate for an alternative sentence. She should not be punished for her transgender status, regardless of whether she's remorseful. They're two separate issues. view in original post Re: How it hurts society By Gaia - 05/20/2009 - 1:27 pm Anonymous wrote: Removing gender as a requirement for marriage means that marriage 1. No longer serves to unite the opposite sexes 2. Has nothing to do with having children. Thank you for your considered reply. However, I respectfully submit that you are catastrophizing. Currently, marriage is not required in order to unite the opposite sexes. Marriage is also not required in order to have children. I don't have much time to dash this out but.... the following metaphor occurs to me: I put out a basket of 0 fruit, and the only thing in it is apples. The apples are heterosexual marriage. Heterosexuals are happy to take an apple and get married. Other Heterosexuals decide they don't need the apple to be happy and have children. Now I add oranges to the marriage basket. The oranges are same-sex marriage, and allow gays to marry. Some will take an orange, some will not. For the same reason that some straights will take an apple, or not. Are you going to tell me that the mere presence of oranges in the basket will mean that
Log in to vote

fewer people will take apples? Or that the apples are no longer valuable? -- forgive me if it's not a great analogy. the point is, you have not convinced me. Sorry. view in original post Anonymous at 17:27 - how is the state liable? By Gaia - 05/19/2009 - 11:21 pm She was not a state employee at the time of the fraud - despite the Monitor's highly misleading headline. view in original post two thoughts By Gaia - 05/19/2009 - 1:54 pm To Raye Ellen Douville - I commend your taking responsibility for your actions. I'm sure it must have been a nightmare, and I'm glad it's nearing resolution for you. I also pray that the judge imposes a sentence that will respect your transgender status, and protect you from undeserved harm. If ever there was a case for "in home incarceration," this is it. A prison sentence served in your own home is still highly punative - I'd go nuts if I had to stay in my house a week, let alone a whole year. To the Monitor - WHY would you use such a headline? I had to read all the way to the bottom to assure Log in myself that Ms. Douville's current employment had nothing whatsover to do with her fraud conviction. I to vote suppose you thought it was better than "Tranny Lesbian gets 2 years for Fraud," and therefore not 0 important. If she had been employed at Walmart, would you have said "Walmart Employee gets 2 years for Fraud?" I'm thinking Walmart would have had something to say about that... Please THINK, editors! view in original post Think about it this way By Gaia - 05/19/2009 - 10:52 am Your refusal to film a same sex ceremony is not going to prevent the couple from getting married. They're going to get married whether you participate or not. So you have a choice - take advantage of the opportunity to make some money or, as you say, politely decline. "I'm sorry, but I'm not able to accomodate you," is a perfectly legitimate way to decline business. So are "I'm too busy that month," "I'm on vacation that day," and "I wish I could help but I can't. However I know another photographer who may be able to take you on." I would hazard that 99.9% of same sex couples will move on to the next person on the list - especially if you happen to know another excellent professional who Log in would be willing to take your cast-offs. A referral to another professional is to vote probably all it would take to get you off the hook, if any hook truly exists. 0 You're getting all wrapped up in the very tiny possibility that some militant samesex couple will use their marriage ceremony as a spring board for a lawsuit. AND that you will beat the odds and be the unlucky non-supporter who is targeted. I suppose it's possible, but I don't think it's very likely. I'm a part time web designer. I already know that I can decline any job that I want, and I don't have to give a reason. I HAVE declined work based on my availability
Log in to vote

at the time. I've also declined work that I didn't feel I had the skills to do. And believe me, I would decline to create a website for a hate group, on the basis that it would be against my religious principles. I have no concern about being sued by the KKK for stifling their free speech by refusing their business. Let them sue. As long as I don't have a monopoly on web site design, they don't have a leg to stand on. I will win, and I will also win payment of my own attorney fees. And they will find a web designer who's willing to do the work. Frankly, I think writing the religious exception into the marriage law is redundant, and won't provide any protections that churches don't already have. But if it gets the law passed, I'm willing to roll my eyes and accept it. At the same time there's no need to write more redundant law - business owners are already protected. view in original post Anonymous 00:13 By Gaia - 05/16/2009 - 9:55 pm I don't believe I sidestepped the question because you had already answered it. You asked what other creatures naturally pair off by same sex. Then you went on to say "when they do..." You already know that some same-sex pairings happen in nature. Your question was rhetorical. It seemed to me you were only trying to Log in make the point that homosexuality is anomalous. That's the point I addressed. to vote 0 view in original post Re: Unreal By Gaia - 05/15/2009 - 2:52 pm People with brown african skin and red hair are anomalies. They're still allowed to get married. People who are under 3 feet and over 7 feet tall are anomalies. They're still allowed to get married. Heck, conjoined twins are allowed to marry. With thanks to Moody Sara for helping define "normal," there is no other class of people who are required to conform to some definition of "normal" in order to married to the person they love. You can get Log in married if you are infertile, super-fertile, mentally or physically disabled, mentally or physically superior, to vote very ugly, very beautiful, very rich, very poor. None of these people is denied marriage. Why deny it to 0 gays because some people believe they are not "normal?" view in original post Waffles and pancakes By Gaia - 05/15/2009 - 2:36 pm It doesn't matter what decision he made - he would have been accused by half the state of caving to pressure. It's all relative people. When the governor decides in your favor, you praise him for doing the right thing. Log in When he decides in favor of "the other side," you castigate him for "giving in." to vote 0 There was no way he was going to please everyone in such a polarized argument. I think he was right to take a stand and make a decision. I respect him for doing so. He did what a governor is supposed to do -

