Children are not removed just because of drugsByGaia- 02/23/2011 - 11:23 pmIf the only allegation is that the parent is using drugs, children are NOT removed. You have to proveabuse or neglect in order to remove children. Just testing positive on a drug test is not proof of abuse orneglect.You are making a leap in logic that is not supported under NH law.Someone who uses some pot passed to them by a friend, then flunks a drug test, is not necessarily abusingor neglecting their children. But under the proposed law, he/she would lose their food stamps. Then theirkids WILL go hungry, and there's no abuse or neglect involved.view in original post
5check againByGaia- 02/22/2011 - 1:51 pm1. He never said he works for Penacook FD.2. Your 4 year old is not working an accident scene. The adults who are working the scene should be ableto read the word "Photographer."3. Victims/Family have no right to screen the publication of photos/stories about things that happen inpublic settings such as on a highway. Makes no difference if someone died or not. Freedom of the Press.4. As long as a photographer stays behind the crime scene tape, they can take pictures at murder scenes.Same freedom of the press applies.That said, he might have had less trouble if his helmet said "Press" rather than "Photographer." Thatwould make it clear that he was not an employee of the FD taking pictures. (though I don't know why aFD photographer would have "Photographer" on their helmet. They'd just take the pictures.)view in original post
4One big difference hereByGaia- 02/22/2011 - 1:36 pmThe amount of trash we produce is almost completely under our own control. We don't have such controlover whether we need fire or police services. We can decide whether to call 911, but we can't decide thattoday there will be no lightening strikes or home invasions.view in original post
Here's my predictionByGaia- 02/21/2011 - 7:55 pmIf this legislation passes, the state will, at first, give the non-unionized employees the same pay andbenefits as the unionized, only because it will save the state money in the short run. They won't have toinvest in changes to the computer systems that are already set up to deal with paying everyone the sameway.Then... When the economy goes further south (or goes south again in the future), the state will decide thatthe non-unionized employees will not be getting their scheduled step increases this year. At the same timethey will invest in system changes that will allow them to further limit non-union employees' wages andbenefits.The next year, the non-union folks will be paying additional amounts toward their health insurance. Andthey'll be taking a few furlough days a year.... etc. etc.The non-union employees will be low-hanging fruit. Perversely, it may end up increasing unionenrollment over time.view in original post
1actually... a lot of people do want special rightsByGaia- 02/20/2011 - 4:08 pmThey want the right of marriage to be reserved for them and people who believe the same way they do.And they want the right of religious expression to belong to them and those who believe the same waythey do. Any suggestion that there are different religious beliefs is treated as an attack. It's downrightmind-boggling how reality gets warped for some folks.Disagreement is not the same thing as disrespect.I am reminded of an adolescent wailing "you're not listening to me!" when they don't get their own way.Yes, we are listening to you. We just don't agree with you. And "listening" is not the same thing as "givingin."view in original post
4and i would say...ByGaia- 02/20/2011 - 3:49 pmStop trying to force everyone to accept your anti-gay religion and beliefs. If you claim to be Christian, it'shypocritical and discriminatory.Not to mention irrelevant.Time to face it. There is absolutely no cogent argument against same sex marriage that is not based onreligious belief.The only thing that comes close is the claim that it's bad for the children. Even that argument is ridiculous.Unless you are prepared to propose a law banning gay people from having children, it's pointless to bringit up in the context of same sex marriage.
0After reading all commentary posts about the budgetByGaia- 02/16/2011 - 3:14 pmon all the various articles, I've come to the conclusion that doing just two things would end all of ourbudget woes for good:1. Don't let anyone use a state car.2. Don't let anyone come back to work after retiring.Come on people - these two measure, while they might save a little money, are just a drop in the bucket.Do you have any idea the scale of the savings that need to be realized?Cars and retirement are clearly just symbols to many people - you latch onto them as overwhelmingevidence of irresponsibility, greed, corruption, ineptitude, and sloth rampant in state government.Can we try to be a little more realistic?view in original post
1What about my religious beliefs?ByGaia- 02/16/2011 - 3:05 pmRepealing the law could be said to trash my religious beliefs. My religion affirms the inherent worth anddignity of every person, including gays and lesbians, and supports their right to legal marriage.But that's beside the point. And so are your religious beliefs - they do not and should not enter into this