Randy Seaver — journalist and former PR pro — blogs about politics, media and his struggles with mental illness.
Author: Randy Seaver
Randy Seaver is a veteran journalist who has been covering news and politics in the city of Biddeford, Maine for nearly three decades. He may be contacted at randy@randyseaver.com
It’s a strange time for the newspaper industry — especially here in Maine, where we recently witnessed several seismic shifts in the media landscape.
Yesterday it was announced that Donald Sussman’s investor group will now own a 75 percent stake in the company that publishes the Portland Press Herald, Kennebec Journal, Waterville Morning Sentinel and the Maine Sunday Telegram.
Hedge fund financier and philanthropist Donald Sussman said he wanted to save a Maine institution and will keep his hands off the wheel of editorial decisions. (Bangor Daily News Photo)
That’s all fine and dandy, except for one small twist: Sussman’s wife just happens to be Congresswoman Chellie Pingree, and she shows no sign of leaving Maine’s First Congressional District anytime in the near future.
Sure, Sussman says he has only the best of intentions, and adamantly vows that he will not interfere with the newspapers’ editorial process. Yeah, okay…whatever. For the record, I actually have a full-head of hair.
I was lucky to work for a family-owned group of weekly newspapers. David & Carolyn Flood gave me a very long leash, but I was never foolish enough to forget that I was on a leash. The Courier was not my paper.
There were many times when my editorials and opinion columns came nowhere close to matching the opinions of my employers, but they sighed…rolled their eyes…and kept giving me a paycheck. For better or worse, I was promoted three times during the seven years I worked for David and Carolyn.
My salary steadily increased and the newspaper thrived. The Courier was the paper of record in Biddeford and Saco, but I always knew I had a boss…heck, sometimes I even paid attention to David.
But all good things come to an end, and it remains to be seen whether the Press Herald or smaller weekly papers such as the Courier will continue to survive in this brave new world of digital media.
Regardless of the financial implications of producing dead-tree news, the Press Herald and its sister publications have crossed a murky line, despite the financial necessity of the decision.
It’s a tough call. Do you fold, and allow a historical institution to become nothing more than a memory? Do you surrender and send hundreds of employees to the unemployment line?
Or do you hold your nose and make a deal with the devil?
U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine)
I’m sure Donald Sussman is a nice enough guy. I’ve never met him. But regardless of his Boy Scout oath to be ethical, every story that involves his wife, her decisions or her detractors will now be tainted with lingering doubt.
In November 2010, the Portland Press Herald surprised many of its readers by endorsing Republican Dean Scontras over Pingree during her campaign for a second term. If that happened now, we would have to wonder whether such a stance was motivated by an editorial board trying to make a public statement about its objectivity.
Journalists bristle when discussing ethical standards, so I do not envy the dilemma now faced by the reporters and editors at Maine Today Media. No matter what lines they feed themselves before going to bed each night, each one of them also knows that they also are on a leash . . . a very tenuous leash.
But before you criticize reporters being on a leash, consider the plight earlier this month for the more than 50 employees at the Village Soup newspaper who were laid off when that group of weekly newspapers suddenly closed.
Being off the leash feels good, right up until you discover that you no longer have a bone to chew.
Did you enjoy your summer? I hope so, because now we return you to your regularly scheduled weather for late March in southern Maine.
There was rampant speculation about last week’s freakish heat wave, an anomaly that shattered local meteorological records and sent scores of disappointed people to Old Orchard Beach in search of Pier Fries.
Some folks opined that increasing solar flares from the sun were to blame. Others said fiery rhetoric from presidential hopeful Rick Santorum was dramatically increasing gaseous emissions and further eroding our fragile ozone.
And, of course, global-warming alarmist were out in full force, smugly announcing that the much-anticipated end of the world is now in full swing.
But leave it to those crazy Brits to get to the meat of the story.
Apparently, the earth has a long track record of warming and then cooling. It’s a cycle that’s been going on for centuries, long before rednecks like me were driving F-150s to suburban shopping malls in pursuit of consumer electronics and plastic bags.
If you don’t believe me, check this story in London’s Daily Mail newspaper, which reported a new study that throws a monkey wrench into the global climate change debate.
According to the story, a team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University found that contrary to the ‘consensus’, the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn’t just confined to Europe — it extended to Antarctica.
Now there’s an inconvenient truth that ought to be as easy to understood as a trip to Peaks Island.
We had an Ice Age long before we had SUVs. Peaks and all the other islands in Casco Bay were created long ago when southerly flowing glaciers carved out the island masses.
Even in Greenville, Maine — arguably the state’s greenest community, there is evidence of historical global warming: it’s called Moosehead Lake.
Moosehead Lake, Maine
We have a moral obligation to be good stewards of our natural resources; and none of this should justify industrial pollution or irresponsible human behavior.
It’s just that you should remember that there is an agenda to the global warming hysteria. It’s a belief that individuals should not get to choose how much energy they use. Other people want to tell you how you should heat your home, what kind of car you should drive and what type of lightbulbs you can use.
