A "Turkey" of a Blog

Other Side is a bit chagrined to hear this publication referred to as "a real turkey" as we travel around town. Those expressing such a view apparently have never had "a real turkey," nor are they particularly articulate in their criticism.

Other Side is, however, ready to be bigger than its critics, and in the spirit of giving that should overwhelm us in this season, herewith offers up a colossally good recipe for a real turkey with all the trimmings. It traces its lineage back to the Bon Appetit issue dated November 1994.

Fair warning is hereby issued. Generally known as "Apricot Turkey," for reasons that will be obvious as you read the recipe, it has been called "African Turkey" by some who simply couldn't believe the words apricot and turkey could make sense together.

Well, they sure as hell do belong together, as you will find out when you make this recipe. Be prepared for this to become your most requested and standard approach to turkey from here on out. It is THAT good.

The gravy in particular takes flavor to notches unknown, and if you don't yet own a "boat motor" (immersion blender), go out and spend the $30 or so it takes to get one. It is well worth it, for this meal alone.

Here you go....and all at no charge!

APRICOT-GLAZED TURKEY WITH ROASTED ONION AND SHALLOT GRAVY

Apricot Glaze

1 cup apricot nectar
1 cup apricot preserves
2 tablespoons minced peeled fresh ginger
1 tablespoon honey

For Glaze: Combine all ingredients in heavy small saucepan and bring to boil. Reduce heat to medium-low and simmer until thickened and reduced to 1 1/4 cups, about 15 minutes.
==================================================================
Herb Butter

3/4 cup (1 1/2 sticks) unsalted butter, room temperature
3 tablespoons chopped fresh thyme or 1 tablespoon dried
3 tablespoons chopped fresh sage or 1 tablespoon dried rubbed sage
1 1/2 teaspoons salt
1 teaspoon ground black pepper

For Herb Butter: Blend all ingredients in small bowl. Set aside.
==================================================================
Onion Mixture

2 tablespoons (1/4 stick) unsalted butter
3 large onions (about 2 pounds), thinly sliced
6 ounces shallots (about 6 large), thinly sliced

For Onion Mixture: Melt butter in heavy large skillet over medium heat. Add onions and shallots and sauté until very soft and light brown, about 20 minutes.

(Glaze, herb butter and onion mixture can be prepared 1 day ahead. Cover separately and chill. Bring herb butter to room temperature before continuing.)
==================================================================

Turkey

1 21- to 22-pound turkey
1 14 1/2-ounce can (or more) low-salt chicken broth
1 teaspoon chopped fresh thyme or 1/2 teaspoon dried
1/2 teaspoon chopped fresh sage or 1/4 teaspoon dried
Gravy
1 14 1/2-ounce can (about) low-salt chicken broth

For Turkey:

• Position rack in lowest third of oven and preheat to 400° F. Pat turkey dry with paper towels. Season turkey cavity with salt and pepper. Place turkey on rack set in large roasting pan. Slide hand under skin of turkey breast to loosen skin. Spread half of herb butter over breast under skin. If stuffing turkey, spoon stuffing into main cavity. Place remaining herb butter in small saucepan. Stir over low heat until melted. Brush butter over outside of turkey. Tie legs together loosely to hold shape of turkey.

• Roast turkey 30 minutes.

• Reduce oven temperature to 325° F. Roast turkey 1 hour 30 minutes, basting occasionally with pan drippings.

• Tent turkey with heavy-duty foil; roast 45 minutes longer.

• Add onion mixture, 1 can broth, thyme and sage to pan. Roast 15 minutes.

• Bring glaze to simmer. Brush 1/2 cup glaze over turkey. Continue to roast turkey uncovered until meat thermometer inserted into thickest part of thigh registers 180° F. or until juices run clear when thickest part of thigh is pierced with skewer, brushing occasionally with glaze and adding more broth to pan if liquid evaporates, about 40 minutes longer for unstuffed turkey (about 1 hour 10 minutes longer for stuffed turkey). Place turkey on platter, tent with foil.

• Let stand 30 minutes. Reserve mixture in pan for gravy.

For Gravy: Pour contents of roasting pan into strainer set over large bowl. Spoon fat from pan juices in bowl. Transfer onion mixture in strainer to blender. Add 1 cup pan juices to blender and puree until smooth, adding more pan juices and chicken broth if necessary to thin sauce to desired consistency. (This is where an immersion blender saves the day...you'll love it!)

