Keystone Councilors??

Silly me; I thought the process of selecting and coming to terms with a new Town Manager for Brunswick was pretty much "losing its legs" as a news story. Sure, announcing who would be the new Manager before coming to an agreement on the compensation package seemed a bit backwards, but I chalked it up to an innovative, "outside the box" style of local governance.

But au contraire, mon amis, the story seems to be gaining legs rather than losing them. Today's Brunswick paper features two related items; an article and a letter.

The article, a rather lengthy Page 1 item, includes a somewhat conflicted and diverse set of observations and equivocations about the "legal rights and duties" of the Town Council in the matter. In keeping with its current policy of reducing the value of its web site, the paper has decided not to post the article. In its place is this "web update:"

The Brunswick Town Council plans to meet at 6 p.m. Wednesday at 6 Industry Road. An agenda has yet to be posted or finalized, but earlier today, council chairwoman Hallie Daughtry said she was considering calling a special meeting to allow councilors to speak and vote publicly about hiring a new town manager.

The letter writer, who was one of the citizen interviewers in the process, paints a pretty ugly portrait of how the whole thing has been handled:

It turns out that from the beginning, virtually every part of the process has been mishandled and as a result, was tainted.

And she calls for a "do over:"

I can only urge the Town Council to start over. Give the critically important task of hiring a town manager the quality process it deserves. Then no matter the outcome, the public can at least have confidence that the process worked.

Well, we're damn lucky the town brought those consultants on board right from the start, or who knows how badly astray we might have gone, or how long it might have taken to reach closure on the subject?

The good news in all this is that the Town Council is gaining some invaluable on-the-job-training. We should be grateful we'll have experienced and effective leaders to guide us through the spending of tens of millions of dollars on new town facilities, and to steer the ship of town through the mined shoals of base closure.

Hopefully they'll be able to select and fund consultants who can make them look better in the future. Does anyone know of a consultant who specializes in helping you pick consultants? Or will the town have to hire a consultant to help find one?

Timely quotes

Andrew Ferguson, in an article about Uncle Sam forgiving student loans:

"In common discourse, public service is already an elastic term, used mostly as a form of self-flattery..."

Leszek Kolakowski, Polish Philosopher, 1995:

"Capitalism developed spontaneously and organically from the spread of commerce. Nobody planned it, and it did not need an all-embracing ideology, whereas socialism was an ideological construction. Ultimately, capitalism is human nature at work--that is, man's greed allowed to follow its course--whereas socialism is an attempt to institutionalize and enforce fraternity. It seems obvious by now that a society in which greed is the main motivation of human action, for all of its repugnant and deplorable aspects, is incomparably better than a society based on compulsory brotherhood, whether in national or international socialism."

In a humorous reflection on social theory, Kolakowski also said:

"Those who hate gardening need a theory. Not to garden without a theory is a shallow, unworthy way of life."

Bits and Pieces "Part Deux"

Portland Considers “Nonresident” Voting

The AP reports a proposal is “kicking around in Portland” to let nonresidents vote in local elections. The item says such a proposal was “rejected by the Maine Legislature earlier this year.”

That’s funny; we’ve always encouraged and allowed “nonresidents” to vote in local elections here in Brunswick, and elsewhere around the state, and it’s clear we’ll continue to do so. So what’s the problem, Portland? Don’t you understand the duplicitous posturing coming from Augusta?

One of Portland’s Charter Commissioners said “it’s only fair to grant voting rights to legal residents who are paying taxes, receiving city services, and have children enrolled in public schools.” There it is – the “fair” card.

You don’t want to be unfair, do you? You don’t want to force people to qualify for the voting privilege by establishing residency according to law, do you? You don’t want them to have to show an ID at the polls, do you, you miserable nit-picker?

One wonders what authorities mean by the word “nonresident” in the AP quote above. Is a “nonresident” a non-resider in Portland? If so, why would they pay taxes and receive services? On the other hand, the Commissioner refers to “legal residents.” So we’re left to wonder what the AP means, what the legislature means, and what Portland officials mean. And whether news writers and editors have any sense of precision in the use of the English language, especially as it relates to the law and participation in our democracy. In the absence of any such coherence, the vast majority of citizens throw up their hands in futility.