Look, if it helps you sleep at night by driving a Prius… knock yourself out. If you want mercury-laced, curly lightbulbs in your kids’ playroom — have at it.
But don’t think that any of that is going to fundamentally change the planet’s natural evolution.
Earth’s climate has been changing since the beginning of time. To think that you can save the planet is the height of arrogance. The planet will change with or without you.
If you want credibility, then lead by example: ditch your car, buy a bicycle and get off Facebook….computers are made of petroleum-based products and they consume gobs of electricity.
If only the Neanderthals had Twitter, maybe they could have stopped those damned glaciers.
But then, where would I drive my boat?
Global warming has been good to me—even if only to give my furnace and my wallet a much-needed break during the final days of winter.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — Benjamin Franklin
When we become adults we no longer need our parents to make critical decisions in our lives. We are free to fail, free to succeed, and yes…even free to be flat-out stupid.
Adolph Hitler’s pursuit of a ‘more perfect world” included a government campaign against smoking and the individual right to bear arms….among other things.
Freedom, however, does not come without risks and costs, especially when it comes to our rights to wallow in pure stupidity.
But what line should our government draw between an individual’s desire to exercise his or her inalienable right to stupidity and the protection of other citizens from those stupid choices?
The Biddeford City Council is just half an inch away from enacting an ordinance that will prevent residents from using fireworks anywhere in the city.
The council’s decision follows on the heels of a recent reversal in state law that now allows the sale, use and distribution of fireworks. But the new state law also stipulates that individual communities may set their own standards regarding the use, sale and possession of fireworks.
By allowing individual communities to establish their own fireworks ordinances, a resident of Bangor could –theoretically — have more freedom than a resident of Biddeford.
Some animals, apparently, are more equal than other animals.
Laura being stupid with sparklers, in direct violation of state park policy
My wife, Laura, is a member of the city council’s Policy Committee. She and other members of the committee voted unanimously in favor of the city’s ban on the use of fireworks.
When asked why she voted in favor of the ban, Laura explained that the majority of residents who testified before her committee supported the ban. Furthermore, she said, the local ban was adamantly supported by both the city’s police chief and the fire chief.
It makes sense to me that government officials, such as the police and fire chief, would want to ensure public safety by having greater control over public activities. In a sense, this is the fundamental and appropriate role of government: to provide for the public’s general welfare.
For example, the city is not infringing upon its residents’ Second Amendment rights by enforcing a policy that limits the use of shotguns in certain parts of the city; nor is the city infringing upon its residents’ First Amendment rights by limiting public comments at city council meetings to five minutes.
Reasonable people can agree that individual rights have some limits. Your freedom of speech does not allow you to scream “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater.
But then again, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and what do we do about all the stupid people and their stupid choices?
It is a slippery slope with grave consequences that should be weighed carefully.
On July 4 1978, I violated state law, local ordinances and the core elements of common sense by using a Roman Candle — a type of firework device that launches brilliant shots of exploding matter into a brilliant, although brief, display of color and sound.
I was 14 years old, and I nearly blew off my testicles by holding the tube improperly while sitting on the front stairs of my childhood home.
I lit the fuse and pointed the tube across the street, toward the parking lot of the Armory building on Franklin Street in Saco, then the home of 133rd Engineering Batallion.
Fortunately, there was an adult present who saw that the fuse was pointed toward my crotch.
“Hey, turn it around!” he screamed just before the tiny balls of fire began jettisoning toward my own tiny balls of fire.
Obviously, I survived the incident and learned a valuable lesson about protecting my genitals.
Under today’s standards, however, I would have been prosecuted by the Department of Homeland Security for firing upon a federal facility, and my parents would have been charged with child endangerment.
But it all turned out fine. For better or worse, my testicles remained in tact, and I went on to make many more stupid choices.
Stupidity is the cornerstone of innovation, and it’s a trademark of America and our willingness to take risks, make mistakes and ultimately succeed.
Imagine strolling on a North Carolina beach in the early 1900s and watching as two brothers played with a “flying machine.” How stupid! Those men think humans can fly like the birds!
Go back further in history. How much sense did it make for a bunch of disgruntled farmers to take on the world’s most powerful army in a rebellion against a mighty throne?
And what about the stupidity of Columbus, and his epic failure to find a new route to India?
Acts of stupidity and risky behavior provide us with tremendous value and opportunities. More importantly, our right to be stupid is inextricably linked to our pursuit of happiness.
Therefore we ought to be damned careful as we set out to create a utopian society. After all, Adolph Hitler was one of the world’s most outspoken critics of smoking.
In fact, Hitler went after the smokers long before he set his sights on private gun ownership and the Jews.
Thus, whenever government infringes on our God-given right to be as dumb as a door-knob, it ought to include much deliberation and considerable thought and debate about the unintended consequences of such legislative endeavors.
Defining stupidity is nearly impossible. Beauty, after all, is in the eye of the beholder.
