Comments by MatthewErickson
Page 1 of 13 | Next
Posted on November 30 at 10:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I too am at odds with the title.
How about, Did Stevens screw up Alaska as well as his legacy in office? Alaska didn't "oust" him for the great job he was doing.
Is the newsminer implying that Alaska can only function with corrupt political figures in office?
Great Job daily news minus.
Posted on November 25 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I remember another instance not too long ago, where a young driver killed someone due to the sun blinding them. Since alcohol wasn't a factor, they got off free and clear as I recall.
Repeat alcohol offender? Another clear sign our laws need fixed. Who ever supplied her with the alcohol, should share her sentence! I REALLY hope the law is tracking them down as well.
It's pretty sad all the way around. I'm too much a worry wart I suppose, but I never let my kids play even near the street. I've seen how many nuts there are racing around the neighborhoods. I've also seen how care free children are, and how they can venture out into traffic all too easily. My youngest is 7 and I still tend to hold his hand when we cross streets.
So many bad factors here: sun blinding, alcohol, child on the street. Take any one of those factors out, and the outcome would have been different.
People shouldn't drink and drive.
People shouldn't drive while blinded. Slow down, stick your head out the window, anything, but don't just drive through blindly.
And please, never, never. ever, let young children even be near the road, unless you're right there next to them, giving them 100% of your attention.
My heart hurts for the loss of life. That being said, there's many lessons to learn here. We shouldn't let our anger for 1 subject, keep us from seeing all the factors in this tragedy.
Posted on November 25 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Everyone's corrupt and wrong according to Andrée McLeod. That's just too funny.
What a waste of our time.
Posted on November 23 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
See? this is the problem with the current system.
I don't like thinking that our state is hoping the price of oil stays high and we are getting raped at the pumps.
It's like a taxation without really calling it a tax.
Posted on November 23 at 3:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
FreeDarfur wrote "Mr. Erickson you need to let the public know how much you are being paid to lobby for this change and who you are working for. "
I'm paid nothing for this. I do it because I have no health insurance because the company I work for cant afford it. The only grace that saves me, is that the army trained me as a medic and a nurse.
I do this so me and my family just might be able to get reasonable health care and health care insurance. Not to mention many of my neighbors, coworkers, and friends.
Who are YOU serving?
On End CON job
Posted on November 21 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Police Chief:
There's one other little bug that wasn't mentioned. There were LOTS of calls to businesses after they had closed. All those automated calls had to be answered by after hours dispatchers and operators, effectively bogging down phone lines for people who had their own emergencies and problems.
You need to brief your announcement down as such:
This a Fairbanks Amber alert. Please press 1 to hear the information or press 3 to edit your call preferences. Thank you. (call hangs up in 5 seconds)
The information could contain a number to call in for updates and info. This would give your system the added ability to track it's effectiveness.
The opt 3, would allow people to edit a schedule of when the system can or can't call this number. For instance it will set up days of the week and times during those days, the system can broadcast an amber alert to that number. It would also let them opt out of being called at all.
This would make the system more effective and cause less disruption to other calling systems.
On Fairbanks police yet to work out kinks in automated calling system
Posted on November 18 at 2:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I still say the whole business of government handing out special benefits to people for being married, is the real problem here.
I've been with the same woman for 16 years. We have 3 children together, but since we're not married, she can't share her health insurance, or any other such benefits granted to "married" couples.
We shouldn't be "coerced" into being married by the government, to get those benefits. We shouldn't be punished for not being married. We shouldn't have to pay higher taxes, because we didn't give some "holy vows".
I was married twice before, and they weren't worth the paper they were written on. The only winners, were the divorce attorneys. I believe our relationship is stronger now, because we get up each day and choose to remain together, not because of some hollow vows and promises.
There'd be fewer divorces, if less people felt forced or enticed into them, with financial incentives.
Fix the benefits system. Let God and the churches worry about marriages.
Posted on November 17 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ya'd think it'd be cheaper to toss the grain in the back of a truck to lead the ducks in, then close it up and drive them to Washington.
On Man organizes nonprofit to benefit Fairbanks' winter ducks
Posted on November 16 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It would seem to me, that the heart of the matter isn't about marriage, but rather the extensions of benefits.
Insurance companies simply will not let you add someone to your health care policy, if you aren't married to them. It's not profitable, and because there is no law saying they have to.
I feel that the true solution is states rewriting health care and other benefit coverage laws, to be redefined in such a way that a person with health care insurance, be able to extend that coverage to others in their household.
It should be possible for instance, that a young, working man with health insurance, may be living with an ailing mother, or aunt, and be able to have them covered under his policy. Perhaps even a sister, who has a brother living under her roof.
There are many instances where men and woman live together as man and wife for decades, yet under current law, cannot share in each others health care insurance because they aren't officially "married".
I believe this should be the focus of creating an equal system. Marriage is a religious issue and should remain so.
People living under the same roof, who depend on each other, should be considered a household, and they're all entitled to fair and equal access to benefits.
I feel that reduced to it's core, the issues is quite simple and less argumentative.. less controversial.
The real question is, "Why are the laws written that people MUST BE MARRIED to the people they love and care for, to share with them the benefits they work and pay for?"
That's the real heart of the issue. I'd bet that if that was fixed, there's be a lot less issues about same sex marriages.
I don't support same sex marriages, but I also don't support the government mandating we have to be MARRIED, to have our benefits available to the people in our households that we care for.
Page 1 of 13 | Next
Posted on December 1 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting to note how people tend to stop reading from sources that project an aura of bias, isn't it.
On Goodbye to the Times