Author: admin

This is the first of the Firestarter Series that examine flashpoint issues dispassionately. I will not be giving my opinion on these matters lightly but rather I am looking for irrational but widely held opinions. For the curious, I am quite libertarian.

Right wingers will say increased taxes should go to the military and national security and left wingers will say the money should go to those in need to protect us all from economic and personal disaster. These are philosophical differences and no one can say who is right.

Each of those large groups have lots of reasons why each of them believe national security or personal security is more important though neither will deny that both types of security are important government responsibilities. The government should do both things if we are to have a government at all.

We need to take care of security and we need a fair economic system that does not relegate the poor to get poorer while the rich get richer and gives everyone a safety net. The differences between the Left and the Right are a matter of degree. How much of our resources should be given to national security and how much to personal security?

These differing philosophies are not at odds, therefore. But rather one group wants the government to put fewer resources toward national security, the other wants fewer resources toward just and charitable systems to make everyone more secure.

This discussion is quite rational, but here comes a flash-point, here is the firestarter. Remember, the point here is to get you to re-examine your own views.

Drugs. Just saying the word evokes negative images and we all know how bad drugs are and what havoc they can cause society. But why are drugs illegal philosophically speaking? Are drugs a matter of national security as the War on Drugs evokes?  Or is it a matter of protecting the citizenry from personal disaster?

I submit this discussion is much too similar to the one months ago about marijuana, and years ago discussions of homosexuality and gambling, the decades ago about race and prejudice, and a century ago about alcohol and dancing and music and dress codes. Your arguments are similar to those about the immorality and personal disaster that will come to people who dance.

Society has become more libertarian. We can kiss in public, we cannot discriminate based on race. 50 or 100 years ago these things were debated, but they are not debated anymore. We accept the change.

Historically drugs were made illegal along with other Puritan concerns of immorality. Sex on Sunday, homosexual sex and promiscuous sex such as public kissing were illegal and punishable in horrific manners. And of course alcohol was illegal which is still seen in our Blue Laws. Dancing and certain forms of dress were illegal, heck beachcombing and most reading was illegal. Black people were not allowed, and certainly not Indians.

In such an environment it was a matter of course that recreational drugs would be illegal. But today the rationale for prohibiting any and all drugs that someone might enjoy, except alcohol and very recently marijuana, is for security.

We believe as a culture that people should not use any recreational drugs because doing so would be dangerous in one or more ways. I want you to say it. If you believe drugs are dangerous and should not be permitted as something people enjoy doing say so to yourself and other. Say: “I think all recreational drugs should be illegal because making them legal will hurt society.”

The reasons for not legalizing such drugs, as we legalized dancing and liberal dress codes, and sex and homosexuality and alcohol, are that drugs are worse than those other things. It is not likely to make me immoral and hurt society if I dance or dress as I want or have sex, even homosexual sex, or drink, but if I do other drugs that crosses a line and I become dangerous.

I believe it will not be long until those who say “I think drugs should be illegal…” will be those looked as as prejudice is seen today.  If you don’t want to hang out with black or asian or hispanic people don’t, but don’t prohibit them.  If you don’t want extramarital or homosexual sex, don’t.  If you don’t want drugs,. don’t.  But don’t prohibit them and punish those who do.

.

Accept the proposition that we have too many laws and Americans should be free and we won’t need this discussion. Immigration, GMOs, The Patriot Act, Pipelines, Environmentalism, illegal drugs, traffic laws, compulsory insurances, sex, and gambling…. These things should be so simple to decide based on freedom, reason, simplicity, education, economy, and a dismantling of the Kafkaesque legal system and expensive justice industry. Instead we decide based on an illogical combination of pop philosophy and tradition, and fiercely defend our opinions with partisanship.