Transfer sauce to heavy large saucepan and bring to boil. Cook until color deepens, skimming off any foam, about 5 minutes. Season with salt and pepper.

Be prepared to faint when you taste the gravy....

Serve turkey with gravy.

Serves 16.


Bon Appétit
November 1994


NEW ENGLAND SAUSAGE, APPLE AND DRIED CRANBERRY STUFFING

This impressive stuffing gets its Yankee accent from apples and dried cranberries.

14 ounces white bread, cut into 3/4-inch cubes (about 12 cups)
1 pound sweet Italian sausages, casings removed
1/4 cup (1/2 stick) butter
6 cups sliced leeks (white and pale green parts only; about 3 large leeks)
1 pound tart green apples, peeled, cored, chopped
2 cups chopped celery with leaves
4 teaspoons poultry seasoning
1 cup dried cranberries (about 4 ounces)
4 teaspoons chopped fresh rosemary
2/3 cup chopped fresh parsley
3 eggs, beaten to blend
1 1/3 cups (about) canned low-salt chicken broth

Preheat oven to 350°F. Divide bread cubes between 2 large baking sheets. Bake until slightly dry, about 15 minutes. Cool completely.

Sauté sausages in heavy large skillet over medium-high heat until cooked through, crumbling coarsely with back of spoon, about 10 minutes. Using slotted spoon, transfer sausage to large bowl. Pour off any drippings from skillet.

Melt butter in same skillet over medium-high heat. Add leeks, apples, celery and poultry seasoning to skillet; sauté until leeks soften, about 8 minutes. Mix in dried cranberries and rosemary.

Add mixture to sausage, then mix in bread and parsley. Season stuffing to taste with salt and pepper. (Can be prepared 1 day ahead. Cover and refrigerate.) Mix eggs into stuffing.

To bake stuffing in turkey: Fill main turkey cavity with stuffing. Mix enough chicken broth into remaining stuffing to moisten (about 3/4 to 1 cup chicken broth, depending on amount of remaining stuffing). Spoon remaining stuffing into buttered baking dish. Cover with buttered aluminum foil. Bake stuffing in dish alongside turkey until heated through, about 45 minutes. Uncover stuffing and bake until top is golden brown, about 15 minutes.

Note: Side bakes it all in a pan to develop a nice browned and crisp character.

To bake all stuffing in pan: Preheat oven to 350°F. Butter 15x10x2-inch baking dish. Mix 1 1/3 cups broth into stuffing. Transfer to prepared dish. Cover with buttered foil and bake until heated through, about 45 minutes. Uncover and bake until top is golden brown, about 15 minutes.

"Cro$$ Border Care:" Canadian "Wait Insurance"

Other Side's daughter and family live in Oakville, Ontario, a large, mostly bedroom community about 20 miles west of Toronto.

She forwarded the article below on health care from her local paper, convinced it would be of interest in our current circumstances. As her friend up there said, where will all those people go when Obama's behemoth of a health-care bill is passed???

Other Side wonders where WE will go when it is passed.

Read it and weep; and let me know when you find a good medical broker and affordable wait insurance.

Here are the relevant links: article 1 and article 2 and article 3.

Cro$$-Border Care
FIRST IN A THREE-PART SERIES
Melinda Dalton, Joe Fantauzzi and Matthew Strader
Published on Nov 26, 2009

Record numbers of Ontarians are being sent to the U. S. by their government for routine health care that should be available at home.

A Metroland Special Report shows thousands of others are funding their own medical treatments south of the border, at high personal cost.

The numbers have been rising for the last 10 years. Government approvals for out-of- country health care funding are up 450 per cent.

Should Ontarians have to use a passport to get health care?

* * *

Oakville’s Kelly Rosettani is happy with the quick treatment she was able to get in the United States for her six-year-old daughter’s curved spine.

When Rosettani’s daughter, Jenna Mayer, went in August for a regular checkup, the doctor said he wanted her to have an X-ray because it looked as if she might have scoliosis, a curvature of the spine.

A Toronto doctor ordered an MRI, and mentioned that depending on its outcome, Jenna might need a brace.

But the family was not satisfied with an MRI wait time of two to six months.

In October, the family went to the U. S. In less than six weeks, they had consulted at an American children’s hospital, seen a specialist in Virginia, acquired a medical brace for Jenna, and returned home.