make difficult decisions. People need to stop calling him names just because they didn't get their own way. Is name-calling going to change or improve anything? No. It just sets up a hostile environment where it's difficult to move on to other equally important issues. view in original post Re: the governor's religion By Gaia - 05/15/2009 - 2:26 pm Why does it matter what church he attends? His religious beliefs have no place in governing the state. view in original post Anonymous at 12:19 By Gaia - 05/15/2009 - 1:28 pm Listen to your language - you don't dislike gays, but you don't believe they are "normal". And you characterize their fight for equal rights as "whining." You make them sound like annoying children, rather than adults citizens who deserve the right to marry. Were women "whining" when they demanded the vote? Were the original colonists in this country "whining" when they demanded representation to go along with their taxation? This is exactly the problem. You don't believe gays deserve equal rights, because you really do think they are second class citizens. You can easily dismiss them because you don't believe they are as valuable and Log in deserving as any other citizen of the country. to vote 0 What "tolerance" are you asking for? Tolerance for discrimination? You want them to say "that's ok, I understand why you don't support me and I will now stop bothering you?" Please! Can you be any more self-centered? view in original post Did the governor lie? I don't think so... By Gaia - 05/15/2009 - 12:54 pm ... but I'd be willing to be shown proof. He definitely stated his personal beliefs on many occasions. I don't remember ever hearing his say (or reading that he said) he would veto a gay marriage bill. They are two different things. Would you tell me I had lied if I said I dont' believe in paying taxes, but proceed to lawfully pay my taxes anyway? Leaders must sometimes put their personal beliefs aside in order to do what is right for the people they lead. Leaders who refuse to do this are called dictators. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. If the governor had been saying all along that he believes in gay marriage, but then vetoed this bill, most of his detractors would be praising his courage for "doing the right thing." view in original post
Log in to vote

Log in to vote

Time to move on - and the governor's not a flip-flopper. By Gaia - 05/15/2009 - 12:27 pm Many who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds will never be satisfied with any re-working of the law that still results in gays being able to marry. The bottom line for them is that they cannot be satisfied with having their own rights protected, they must also deny rights to everyone who does not share their beliefs. We are not a theocracy. (Thank the gods.) In this country, we cannot deny people rights based on religious belief. The constitution does not, and should not allow it. To the religious right: Your rights have been protected. You don't have to approve of gay marriage, and you don't have to go out of your way to do ANYTHING that compromises your religious beliefs. This should be sufficient. If it is not sufficient, then what you are asking for is a theocracy. You might as well be honest about it. Regarding the the governor "lying." As far as I can see he has not lied. Yes, he has always said that he believes a marriage should be bettween one man and one woman. I don't remember hearing his say he would veto a gay marriage bill. They are two different things. People in leadership positions must sometimes do things that fly in the face of their personal beliefs, if it is the greater interest of the people they lead. When leaders refuse to have that kind of flexibility, and to hear what their people are saying (especially the repressed minorities), you have a dictatorship, not a democracy. So, I ask all of you who criticize the governor, and still oppose gay marriage on religious grounds - are you truly asking for a theocratic dictatorship? Sure, it works fine when the dictator believes the same thing you do, but what happens when the dictator doesn't share your beliefs? At that point, might you be singing a different song? view in original post Anonymous at 12:21 By Gaia - 05/13/2009 - 11:09 pm >>Men and women are drawn together (vast majority) by the desire to procreate. Gay/Lesbian couples are not.<< Respectfully, I believe you are mistaken. I don't think you can generalize and say that gay/lesbian couples do not have a goal of procreating, or creating a family. Sexual orientation does not have any bearing on a person's desire to be a mother/father. In fact, 3 of the 4 long-term lesbian couples and 2 of the 4 committed gay couples that I know are successfully raising children - both adopted and biological. Parenting is a main focus of their lives, the same as hetero couples with children. Their motives for parenting and being Log in part of a family are the same as for heteros. I have not seen any difference. Interestingly, none of the "single" gays I know have children. Each of the couples I know with children met, committed to each other, and then created their families. The only thing different from a hetero couple is that they did not have the opportunity to actually marry first. But their goals as couples clearly included procreation. view in original post 0
Log in to vote

to vote

Denominations that support gay marriage... By Gaia - 05/11/2009 - 2:21 pm Unitarian Universalism is one of them. www.uua.org view in original post Doing away with anonymous postings By Gaia - 05/11/2009 - 11:39 am ... would also do away with people who post 5 or 6 times with essentially the same message, hoping to create the illusion that there are a whole lot of people with the same viewpoint. I'm not anonymous, and I'm not worried about stalking. My real name and address are not accessible by the public, and I've chosen not to post a picture. Granted, I've given out some potentially identifying information over the past several months, and if someone worked hard at it they might be able to find me. But giving out that info was my choice, and I didn't necessarily need to do it to make my point. I will be glad if the Monitor does away with anonymous posting. Then I'll no longer need to wonder how many of those postings were all made by the same person. view in original post I'd love to see a REAL survey By Gaia - 05/11/2009 - 8:56 am This survey came from Cornerstone Policy Research, www.cpraction.org, who now claims that 64% answered yes to the question. That's probably true, but the question was so dishonest that it should be obvious the results are unreliable as to what people REALLY think about gay marriage. I'd love to see a neutral organization do the same survey, of the whole state, and ask the question the right Log in to vote way. 0 view in original post RE Morality is relative By Gaia - 05/08/2009 - 4:28 pm I agree with everything you said. My point was for the earlier poster who basically said we should scrap most laws and just go with what's morally right. view in original post I'm sorry for Maine By Gaia - 05/08/2009 - 2:20 pm Human rights should not be left up to the uneducated, bigoted public. If we had put the rights of women and blacks up for a public vote, both populations might still Log in be owned by white men. Unfortunately, human civilization needs to be advanced by the forward thinking 0
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

to vote

people who know its the right thing to do. (I can hear the arguments now - how Hitler thought he was advancing civilization. Difference is, he was taking away rights from populations, not giving them.) Giving more people equal rights is never wrong. Once people have lived with it for a while and seen that society has not crumbled, it'll be percieved of as normal - just like women having the vote, and blacks having equal rights to whites. view in original post Dictionary By Gaia - 05/08/2009 - 2:13 pm It matters not what the dictionary says. Dictionaries are edited and revised all the time to keep up with changing society. We dictate the dictionary, the dictionary does not dictate us. 100 years ago (or less, I'm not sure when) if you looked up the word gay you would have found 1 definition - "happy." If you looked up "queer" you would have found the definition "strange, odd."
Log in