My experience leads me to believe this is a non-issue. First, the discipline in registering voters is, for all intents and purposes, non-existent. All sorts of “field volunteers” register voters with no accountability as to the proof of citizenship and residency provided. (Dare I say ACORN?)

Second, by law, poll workers are not permitted to ask for identification, nor can poll watchers challenge voters on the basis of residency. Such behavior is considered “voter intimidation.” Third, there is virtually no cross-checking to make sure that individuals have not registered in multiple places and voted in multiple places.

Complaining about such rampant disregard for the profound nature of the democratic process is labeled as whining by those who see manipulating the system as fair game. As is safeguarding its integrity, which is easily demagogued as discrimination.

When we have reached the point that “discriminating” between legal and illegal behavior, and demanding rigor and discipline in the voting process is characterized as mean-spirited, the cornerstone of the American republic has been demolished, just like the old High School.

Ambassadors for sale? Are you kidding?

You can file this item under “d” for “duhhh.”

The Times Record has a number of regular letter writers, of which I have been one. Creating this blog is curing me of the compulsion, if only marginally.

Some of these regular writers appear to inhabit another planet, and only occasionally return to reality when they get a jolt from mother earth. These folks tend to be the “one worlders” and devotees of similar fantasies.

Last month, one of these writers, a self described “Obama-ite,” admitted that he was “naïve enough to believe we had a new and different president.” Now that I think about it, we do. He then added “a president characterized by integrity and intelligence.”

He then expressed great surprise that his chosen president was picking ambassadors because they raised “prodigious amounts of money, not because of their foreign affairs qualifications.”

Forgive my silliness, but I’m reminded of the scene in “Father of the Bride” (the modern version) in which “Fronk” says “vell, velcome to da nineties, Mr. Bonks” after Steve Martin nearly faints when he sees the price of a wedding “cack.”

All I can say is I’m shocked, shocked I tell you. And I expect a few of you reading this are as well.

Dreams and illusions die hard. But not for long; those who believe in an idealized version of government, and heaven forbid, “public service,” always find a way to resuscitate them. Especially when an invitation to a free lunch is involved, placed under one’s pillow by the tooth fairy.

Bowdoin College Narrowly Escapes Financial Disaster

Bowdoin College is a local treasure. It is, when you come right down to it, the only thing that elevates Brunswick above the more prosaic and mundane little villages of rural America. As anyone with an ounce of awareness knows, none of the fine restaurants and other unique attractions of Brunswick would exist without the presence of Bowdoin College.

I appreciate Bowdoin because it reminds me of the Rutgers College from which I graduated a long, long time ago. Rutgers was founded nearly 30 years before Bowdoin, and the “quad” and other stately and historic features of Bowdoin are surprisingly reminiscent of the “Old Queens” campus I lived on and loved for 4 years. It was a remarkably more innocent era; Rutgers then was a men’s school, with an enrollment of 3000. Lucky us; Douglas College, the women’s school, was on the other side of town.

But I digress. I want now to focus on the economic circumstances of Bowdoin, which is qualified as a non-profit under tax law. We’ve all seen how they have to struggle because of this humble status, groveling for contributions to finance $25 million upgrades to their art museum, or to replace their once loved ice arena with a new one more appropriate to the transcendent importance of a liberal education.

This “non-profit” status is why the college, which by my estimate, owns real property that would easily double the total assessed value of Brunswick, is exempt (save a few minor levies) from property tax. (It’s not worth mentioning that we allow their students to vote as residents in town, but don’t require them to register their cars here and pay excise taxes as required by law.)

Apparently this non-profit status is the only thing that keeps them afloat financially, and we should be grateful that it does. We should be similarly pleased that, as reported by College President Mills, their recent capital campaign exceeded its goal and raised $293 million.

This sum should enable Bowdoin to scrape by for a few more years. Sure, just a few years ago, they earned nearly that much in one year on their roughly $500 million endowment. But we all know how unkind financial markets have been in the last year or two. It wouldn’t surprise me if they have to defer replacing their library and some other tragically decaying buildings for another five years or so, but hey, they’re real troopers.