By international reckoning we are not as free a country as we think. The Wiki lists the USA as 17 to 10 in the most recent economic freedom lists by libertarian organizations like the Fraser Institute of Canada and the Cato Institute of Washington DC. People in Hong Kong and New Zealand are much freer economically than those of us in the USA these days. Even on lists of freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution, like religion or speech, we are down to about fifth on most indices.

I could jump around here with how illogical so many well accepted arguments, but you don’t believe me.  I need a reputation and a voice in order for anyone to even hear what I say. As it is whatever I say will be heard as an insult to your personal, partisan views. You accept the premise but you only listen to your own partisans.

Too Many Laws. The Environmental Protection Agency is out of control.  If I give you examples and you are Republican you will say Damn Straight.  But if you are Democrat you will be insulted. Both sides are equally wrong, and equally deaf to reason. Examples are not difficult to find but each side insults the other with straw arguments and mischaracterizations. Start the discussion with an acceptance of the fact that Americans are free and our laws are often ridiculous and we can make some headway.

Our immigration system is broken in so many ways.  If you are Democrat you will jump on my bandwagon, but if you are Republican you will say “illegal means illegal” when just a cursory view of the problems involved make it abundantly clear our immigration system is hopeless broken and ridiculously expensive.

It is a good idea to label products, but if you don’t like how the product is labeled don’t buy it. Don’t force me to pay for new laws that will give totalitarian power to a government agency to put people in prison if they call food by the wrong name, and make my food more expensive because you want me to read a label I don’t care about.

Pipelines, Gun Control, Prisons, Drugs, Sex, Rock and Roll….  I mean, where is the basis for our laws?  Evidently our laws are inspired by pop philosophy.  The Puritans had an idea of how life should be and we are still following many of their ideals without re-examining them.

No recreational drugs, well, except alcohol. Why? Explain your view in one paragraph. Did your paragraph mention the fact that some people can use drugs unsupervised without causing irreparable harm to society? So we are left with removing the freedom for all because some need supervision. Like the Patriot Act. Like speeding on the highway. Like laws against certain kinds of consensual sex, gambling, bad language, dancing… These things can be safe but we have outlawed them to some extent and empowered government agencies to imprison, fine, restrict and otherwise punish people who have not harmed anyone at all. We have built a huge industry based on protecting us from things that may harm some of us sometime, but may not.

And when we start talking about the specifics then you will sign off and be angry. Your side says something different from what I say.  Unless and until I get a reputation you will not listen. Then you will just side with me not matter what I say, and that too is wrong.

 

Justin Derrickson is a troll. This does not mean he is a bad person or I don’t like him. I do not know him. I suspect he is a nice person that I will one day meet. He lives in my town and we have written long discussions for hours.
The reason I use his real name and my real name in this real blog is because this is the real world. I will print his insults of me and my replies. I told Justin he was a troll and that I would be quoting him and that he had time to delete whatever he wanted to and choose the time I would ban him and begin the blog about him. He threatened to post more pictures if I didn’t do it before 5pm when he got home, and wrote: “I’ll leave the decision up to you Kent. After all, you are the boss.”

The Urban Dictionary on line has a very good definition of a troll:  One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. ‘you’re nothing but a fanboy’ is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevance to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.”  The Wikipedia as on on-line presence is especially sensitive to the issue of trolling and has devoted several pages to what it is and how the Wiki itself handles the problem.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/What_is_a_troll%3F#Definition_of_trolling

It is quite possible that Justin himself does not know what a troll is and how such behavior is destructive, but rather thinks it is funny to disrupt like a child in school will disrupt a class. In fact the way Justin trolls is less destructive and less bothersome than some other Torrington trolls like Keith Mutch and Melissa Roy.

Devoting my time and effort to the problem of trolling is only necessary to be sure we all understand what trolling is and how to avoid it.  In Justin’s case the issue can be as simple as this: A news story or web page is presented and read.  I have questions and ask about the sources that are or are not presented in that web page.  Justin then asks “Where are YOUR sources”?