Words change. Concepts change. In biblical times, marriage was between one man and as many women as to vote he could support. We've already changed the definition of marriage. It has not been static. We can change 0 it again if it is the right thing to do - and it IS the right thing to do, IMHO. view in original post Sodomy laws & and the anonymous "veto" posts. By Gaia - 05/07/2009 - 2:18 pm Re: the person who posted that sodomy is against the law. Wrong. NH has no sodomy law, and in fact the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that sodomy laws are unconstitutional on June 26, 2003. http://www.sodomylaws.org/ To all the anonymous people posting the "veto" messages. It appears you are all the same person. Ok, maybe 2. Get some cojones, get honest and register before posting. view in original post adopt an "accepted high moral standard not enforced by laws." By Gaia - 05/07/2009 - 9:43 am Ok. But what about the fact that MY high moral standard says that all people, regardless of sexual orientation, deserve equal treatment under the law, including the right to marry the person they wish to marry? Morality is relative, and will always be so. view in original post
Log in to vote Log in to vote

Monitor reporters - are you listening? By Gaia - 05/07/2009 - 9:25 am A misleading, manipulative poll sounds like a great news story to me. view in original post "get to work on the issues the people of this state care about" By Gaia - 05/07/2009 - 9:12 am That's a whole lot of hyberbole. People DO care about this issue, as evidenced by the number of people at hearings, number of phone calls and letters to legislators and the governor's office, number of ads, and the number of forum posts in this newspaper and others in the state. It appears to me that you care about it too.
Log in Log in to vote

It is the epitome of dishonesty to say "People don't care about this issue," when you really mean "I oppose to vote gay marriage." Say what you mean instead of hiding behind a lie. 0 view in original post I didn't get that survey By Gaia - 05/07/2009 - 9:06 am And if I had, I would have said "no." As strange as it sounds, the popular vote should not be what carries the day here. Human rights must not be left to the will of the people - if they were, women and blacks might never have gotten the vote in this country. These kinds of changes, which I believe move civilization forward, are often opposed by the populace until they've had a chance to live with them for a while. Then the changes become accepted, once people see that civilization has not fallen to wrack and ruin, but has actually progressed. The legislators, and the governor must do the RIGHT thing, rather than the POPULAR thing. view in original post liberal media hype? By Gaia - 05/06/2009 - 2:30 pm So you're saying the conservative media didn't over-report this? Do a search for swine flu on foxnews.com. It comes up with pages and pages of search results. Is Fox taking its marching orders from the White House as well? I guess it's asking too much to for complaint-driven paranoids to actually check out their claims before they make them. view in original post RE:" this is a NEW strain of flu that no one's ever seen before" By Gaia - 05/05/2009 - 6:37 pm I will defend Anonymous on this one. He/She never said that swine flu is new. He/She said this STRAIN of flu is new. And that is the truth in this situation. This particular strain of swine flu is new. That's why Log in there was concern - because the CDC could not predict how people would react to it, because it was new. I to vote
Log in to vote

Log in to vote

agree that it was handled appropriately in the media. It's not like the media didn't cover anything else this 0 week - there was plenty of other news. People should stop being so hyperbolic. view in original post Tolerance of polygamy By Gaia - 05/02/2009 - 11:34 am To answer Derek's question: I think there's probably a difference between polygamy and "group marriage." Traditionally, polygamy is 1 man and multiple wives, where the man gets to decide who the wives will be. A group marriage would be more equitable - where all of the spouses enter into an agreement about who will be in the marriage. This could mean 1 man and multiple wives, 1 wife and multiple husbands, or multiple husbands and wives. Would I "tolerate it?" I believe I would have to tolerate a group marriage where all the spouses have equal rights. I dont' see anyobvious harm to society or to the people who enter into these arrangements. I would not tolerate polygamy because it is sexist - it denies equal rights to women. (with traditional polygamy, a woman would not have the right to marry multiple men.) view in original post hysteria? By Gaia - 05/02/2009 - 10:40 am I don't know. The media doesn't seem hysterical to me. The reporting seems pretty balanced. Except for Oprah, who's headline said "how to keep yourself safe from the deadly superbug." <eye roll> view in original post Getting a second job By Gaia - 04/29/2009 - 12:23 pm And when a family is trying to figure out how to make ends meet, they very often talk about how they can increase their income. Many people take second jobs when they've cut all they can cut. Why can't we, as a state, talk about ways to Log in increase income, rather than just cutting, cutting, cutting. view in original post Proof is not needed By Gaia - 04/29/2009 - 12:12 am My whole point is that it doesn't MATTER what the original purpose of marriage might have been. You may be completely correct about that purpose, but it doesn't matter. Societies change. Priorities change. We evolve. If we did not change we would still be living with all of the discriminatory and abusive practices of the past slavery, no rights for women... The original purpose of computers was crunching numbers. Yet we've evolved way past that original purpose... was that wrong? Does it somehow diminish the dignity of computers to have changed from their
Log in to vote Log in to vote Log in to vote