Given their clear neediness, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the college will receive 400 + acres of BNAS property at no expense. There’s certainly no way they could afford to pay for it, and we have no right to expect them to pay property taxes on it either. To do so would be the height of arrogance on the part of the town, and beneath the very dignity that the college lends to our existence.

By the way, they’re starting a new capital campaign to improve the BNAS acreage they’re being given. Checks of $10,000 or more are welcome. Anything less is not worth the administrative headache, and would be an insult. So give wisely.

Street Wisdom

Bits and Pieces: Monday 10 August

Lazy as I am, and having been out of town for a while recently, followed by hosting family for a few weeks, I fell behind on my newspaper reading and general monitoring of current events.

So I’m gonna take the easy way out and make this post a riff on a collected list of unrelated subjects noticed in catching up on the papers, and anything else that comes to mind. Like the header says, “a little bit of this, a little bit of that” is what you will find here (from “Anatevka” in “Fiddler on the Roof,” in case you wondered.)

Daniel Stone Inn

I had occasion to drive by there today, and paused to observe the work underway. As luck would have it, the owner was strolling by, and we spoke for several minutes. I’m impressed with her commitment to the task, and wish them all the best. Given the numerous challenges elsewhere in town, it’s great to see someone actually working hard to turn things around.

Beetles and Loosestrife

I’m continually puzzled by the discourse on natural species as they relate to the discussion of evolution, and in particular, Darwinism, as the foundational underpinning of the earth and all its inhabitants.

On the one hand, the “natural selection” process, in which the evolution of the species is the key dynamic, is supposed to be the inevitable consequence of Darwin’s theory. We have no business interfering with it, as it is “natural.”

On the other hand, whenever the consequences of Darwinism threaten prized natural foliage or species, “conservationists” attempt to control the spread of a plant they consider invasive. We simply can’t tolerate a decline in “plant diversity,” whether Darwin ordains it or not.

So in come the insect interlopers, with our assistance, to revoke “natural selection,” at least that poo-pooed by the overseers of our environment.

So which is it, oh naturalists? What evolution is approved, and what isn’t?

Doug Rooks and the Times Record: Our “Watchdogs”

Doug Rooks fancies himself an authority on matters of Maine Governance. He’s been pontificating on them for years, and even held a position in Baldacci’s administration as I recall.

The Times Record thinks enough of Rooks to pay him for regular offerings as a “featured columnist.” Rooks has yet to ascend to the depths of a Paul Krugman, but if he keeps on working at it, he should make it.

In a recent column, Rooks asserted that the TABOR II (Taxpayer Bill of Rights – second generation) referendum is “designed to cut state, county, and local spending by formula.” Nice try, Doug, but I’m not drinking the Kool-Aid. TABOR I, or II, for that matter, had/have nothing to do with “cutting” anything. They have to do with limiting the rate of growth, which is not at all the same thing. Even you, Doug, should be able to tell the difference. Doug, of course, doesn’t like the referendum process because we have representatives who “studied the issues and have relevant information” to act on our behalf.

If Rooks is going to be paid by our government watchdogs at the Times Record, shouldn’t we at least expect a modicum of accuracy and fact checking in what they print? As I’ve written before, they are more than willing to wire brush my work, unpaid as it is. Shouldn’t they do at least the same for Rooks? Isn’t that the job of an editor?

Oh wait; my submissions usually run afoul of Times Record editorial inclinations, while Rooks’ generally toe the party line. Now I understand why Doug gets plenty of slack.

Rooks also recently wrote that under George W. Bush, the Republican Party “moved steadily rightward.” Anyone who would write that, and any editor who would approve it, are both utterly clueless as to what rightwing ideology is.

Let the readers beware, because the editors sure aren’t.

Gender and Women’s Studies

I could go on and on about the eccentricities of academia in this day and age, especially as it relates to creating specialties to address all manner of “under-addressed” areas of our culture. Just for the heck of it, when’s the last time you read about a “Conservative Studies Program” at one of our Ivory Towers of Higher Enlightenment?