Obviously I don’t have any sources since I did not present anything.  But Justin continues commenting on how I never provide any sources but Justin never mentions which comments of mine specifically need to be supported by sources. It is especially helpful for the reader to become familiar with ad hominem and straw man arguments and how to identify such tactics.  A personal attack has nothing to do with a discussion.  At one point I believed that Justin and his friend Jordan perhaps did not understand the point.  If Hitler says the sky is blue, does that make the sky green?  Any person, no matter how despicable and stupid, can say something true.  Address the idea and not the person.

Straw man arguments are perhaps slightly more difficult to identify especially since lots of people misunderstand and misrepresent what a straw argument is.  When an idea is presented, especially a controversial or emotional idea as internet discussions usually are, a straw argument is to change the discussion and present that idea instead.  For example if I were to say, as I did, the bisexuals have sex with people of both sexes.  A straw argument then would be that I am homophobic, that is to say, the straw man is homophobic and that is very, very wrong.  Too bad I didn’t say anything homophobic, then.

Insults ensue, I am hypocritical or stupid or old or dirty or “a fucking cunt” because I don’t provide sources to support my opinions.  Such is trolling at its simplest.  I would then answer with a dictionary definition of bisexual as if that will help the situation.  Imagine my surprise when the answer to the definition is that bisexuals don’t necessarily have sex, but rather are attracted to both sexes.  So I begin to think I am dealing with a troll and not a person who is interested in ideas.

There are other issues of course, especially when I answer the inane accusations.  If I ask what sources I need to support that is when the insults begin to fly.  But sticking to the point, there are other aspects of trolling that need to be addressed.  They are always of a personal nature, so I will be revealing things of a personal nature about myself.  Obviously these things can be found on the internet and therefore they can be used as ammunition for trolling.

But then any personal information can be used as ammunition for trolling.  Experienced trolls like Justin Derrickson don’t give out any personal information in their internet profiles like pictures or work history, or if they do so the information is false.  In that way they can get an emotional reaction from others without reacting emotionally themselves.  Justin expresses surprise and asserts that he believes what he says is funny and/or clever.

Justin often calls me an old man and insults my business, leaves bad reviews where he can, personal attacks whenever he can elicit a response.  As I said I can think of no other reason for the attacks except that Justin believes these attacks are funny or clever.  If this is true then Justin is a troll by definition.

In 2012 a long time customer became irate with me.  Fine, I have been in business 20 years, some customers I just don’t want.  But trying to not work for her became an ordeal and in the end I called the police but their tactics are such that I asked them to arrest me so that we could sort it out in court.  Of course I was exonerated and of course Lisa Meneguzzo stood up in court and said that I had traumatized her and traumatized her mother who was listening on the phone, and the court did not see the security video and yes, it was a mess.  It is always emotional when you are accused of wrong doing.

In the course of plotting my defense I happened to google Lisa Meneguzzo and the results so surprised me that I wrote several articles about her.  Her accusations mean nothing when we look at her history, but I digress.  I am writing this about how trolls like Justin Derrickson drive emotion without regard to reason.

There is a single news story about my arrest available on the internet and Justin Derrickson uses it frequently to elicit a response from me.  Obviously it doesn’t make me feel good when he calls me Old Man or insults my store either, but we are talking about a Troll here.

I find it hard to care how strongly the Republicans hate Obama.

The recent Netanyahu fiasco and the letter to undermine the treaty negotiations with Iran mainly show why Congress can never rule without a President.  Nothing at all would get done if we had to wait on Congress.

The pattern then is this: Congress refuses to act, President acts.   Congress gets mad.  Congress refuses to act.  Repeat.

The history of how a Republican Congress has dealt with our immigrant population, or refused to do so, is disgraceful.  So the president needs to act and the Executive Order is how he acts.