to vote

original purpose? Or does it enhance the worth of the institution of computers? I know that's a simplistic metaphor, but it's still apt. Why is it ok, and desireable to evolve in some areas, but not in others? Doesn't allowing more people to get married actually strengthen the insitutition? view in original post Flu Vaccines By Gaia - 04/28/2009 - 11:58 pm Victor - there is no vaccine for this strain of flu, and it will take 6-9 months to develop one. No one in the world has a vaccine for this. According to news stories, the state has 68,000 doses of Tamiflu that can be given to people who are actually ill, and the Feds are sending 25,000 more doses this week. view in original post Mistaken on so many levels By Gaia - 04/27/2009 - 2:32 pm 1. "A union of two males or two females can not possibly result in children and therefore does not qualify as a "marriage". Ergo: A straight marriage that involves an infertile spouse cannot possibly result in children, and therefore does not qualify as "marriage." A straight marriage that involves a post-menopausal woman cannot possible result in children, and therefore does not qualify as "marriage." A straight marriage that involves a spouse who has had a tubal ligation, hysterectomy, vascetomy or ovarectomy, or any number of other ectomies cannot possibly result in children, and therefore does not qualify as "marriage." 2. Yeah, gay relationships DO result in children. They get those children in all the same ways that straight Log in to vote couples with fertility issues get them - invitro fertilization and adoption being the most common. 0 3. "Sorry folks, but words have meanings." This is true, but clearly you have not studied the history of language very well. The meanings of words change all the time. Remember when "gay" meant "happy?" Words change meaning because societies and their values and priorities change. Language is meant to serve us. We are not meant to be slaves to language. More on words that have changed meaning over the years: http://www.write101.com/W.Tips261.htm view in original post
Log in to vote

There's no myth. By Gaia - 04/24/2009 - 6:20 pm Thank you to the people who supplied links to the BLS information. The thing that stands out for me is "The pay gap between government workers and lower-compensated private employees is growing." So, the AVERAGE government worker is now catching up (or surpassing) the LOWER paid private employees, mainly because of the value of the benefits package. There is no myth - government employees are still paid less than their equivalents in the private sector, and I think this BLS information supports my position. But, it looks like things may be starting to change. Too bad it make us state employees targets for people's frustration during bad economic times. During the "good times" private employees got bonuses and pay raises, while public workers chugged along with their small negotiated COLAs. We didn't get the benefit of the expanding economy, so I don't feel a bit guilty about insisting that we not lose ground during this recession. I think that people get so upset about public employee compensation because it's so obvious that public Log in employees' salaries are paid by the taxpayers. Taxpayers feel the right to complain about it and try to to vote control it. What they fail to recognize is that the price of every single product and service in this country is 0 directly tied to the wages paid to the workers who produce them. When the cost of government goes up, people target employee compensation as a way to lower those costs. However, I have NEVER heard anyone say something like "This bloody toaster oven wouldn't cost so much if the greedy lazy workers who made it didn't get paid so much." So now I'm guilty of going off on a tangent.... Whoops. As for my other point about two different income taxes, I was referring to the fact that current employees will probably have to contribute an additional 2% of their salaries to the retirement system, for no additional benefit, AND certain retirees will have to pay 11.5% of their pensions for insurance. view in original post And what I should have said was... By Gaia - 04/24/2009 - 11:31 am How does the "pay gap" information relate to the original letter? Public employee compensation rates have nothing to do with the fact that the governor and legislators have targeted very specific populations current and retired public employees - for two different income taxes. Where's the outrage? What if they arbitrarily decided that all auto dealership employees will now be subject to a 2% income tax? After all, Log in they must have something to do with the auto manufacturing debacle and bailout, and should therefore to vote pay, right? 0 view in original post Can't find that article By Gaia - 04/24/2009 - 11:14 am I can't find that article about the pay gap on the BLS website. I spent 30 minutes looking. Can you provide a link? More importantly, was there any information specific to NH public employees? Even if it were true that the national average public employee package outstripping private, it doesn't automatically mean that it's true in NH.
Log in to vote

view in original post You still haven't answered the question, anonymous By Gaia - 04/23/2009 - 2:54 pm The original question, which I answered was "Why is this man referred to as "she" in the article." Then I asked how the use of a pronoun hurts anyone. You did not answer the question - instead you went off on a tangent about the ladies' room. I will assume you have no good answer to how the use of a pronoun hurts anyone. As for the bathroom issue - again, it's a red herring. This law is not about bathrooms. It's about equal protection under the law when it comes to more important issues like employment and housing. Let's put this to rest. If a person who looks like a man enters the ladies' room, he is subject to arrest unless he can show that he is currently undergoing treatment for transgender issues. The law offers no protection to male offenders who just want to get a look (or female offenders, for that matter, who want to get into the men's room.) If an individual who looks like a woman, but has male genitalia, goes into the ladies' room, she is going to Log in go into a private stall, do her business, and leave, just like every other woman in the bathroom. No one to vote will ever know the difference, and no one will ever care. What are you picturing? That the "man" in 0 question will be peering under the stall doors? That they might see a woman washing her hands or fixing her makeup? And finally, are you a man or a woman? Are you worried about transgendered women in the bathroom with you? Or are you worried about transgendered women in the bathroom with your wife? If you're a woman, have you EVER had a concern about another woman looking under the stalls? Even lesbians? If you've never worried about being seen by either another straight woman or a lesbian, what's the problem? Transgendered women identify themselves as women. They do not have the same interests that a straight (or gay) man would have in a ladies' room. Get over it view in original post No, YOU are being ridiculous By Gaia - 04/22/2009 - 10:46 pm To the poster directly below - your metaphor does not translate. I'm talking about a pronoun - he vs. she. You're talking about a much different thing - human vs. deity. Your exaggeration is complete nonsense. Who can possibly be hurt if I refer to Ms. Cannon as "she?" Can you show me how you are injured by this? How does it hurt anyone to treat this human being with a little dignity? We are NOT talking about "men with 5:00 shadow in dresses." When was the last time you actually saw Log in someone meeting that description in real life? I would venture that this person exists mainly in movies and to vote on TV as an insulting stereotype. 0 I urge everyone to follow some of the links offered by other posters below. Take a good look at the photos of the transgendered women presented there. How could ANYONE refer to Lynn Conway (http://www.LynnConway.com) as "he?" THAT would be ridiculous.

