Ever wonder when the or where the Democratic Party started? Happy Thanksgiving!
Thursday, November 27, 2014
The Birth of the Democratic Party
Ever wonder when the or where the Democratic Party started? Happy Thanksgiving!
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Alan Caron: Maine Democrats have only themselves to blame for LePage victory
An article that was posted on November 6 in the PPH (Pingree Press Herald) takes the view of why the Democratic party may have taken such a beating. This from the perspective of a Democrat. When done with the article check out the comments as many of them offer an interesting view of the election.
PPH (Pingree Press Herald)
Congratulations to Republican Gov. Paul LePage and his team for a well-run, smart campaign. They never wavered on making government spending, welfare and immigration their galvanizing issues. LePage didn’t commit a major gaffe. His debate performance was strong, and he actually gained support during the race.
In the wake of Tuesday’s losses, the first instinct of Democrats will be to blame others: big money from away, independent candidate Eliot Cutler and a Republican “wave.” That would be both a mistake and a lost opportunity.
Democrats need to go back to the drawing board and take a hard look at their priorities, their messaging and who they’ve been nominating for higher offices. They need to look inward rather than outward. They promised to do that kind of “soul-searching” after 2010, but there wasn’t much evidence of it this year.
Those who can’t imagine why LePage was re-elected have not been listening carefully enough to Maine people. In growing numbers, Mainers are frustrated about the state’s economy and stagnation. In part, they blame a government that has outgrown our means and that cannot be sustained without continuing tax increases, which, in turn, hurt the economy.
The election of Paul LePage was made possible because of the growing perception that Democrats have forgotten the working people and taxpayers of Maine, and that won’t change until Democrats in Maine pay more attention to those voices, and actually do something about it. Rightly or wrongly, voters are coming to feel that Democrats are incapable of changing a government that they are so busy defending.
Full story: PPH (Pingree Press Herald)
PPH (Pingree Press Herald)
Congratulations to Republican Gov. Paul LePage and his team for a well-run, smart campaign. They never wavered on making government spending, welfare and immigration their galvanizing issues. LePage didn’t commit a major gaffe. His debate performance was strong, and he actually gained support during the race.
In the wake of Tuesday’s losses, the first instinct of Democrats will be to blame others: big money from away, independent candidate Eliot Cutler and a Republican “wave.” That would be both a mistake and a lost opportunity.
Democrats need to go back to the drawing board and take a hard look at their priorities, their messaging and who they’ve been nominating for higher offices. They need to look inward rather than outward. They promised to do that kind of “soul-searching” after 2010, but there wasn’t much evidence of it this year.
Those who can’t imagine why LePage was re-elected have not been listening carefully enough to Maine people. In growing numbers, Mainers are frustrated about the state’s economy and stagnation. In part, they blame a government that has outgrown our means and that cannot be sustained without continuing tax increases, which, in turn, hurt the economy.
The election of Paul LePage was made possible because of the growing perception that Democrats have forgotten the working people and taxpayers of Maine, and that won’t change until Democrats in Maine pay more attention to those voices, and actually do something about it. Rightly or wrongly, voters are coming to feel that Democrats are incapable of changing a government that they are so busy defending.
Full story: PPH (Pingree Press Herald)
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Governor Paul LePage and First Lady Ann LePage on Veterans Day
Today
is Veteran's Day. Please take a moment to stop and honor a family
member, a friend, or a member of your community who served in uniform.
First Lady Ann LePage said, "to all veterans and their families, our simple thank you will never be enough. You maintain and strengthen the presence of freedom in our nation for generations to come. We want to extend our most sincere appreciation to each and every one of you for your courage and dedication."
Paul LePage, Maine's Governor on Facebook.
First Lady Ann LePage said, "to all veterans and their families, our simple thank you will never be enough. You maintain and strengthen the presence of freedom in our nation for generations to come. We want to extend our most sincere appreciation to each and every one of you for your courage and dedication."