Just as the President needs to negotiate treaties.  It seems ridiculous to me that Republicans believe they need to explain our Constitution to Iran in a letter.  Ever heard of the Wiki?  They know our constitution as well as we know theirs.  Do we need a letter from their Majlis to explain their system?

So the point of the letter is purely and absolutely political.  These Republicans are counting on hatred of Obama for their votes next election.  This is their strategy:  Obstruct any progress and blame Obama for anything that happens. Loudly.  It may very well work for them, but I find it hard to care.

On the off chance that someone thinks that the President should be able to negotiate treaties, as it clearly says in the Constitution, but maybe Obama has too much power when it comes to Executive Orders, just listing the most recent orders show how necessary this sort of political action is to govern our nation.

Imagine if we had to wait for Congress to do any of this:

13674 Revised List of Quarantinable Communicable Diseases 2014-07-31
13675 Establishing the President’s Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa 2014-08-05
13676 Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria 2014-09-18
13677 Climate-Resilient International Development 2014-09-23
13678 Conversion Authority for Criminal Investigators (Special Agents) of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 2014-10-03
13679 Establishing an Emergency Board to Investigate a Dispute Between the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority and Its Locomotive Engineers Represented by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen 2014-10-10
13680 Ordering the Selected Reserve and Certain Individual Ready Reserve Members of the Armed Forces to Active Duty 2014-10-16
13681 Improving the Security of Consumer Financial Transactions 2014-10-17
13682 Closing of Executive Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government on Friday, December 26, 2014 2014-12-05
13683 Further Amendments to Executive Order 11030, Executive Order 13653, and Executive Order 13673 2014-12-11
13684 Establishment of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing 2014-12-18
13685 Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to the Crimea Region of Ukraine 2014-12-19
13686 Adjustments of Certain Rates of Pay 2014-12-19
13687 Imposing Additional Sanctions with Respect to North Korea 2015-01-02
13688 Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition 2015-01-16
13689 Enhancing Coordination of National Efforts in the Arctic 2015-01-21
13690 Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input

Any law that has not been invoked in over five years should be automatically repealed.  Sunset all new laws. If no one breaks the law we don’t need the law. If it is not enforced it does not need to be a law.
Redundant laws.  I hear it is illegal in Connecticut to rob a liquor store with a handgun.  Robbing isn’t enough.  Robbing with a handgun isn’t enough.  I don’t think we need a special law against robbing just liquor stores.

Unenforceable laws.  Police and prosecutors like the idea that we can charge people with 17 offenses when one will do. The list or unenforceable laws is endless but usually they are laws designed to regulate an activity that cannot be regulated (notably sex) or are unconstitutional (but never challenged), obscure or silly.

A personal issue with me is that many laws are require huge amounts of money to enforce.  Drugs, prostitution, gambling, traffic, immigration, drunk driving and the list goes on.  It is enough to have laws against racketeering and tax evasion, and doing harm to your fellow human beings.  Do we really need to hire police on overtime to go out and find people who violate these laws?

Prohibit tax money to advertise the silly laws we have.  If the law is so unreasonable we don’t know it is illegal then repeal the law.  I hope taxpayer dollars don’t go to educate and advertise that if I drink and break no laws before I kill someone that person is still dead. Or that I can go to jail for letting my children drink alcohol in my own home.

Repeal of laws involving victimless crimes. If we cause damage to others that should be addressed, but if there is no harm there is no crime.
Empty our prisons of all but violent offenders. Allow non-violent offenders other cheaper options to pay their “debt to society”.

Encourage competent people to defend themselves. Supply a government service where people can pay for legal advice from a non-lawyer government employee.  Allow educated non-lawyers to help with cases.  Let justice and reason into the court room in addition to the law. 

I am a fan of Michelle Cook http://www.housedems.ct.gov/cook/  and recently read about http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/homegarden/290686461.html and this has made me optimistic.

There are no compelling reasons that Torrington needs an expensive SEWER PROJECT passed by referendum recently.

