August 28, 2013

Letters to the editor: 'Plain-spoken' LePage must own his words

Gov. LePage was reportedly overheard saying recently that President Obama "hates white people." Then he said, "No, I never said that," effectively accusing some of his Republican supporters at the gathering of lying.  

In his latest letter to Republicans, he represented himself as being "plain-spoken ... and blunt" and said that he is "not a polished speaker" and does not "always use the correct wording while making a point." One would logically interpret that to mean that he says what he means, and does not polish or sugarcoat his words for the audience.

Was he reportedly trying to "make the point" that he believed President Obama favored African Americans over Caucasians, a more polished statement that did not contain the word "hate"?

If Gov. LePage means what he says, then he should be honest and defend or explain the words he is alleged to have used. Instead, he accused witnesses of lying and later tried to weasel out of the situation with an apology to his fellow Republicans for causing them "any difficulty."

Our governor lacks the internal fortitude to stand up for what he says and believes when it becomes a political liability. As he said, a person's actions do "speak louder than their words." In this one week Gov. LePage apparently lied to the public, and then blamed everything on the press for accurately quoting him and causing the controversy.  

The apology should have been sent to President Obama, the person he insulted -- unless, of course, he meant what he is reported to have said but just didn't say it nicely. Once again, Gov. LePage disgraced himself and the state of Maine.

David S. Glaser

Tar sands critics draw on emotions, not hard facts

Three things about the proposed tar sands ordinance in South Portland:

• One: Passionate advocacy is important, even necessary to move the world. But the advocates' letters reveal only a purely emotional, cult-like mantra of opposition, repeating an organized opposition to tar sands oil conflated with opposition to fossil fuels. The opponents never dispute facts presented by defenders of a business with an exemplary record. This is mob rule in print.

• Two: It is entirely fair to compare the risk-reward balance of any fuel moving through Maine. If we think the risk is too high, then let's do something about that. Industry practices are continuously improving and can always be better, chasing the final fractions of 1 percent of possibility that the unforeseen will cause a disaster.

The amounts of fossil fuels moved in or through the state are enormous. Divide that number into the amounts leaked in accidents, and the math reveals a percentage so low your fears should reasonably be mitigated. Are opponents reasonable enough to deal with that, or will they continue the emotional cult mantra?

Nevertheless, if we are still concerned and willing to pay the cost, we can create an ordinance requiring additional safeguards. This approach changes the world, too. Additional detection of leaks, double pipes, reduced velocity pressure, emergency storage facilities may all be reasonable.

If opponents dream of eliminating the pipeline, please be responsible, too, and figure out what that will cost, as in risk-reward analysis.

• Third: While the proposed ordinance originates in South Portland, the results affect multiple communities.

It is not fair, but what one can do if the reader is tired of the cult is make sure your letters get printed, too. Please step up. Please do your part to balance printed mob rule.

Brian Jones

Congress Square sale offers chance to improve space

I am presently spearheading a campaign to restore our historic (1866) Lincoln Park and as an adjunct am immensely interested in the ongoing Congress Square saga.

(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 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.)