August 1, 2013

Letters to the editor: Car chase's outcome has bigger lesson

I appreciated Bill Nemitz's recent column "Suspect owes her life to Saco officers' restraint" (July 24), even more for what was unsaid/implied.

click image to enlarge

This Saco police cruiser is likely a total loss after being rammed during a recent chase, but the chase ended with no shots being fired and nobody seriously injured. The rule of law puts in place trained professionals to ensure public safety, so citizens don't need to arm themselves, a reader says.

Courtesy of Saco Police Department

Imagine that, instead of rushing after Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman had heeded a 911 dispatcher's request and waited for police to assist him.

I can't speak for Florida's finest, but if the responding officers exhibited even a tenth of the professionalism and restraint that Saco's police department did the other day, Martin would be alive and Zimmerman's life free from guilt and shame.

We are a nation of laws, and we train and employ professionals to uphold these laws. This insidious insecurity we all seem to feel now -- whether a result of economic calamity, terrorist threat or mass shootings -- we cannot let it erode the systems we have in place to ensure our personal safety.

"Stand your ground" laws, concealed-carry permits and neighborhood watch programs are a desperate answer to problems that don't rationally exist. Instead, we've created a whole new calamity.

Consider that simply possessing a gun in your home effectively doubles your risk of dying from firearm homicide, and for males, imparts a tenfold risk of dying of suicide, according to a 2004 article in the American Journal of Epidemiology.

Instead of arming ourselves and engendering a vigilante mentality, we need to encourage civility through rational gun policy and support for civic institutions, education and the rule of law.

Rather than sleeping with guns under our pillow, we should consider a cellphone. At least in Saco, the odds of waking up safe the next morning are higher.

Anthony Foianini

South Portland 

Critics of Styrofoam ban make dubious arguments 

I wish to share my position regarding a drive that has been organized by Cleaner Portland -- A Special Project of the Cost of Government Center to urge the Portland City Council to vote against any ban on polystyrene products.

As a consumer of products in the Portland area, I urge the Portland City Council to vote for a reasonably thought-out proposal to ban polystyrene.

I am extremely suspicious of Cleaner Portland's contention that Styrofoam has a smaller carbon footprint than alternatives. Apparently, the organization that came up with this conclusion is the American Chemistry Council. I think we need to use our heads when considering where that conclusion came from!

Another contention by the Cleaner Portland group -- that a ban on Styrofoam will add considerable cost to consumers -- is just out and out bunk! Even if a ban on Styrofoam did add a couple of cents to a cup of coffee, I would gladly pay it.

We are a progressive city doing the right thing, and I'm proud to be from the area.

Keith McMullan

South Portland 

Limits on casting a ballot another form of voter fraud  

One of the responsibilities and privileges of being an American citizen is the right to vote in every election. Among other things, it is a symbol of one's patriotism as an American.

Within the past few months, a number of states -- North Carolina, Texas and others -- have passed laws restricting and limiting the ability of their citizens to be able to vote. I find such actions on the part of these states, dominated by Republican legislatures, to be un-American.

Perhaps it is time to resurrect the House Un-American Activities Committee of the 1950s to investigate these Republican states for passing such laws, which I would label as a nascent form of totalitarianism.

From their behavior, the Republicans in many of our states have declared themselves to be out to win elections by severely limiting the options of their citizens to exercise their legal right to vote. That is a form of "voter fraud" that they appear to have perfected to their supposed benefit.

(Continued on page 2)

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.)