Press Releases: Resurgam

Published in the Portland Phoenix

Two years after ceasing production for lack of funding, Portland-based LibertyNewsTV is back in action, and just released a June episode of the progressive news-commentary series, which is distributed on CTN Channel 5 in Portland and on public-access cable channels nationwide.

The money that evaporated in the wake of Obama's election (see "Freedom Isn't Free," by Jeff Inglis, September 25, 2009) hasn't returned, says Matt Power, the series mastermind, producer, and editor. Rather, he plans to make the show "with whatever budget we have." A few donations have come in since the announcement of the show's revival, and Power is hoping for more as viewers rediscover the program.

The new incarnation (available online at libertynewstv.org) focuses primarily on the threats of nuclear power, with new host (and local actor) Tess Van Horn noting that the amount of spent fuel stored at the Fukushima reactor in Japan is one-fourth the amount stored at Vermont Yankee, in the far southeastern corner of that state, right next to the New Hampshire and Massachusetts borders.

A dance performance follows, offering a non-narrative new exploration of themes of death and ruination, soundtracked with ominous music and the "I found radiation" warning crackle of a Geiger counter.

The show closes with a segment of commentary from local thespian Daniel Noel. He moves from a Bill Keller-esque assertion that social networking is making people dumber, to a last-decade warning that corporations are collecting data on millions of individuals, and concludes with an exhortation to "unplug," backed with "O Fortuna," the clichéd threatening symphonic ode from Carmina Burana.

The contrasts between this new generation of the show and its first run are perhaps starkest in Noel's piece. His comments in previous shows were hilarious, incisive, and ironic — calls to action based on deeply held views and thoughtfully considered facts. In this installment they come across as the ill-informed rantings of an old white guy afraid of a changing world and too smug to bother solidifying his arguments.

Those problems exist in other segments of the new show too: nuclear and other threats are implied or assumed, despite the ready availability of great supporting details that would both focus the points and differentiate the arguments from the breezy dialogue that today passes for political conversation.

Power used to have great research and excellent assemblages of clips — from politicians and activists alike — bolstering the show's own commentary, and urging repetition by activists out in the streets. Some segments could have doubled as well-researched talking points to add to an ongoing social debate.

But this time, I didn't understand the underlying point about the nuclear segment until talking with Power: An electrical failure at Vermont Yankee could bring about an even bigger Chernobyl-like incident right here in New England, he told me.

That concise, solid observation would have made it into an earlier episode in a much clearer way. The same is true of Power's observation that while Germany has promised to be nuke-free by 2022, "Obama has said nothing of the kind" and continued to push for nuclear plants as part of domestic energy efforts.

"Now that Obama has shifted into election mode, it's the only time he's going to listen," Power told me. In past programs, that powerful call to action would be made verbatim. Here, it's simply, and less effectively, a behind-the-scenes guiding principle.

Which is not to say there isn't hope. Power told me about ideas for future episodes that may return to the focus of old, addressing issues of cultural violence and social psychology, while reviving the show's underlying purpose of empowering and informing real-world activism. LibertyNewsTV is back, and while its relaunch has a few hiccoughs, the show has done better, and can once again. Stay tuned.

(Disclosure: I delivered a commentary on a 2009 episode of LibertyNewsTV, and a clip from a Matt Power short film featuring Phoenix staff writer Deirdre Fulton is included in the title sequence of the reborn series.)

Gubernatorial scorecard: The quiet man

Published in the Portland Phoenix

Governor Paul LePage has, perhaps unexpectedly, refrained from loudly saying stupid things over the past month or so, since GOP legislators confronted him and told him he was a problem child. (Dems figured this out too, and are using LePage's photo on flyers recruiting activists for summer work.) Here's our fifth Gubernatorial Scorecard, in which we score Governor Paul LePage on political savvy, and on whether what he's trying to do is good policy. Note the running total.

QUIET ATTACK | LePage's budget proposal would eliminate all state funding for the Maine Public Broadcasting Network ($2 million a year), and is widely viewed as payback for aggressive coverage by MPBN news staff during his campaign. When asked, LePage denied it was payback, and stuck to that line.
POLITICS • He may have mastered the art of attacking without seeming to | 7/10
POLICY • Slashing the only decent news provider available to most of rural Maine | 2/10

QUIET SPENDING | LePage's budget also gives big handouts to Maine's wealthiest (in the form of income- and estate-tax cuts); he has claimed it is better for everyone because it also gives tiny handouts to working Mainers. This assertion, while technically true, has yet to be challenged by nonpartisan observers (such as the press), who might note that trickle-up is the economic model backed by the evidence; trickle-down, based on evidence and experience, is a failure.
POLITICS • Is he also mastering the art of double-speak? | 8/10
POLICY • Giving money to the rich barely helps the economy; giving it to the poor is a massive boost to all | 2/10

QUIET ACTIVISM | The governor promised during his campaign to take away worker rights, ostensibly to give employers more freedom to create jobs. He has carried this through, by killing a bill that would have increased the minimum wage, by reviving an anti-union proposal long thought dead by State House watchers, and by cutting welfare benefits.
POLITICS • Keeping his campaign promises | 7/10
POLICY • The jury's out on whether employers will exploit workers, hire more, or both | 5/10

QUIET DEATH | The governor and his GOP operatives rammed through a major overhaul of the state's health-insurance system, reducing consumer protections and allowing different companies to play by different (and fewer) rules. It drew very vocal opposition around the state and forced the resignation of the state's top insurance regulator. Fewer people will be able to afford care, what care there is will be more limited and more expensive, and companies will be freer to screw customers.
POLITICS • Proved he can work the system to get major agenda goals accomplished | 10/10
POLICY • Insurers from other states welcome, except Vermont, which just moved closer to single-payer | 2/10

QUIET DESTRUCTION | LePage has moved to reduce Maine's efforts toward energy independence, saying existing rules are too burdensome on customers, including businesses. In addition to supporting continued dependence on foreign sources, critics say the move could kill Maine's nascent green-energy industry. The governor says much of that industry depends on tax breaks and is "temporary."
POLITICS • Policy-wonk move cleverly explained as "you save money" | 9/10
POLICY • Green innovation needs government mandates to succeed | 4/10

This month's total | Politics 36/50 | Policy 15/50 | Last month: Politics 24/50 | Policy 29/50 | Overall: Politics 148/250 | Policy 106/250

Press releases: Doing Harmon

Published in the Portland Phoenix

He won't thank me for pointing this out, but Portland Press Herald columnist MD Harmon is a liberal's best friend. The infamously reality-detached arch-conservative textbook-cranky-old-white-man has established a reputation for himself of explaining in great detail the exact nature of conservative viewpoints on controversial issues.

This goes back at least as far as a 1991 column I recently learned of, in which Harmon opposed allowing gays to serve in the military because, he claimed, they would become sex predators in uniform. And in 2009, in a column opposing same-sex marriage he demonstrated, as I wrote then, "that the strongest objections to same-sex marriage are thin, weak, and, where related to flaws in legislation, already fixed in the bill Maine lawmakers have before them." (See "Press Herald Does An Amazing Public Service," thePhoenix.com/AboutTown, April 17, 2009.)

Last Friday, Harmon again published a column that, precisely because it was well documented, clearly argued, and transparently explained, achieved its polar opposite, exposing the weakness of his analysis, revealing the inconsistency of his logic, and ultimately doing more to disprove his argument than most people who actually disagree with him have ever done.

He took on three abortion-related bills now before the Maine Legislature.

First he addressed LD 1457, which requires parental consent before a minor can get an abortion. "The bill empowers responsible parenting, nothing more or less," Harmon writes, without a sense of irony. For Harmon, "responsible parenting" does not appear to include family planning, or parents and children talking openly about sex. His definition does, however, seem to include parents withholding consent for an abortion, thereby forcing their underage daughters to become mothers.

Harmon, a small-government conservative on most issues, here commits logical hara-kiri, arguing that when it comes to abortion, the state knows best, and the citizens are children who need to be told what's good for them.

Next, Harmon takes on LD 116, which would make women wait 24 hours between requesting an abortion and actually getting the procedure performed. He says that "surveys of post-abortive women widely show that many regret their decision," and alleges that "substantial numbers say they were pressured into it."

