Sunday, February 25, 2018

The Welcome Wagon seems to have lost its way….


The other night, before climbing the stair well to our bed chamber, donning our nite-cap, and blowing out the candles, we decided to watch a replay of the Sanctuary Brunswick agenda item at Tuesday night’s town council meeting.  You can find the on demand recording here:

The discussion was something like an hour and a half in on the replay; you’ll have to find it yourself.  We don’t have the stomach to look at it again to find you the time stamp.


Here’s the link to the group that brought this breakthrough to our town:

Two things jumped out and grabbed us as we watched the replay, notwithstanding the fact that comments from the councilors frequently leave us aghast for a variety of reasons.

On this night, we were particularly struck by how many of our elected governing elite can completely ignore the reality that words have meaning, and choices have consequences.  In this specific case, the drive to be seen as virtuous before the cameras allowed several to brazenly ignore the plain English meaning of the written words in the resolution before them.  They choose to be Alice in Wonderland like and assert that words mean whatever they wish them to mean.

Secondly, there was repeated bandying about of the psycho-babble phrases “this is not who we are” and “this is who we are.”  We don’t know about you, but we don’t like one bit when elected officials suggest in public view that they know “who we are” or “who we are not.”  They have no right, or no divine knowledge to claim understanding of 20,000 plus residents’ view of matters such as these.  Perhaps they should think about the meaning of their words before they utter them; they really were saying something more like “this is what I want all residents of our town to think” or “not think.”

The more we reflected on this last point, the more we recognized that these sentiments from elected betters are certifiably false and unsustainable.  Here’s why.

Brunswick is home to a “prominent” journalist who’s opinion pieces are published in a free weekly newspaper distributed in southern Maine.  He hasn’t lived here all that long, and when he moved to our town, he let readers know that Brunswick is inferior to his beloved Yarmouth, but that he moved here to find a home that would cost him less.


More often than not, this columnist asserts his moral, social, and intellectual superiority to the unwashed masses upon which he looks down.  Including thousands in Brunswick.


This columnist’s tolerance for those who see things differently than he has always been lip service at best.  A recent column of his provides a useful example.


In the comment thread, in which we and various others were participants, he labeled those who voted for Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the 2016 general election “white trash Americans” and racists and sexists and all sorts of other derogatory terms.  He’s an expert at descending into vicious name-calling at the drop of a hat, all while maintaining his lily-white moral superiority.

In the process, he labeled more than 3600 town residents with these defamatory terms.  Even worse, he inspires his groupies to indulge in the same approach, though most of them can’t match his vitriol.  In the same thread, one of his most fervent fan-girls called the same voters “lousy Americans.”


As for the state, these two thought leaders, and those who agree with them, called more than 330,000 Maine voters the same reprehensible names.

Our point here, which should be obvious to most, but not to town councilors and other opinion formation gurus, is that they should think twice before making assertions about “who we are” and “who we are not.”

Shouldn’t these illuminati have learned that allocating population segments into various categorical “baskets” is a very dangerous way to think? 

Not to mention a gross insult to the very idea of tolerance, diversity of thought, and individuality. 

Especially when combined with failure to comprehend plain English.

Friday, February 23, 2018

Here in Brunswick, we’re known as givers. You don’t mind paying for it, do you?


Brunswick has a contingent of penny-pinchers when it comes to what makes sense for municipal spending and what doesn’t, and we have not a shadow of a doubt that Side is viewed as a charter member of that group.  We’re proud to be so, because  it means we have a healthy respect for OPM….other people’s money.  OPM is the mother’s milk of those who like to signal their virtue by lavishing it on the cause celebre of the moment or the era.  We also delude ourselves into believing we have common sense, and respect for fellow residents.

As we often quote,

“No one spends other people’s money as carefully as they spend their own.”