view in original post The reporter did not use the word "motley" By Gaia - 04/21/2009 - 8:11 pm Reporters do not get to write their own headlines. That's the editor's job. The reporter is no the bad guy here. His article was not offensive - just the headline. That being said - it's dangerous to claim to know someone's motivations. Perhaps the editor intended the word to be inflammatory. Perhaps not. Unless he/she tells us his/her intent, we don't really know. view in original post Why do we call her "she?" By Gaia - 04/21/2009 - 8:00 pm To answer the questions below - it is correct and traditional to refer to a transgendered person with the pronoun for the gender with which they identify. It is respectful and acknowledges the individual's inherent worth and dignity. It also simplifies matters when everyone is consistent. Gerri Cannon may not yet be legally a woman, but she still deserves the respect of being referred to as "she." What purpose is there in disrespecting her by using a pronoun with which she does not identify? What if I decided to start calling you Dick when your name is Tom, just because you seem more like a Dick to me than a Tom? Pronoun usage is not as strict as one would like to think. After all, we consistently refer to sailing vessels as "she," even when they clearly have no gender whatsoever. I've heard people refer to their automobiles with pronouns as well. It's a convention, nothing more. view in original post hmmm By Gaia - 04/14/2009 - 1:56 pm If a person's choice of where to live, work and invest were motivated soley by finances, I might agree with you. Tell me, will YOU personally be moving out of state when this law is passed? Is there nothing else about NH that entices you to remain? If the answer is no, are you simply trying to protect your Log in personal bottom line by tossing out a red herring for the masses to react to? view in original post Re: Longtime Committment By Gaia - 04/14/2009 - 10:00 am Sounds like they're a wonderful example of relationship.... period. : ) view in original post I thought I was going crazy this morning! By Gaia - 04/14/2009 - 9:14 am There I was, sitting in the left lane, heading into Concord, and when the light changed, the car in the right lane went straight, nearly colliding with me, since I
Log in to vote Log in to vote

Log in to vote

to vote

Log in was going straight too. I looked in my rearview mirror and saw that the left lane was "turn only," and I thought - has it always been that way? Have I lost my mind? to vote 0 Don't I always get in the left lane to go straight?

*phew.* It all makes sense now, but really, they should have put up some signs for those of us who have been going through that intersection every day for years.(or maybe they did, and I just didn't see them.) view in original post $50,000 a year By Gaia - 04/08/2009 - 10:04 am Please understand that I was not trying to make a statement about the "average" state employee salary. I simply picked a nice round number out of the air. Someone who is at a labor grade 21 and has worked long enough to "max out" at that labor grade, would earn about $50,000 this year. Labor grade 21s start at $37,800 and include positions like Registered Nurse II, Rec Therapist II, Railroad Inspector, Business Admin I, Clinical MH Counselor, Accountant III, Store Supervisor/Mgr I. It takes 11 years to reach the maximum pay step. For comparison's sake, I see by internet research that the AVERAGE pay, for all employers, for a registered nurse in NH is $59K, for an accountant 51K, Business Administrator 66K, and a Rec Therapist Log in to vote 54K. That's the average pay, not the top salary. In my example, 50K is the top salary a person can get 0 doing that job for the State, after 11 years in the position. You are right that most state employees earn less than $50K. The lowest paid classified state job starts at 18,642 for full time work. view in original post RE Pensions are unethical By Gaia - 04/07/2009 - 9:11 am I'm not sure I entirely buy your argument. The pensions will be paid by people who come into state service - and thereby agree to make the payments. As for taxpayer support - every taxpayer-supported program in the world falls under the same umbrella - we presume the program will be around in the future, so those unborn people have already been targeted to pay in - it's not just pensions they are obligated to. That being said. You may be right that they are a calamity waiting to happen. Just like the social security system. But they're only a calamity if they are mis-managed, which is what is happening to the NH retirement system. The cities and towns have not paid their fair share, and it is now falling upon the employees to take up the slack. And even that may not be enough.
Log in

Here's the dilemma. People like me, who started in state service many many years ago, and are now to vote approaching retirement, are in a pickle. I've got 27 years in, 15 to go before retirement. When I was 0 younger, I believed that my state pension and social security would see me through in my elder years. And if the systems stay solvent, they will. The retirement benefits were one of the reasons I gave up higher pay in the private sector. But what happens if the systems don't stay solvent? Even if they give me back today everything I've put in, plus interest, I'll be in the poor house when I'm finally forced to retire. My contributions, plus interest, amount to about $100K, and there wouldn't be enough time in the market for it to produce much income. Pensions used to be de riguer in the workplace. Now they're not. I'm not sure why that happened (are they

truly unsupportable, or did non-unionized workers simply give up too much over the years, so that now they seem archaic, and somehow "wrong?") I suspect that NH will eventually phase out pensions, and move to 401k plans for new employees. I just wonder how many of us who are close to retirement will be squeezed in the middle and end up with little to no retirement income in our elder years, through no fault of our own? view in original post 11.5% option is no good either By Gaia - 04/06/2009 - 10:19 am The size of an employee's pension is directly related to the number of years they have put in. Someone who has dedicated 35 years of their lives to state service will deservedly have a larger pension than someone who has put in 10 years. This means that the employees with the greatest longevity will also pay the most for their insurance. Here's the math: Someone works for 35 years, with an average final compensation of 50,000, retires at age 60. Their pension will be 50,000 times 30 years, divided by 60, = $29166. 11.5% is $3354. Someone works for 10 years, with an average final compensation of $50,000 and retires at age 60. Their pension will be 50,000 times 10, divided by 60, = $8333. 11.5% = $958. That's a big difference, and the person who pays more is doing so only because they worked for the state 3.5 times longer, and paid more into the system more. view in original post Well, that raises my eyebrows a bit By Gaia - 04/02/2009 - 9:24 am When did it become ok for a public school to put on an overtly Christian musical? Is it ok because they haven't turned down any requests for an overtly Jewish, Muslim, or Pagan musical? Things that make you say "hhmmmmm...." That being said, musical theatre is a wonderful thing for kids to engage in. I wish them luck and hope they Log in to vote have a great time. Maybe next time the school staff can secularize the activity, as they should have done 0 this time, and leave Godspell Jr. to St. John's or Bishop Brady. view in original post Yet "harm to children" is still used as a reason not to legalize By Gaia - 04/01/2009 - 10:23 am Not really my intent to hijack this subject, but I suddenly found the contrast striking. One of the big argument against gay marriage is that it is somehow harmful to children. Seems to me that Log in the legislature's failure to ban smoking in cars with children, which has clear, proven harmful effects, to vote pretty much dismantles the anti-gay marriage argument - which has no proof of harm to children. 0 If we're going to deny gay marriage in order to protect children and society, I think we're going to have to
Log in to vote