His logic is incomplete here: Harmon ignores surveys of women who have either chosen to become parents at a very young age or offered their newborns up for adoption. Regret numbers are high there, too, proving the obvious: When a young woman is pregnant, there are no easy answers.

Rather than sympathize with women forced to make grown-up decisions at too early an age, Harmon argues for a state interest in requiring a delay for an abortion, on the grounds that women are easily pressured into doing things they regret.

Lastly, he supports LD 924, which would require doctors to give women seeking an abortion a whole host of information about medical risks of abortion (and of childbirth), offers of economic assistance to carry a fetus to term, and basic legal advice about parents' rights and child support.

He patronizingly claims it is "hard to understand that anyone would object to giving a woman who is contemplating an invasive procedure information about what is occurring," and says the bill requires "simple, informative actions" that do not "keep women in ignorance."

Harmon even claims he supports the bill because "It views women as responsible agents," but the form of his argument belies that claim. He apparently actually believes that many — even most — women would walk into a doctor's office and ask for an abortion without seriousness of purpose, without understanding what is involved, without having talked it over with trusted friends. As a reasoned, thoughtful explicator of conservative values, Harmon is a top-notch portrayer of their shortcomings and flaws.

Gubernatorial Scorecard: Back from Vacation

Published in the Portland Phoenix

Governor Paul LePage recently returned from a Jamaican vacation, which provided fodder for some political controversy, and probably helped him avoid getting into new messes. Here's our fourth Gubernatorial Scorecard, in which we score Governor Paul LePage on political savvy, and on whether what he's trying to do is good policy. Note the running total.

PERMANENT VACATION | LePage has fired Charlie Colgan, the leader and most visible member of the state's Consensus Economic Forecasting Commission, the group that guesses how Maine's economy and tax revenue will do in the future, a key part of the budget process. Forecasts are never exactly right, but being overly optimistic, as Colgan was, causes more problems than guessing low.
POLITICS • Colgan was replaced with LePage-base-friendly ultra-conservative Maine Heritage Policy Center economist Scott Moody | 7/10
POLICY • Colgan's rosy predictions led to repeated rounds of excruciating "emergency" cuts to services; his departure is no loss | 10/10

IN NEED OF A VACATION | Top gubernatorial aide Dan Demeritt resigned his state post April 16, in the wake of reports that he and his businesses are behind on mortgage and utilities payments at several buildings, five of which are now in foreclosure.
POLITICS • Firing someone for financial trouble amid a recession? Heartless | 2/10
POLICY • Having a top aide who can't pay his bills is bad GOP form | 9/10

ACCOUNTABILITY VACATION | Shortly after his return, LePage told a group of business leaders that he was free to go on vacation because of how little the Legislature had gotten done so far. That drew fire from State House Dems and Repubs alike, with House Speaker Bob Nutting retorting, "I'm sorry that the governor still doesn't understand the legislative process and apparently nobody on his staff has explained it to him."
POLITICS • Excellent defense if his policy initiatives continue to crash and burn | 6/10
POLICY • Reckless antagonism of people he needs to achieve his goals | 3/10

STRAIGHT-FACE-TEST VACATION | In a three-day period, the governor: admitted his Environmental Protection commissioner was ineligible for the post because of a conflict of interest; moved that man (Darryl Brown) to a state office LePage has slated for closing; declared the state law the nomination violated needs revision; fired his Economic Development commissioner for making offensive remarks; declined to disavow the racist, classist comments in question.
POLITICS • Created enough moving targets that weaseling out of any actual error will be easy | 8/10
POLICY • Cleaning house incompletely leaves a lot of dirt behind | 3/10

VISIBILITY VACATION | As the Maine Turnpike Authority scandal gains mainstream attention years after the initial sounds of alarm (see "E-ZPass on Ethics," by Lance Tapley, August 4, 2006), LePage is nowhere to be found. This is precisely the sort of ridiculous entrenched-bureaucrat, government-waste problem LePage railed against when campaigning. But he is not stepping up to condemn it as loudly as we might have expected from his pre-election rhetoric.
POLITICS • Missing a massive opportunity to get on message | 1/10
POLICY • Raises a question: Does he really dislike cronyism and waste? | 4/10

This month's total | Politics 24/50 | Policy 29/50 | Last month: 32/50 | Policy 15/50 | Overall: Politics 112/200 | Policy 91/200

Commentary: This trickle-down stinks

Published in the Portland Phoenix

True free-market capitalism has lasted 30 years — barely half as long as its arch-enemy, Soviet communism. It began with Reagan chipping away at the social contract that bound us all together as fellow Americans, as human beings. Now, as funds "saved" by slashing programs for regular people are handed off to megamillionaire plutocrats as tax breaks, we can see clearly that the winner-take-all philosophy has bankrupted America morally, just as surely as it has punished her people financially.

That realization is taking hold among the rich — recent MarketWatch and Vanity Fair columns warn of dire consequences if the wealthiest one percent continue to neglect the suffering of the masses. The rest of us must now drive this point home. The risks if we do not are clear: Republicans in the US House of Representatives have just suggested slashing Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security — without canceling a dime's worth of tax breaks for the uber-rich.

As tax day, April 15, approaches, it is obvious that we live in an era of taxation without representation. The government takes money from the working class — the only people left who do not get massive tax breaks — and makes decisions that serve only the wealthy few.

Today, with endless war and limitless profiteering, America is in crisis. The Reagan-esque "trickle-down theory" appears ascendant, as politicians on left and right alike dole out government handouts to the wealthy and the corporations they own, while simultaneously eliminating government help for those who are the neediest. The stated promise — the vain hope — is that the rich will reinvest in America, creating jobs and thereby spreading wealth to everyone.

But we know that's not working — for decades now, America has been stripped of her wealth, her workers left to rising unemployment, their homes foreclosed upon, their children's schools gutted.

Self-serving politicians have co-opted the Tea Party movement, turned it into a pawn, a shill for corporate interests. The crowds that attend Tea Party rallies obviously do not realize that they are in a very real way demanding to pay higher taxes and receive fewer services, so that corporations can boost profits. Tea Party orators promote destruction of the social safety net that keeps children from starving, the elderly from freezing, and the poor from dying in the swamp of need. It is time for a return to the real Tea Partiers' values, for us to refuse to pay up without a voice in how our collective riches are allotted.

In Wisconsin, in Ohio, and in Maine, working people are finally standing up and reaffirming the true American ideal, one that generations grew up working to achieve: that we are all members of the same community, who thrive or perish together. We should not tolerate a nation in which corporations and the ultra-rich tread on the poor and middle classes, exploiting them by depriving them of fair pay, humane working conditions, and a decent education.

As the greedy, the heartless, and the power-crazed grow in influence, the American dream is turning into a nightmare. It is already a bad dream for far too many.

The real American dream — the one millions of Americans died striving for, perished protecting, and still work for today — is far from perfect. Still, it is a world in which some corporations are socially responsible, in which some of the wealthy recognize their private fortunes are built on the skills of the many, in which some of the privileged exercise what used to be called noblesse oblige but today goes by the name of public responsibility.

The real America is a nation in which every person has an equal chance to better his or her life, and by so doing also betters the lives of everyone around them. It is a nation in which we help our neighbors in need — knowing that when our day of need comes they will help us.

Today, as I prepare to pay my taxes to a government that does not represent my interests, I'm angry — and not just at the politicians and corporations. I'm angry at those who voted for Bush, for McCain — even, it seems, for Obama. We are complicit in our own ruin at the hands of the robber barons.

Now is a crucial moment for us to change course. The privileged, who have already achieved their fortunes by hook or by crook, seek to bar the door to us, to deny us our dreams forever.

It is time for us to stand up and tell the wealthy what, in fact, is trickling down on us from up there, where they sit, comfortable on their thrones. It is not prosperity, nor even opportunity. It's something very rudely different. And this trickle-down stinks.

Press releases: Build on each other

Published in the Portland Phoenix

Why is that when one Maine news outlet breaks a big story, the others spend more energy trying to copy it, rather than extend it? Take the most recent example, the labor mural dispute.

Governor Paul LePage's remarks and actions about the historical mural at the Maine Department of Labor office in Augusta are indeed newsworthy.