Paul LePage, Maine's Governor on Facebook.
Monday, November 3, 2014
Maine Judge Charles LaVerdiere: The EBOLA Czar
In his recent decision to lift the Ebola quarantine on Maine nurse, Kaci Hickox, Judge Charles LaVerdiere - in one fell swoop- has made himself the “Ebola Czar” for Maine. His decision is not just about Kaci’s right to evade the personal inconvenience of a quarantine imposed by experienced health officials and the governor, it sets a troubling precedent for all other similar, Ebola quarantine situations. It makes an unelected judge, with no medical qualifications or expertise the “kingpin” of the Ebola problem in Maine. Its impact on public health morale and management must be devastating. It leaves unanswered the question: Who in Maine is in charge of future plans and actions for Ebola - LaVerdiere or public health officials? It is an example, in our opinion, of “judicial power” gone wild, as LaVerdiere carves out an inappropriate role for a jurist: self-appointed “epidemiologist in chief” for Maine!
Judge LaVerdiere resoundingly scorns the lack of science and the fear mongering on the part of Maine’s trained public health officials, and claims to be operating on the basis of “science”. One has to ask, “Does this new public health “Emperor” have any clothes?” His own scientific ‘bona fides’ seem very scant indeed. We suspect LaVerdiere’s opinions are based on “All I know is what I read in the paper.” And, as we know, many “newspapers”, such as our very own PPH, are using the American Ebola problem as a political tool to support, “Scientist-in-Chief” Obama - and local partisans.
In dealing with Ebola in Maine - or for that matter in the US - we are addressing a public health problem of preventive medicine - preventing a potentially lethal epidemic that could have devastating effects on our populations. It is important in thinking about Ebola to separate “prevention” from “treatment” of actual cases. Wherever possible we want “to prevent”. It is about “population oriented” public health programs of prevention in a population where Ebola hasn’t surfaced. And... we don’t want it to surface! Quarantine is, and always has been, our major “prevention” tool when facing an epidemic.
The major tool for prevention of Ebola (or any disease with epidemic potential) is isolation of “at risk” persons. This is in no way to say that “at risk” will inevitably shift into “very high risk” and, then, into frank clinical Ebola. Prevention is always a safety first approach, which has been tried and proven by public health officials in many countries over a period of over a century. A classic “population oriented approach” cannot ever be based on “perfect certainty”; therefore, it defines “risk” and moves to isolate it in order to protect large, vulnerable populations from exposure to risk. In brief, this is the essence of public health practice when faced with the potential threat of a difficult to control epidemic. It may inconvenience individuals in the process, but its higher purpose aims at the best level of public protection for the greater number of people.
“Dr” LaVerdiere is basically defining the Ebola “risk” down, minimizing it without presenting his evidence. He has also deemed the personal “inconvenience of quarantine” for one person as of a higher public value than public safety or public protection. He is in this matter at odds with the reported 80% of the public who vote for safety and quarantine! “Personal inconvenience” has just been been raised by Judge LaVerdiere to the highest social value and, at the same time, he implies that public safety is just for “sissies”!
Public fear of Ebola was scorned by LaVerdiere in his comments. Public fear of the disease he inferred was media manufactured or ”neurotic”. But one asks, is it “neurotic” for any of us to fear a potentially lethal epidemic when someone like LaVerdiere is trashing our protections and our protectors in public health? His recent decision effectively “fires” the public health officials (and the governor) on whom we rely for public health protection! Were people in past ages “fearless” or “neurotically fearful ' when facing “the Black Death”? How about modern day Africa? Any fear of Ebola there? Fear is a logical normal reaction to a possible death threat. LaVerdiere should stop using this sort of “junk science/pop psychology” unorthodox, "unscientific" tools acquired, perhaps, from his long exposure to family courts where “junk science” and “pop” psychology are rampant.