put a whole lot of other child and society protection laws in place... No smoking in cars or homes with children present. Or other adults, for that matter. No feeding of french fries or candy bars to children. Heck none of that kind of food should be available to anyone! No raising of children by obese parents, because we know that the children are likely to become obese themselves. Limiting everyone to 1 hour a day of tv or video games. Psychological testing for anyone planning to get married, to determine whether they have the right stuff to make the marriage last, and will not create discord in the family, neighborhood, or society in general. No relationships allowed between unattractive people, because it grosses out others when they think about those two people in bed... I gotta get busy writing my congresspeople... view in original post The Bible is not the law of the land By Gaia - 04/01/2009 - 10:06 am Once again I must remind people like Rev. Fuller, that we have a secular government. Your religion condemns homosexuality. Mine does not. Neither of these facts have any place in lawmaking. We cannot base laws soley on religous beliefs. How about we pass a law that makes eating pork illegal. How about a requirement that State services shut down on the solstices and equinoxes, because they are religious holidays for some? When you ban something in law, you must show that a failure to ban the activity will lead to significant harm to individuals and society. That harm has to go beyond the "ew" factor of imagining your gay neighbors in the privacy of their bedroom. Who, exactly, is harmed by gay marriage? (By the way, I don't believe the Divine needs us to defend it against the horrors of homosexuality. If you believe God created humans, then you must also believe he made gays and lesbians. Did he make a mistake?) Please show me the proof that homosexual relationships are more damaging to families, children, and 0 society than heterosexual relationships. (And you know what? Even if it were true, it doesn't matter! Gays and Lesbians can live together and raise children without the benefit of marriage or civil unions. Denying them the right to marry is not going to prevent them from having relationships or raising children. All it does is condemn the innocent children to living in "second class families." If children of gays are teased, it's because the bigoted parents of their classmates have not taught them the concepts of loving kindness to all, and the inherent worth and dignity of all humans. (That, by the way is one of MY religious beliefs respect for the inherent worth and dignity of all individuals.) To those who resonate with what I've said - are you tired of hate-filled religious speech? Check out Unitarian Universalism and c'mon home! view in original post State employees have, for By Gaia - 03/31/2009 - 9:02 am State employees have, for decades, settled for lower wages in order to have better than average benefits
Log in to vote

like health insurance. Up until now, it has come out pretty even in the long run. The value of our benefits Log in to vote has made up for the lower wages. However, when you then reduce our wages by 2% (or more), with no additional benefit, we are really taking it on the chin. The gap between private and public compensation 0 becomes wider, and we (who are also taxpayers!) really take it on the chin. Those who say "Good time to weed out the state employees and get some real productive people" simply haven't thought it through. What kind of "real productive people" do you think the state is going to attract when the wages and benefits lag significantly behind the private sector? And won't the well-qualified people be the first to abandon ship for the better compensation in the private sector? The state will be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy if they don't pay a reasonable take-home wage. The only people who will stick around (or apply) are the ones who TRULY can't make it in the private sector. And those are the only ones the state will have to choose from. You can't expect high quality professional applicants if you are offering Burger King compensation. In the end, this kind of cost shifting is not going to be effective for bolstering the economy. I personally will take a $1000 a year hit. It's not trivial. It's $1000 less that I'll be spending in the local economy dining out, giving to charities, buying clothes, getting my hair cut. Multiply that by 51,000 families that will be affected. It's the private and non-profit sector that will ultimately suffer. view in original post Try this substitution: By Gaia - 03/27/2009 - 9:40 am Instead of "It's not discrimination to say marriage should be between a man and a woman if same sex couples are provided with all the same rights," try "It's not discrimination to say marriage should be between people of the same race, if inter-racial couples Log in are provided with all the same rights." to vote 0 How does that feel? Does is still feel non-discriminatory? view in original post Maybe they CAN understand the concept of secular government By Gaia - 03/25/2009 - 9:50 am Now that I think about it, perhaps I have it wrong - may they DO understand the concept, and choose not to accept it. That's an even scarier thought. I may have given them too much credit, and excused them as simply ignorant, when in fact they may be far more intentional. Now I'm thinking, some of these people are actually aiming for a theocracy, or at the very least, a state religion. I heard a story on NPR this morning about the Quiver Full (Quiverful?) movement - a biblebased group of 10,000 families who's mission is to have so many babies that they can quietly overtake the three branches of government just through sheer numbers. Oh, a state religion might sound sweet at first, but what if it's the "wrong" kind of Christians who get to make the rules? What if it's the Catholics? Or the Mormans? Or the Congregationalists? Or, heaven forbid, the Universalists? We have so many different brands of Christianity in this country, they can't