The family believes they did the right thing by going to the U. S.

“We want people to know that you do not necessarily have to wait, you can get excellent treatment outside the country,” Rosettani said.

Long waits, unavailable procedures and poor physician access are driving record numbers of Ontarians to seek treatment south of the border and sometimes overseas.

A Metroland Special Report on Cross Border Care shows:

• A 450 per cent increase in OHIP approvals for out-of-country care since the beginning of this decade, a period of explosive growth in new technologies and therapies not covered or available here. The province agreed to fund 2,110 procedures or treatments in 2001, and 11,775 last year.

• Patient demand has created a new breed of health-system navigators, known as medical brokers, who find U. S. options for the growing number of Ontario patients who elect to pay for medical services south of the border themselves.

Medical brokers negotiate discount rates with U. S. centres to get Ontarians faster diagnostics, second opinions and surgery.

Brokers say that for every patient sent south by the Ontario government, there may be up to 10 others who go — and pay — on their own.

• Ontario’s spending on out-of-Canada medical services has tripled in the last five years. Payments in 2010 will balloon to $164.3 million, from $56.3 million in 2005. The province said in last month’s economic forecast it needs to increase health spending by $700 million to cover “higher than anticipated” OHIP costs, including services outside the province.

While out-of-country spending is a small part of the $11 billion OHIP pays for all patient services a year, the increase is significant, Ontario’s health minister says.

“Are we looking at ways to reduce out-of-country? Absolutely yes,” said Deb Matthews, who became health minister last month.

Matthews says her ministry is taking steps to improve services and access across Ontario so fewer patients will need to go to the U. S.

At the same time, though, the ministry continues to negotiate preferred rates for Ontario patient visits to U. S. health centres, the Metroland investigation shows.

• Ontario has become a major contractor — a bulk buyer — of American health services this year.

Since spring, the ministry has entered into funding contracts with U. S. hospitals, imaging clinics and residential treatment centres.

It has these “preferred provider” contracts in place with about 40 American medical providers now — and is accepting solicitations from others. Contracts cover diagnostics, cancer care, bariatrics and adolescent behavioural disorders. The ministry says the agreements ensure “more immediate services for patients whose health is at risk.”

It has declined to release details of any of the agreements.

• The province does not track the number of Ontarians who cross the border for care on their own, never seeking government pre-approval or reimbursement.

But major U. S. medical centres contacted by Metroland — including Detroit’s Henry Ford Health System and the Mayo Clinic — say both government-funded and private-pay patient lists are growing.

The Mayo Clinic, which sees about 600 Ontario patients a year, says top reasons include wait times and diagnostic evaluations “when they’ve exhausted options in Canada,” says Mariana Iglesias of the Minnesota-based clinic.

OHIP’s pre-approved funding program for out-of-country care is supposed to fill gaps in health care for high-risk Ontarians.

But patients who use the system express repeated concerns — about the time it takes to get OHIP approval and to appeal, if refused.

“I really believe they make it as difficult as possible,” says Janet Nancarrow of Ottawa who is preparing for an OHIP appeal hearing for her 34-year-old daughter, Lisa, who is taking part in a clinical drug trial at the Mayo Clinic. Lisa has tumours that are encasing her vital organs and invading her system.

Her doctors and family say the trial is her only option short of end-of-life palliative care. With no outside help, Nancarrow said, she had to research precedent cases, find expert witnesses and keep up with enormous paperwork — all while accompanying her daughter back and forth to Minnesota for treatments.

“They shouldn’t put families through this,” she said.

• Ontario continues to struggle with wait times. This month, almost 140,000 people are on wait lists just for CT scans and MRIs.

• Wait-time insurance policies have emerged as the industry caught on to public angst. While no industry figures exist to indicate the level of consumer take-up of the coverage, plans are available to reimburse costs of private treatment when policyholders are forced to wait more than 45 days.

Ontario says it has made strides to reduce waits for the priority procedures it monitors. But the Ontario Health Quality Council — which the ministry set up to review provincial progress — says more needs to be done.

“Many Ontarians still wait too long for urgent cancer surgery, MRI scans … and specialists,” the council says in its 2009 report.

Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath says the OHIP out-of-country surge has taken on momentum and that government must stop the southbound flow.