Replacing pipes, adding a tank, and upgrading the electrical from the last project 30 years ago would not cost over $51 million.  If, perhaps, you believe this project will help the environment, please investigate further.  This project seems designed to enrich consultants and Licensed Environmental Professionals and this project will not help the environment.

We all have stories of our systems gone amuck.  We love America and notice so many things about our society that just don’t work, too many laws, and laws that don’t do what they are intended to do.  The environmental laws Torrington cites as one of the reasons for the sewer upgrade are a good example..  Very rarely can we do anything about our broken systems, but in this case we can send a clear message everywhere: Too much money and no environmental benefit.

Simply put, reducing nitrogen and phosphorus levels (ammonia) from the Torrington area watershed into the Naugatuck River according to the goals expressed by the Federal EPA have no environmental benefit.

The point of reducing ammonia from already low levels in our sewage is that it may help fish populations in Long Island Sound eventually, but there is no data to support such an assertion.  There has been no detectable change due to waste water since the government started collecting more than 60 years ago.

Nitrogen and phosphorus are organic nutrients, fertilizer, and the reduced levels we release into the river after paying so much money are equivalent to what might come from a dead tree.

We all know Torrington spends $1,670,000 to clean up a 42 space parking lot but that is only half the story.  We need to know who gets that money. I bet a large portion of our money goes to testing and consultation and a smaller portion goes to labor and materials.  It seems to me the more we pay for administration the harder it is to find out where the money goes. We know that the sewer project earmarks $17 million or more for administration.

Property in Torrington designated by DEEP, as an “establishment”  will cost about $100,000 to prove that it DOES NOT need to be cleaned, and much more if it does need cleanup.  The money goes to testing, consultation, administration and forms preparation to Licensed Environmental Professional firms called LEPs, not the government.  In many cases there is no appeals process and very little government oversight.  If cleanup is necessary then all those who deal with the ”hazardous waste” must be specially trained even though no one touches anything with their hands, and the levels of contaminant are extremely low.  Disposing of “hazardous waste” can be nearly impossible.

Again, we all know the system is broken but this time we can do something.  Vote against an expensive, superfluous and silly sewer project.  Maybe we need a new tank and to update the electrical but our population has hardly grown since the last sewer project in 1968.  I have talked to all of the elected officials in Torrington and no one has offered any substantive response. Please tell me where I am wrong, investigate for your self, or just vote against this expensive and unnecessary sewer project.

02-2012 Form III & E..>
2013 SEH Notificatio..>
2014 Final RAP.pdf
233 East Main Phase ..>
233 East Main Phase ..>
233 East Main Phase ..>
ACCEPT D FOR.tif
COMPX2_4 15 14.doc
COMPX2_4 15 14.pdf
CONCLUSIONS AND RECO..>
Commissioner.doc
Commissioner.pdf
Commissioner2.doc
Commissioner2.pdf
Compatible Computers..>
Compatible Computers..>
Compatible Computers..>
Compatible Computers..>
Compatible Computers..>
Copies HRP/
DEEP Time line.doc
DSC01964.JPG
DSC01965.JPG
DSC01966.JPG
ECAF.pdf
Form III.pdf
HRPappeal.pdf
Lacas.doc
Lacas1.doc
Lacas1.pdf
Lucianowall.doc
SEH.doc
Scope of Work – 233 ..>
TERMS AND CONDITIONS..>
Torrington Phase III..>
Transfer Act Flow Ch..>
Zuvic Torrington Pha..>
_0609112945_001.pdf
bondfordeed1.tif
bondfordeed2.tif
bondfordeedA.tif
bplan.doc
businessplan.doc

This is a gag billboard, done for an advertising class, but the point is we really need to look at our sensibilities and morals.. We can have sex with anyone we want so long as both of us are over 18 and no money changes hands. 