Log in to vote

even agree among themselves what God wants from us (or even if he wants anything from us.) Perhaps it's time to build that bunker after all.... As a Unitarian Universalist Pagan, I'm doomed.... I need to get the Mormons to teach me how to stockpile.... (That's not a dig at the Mormons by the way - being prepared is a good thing, and they're pretty smart to do it.) view in original post It still boggles my mind... By Gaia - 03/25/2009 - 9:21 am ...why so many people cannot understand the concept of secular government. This country's constitution specifically prevents us from passing or changing laws based simply on religious belief. "God says it's wrong" cannot be the sole basis for a law in the US. Yes, yes, some of the 10 commandments are also reflected in our law - Thou shalt not kill, steal, etc. But those laws are all about protection of society and individuals. Some religious law IS based on common sense and preservation of society. But others, like "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," and "Honor the Sabbath day" are pure religion. That's why I'm free to honor the gods I wish to honor, without government interference, and why most of the "blue laws" in the country have been abolished. I can't help it. I tune out immediately when I hear someone going down the "God says" or "the Bible says" route during an argument. They lose 80 points of credibility right out of the starting gate. Here's a simple guide for life: If the only thing it offends is a particular religion, then leave it be. Not everyone shares your beliefs, and not everyone is required to. I'm not saying you can't have your beliefs - You can believe something as wholeheartedly as you wish. But you need to come up with better arguments - make me understand why abortion (or gay marriange) are hurtful to someone other than God. And make sure that the evidence is real, proveable, and citeable not some kind of wishful thinking about how, for example, heterosexual couples are better at parenting than gays. One of the posters said "Abortion is Uncivilized." Now THAT's an argument I could listen to. I'm on the fence with abortion - but religious arguments are not going to topple me to the anti-abortion side. If anything, they'll push me the other way just for spite. view in original post A couple points By Gaia - 03/23/2009 - 9:55 am To the argument that "marriage has always been defined as...." I respond - So what? Just because it may have been that way in the past (and there's ample evidence either way), doesn't mean it has to stay that way. It reminds me of the story about the 3 generations of women who always cut off the end of the ham before putting it in the pan to cook. When the 4 generation woman called her ancient great grandmother to ask why, grammie said "because I never had a pan Log in big enough to hold the whole ham." We have bigger pans now. We have a to vote different society. We don't HAVE to focus on child-raising because we're certainly 0 in no danger of dying out as a species. Second - One of the proponants of gay marriage here pointed out that the conservative definition of marriage implies an obligation to bear children. I
Log in to vote

propose that the converse is also true - It implies that child-bearing cannot happen outside of the institution of marriage, and we all know that's simply not true. Denying gays the right to marriage will not stop them from bearing and raising children, either their own or adopted. 3 out of 5 of the lesbian couples, and 2 of 4 of the gay couples I know are very successfully raising children, both adopted and biological. The argument that heterosexual marriage is the best, or the only truly healthy environment for children is simply pointless. Even if it WERE true, which I don't believe, gay marriage or lack thereof will make absolutely no difference in the number of children being raised by gays and lesbians. view in original post It's a question of affordability By Gaia - 03/20/2009 - 11:10 am How many 18 year olds do you know of, straight of of high school, who could get a job that pays enough to also afford insurance coverage? It's a simple matter of economics. Insurance is expensive. Entry-level jobs don't pay much. Very, very few young adults can find a job that allows them to afford insurance on top of rent, food, transportation and everything else they must pay for in order to be "independent." And when they get sick, they go to the emergency room, where we all pay in the form of increased premiums. This economic reality is why so many young people continue to live at home for several years after graduating, both from high school and college. They simply can't afford to live on their own until they've worked their way up to a better paying job.

Log in to vote

Saying that all of these yount adults should be self-sufficient is just plain pie-in-the 0 sky. This program IS NOT TAX-PAYER FUNDED for the young adults. Actuarily, the insurance companies know this is a low-risk and low-cost population to insure. That's why they can offer the coverage at a low premium. The young adults would pay the entire cost of the premium. Nothing is being "given" to them except a terrific opportunity to become truly self-supporting. view in original post But Blackdruid... By Gaia - 03/19/2009 - 12:41 pm "The point is to show that homosexuality unions are in fact "Traditional" and widespread enough to be acceptable by ancient cultures. Accepted until a certain religious persuasion came in and used violence to force cultural changes."
Log in The problem, dontcha see, is that members of that certain religious persuasion can rationalize the use of to vote violence and the forced cultural changes - because those acts were carried out in the name of God, who 0 "wrote down" his laws for us. Those laws have survived, unchanged, for thousands of years, and since they are the words of God, they are not to be questioned. (And don't forget - because it's written down, and lots of people believe it unquestioningly, and a lot of money has exchanged hands to fund it, it all MUST

be true. If there are contradictions, it's just because we're too puny to understand, or someone else has twisted the truth, and we must simply keep faith. It'll all be ok.) There was an awful lot of sinful behavior prior to the members of that religion saving the world homosexuality, witchcraft, worship of false gods (and "trees")... you know.... it all had to be wiped out to please God. Therefore, the violence and forced culture change was a GOOD thing. How could you possibly see it any differently? But then again, you and I are members of a very small choir, preaching to each other. view in original post hmmm By Gaia - 03/18/2009 - 12:58 pm This is the same church who's pastor has taken in Raymond Guay. I'm NOT suggesting anything untoward. It's just interesting that they have such divergent interests in the area of social service. view in original post Thoughts By Gaia - 03/18/2009 - 12:45 pm Quote: "Homosexual marriage will never be RESPECTED OR ACCEPTED by mainstream America not matter what you say or do." Hmm... I bet many people said that about inter-racial marrige a few decades ago. Quote: "Any clan or tribe or society must reproduce to survive." So? Humans have been reproducing with and without the institution of marriage since the dawn of humanity. Guess what? Gays and Lesbians reproduce too. they've just never had the blessing of marriage to go with it. Quote: "Why don't you check out the suicide rates and STD rates among homosexuals." Perhaps the suicide rate is so high because of the way society treats gays & lesbians. If we treated them with the respect we accord to straights, I bet the suicide rates would go down. (I don't have any stats about Log in to vote STD rates so can't comment). 0 Quote: "The gay lifestyle carries a huge risk that our children need to be aware of. If homosexuals want kids let them have their own. Oh wait they can't, but yet we continue to call the lifestyle natural." Of course they can have their own children!, and they do! Lesbians can get pregnant, and gays produce sperm. Just because they prefer their own gender for relationships, doesn't mean they are incapable of having a sexual relationship with the opposite sex. Far more gays are raising their own biological children than are raising adopted children. More importantly, if a heterosexual cannot have their own children (for whatever reason), do you call their lifestyle unnatural? Quote: "How about some good old 'keep your sexual life private" agenda?" Do you keep your heterosexuality private? Have you ever thought about what that might mean - not being