But after more than two weeks of non-stop coverage by Maine reporters, serious — and obvious — questions remain. We still don't know where the murals are, whether any actual business leaders disliked them, whether their removal was legal (a question now before a federal court), why they were removed so abruptly, nor why the governor later said he wished his removal order hadn't been followed so quickly.

These unanswered questions highlight a strange phenomenon of Maine journalism, which I have observed throughout the course of many years as a reporter and editor here.

In a competitive media environment, publications don't worry about getting the scoop a competitor had yesterday — they care about getting the news that hasn't been told yet. If someone gets a big break, other reporters swarm to the topic, seeking to build on that original story. Only rarely does this involve on-the-ground cooperation; mostly, reporters believe in the integrity of the competition, and bring their own resources to bear, driving deeper into the heart of an issue.

Maine has what might be called a passive-cooperative media environment, where media outlets don't acknowledge each other — for good or ill. Perhaps that's to avoid making the others look bad. But in the process, they make themselves weaker, and hurt the public interest.

As a contrary example, look at the New York Times-Washington Post relationship: They regularly scoop each other on topics both papers cover, such as national security. If the Times breaks a story, the Post will develop additional sources and insights to move the story forward, and will often make its basis explicit, saying in an early paragraph, "the New York Times reported X." By expanding on the information someone else has already reported, the Post can get a better, deeper, more insightful story. The Times will respond by building on the Post's reporting. Readers — whether they read one paper, the other, or both — learn lots more, very quickly.

That's not the case in Maine. Here, editors act as if their readers don't look at any other sources of news. So if the Press Herald, the Sun Journal, or the Bangor Daily News gets something good today, you can bet that tomorrow's editions of the other papers will have that story. But don't expect anything else. We see this in the coverage of the mural mess. Despite the massive reporting effort by the State House press corps (and the Press Herald was not the only paper to assign extra reporters to cover different angles), none of Maine's daily papers got anything substantially different from what any other paper had.

The basics still remain unknown. The problem is easily fixed, if only Maine media outlets would acknowledge that somebody has already covered some turf, and decide to move the entire story forward. Instead, busy covering what was already known, none of them bothered to figure out what the next question was, nor determine its answer.

• Another casualty of all this coverage of the mural controversy is news about WHAT ELSE WENT ON IN THE STATE HOUSE LAST WEEK. This is an administration and legislative majority with big plans to make big changes in Maine's governance — and while they likely didn't plan this particular massive distraction, key players are definitely poised to take advantage when the media spotlight turns away. Someone in the State House press corps should have the sense not to follow the pack, and to look in the dark corners others neglect.

Gubernatorial scorecard: What's behind the curtain?

Published in the Portland Phoenix

Here's our third Gubernatorial Scorecard, in which we score Governor Paul LePage on political savvy, and on whether what he's trying to do is good policy. Note the running total.

VEILED LOBBYING | LePage tried to create a "business advisory council," to allow key players in the state's economic scene to have direct access to the governor. After a statewide public and media outcry because LePage exempted the group entirely from the state's open-government law, the governor scrapped the idea.
POLITICS • Promoting transparency during the campaign turns to secrecy in office | 2/10 POLICY • He can still meet secretly with whomever he likes; this just avoids a fight about it | 7/10

VEILED THREATS | The governor has threatened to veto the budget if it changes from his proposals, despite the facts that 1) a two-thirds majority must pass the budget (automatically overriding any veto), and 2) compromise is the only way to get two-thirds support and avoid a government shutdown.
POLITICS • Shutting down the government is what his base really wants | 9/10 POLICY • Shows misunderstanding of the system | 1/10

VEILED HISTORY | The governor, on the basis of an anonymous note likening Maine to North Korea, ordered a huge mural in the Department of Labor office removed, saying the depictions of Maine's labor history were anti-business. The move spawned a satirical call for art from this newspaper (see below) and a real one from the state, as well as a scathing Sunday editorial in the New York Times and local and national media coverage mocking LePage for whitewashing reality.
POLITICS • Proves he'll do absolutely anything to promote jobs in Maine | 6/10 POLICY • This is his biggest pro-business move so far | 1/10

VEILED INFLUENCES | The governor celebrated the erection of an "Open for Business" sign at the Maine-New Hampshire border on I-95. The sign was made in Texas. And a couple of his campaign staffers launched a pro-LePage website, MainePeopleBeforePolitics.com. It's hosted in Utah.
POLITICS • Offers opponents easy distraction while his real agendas move forward | 8/10 POLICY • Needlessly thoughtless | 2/10

VEILED ACCESS | The famously mercurial, bullying governor promotes his open-door policy, welcoming anyone who wishes to speak with him. And yet he has posted a uniformed state trooper in his waiting room — in addition to his plainclothes bodyguard squad.
POLITICS • Job-creation success: one state trooper | 7/10 POLICY • Unclear whether the protection is for him, or from him | 4/10

This month's total | Politics 32/50 | Policy 15/50 | Last month: 32/50 | Policy 28/50 | Overall: Politics 88/150 | Policy 62/150

City walls: A look at Portland's graffiti history

Published in the Portland Phoenix

Back in the early '90s, Eli Cayer had just finished art school in Boston and headed to Maine, where he continued creating street art. In a scene then heavy on "throw-ups," tags with an artist's nickname in stylized letters, Cayer had another approach. "Instead of going to do throw-ups, I'd just do faces."

In the mid- to late '90s, Cayer was a busy, visible street artist in Portland. But one night, he recalls, he was arrested while leaving a nightclub. He spent the night in jail, and was later sentenced to a week behind bars.

The experience set him on a course to create legal opportunities for graffiti artists and other street artists to show off their wares. Promoting work "inspired by the street, inspired by the youth, inspired by emerging cultures," Cayer organized events — including an "Urban Earth Day" celebration — that included spray-painting activities as part of the entertainment. He wanted people to "recognize it as a legitimate art form," he says.

That led to contact with city workers, in both the community-policing and parks-and-recreation departments, which in turn connected him with officials at the Portland Water District's East End Wastewater Treatment Facility. As Cayer described how murals, particularly those influenced by street art, can actually "graffiti-proof" a wall (by showcasing the work of prominent artists younger taggers will be reluctant to paint over), an idea took hold: the outside wall of the sewage plant could be a place for graffiti artists to do their work legally.

The idea was that vandalism would decrease if the city would just "allow the artistic side of it, encourage it even" by providing places for people to practice and engage with street art, Cayer says.

He says that containing or institutionalizing graffiti doesn't necessarily change the nature of the art — and if it does, it does so organically, rather than forcing the change on the artist. "The hard-core writer, even given the opportunity to do a (legal) jam, it's not going to change what he's doing on the street," Cayer says. But others might take an opportunity to expand their expression while also reducing legal risks. "It's almost the . . . equivalent of skateboarding," Cayer explains: "It's not organized, it's totally self-driven, it's what you make of it."

On June 4, 2002 — Cayer recalls the date easily — that section of the wall was unveiled at the same time as a newly opened section of the Eastern Promenade trail. Ever since, that space has been known as the "legal wall," where anyone can go and practice their art. For a time, he also helped coordinate the painting of the Asylum wall every year.

Cayer, who is no longer active in the city's street art scene (though he stays in touch through MENSK, the arts-related non-profit he helps run), says he does see Portland's culture shifting somewhat from "exclusively spray-painting," to more varied types of street art. (That said, he notes that Portland's train-painters are very widely known: "I've seen Portland, Maine, trains in North Dakota" and Alabama.)

Aubin Thomas isn't a tagger or street artist either, but in the past year or so has turned into a chronicler of the ad-hoc art scene here, as what she calls "curator of images" at her Freezetagging blog (freezetagging.wordpress.com).

"I don't ever pretend to know what it's like to be a tagger" — she only tags on blackboards — but wants to preserve the art so it's not lost. "There are wonderful pieces of art around here . . . but then they disappear," she says, so in an effort to counter that, she takes long walks around different parts of town every week to photograph what she sees.

She has noticed a number of fascinating elements of the street-art community in Portland. "They talk to each other around the city," she says, leaving notes asking "who's this?" near a new tag, or incorporating elements in new creations that echo nearby pieces by other artists.