“The government needs to reinvest the dollars that they’re shoving out the door to private providers of health care in the States, and invest that in providing services here at home,” she said.

* * *

Wait Time Insurance

What it is: A privately obtained insurance that allows Canadians who have excessively long waits for procedures to obtain services at private U. S. clinics.

What it costs: Monthly premiums for wait-time insurance range from $100 to $200 a month.

How it works: Typically, benefits kick in when a covered person is on a wait list for more than 45 days. Coverage includes costs for diagnostic tests and treatment for hundreds of medical conditions. Coverage is subject to terms and conditions of the particular policy.

The Answer My Friend?....Well, it may not be "Blowing in the Wind." At least not yet.

Renewable energy (except wood, curiously, which we have in great abundance) is reportedly the savior of humanity, and in particular will guarantee that Maine's economy can continue on it's...ummm...excuse me....it's current successful course. That is if government makes sufficient "investments" in the technology on our behalf.

If we were doing so with our own money privately, it would be speculation, but in the hands of government, investment is the word.

Locally, we have the MRRA and state government itself, all the way up to the Governor, working on the issue. Wind power, and composites as a component of the technology, are predicted to be the goose that may someday lay golden eggs all around us. A local icon and former governor is all over this, following in the footsteps of Al Gore, who has unselfishly risked his own resources to help us across the troubled waters that lie ahead.

Inspired by the personal sacrifice and dedication of such leaders, it was with great disappointment that our offices received the news of less than successful initiatives in wind energy, and even worse, here in Maine, where such things are not supposed to happen! How could this be??

The troubling news appeared here.

Interested students should read the whole report; we'll just pique your interest with a few tempting tidbits:

Turbine setbacks leave towns twisting in the wind

Saco's windmill didn't deliver enough power, Kittery's unit broke, and the manufacturer is now in bankruptcy court.

He said the windmills work best on flat, open land, like in Texas and Oklahoma, where the wind is strong and steady. New England, with hills and tall trees, has obstructions that can make even seemingly windy spots less than ideal for windmills.

"With the models we have now, we would never have put either one of those machines in," Heath said. "They should never have been sold."

Sounds like a perfect time for a little healthy skepticism. At least if you're a private "speculator."

On the other hand, if you're a public "investor," it looks like a sure thing.

Guess which assessment is going to "win" out?

It looks like a pretty sure bet from here. And it's always so much easier to bet with O-P-M. I wonder if Bernie Madoff would like to get in on this; does anyone know where we can get in touch with him?

Good luck!

School funding shortfalls...the irony of it all.

Other Side addressed school funding issues in this post.

We recall reading that the School Board was going to file a formal letter of concern with 'responsible' state officials regarding the curtailment in General Purpose Aid to Education.

Reflecting on the larger situation, an irony presented itself.

Some readers may consider what follows to be insensitive; so be it. Other Side is guilty of many things; being overly sensitive is not one of them.

Brunswick looks like it will lose about $665,000 in direct state aid to education, or about 2% of the current school budget of about $33 million. Enrollment is declining by far more than that as the base closes, but I don't have the exact number handy. But as we all know, factors that would reduce spending are irrelevant in such matters; only those things that would hamper spending increases, or preserve the status quo, are worthy of public notice and discussion.

It occurred to me that the heartburn over GPA reductions is coincident with the start of new school construction, calling for an increase in revenue from the state to cover the lion's share of construction costs. In round numbers, at the same time we're looking at a $665,000 reduction in one account, we're looking at something like a $2 million a year increase from the state to reimburse us for construction debt service. I haven't read about the School Board filing a formal letter thanking the state for their free money, but I'm sure it's in the job jar.

That's the theory anyway. As mentioned here before, at some point every state "promise" becomes negotiable, and revenue projections continue to worsen as time moves on.

If the state can't meet GPA promises, how will it meet construction promises? You tell me. Option 1 is that it could renege on the deal, claiming possible bankruptcy as an excuse. Or, it could borrow money to help us pay for the borrowing we are doing.

That's just dumb enough to make sense for government. Let's see; Brunswick borrows about $20 million, meaning we have to pay back about $30 million with interest. The state borrows about $30 million to pay our debt service, meaning they (we) have to pay back about $40 million. So if things work out right, the cost of the school could be twice the purchase price.

Hey, it's only money, and surely our local paper's editors can find a way to blame the whole thing on someone else.