Do you think the government should tell you what is okay to eat? Do you think the government should dictate who you can marry? Would you prefer that the government provides your health care, your housing and your food? Can you imagine the consequences?
How dependent are you prepared to be? How much of your liberty are you willing to sacrifice for your security?
Fireworks have become a symbol and trademark of our liberty. They define our brilliance, our diversity and our strength as a nation. They remind us of the explosions that had far greater consequences more than 200 years ago.
It would not be hard for the city to set some reasonable guidelines for the use of fireworks. We could establish acceptable hours of use. We could set policies that include where the use of fireworks is permissible, such as a required 20-foot setback from a neighbor’s property.
In America, you have the right to define the course of your life, and that means you have the right to be stupid.
If we don’t stand for stupidity, then what will we stand for?
The Biddeford City Council will hold a second reading on its proposed fireworks ordinance on Tuesday, April 3.
I know, I know . . . King is the heir apparent for the U.S. Senate seat that will be vacated this year by Olympia Snowe.
Although the polling data points to a considerable edge for the feisty and “independent” former governor, I’m not so sure that King is a lock for the seat.
I’m still a tough guy: Talking Points photo
But it would seem that I’m in the minority among political observers. Pundits from Brunswick to Baltimore have essentially declared the race over, chattering with glee and wildly speculating about which political party will earn the King’s favor.
Here’s my guess: you won’t find Angus King sipping mint juleps with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell at the Kentucky Derby.
King is about as independent as my left foot.
Sure, my left foot likes to think it’s independent, but it’s still my left foot. It serves my left leg. It is the foot I always use for a pivot when I decide to make a left turn while walking.
Make no mistake, King is a Democrat who doesn’t have enough guts to call himself a Democrat.
If you want to see an independent from Maine, drive to Millinocket and visit Democrat Mike Michaud, a pro-life Democrat.
Being a pro-life Democrat is sort of like being a vegetarian Republican. Such a distinction makes you rather unpopular within your caucus and immediately leads to obscurity in Beltway power circles, which probably explains why Michaud serves on the Transportation and Veteran’s Affairs committees.
It’s no wonder why Roll Call named Michaud in 2009 as a prominent member of the Obscure Caucus, a group of men and women who,when combined, have fewer Facebook friends than my dog.
But at least Michaud has the guts of his convictions.
Let’s be independent together:Eliot Cutler and Angus King:Bangor Daily News photo.
Sure, there are advantages to being an “independent.” First, you don’t have to spend any time or money on primary campaigns that can suck the last remaining dollar from a candidate’s wallet and leave him or her pleading for a lobotomy some four months before the real campaign begins.
Being an independent also means you can play both sides of the political aisle without feeling like a hypocrite. Being an “independent” in the U.S. Senate automatically puts you on the short list of those who get to lead the daily singing of Kumbaya at Dupont Circle.
Besides politics, in what other realm can you describe yourself as an independent?
“I’m not a Red Sox fan or a Yankees fan. I just like baseball and think both teams should work together and not be so concerned about winning the game.”
In fact, All Along the Watchtower has obtained secret footage of closed-door meeting between Angus King and Maine’s other so-called “independent,” Eliot Cutler in 1992:
But enough of my loathing for political “independents.” Let’s take a closer look at King’s strengths and weaknesses going into this race.
We’ll start with his strengths:
1.) King is very popular, and his “independent” label will allow him to draw on a voting pool from both Democrats and Republicans who enjoy singing Kumbaya while roasting marshmallows.
2.) He has strong statewide name recognition and the gravitas associated with being a two-term governor.
3.) In a state not known for picking the sharpest tool in the shed as its governor, King is actually quite smart and articulate.
4.) He is tall and appears physically fit.
5.) He has a wicked cool name. I mean, really . . . say it out loud . . . Angus King.
Now for some of his weaknesses:
Will being indeppendent still fly with Maine voters? Eliot Cutler thinks so. Bangor Daily News photo
1.) A fiscal conservative? Not so much
I recently asked someone who knows Angus King quite well how King differs from Democrats. “On what specific issue would King break ranks with Democrats and side with the GOP?” I asked.
“Oh, he’s a fiscal conservative,” came the reply, right on cue.
A fiscal conservative? Hardly.
In his weekly Politics & Other Mistakes column, Al Diamon eviscerated the former governor’s favorite talking point with this gem:
“King, the alleged fiscal conservative, emptied the state’s Rainy Day Fund. The socially liberal governor called for cuts in Medicaid and other human services programs. The financial hawk wanted to delay scheduled income tax cuts, and allow cities and towns to impose a local-option sales tax. But true to his left-wing side, he insisted on spending at least $25 million on those laptops.”
If you want to sample what fiscal Republicans think of King, you should visit As Maine Goes, a conservative web forum where an entire thread has been dedicated to calling out King’s shortcomings as a fiscal conservative.