Letter shapes, and color, and medium (marker, paint, etc.) are part of their language, giving knowledgeable viewers and scene insiders messages about who drew what.

Like in other cities, marking a particularly visible or hard-to-get-to area (such as high up on a building) is a declaration of prowess, but Thomas noted that Maine street artists have other challenges. Back in December, she was out taking photos in a blizzard, and saw a tag that called attention to when it was made: "Blizzard bombing," it read.

In the past six months, she has noticed more labels and stickers going up around the city, works people draw at home and just slap up somewhere as they're walking by. She theorizes that is part a reaction to a pending city crackdown (see "Outlawing Art?") and part desire to do more intricate pieces in a less-risky way.

Thomas is definitely appreciative of the efforts of local street artists: "It adds to the layers of things we have in the city to look at," she says. And she observes that the Portland Museum of Art held an event earlier this year focused on local graffiti and street artists.

Outlawing art?

After years of a moderate tolerance to graffiti artists, Portland officials are reconsidering that approach. The city council's Public Safety Committee has proposed increasing the punishments for graffiti artists. That has brought thinly veiled threats from the street-art community of retribution by increased activity.

A second controversial element of the proposal would fine property owners who do not clean up if their buildings are tagged. That has led to objections from people who worry that they might be "victimized twice" — once by graffiti, and a second time by the city enforcing the clean-it-up law.

The proposal would also ban the sale of "graffiti tools," such as markers and spray-paint cans, to minors. Aubin Thomas notes that might be missing the point: "All of the graffiti artists and taggers I know are not minors."

While proponents say tagging would be discouraged if it were removed quickly, that's less certain in an art form whose very nature assumes, and even embraces, temporary display.

Eli Cayer suggests that fighting graffiti is best done Montreal-style, where the city hosts international events celebrating street art and "the whole downtown is tattooed, almost, with graffiti."

"I want to live in a city where I see more of the productions" — larger, artistic pieces — he says. "Not everybody does, I can appreciate that, (but) just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't deserve respect."

Cayer cites as an example the new mural at Joe's Smoke Shop on Congress Street as a successful contribution of art to the community that also deters graffiti: "Joe's gets bombed all the time, and it's not going to now."

Broadband update: Internet service falling into place

Published in the Portland Phoenix

The details needed to understand where and how to best improve Maine's high-speed Internet connectivity are finally within reach. Even better, the funding and planning are under way. Three major developments have happened recently, and two more are on the horizon, that could hasten the dawn of a day in which Maine is no longer in the slow lane for Internet service.

The first development is THE BEGINNING OF WORK ON AN 1100-MILE FIBER-OPTIC NETWORK covering most of Maine. Called the "Three-Ring Binder" because it is designed with three interconnecting circles of fiber, the project, funded with private and state and federal government money. The network has six miles complete — including a section in downtown Portland — and when finished in two years' time will be open to any Internet provider as a super-high-speed link to the wider Internet. Key to this is that fiber-optic networking is largely considered "future-proof," meaning that as better transmission technologies develop over time, the fiber network itself will not need to be replaced or re-wired. Even though transmission equipment at connection points may need replacement, the money and time required is far less than re-creating an all-new network to parallel the old one.

The second development is the RELEASE OF A NATIONAL MAP OF BROADBAND ACCESS, complete with data on actual speed delivered by providers, number of companies offering Internet access in a particular area, and the means by which that access is provided (wireless mobile, cable-modem, DSL, etc.). In the words of Phil Lindley, executive director of the ConnectME Authority, the state agency tasked with expanding high-speed Internet access across Maine, "It's great to know where it is, but what's more important is for us to know where it isn't." Yes, the map shows empty spaces too — which will inform the selection process for the next round of ConnectME grants, to optimize investment in areas that most need help.

The third development is that NOBODY IS LOOKING TO FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS FOR LEADERSHIP IN BROADBAND SERVICE anymore. The North Carolina-based company that operates the landline telephone network in Maine was expected to be a key element of providing 21st-century technology to rural parts of the state — and discussions of that prospect were key to state regulators' approval of the deal that allowed FairPoint to buy Verizon's landline system — even state officials now recognize that FairPoint is not a serious player.

While the company emerged from bankruptcy late last year, and did announce in January that it can provide faster-than-dialup service to 83 percent of Maine homes, the speed of FairPoint's service is the lowest that qualifies as "broadband" under state and federal guidelines. The company is still on its way to wiring up 87 percent of Maine homes by the end of 2014 — down from 90 percent, which was its original goal. As a sign of the times, though, if a proposal now before state officials moves forward, Maine's legal definition of the term may soon be accelerated, such that whatever FairPoint provides, it will be too slow to be labeled "broadband."

Coming up are two additional moves at the federal level with big promise for Maine. First is that the $8 billion annually raised by the Universal Service Fee (a surcharge on landline and cellphone bills alike) could be released to fund Internet expansion. At present, the fee is limited to supporting telephone service in rural areas, but bureaucrats are beginning to figure out that it's Internet access that is truly necessary everywhere in the country. A Federal Communications Commission decision on that could come later this year.

Also, the FCC is expected to release some additional radio spectrum for auction soon, with the goal that funds raised from the auction and most of the new bandwidth itself will go to reach 98 percent of Americans with Internet access at speeds five times faster than Maine's present minimum broadband speed.

For more info, check out broadbandmap.gov.

Fuzzy math: Buy Local 'survey' is questionable

Published in the Portland Phoenix

Heaven knows I like the idea of the Portland Buy Local campaign, so it pains me to say that I found the recently released results of an area business survey just a bit too self-congratulatory.

An announcement headlined "Survey Finds 'Buy Local' Drawing New Customers to Local Businesses" describes the responses to a questionnaire sent to organization members as evidence that the campaign is helping locally owned businesses survive, even in the recession.

But because of the survey's methodology, those findings are anecdotal and specific to the few businesses that responded, rather than being truly representative of the organization as a whole, admits Portland resident Stacy Mitchell, the Buy Local group's vice-president and a senior researcher for the Minnesota-based Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

Warning: entering survey-statistics nerd territory. The problem is not so much that the sample size is small (49 members of a 386-member group), but rather that respondents were self-selecting instead of being picked randomly. A random sampling of 50 Buy Local members would have resulted in a survey with a 10 percent margin of error, Mitchell says, defending the number of respondents. She may be right, but surveys with self-selecting responses have an even larger error margin. (And 10 percent is considered huge on its own — major political and business surveys aim for margins of error under 5 percent.) Leaving nerd turf now.

It's the difference between asking questions of a certain number people randomly selected from your entire town, versus the same number of people in just one neighborhood. One is representative of the larger whole; the other isn't.

Because those who chose to answer do like the Buy Local campaign and say it is helping them, there is some indication that things are going well, but we have no accurate information about how well, or what non-respondents might think. (As Mitchell points out, this is not the only measure the group uses to evaluate its effectiveness. It is, however, the only such information the group provides to the public.)

But even the question about the helpfulness of the Buy Local campaign is problematic. The survey asked "Do you think that this campaign has had an impact on your business?" and suggested several answers: "significant positive impact," "moderate positive impact," "a little positive impact," "no impact," "don't know," and "negative impact."

Of the 49 businesses that responded, all but seven said it had some degree of "positive impact." (Those seven said the Buy Local effort had "no impact" on their business.)

But only listing "negative impact" — without options for a scale (such as "significant," "moderate," and "a little") — biases the results against showing that result. And indeed, no respondents chose that answer, Mitchell says. (It may seem strange to consider that a program to promote local businesses might somehow hurt them, but a proper survey will leave that as an open question to be answered by the respondents, rather than assuming a specific outcome.)

The results Portland's campaign is trumpeting are culled from the Portland-specific answers to a nationwide questionnaire with similar methodology and credibility problems, conducted by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, the chief backer of buy-local campaigns around the country.

Mitchell says her group lacks the financial ability to hire a survey company to conduct a formal study that could give results that would be representative of the group as a whole.

Press releases: War on the average Joe

Published in the Portland Phoenix

Right now, Maine can afford to pay its state employees' pensions for the next 10 years with no additional investment — without any sort of supplement, not even workers' biweekly paycheck deductions. The nationwide McClatchy newspaper group published that fact on Sunday in a massive, comprehensive report on public pension funds nationwide.

