 Messages |
Topics |
Attachments
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - cedarman
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25
346
« on: March 11, 2009, 06:53:35 AM »
"continues what's worked for the Country Pantry"
IF they closed, did it really work?
Don't get me wrong. I liked to eat at the Country Pantry from time to time. The service was always great, the food was always good, and certainly a great value. I also greatly appreciate that they opened the night of the Steeple to serve a lot of cold, wet and hungry firefighters.
Good Luck to the new owners.
347
« on: March 09, 2009, 08:21:51 AM »
Unfortunately, I think a LOT of people will forget about all of this come the next election cycle. 
348
« on: February 06, 2009, 04:31:18 PM »
Relieving a volunteer of his position on a department might be necessary sometimes, but personally, I think that is an issue which should be handled internally. NO press release necessary. The press release is where public perception of the department comes into play. Since funding for most departments is from the public, and how each member of the department behaves reflects on the department itself, the department may have decided (or was pushed to decide) that this individual should be let go.
349
« on: February 06, 2009, 12:41:16 PM »
Another major point people should keep in mind is the ending of the email, or the web addresses in general. I wouldn't trust anything claiming to be from a government source if it did not at least have ".gov" at the end.
Furthermore, I'm not sure any branch of the government uses email to notify people of a need to provide information. I'm not sure they legally can. I think for most issues, they have to contact people via a trackable, hard copy document (i.e. certified mailed letter).
350
« on: January 27, 2009, 02:53:01 PM »
No my dear Suzy, I don't work in any nuclear related industry. I work in the other evil moster industry - pharmaceuticals (manufacturing, not sales).
351
« on: January 27, 2009, 02:51:37 PM »
I thought I asked in my previous post about accidents in the past 30 years. From what I read of the stories posted (typical worst case horror stories used to scare the un-educated) were from the 1950's and 60's. It sounds like they were "experimental" reactors with few safety precautions in place.
I don't believe nuclear generated electricity in it's current form is the the best method of electrical generation. We would have very little radioactive waste if our new president would lift Mr. Carter's '77 ban on breeder reactors which are far more efficient than current reactor designs. I envy the windmill farms in Ellenburg, NY every time I drive through there. I wish they were far more prevalent. But the reality is, Nuclear generated energy is the most efficient, most reliable, lowest emmission (lowest global impact) form of energy production we have available today - especially when it is produced with the level of scrutiny and control that the US government is known for piling on. I think the only other industry that is regulated as closely as Nuclear plants is pharmaceuticals.
Until there is a more reliable, cleaner method of energy production, shutting down Yankee is not a viable option for VT.
352
« on: January 27, 2009, 08:09:39 AM »
I think if half of the efforts spent AGAINST nuclear energy and other types of energy were spent SUPPORTING windmills, and shutting up all of the "Save the view" hypocrits, we might actually have clean wind or hydro electricity. Or maybe we can just all go off grid and live like a 1/3 of the world without electricity at all.
Suzy, from your wealth of knowledge, please provide some examples of nuclear accidents/incidents in the US in the last 30 years. I've found references to 2, including 3 Mile island in '79, which while stories and images conjured up by the incident scare the hell out of ppl, from my understanding, the highest radiation exposures incurred as a result of that incident were no higher than the annual radiation each of us receives from natural sources. The reality is, there are more people injured and killed every year supply us with petroleum products. IF you believe that our use of carbon fuels is the cause of global warming, than use of such products can in theory impact our planet for as long or longer than nuclear waste.
353
« on: January 26, 2009, 03:06:06 PM »
"opponents become solidified even deeper into their points of view when they aren't addressed or considered by others."
Like opponents of clean, nuclear energy ever consider the benefits of nuclear energy. NO, they argue primarily on emotion. Unfortunately, all of the facts and the reality of how the energy system and "grid" work have no impact on them. They are extremist who are committed to one thing and one thing only, no matter what the cost. To me, that sounds a lot like what we would label a terrorist organization. They want to see one specific, short sighted goal achieved, no matter what the impact is to everyone else.
As for nuclear "waste" being dangerous for thousands of years, that wouldn't be such a problem IF the government would allow (and invest in) development of breeder reactors to utilized the left over "waste" from our traditional nuclear power plants. There is a wealth of information available online about breeder reactors and the advances France, Japan and other technologically advanced countries are making on these technologies.
Our problem here isn't a lack of technology, it is that we have allowed ECO-TERRORIST to start running this country and preventing any real progress. We might not have energy crisis, and dependence on foreign fuel sources IF eco-terrorist enablers like Jimmy Carter hadn't taken steps to prevent development of neclear energy in the late 70's. NOW, we are faced with a crisis because no new power plants have been built in the last 25 years thanks to our home grown terrorist who hold us hostage through use the environment as a symbol of our future and our kids future.
I guess, IF they didn't have a cause to "fight" for, then they might have to actually get PRODUCTIVE jobs.
354
« on: January 26, 2009, 02:43:03 PM »
Fortunately, American raised food is still something that is easy to find here - especially in VT were buying local is more strongly supported than in other areas (even if those buy local stickers are on the back of a Volkswagon, Subaru, or Honda). ]
I do agree that our society has been built on a free-market concept (that has never been completely free market), and I don't think we should be "Bailing out" businesses. I agree with letting them fall, no matter how big they are, because there will be another company who is better managed that will consume the pieces and grow (eventually). ALL of that said, I think government money spent on food production should be in the form of low cost loans for farmers/food growers to expand.