Log in to vote

able to let anyone know that you are straight? How would you keep that hiddent? What would you have to say or not say? Do or not do? You certainly wouldn't be able to marry someone of the opposite sex - that would be a dead givaway, wouldn't it? view in original post The taxpayers will NOT be paying for this! By Gaia - 03/13/2009 - 1:52 pm Anonymous 11:46 - The young adults will be paying the full boat on their premiums. The taxpayers will not be paying one dime of it - The kids are simply being allowed to buy in to a previously existing group insurance plan. Marc - As for state pensions - state employees are mandated to pay 5% of their income into the retirement system. We have no choice in the matter. So, yes we get that retirement benefit, but it's not free, and there's nothing stopping the rest of you from paying 5% of your incomes into a 401K, to get an equivalent benefit. Better yet, apply for a state job. Come live on our side of the fence and see that those walk breaks occur Log in to vote during lawful 15 minute breaks and unpaid lunch hours. Some of us get an hour, some a half hour, 0 depending on when we come in and leave. When you look at our hourly wages, remember that most of us are only getting paid for a 37.5 hour work week. So yes, if I come in at 8:00 and leave at 4:30, I get an hour lunch break. Unpaid. And before you say anything - it's my day off. I'm reading and commenting on my own time. view in original post Not one child will be "saved" By Gaia - 03/13/2009 - 12:05 pm Here's what people are missing when they use the "best thing for children" argument: Gays and lesbians have been fathering, bearing, adopting, and raising children since the beginning of time. A lack of legal marital status has never stopped them in the past, and denying them the right to marry will not stop them from raising children in the future. Conversely, allowing gays to marry will not magically create more children who live outside of a "traditional" marriage. Nobody, gay or straight, needs the institution of marriage in order to have children. If you really want to do what's right for children, allow their parents to enjoy the benefits of marriage, and 0 normalize their parents' relationships, so that there is less fodder for bigots to use against them. Innocent children are harmed when people take aim against their parents for any reason. view in original post Interesting. By Gaia - 03/13/2009 - 11:39 am Teachers should get their raises, no matter what. But when it comes to State Employees (who also have their salaries paid by taxpayers), they are told by contributers to this forum that they should haven given up their "measly" 5% raise that had already been negotiated and agreed to under contract.
Log in to vote

Log in to vote

To teachers, we are supposed to offer gratitude and open our wallets. State employees, however, should 0 just stop whining, get off their butts, go back to work, and be grateful to have a job. Or they should be laid

off - they whole lot of them. Unbelieveable. (I know that Mr. Wuellenweber has not specifically targeted state employees. For all I know, he supports them as well. However, I have seen this attitude over and over. Teachers, cops and firefighters are elevated. Other public employees are trash.) I also have to take exception to the upper crust Hopkinton attitude that says "suck it up for the sake of the children." Your dinner out might cost you $85. You might be willing to sacrifice that. But I'm a resident of the town too, and I have never had an $85 dinner out in my life. Or one of those $100 bottle of wine that someone quoted a couple years ago at town meeting. A few times a year we may splurge for a $30 meal at Applebees, with no dessert, and certainly no alcohol. My property taxes, on my modest home, are 19% of my salary. A few years ago, they were only about 11%. I've cut my luxuries already, and I didn't have many to begin with. Please remember that not everyone in town is as well off as you are, yet we all pay the same tax rate. view in original post READ people! By Gaia - 03/05/2009 - 12:59 pm This is not a proposal to spend any of the taxpayers' money. It simply allows this population of young adults to buy into - BUY INTO - an existing group insurance. The young adults would pay the full premium. I'm a state employee, and my insurance does not cover my adult daughter who a part time worker, part time student. (the state is self-insured so we dont get the benefit that people with private insurance get.) This would be perfect for her. view in original post It's Lisa Eberhart, not Wood By Gaia - 03/02/2009 - 9:44 am Toby's wife's name is Lisa Eberhart, a therapist/social worker with Womankind Counseling in Concord. view in original post Re: "Common Sense" By Gaia - 02/13/2009 - 9:46 pm I have seen no state employees, either in the articles or in these postings, complain about the state's "gall" in laying them off. I have not even seen any state employees complaining about the fact that cuts had to be made. We understand that the times call for difficult decisions and that cuts MUST be made, including the decision to cut whole programs. When you cut a whole program, the employees who are part of that program have to go to. We get it.
Log in Log in to vote Log in to vote

People on this board need to stop putting words in our mouths and ascribing attitudes for which there is no to vote evidence. 0 I've grown tired of defending myself against these forum Trolls. I'm convinced that their only goal is to get people riled up and create conflict. I don't see any of the people who are attacking state employees actually offering any realistic solutions. It's one of the hallmarks of Trolls. They exist everywhere, on job

sites, in organizations, and especially on internet forums. They present baseless complaints, create conflict between people, and sit back and enjoy the show. They are not seeking resolution, and can't be reasoned with toward resolution. After all, if the problem were resolved, there would be no more entertainment. So, my advice: Don't feed the Trolls. : ) view in original post