We hope that Tuesday’s court hearing on the Kaci Hickox story can lead to our public health officials to be put back in charge of Ebola epidemiology. Can LaVerdiere back off? If he can’t the state of Maine should send him for a sabbatical to the Harvard School of Public Health for instruction in epidemiology!
For the welfare of the public, LaVerdiere should immediately resign as ‘de facto’ Maine state epidemiologist. He is totally unqualified. His recent public health decision is a fair sample, for those who have never seen other evidence, of his similar questionable judgments in family court matters!
For up to date local Maine Republican issues find us on Facebook.
Judge LaVerdiere resoundingly scorns the lack of science and the fear mongering on the part of Maine’s trained public health officials, and claims to be operating on the basis of “science”. One has to ask, “Does this new public health “Emperor” have any clothes?” His own scientific ‘bona fides’ seem very scant indeed. We suspect LaVerdiere’s opinions are based on “All I know is what I read in the paper.” And, as we know, many “newspapers”, such as our very own PPH, are using the American Ebola problem as a political tool to support, “Scientist-in-Chief” Obama - and local partisans.
In dealing with Ebola in Maine - or for that matter in the US - we are addressing a public health problem of preventive medicine - preventing a potentially lethal epidemic that could have devastating effects on our populations. It is important in thinking about Ebola to separate “prevention” from “treatment” of actual cases. Wherever possible we want “to prevent”. It is about “population oriented” public health programs of prevention in a population where Ebola hasn’t surfaced. And... we don’t want it to surface! Quarantine is, and always has been, our major “prevention” tool when facing an epidemic.
The major tool for prevention of Ebola (or any disease with epidemic potential) is isolation of “at risk” persons. This is in no way to say that “at risk” will inevitably shift into “very high risk” and, then, into frank clinical Ebola. Prevention is always a safety first approach, which has been tried and proven by public health officials in many countries over a period of over a century. A classic “population oriented approach” cannot ever be based on “perfect certainty”; therefore, it defines “risk” and moves to isolate it in order to protect large, vulnerable populations from exposure to risk. In brief, this is the essence of public health practice when faced with the potential threat of a difficult to control epidemic. It may inconvenience individuals in the process, but its higher purpose aims at the best level of public protection for the greater number of people.
“Dr” LaVerdiere is basically defining the Ebola “risk” down, minimizing it without presenting his evidence. He has also deemed the personal “inconvenience of quarantine” for one person as of a higher public value than public safety or public protection. He is in this matter at odds with the reported 80% of the public who vote for safety and quarantine! “Personal inconvenience” has just been been raised by Judge LaVerdiere to the highest social value and, at the same time, he implies that public safety is just for “sissies”!
Public fear of Ebola was scorned by LaVerdiere in his comments. Public fear of the disease he inferred was media manufactured or ”neurotic”. But one asks, is it “neurotic” for any of us to fear a potentially lethal epidemic when someone like LaVerdiere is trashing our protections and our protectors in public health? His recent decision effectively “fires” the public health officials (and the governor) on whom we rely for public health protection! Were people in past ages “fearless” or “neurotically fearful ' when facing “the Black Death”? How about modern day Africa? Any fear of Ebola there? Fear is a logical normal reaction to a possible death threat. LaVerdiere should stop using this sort of “junk science/pop psychology” unorthodox, "unscientific" tools acquired, perhaps, from his long exposure to family courts where “junk science” and “pop” psychology are rampant.
We hope that Tuesday’s court hearing on the Kaci Hickox story can lead to our public health officials to be put back in charge of Ebola epidemiology. Can LaVerdiere back off? If he can’t the state of Maine should send him for a sabbatical to the Harvard School of Public Health for instruction in epidemiology!
For the welfare of the public, LaVerdiere should immediately resign as ‘de facto’ Maine state epidemiologist. He is totally unqualified. His recent public health decision is a fair sample, for those who have never seen other evidence, of his similar questionable judgments in family court matters!
For up to date local Maine Republican issues find us on Facebook.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)