A few weeks back, the Times Record ran a front page feature titled “Women’s studies in context” about Bowdoin Prof Jennifer Scanlon and her new book “The Life of Helen Gurley Brown.” Scanlon is Director of Bowdoin’s Gender and Women’s Studies Program.

Such a profound area for study; we know so little about both. Hence my relief in reading this Scanlon quote: “Really, I’m interested in women’s relationships to money, and I’m also interested in shopping.” Scanlon said “There’s so little respect for women’s relationship to money.”

I kid you not. You need years of advanced study and a PhD to understand this stuff? And people pay 40 grand or more a year to have their kids learn at the feet of such scholars?

Discretion and prudence would probably dictate I shut up at this point, but I didn’t build my awful reputation by being quiet. Besides, I’m just a small town engineer, and everyone knows how ignorant we are, so I’m expecting some slack.

So, let me just say that as a husband of 45 years, and the father of a daughter who is nearing 40, there is no real mystery to “women’s relationships to money” and “shopping.” And my guess is there are hundreds of similarly enlightened males in this town, all without Bowdoin degrees, who consider themselves certifiable experts on the subject.

As they say, you just can’t make this stuff up. We can only wonder what depths of human knowledge are being explored and taught in the other “specialties” at Bowdoin and the other bastions of human understanding.

The mind reels.

The latest from Lake Basebegone

It’s been a relatively quiet few weeks in Lake Basebegone.

The biggest news is that celebrity attorney F. Lee Bailey made another visit to our area to plug the interests of Oxford Aviation. He reportedly said at the MRRA meeting that Oxford aviation has recently been “in contact” with UPS and Jet Blue about refinishing their planes. The problems both have had in finding someone to paint their planes have received widespread publicity. It’s a wonder they’ve been able to keep flying. Commissioner John Richardson seemed delighted.

On a related note, I’ve been “in contact” with book publishers and movie studios about my work.

Bailey also reported that Embry-Riddle is going to keep their school open (regardless of the loss of their target demographic) because Oxford has promised to support avionics students at the school, and will hope for help from government education entities to help in the financing of this education. Shouldn’t Oxford have kept such an “understanding” private? What about Richardson’s “confidentiality is king” “protocols” policy?

Looks like a double standard is in effect here. Asking for specifics is verboten, while unsubstantiated speculations are welcome. At least Bailey admits that private backing is not in the offing and that he is counting on taxpayer funding. Given what I’ve discovered in the past, I’d like to see Embry-Riddle make a public statement with some commitment behind it, rather than bank on a PR release from Bailey speaking on their behalf.

Bailey and the Commish seem made for each other. Bailey could use Richardson’s influence on getting Oxford a plum of a deal, while Richardson could use Oxford’s pronouncements to boost his credentials for the upcoming gubernatorial race.

Word on the street, though, is that Richardson’s party is discouraging him from running because he has too much baggage. It would never have crossed my mind that an inability to pack light is a deal breaker for becoming Governor. I saw Richardson at a meeting in recent weeks, and he wasn’t carrying so much as a brief case, so I don’t know what the baggage concern stems from.

Jim Horowitz, the CEO of Oxford, is keeping a low public profile recently. He and Bailey are made for each other, so I’m a bit disappointed that we haven’t seen more of the “team” lately. I wonder why.

Hopefully we’ll find out soon. Inquiring minds want to know.

On a final note regarding the local cultural scene, Side notes that the run of MSMT's "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" has ended, and that it has been succeeded by "Drowsy Chaperones," which Mrs. Poppycock describes as "the best musical ever."

Ironically, a reality show version of "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" is expected to run locally for the foreseeable future. I'll leave it to astute readers to guess who the "leads" are.

"GrowSmart," or Growing Smarter, Maine?

“GrowSmart Maine” is a non-profit organization focused on regulating development in Maine to avoid “sprawl” and to ensure that our “quality of place” is preserved. It was founded by Alan Caron, a talented community organizer with a decidedly colorful resume, who for reasons not clear, has moved on from the organization. The roots of the non-profit are in the larger environmental NIMBY and BANANA movements. Maine is a haven for advocates of both.