But that information was nowhere to be found in the pages of MaineToday Media's papers — the Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram, the Kennebec Journal, and the Morning Sentinel. While Maine's largest newspaper chain routinely publishes national news from the McClatchy wire, they shut the door on the most revealing package yet published on the major issue under debate in Augusta right now.

Of course the papers, owned by Richard Connor, did not ignore the issue entirely — in a Sunday economic dispatch from Washington, sole DC reporter and (therefore) Washington bureau chief Jonathan Riskind wrote: "Americans understand that the country is headed off a fiscal cliff."

And the papers' lead editorial that day — the day McClatchy was telling Americans that the sky is not even close to falling with regard to pension funding — described "rampaging pension costs that can no longer be ignored." The editorial declared necessary the proposals by Governor Paul LePage to cap retirees' pensions and medical coverage, partly allowing LePage to lower Maine's effectively flat income tax by more than half a percentage point — a massive boon to the rich that will have next to no effect on moderate- and low-income families.

In doing so, the MaineToday papers have declared themselves clearly on the side of the wealthy robber barons who have stolen so much of America's bounty. (Recent stats, most prominently cited in a March 5 Michael Moore speech in Wisconsin, suggest that a few hundred ultra-wealthy American citizens are richer than half the country's people, put together.) Ironically, the editorial decried the description of this phenomenon as "class warfare," calling that term "trite and tedious."

It is only so for those people — and those media outlets — who exist to serve the rich, and not the people as a whole. For the rest of us, we are indeed engaged in a war between the classes, and nothing less than a fight to the death — whether by homelessness, cold, starvation, or broken hearts.

For Connor and his staff to go on to proclaim, as they do, that "the wrath of angry taxpayers should be aimed at politicians and bureaucrats who agreed to costly benefits over the years without giving sufficient attention to the financial consequences those benefits would eventually impose" is downright disingenuous. It is doubly so when the media organization in question has only rarely and shallowly treated these important issues of accountability when it comes to election time.

And then the editorial goes from factless to misleading to downright irresponsible, raising the specter of "the looming crisis presented by the ever-rising costs of entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare." Even with no additional support, those programs won't run out of money for decades, according to independent analyses, including by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

Our social safety net is strong, and so are our pension funds for public employees. For politicians to spout otherwise — particularly as justification for transferring more wealth to the super-rich — is deceitful. For newspapers to parrot that fear-mongering is shamefully abdicating their vital role as arbiter of truth in a complex society. If regular people, who are too busy trying to make their own ends meet, must rely on intentional misinformation — or, as egregious, withholding of truth — then we do indeed have a serious societal crisis on our hands. It's just not the one the politicians and the mainstream media are telling you about.

Review: A Marine's Guide to Fishing - A snapshot of a returned veteran's life

Published in the Portland Phoenix

On the one-year anniversary of a life-changing incident on a foreign battleground, a Marine (Matthew Pennington) begins to take up his old life again. In this 15-minute short, writer-director Nicholas Brennan (2009's Portland Phoenix Maine Short Film of the Year Hard Rock Havana) adroitly plumbs the depths of the manifold complications facing servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Showing samplings of eager hangers-on playing patriot games, flashbacks (including sounds of battle that even the ocean cannot drown out), and quiet support from previous generations of veterans, Fishing asks — but only obliquely attempts to answer — whether a life can ever recover from such an ordeal.

On screen an understated, moving film, its power is only amplified by knowing that lead actor Pennington is a veteran (Army, but we'll never tell the Corps . . .) and a battle-wounded amputee — and that 13 other young veterans worked on various aspects of the movie. Backed by a local score (Dan Capaldi) and Maine coast scenery that feels strong without kitsch, Fishing casts a net upon the waters of possibility. What that net catches is yet to be seen.

A MARINE’S GUIDE TO FISHING | Screening at the Nickelodeon, in Portland | March 16 @ 7 PM

Diagnosing democracy: Why parenthood is a bad model for government

Published in the Portland Phoenix

Political theory has, for centuries, come down to an analogy of anatomy, or of family: the head of the government is the head of the body politic, or the head of the household. Other government agencies are the limbs and organs of the body, or the working adults in the home. Citizens are the cells that make up the body, or the children.

In The Parent As Citizen: A Democratic Dilemma (University of Minnesota Press), Brian Duff, a Portland Phoenix food writer whose day job is as an assistant professor of political science at the University of New England, argues that view is fundamentally destructive to a democratic society. It puts citizens in a subservient role — that of children — and government officials in a paternalistic role, Duff writes. That inversion of proper accountability in a democracy — where the citizens should be in charge of the government workers — has caused unseen and untold damage to our society.

He starts with the political discussion of parenthood, showing how the experience of parenting is considered to be formative and vital in the development of a political player. Then, examining the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Friedrich Nietzsche (as classical philosophers and political theorists) and two towering modern political-philosophical figures, Richard Rorty and Cornel West, Duff shows why focusing on parenthood is so dangerous to democracy. He specifically chronicles the hazards — including intolerance, fundamentalism, fear, and disempowerment — that appear when equating a democracy with leaders and citizens to a family with parents and children.

This is not a prescriptive work, but rather illustrates a heretofore unseen problem, asking others to study it, examine it, learn from it, and perhaps ultimately forge a solution to this failing intellectual model of our failing political system.

Prison torture coverage, expanded

Published in the Portland Phoenix

Longtime Portland Phoenix contributing writer Lance Tapley's investigation of the Maine State Prison and the state's corrections system as a whole have reached a yet wider audience with the publication of an essay by Tapley in The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration, and Abuse (New York University Press, edited by Marjorie Cohn). The book is a collection of essays that describe the conditions in American prisons, and explore what political and social pressures combined to create the abusive, destructive prison system we have today. Tapley's essay, "Mass Torture in America: Notes from the Supermax Prisons," is based on his years of reporting for the Portland Phoenix, and marshals the evidence to show not only that torture (including solitary confinement) is a near-constant part of supermax prisons nationwide, but to describe the vicious and damaging nature of that abuse on tens of thousands of inmates.

Gitmo state of mind: Pingree visits Guantanamo, advocates closure

Published in the Portland Phoenix

Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Congress that keeping President Obama's promise to close the notorious military prison for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would be difficult because of opposition from members of Congress. Maine 1st District Representative Chellie Pingree, however, is among those who support closing the base.

Last month, she was part of a bipartisan (if 10 Republicans and two Democrats is "bipartisan") group of members of the House Armed Services Committee who visited Gitmo to see for themselves what's going on.

"Some things we see are classified," Pingree says, beginning our interview by clarifying that she might not be able to talk about certain topics related to the prison — including ones that might be unclassified, because, she says, it can be difficult to remember what's classified and what's not in a particular briefing. (For example, certain details of what the prison is like are kept secret, but other details are not; keeping the categories straight can be a challenge.)

She was able to say, generally speaking, that "living conditions for prisoners — aside from the fact that they don't know when they are going to leave — have improved tremendously," with no waterboarding, no torture, no guard mistreatment, and no disorientingly loud music (as I described in "A Night in Guantanamo," June 20, 2008).

Obama's "different attitude" about torture — specifically, that this president won't use the techniques George W. Bush authorized but claimed were not torture — is to be credited, Pingree says. "It's become clear that better living conditions for prisoners make it easier for the guards to do their work" — and more information is forthcoming from prisoners who are being interrogated, she says.

While Pingree said Obama "has not fulfilled his promise that he was going to close Guantanamo," she did give the administration credit for "working very hard to sort through the huge range of issues," primarily relating to where to move the inmates now at Guantanamo, and where they should stand trial.

A key obstacle is politics. Buck McKeon, the California Republican who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, wants to expand the use of Gitmo, and is a strong supporter of the existing ban on bringing Gitmo prisoners to the US for any reason, including trial. (That law resulted from the firestorm around the trial of suspected 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, which was originally slated for a federal court in New York City.)

Pingree says much of the concern about bringing suspected terrorists to the US is "fear-mongering," observing that "we have a lot of trials in this country," including ones involving terrorism charges.