2.) An awkward connection to Eliot Cutler:
Ironically, the AMG thread is labeled, The King Files, a tounge-in-cheek tribute to the controversy surrounding the Cutler Files, an anonymous website dedicated to exposing the shortcomings of Eliot Cutler, Maine’s less popular “independent” who lost his 2010 bid for the Blaine House.
Like a double-chocolate cheesecake, this aforementioned tidbit is layered with irony, especially since Dennis Bailey, one of King’s closest advisors who also served as his communications director, admitted last year that he helped create the site.
3.) Father Time:
King is 68, meaning, if elected, he will be approaching 75 by the end of his first term. Statistically speaking, that means King will finish one term in the senate roughly three years before he takes a dirt nap. Time is certainly on Chellie Pingree’s side.
4.) Waning influence?
For a guy who is so gosh-darned popular, King has had recent difficulty pushing his policy goals as a private citizen. For example, despite being consistently trotted out to oppose casinos, King’s dire warnings about the evils of gambling have fallen on deaf ears lately. Maine will soon have two full-service casinos. Is King’s influence as strong as he remembers it?
5.) Technology:
Further irony would normally be difficult at this point, but it certainly seems strange that a former governor who spent the bulk of his second term extolling the virtues of computer technology would now find himself snarled in the tangled web of social media pitfalls.
When King left the Blaine House in 2002, there was no such thing as Facebook or Twitter. But a lot has changed since King convinced lawmakers that every seventh-grade student should have a laptop computer. In fact, one of those former seventh-graders grew up and decided to launch a Twitter account for the former governor.
There’s just one problem: The former governor and senate hopeful has no control over the Twitter account, best evidenced by its pithy and hilarious tweets, such as:
Maine is completely covered in rain and clouds, and crappy tweeters are still purporting. Coincidence? Don’t test me; or
Lordy it’s bad enough I have blowhard Cutler calling me day and night. Now I have this pushy broad (Cynthia Dill) sending me crappy twitters.
For more of the Twitter feed that is driving Angus berserk, you can follow the anonymous, fun-loving tweeter: @king_angus
See what happens when you give every seventh-grader a laptop?
The most vocal supporters of President Obama’s push to reform our nation’s health care system will invariably say that health care is a “fundamental right.”
The so-called “right to affordable health care” has become the mantra and favorite talking point for those who say health care in the United States ought to look a lot more like it does in other countries, including Canada, Norway, Sweden or Denmark.
These folks generally support a single-payer system of health care, which resembles the current Medicaid program and effectively eliminates the need for private insurance.
But is health care — or even access to health care — a right?
In our first installment (Money for Nothing), we followed up on questions posed by Biddeford Mayor Alan Casavant on his Facebook page:
“So the moral question is: What should a society do in such situations? What should government do? Do we act, or do we allow the laws of Darwin to supersede our compassion, integrity and our humanity? The system is broken. . .”
Although we previously discussed the difference between health “insurance” and health “care,” Casavant’s questions also beg a discussion about where morality and government should — or should not — intersect.
Casavant’s questions also prompt a more focused pondering of how our nation defines “rights.”
The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is probably a good place to start when examining the concept, definition and limitations of “rights” held by the American people:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Reading that sentence it becomes crystal clear our nation’s Founders understood basic rights come from a higher power than government. And this is a fundamental point.
Government cannot bestow rights; otherwise government can take away rights.
Your rights are yours, with or without a government.
The government’s limited role, as defined by both the Declaration and the ensuing Constitution, is to secure and defend your individual rights as part of a much larger group.
But the Declaration of Independence also opens the door for a legitimate discussion and debate about other “rights” beyond Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, which are described as being “among” other, non-specified rights.
The argument for health care as a right gained further legitimacy when our Founders drafted the Constitution. It is within this document that our Founders more fully explored the concept of government’s appropriate role in promoting the “general welfare.”
Although the subject of health care is not discussed in either the Declaration or the Constitution, it could be reasonably construed as much of a “right” as public education — another topic not specifically discussed in those documents.
During our nation’s formative years, there was no such thing as public education. Education was reserved for the privileged few who could afford it.
Today, however, most people generally agree that our nation is better off when our citizens have — at minimum — a certain level of education.
Although our nation continues to grapple and debate public education funding, those costs and the ensuing delivery system is much easier to control than the cost and delivery of health care.
And here’s where it gets really tricky.
If we declare health care as a “right,” how does that impact your other rights as an individual?
If the government provides your healthcare from cradle to grave, then does it not follow that the government can dictate your health choices and even many of your lifestyle choices?
If we allow government to take care of us, are we not abdicating our individual pursuit of happiness?
I moved out of my parents’ home because I was ready to enjoy my adult freedoms. I wanted to come and go as I pleased. I wanted to make my own choices about what I eat, when and where I sleep and all the other benefits of freedom.
If my pursuit of happiness includes a poor diet that includes a daily regimen of Big Macs and French Fries, are you responsible to help pay the cost of my inevitable need for a heart transplant?
We have established standards and limitations for public education.