Torrington Representative Michelle Cook is active repealing redundant and stupid laws to simplify law enforcement and give us all faith in our legal system. Drugs are illegal, but if you have drugs near a school that is MORE illegal.  As though a law to make people obey other laws is useful.  Let’s all check over the nearest hill to see if there is a school there before using any drugs.

In effect 1500 feet from every school is most of Torrington. As though a drug user will check to see if there is a school over the hill before lighting up.  If you want an enforceable law make it 200 feet from a school, that is something the police can enforce.  It also means the offender know the school is near.  It is much more reasonable than charging someone in their own home for marijuana possession just because that home is near a school.

So the Republican say, nooooo, Michelle Cook must like criminals.  She doesn’t want to cut off the heads of child molesters and waterboard murderers, she must be soft on crime.  But any thinking person, I mean this, anyone who thinks beyond “bad people near school” knows better.

People are criminals.  Real people.  I met a pilot at a party and I don’t want to tell any of you this.  He is a felon.  And he works for a major airline. If I told Republicans the name of the airline that could be a problem.  So and So Hires Felons! They gave him a chance and he is grateful.  Republicans would cut off his hands, but he lived past prison to make a life and family and I respect that.

It seems to Republicans that if anyone ever breaks a law, no matter how stupid the law, they should spend the rest of their lives in prison.  Okay, I am exaggerating.  Some Democrats think so too.

Any law that has not been invoked should sunset.  I just got back from a third world country where babes in arms were held on the back of motorcycles with bicycles in tow, on the same motorcycle, like a tow truck.  No one wears helmets. The sewers were open, no railings or fences, and anyone who wasn’t careful could put a wheel in those sewers.  They were dry, but when it rained they filled up fast.  I saw the evidence of two accidents in my ten days of driving all over the country.  One was a large truck in the median on its side and the other was a pickup truck who had spun out in the rain.  On the way from the NY airport to home I saw four accidents.

Laws construct our legal system, but laws do not make people honest.  It should not be illegal to leave your children in a hot car until they die.  If someone does that to their children it was an accident and no amount of prison time will prevent such an accident.  It should be illegal to risk injury, to neglect or mistreat children.  But no one accidentally kills their children and then deserves prison on top of that, unless they deliberately risked injury, neglected or mistreated the children as well.

Many of our laws make our lawmakers feel good, sound good, but don’t do anything.  Like whether it is 1500 feet or 200 feet from a school.  Pretty near all of Torrington is withing 1500 feet of a school.  Like maybe I would buy drugs from you but isn’t there a school over that hill?  Let’s go out of town to do the deal. Do you have a car?  Oh let’s just forget it, I don’t really want your drugs anyway.

 

 

There are very good reasons to VOTE AGAINST THE SEWER PROJECT coming up in Torrington. First and foremost this project will not help the environment although it will make Licensed Environmental Professionals (LEPs) richer. The benefits of this project go to LEP firms, government employees and consultants. I am willing to bet very little proportionally will go to contractors and laborers.

We all have stories of our government systems gone amuck. We love America on the one hand but notice so many things about our society that just don’t work anymore. There are too many laws, and laws that don’t do what they are intended to do. The environmental laws Torrington is attempting to follow are a good example. Torrington is proposing spending more than $1300 for every child and adult who resides here claiming it will help the environment. It will not. We should be asking who gets that money.

Simply put, reducing nitrogen levels from the Torrington area watershed into the Naugatuck River according to the goals expressed by the Federal EPA have no environmental benefit. The point of reducing ammonia (nitrogen and phosphorus) levels in our sewage is that it may help fish populations in Long Island Sound but there is no data to support such an assertion. Ammonia and phosphorus are organic nutrients, fertilizer, and the reduced levels we release into the river after paying so much money are equivalent to what might come from a dead tree.

We all know that Torrington spent $1,670,000 to clean up a 42 space parking lot. But the only way to get the picture of what is happening is if we were to see who got that money. I would bet a large portion of it went to testing, administration and consultation. It seems to me the more we pay for administration the harder it is to find out where the money went.