The Obama administration has been working with other nations' governments to repatriate their citizens when the US is ready to release them; as a result the inmate population has dwindled to 172 from a high of nearly 800 in 2002. Of the inmates remaining, Pingree notes, as many as 48 are "in limbo," with US officials believing they could be dangerous if released, but lacking (or unwilling to declassify) evidence that could aid in a conviction. Other inmates, such as several Uighurs, a central Asian ethnic group largely ruled by the Chinese, cannot return home because their home government will persecute them. (Ironically, that leaves them being incarcerated by a foreign power under the argument that being locked up by the US in Gitmo is better than a Chinese prison — or execution. And sadly, that argument is probably accurate.)

"The problems have now sort of shifted a little bit to how the trials will be conducted, where the trials will be conducted," Pingree says. At the cost of "an enormous amount of money," the US has built a massive courthouse at Gitmo, with room enough for trials with multiple defendants and extensive capability for closed-circuit televisions and teleconferencing with witnesses and attorneys elsewhere, including the US.

But even that initiative faces what Pingree calls "an increasing stalemate" because of complaints about the fairness of the military tribunal system set up to handle inmates' cases.

And ultimately, it is those kinds of problems that convince Pingree the prison does need to close. "To the rest of the world, Guantanamo is a symbol of a country that says it lives by the rule of law, (but) that denied habeas corpus, that used torture to get evidence," she says. If we do close it, we will affirm our belief in the law; if we don't, "they'll say we're just American hypocrites."

Literati: So you thought you were special

Published in the Portland Phoenix

Reading Hannah Holmes's work is enlightening and entertaining — even when it's at its most depressing. And that is how the South Portlander's latest book, Quirk, starts. The intro smacks you with it: There is no "divine spark" that makes humans more special than other animals. Mice, which are as much a subject of the book as people, can be bred to have any of the behavior variations that we call "personality." Holmes goes for the jugular: "Personality isn't personal. It's biological," she writes. There is no "nature-versus-nurture" debate — 90 percent of what we think makes each of us unique is, in fact, embedded in our genes.

When you're done crawling under your rock, though, if you've managed to bring her book with you, it's a real treat to learn exactly how similar we are to cuddly, furry mammals — and cold, slimy reptiles — after all. But Holmes disputes the idea that we're being somehow demoted. Rather, she argues, animals are being promoted to the level of wonder we people have previously reserved for ourselves. (It's not just animals, either — Holmes is presently working on an article about the personality of bacteria.)

It turns out that's the only way we've managed to survive — and it may be the only way anything survives. "Every living thing contends with an unstable environment," the energetic, affable Holmes says over coffee. "The world is too chaotic for one personality type to be adequate for every situation, every challenge."

As a result, you're in luck: "for the most obnoxious person you can think of, there is a role in this world," she says cheerfully. For Holmes, these discoveries, laid out in her clear, smooth, amusingly self-aware prose, are "liberating," because they give us more to appreciate about the world as a whole. "We love what we love and there's no arguing it," she says, noting that no matter who we love, we have to get along with the wider group to stay alive in a world of threats, limited resources, and changing surroundings.

And at the end of the day, what we really have to do is behave as if personality is just like the color of our eyes, hair, or skin — something we're each born with, that we didn't choose and can't really change. So we're better off quitting sniping, and just getting along.

Hannah Holmes | reads from Quirk | February 23 @ 7 pm | Nonesuch Books, 50 Market St, South Portland | February 26 @ 2 pm | Bull Moose, 456 Payne Rd, Scarborough | March 2 @ noon | Portland Public Library, 5 Monument Square, Portland | March 8 @ 7 pm | RiverRun Bookstore, 20 Congress St, Portsmouth NH | March 10 @ 7 pm | Longfellow Books, Monument Way, Portland | hannahholmes.net

Gubernatorial scorecard: LePage’s numbers

Published in the Portland Phoenix

This week, we introduce a regular feature, Gubernatorial Scorecard. We'll evaluate Governor Paul LePage's recent moves. We'll score him from 1 to 10 on his political savvy, and on whether what he's trying to do is good policy, and keep a running total. This first marking period, LePage got 43 out of 100 possible points. For a minority governor who garnered only 38 percent of the vote, that might not be too bad.

RACE RELATIONS | LePage has rhetorically run roughshod over the state's minuscule but vocal population of African Americans — it will be a long time before anyone forgets his "kiss my butt" moment with the NAACP.
POLITICS • Making enemies unnecessarily | 3/10 POLICY • Anti-equality | 1/10

BUSINESS RELATIONS | LePage has made no secret of the fact that he's going to be a pro-business, pro-industry governor. That includes courting wealthy out-of-state interests (many of which bankrolled his election campaign). He has promoted business-centric industry insiders to every cabinet post yet announced, and proposed environmental-protection rollbacks that please the chemical industry.
POLITICS • Doing exactly what he said he would | 4/10 POLICY • A scorched-earth job-creation effort | 4/10

MEDIA RELATIONS | LePage made a joke out of a claim he doesn't read newspapers. He has previously said he doesn't care about editorials.
POLITICS • Good play to his base, but overlooks that supporters too can use the media | 7/10 POLICY • Palin-like wilful ignorance is silly | 1/10

FEDERAL RELATIONS | For a guy who said he would tell President Obama to "go to hell," he's certainly asking for a lot of federal money, including disaster-relief funding that could give four Maine counties more than $1 million in federal cash to recover from December flooding.
POLITICS • Mixed message: Sensible people will applaud but rabid Tea Partiers might be disappointed | 7/10 POLICY • More help cleaning up rural Maine is always welcome | 10/10

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS | LePage has complained that some people he approached with offers of government positions declined because the pay cuts to move from the private to the public sector would have been too steep.
POLITICS • Not getting who you need could have consequences down the road | 3/10 POLICY • A pre-emptive defense that the best people won't serve? | 3/10

Running total | Politics 24/50 | Policy 19/50

Press releases: Talk time

Published in the Portland Phoenix


The state's largest newspaper company is about to negotiate its contract with its employees. With workers seeking a share of the company's newfound profitability, and owner Richard Connor striving mightily to stay in the black, this could go very smoothly, or be a bloody, destructive battle — with the quality of information available to Mainers hanging in the balance.

Let's start with the basics. When Connor bought the Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram, Kennebec Journal, and Central Maine Morning Sentinel in 2009, he did so with the help of the local chapter of the Newspaper Guild (part of the Communications Workers of America union).

To make the sale work, Connor not only laid off 100 people (a quarter of the company's unionized workers), but gave those who remained a 10-percent pay cut (under an agreement expiring June 30) and terminated company contributions to retirement funds. In exchange, the workers created an Employee Stock Ownership Plan, under which collectively the employees would own 15 percent of the company's value, in accounts that can be tapped for income upon retirement.

With the 15-percent stake, the papers' employees are the largest shareholder in Maine, according to Tom Bell, president of the local guild chapter and a staff writer at the Press Herald. (Larger shares of the company, he says, are held out-of-state by investors affiliated with the Texas-based HM Capital investment firm.)

Since taking over, Connor has announced that all three papers are profitable. Bell says the employees want to see some of the profits of the streamlined company.

"Our members' expectations are pretty high," Bell says. "We make 10 percent less . . . and our health-care costs are higher." (The company still pays 80 percent of employees' premiums, but co-pays and deductibles have increased, Bell says.)

In case there's any doubt, he clarifies: "The papers' finances have stabilized, and we'll be looking for raises" to make up the lost cost-of-living ground.

It's an unclear proposition, even in a company that looks stronger on paper than it was two years ago. Connor has sold off significant real-estate holdings (including the landmark building in Portland), but the proceeds have largely gone to pay down debt incurred in buying the papers. It's unclear how much of the company's profitability is due to an increase in revenue, as opposed to cost-cutting measures. That may mean that despite the lower debt load, there is no more operating cash than there has been.

Connor's not talking — he didn't return multiple requests for an interview for this piece, and Bell says he "had expected by now to have met with the company," but neither the union nor the company has yet asked the other to come to the table for a discussion.