A few years back, GrowSmart Maine sponsored a study by the Brookings Institution to assess our future and make appropriate recommendations. As I recall, they received a grant from the State to pay for it. To their credit, the study recommended lowering the tax burden on Maine citizens, but was otherwise the expected warning against any and all forms of economic development.

While the report generated a lot of interest when it was released, it barely shows on the radar screen now. There may be a fairly sensible reason why this is so.

Growth of any sort, smart or otherwise, is the least of Maine’s possibilities. Bluntly speaking, the state is in a demographic winter, carefully managing its demise. The statistical indicators are undeniable, and even worse, show that the state is approaching the point of irreversibility – that is, a trend so negative that it is virtually impossible to overcome. In other words, we are on a slippery slope that is about to become a death spiral.

Can I prove it? Let US Census Bureau estimates released May 1, 2008 make the point for me:

o Maine’s total population grew by less than 40,000 between July 1, 2000 and July 1, 2007, or about 3% in 7 years, and the majority of this growth occurred early in that period, slowing to a mere trickle in recent years.

o In the under 18 age segment, Maine lost nearly 22,000 over that same period, for a decline of more than 7%.

o In the 25 to 44 age segment over that same period, Maine lost more than 31,000, declining more than 8%.

These two declines clearly confirm a catastrophic loss of young families from our state. The very families that would provide students for our schools and vibrant economic growth, but who are choosing to do so elsewhere.

On top of this very disturbing and increasingly irreversible decline, Brunswick and the surrounding region are about to be slammed by the demographic tornado of BNAS closure. And what kind of message does it send that the two primary funeral parlors in town have undergone major expansions and renovations?

Grow Smart? I humbly suggest that it is far more important that we focus on growing smarter. We need to enact policies that ensure that Maine has a sustainable economic outlook, and elect officials who are committed to doing so.

The alternative is to wallow in our status as the oldest state in the nation, and to look to the Obama administration’s proposal for managing End of Life as the only “growth” possibility in the state.

Ironic, isn’t it, that accelerating the demise of our most prominent age cohort may be the only politically acceptable growth opportunity left in our state.

That’s the outlook, unless Mainers decide that growing smarter about our future is infinitely more important than worrying about chopping down a few acres of trees to make room for economic development.

It sure makes me feel better to know that my passing will help someone have a better life; I hope you feel the same.

More "For the Children"

"Cash for Crackers" Program

Intrigued by the widespread support and success of the federal “Cash for Clunkers” rebate program, Maine Democrats have decided to take the bull by the tail and create their own exchange based economic stimulus program.

Governor John Baldacci, standing next to a full sized gummy moose, this morning announced that Maine would introduce the “Cash for Crackers” program early next week. The program is designed to seduce children into scouring the family cupboard for stale crackers, and then taking them to their nearest candy seller where each box will qualify for either a 50 cent or 75 cent credit, depending on how stale they are, towards a candy purchase of $2.00.

Baldacci said candy sellers will be reimbursed by DHHS, who’s track record making payments to service providers is widely applauded by state officials. According to officials, DHHS has some unused computer systems sitting around, along with idle operators ready to take on the task. Funds for reimbursing sellers will come from a rebate offset payment levied on sugar based processed foods. A Baldacci spokesman said the levy would be “in the range of 50%, and is designed to discourage consumption of non-nutritious snacks.”

Democrats Senate President Libby Mitchell and Speaker of the House Hannah Pingree, both giddy as school children, spoke on program details at a press availability this morning. They expressed pure delight at the positive response from “a diverse cross section of our population.” Children of every description consider this “a perfect way to unify diverse cultures in Maine,” they said.

Representatives of numerous economic sectors also stand behind the program. “We’ve spoken to convenience store owners, farmers, sugar refiners, corn syrup producers, fair trade cocoa bean growers, health club owners, dentists, toothpaste manufacturers, paper mill owners, and suppliers of dental products, and all seem encouraged by the possibility of increased economic activity in their sectors.” “We expect childrens’ clothing manufacturers and Ritalin producers to get behind the program as well,” they added.

