Al Diamon

Al Diamon

Do nothing ‘till you hear from me

The Maine Legislature doesn’t like to be told what to do.

That’s because the Legislature would prefer not doing anything.

For a politician, doing stuff is risky. No matter how innocuous the action (a proclamation declaring National Don’t Do A Damn Thing Day), there are going to be people who won’t like it (probably the Alliance of Highly Motivated Doers). Once legislators are on record for or against, the folks annoyed with whatever they did are going to light up social media with nasty comments. Protesters will take to the streets. Prominent political figures will issue statements of condemnation.

You can understand why the Legislature might prefer to punt. (Although even that gutless step could bring down the wrath of the Anti-Punting League.)

Trouble is, nature abhors a vacuum. (It’s never been clear why nature singles out this particular household appliance for its disdain, although it may have something to do with lobbying by Citizens United In Opposition to Suction-Producing Devices.) Legislative reluctance to take a stand creates lots of vacuums. (Which may account for why so many voters believe the Legislature sucks.)

Increase the minimum wage? Your state senators and representatives meant to tinker with that, but you know how the hours slip by and suddenly it’s dinnertime.

Boost education funding? So complicated that it might take awhile. Like forever.

Draft a new energy policy? Jeez, you think that education thing is confusing. This is way worse.

Approve Medicaid expansion? Gosh, look what day it is. Time for adjournment.

In the absence of detectable legislative activity, special interests have stepped into the gap with sloppily worded petitions seeking to put ill-considered referendum questions on the ballot. While some critics of this process — notably Paul LePage, Maine’s Republican governor and mutant snapping turtle — have blamed this trend on liberals, the truth is conservatives have made use of the initiative process when circumstances suited them (eliminate the state income tax, repeal same-sex marriage). No part of the ideological spectrum is immune to the temptation to take their crusades directly to the voters.

And there’s nothing wrong with that. The drafters of our system of governance (known as representational indifference) wisely included the referendum mechanism in order to allow the people to take action when the Legislature found itself unable or — more likely — unwilling to do so.

But nothing stirs the sluggish blood of a hibernating elected official like the possibility they’re being rendered irrelevant. And thus the Legislature — bypassed in recent years on issues ranging from ranked-choice voting to marijuana legalization to casino gambling — is finally threatening to do something.

It wants to change the referendum process to make it more difficult for voters to consider issues the Legislature refuses to deal with (an idea endorsed by the Union Of Elected Officials Concerned That Somebody Else May Dare To Do What We Don’t Dare To Do). And make no mistake, this is a bipartisan blunder.

“I think the process has gotten out of hand,” Democratic Sen. Bill Diamond told the Bangor Daily News. “I think something has to be done about it.”

“This process needs to be changed,” commented Garrett Mason, Senate GOP leader, to Maine Public. “It is interfering with our elected job as representatives of the people.”

Several bills have been introduced in an effort to stop mere voters from considering issues their wise leaders have determined would best be addressed by ignoring them. They include a number of barriers to collecting the required signatures to get a question on the ballot, currently 10 percent of the votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election or just over 61,000 names of registered voters. These roadblocks include requiring at least some signatures from every state Senate district, requiring equal numbers of signers from each congressional district, outlawing initiatives that deal with hunting and fishing, and not allowing anyone whose name “sounds Muslim” to sign.

These are all stupid ideas (that last is not only stupid, but false), and legislators — if they were ever going to do anything — should reject them. Because there’s a simpler way to reduce the number of referendums:

The Legislature could do its job.

Sign my petition to make not doing anything the official job description of the Maine House and Senate by emailing This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.." style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 14pt; font-style: italic; white-space: pre-wrap; text-indent: 18pt;">This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Looking for the next bad thing

Rick Bennett isn’t going to be Maine’s next governor.


Too bad.


Bennett is probably what the state needs: a fiscal conservative with common sense and no pathological aversion to compromise. In other words, he’s 10 percent like current Gov. Paul LePage and 90 percent not.


One other difference: Bennett is pro-choice, LePage pro-life. With the U.S. Supreme Court likely to overturn or restrict Roe v. Wade, abortion is going to be a hot-button issue in the 2018 gubernatorial contest. In the Republican primary, where nearly all voters want it outlawed, there won’t be much tolerance for a candidate who believes otherwise.


That renders Bennett — an experienced and media-savvy politician, who retired last month as chairman of the Maine GOP, served as president of the state Senate and ran a credible campaign for Congress — unelectable.


