Dan Skolnik addresses West End News claims

(Cross-posted at Augusta Insider)

A few weeks ago, the Portland Public Safety Committee gave Portland Police the OK to use tasers for a trial period. Prior to the agreement, several Maine groups including Peace Action Maine and the Maine Civil Liberties Union, spoke out against the use of tasers by the Portland PD. Councilman Dan Skolnik wrote an Op/Ed in the Portland Press Herald on June 27th attempting to alleviate some concerns over police taser use. One Portlander did not agree with Councilman Skolnik’s views.

Marge Niblock, police reporter for the West End News, wrote an rebuttal to Councilman Skolnik’s editorial in the Portland Press Herald and the West End News. Niblock questioned Councilman Skolnik’s facts on tasers, specifically the banning of tasers in Baltimore, Chicago, and Philidelphia and Councilman Skolnik’s citing of a taser manufacturer’s website as a resource for how “police technology is regulated at the municipal level all over the country.” Niblock accused Councilman Skolnik and the Portland Press Herald of “promulgating misinformation“

Niblock also reported that Councilman Skolnik told her “My statement is not false. It’s not sufficiently accurate.” in response to his inaccuracies in the PPH editorial. “(Skolnik’s
clarification brings to mind President Bill Clinton’s famous disclaimer: “I did not have sex with that woman.”)” Niblock wrote in reply.

The West End News reported last week that Councilman Skolnik “called the writer of the story at her home after the story appeared, screaming at her and calling her a liar. He also
called the newspaper in a rage, claiming that his words had been distorted.” Niblock also said she had taken a polygraph test confirming her side of the story.

We have the West End News’ side of the story, but what about Councilman Skolnik. Councilman Skolnik has provided a statement clarifying his side of the incident. The statement appears below in full.

When Marge Niblock called me and brought the error to my attention I went back to the source material and looked again. I told her, “You’re right I made a mistake. I was looking at the wrong information in the source material. Of course, the statement isn’t false, because tasers ARE prohibited for civilians. But, yes, it’s not sufficiently accurate because that’s not what we’re talking about; we’re talking about police use.”

Niblock distorted that statement into her headline, “My statement wasn’t false, it wasn’t sufficiently accurate.” She purposefully and knowingly made it look like I TRIED to mislead people with the misstatement, AND that I didn’t acknowledge the error when pointed out in that phone call. Both implications are as false as can be, and Niblock knows that.

This little bit of invention was apparently done so Niblock could make a witticism about Bill Clinton and me, rather than advance the public discourse on taser use by the Portland Police Dept. But Clinton’s statement was videotaped.

Are we to be impressed that Niblock claims to have passed a polygraph test? They are unreliable, and in any case it shows she cannot produce any RECORD that I said what she printed. That’s because her gross distortion is either an irresponsible or an incompetent fiction.

Ed King is also inflamed over this because I called Niblock on the carpet, although he is unable to come up with a cogent reason why. His ideas about the role of the press in local politics are unique among the Portland press corps. Ed’s notions of honesty and fairness evidently do not match mine

.

Sunday Editorial on Editorials – Gay marriage and negotiation thank you

Let’s start off this weekend with an editorial from the Portland Press Herald. The writer is critical of a new argument proposed in favor of the gay marriage bills here in Maine. The argument? The bill would produce an economic boost.

from Portland Press Herald

The Williams Institute at the University of California School of Law has issued a report claiming that the Maine economy would see a $60 million boost over the next three years if same-sex couples were allowed to marry.

The study estimated how many couples would take advantage of the law and what they would spend on a wedding. It also estimated how much the state would collect in taxes and fees.

In this tough economy, it’s hard to be against anything that would help generate activity and boost tax revenues, but it is equally hard to believe that this type of analysis would help any thoughtful person come to a decision on this issue.

The gay marriage issue is one of beliefs, not of numbers. The editorial goes on to state that whether people are for or against the issue has nothing to do with economics. If people voted on these sort of things based solely on economics pot and prostitution would have long been legalized.

Linking the gay marriage issue to money only cheapens the discussion. We need to reach out to people’s hearts and minds, not their wallets. Let’s not forget that this is an issue affecting real people, people who love each other, people who are being denied rights that the rest of us, including myself at times, take for granted. There are plenty of solid reasons for people to be for or against gay marriage. Don’t be distracted by time wasting speculation.

Next we have a letter to the editor from the Bangor Daily News. The writer thanks senators Snowe and Collins for showing the courage to stand up for what they believed in and for bringing moderation to the stimulus bill. In a time when moderate Republicans are facing a firing-line of their GOP counterparts this letter is refreshing. I’ll let you read the whole thing.

from Bangor Daily News

Thinking outside the box is a term associated with progress, innovation and even brilliance. Mainers should be proud of Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe for showing the courage and responsibility to not only think outside the box, but to vote outside the box on the stimulus bill. To step across a line that had metamorphosed into an almost insurmountable wall was an act of political bravery. But that is what Mainers have come to expect from both Collins and Snowe.

Collins and Snowe have been thinking, responsible members of Congress who put the good of the people at the top of their agenda. If all politicians held themselves to these standards, Congress would be a different place.

