June 15, 2013

Letters to the editor: Anti-care expansion speech 'offensive'

(Continued from page 1)

click image to enlarge

A reader deplores claims by Rep. Ken Fredette, above, that men’s greater capacity for rational thought allowed him to recognize the drawbacks to a proposal to expand MaineCare eligibility.

2013 File Photo/Tim Greenway

James H. Maier, M.D.

Scarborough

Reader gets less from paper, but he's about to pay more

So here I sit Wednesday afternoon, digging into the Bill Nemitz column in the Portland Press Herald ("Panhandling solutions imperfect," June 12).

The words "Please see NEMITZ, Page B6" lead only to a huge ad -- "YOU WANT TO EAT WHERE?" -- from your own MaineToday.com, and a few obit service notices. But wait -- "When words fail, let us help." looks hopeful.

Beside my PPH, in disarray on my desk, lies a recently received letter of notice informing me of an impending price increase for my daily and Sunday papers. Of course, it doesn't say how much or when.

OK, back to the paper. All five articles continued from Section B, Page 1, have got to be in here somewhere ... darn it, I can't seem to find them. I wish I had some of whatever the editors of this once not-too-shabby newspaper are putting in their midnight coffee.

But seriously, folks, how can you abandon production values for your soon-to-be-defunct print editions and expect your readership to follow you into the ether? Maybe you could hire one of those ubiquitous homeless persons to read the papers and correspondence before you mindlessly blast 'em out here, uncaring as you seem to be.

No, of course, I don't expect you to print this little diatribe. You might not, at this point, even be able to. But shame on you for this nonsense! And yes, I'll keep reading until you finish completely destroying a once-worthy newspaper.

William Hobbs

Portland

Reduce effects of warming -- limit meat consumption

A review of 12,000 papers on climate change, in the May 15 edition of Environmental Research Letters, found that 97 percent of scientists attribute climate change to human activities. Although we're unlikely to reverse climate change, we can mitigate its effects by reducing our driving, energy use and meat consumption.

Yes, meat consumption. A 2006 U.N. report estimated that meat consumption accounts for 18 percent of man-made greenhouse gases. A 2009 article in World Watch magazine suggested it may be closer to 50 percent.

Carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, is generated by burning forests to create animal pastures and by combustion of fossil fuels to confine, feed, transport and slaughter animals. The much more damaging methane and nitrous oxide are discharged from digestive tracts of cattle and from animal waste cesspools, respectively.

Each of us has the power to reduce the devastating effects of climate change every time we eat. Our local supermarket offers a rich variety of soy-based lunch meats, hot dogs, veggie burgers and soy and nut-based dairy products, as well as an ample selection of vegetables, fruits, grains and nuts.

Product lists, easy recipes and transition tips are at www.livevegan.org.

Paul Mahn

Portland

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors




Further Discussion

Here at PressHerald.com we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)