Oh wait...I have one more idea. The state could pay for the school by further defaulting on Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals and other service providers. They already owe the hospitals more than $400 million; what's another hundred million or so among friends?

Especially when the hospitals (and doctors, etc) have such good credit and such swollen cash accounts to pay salaries and current expenses.

"What's in your wallet?"

It's YOUR fault, you dirty rat!

After reading last night's lead editorial in our local paper, entitled "Elephant in the room," I was reminded of the classic Jimmie Cagney sound bites:

"You, you, you did it; yoooooouuuuu did it, yooouuuu dirty rat, you."

This is one of those editorials, like others I've read, that give one a strange sense that they were written, or should I say ghosted, elsewhere, and then published as if written by the editors. But I could be wrong, and often am.

If nothing else, this statement in the last paragraph raises the suspicion:

This is an important step forward in an important national debt.

Ummmm...I think the word called for in that sentence is "debate," not "debt."

Well anyway, the editorial is in keeping with the Krugman Kool-Aid Klub theories that abound on these pages, laying virtually all blame upon "the prior administration" for our current state of affairs, and treating the current administration as the wisest in our nation's history. Krugman has already decided that the current stimulus plan is way too small. Given that only about 25-30% has been spent, I'm puzzled as to how he could reach that conclusion. But I'm not a Princeton PhD and Nobel winner; I'm just your basic country bumpkin, engineering variety.

The "writer" did include this equivocation, however:

Yes, Obama shares some of the responsibility for the ballooning federal deficit. As do all of us.

Talk about a transparent and shameless attempt to transfer responsibility to the anonymous unwashed.

All of us? Excuuuuuuuse me? I'm willing to believe that YOU share some of the responsibility, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna take any of the rap!

There are plenty of big government fans around here, and the local newspaper bows to no-one when it comes to advocating for government domination of virtually every aspect of our lives. Which means more spending, and more deficits, and less prosperity.

I may be a lot of things, but there's no doubt about my limited government, less spending stance on just about everything.

So the editors can take their "as do all of us" and stuff it where home delivery is not yet an option.

Test Time; Oil : Water as Politics : ????

A few weeks back, I wrote on Scott Ruppert's (also known as Basicman) great op-ed column, and also his "Whatever Happened to Truth" blog post. The link to the Basicman Blog is over on the right under "Sites I follow."

After completing my post, I realized it was a perfect chance to weave in a musical interlude, and I had missed it. So here it is now:

MATRON(Spoken)
The whole world's gone low-brow. Thing's ain't what
they used to be.

VELMA(Spoken)
They sure ain't, Mama. They sure ain't it's all gone.

(Singing)
Whatever happened to fair dealing?
And pure ethics
And nice manners?
Why is it everyone now is a pain in the ass?
Whatever happened to class?

MATRON
Class.
Whatever happened to, "Please, may I?"
And, "Yes, thank you?"
And, "How charming?"
Now, every son of a bitch is a snake in the grass
Whatever happened to class?

Those who follow musical theater will recognize this is from Chicago, one of our great favorites. (It's playing again at MSMT next summer, so if you haven't seen it before, or want to see it again, you better get in line early for tickets.)

Today I happened to notice the Quote of the Day on the right side of the page is:

Politics have no relation to morals.

Niccolo Machiavelli

Spot on, many would say. Especially after watching a Senator from Louisiana sell her vote on the health care debate recently for $300 million in taxpayer money. Or hearing a Congressman from Pennsylvania say that pork coming his way may look like graft or corruption, but if it supports his people, he supports the corruption.

One wonders what sort of "leverage" Maine's two Senators will use as the health care debate proceeds; it should be interesting to watch the bidding.

Which all ties in with an Imprimus column that came my way in September.

In it, Walter Williams discusses "Future Prospects for Economic Liberty." When I read it, I circled this passage:

Some will respond that big government is what the majority of voters want, and that in a democracy the majority rules. But America’s Founders didn’t found a democracy, they founded a republic. The authors of The Federalist Papers, arguing for ratification of the Constitution, showed how pure democracy has led historically to tyranny. Instead, they set up a limited government, with checks and balances, to help ensure that the reason of the people, rather than the selfish passions of a majority, would hold sway. Unaware of the distinction between a democracy and a republic, many today believe that a majority consensus establishes morality. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In other words, morality is whatever the times and the people decide it is. Just think for a moment how dangerous that concept is, and I would offer up WW II and Nazi Germany as just one example of such danger.