• For those enjoying the spectacle that Governor Paul LePage and the Republican leadership in the State House have been creating, an excellent resource has been MAINEBIZ, the state's twice-monthly business newspaper. Most of its material, whether online, in print, or e-mailed to readers, has been culled from other media (with links and attribution). And that has its own usefulness. But when doing its own reporting, the publication has the sterling reputation and strong business-community connections to allow it to ferret out what really is — and isn't — affecting Maine businesses' efforts at job-creation. Since the LePage inauguration, Mainebiz has put out only two print editions, so a lot remains to be seen. But if the paper can separate itself from the business community enough to clearly discern what is partisan rhetoric claiming to be pro-business, and what is really something that would help Maine businesses and residents, Mainebiz will be a must-read.

Music Seen: Marie Moreshead + Ellen Tipper at Blue, January 28

Published in the Portland Phoenix

The dual CD-release party for Ellen Tipper's The Juggler and Marie Moreshead's self-titled full-length album was a stripped-down affair, which was a relief because Blue was packed to the gills.

Tipper opened with her keyboard folk, playing several songs based on her experiences spending time in other countries (Vietnam and England among them). She proved a mellow mood-setter for Moreshead's soulful guitar-based ballads.

The pair of duets they sang — one from each's album — showed the stylistic contrast between the two. When backing Tipper's song, Moreshead seemed to handle the literal story-telling lyrics awkwardly, as if missing the metaphors that season her work so richly. When playing Moreshead, Tipper's fingers flowed more smoothly than when her keyboard was center stage.

Despite a few technical problems (ably handled by semi-official roadie Pat and honorary roadie Drew), Moreshead's performance was strong and smooth, and well received by the standing-room-only house. (Her first show at Blue, a few years back, was in front of her mother and just one other person, Moreshead announced.)

Her words are often happy, but then laid over spare, sad melodies. In some ways it's an inversion of the work of 10,000 Maniacs, which told horrific stories in catchy riffs. And the deep, twangy edge in Moreshead's vocals also evokes Natalie Merchant (with perhaps a sprinkling of Erin McKeown). But whether set up that way or aligned on a single emotional axis, as in "Romans" and the brand-new "Secrets of the Bluebird," her songs really shone.

Out of the woodwork: John Birch Society alive and confused in Maine

Published in the Portland Phoenix

The Maine arm of the John Birch Society, founded in 1958 to combat communist influence in government, visited the State House in Augusta last week, calling for legislators to, well, do nothing, as it turns out.

But that's not how it started. On January 20, the local Birchers joined a nationwide effort asking state legislators to rescind longstanding legislative calls for a federal constitutional convention. At various times state legislatures have raised issues with the US Constitution by passing resolutions asking Congress for a constitutional convention to address them, such as in the early 20th century when many states called for direct election of senators, legalized in the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913.

Patricia Truman of Hallowell, who has been a JBS member since 1964 and is a longtime local-chapter leader of the society here in Maine, was unclear when asked by the Phoenix about what requests Maine has made, but she was sure she wanted lawmakers to rescind them anyway, fearing that revisiting the Constitution could result in reversal of important protections now enshrined there.

Mike Hein, a John Birch Society member and publicist who is a former spokesman for the Christian Civic League of Maine, a right-wing advocacy group, issued a statement claiming Maine has four outstanding calls for a convention. He later specified three, adding that he had "heard from others" of a fourth. First on Hein's list was Maine's 1911 call for direct election of senators, which is no longer outstanding because that request passed as the 17th Amendment in 1913. Second was a 1941 call for repeal of the 16th Amendment (which allows a federal income tax). Third on his list (with a specific Congressional Record citation of "CR 099, page 04434"), is not a new call for a convention, but rather a 1953 resolution rescinding the 1941 repeal request. Which leaves no active calls to be rescinded by Maine lawmakers.

Birchers have a long history of ill-informed beliefs about government. They considered President Dwight Eisenhower a communist, and objected to his policies; they also opposed the civil-rights movement in the 1960s on the conspiracy-theorist grounds that the movement's leaders were, or were influenced by, communists. (Conservative icons Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater, and William F. Buckley repudiated those claims and made clear that Birchers are on the extreme right wing of the right-wing movement.)

And that string continues. Truman claimed that during her visit to Augusta she learned of a call she said was proposed by Seth Berry, a Maine House Democrat representing Bowdoin and Bowdoinham: "He wanted our state to call for ConCon," she said. "I just know that Representative Berry does want to have the state call a ConCon," and insisted Berry's move related to the US Constitution and not the state's, she said.

But she's wrong. When reached on his cell phone, Berry said he had indeed proposed a convention, but to discuss the state constitution, saying anyone who thought otherwise "probably should have called me before they assumed that."

All you can learn: A new online program at SMCC puts you to the test

Published in the Portland Phoenix


Yes, taking classes online is the wave of the future. And you've figured out that the house always wins: Tuition for those classes is vastly more profitable for universities than the traditional in-person, in-classroom instruction.

Students live off-campus (requiring fewer dorms), don't even visit campus (less parking), are too far away to use the gym or the library (allowing smaller facilities), and only interact with faculty through computers (fewer tenure-track profs mucking around with academic freedom).

What's the benefit for students? Well, you can keep your full- or part-time job, you don't have to move, and, uh, you get to shell out basically the exact same tuition rate as the on-campus students who get all the perks you're paying for but can't have. The theory, of course, is that the piece of paper saying you earned X credits at your university is worth the same amount of money whether you attend class in person or virtually. (Yes, we know that's ridiculous, because you're not paying for the piece of paper, but the learning experience — right?)

Fortunately, Southern Maine Community College has found a middle ground: Super-extra-cheapo courses, with a basic online learning experience that won't make you poor or frustrated. At $99 for 90 days of as many courses as you can take (some will soon be available for college credit!), even if you snicker at the class notes (as I did, a few times, during a trial run), you'll still be getting your money's worth. The system is available to anyone, anywhere — no Maine residency required.

As many as 5000 different courses will be available when the system is fully up and running in the next few months, according to Julie Chase, assistant dean for professional education at SMCC. Let's not get silly; many of these "courses" might more properly be called "class sessions" — they take anywhere between 90 minutes and five hours. But still, that's a lot of options.

You can search for classes or career paths. I started by testing the system with something I know well — I searched its directory of potential careers and found "reporter," which led me to several courses it suggested I take to prepare for my career: "Foundations of Grammar," "Generating Creative and Innovative Ideas," "Writing With Intention," and "Crisp Composition" were among them. All in all, the units totaled 27.5 hours of time, if I sat through every explanatory session.

I began with "Foundations of Grammar" — a surprisingly nitpicky class that nevertheless had some grammatical errors itself (one example sentence handled a possessive in a way best described as Very Wrong: "Mr. Neal, our bookkeeper's, office is on the second floor.").

The not-so-secret secret key to this type of class is that success is defined by the score you get on the tests. If you like, you can start each class with a pre-test, which, as it turns out, is the same as the post-test.
If you pass enough on the pre-test, you are considered to have completed the course, and can move on to the next. (Yes, you can click through the class slides anyway, but why?) If you haven't passed, it'll tell you what parts you need to work on.

I found it easiest not to suffer through the boring 1980s-style graphics and dull questions (read aloud, if you wish, by a horribly bored voice-over actor probably wishing she could take a class to start a new career). Instead, I just kept taking the tests, focusing on the parts I did the worst on. (Okay, I had to take a couple parts of the grammar test a couple times. But seriously, the level of obscurity of some of this stuff was ridiculous. You try: Please identify how many verbs in this paragraph are in the past progressive case. Your answer is wrong too.)

Eventually, though, I was able to game the system. The courses I took (which also included ones on InDesign and a class about something called "Six Sigma") seemed to have two sets of questions for each section of the test, so taking the test three times guaranteed familiar questions. Couple that with the facts that 1) the test shows you the correct answer for each question before moving on, and 2) you can take the test as many times as you like with no penalty, and you're on Easy Street.

Paying decent attention while taking and retaking the test (multiple-choice questions, with more than one answer allowed at times) allowed me to "pass" a good number of courses without ever enduring a single "lecture" session. It took a lot less time, too.

However, I wouldn't consider myself proficient in InDesign as a result; the test only taught me about three things, none of which is particularly useful. (The most practical item on the test was how to insert a new layer into a document, rename it, and make it the bottom layer.)