I know from my own experience that buying property designated by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, DEEP, as an “establishment” needing clean up will cost about $100,000 to prove that it DOES NOT need to be cleaned, and much more if it does need to be cleaned. The money goes to testing, consultation, administration and forms preparation to Licensed Environmental Professional firms called LEPs, not the government. In many cases there is no appeals process and very little government oversight. If cleanup is necessary then all those who deal with the ”hazardous waste” must be specially trained even though no one touches anything directly and the levels of contaminants are extremely low.

Again, we all know the system is broken but this time we can do something. Vote against an expensive, superfluous and silly sewer project. Maybe we need to replace old pipes, a new sewage tank and to update the electrical systems, but our population has not grown appreciably. Using the EPA goals as an excuse for spending $51,000,000 should be explained clearly.

I have spoken with several people from our government and none have been aware of the reasons for EPA standards or looked into these environment issues. Essentially our government says the levels must be lower so hire an LEP and do whatever they say. The cause of our systemic problems is that no one has their eyes on the big picture. If the point is to clean up our environment then vote against the sewer project inTorrington, Connecticut. ‪#‎torrington‬

Never question anything, that is the message from the Government.

I can research, I can show you where the research leads, but if what I say counters what the Government says you need to check me out.  PLEASE check me out. If you don’t check it out for yourself please vote against spending taxpayer dollars for what you won’t investigate.

Government has your best interests at heart.  If we need to spend $51,000,000 to upgrade a sewer system then anyone who questions the EPA or DEEP part in that upgrade is a fruitloop.  Because if you investigate you will find there is no such environmental issue likely to be helped with that $51M.  I would truly love to find out I am wrong.

As with climate change there is no long term data to prove the issue, but rather it is common knowledge the the Government is right.  There are EPA goals and requirements and fines for violations.  But anyone who questions the issue at all is a fruit loop.

Fruit Loop Link

I don’t question climate change or the fact that we need to clean our environment, I question who is getting rich from our efforts to clean up the environment.  Who gets Torrington’s $1,670,000 to clean a 41 space parking lot?  Who gets Torrington’s $7M for administrative costs on the $51M sewer project? I know exactly who got $100,000 for testing and consultation requiring no cleanup when I bought a building that used to be a dry cleaner.

And then when we read the small print, that the EPA target for the watershed served by the Torrington WPCA sewer plant we find the only issues are nitrogen and phosphorus which are biological nutrients that come from all living organisms. The EPA says we need to reduce our watershed contribution of nutrients to 28 and 15 pounds per day respectively.  I challenge anyone at all to please tell me what we could possibly gain by lowering our nitrogen and phosphorus levels that low. PLEASE.

The real answer is that we will gain $10M from the Government if we spend $51M to lower our nitrogen and phosphorus levels.  Who will benefit from spending that much money?  Certainly lawyers, government employees, Licensed Environmental Professionals, and the construction industry.

Other than that, well, we can talk about hypoxia in the Long Island Sound, but no sane person will actually suggest that Torrington’s contribution of ammonia to the Naugatuck River actually affects hypoxia and fish populations in the Long Island Sound.  The EPA’s own web site says this:  “studies of the limited historical data base for the Sound suggest that summer oxygen depletion [hypoxia] in Western Long Island Sound has grown worse since the 1950s” The EPA cannot even show conclusively that there is a problem with hypoxia in the Long Island Sound, much less that Torrington’s $51M would help with such a problem if it exists.  The EPA says only that all data that exists “suggest” there might be a problem.  And they are not publishing that data.

Perhaps we are asked to contribute on the basis of an experiment that if everyone stops putting nutrients in our sewage we will have more fish in Long Island Sound.  If that is the point, please says so.  But surely we need a better reason than this to spend $51M on such a project.