Preserving The American Political Philosophy

Supporters for the petition for MTI to offer fiscal sponsorship have now grown to 16 as our legacy business in East Boothbay faces foreclosure. Let it be said that MTI matching grants can be as small as 1000.00 but small grants do not go very far. Matching grants favor large established well financed companies, all at taxpayer expense. Fiscal sponsorship does not cost the tax payer since a fiscal sponsor can charge a fee to cover its costs and even a reasonable profit margin. Fiscal sponsorship draws upon volunteer giving. State matching grants mandate giving by the general public to special interests selected by the state. One example of special interests favored by the state is itself, in the Public-Public Relationship of MIT and The Advanced State Manufacturing Center at the University of Maine  In April 2 2013 MaineBiz published two articles. Quote from article 1: MTI grant to help manufacturing R&D “he Maine Technology Institute has given the University of So

Tweet This!  http://goo.gl/kVl2Cw This video is filled with many sorrowful images but I look at it I see freedom and I see locations where a ceramic slip casting production could take advantage of the natural affinity between ceramic production work and the often deeply rooted rural inhabitants. Such an enterprise is a natural fit between the existing populous and the work. But the freedom is an illusion in Maine, 2014. All rural areas are threatened by population relocation plans of either Agenda 21 or by the corporate state deploring that the inhabitants are not producing their "fair share" of revenue to meet the corporation's bottom line.  Back in 2012 then gubernatorial wannabe Steve Woods suggested that the state could deny infrastructure tax dollars to rural communities  which he claimed were not producing enough sales tax revenue to justify their existence and openly expressing his philosophy that the people serve the interests of the state and not the o

TWEET THIS ARTiCLE USING THIS SHORT LINK  http://goo.gl/u2fKk0 My father often told me that in the 1950's , the distribution of wealth in the United States took the form of a bell curve with the greatest amount of wealth distributed amoungst the greatest number of people. I grew up with the bell curve image embedded into my mind . It is the image of an algorithm, a form of economic visualization which seems to have all but disappeared from the methods of reporting income distribution- replaced by graphs showing two lines- one for the top and the other for the bottom. The median household income displays statistics in two separate parts- Those making above the median and those making below the median and does not address the distribution of wealth within the two halves.The mean gives us the averaged income of a specific group- but none of that tells us how the wealth is distributed- is there a gradual curve of distribution? a series of steps? or a huge gulf between levels ? A