Winning elections in this state used to be about attracting support from the center of the ideological spectrum, a now-mythical territory much like Shangri-La or an open table at Fore Street restaurant on a Saturday night. The new reality is everyone is polarized, fearful that giving any ground will allow fanatics (defined as anybody with different views) to rampage into power and trash every ideal you hold dear.


I can’t imagine how they developed such an outlandish phobia.


In any case, it spells curtains for Bennett and other moderates who dare enter the Republican scrum next year. No wonder GOP U.S. Sen. Susan Collins is considering abandoning her party label and running for governor as an Independent.


This altered landscape also blocks the path of state Sen. Roger Katz of Augusta (pro-choice, anti-LePage) and former House minority leader Josh Tardy of Newport (shows flashes of rationality, works as a lobbyist), as well as nonstarters like Deril Stubenrod of Clinton (unknown, spells name funny).


That leaves the GOP with three choices: 2nd District U.S. Rep. Bruce Poliquin, health and human services commissioner Mary Mayhew and Senate Majority Leader Garrett Mason, all of whom are unwaveringly conservative and utterly unacceptable to most voters in southern Maine.


On the Democratic side, it’s even more muddled. The merest hint of Clintonism is tantamount to treason. The minimum requirement is now a fiery socialist populism that’s distinguishable from Donald Trump’s approach only in that it costs more and annoys Mexico less.


Attorney General Janet Mills is the nominal frontrunner. Mills gets points with party stalwarts for standing up to LePage, but opposed legal pot and is suspected of harboring centrist sentiments. Like Bennett, Mills wouldn’t make a bad governor, but she’d make a bad primary candidate.


Adam Cote ran for the 1st District seat back in 2008. Since then, Cote may have done something to keep his name in the public consciousness, but it escaped my notice. A lawyer from Sanford, he used to be a middle-of-the-road Dem. If he still is, he’s out of touch with the times.


Adam Lee comes from a family with deep roots in Democratic politics. He’s all over the tube in commercials for his car dealerships. He has excellent hair. None of that matters to radical leftists.


Congresswoman Chellie Pingree might run if she can figure out a way to win even a handful of votes in northern Maine. Former House Speaker Mark Eves got his butt kicked repeatedly by LePage. As a political resume, that’s a little thin. Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap is pro-gun, which ain’t gonna play in the Dem primary. Former Senate minority leader Justin Alfond is liberal enough to win the nomination — and lose the general election by landslide numbers. Lucas St. Clair is politically savvy (he got his mom’s land next to Baxter State Park declared a national monument) and has financial backing (his mom is rich). But his mom is Roxanne Quimby, and nobody likes her.


Anybody else?


Oh yeah, that guy who swore off running for governor, telling the Portland Press Herald he was “taking a vow of abstinence.” Someone should have told him condoms work better, because independent Eliot Cutler is again bloated with gubernatorial ambitions. Unfortunately, his moderate base no longer exists, so his third bid for the Blaine House looks like an abortion.

I didn’t forget independent Shawn Moody. I just ignored him. Others who deserves similar treatment can be reported to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..">This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Don’t know much about history

Welcome to History 101 at Trump University. I’m your professor, Gov. Paul LePage.


In this class, you’ll learn the true history of the United States, free of political correctness and so-called scientific facts. After completing this course, you’ll see the world in a new light. A white light.


Let’s start where our problems began — with the Big Bang. This was a socialist plot to redistribute all matter equally, a sort of cosmic Medicaid expansion. Under this Marxist scheme, galaxies populated by welfare-loafing aliens got as many molecules as those inhabited by hard-working Americans. This manipulation was solar-powered, a left-wing experiment in expensive alternative energy. And don’t get me started on dark matter. And black holes. We wouldn’t have drug problems if that stuff had been eliminated.


On the other hand, there were white dwarf stars. Sort of like Congressman Bruce Poliquin. Only brighter.


Eventually, the earth formed. Great heroes like Adam and Eve (see, I included a woman), King Arthur and Charlemagne conquered the dinosaurs and established human civilization. Next came the Roman Empire, which had excellent roads and jobs for everyone as gladiators or supporting actors in lion-related entertainments. Unfortunately, the Romans weren’t vigilant enough, which allowed dusky-hued barbarians with names like D-Goth and Smoothie the Hun to sack Rome and impregnate white girls.


Not all the important events were taking place in Europe. The Chinese invented chop suey and also a wall to keep out immigrants. The Arabs get credit for arithmetic and camels. And the Russians created roulette.


Meanwhile down in Africa, black people developed rap music and crack cocaine.


Our white ancestors were no slouches. In 1492, they sent Christopher Columbus to discover Caribbean vacation resorts.