We accept the fact that not every child will be able to attend Harvard or Yale. Of course, you have the “right” to apply, but those universities also have the right to reject your application.
If you want to make the moral case for public health care, what happens when your health care contradicts your neighbors rights to his/her religious beliefs?
During the Vietnam war, even our military made accommodations for drafted citizens to be conscientious objectors. If you are Catholic, should you be required to help pay for abortions and contraceptives?
Where do your rights as an individual end — or start — in a society that provides you with health care?
How much of your liberty are you willing to sacrifice for your safety?
One of the most ardent opponents of smoking was Adolph Hitler, a man who envisioned a nation of supreme and physically fit citizens. Mentioning Hitler in this debate is intended to be inflammatory, only if to give us pause.
If you have the right to health care, does that mean that other people should financially support that right? If so, are there any limitations to how much health care any one individual wants or needs?
These are legitimate questions and not very convenient for either side of the debate.
If we propose that health care is a right, then we will need to completely reconstruct our health care system. We would have public doctors and nurses, whose employment contracts and salaries are negotiated by the government — just like teachers.
We would also have public health care clinics that are less desirable than their private counterparts.
In the end, those with money would have better access to service than those without money.
Sound familiar?
The hypocrisy found in these arguments is overwhelming.
We want our choices. We want our freedom, but we would prefer that the consequences of our individual choices are funded — at least in part — by other people.
Maybe it’s just time to move back in with mom and dad.
If you would like to further explore the arguments for and against the concept of health care as a right, you may want to visit this website.
Anyone with a pulse and an IQ exceeding room temperature can likely agree that our nation’s health care system is seriously flawed.
But that’s generally where the agreement stops.
That’s why I was impressed when Biddeford Mayor Alan Casavant posed a series of observations about Maine’s own raging health care debate on his Facebook page.
August 2009: Large crowds in Portsmouth, NH, protest outside a high school where President Obama speaks about the need for health care reform.
Casavant is also a member of the Maine House of Representatives, and his comments were based on his observations during a legislative hearing about how best to address rising health care costs.
“Clearly, resentment [of] the Obama plan drives a lot of these bills,” Casavant noted, referring to the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009.
“For some, the costs of treatment and medicine exceed their ability to pay,” he said. “So the moral question is: What should a society do in such situations? What should government do? Do we act, or do we allow the laws of Darwin to supersede our compassion, integrity and our humanity? The system is broken. . .”
I applaud Casavant for raising the topic, but submit that our health care system is NOT broken, it is fixed . . . meaning it is rigged.
Our current system is either outdated and ineffective, at best ; or it is favorably geared toward an ever shrinking pool of those who can afford to keep up with skyrocketing costs.
Are you with me, so far? Good; because this is where the debate gets tricky.
Before we proceed any further, we must agree to at least one basic fact, regardless of our individual political/cultural/socio-economic viewpoints.
Health “care” and health “insurance” are completely different topics that are too often linked at the hip.
Let’s start with health insurance.
If you drive a vehicle in Maine, you are required by law to have a minimum-liability insurance policy. This law exists to protect drivers who are harmed by another driver’s neglect or carelessness.
Driving, as the state of Maine tells all new drivers, is a privilege, not a right.
I will take that a step further and say that health “insurance” is also not a right.
Laura and I scored tickets to see President Obama speak about the need for health care reform in 2009. Then, just as it is now, we both had reservations about the president’s plan. Laura tried to ask a question, but she and many others did not get picked.
The argument about whether health care is a right remains a bit more ambiguous, but let’s remember we’re now discussing health “insurance,” not health “care.”
The discussion about rights and expectations have only been muddied by the nation’s new health care law, which mandates individuals to purchase health insurance in the private marketplace.
The so-called “individual mandate” is one of the more controversial aspects of the health care reform law signed by President Obama. That issue is scheduled to be deliberated by the U.S. Supreme Court this year.
Interestingly, critics of the individual mandate can be found from both the left and right side of the political spectrum.
Conservatives argue that the individual mandate further erodes personal liberty and crosses the sacrosanct line between personal choice and government mandates.
On the other hand, more progressive Democrats — especially those who pined for a public option or a single-payer system of healthcare reform — describe the individual mandate as nothing more than a very big gift for evil insurance companies that stand to gain millions of new customers.
But all that debate and Constitutional introspection pales in comparison to the more fiery rhetoric associated with the subject of health insurance profits.
Left-leaning groups, such as ACORN and HCAN (Health Care for America Now) say that corporate, for-profit health insurance profits are skyrocketing and have quadrupled over the past few years.
It’s a favorite talking point of progressive Democrats and very handy when whipping up grassroots mobilization to support the president, but it’s not entirely accurate — although rated as “mostly true” by PolitiFact, a Pulitzer Prize-winning organization established by the Tampa Bay Times to fact check political rhetoric.
Meanwhile, the health insurance industry is crying poverty, saying their profit margins are among the lowest of any industry in the United States — ranging between two and four percent.