But this also speaks to the larger point of modern politics not being grounded in any established morality, other than the self-interests of those who govern and what it takes to keep them in power.

Williams adds:

Another common argument is that we need big government to protect the little guy from corporate giants. But a corporation can’t pick a consumer’s pocket. The consumer must voluntarily pay money for the corporation’s product. It is big government, not corporations, that have the power to take our money by force. I should also point out that private business can force us to pay them by employing government. To see this happening, just look at the automobile industry or at most corporate farmers today. If General Motors or a corporate farm is having trouble, they can ask me for help, and I may or may not choose to help. But if they ask government to help and an IRS agent shows up at my door demanding money, I have no choice but to hand it over. It is big government that the little guy needs protection against, not big business. And the only protection available is in the Constitution and the ballot box.

Sadly, we have virtually no protection left against big government; the Constitution is dismissed as so much inconvenient baggage ("negative rights"), and the permanent ruling class renders the ballot box far less effective than it should be. Incumbency is simply too easy to purchase, the Constitution be damned.

Recently I was reading a book review in The Weekly Standard entitled "Cool Gone Cold."

I found these two lines regarding "perspectival thinking" to be memorable, and relevant to this discussion:

Loosely, this means regarding reality as lying mainly in the eye of the beholder rather than being fixed, immutable, and objectively given.

The idea that reality is whatever it is perceived to be, rather than something with independent existence, is likely to be with us as long as our culture survives.

There is obviously broad support for moral relativism and its many byproducts in this day and age. And especially despised in our big government age is any notion of constraining Government with a Constitution. Why how do you expect our benevolent "public servants" to save us from ourselves if we put chains on them?

How quaint a concept, I suppose.

But ask yourself this if you don't think there is a need for absolutes within the framework of our lives. Suppose your bank, and your employer, and your investment company all decided that instead of the absolutism of the mathematics we learned as children and came to hold dear, that their math "realities" lay mainly in the eye of the beholder rather than being fixed, immutable, and objectively given.

In other words, your bank, your employer, and your investment firm would come up with results for you that bear no relationship to what you think they should be, because they could each invent their own math rules to suit their purposes.

That might sound a little hair-brained, but it's not too different than what the federal government does as it reinvents the laws of finance and economics to make the answers come out the way it wants, rather than the way "arcane absolutes" would make them come out.

And feels free to reinvent them further, whenever the need arises.

Anything for the greater good, right?

Charles Lawton: Maine's "economic and demographic death spiral"

Charles Lawton is a well known economist and consultant who has a column every week in the Sunday paper. He was the keynote speaker at the recent annual meeting of the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority, the politically appointed group charged with overseeing the redevelopment of the Brunswick Naval Air Station.

Lawton reportedly gave an optimistic assessment of what the future holds, especially as it relates to the base. This comes as no surprise, I suppose, since those who are paid to speak at such events would not do themselves any favor by delivering bad news. Put on the old rose colored glasses, sip a little wine, laugh it up, and rub shoulders with the great and near great.

Simply put, this was not an event where harsh reality would be welcomed.

It came as a shock to this reporter, then, that in his regular column of this past Sunday, Lawton would use the most pessimistic language I've ever seen in any of his prior offerings. Why would this be? Has he seen facts the rest of us haven't? Is the end of the Baldacci reign a signal for Charles to go blunt? Is he suddenly really, really worried?

At some level, the reason why is something to be determined in due time via future offerings or conversations. For the moment, his choice of words are the item of greatest interest. You can read the entire column here.

Here are the two passages that caught my attention, which is a challenge in and of itself:

An avowed capitalist, he is motivated by his love for Maine and a deep-seated conviction that nothing short of a revolution of creativity and innovation will save his beloved home state from the economic and demographic death spiral it is slipping ever closer to entering.

And then there's this:

Those wishing to help Maine avoid the death spiral must also convey this same message to the world at large.

This makes it pretty clear to this reader that Lawton, a very public voice, believes Maine is staring directly at a death spiral....both economic and demographic. I agree completely, and I have substantial evidence to back it up, as does anyone with an open mind.

Time to wake up, Maine.