Mitchell and Pingree surprised those in attendance with an unexpected spinoff of the program. They read a prepared statement from Dr. Jack Kevorkian, recently appointed White House Czar for End of Life Programs. It read as follows:

“The President and the Office of End of Life Programs are both excited about the synergy between Maine’s Cash for Crackers program and our plans for Health Care Reform. As you know, we must drastically lower the cost of health care. Meals during the last days of life are an unreasonable burden, and we’ve been looking for a way to lower their cost. Cash for Crackers will help tremendously.

Food processors tell us that the crackers turned in can be easily recycled, and we’re already in discussions with Gerber and Beechnut about just such a program. Both expressed interest in developing a line of End of Life Meals Ready to Eat, specifically targeted at those for whom baby food was formerly the only option. We expect exclusive use of the EOL MREs under careful Government supervision will substantially reduce food costs for our beloved elders.

Recognizing that not every EOL designated elder might find such an option desirable, the President has issued an executive order establishing a transitional program. The order outlaws popular senior discounts offered at many eateries. In its place, restaurants will be permitted to offer 50% EOL discounts during the last week of life to those elders able to make it to the business on their own.

To prevent abuse of the system, the Government is joining with restaurants to implement an EOL verification system. Elders assigned to their final week in the EOL program will be equipped with an RFI ankle bracelet that transmits their location, their SSN, and their pre-programmed EOL date. Food providers will have a device that reads the RFI signal to verify program qualifications are met.”

Senator Stan Gerzofsky, contacted for a comment on the Cash for Crackers Program, said “I think a program that gives you candy for trading in your redneck neighbors is a win-win preposition. Not only will it make our neighborhoods safer, but it should get all those beater pickups and gun-racks off the roads. I support the program unequally, and I applaud the Governor for his continued effort to lower taxes for Maine citizens.”

New Town Manager for Brunswick

In an announcement that rivals news that Frosty's is closed again for the biggest surprise of the week, Brunswick's Town Council has announced that Gary Brown is their selection for Town Manager.

The newspaper article announcing the selection is a thing of bureaucratic beauty. It's full of slippery rhetoric about not voting, not needing to vote, reaching consensus by not voting, etc. All of which leaves one cross-eyed and wondering about the modern day understanding of government decision making and accountability. I suppose no one wants to be caught voting against their new boss, though.

Congratulations to Gary Brown, who "accepted the job" even though no negotiations have yet taken place. So negotiations will, by definition, succeed. I'm sure our consultants will raise that to a top priority in their job-jar. Side wonders if their task calls for a percentage of the negotiated package. This is a fairly common practice in the "executive job search" or head-hunter game. If that's the way they work, at least we know they'll be looking out for taxpayer interests as they negotiate Brown's package.

I've written before on this subject, and for once I hit the nail on the donkey. I sure would like to know how much our leaders have spent on this effort. And why they are washing their hands of the salary/benefit package setting process. It's been a while since I've banged my head against the nearest wall, and gosh, it feels good to do it again.

If you have any interest in "I told you so," ample evidence can be found here and here.

Quick! Notify the White House!

I wrote a few weeks back using the title "HeALthanol" to assert that those who are compelling us to use ethanol were a poor prospect for designing and imposing a health plan upon us (but very tellingly, not themselves.)

There's been much discussion about the failure of congress to actually read the bill they are considering, which is in excess of 1000 pages. As someone said, "how can we possibly trust those who won't or can't read and understand the bill to actually design such a system for us?" It's hard to argue that point.

While I haven't read the bill, I am fortunate to have had a friend send me a rundown on bill "highlights" that was compiled by a friend of his who actually did read the entire bill. The list runs about 15 pages and cites points of interest by page and paragraph/line number.

The preamble to the summary by this determined individual reads in part as follows:

Just got this "Cliff Note" outline of the bill the administration wanted congress to pass in a rush without reading. You might now understand why they were in a rush. If you don't like the condensed version, go on line and read the entire bill. Any senator or representative who votes on a bill they didn't read should be impeached. Any administration that insists on passage of legislation before it can be completely read and debated should be run out of office. Any congress that votes legislation they do not have to abide by - deserves to be removed.