So, which one is right?
Unfortunately, the inconvenient truth is that both groups are a little bit right, and a lot wrong.
And that is bad news for those of us trying to navigate the turbulent waters of this complex debate.
But simply blaming “greedy” insurance companies conveniently ignores too many other factors that drive health care costs. Moreover, such rhetoric is debatable, at best; and intentionally misleading at worst,
Rick Newman, chief business correspondent for US News & World Report, makes a compelling case about why health insurance companies make lousy villains, pointing out that profits are hardly the root of a much larger and complex problem.
“Overall, the profit margin for health insurance companies was a modest 3.4 percent over the past year, according to data provided by Morningstar. That ranks 87th out of 215 industries and slightly above the median of 2.2 percent,” Newman reports.
Despite my right-leaning, free-market beliefs, I admit to being somewhat conflicted on this issue, and that’s probably because my household is knee-deep in our own health-insurance nightmare.
My wife, Laura, was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis just three days after Christmas in 2008. Her disease is never going to go away. It is never going into remission. It takes a little piece of her each day, even when we don’t notice it.
Laura does a good job of managing her illness, but there is no escaping that MS is a progressive illness that will never go away and only get worse over time.
Neither of us asked for our respective illness. We both work full-time. We pay our taxes, but we are also a health insurance company’s worst nightmare…we take out a lot more than we put in to the system.
If you’re a conservative, Tea-Party Republican, you are advised now to reach for the duct tape because otherwise your head may explode when I offer up this next tidbit:
You are paying a portion of our health insurance.
Laura is a state employee and thus, we are more than lucky to have an outstanding health insurance plan that is offered to all state employees and their immediate family members.
But even if Laura lost her job, and we relied upon a more traditional (and much more expensive) private health insurance plan, you would still be paying for our health insurance.
Why? Because in our current system, healthy Americans subsidize the costs of treatment for the ill. That is the fundamental core of the individual mandate: we need more young, healthy people in the system to offset the cost of treating older and sicker Americans.
I am not a big fan of the individual mandate – beyond the Constitutional arguments, I think the system unfairly penalizes healthy people and will do little to drive down the costs of health care.
There is a lot more to cover, but I will end this installment here and borrow Casavant’s closing observation from his Facebook post: Stalemate [on this issue] is unacceptable.
GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney and Biddeford Mayor Alan Casavant had at least on thing in common on Tuesday.
Both men showed their detractors that they are as tough as nails and more than ready for a political fight.
READY TO SERVE: Michael ready is sworn-in by City Clerk Carmen Morris as the newest member of the Biddeford City Council
Although Casavant’s nomination of Michael Ready for the vacated Ward Seven council seat was approved by an unexpected 7-1 vote, it included more than 30 minutes of sometimes emotional and heated commentary.
The final outcome also caused a member of the city’s planning board to announce her resignation as a protest against what she described as nothing more than “political theater.”
But any lingering doubts about Casavant’s ability to move the council when needed quickly evaporated Tuesday.
Councilor Melissa Bednarowksi also proved she is more than willing to stand as the council’s lone voice of dissension.
At issue were two competing philosophies about who should be appointed to fill the council vacancy that was created last month when David Flood gave up his seat to again pursue a career as a newspaper publisher.
Councilors Melissa Bednarowski, Brad Cote and David Bourque listen to public comments about Mayor Casavant’s nomination of Mike Ready
Bill Sexton was one of three candidates who actively campaigned for the seat in November, but finished in second place behind Flood.
Ready previously served on the council, and Casavant said Ready’s prior experience — especially since the council is facing the prospects of a daunting budget debate — is what mattered.
Casavant remained steely eyed during the floor debate, signaling confidence in his ability to shore up the votes he needed.
But many of the councilors seemed torn, and at times appeared emotional and wavering with their decision.
“This is a tough situation,” said Councilor David Bourque, looking toward the audience, where both Ready and Sexton were seated with their family members. “It’s a tough spot for us to be in.”
IF LOOKS COULD KILL — Council President Rick Laverierre and Mayor Alan Casavant seemed tense during public comments about the nomination of Mike Ready
Council President Rick Laverierre, however, said the council had a sworn obligation to uphold Casavant’s appointment unless they could offer a compelling reason why Ready should be disqualified from service.
“I, too, find myself in a quandary,” Laverierre explained. “But we need to remember we’re talking about the charter, and the charter is clear about how we should approach this.”
Councilor Roch Angers said he felt physically ill about the dilemma.
“I feel sick to my stomach for both of these men,” Angers said. “It should be the people saying how things go. We should be listening to the input of people from Ward Seven.”
Angers, who helped the mayor during last year’s campaign, then questioned Casavant directly, asking him if he would consider Sexton for nomination.
The mayor did not flinch. “I have a nomination on the table,” he replied curtly.
The tension in the room was palpable.