The New World that Columbus found already had some people in it. But they were uncivilized, lacking such innovations as progressive rock, Wi-Fi, and venereal disease. For reasons I cannot understand, those savages have never thanked us for bestowing these gifts upon them.


Soon after, settlers from England arrived. Let me be clear: These people were not immigrants because they were white, they spoke English, and they weren’t Muslims. They established 13 colonies, such as Atlantic City and Miami Beach. Unfortunately back in Britain, the liberal elite decided to raise taxes to pay for health care for the shiftless. This burden forced the colonists, under the capable leadership of George Washington and Rutherford B. Hayes, to revolt. There were battles in Lexington, Concord and maybe Appomattox, after which the British surrendered and went off to torture people in South Africa and India.


The newly independent Americans, including Benjamin Franklin and Ulysses S. Grant, then drafted a Constitution that said all white men were created equal, But not women (except for Eve). Blacks were three-fifths equal. Indians weren’t close to equal, but were promised Oklahoma, which hadn’t been discovered yet. Did the ungrateful wretches thank the white men? No, they didn’t.


Life in the fledgling United States wasn’t easy. The British attacked again in 1812, but were defeated by brilliant generals like Andrew Jackson and George Patton. The Louisiana Purchase turned out to be another public lands boondoggle (most of it wasn’t even in Louisiana), but luckily President Aaron Burr refused to release the bonds needed to pay for it, and the French sold it to Mexico instead. In the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln personally led the troops to victory at Gettysburg, thereafter making that his permanent address. This freed the slaves and began an era of racial harmony that was only disrupted by the recent arrivals of asylum seekers and other melanin-heavy agitators.


In World War I, the U.S. bailed out the Brits and the French, thanks to brilliant leadership from President Winston Churchill and the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, who ended the conflict by nuking Japan, thereby halting the need to pay licensing fees to their creators. Or maybe that was World War II. No matter, because President Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War by defeating ISIS, which brings us to the present, where we face our greatest challenge:


In 2018, how am I going to run against both Sen. Angus King and Rep. Chellie Pingree at the same time?

Yes, this will be on the test. For extra credit, additional alternative facts can be emailed to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..">This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Smells like Bean spirit

I don’t like Linda Bean.


It’s not about politics. My negative attitude has nothing to do with Bean being fined for excessive donations to a political action committee she set up to support Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy. Compared to her previous sins, that’s nothing.


Nevertheless, there have been calls by liberal activists to boycott L.L. Bean, the Freeport retailer, because Bean is a part-owner and a member of its board. If I accepted the idea that backing Trump was sufficient grounds for public shunning, I’d have to stop doing business with my firewood supplier, who had signs for the Republican candidate prominently displayed in his front yard. I don’t want to inquire too closely about who my friends and neighbors supported, because a majority of voters in my rural corner of western Maine backed Trump in the November election. I might discover the guy who plows my driveway, the UPS driver or my favorite bartender cast ballots for The Donald. Boycotting them would render me snowbound, unable to receive packages and sober.


But since I was already hating on Linda Bean long before this most recent controversy, I don’t feel at all hypocritical about continuing to do so.


Bean has been slithering around the state’s political scene for decades under various names, such as Linda Clark (first husband), Linda Bean-Jones (second husband), Linda Bean Folkers (third husband) and, in recent years, back to her birth name. She’s twice run unsuccessfully for Congress, failed miserably as a recruiter for GOP legislative candidates, and contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to conservative causes. She’s also started successful lobster wholesale and retail businesses.


Bean rarely agrees to interviews (she made an exception for Fox News during the Trump donation flap), because she has a tendency to say things she later regrets, often due to their not being true. In the current dimensional warp of “alternative facts,” that’s no longer considered a character flaw, but I’m old fashioned. I still get testy when political figures lie to me.


In 1986, the Christian Civic League of Maine got a referendum on the ballot to ban obscene materials, which the league defined as anything other than the Bible and the weather forecast. The campaign was underwritten by an anonymous donor, who many reporters suspected was Bean. So, I asked her. “No,” she said, “that wasn’t me.”


Except, as documents eventually showed, it was. She’d denied it because the referendum lost badly, and she didn’t want it dragging down her congressional ambitions.


During her 1992 bid for the 1st District seat, Bean told reporters she favored abolishing the minimum wage. When she got major backlash, she claimed she’d misunderstood the question and actually favored … uh … something, but she stopped giving interviews before she could be asked what. She bailed out of a scheduled live radio interview with me because she said I had hit one of her primary opponents with “biased questions.” When I asked her spokesman for an example, he told me she objected to being asked, “Do you think President Bush is doing a good job spurring the economy and creating jobs?”