NO FREE MONEY. PERIOD. STOP the gov't payments to farmers to keep land idle. Fertile land should be utilized IF there is a farmer who decides to take advantage of it, NOBODY should be paid to NOT produce anything. That is absolutely rediculous. Let everyone produce as much as he or she can or wants to produce and let the market adjust accordingly based on the fabled supply and demand theory. I'm sure it will lead to more diversity and more creative solutions to farmers marketing their products to get better prices. IT WILL ultimately benefit us all.
355
« on: January 26, 2009, 02:30:33 PM »
Until I see more towns and more Vermonters support and embrace new "clean" technologies that everyone talks about, I will NOT be amung the doomers and gloomers who advocate for shutting down VT Yankee. Nuclear power is still one of the cleanest, most reliable power sources we have available to us. Personally, I perfer windmills, but until all of the "green" hypocrits in vermont STOP STANDING IN THE WAY OF TRUELY GREEN ENERGY, nuclear power is still our best (cleanest, cost effective and most reliable) form of energy.
Any plug into the grid to recharge electric cars are not really benefiting the global environment that much when the CO emmissions from coal plants is calculated into their total carbon footbring (Man, I hate that buzz word).
ANYWAY, VT Yankee and nuclear generated electricity are not the evil monsters that many antagonist try to convince the uneducated they are.
356
« on: January 26, 2009, 02:20:41 PM »
The Wyeth run facility in Rouses Point still employs several people in the area (myself included). We are transitioning to a small, start-up company - Akrimax (founded in part by a former Mylan employee), and will not be part of the "potential" Pfizer deal. Keep in mind, that deal is not final - it is just at a stage where the boards for each company have reached a deal which will make them all very wealthy. It will still need government approval, and stock holder approval (which usually happens because those who will benefit most, hold the most in the companies).
As for me, I'm happy with the potential for new opportunities that come with this new company. A chance to grow and build something new.
357
« on: January 23, 2009, 08:07:58 AM »
School spending is always a difficult issue. I do not envy those administrators who have to handle the job. We all hate spending anything more than we have to, and I can appreciate people who do not have kids in school wanting to cut everything possible to reduce cost.
I don't have kids in school, but I DO understand that sometimes, cuts now DO cost far more in the future than is saved now. I believe when it comes to spending, the overall value of the purchased item must be taken into consideration. I don't always buy the highest quality (or most expensive tools or other items), but when it comes to something I'm going to use frequently, I have learned that spending a little more now DOES save more down the road. It is not always the $$ value that is saved either. Sometimes, it's things you can't place a dollar value on (like ripping your knuckles open on a project because a low cost tool breaks).
The education our (in the society sense) kids receive now WILL impact the quality of our lives later. When ALL of the information about decisions being made is presented, it is far easier to be supportive of the decisions being made, even if it means an extra $100 a year in taxes.
I would really like to see us getting more educational value from the time kids are in school. Several studies have shown that students learn more over the course of several years in school if they do NOT have long summer breaks. Teachers spend months reviewing material that was taught the year before. That is time that is lost and could be spent teaching MORE, or freeing up more time to teach the same amount of material better.
I would like to see schools in session year round. It could still be the same number of days per year, just more week long breaks spread throughout the year. Less time off to forget stuff. How many penny pinchers out there are against their students giving up the traditional 2 1/2 month summer vacation???
358
« on: January 12, 2009, 07:53:16 AM »
I agree with a neighborhood watch program. It would be a great idea. A constable on occassional patrol would be a great idea too, as long as his/her job doesn't take on the role of revenue generater for the town (i.e. ticket writing for the sake of justifying ones job like the town cops in some areas).
I would be interested in seeing how much "damage" is caused by the snowmobiles. If they were riding with little to no snow on the ground, they could certainly cause a little bit of surface grass damage, but if there is plenty of snow (as there is now), a snowmobile's path doesn't cause any more damage than people walking on the snow and packing it down.
(FYI, I'm not a snowmobiler, but I just know there are some people who hate all ATV's and associate any tracks with "damage"). I hope that is not the case with the previous post, and they are talking about some legitimate damage, not just calling something they don't like (packed snow from a snowmobile) damage.
359
« on: December 11, 2008, 08:23:30 AM »
I grew up working hard on farms for $5/hr. While I think MOST American's don't want to do hard physical work that involves getting dirty, those who don't mind working hard and getting dirty feel they can't earn a decent living for their families. I'm not talking about a big fancy house and lots of toys, but just paying the basic cost of living in a small house 1200 sq ft or less of space, maintaining transportation to work, elec., medical expenses, etc, etc
While my knee jerk reaction to immigrants is to deport them all if they didn't get here through the right legal channels. The problem is, SOME immigrants who did get here legally had more intentions of cause US harm than the ones who just want to make an honest dollar.
As far as other issues continually raised in the media about a drain on medical and social resources, personally, I don't believe anyone (American or not) should receive benefits (social security, medicaid, etc) if they (or an immediate family member) have not paid into the kitty.
I appreicate the efforts of those trying to protect us from threats internal and external. I have no problem with the Immigration department overlooking immigrant farm help for the most part. Chances are, the guys working on a farm for low wages are most likely NOT planning a terrorist attack - they don't have time. They are working too hard to earn an honest dollar.
360
« on: December 11, 2008, 08:06:40 AM »
Amen 3plusk
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25
|
Show Posts