Councilor Richard Rhames voiced concerns about Ready’s appointment, reminding his fellow councilors that Ready was one of the “MERC 5,” a group of five city councilors who approved a controversial, five-year extension of the city’s contract with the Maine Energy Recovery Company in 2007.
Members of the public were equally divided on the issue. Sexton’s parents and his son all addressed the council, urging them to support Bill Sexton, but also praised Ready.
“Mike [Ready] is a nice man, but Mike didn’t run for the seat,” Sue Sexton told the council.
Sexton said she understood why Ready wants to help the city now, but reminded councilors that her son ran a hard campaign and went door-to-door, looking for votes and listening to residents’ concerns.
Bill Sexton also praised Ready, but had strong words for the mayor.
“The mayor knows nothing about me,” Sexton said. “He never called me. I have been referred to as a puppet, or maybe it’s because [I’m a Republican] or because I supported the casino. I don’t know, but I just want a shot at what I worked so hard for.”
Bill Sexton (right) told reporters he will likely stay involved in city politics and said he was disappointed that the mayor refused to even consider him as a potential nominee.
Sexton closed his remarks by reminding Casavant of his mayoral campaign pledge to be a “positive, professional” mayor.
“I ran my own campaign in a positive, professional way,” Sexton said. “This should be about what’s best for the city. The charter gives you the power to appoint but that does not mean you should just pick your friends.”
Judy Neveaux, a resident who also worked on Casavant’s campaign, reminded the council that Casavant was supported by an overwhelming margin of voters in November.
“The people clearly trust this mayor to do what is right for our city,” she said. “I think it’s important to let the mayor do his job.”
Although the comments were often tense and sometimes pointed, resident Ron Peaker brought the evening to an all-time low by accusing Flood of being “dishonest” about his intentions during the campaign.
Bill Sexton later denounced Peaker’s remarks, calling them “inappropriate and pure speculation.”
Just moments after Ready was sworn in by City Clerk Carmen Morris, Sue Sexton asked the mayor if she could approach the podium. She thanked Ready for his willingness to serve and wished him well.
Sue Sexton told All Along the Watchtower that she would be resigning her seat from the Planning Board as a protest to Casavant’s appointment.
“Despite all the things he said during his campaign, it has become painfully honest that our new mayor is just playing political favorites,” she said.
If one could only be a fly on the wall inside the offices of U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree
Today, former Maine Governor Angus King officially took his big toe out of Maine’s political pool, climbed a 15-story ladder and then did a quadruple jacknife dive (with a twist) into the deep end of the pool.
The ensuing splash was felt in places as far away as Madawaska, and in less than six hours — King received more media attention than Pingree has gotten since the last time Donald Sussman bought a group of newspapers.
Gov. Angus King (Bowdoin College photo)
Until today, Pingree was the commonly accepted front-runner to fill Senator Olympia Snowe’s moderate, size 6 shoes, despite the fact that every Maine resident with at least one vowel in their last name was considering a run for either the First Congressional District or the US Senate.
King’s gravitas, combined with his popularity and solid polling numbers, has Democrats across Maine wondering aloud tonight whether Chellie should just sit tight in her First District House seat rather than risk splitting the vote, allowing a Republican to capture Snowe’s seat.
The balance of the entire US Senate is in play. The stakes are high, and the potential consequences are severe.
But the Republican candidates, a bench which so far includes the Secretary of State, the State Treasurer and the Maine Attorney General, should also be paying attention.
King’s entrance into the race could impact Republicans and Democrats equally, and that’s because King is much more centrist than his independent counterpart, Eliot Cutler.
Many Democrats remain bitter about Cutler’s independent bid for the Blaine House in 2010, speculating that his candidacy split the Democrat base and allowed Republican Governor Paul LePage to win with 38 percent of the vote.
If Republicans are banking on a repeat of that 2010 split-the-Democrat vote strategy, they may want to consider a Plan B . . . because Angus King is no Eliot Cutler.
For starters, King is likable and he also appeals to right-leaning independents.
Sure, King has plenty of detractors and vulnerabilities…but minimizing his candidacy will be a tall order for any of the usual suspects, whether they’re Republicans or Democrats.
You know a political nerve has been pinched when Rush Limbaugh apologizes for comments he made on his national radio show.
Rush’s outrageous comments about Sandra Fluke ignited a deafening outcry from women’s groups and reproductive rights advocates this week, and several of his advertisers are now distancing themselves.
Because this is a presidential election year; and because Rush is an unabashedly conservative pundit, his comments are being used by Democrats to underscore the notion that Republicans are waging a war against women.
Nothing like a bit of hypocrisy just a few days before Super Tuesday.
Check the cheering and applause that HBO talk show host Bill Maher received when he described Sarah Palin as a “dumb twat.”
A few nervous giggles, but applause nonetheless…
So, if a Republican commentator demeans women with vitriolic commentary we gather the pitchforks and demand his head on a stick.
But if a liberal commentator does the same thing, we laugh or just look the other way. Is that how it works?
Make no mistake, both Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher are pigs, and their outrageous comments should be condemned by everyone with a pulse, regardless of political affiliation.