When I published a column making fun of her evasions and misstatements, she wrote a letter to my editor calling me “an extremely troubled person in child mode.”


As usual, she was only half right.


It wasn’t as if Bean singled me out for criticism. After she lost the election, she said Ted O’Meara, then chairman of the GOP state committee, was “totally out of touch with reality.” She referred to another Republican official as “the unwitting salami in a right-wing political sandwich.” (I have no idea what that means, but I like it.) In 2012, she sent a letter to libertarian-leaning Republicans calling President Obama “HITLERIAN” and claiming “he is closing in VERY FAST to eliminate totally our liberty rights and heritage.”


In 1992, some left-wingers called for a boycott of L.L. Bean because of Linda’s opposition to abortion and gay rights. That move seemed wrong-headed then, and its current revival appears likewise. The correct approach is to treat Bean like any other obnoxious fringe-dweller:

Ignore her.


Except she’s way too tempting a target for me to follow my own advice.


Does L.L. Bean sell air fresheners? Email answers to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..">This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Do you trust the mainstream media?

Those alt-right weirdos say a lot of nasty stuff about the mainstream media.

They might have a point.

It’s not that I buy into the complaint that reporters and editors at daily newspapers and TV stations have a liberal bias. For the most part, that isn’t true. To have a bias, they’d have to know something about the subjects they’re reporting on. Often, that’s not the case.

What makes it easy to dismiss much of what’s published and broadcast in the Maine media is the daily deluge of cloudy thinking, sloppy editing and outright incompetence that’s become the new journalistic norm. Simply put, you can’t trust what you read and hear. Sort of like listening to a speech by Republican Gov. Paul LePage. Only less racist.

Sometimes the inept attempts at conveying information can be humorous. On January 7, The Lewiston Sun Journal ran a front-page story on how businesses were coping with mandated increases in the minimum wage. It contained this gem: “[State economist Amanda] Rector sees three options: increase prices, trim employees’ hours, reduce employees or eliminate benefits.”

I’m pretty sure Rector can count better than that.

The January 10 edition of The Bangor Daily News published a column by Emmet Meara about problems with his bathroom drain. The headline: “I should have been a plumper.”

Anyone who knows Emmet is aware he’s fully qualified in that category. The word the copy editor couldn’t spell correctly was “plumber.”

Some mistakes, though, are seriously misleading. The January 16 Morning Sentinel contained this scoop: “Israel, Palestinians talk peace deal.” Unfortunately, The Associated Press story it topped carried the opposite message, with Israeli leadership rejecting the urgings of a French-sponsored conference for negotiations.

Apparently, reading copy before writing headlines is now optional.

Last September, The Maine Sunday Telegram ran an op-ed by somebody named Steve Bentley that claimed LePage was suffering from “deep-seated and unresolved psychological and emotional issues” caused by alcohol. Bentley based his assessment on public statements the governor had made, but not on any clinical examination.

The paper later deleted the column from its website and ran an editor’s note saying it “should not have been published.” But it never apologized to LePage. Or its readers.

Far more serious than any of the above missteps is a new policy at The Bangor Daily. Effective early this month, the paper decided it’s not going to report some stuff LePage says when it can’t verify its accuracy. According to a January 6 blog post by BDN State House reporter Christopher Cousins, “If we rush to simply throw a headline on something a politician says, without providing important context or asking them to provide substantiating information then we function as de facto propaganda machines.”

In this case, the paper didn’t report on LePage’s claim that two Maine companies (he later upped it to three) were about to shut down, eliminating 400 jobs. There’s good reason to be skeptical of this factoid, since the governor announced early last year that a southern Maine business was about to fold, costing the state 900 jobs (he later upped it to 1,500) — an event that, to date, hasn’t happened.

LePage has a long history of making false statements in radio appearances and speeches. His press office is notorious for not responding to questions. The news media would be justified in ignoring the ranting of an ignorant, racially offensive crank — if he wasn’t the governor.

But LePage is the governor. When he makes inaccurate claims, that’s as newsworthy as when he — occasionally — tells the truth. The Bangor paper’s argument that it can’t report on his fabrications without context and fact-checking is disingenuous. That context is readily available in the form of his many previous distortions of reality. And fact-checks are only a phone call or key click away.

Far more dangerous than the BDN’s fear that it will become “complicit in spreading inaccurate or incomplete information” are the consequences of not informing the public about what their governor is saying. Because word of LePage’s distorted pronouncements will spread by alternative means whether mainstream media facilitate it or not.