Political parties are necessary evils, but if members of those parties cannot be independent thinkers who consider and weigh issues, then the governmental process we pride ourselves on is just an illusion. The party borders need to be elastic and fluid so ideas and actions can blend and merge and the best possible answers and actions can result. Bipartisanism, compromise and negotiate — Collins and Snowe understand these words.

Snowe contributed to the stimulus bill workings not only through her position on the Senate Finance Committee, but also by trading ideas with Vice President Biden. By stepping up to the plate — and into the Oval Office to negotiate — Collins had a major role in the stimulus compromise.

Negotiated bipartisan compromise: the way government should be!

Thoughts, opinions, rants? Let’s hear ‘em

Sunday Editorial on Editorials – Even Republicans Praise Obama’s Inauguration Speech

Normally I like to review some local editorials from the Sunday paper today. The websites for the dailies here in Maine seem to all be down though. I am too lazy to go out and buy some copies; frankly the Portland Press Herald is not worth paying money for. I’ve had to look beyond the borders of the Pine Tree State for my opinions this Sunday.

The pickings were slim. I never realized how interesting the opinion sections of Maine newspapers are. It helps that we have a lot of strange people who aren’t afraid to share their views. We’re an odd breed up here. There’s no guessing if someone likes you or not. I’ll stop before I get too far off topic, something else Mainers are prone to do.

Just across the big green bridge from Kittery, Maine is Portsmouth. In the local Portsmouth paper, the aptly named Portsmouth Herald, I came across an interesting piece by D. Allan Kerr. While Kerr states he did not vote for President Obama he will support him and hope he does well, even if he has to keep a skeptical eye on him. This is a typical New England attitude to have. Well, I don’t like you much, but your welcome to catch a ride to the bean suppah with me. It must be some sort of Puritan ethics.

Kerr goes on to dissect Obama’s inauguration speech. The speech thoroughly moved and uplifted Kerr. The aspects of the speech that impressed Kerr were similar to those that got my attention. Overcoming the darkness in our past, our sense of brotherhood, and the call for unity.

Change did not win the election. One could argue that McCain presented changes of his own. The kind of change each candidate offered determined who won. The unity and togetherness that Obama proposed brought voters to his camp. McCain may have been willing to reach across party lines in the past, but that is not the front he presented during the election. The selection of Sarah Palin as a running mate proved that. McCain chose to pander to the dwindling Republican base. Obama reached out to moderates of both sides of the fence. “That one” won.

Both Obama and McCain pledge to secure and spread democracy throughout the world. McCain wished to do this by force. Obama will do this by force when necessary, but more importantly by providing an example and taking the moral high ground, as outlined by his inauguration speech. Obama dispelled the feelings of foreign policy naivete some had. Obama has certainly been reading up on his Roosevelt, Teddy that is.

There may be some in the extreme right that are still wondering how President Obama won. As Kerr points out, Obama silenced them with one sentence from his inauguration speech, saying, “What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.” Debate in government shouldn’t stop, but it’s time, and I’ve said this before in other ways, it’s time to get together and fix this damn country that has given us so much to be proud of.

Sunday Editorial on Editorials

Sundays are editorial days. All the newspapers are brimming with words of praise and punishment on the last day of the weekend. I’ve decided that on Sundays I should specifically comment on the comments I read in the Sunday specials.

A local Portland, Maine columnist Bill Nemitz wrote an article on January 4th on the Bush Shoeing and Jamilla El-Shafei’s planned recreation in D.C. The Press Herald received a flood of letters chastising Nemitz for various parts of the article. One letter takes issue with the opinion Nemitz puts forth in his column.

“Nemitz approached the line that separates journalism from advocacy when he published the Web site that the woman is using to collect the shoes, and he crossed it when, in closing, he wrote “come Jan. 20, we’d all best get over it.” The message I got was, “But let’s pile it on until then and here is where you can help!”

Bill Nemitz writes an opinion column. Nemitz agree with El-Shafei’s shoe tossing protest. That was his opinion. If he chooses to advocate a certain cause that is his choice. And it is your choice to disagree with him, as I do. (Bush has been bashed enough. Let the man fade into obscurity already.) To clarify the difference between an editorial and news article for that particular letter writer I present some definitions:

ed⋅i⋅to⋅ri⋅al
–noun
1. an article in a newspaper or other periodical presenting the opinion of the publisher, editor, or editors.

news
–noun
2. the presentation of a report on recent or new events in a newspaper or other periodical or on radio or television.

The difference is quite clear.

Another writer takes issue with Nemitz’s opening lines.

“Nemitz talked about his sister who lives in Virginia and, “whenever she drives by one of those Civil War re-enactments so popular down her way, rolls down her window and bellows, ‘Get over it!’ “

There was a time when I would have agreed with Nemitz’s sister. I spent a large portion of my youth in ignorance. After reading Tony Horwitz’s excellent “Confederates in the Attic: Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War” my opinion changed. Those of us in the North only have a passing interest in the Civil War. We forget that our Southern neighbors literally live with the history. Unlike us they are surrounded by the bloody battlefields on which the Union and Confederacy waged war. We should remember those five awful Aprils. The conflict shaped so much of our nation today and those re-enactors play their roles to remind what happened, not to change history. Nemitz’s sister would do well to remember that before she embarrasses herself by shouting any more ignorant words cowardly from a speeding car.