And of course I played the averages; in the Six Sigma class, I lucked out and scored well on certain parts of the test just by reading carefully and guessing. When choosing which portions of the test to retake, I skipped the things I bombed completely and homed in on the topics I had a fighting chance at passing. The system looks for an overall average, and you pass or fail based on that.

That's an obvious flaw, because I passed the introductory Six Sigma class without knowing what a "kaizen event" is, or even, quite frankly, getting a clear explanation of what Six Sigma is in the first place.

Still, if your boss suggests you learn something, check out the course list at smccme.edu/continuingstudies. If there's something there that could help, maybe your employer will shell out the $99 for you to learn. The system remembers your progress, and you can even print a certificate of completion to prove the company's money was well spent.

Out of the Governor's Mouth: LePage’s black friend is not his son, and other ‘kiss my butt’ fallout

Published in the Portland Phoenix; co-written with Shay Stewart-Bouley

About two weeks into his term, Governor Paul LePage has gone local as a follow-up to his telling President Obama "to go to hell," setting off a national media firestorm with an off-the-cuff remark literally telling the Maine NAACP "to kiss my butt." Seems the foot-in-mouth disease he suffers from wasn't limited to the gubernatorial campaign.

It started when the NAACP extended an invitation to LePage to attend various Martin Luther King Day events in the state, the most prominent being the Bangor chapter's breakfast held Monday, January 17, and the NAACP's annual dinner in Portland (actually held Sunday night). LePage declined to attend any of the events, despite the fact that Maine governors for the past 30 years have been in attendance, along with other state dignitaries of all political stripes.

As has been reported extensively from here to Washington to San Diego and beyond, LePage dismissed the equality-for-all NAACP as a "special interest" he would not "be held hostage by." The governor, a 62-year-old white man, went on to suggest that a 25-year-old Jamaican man would be better equipped to talk to the NAACP than the governor himself, saying, "My son happens to be black," and offering to send him to talk to the civil-rights group.

But a few elements went missing in the national narrative — and even went undercovered in the Maine media.
First, LEPAGE DOES NOT HAVE A BLACK SON. As Maine Public Broadcasting Network's Susan Sharon reported, 25-year-old Devon Raymond, who is not a US citizen but rather a Jamaican national, has never been formally adopted by LePage, though the governor and his wife are helping Raymond pay for college and have invited the man to family gatherings for several years.

Second, while some commentators have suggested that LePage's comments are attractive to his base (even while being repugnant to the majority of Americans), even some of the CONSERVATIVES AT THE CONSERVATIVE-BEACON ASMAINEGOES ONLINE FORUMS HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERNS about LePage's lack of tact and his inclinations to create controversy rather than progress.

Third, LEPAGE ALSO DIDN'T SAY HE WAS SNUBBING THE NAACP IN FAVOR OF THE MLK BREAKFAST HOSTED IN WATERVILLE by Spectrum Generations (a non-profit elder-services agency) and the local Rotary Club, which he did attend; announcement of that might have defused the controversy — except his appearance wasn't on the governor's schedule until after the brouhaha erupted.

And fourth, on Saturday, LEPAGE SPOKE AT MAINE RIGHT TO LIFE'S "HANDS AROUND THE CAPITOL" RALLY. No word on whether he exempts them from the "special interest" label or if they were holding him "hostage" — as he claimed the NAACP tried to.

Press releases: Stenographers

Published in the Portland Phoenix

"Stenographers" is an inflammatory word to use to describe journalists, but it's the only accurate way to respond to news coverage of Paul LePage's inauguration as governor.

Not five minutes into his term, LePage uttered a verifiable untruth. And all three of the state's major daily newspapers quoted him without noting that it was false. It wasn't some throwaway line, but rather a description of the Maine Constitution, which was central to LePage's campaign (along with the US Constitution), and which he has promised will be a touchstone of his governorship.

Here's what LePage said: "The word 'people' appears in the Maine Constitution 49 times. You cannot find a single mention of the words, 'politics,' 'Republican,' 'Democrat,' 'Green,' or 'independent' in 37 pages of preambles, articles, and sections of our state constitution."

The Portland Press Herald, the Lewiston Sun Journal, and the Bangor Daily News quoted that line completely (and accurately) in their reports about the inauguration. And to read those articles, you would believe LePage is right. He's not.

Fact-checking that claim was as easy as it gets, even for lazy journalists who are (or feel) chained to their desks. As I watched the live online stream (from the Maine Public Broadcasting Network), all it took was a quick Google search; the full text of the Maine Constitution appeared on my screen, a PDF from the state's own Web site.

And yes, LePage was right about the number of times the word "people" appears, and about the first four items on his list of absent words: "politics," "Republican," "Democrat," and "Green" are not in the Maine Constitution.

But "independent" is, three times: in the Preamble ("We the people of Maine . . . do agree to form ourselves into a free and independent State"); in Article I, Section 1 ("All people are born equally free and independent"); and in Article IV, Section 1 ("the people reserve to themselves power to propose laws and to enact or reject the same at the polls independent of the Legislature").

LePage's context was about political affiliation, but of course someone who is politically "independent" is by definition unaffiliated. If LePage were being careful with his words, he might have chosen "unenrolled," the technical term for someone who is a registered voter in Maine but who is not listed as a member of any political party. That word indeed does not appear in the Maine Constitution.

Instead, Maine's new governor chose to claim that a very important word, which appears in three very important places in the Maine Constitution, was not there at all. And the state's three major newspapers didn't even bother to determine whether his claim was accurate — despite the complete ease and simplicity of doing so.

I've warned the Maine media before about laziness when it comes to government scrutiny (most recently in "Brave The New World," November 19, 2010). LePage will be making more complex statements over the next four years, and many of those claims will be far harder to assess for veracity than a simple statement in an inaugural address. While LePage's inauguration may have set the tone for his administration, let's hope that the media's coverage of that event is not the harbinger of its performance as his term continues.

• One other note: the PORTLAND PRESS HERALD'S ADVERTISING DONATION TO THE PRO-MAYOR CAMPAIGN THROUGH THE PORTLAND REGIONAL CHAMBER was explained to me by chamber CEO Godfrey Wood in very simple terms. "We have a sponsorship agreement" with the Press Herald, in which the paper donates advertising space to the chamber, he said. "They asked if we wanted additional ad space for this (the pro-mayoral campaign) and we said, 'Yes.'" Whether that places the Press Herald in violation of Maine campaign-finance disclosure laws or not is presently in question, but the mechanism by which the Press Herald indicated its support for an elected mayor in Portland is not.

Starting points: A critical reading of LePage’s inaugural address

Published in the Portland Phoenix

Governor Paul LePage's inaugural address was fairly short, and was filled with rhetoric much like that from his campaign. On our blog (thePhoenix.com/AboutTown) we broke the news about his first misleading statement told while in office (see how the media handled that here). He said some other interesting stuff too.

WHAT HE SAID "Our programs have to be focused on Maine residents." WHAT WE LEARN New arrivals to Maine (whether US citizens, refugees, or immigrants documented or otherwise) may not have access to public programs that can help them get a good start in their new lives.

WHAT HE SAID In holding up a single mother and nursing student as an example of how Mainers can use social programs to better their lives, he described the woman as having, "like me, Jennifer has escaped some very tough times." WHAT WE LEARN His prepared remarks worded that as "like me, Jennifer has escaped domestic violence." While that is a key part of his campaign's homeless-to-governor story, he chose to sidestep a politically charged term.

WHAT HE SAID "I do not care about editorials, opinion polls, or the next election." WHAT WE LEARN While he may be declaring his independence from the political and journalistic whirlwind, it will be fascinating to see whether he cites supportive editorials and polls in promoting his programs, simply dismissing opinions he does not like, or whether he indeed operates independent of all outside opinions — even those supporting him.

WHAT HE SAID "At the end of my term, I will be ready to stand accountable for the jobs that we create, for the prosperity that we bring to our state." WHAT WE LEARN Given that his influence in job creation is based on the indirect results of policy decisions (and only directly by hiring more people into state government), LePage is really hoping the global recession ends soon. On that, we can all agree.