California Governor Jerry Brown, a former presidential candidate, apologized for comments that were attributed to him and/or his staff, describing Republican opponent Meg Whitman as a whore during the gubernatorial campaign.
From my perspective, an apology doesn’t cut it.
George Will got it right when he said the word “inappropriate” is far too tame for describing Rush Limbaugh’s comments.
“Inappropriate is when you use your salad fork for your entrée,” Will quipped on ABC’s Good Morning America, saying Republicans are too tepid in their response and afraid of Limbaugh and his massive audience.
Violence against women begins when we give ourselves permission to demean them with our discourse.
As the father of two young men, I have an inherent obligation to speak out about the pervasive nature of gender violence and misogyny.
As an amateur pundit, I just wonder why it’s somehow funny when Bill Maher calls a woman a twat, yet outrageous when Rush Limbaugh infers that a woman is a slut.
Dean Scontras, the Republican who challenged Chellie Pingree in the 2010 First District Congressional race, is also bothered by the crystal-clear hypocrisy.
On his Facebook page, Scontras said that until those who sympathize with the left express equal outrage over Maher’s remarks about Palin, they should remain silent about Rush Limbaugh’s comments.
I disagree.
Although I despise the hypocrisy, remaining silent about Rush Limbaugh’s vile commentary just because Bill Maher was equally (or arguably more) offensive, only serves to amplify and allow a very real war against women to fester – – if only beneath the surface.
Although I am confident that people who know me understand the context of my satirical commentary, my words were immediately thrust onto the stage of public discourse via the power of the internet.
A very wise woman once told me that words are like toothpaste. Once you squeeze them out, it is virtually impossible to put them back in their container.
So, I will not edit or delete that post. I will leave it where it remains as a constant reminder of my own hypocrisy.
And, hopefully, my willingness to at least acknowledge my own boorish behavior will serve as an example for how not to behave.
Some people say that our national political discourse is out of control and filled, more than ever before, with the rancor and tension of partisan politics that threatens to destroy the fabric of our united nation.
“If Sen. Olympia Snowe is really retiring from the U.S. Senate because she can’t stand the poisonous partisanship in Congress – and we have no reason to doubt her word on that score – then Maine is paying a terrible price for the rancor that has become business as usual in Washington, D.C.”
We only need look just beyond Maine’s borders to find moderate Republicans, such as Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire or Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts.
Not to mention that no one could reasonably say Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Utah’s Orrin Hatch or John McCain are anywhere near Tea Party favorites.
Hatch was a close personal friend of the liberal lion, the late Senator Ted Kennedy, and they worked closely on several pieces of legislation.
Former Maine Senator Edmund Muskie
If anything, there is far too much moderation in the Senate and not enough people to stand up and cry foul when necessary. But the media won’t tell you that.
Why? Well, have you ever watched C-SPAN? It’s more boring than watching paint dry.
More than 99.9 percent of the time, both parties in Congress are working cooperatively and doing a super-duper, stand-up job of figuring out how to further screw the people they supposedly represent.
The system is not broken. It’s fixed.
But the media likes to focus on the Rand Paul’s of the world, or the banality of Rep Joe Wilson (R-SC) who shouted, “You lie!” during a State of the Union Address by President Obama.
That kind of partisan hype makes for better Facebook updates and newspaper headlines than the recent bipartisan push to reauthorize the Defense Spending Act; or last month’s transferring of budget line-item veto power to the president, a scary proposition for all of us, depending on who is sitting in the Oval Office.
Did you see that in the newspaper or on your favorite blog?
That nugget seemed especially important for Snowe to mention during last month’s Republican caucuses in Maine, where she was facing primary challenges from more conservative candidates.
Reportedly, Snowe votes along party lines nearly 75 percent of the time. Good for her! She’s a Republican, what do you expect? But does breaking ranks one out of four times make you a moderate? Please.
We have become a nation of sheep, bleating for civility and warm, fuzzy sentiment.
But what about Nancy Pelosi’s statements when the House was finally able to pass the controversial health care reform bill? We won…deal with it. Should Democrats be a bit more moderate and side more often with Republicans?
We conveniently forget the rancor that dominated the Continental Congress, the Burr-Hamilton duel, the partisanship that led to the Civil War, the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, the communists-hunting era of Joe McCarthy or the vitriol expressed by Barry Goldwater, not to mention the more recent call for President Clinton’s impeachment.
Maine people, especially, should be mindful of those lessons and our place in history.
Look at how the GOP slung mud at Ed Muskie; or consider the wisdom of Margaret Chase Smith as she chastised McCarthy: “Have you no shame, sir?”
Instead of heeding the mindless, perfunctory analysis of media pundits, maybe we all should crack a history book every once in a while.
For a fun, yet historically accurate, reminder about our nation’s political discourse and the angry words used by our founding fathers, check out this video.
LESSONS IN MEDIOCRITY | OUTLAW JOURNALIST 