Tom Friedman: "You're wrong"

Some months back, I wrote that the 'overwhelming evidence' in support of global warming, and particularly human causes of it, seems to be eroding. And that this signaled the need for those with a theological commitment to climate Armageddon to up the rhetoric level by an octave or two.

In this item, I said the following:

In the last few weeks, I've heard that global temperatures have cooled in the last 10 years and that they have been flat since 2000. Then I read in a Paul (Pass the Koolaid) Krugman column, printed in the Times Record, that the predictions for global temperature change are twice as horrible as previously thought.

Krugman writes:

“The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility.”

“Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees.”

Krugman further opines that “the vote on the Waxman-Markley cap and tax bill is an abomination: I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.”

That’s Krugman; always calm and collected. There’s nothing wrong with him that a quick blast from a fire extinguisher aimed at his noggin couldn’t fix.

So how can such diametrically opposed views exist in an era of supposed "scientific consensus?"

In a moment or two it dawned on me. The recent evidence of flat or even declining temperatures involve actual observations, while Krugman's case depends on predictions that build on dire historical reports For those who are true believers in global warming, the most recent data undermines their arguments, and so predictions of catastrophe need to escalate accordingly to compensate for wilting prior evidence.

In the last week, Tom Friedman, respected columnist and book seller for the New York Times, penned a similarly devastating column. Now that the global warming projections are slipping away with the tide, Friedman has decided his way to make his point is to add the "population bomb" into the mix. To whit:

The first is that the world is getting crowded. According to the 2006 U.N. population report, “The world population will likely increase by 2.5 billion ... passing from the current 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion in 2050. This increase is equivalent to the total size of the world population in 1950, and it will be absorbed mostly by the less developed regions, whose population is projected to rise from 5.4 billion in 2007 to 7.9 billion in 2050.”

In other words, if you aren't swallowing the global warming bait in one piece, there is more to it....devastating population growth that the world cannot support.

Does anyone remember this projection of population doom flooding the news channels decades ago? Does anyone remember warnings about "global cooling" making the rounds in the 70's?

Has anyone seen recent reports of emails from the most revered climate authorities working their magic to tamp down dissenting views and assure that their preferred projections of gloom carry the day in national and global policy circles?

Does anyone else think that Friedman and Krugman have no other choice but to up the ante on the disasters they predict, because they can't counter the information coming to light? I know what it's like to have one's hair on fire; can it be on fire twice as much?

At one point, I actually believed Friedman was a rational voice, even if I didn't agree with everything he wrote. With this latest item, he seems ever more an ideologue with a huge public stage who has adopted Krugman style hyperbole when reality gets in the way of his convictions.

As proof, here's his parting shot at those who dare disagree with him:

So, as I said, you don’t believe in global warming? You’re wrong, but I’ll let you enjoy it until your beach house gets washed away. But if you also don’t believe the world is getting more crowded with more aspiring Americans — and that ignoring that will play to the strength of our worst enemies, while responding to it with clean energy will play to the strength of our best technologies — then you’re willfully blind, and you’re hurting America’s future to boot.

I'm touched to the point of tears, and I have a sudden inexplicable urge to go Subaru shopping.

Perhaps not a willful urge, but maybe a few more of his columns will take me to that level.

Vacant schools & senior housing....a follow-up

Fast on the heels of yesterday's item about the Brunswick Housing Authority and a vacant school in Lisbon comes news advancing the story.

The Lisbon town council approved the sale of the school to the Authority for $1.

The authority has budgeted the conversion of the 100 year old school building, a registered historic landmark, at $2.5 billion, "but is hopeful the costs will actually be less."

This will cover renovation and conversion into apartments on 4 levels of the building, plus an elevator and who knows what else.

That's a pretty amazing number, especially when you consider that the Brunswick town council recently told us that the estimated cost of renovating the old Times Record Building for police use would be $3 million plus. For a building that had already undergone recent renovation to prepare it for its current use.

Too bad Brunswick's council didn't use the same firm as the Housing Authority to perform the estimate.

Oh well, it's too late now. Time to move on to grander plans. Plans that will save us money, no doubt.

Maybe we should sell the Times Record building to the Housing Authority for $1, and let them turn it into apartments. It would be interesting to see what that would cost.

Vacant schools can become affordable senior housing. Who'd have guessed???

Did you see the recent article in Brunswick's local paper? It reports that the Brunswick Housing Authority is interested in converting a vacant hundred year old school in Lisbon Falls into "affordable senior housing!"