Witness the recent vote to establish Sanctuary Brunswick, as we discussed in this recent post:

The proponents of that resolution will claim it has no financial consequences, but that’s a load of bull.  Stating that no funds were appropriated to back it up is to misrepresent the consequences of announcing that we are open and affirming and welcoming to any and all, especially without regard to their immigration status.  But let’s not dwell on those nits.


Instead, we come to you today to discuss Brunswick’s new found love of drones.  We don’t imagine many of you remember the “No drones for Brunswick” movement that surfaced briefly, and even sprouted bumper stickers, as base closure proceeded and rumors of it being a site for testing of military “drones” was rumored. 

“Drones” was used in a pejorative sense, because the subject vehicles were more correctly identified as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, or UAV’s.  For a while, these were an item of some interest in Defense planning, since they could take on a number of roles of manned aircraft without the risk to human lives inherent in the latter.

In the blink of an eye, UAV’s were eclipsed by drones more akin to sophisticated toys.  In fact, our grandson got one for Christmas.  Even the most basic include a video camera as it’s basic payload, and the video is digitized and available live to viewing devices on the ground.  Note the use of the words “unmanned drone.”  That’s deceptive; there may be no one inside the drone, but it can’t operate without “manning” on the ground controlling it and monitoring its video.  Not to mention the overall planning for its use and routine patrol plan.  (Pardon us for using the terms unmanned and manning.)

This particular drone related story, appearing January 17, 2018, is our main focus here:

A question immediately came to mind as we read the story:  why isn’t this a NNEPRA, PanAm, or Amtrak responsibility, instead of Brunswick’s?  These are private rights of way; not Brunswick’s public jurisdiction.  We’re probably out of our league here legally.   We assume the plan is to monitor the entire extent of the right of way within Brunswick borders, which will include the track and crossings east of Brunswick Station when the summer service being proposed goes into effect, taking passengers to Rockland.

Brunswick police patrol our street from time to time, which means they’re looking for suspicious activity on our residential properties, at least to the extent they can see on these properties.  The road they patrol is a public way, not a private thorofare.

But we don’t expect them to employ drones to monitor activity on our property, nor would we want them to.  Even though we pay significant sums via our property taxes to fund their patrols and related actions. 

We can think of lots of things Police could use drones for in monitoring behavior in the public domain.  Among them jay-walking on Maine St, and running of stop signs at Woodside and  Pleasant Hill, and Pleasant Hill and Church Road.  These uses could even generate revenue to offset the costs.

None-the-less, we are perplexed by the notion of our Police taking on the responsibility for monitoring Downeaster operations.  To begin with, this could/should be handled by NNEPRA and Amtrak personnel using strategically located video cameras.  It appears to us that cameras are located at the Church Road grade crossing, and likely elsewhere.  You can see the camera in this photo of the equipment installation adjacent to the crossing.


Furthermore, we know for a fact that Amtrak has their own police force.  We’ve seen them here in town as shown in this snapshot, taken near the Town Hall:


So as far as we’re concerned, NNEPRA, Amtrak, or Pan Am has the responsibility for monitoring the safety of the right of way utilized by the Downeaster, including the “rail yard” area on which the Layover Facility is located.

In case it hasn’t occurred to you, real time monitoring by the Brunswick Police, which is the only kind that makes sense if “accidents” or other public safety violations are to be avoided, will require installation of monitoring equipment at Police HQ, and assignment of personnel to pilot the drones and monitor their video 24 hours a day.  Recording will be required for use in any legal proceedings that might pursue.  Then there’s the planning and reporting required to conduct such surveillance.

Where are the detailed concept disclosure and cost estimates for providing this service?  Where is the plan for reimbursement by NNEPRA?

Or will the entire cost of this service be added as a surcharge on Downeaster tickets sold for arrival and departure at Brunswick station?


Talk about causing a case of the vapors…that should surely do it.

But as you probably can guess, we don’t really give a fig.  Or a banana, or a case of mangoes.

This is not our responsibility, and it’s not yours either.  The total burden for this effort needs to land on the desk of Patricia Quinn at NNEPRA, and she’ll have to decide how to pay for it.


