June 25, 2018
Opinion Latest News | Poll Questions | Red Meat Allergy | Foraging | Ranked-Choice Voting

Thursday, Feb. 7, 2013: LePage, Second Amendment and 9/11

Ashamed of governor

I am Catholic and Franco American. I am also ashamed that Gov. Paul LePage represents us in the top office of the state of Maine. LePage has disgraced us in so many ways and continues to do so almost daily.

Early on, he told members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to kiss his butt, told President Barack Obama to “go to hell” and stay out of the state of Maine, and had a mural representing workers taken down from the walls of the Labor Department.

He has called people Nazis, liars and said toxic chemicals that pose a health risk to children would merely grow little beards on women’s chins. Recently he called state legislators “idiots” and stormed out of a meeting only to return and swear at them. He has made war with school officials and teachers.

This is only a part of the offensive behavior of a man who has shown himself to be beyond respect and unfit to be governor of Maine.

I would not, in good conscience, allow my children to be in the presence of this man unless he were to apologize for his behavior. LePage does not warrant the obeisance of school children he loves to hate.

Suzanne Hedrick


Off base on the 2nd Amendment

I believe in the Second Amendment just as much as anyone else. I would be the first to defend this right.

Clearly, the amendment states that citizens have a right to have firearms in order to defend themselves. However, it does not state that citizens have a right to assault each other with weapons that are developed solely for the military.

Assault rifles and clips with more than eight-shot capacity need to be in the hands of the military only.

Doug Pooler


9/11 Commission claims

The Jan. 29 article, “ Fighter pilot who patrolled sky over New York on 9/11 speaks at UMaine” about Martin Richard, a fighter pilot who was scrambled over New York City after the World Trade Center incident on 9/11, ended in an interesting way.

Richard commented on having been ordered next to “intercept, identify and divert United Flight 93” — the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania.

As with many news articles about 9/11 over the years, the most significant point of that quote was obscured, though undoubtedly not intentionally, by the author’s focus. In this case, the focus was on Richard’s discomfort with the possibility of shooting down a commercial airliner.

The truly significant point, however, is that Richard is describing a reality that was completely denied by the 9/11 Commission, which claimed that the military was not told about Flight 93 until after it had crashed.

Richard is one of many fighter pilots and air traffic controllers who, through their own experience of that day, are well aware of the falseness of that claim.

That one item is only the tip of an iceberg of ways in which the 9/11 Commission did not, as it claimed, provide the whole story of 9/11.

It has been a tragedy for us all, given all that has happened since, and the dire policies whose roots lie in that day, that the public isn’t more widely aware of this.

Dick Atlee

Southwest Harbor

Living with trade-offs

We could have prevented the Newtown, Conn., shooting. Absolutely we could have prevented it. All we had to do was institutionalize Adam Lanza before he had a chance to act. The same is true of the shooter of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims in Arizona.

Identify those with mental disease, and have them get the care they need. That would cure the problem.

But realistically our society will not do that. Why? Because we realize that the trade-offs of protecting the civil rights of people with mental disease are incidents like these every now and then.

We live with trade-offs every day of our lives. Gun deaths and vehicle deaths in the U.S. are close to being equal, if you include gun suicides.

In regard to the level of vehicle deaths, most people would say, “Gee, that’s awful. What’s for supper?”

We could significantly reduce vehicle deaths if we would accept “restrictors” on our auto engines that would limit us to 10 mph. Or we could ban the sale of SUVs or vehicles with engines larger than 10 mph.

But, we will not do that. We will live with the level of highway deaths so we can continue our lifestyles.

Douglas M. Flagg


Have feedback? Want to know more? Send us ideas for follow-up stories.

You may also like