Wow...what an innovative idea! I'm impressed. Take a nice old cherished building, abandoned by its owners, and turn it into something useful, rather than just bulldoze it out of the way. And in the process, preserve a landmark "for Maine's future."

Is this what they mean by "re-purposing??"

Check out the details; a Brunswick authority looking for property a few towns away. And it looks like they could get it for nothing, or within $1 of nothing.

If only there had been opportunities like this closer to home! Too bad Brunswick itself didn't have any vacant school buildings that could be turned into affordable senior housing.

I'm sorry, did you say something? What's that? Brunswick DID HAVE a vacant school building that could have become affordable senior housing? Right here in town?

Nahhh. Seriously? Well then why didn't the town do it?

Because why? Because it would cost too much? And it wasn't feasible? Says who?

Oh yeah....the memories are starting to come back. I remember now.

A group of volunteers got together to look into saving the old Brunswick High School by converting it into affordable senior housing, which seems to be a popular way of doing things around the state. They got in touch with folks who do this sort of thing for a living, and who know the ins and outs of the various grant mechanisms and tax incentives. And that group made a proposal to the council, and showed examples of where the process has worked elsewhere in the state.

Nice job, the council said, but "we don't think it will work." And then the council got some other folks to provide some estimates for conversion. Way too expensive, they said. The public won't support it. But what about asking for proposals, the volunteer group asked? Not necessary, the council said, we know what we need to know. It can't be made to work.

Which makes one wonder why the Lisbon Falls building can be made to work, even though it is considerably older than the old Brunswick High School.

Other Side has a theory on this, and it's really quite simple. It all boils down to what the powers to be want, and what will best serve their purpose.

In the case of the Lisbon Falls property, reading the published report makes it look like there were no competing plans for the property itself, and the town has found itself a patron who will turn the school into something of value again.

In the case of the old Brunswick High School, the "schoolies" had set their sights on the real estate to build a largely unnecessary new school as a monument to community pride and free money that feeds it. And you never want to mess with the "schoolies."

Which means that the fix was pretty much in from the start. Some might suggest that letting the volunteer reuse group go through their exercise was a cruel charade to delude the public; you can decide for yourself.

This reporter prefers to remain objective in such matters. Because if I didn't, I'd be forced to conclude that the old saw about "all politics are local" has an unsavory meaning, and that wouldn't be charitable, would it?

Meanwhile, we can only wonder what would happen if the council was to insert itself in the possible project in Lisbon Falls. Strange as that may sound.

I'm sorry...what did you say?????

Richardson....out as Commissioner of DECD

John Richardson gave up his job as Commissioner in Baldacci's Cabinet. Should make the MRRA meeting interesting viewing today.

I wonder if he's taking all those "protocols" about the scads of businesses he had lined up for BNAS with him, or if he's left them in the DECD file cabinet. Come to think of it, those deals were probably built only on his dynamic business skills, his trustworthiness, and his personal integrity in the Commissioner's job. So in all likelihood, POOF! they're gone. Just like that.

Other Side is trying to track down F. Lee Bailey to get his reaction, but so far, no luck. He and Richardson made such a good team. It'd be a shame if they didn't find another way to work together. We'll be watching closely.

The departure means that if Richardson doesn't make it to the Blaine House, he'll have to go back to making several hundred large a year as a lawyer working for his union clients.

Looks like a win-win.

For him, anyway.

News Flash....Richardson to announce run today

Other Side just heard via the grapevine that John Richardson of Brunswick will be announcing his run for Governor at 11 am today here in town. (I wonder if it will take place in front of Frostys?). I can just hear the surprised reactions of the multitudes.

That should put an end to the speculation about the Oxford Aviation outcome (and the "protocols" on Fortune 500 deals, etc.) being critical to his ambitions for higher office, which if reports are true, will no longer be in the "possible" category. It also raises the likelihood that communications on the subject will climb to new heights of obscurity and evasiveness. Timing will become increasingly important, one would think.

We're now taking bets as to whether Richardson will resign from the MRRA today, or at their meeting tomorrow, or will instead, turn it into his campaign vehicle. Either way, I can already hear the compous statements being issued.

Here in the offices, we're pretty sure what he should do. We're also pretty sure what he prefers to do. Put your money down now.