Which, given the Downeaster business model, means we’ll all end up paying for it anyway so we can keep Ambassadors and other local dignitaries happy.  We all know they aren’t willing to travel by the same conveyances we little people use.

Like we said, Brunswick is a town of givers.  Even if the gift needs to be compelled from us by government. 

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Sanctuary Brunswick; what does it really tell us?


Which is from this article:

Here’s the introduction of this item for the Council Agenda of 20 February:


Here’s the text of the subject resolution:


As we see it, the key passage in the resolution is this:


When it comes to matters of law, the key words seem to be “without regard to…..citizenship or immigration status.”

Councilor Kathy Wilson, who apparently has the legal credentials we lack, made this comment:

“This isn’t going to change laws,” she said. “What this does is just extend a hand that says you’re welcome here.”

Sorry, but to us, this resolution is tantamout to telling the Police Department to avoid questioning the “citizenship or immigration status” of anyone they encounter within Brunswick’s boundaries.   It may not be CHANGING laws, but it sure seems like changing the ENFORCEMENT of laws.

We suppose we’ll take a lot of heat for this, but how does this not amount to the Town Council giving itself the authority to welcome and protect fugitives from justice?  What other categories of illegality will Brunswick declare itself to be unwilling to enforce?

How about those with revoked driver’s licenses?  Don’t they have rights as well?  How about those ignoring court orders for child support and other domestic obligations?  Will Brunswick welcome and protect them?  How about those on the SOR?  Will drug dealers be given refuge here?

We trust the Town Council will promptly direct the Police Department to enumerate those laws that will be enforced within our boundaries, and those that won’t.

More importantly, will the Town Council and the Police Department tell us which freedoms we now enjoy they will no longer respect?  How about the freedom to seek a concealed carry permit?  If that freedom does not please the council, will it pass a resolution making it null and void?  Is the Town Council now a legislative body able to nullify state and federal law that defines either illegality or legality?

This action by the Town Council is just another step down the slippery slope we talked about when they created the Brunswick Human Rights Task Force.  Each and every member of the Town Council knows it is political suicide to oppose such feel good actions, and that they will eventually have to up the ante by passing various regulations and resolutions and other virtue signalling expansions in this regard.

And if you haven’t already thought about it, we could now be seen as competition for Lewiston in such matters.  We hope “Sanctuary Brunswick” and councilors who supported this resolution are preparing space in their own homes to demonstrate their welcoming attitudes.  And changing local ordinances that govern setting up camp on public and private properties.  Otherwise, the sentiments expressed are nothing more than moral posturing, and a hollow sentiment designed to put the burden on others who did not sign up for it.

Before we close, we have one more tangential issue that is frying our knee socks.  Several years ago we proposed the Council undertake an “Economic Benefit Study” to determine the local effects of the Downeaster coming to town, since that was the primary rationale for investing vast sums of federal, state, and local moneys to make it happen.  And in a moment of collaborative inspiration, we proposed it be a joint effort with Bowdoin Economics majors.

We posted many items on the general subject, but this one might be the most relevant at the moment:

We were told at the time that we would need multiple councilors to give the OK to make it an item on an upcoming Council agenda….just so it could be discussed in public.  As we reported in the post, we could not get anyone we contacted to agree to move the idea forward for discussion.


This Sanctuary resolution, which is pursuant to enforcement of the law in Brunswick, appears to have come before the Council for a vote because of one councilor’s sponsorship.

Pardon us for thinking that standards relating to Council agenda items are lacking in any sort of rigor, and instead, are based completely on emotion, sentiment, and socio-political expediency.

But hey; that’s just us, and we’re in the overwhelming minority on such matters.

Monday, February 19, 2018

As long as we’re on the subject…..

Fraud, waste, and abuse that is, slathered in lard….or rendered pork fat, for the non-foodie.


As the saying goes, pork fat rules.

Remember this post from last August?