The newspaper’s misguided exercise in self-censorship is yet another example of why public trust in this institution continues to decline.

For instance, they just lost me.

Don’t suppress your comments. Email me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
.">This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

On the Governor's Proposed Budget

I like Republican Gov. Paul LePage’s new budget.


No, I haven’t lost my mind, although that remains a possible excuse for future columns. And my newfound respect for LePage’s fiscal prowess isn’t the result of bad drugs, because the doctor assured me any side effects wouldn’t alter my political philosophy.

I’m as clear-headed as I ever am this early in the morning (noon). I just like this budget.

Sure, it contains some items that could charitably be described as unworkable (a statewide teacher contact), ineffective (a $400 “property tax fairness credit” for low-income elderly people), nasty (outlawing General Assistance payments for asylum seekers) cruel (cutting off Medicaid for some parents making less than $10,000 a year) and nuts (a change in the school-funding formula that looks suspiciously like a cut in state aid to education).

Like every governor’s spending plan, the new budget isn’t perfect. But it does offer several sound proposals aimed at fixing longstanding problems with Maine’s financial situation. The fact that much of the best stuff stands no chance of passing the Legislature is no reason not to acknowledge that LePage has a clear vision of what’s wrong and what needs to be done to correct it.

Let’s start with the Rainy Day Fund. This is money that’s supposed to be available in emergencies, such as a recession. There’s currently about $123 million in there. If we experienced another severe downturn, that’s enough cash to last approximately 20 minutes. The governor wants to add $40 million, thereby giving us an additional cushion of 6 minutes and change. It’s not enough to correct the problem of insufficient savings, but it is a shift from the standard budget approach of “if we’ve got it, we’re spending it.”

Also, boosting reserves sits well with bond rating agencies, which means the state will pay lower interest on future borrowing.

Who could be against that?

1. Democrats, who want to use the money for new spending.

2. Republicans, who want to use the money for tax cuts.

Expect that $40-million figure to be significantly smaller in the final budget.

Next up: taxes. LePage wants to reduce the top income-tax rate from its current 7.15 percent (but set to increase this year to 10.15 percent) until everyone is paying a 5.75 percent flat tax by 2020. To make up for the lost revenue, the governor would expand (he uses the delightful euphemism “modernize”) the sales tax to cover ski tickets, golf fees, amusement parks, lawn mowing, tickets for movies and concerts, haircuts, house painting, snowplowing, dry cleaning and other services. Also, the tax on hotel rooms would jump from 9 to 10 percent.

This makes sense, since a large portion of the new taxes would be collected from tourists and rich people with second homes. In addition, it would help broaden the sales tax base, which is overly reliant on vehicle purchases (expected to fall sharply this year) and materials for home construction and improvements (the first spending that gets cut in a recession).

Who could be against that?

1. Republicans, who – with the exception of LePage – have been united in opposing anything that resembles a tax hike, even if the overall package is revenue neutral. The GOP succeeded in stripping a more ambitious tax shift from the governor’s budget two years ago and has displayed little enthusiasm for the revamped version.

2. Democrats, who forced through a similar tax-reform plan in 2010, only to see Republicans overturn it with a People’s Veto campaign, after which the GOP used the issue to clobber the Dems in legislative elections.

Finally, LePage wants to give cities and towns a tool to reduce property taxes by allowing them to charge nonprofit organizations service fees to cover the costs of police, fire and public works. It would end the free ride enjoyed by hospitals, religious institutions and charitable outfits by requiring them to reimburse municipalities for the benefits they enjoy at other taxpayers’ expense.

Who could be against that?

1. Democrats, who fear the fees will reduce money for those in need.

2. Republicans, who fear the wrath of rich campaign donors who sit on hospital boards.

But who needs those self-serving creeps, guv. You’ve still got me.


I’ve budgeted some time to read emails sent to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..">This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

The pleasure and the greed

I’ve got this great idea for a new law. It would be titled “An Act To Give Free Beer To Al Diamon For The Rest Of His Life.” If this bill got approved by the Legislature and signed by the governor, I could walk into any bar in the state and drink as many brewskis as I want on the taxpayers’ tab. Also, the public would be leaving a nice tip, because no matter what the minimum wage is, I still believe in treating bartenders in a manner that ensures my glass never sits empty for longer than it took leading Democrats to condemn Republican Gov. Paul LePage’s new budget — a period of time measured in nanoseconds.

Realistically, my bill and LePage’s budget stand about the same chance of passing unscathed. But while legislators will be taking the governor’s spending plan seriously enough to amend it beyond all recognition, they’re more likely to reject my measure without so much as a toast in my honor. Something about the unfairness of passing legislation that only benefits one person.