I concur with this, and frankly would like to see it stronger. As I see it, federal authorities and congress exempting themselves from this plan is criminal in spirit, if not in the letter of the law.

I will not bore you with the full 15 pages, but I will tell you this: the bill spans way, way beyond what you would think of as "health insurance." It's provisions dictate cradle to grave involvement in nearly every aspect of your life; the sweeping social engineering inherent in the bill is undeniable.

And it calls for creation of centralized information systems for which they are unable to predict costs. On this latter point, you can read about the incredibly fouled up attempt to do the same thing in Great Britain here. This is the article I linked to in the earlier "HeALthanol" Post, and referenced to the costly mismanagement by DHHS here in Maine.

Here are some thrilling highlights to whet your appetite:

• A government committee decides what treatments/benefits you will get.
• Government will have real time access to individual's finances and a National ID Health Care Card will be issued. Government will have direct real time access to your bank account for electronic funds transfer. Will have database including your personal and financial info.
• Congress has no idea what Electronic Medical Records will cost.
• Government will decide how much Doctors can make. Doesn't matter what specialty you practice, you'll be paid the same.
• Government mandates hospitals cannot expand.
• Government can disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans and HMOs.
• In the "end of life" subject area: Government mandates Advanced Care Planning Consultants; will instruct and consult regarding mandatory living wills, etc; provides approved list of end of life resources; establishes program for orders for end of life; consultation may include an order for end of life plan; specifies which Doctors can write an end of life order; decides what level of treatment you will have at end of life; and will publish quality measures for end of life in the Federal Register.
• Privacy of personal records shall not apply for Home Medical Services.
• Government may secure your personal data from any department or agency of the US.
• Government will define what quality means in health care.
• Government will tell Doctors where residency will be, and will regulate residency programs in all hospitals.
• For law enforcement purposes, Secretary of Health and Human Services will give Attorney General access to all data.
• Nurse home visit services will address increasing birth intervals between pregnancies.
• Government implements Home Visitation Program for families with children and expecting children.
• Government takes control of education of medical students. Establishes Public Health Workforce Corps. Includes veterinarians. Commissioned regular and reserve officers.
• Government establishes school based health clinics.
  

As a senior with a Medicare Advantage Plan, I can tell you I'm as happy as a pig in poop about the whole thing. And I'm especially excited about having the Federal Government personally involved, face to face, in my "end of life." This brings new gravity to Reagan's statement that "the scariest words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.'"

To conclude, the fact that the politicians refuse to be on the plan they will compel us to join is shameful, and reaffirms that they see themselves not as public servants, but as privileged aristocrats. They steadfastly refuse to subject themselves to the realities foisted upon the little people; their behavior is despicable and their intentions are repugnant.

They won't read it, and they don't want it; but they pronounce "trust us, you don't know what's good for you." What else do you need to know????? How much lower could they stoop? What do they know that they aren't telling us? What are they afraid of?

And for you public watchdogs, please be sure to send an email to the White House about the "fishy" views expressed in this post at Flag@whitehouse.gov .

"For the Children"....I don't think so!

The end is here.


It's been a pretty lousy summer so far, and it just got worse.

The "schoolies," as I call them, are finally making the "statement" they've been panting to make for years. As anyone who has been in the area the last day or two knows, the once revered "old" Brunswick High School, complete with its fully functional and heavily used gym, is now a pile of rubble. Just like that.

And this in a town that prides itself on its history, except when some loftier aspect of civic self-esteem takes precedence. This town with a Village Review Board, a number of registered Historic Landmarks, in-town museums, and an aversion to building nearly anything, couldn't see its way clear to convert a much beloved landmark to senior housing, which could have, in all likelihood, been achieved at virtually no cost to the town. Especially not when "free money" was being provided by the state to clean up the neighborhood and erect a new monument to good old Yankee thriftiness. A state that is in economic chaos and facing budgetary hell.