It included this string of visuals and the takeaway line that summed them up:


Wonder why this deserves to be called ANYTHING but a private freakin’ airport?  Just take a look at these snips, from the Forecaster as well:





Private airport you say?  The hell it is!  The figures above come to “more than”



Hence the “yes there is a Santa Claus” slant we gave the earlier post.

Ever at your service, if not Speedy Gonzalez in all such matters, we went after the documentation for the latest “$2 million plus” grant.  We spent, as we recall, something like $9.00 to have MRRA staff reproduce the relevant document, some 53 pages, for us.  The vast majority of that document is standard boilerplate that will make your eyes glaze under.

To shield you from such pain, we distilled the source document down to 16 pages of germane substance, and posted them to scribd for you to read and weep….or whatever might float your aircraft in such instances.  You’ll find it here:


Reading the pages again today made us want to wring a figurative neck or twenty while at the same time weeping uncontrollably for the unmitigated incompetence and reckless spending of taxpayer dollars that is rife among “public servants,” at all levels – municipal, state, and federal.  Some have taller ladders and can reach further up the money tree, but they all go picking all year long.

We hope you’ll read the pages we scanned and posted for you; they provide some real insights if you reflect on them just a bit.

Here are some of the “highlights” we gleaned from the pages:

  • This is Phase 4 of the Hangar Improvement Program.
  • “Preliminary expense,” undefined, is $231,000.
  • Project inspection fees are $121,200.  Wow….what precision, and what an absurd sum.  How long will it take to confirm that painting was done, lavatories were upgraded, and light bulbs were changed?  How many tiers of subcontractors are dining out on this item alone?
  • Summation of the work done for $2 million plus is as follows:image

Enough; let’s cut to the chase.  As we told you in that post in August:

Turns out we’ve got some insight for you.  According to staff at the facility, the average day at Brunswick Executive Airport (BXM) sees 3 (three) takeoff and landing events.  That’s equivalent to 1,100 a  year. 

Surely you can see why millions of dollars for improving those hangars are critical to BXM success!  You can, can’t you?  Trust on this, because we’re not like all the others.

In round numbers, then, the federal government has been chipping in about $2,000 for each and every takeoff and landing event.  That doesn’t count the fed’s administrative costs, interest expense, and all the rest.  Our wild guess is that easily adds another $1,000 per event, for a grand total of $3,000 per that taxpayers and lenders and printers have to cough up.

Simply put, this is a gigantic rip-off of taxpayers, and a total abuse of the public trust, enthusiastically abetted by the likes of our Senators….King, Angus, and Susan Collins…so they can be glorified in the local print and electronic media.

Here’s the way we see this whole “grant” scheme working.  Various entities of federal and state government are allocated blocks of funding for such purposes, whether it makes sense or not.

It reminds us of when the Sides were first married.  Mrs. Side would ask “how much is in the checkbook?,” to which we responded “why do you ask?”  Her response?: “so I know how much I can spend.”  How’s that for robust budgeting on the home front?

The whole idea of “grants” is that they automatically carry a veneer of necessity and carefully vetted project spending.

We assert just the opposite; that they are a masking of the pork parade, a lovely sauce if you will, to hide the pork fat while touting the lean.  Just look at the Royal Junction Siding Project we just told you about.

We believe the granting organizations each year seek absurd sums in block form to fund their grant programs, citing the requests and applications submitted in prior years to demonstrate how “great the need is.”  Which reminds me of Mrs. Side putting together a list of every item she would like replaced in our humble abode, and the renovations, expansions, and upgrades she also considers “necessary and vital.”

Budget deliberators, demonstrating their fiscal responsibility, take a $1 billion grant program request and pare it down to $500 million or so, in order to “save taxpayers money and avoid running up the deficit and the national debt.”

That’s the equivalent of us taking the raw request from our spouse for $100,000 in household investment in this budget year, and paring it down to $50,000 or so, which we don’t begin to have for any such work.