Fortunately, there’s an alternative method for achieving my selfish goal:


To do that, I’ll have to gather the signatures of just over 61,000 registered voters, many of whom will probably be drunks I find in bars. Then, I need to draft a suitably deceptive question (“Do you favor providing cost-free refreshment to a qualified individual of exceptional merit?”) to appear on the ballot.

Next, I’ll form a political action committee designed to obscure my intentions (The Campaign To Free Up More Of Al’s Money For Charitable Endeavors — Maybe). After a vigorous campaign funded by the alcohol industry (keep in mind that if I’m not paying, I’ll be drinking a lot more) and donors I’ll promise to buy a couple rounds (with what will actually be their money), I’ll celebrate victory by raising a tankard of the most expensive ale on tap.

Before you dismiss this scenario as the absurd musings of a besotted brain, consider a real referendum question that may well end up on this November’s ballot. It would allow a casino to be built in York County, but due to language buried in the plan’s bowels, only one person in all the world would qualify to own that facility.

No, not me.

The proprietor of this money machine must be “from an entity that owned in 2003 at least 51 percent of an entity licensed to operate a commercial track in Penobscot County.”

That limits the casino’s ownership to Shawn Scott, a Las Vegas developer who started what’s now the Hollywood Casino in Bangor. Scott spent about $2.7 million to buy a majority share of a then-decrepit racetrack and finance the referendum that allowed it to add slots and later table games. Two months after winning final approval, Scott sold out to a big gambling operation for a reported $51 million.

Obviously, Scott knows how to turn a profit on a scale that negates the need for anyone else to buy his beers. But sometimes, he can be a little too slick. His various enterprises have been linked to dozens of lawsuits in several states. A 2003 report from Maine’s horse-racing regulators found his companies engaged in “sloppy, if not irresponsible financial management.” He’s been accused of using deceptive practices to kill plans for a casino at Scarborough Downs. And his efforts to collect signatures for this referendum were thrown into disarray last year when more than half the names on his petitions proved invalid.

I won’t even bother to mention allegations that Scott’s minions convinced people to sign by lying about the referendum’s intent, because I might use that tactic myself.

To date, Scott has spent more than $4 million on this scheme, most of it bankrolled by his sister in Florida. It’ll likely cost twice that to run a campaign capable of overcoming fierce opposition from the state’s existing casinos. Which means he’s expecting an even bigger return on his investment than he received from that Bangor deal.

My referendum is nowhere near that greedy. Even counting all those beers I’ll owe supporters, there’s no way I can drink up more than a million bucks a year.

Set ‘em up, bartender, for me and everybody who emails This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
.">This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

You Can't Say That

The trouble with the right to free speech is other people’s vocal cords. They insist on flapping them to utter obnoxious noises.

Also, other people’s computers, used to produce ridiculous postings. And let’s not forget other people’s fingers, which operate the aforementioned computers, light matches to burn American flags and flip us the bird when we politely suggest they conceal their ignorance by shutting their pie holes.

“Why they’ve got to go make these silly statements, I don’t know,” said a prominent Mainer during a radio appearance in late December. This person was referring to Democrats protesting the election of Donald Trump as president. But his comment could be interpreted more broadly, considering that the speaker is something of an expert concerning “silly statements.” He’s Paul LePage, Maine’s Republican governor and loudspeaker-equipped inflatable lawn ornament.

More proof that free speech is a nasty business.

Which may be why so many people in this state are trying to get rid of it.

In September in the liberal bastion of Portland, somebody used a wall set aside for graffiti to paint a portrait of LePage dressed in Ku Klux Klan garb. The city’s mayor immediately called for its removal. “I do not want it up there,” Ethan Strimling told the Press Herald. “It is not reflective of our values.”

Shortly afterwards, another artist altered the painting to show the governor in Mickey Mouse ears. Apparently, that did reflect Portland’s values, because Strimling said nothing further.

Last spring, an electronic sign on Main Street in Mexico (the town, not the place Trump wants to wall off) began displaying such messages as “Weed the” and “Cannabis oil cures cancer.” That prompted town officials to send the property owners a letter that stopped just short of demanding the sign’s removal. “Reasonable people do not do something like that,” Town Manager John Madigan told the Sun Journal.

In Mexico, reasonable people are in short supply.

A South Portland High School student who wore a Trump “Make America Great Again” hat to school was harassed by two staffers.

An anti-abortion protester, who stood outside Planned Parenthood’s Portland office and shouted stuff about Jesus and dead babies, has been charged by the Maine Attorney General’s office with violating the state’s civil rights law.