Yesterday, we stopped by the demolition site to take a few photos and check out the progress. A worker taking a break stepped over to chat. He couldn't help but point out that he was surprised at the number of people stopping by to take a look; he estimated "100 or more every day." He added that he had worked on a lot of demolition jobs, but he'd never seen anything like this kind of public interest.

I'm confident that the new school to be erected on the property will have all the charm, character, and timelessness of the recently demolished A/B and C/D wings and the undistinguished Town Hall on Federal Street. In 20 years or so, those still living in the area will be asking themselves "what were they thinking?," just like those of this era have asked about these prior exercises in civic capital projects.

In recent weeks, some prominent citizens in town have written to the Times Record or otherwise suggested that tearing down the old school and building a new one was the wrong thing to do. Add to them the "hundreds" stopping by everyday to mourn the passing of this conveniently expendable edifice, and I can only ask where were they when it mattered?

Where were they when decisions were being made by the School Board and the Town Council that set the stage for this day? Where were they when the large public sessions were held with the architects and other advocates for this course of action? Where were they when the straw vote was held to "demonstrate" to the state that the construction plan had the support of the town? Where were they when a civil suit was filed against the state to reverse the construction decision? Where were they when the referendum was held? Where were they when the schoolies needed to be sent a message?

I suppose they were either asleep at the switch, or far more likely, they were intimidated by the threat that the schoolies would demonize them as insensitive to the predictable "it's for the children" mantra.

I'll tell you what; I've concluded that it's not for the children, it's for the adults. When's the last time you heard a child come home from elementary school and complain about the state of the physical plant and its deferred maintenance? Or the type of heating it uses? Or its lack of integrated "art" in the structure? When's the last time you heard a student at Hawthorne or Longfellow Schools, which will also be thrown on the trash heap of civic pride as part of this project, complain about their school plant? Did you complain about your schools? I sure didn't; I had other things on my mind. And we've put two children through the full government school cycle, and they didn't either.

We tell ourselves that this is being done "for the children" because it's a distraction and a conversation stopper. But those demanding the new schools are the teachers and staff; the educational experts who gave us such progress as the "open school" concept that renders Jordan Acres problematic; our benefactors in Augusta, who know what's best for us; those who derive a major self esteem boost when their town has shiny new landmarks to brag about; and the parents, many of whom look to the government schools mostly as baby sitters in this day and age. Think all day kindergarten, adding mandatory pre-kindergarten, and then adding mandatory public financed pre-school. In Brunswick, where all the children are above average and all the parents are good looking, we simply must have up to the minute monuments to our caring for the children who are our future, and if we can slake our thirst for all things LEEDS qualified and morally superior to other towns and schools, so much the better. This is an undertaking rich in personal and civic self-affirmation.

In so many words, this whole episode is almost entirely a socio-politically driven undertaking at taxpayer expense rather than a commitment to educational success for the children. And if the same principles were applied to the other buildings in town, and the homes of those who so earnestly support the project, more than half of them would have to be torn down and replaced. Each concerned parent should ask themselves whether the home they provide for their children provides all the features and accomodations and earth-preserving systems that this school will use to boost our all-important "community pride." And if not, what are they doing about it? At their expense, not yours and mine.

In a final bit of irony, Side notes that two of the most dedicated advocates of the new school project will not seek re-election to the school board. Inquiring minds wonder why. Why are they willing to forsake seeing their names on the Brass Plaque given all they've invested in this process? (Or have they been guaranteed a place on the engraved list of dignitaries even though leaving office?) Isn't the hard part over, and the fun about to begin? Isn't the "equity" they touted about to come into reality, and don't they want to be part of it? Have they lost their fervor for doing things "for the children?"

Inquiring minds wonder whether they have weighed the tradeoffs and decided that all things considered, they'd rather be out than in when the doors open. Maybe they know something we don't. Maybe they caught the retirement bug that afflicted Jim Ashe and Don Gerrish just as the looming trauma and challenging future caused by base closure came into focus.

Only time will tell, and we'll probably know the answers sooner rather than later. In the mean time, enjoy the rest of the destruction, and keep an eye out for the busybodies looking to tear down your house or business and replace it with something more politically acceptable to Brunswick's self-image. And they'll justify it by saying "it's for the people."