Once the requesting government organization gets their annual grant fund allocation, you can bet they will spend it all, and the choices will be made with the clear-eyed guidance of elected officials who “know best” what the actual needs are.  All the money will get spent, whether there is rational justfication or not.

What a crock of crap.  Pure pork distribution,  pandering, and glorification of office-holders.  Do King and Collins really want us to believe they carefully reviewed the grant applications, and only approved those that are critical, especially in the context of our annual deficits and out of control federal debt?

This is the equivalent of your teenager coming to you and asking for $250 to spend on a good time this coming weekend, and you declaring that you’ll only give him $150.  After doing so, you tell your frau what a miser you are in such matters, and how you’re watching out for family finances.  All while telling your kid how grateful he should be for your generosity, and how he ought to give you another few years to serve as his father.

Yeah, that’s the way to do things.  When he wants you to buy him a new $30,000 truck because he’s graduating from High School, tell him you’ll only spring for a used one at $20,000 or less.


Geez; what a stingy son bitch you are, Old Man!

Friday, February 16, 2018

Can it be Fraud, Waste, and Abuse if it’s only $10 million or so?


We posted many, many months ago, about wasteful projects NNEPRA is undertaking to “optimize” their Portland North Service.  One of these projects is the Royal Junction Siding, just getting underway at a cost of ~ $10 million.  Here’s a schematic of the proposal:


We also included it in the materials we brought before the Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability when they audited NNEPRA operations two years ago, at the direction of the Government Oversight Committee of the Maine Legislature.   Sad to say, but the committee ‘elected’ not to continue the audit when it came time for a new set of legislators to be elected.

Given our love of banging our head against walls, we thought about this particular project a good deal more, and decided we just could not give it a good leaving alone and still have a conscience we could look straight in the eye.

So in December, we submitted a memo asking for an oversight investigation of the project, coupled with a stop order for it until such time as it could be determined to be necessary and sound public policy and spending.  You can read the memo here:

Here’s an excerpt or two to whet your whistle:

To: Chairs and Members of the Joint Standing Committee on Transportation

cc: Governor's Office (Governor; McGough; Libby)

MDOT (Commissioner; Nass; Moulton; Hayes)

Government Oversight Committee; OPEGA

Joint Standing Committee on Appropriations and Financial Affairs

From: Pem Schaeffer

Brunswick, Maine


Date: December 10, 2017

Subject: Call for immediate investigation into NNEPRA management failings

My understanding is that the Maine State Legislature now has authority and responsibility for active oversight of the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA), and that it vests in the Joint Standing Committee on Transportation.

Accordingly, I request that you immediately schedule investigative hearings into two specific evolutions for which NNEPRA has direct responsibility. Each involves clear management ineptitude, and merits your attention as guardians of the public trust. These are the Royal Siding Project just getting underway, and deficiencies in the design, construction, and operation of the Brunswick Layover Facility, in use since late 2016.

And this conclusion:


Given these two grievous compromises of the public trust by NNEPRA, and the waste of both state and federal taxpayer funds they embody, I implore you in the strongest of terms to:

  • Immediately issue a stop order for the Royal Siding Project to minimize wasted funds.

  • Schedule investigative hearings on both as time critical priorities.

Sadly, as we feared, we got not a single word of acknowledgement or interest from any of the parties to which it was sent.  This ignited a slow burn in various elements of our essence,  and stimulated further thought on the Royal Juction Siding Project in particular.  The more we reflected on it, the more convinced we became that its need is a misrepresentation, and building it is a waste of taxpayer dollars and abuse of the public trust.  The only justification, as we could see it, is as a quid-pro-quo for Pan Am Railways, which owns the track in question, and would be the builder of the project.