The Maine Department of Corrections has, upon receiving legal advice, reluctantly stopped enforcing a rule that prohibited family members from posting online or publishing writings of prisoners.

But perhaps the weirdest recent attack on free speech comes from somebody who might be mistaken for a journalist.

In general, journalists are strongly in favor of the First Amendment and its guarantee of reporting unfettered by government. But George Smith has told me he doesn’t consider himself a journalist – even though he writes weekly columns for the Kennebec Journal and Morning Sentinel, a blog for the Bangor Daily News and co-hosts a cable-access TV show.

In his December 14 column, Smith lists a few ways elections could be improved. Some of his ideas make sense: banning campaign signs on public property, making it illegal for Clean Election candidates to also run privately funded political action committees, getting rid of legislative term limits. But it’s Smith’s first suggestion that runs afoul of free speech.

He wants to let the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices (motto: Issuing Inconsequential Fines Since Sometime in the 1980s) “check the honesty of political ads.”

Smith goes on to say, “If they determine an ad is false, they should require the ad’s sponsor to immediately make a correction, using the same media that was used for the false ad. And the commission should issue a press release noting the inaccuracy of the ad.”

Only two problems with that. First, it’s unconstitutional for the government to tell political candidates (or anybody else) what they can say. Second, determining what’s false is nearly impossible. If candidate D calls candidate H “crooked,” how will the commissioners determine whether that’s a fact, a matter of opinion or a lie? There’s no objective way to do so.

Smith should stick to hunting and fishing, subjects about which he has some familiarity, and leave it to voters to sort out the messy blessings of free speech.


I’ll shut up now, and let you blather on at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..">This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

The "M Word," It's legal, but still controversial

It’s legal. But it’s still controversial.

Its health benefits are debatable. But that doesn’t deter its advocates from making outrageous claims.

And no matter where you buy it, it’ll be strictly regulated just like alcohol, tobacco and firearms. But for far more dubious reasons.

After decades of political upheaval, Maine and the nation are still trying to come to terms with how to regulate a seemingly benign agricultural product with a name that begins with the letter “m.”


Hell no, I’m talking about milk.

For reasons that have never made sense, the sale of moo juice is subject to an array of rules more complicated than those governing such toxic substances as campaign finances, nuclear waste disposal or excess gubernatorial verbiage. Selling milk is significantly more difficult than selling Donald Trump’s agenda to Portland’s liberal legislative delegation.

The most obvious example of regulatory excess is Maine’s law controlling the retail price of milk. Unlike other forms of price controls, which attempt to protect consumers by placing maximum limits on how much can be charged, the state sets the minimum amount.


Excellent question, for which there seems to be no good answer. In theory, the law against bargain milk guarantees that dairy farmers receive enough return to remain in business, thereby propping up a traditional rural industry and preserving open space for future generations, who will neither be able to afford nor appreciate it.

How’s that worked out?

Not well. In 2001, the state had 645 commercial dairy farms. That number has declined nearly every year since then, until today there are fewer than 250. While the average farm is considerably larger than at the turn of the century, that hasn’t resulted in an improved bottom line. Most of them are struggling to survive. While milk production is up (those damn cows have no grasp of economics), profits are down due to a glut on the market.

To combat that trend, farmers have tried a couple of approaches. They offered organic milk at a premium price (remember, Maine rule-makers let them charge more, just not less). Unfortunately, the recent recession and the lack of large numbers of consumers willing to pay extra for something that’s not demonstrably healthier than the out-of-state, industrial-dairy milk from Cumbies has left that marketing effort in disarray. Another attempt to increase profits by allowing wider sales of raw milk has failed at least three times in the Legislature and a few other times in court. Add in all the incomprehensible interference from the 2014 federal farm bill, and it’s small wonder the dairy industry is in udder despair. (I swear the editor made me use that cow pie of a pun. Complaints should be directed to that cud-chewer.)

There is, however, a bright side to all this overregulation. Cow-control officials collect fees from the dairy industry and also receive cash from the state budget, with this money set aside to help farms in distress. Which, as previously noted, is nearly all of them.

In the past two years, this fund has given out $32 million to offset farmers’ losses (a sum that would no doubt have drawn the ire of state welfare bureaucrats if it was discovered that any of these recipients were immigrants from terrorist-plagued nations). That’s a lot of money to prop up a dying industry. Although, it’s probably less than we’ve wasted trying to salvage all those shuttered (and soon-to-be-shuttered) paper mills.

Maybe it’s time to put our efforts into promoting a form of economic development that’s more likely to be profitable, even without a continuing infusion of public funding. And maybe it’s possible to accomplish that without any loss of agricultural jobs and while maintaining a reasonable facsimile of the rural lifestyle.

Maybe it’s time to seriously consider that other “m” word:


You know, like kangaroos. There’s got to be some kind of market for them. And the only competition is Australia. We could own this deal.

OK, kidding.

The real “m” word is marijuana. Any dairy farmer who isn’t thinking about putting in a pot crop should be stuck in the butt with a cattle prod.


I figure I drink less milk in a year than beer on an average Sunday afternoon. Other significant statistics can be mailed to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..">This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Everybody is freaking out about fake news

Stop the freak-out. Everybody should relax. Fake news is a big improvement over real news.

Let’s consider some examples.

Real: “Maine Democrats announce a new plan to address the state’s economic and social problems.”

Fake: “Maine Democrats admit they are a bunch of hopeless wusses, who’ve been trying to conceal the fact they have no clue how to deal with difficult issues.”

Oddly enough, what’s technically fake comes uncomfortably close to being the truth. Over the years, the Dems have unveiled numerous ambitious proposals for doing something or other, all of them either unrealistic, unworkable or unaffordable. This didn’t concern party leaders because they never had any intention of implementing these plans. But as the public gradually began to catch on to this scam, the donkey party’s influence waned to the point where it’s now firmly in control of nothing except parts of Portland, Brunswick and a few scattered enclaves of aging hippies.

Real: “Republican U.S. Rep. Bruce Poliquin dodges questions about his positions on controversial issues, saying such matters have nothing to do with the important stuff he’s dealing with in Washington.”

Fake: “Poliquin admits the only issue he cares about is whether he wins the next election, and he’ll say (or not say) whatever it takes to accomplish that.”

The only part of this that’s fake is that Poliquin would make such an admission.

Real: “Portland Mayor Ethan Strimling promises to work more closely with city councilors and the city manager to avoid controversies.”

Fake: “Strimling kidnaps his political opponents and works them over with a rubber hose until they bend to his will.”

Ha ha, nobody in their right mind would buy that story – ow! – hey – ow! – stop – ow!

Real: “Newly elected legislators promise to work in a respectful and open-minded manner in order to make this session the most productive in recent Maine history.”

Fake: “An Augusta gun shop owner reports a huge increase in sales of assault weapons coinciding with lawmakers’ return to the capital.”

You know that’s fake, because most legislators couldn’t pass the background check. They buy their weapons through unregulated private sales.

Real: “In his weekly radio address, GOP Gov. Paul LePage said, ‘All elected officials must respect the will of the people.’ LePage then called for massive changes to two referendum questions — a minimum wage increase and a tax on rich people to pay for schools — approved by the voters in November, saying the public didn’t understand what it was supporting.”

Fake: “LePage says any referendums with which he disagrees should be shot between the eyes, hung up by the hind legs, gutted and left to rot on the State House lawn as a warning to liberals not to take this democracy thing too seriously.”

In reality, a hearty eater like LePage would never waste all that meat.

Real: “Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins might run for governor in 2018.”

Fake: “Collins might be running a child sex ring out of the basement of Simones' Hot Dog Stand in Lewiston.”

Does Simones' even have a basement? If not, Collins is probably using Dysart’s in Bangor.

Real: “In the past two years, state Sen. Troy Jackson has transformed himself from a conservative Democrat with a focus on issues affecting rural Maine to a populist leftist with a focus on getting himself elected to some higher office than Senate minority leader.”

Fake: “Space aliens have abducted Jackson and substituted a pod person. Notice how much more articulate he is. It’s a dead giveaway.”

What-you-mean? Him-seem-normal-to-me.

Real: “GOP state Rep. Larry Lockman of Amherst spouts extremist nonsense. No one pays attention.”

Fake: “Rep. Lockman receives awards for humanitarian service from women’s groups, LGBTQ organizations and Sen. Troy Jackson, who said, ‘Him-a-lot-like-me-only-uses-gooder-grammar.’”

Alt-right ain’t alt enough for Lockman. Or right enough, either.

Real: “LePage gives a speech filled with misstatements about immigrants, welfare, drug dealing and 'the ziki fly,' while launching scurrilous attacks on politicians with whom he disagrees.”

Fake: “LePage sticks to facts in his latest public address, while characterizing his opponents as people of good will with whom he hopes to find grounds for compromise.”

In this instance, the real news is a lot more interesting than the fake stuff.

I’m not lying when I say you can email me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..">This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Subscribe to this RSS feed