So we drafted an addendum to the original memo and submitted it on 26 January to the same folks in Augusta.  You can read it here:

Here’s a few excerpts on this item:

To: Chairs and Members of the Joint Standing Committee on Transportation

cc: Governor's Office (Governor; Lusk; Libby)

MDOT (Commissioner; Nass; Moulton; Hayes)

Government Oversight Committee; OPEGA

Joint Standing Committee on Appropriations and Financial Affairs

From: Pem Schaeffer

Brunswick, Maine


Date: January 26, 2018

Subject: The Case for Halting NNEPRA's $10 Million Royal Junction Siding Project

(An Addendum to “Call for immediate investigation into NNEPRA management failings” dated December 10, 2017)


Executive Summary:

This addendum further examines the details of NNEPRA's proposed Royal Junction Siding Project, now underway at a cost of nearly $10 million. Justification on the basis of railroad operations is demonstrably unconvincing. The only credible barrier to Downeaster service expansion is Pan Am Railway's limit of six daily slots on their tracks between Portland and Brunswick when ten slots would be necessary. Since Pan Am will be doing all the project work, and is the owner of all related trackage, it is entirely possible that the $10 million is a quid-pro-quo for granting four more daily slots.

The Royal Junction Siding Project should be ordered stopped immediately, pending detailed investigation of all relevant facts by the Joint Standing Committee on Transportation, and other directly responsible State Government parties.

And the conclusion:


Careful examination of the arguments for construction of the Royal Junction Siding with $10 million of taxpayer funds shows reliance on impossibly precise timing of train co-positioning which is at best highly improbable, and at worst implausible. Train operations are manifestly not a rational limitation on Downeaster service expansion to 5 daily round trips to Brunswick, as insensible as it is. Instead, the only plausible explanation is the need for Pan Am to increase Downeaster daily slots on the Portland to Brunswick track segment from 6 to 10.

This leaves only the possibility that the proposal masks a consideration to Pan Am Railways, both in capital improvement and millions of dollars in make work activity, for increasing allotted slots. A quid-pro-quo to be quite blunt. It is not the purpose of NNEPRA, and not in the interest of state and federal taxpayers, to fund such gratuitous transfers.

Conclusion: The State's Legislature and Executive Branch should immediately call a stop to Royal Junction Siding work, pending a detailed investigation of the project including railroad peer review.

This drew exactly the same response from Augusta officials as the original memo….crickets.


So you can chalk one up for the dedicated public servants in Augusta; they’ve managed yet again to organize an Ignorathon when confronted with pretty hard evidence of a flagrant abuse of taxpayers.

It’s even worse when you consider the underlying realities.  This project is being conducted by NNEPRA, the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority, which was created by statute as a virtually autonomous instrumentality of State Government.  In this regard, it operates much like the Maine Turnpike Authority, and the Maine State Housing Authority.  It has a Board of Directors to whom the governor makes nominations, and then it's up to the Senate to confirm them.

The statutory language is found in MRSA Title 23, Chapter 621.

We are not aware of any regular bills that move through the Legislature to fund projects like this.  Frankly, NNEPRA acts as un-monitored and with as little oversight as possible.  History shows the board to be a rubber stamp operation.  Two of the 7 members are ex-officio: MDOT and DECD.

NNEPRA built the $15million plus Layover Facility in Brunswick in recent years, and we’re not aware of any direct legislation that gave them the OK to do that.  We are even more certain that no legislative committee, or the Executive Branch, reviewed the project and approved it.  The same is true for the Royal Junction Siding Project, which is being built without any direct approval or oversight by anyone that we know of.

NNEPRA operates at a deficit of more than 50% annually, requiring more than $11 million in subsidies in FY 2017.  About $8M of that comes from federal sources, and the rest from the state.  The Royal Siding Project has roughly the same split.

Note that neither New Hampshire or Massachusetts contributes anything towards the operating deficit, even though nearly half of the ridership totals takes place south of Maine’s border.


So there you have it, fun seekers.  Endless deficit spending so a relatively few foamers can get their jollies on a train while untold thousands give of their dollars to pay more than half their fare, and all of their related capital projects.

Is this a great country and great state or what?

Reckless and unconcerned when it comes to spending OPM, but what else can you do when you are elected to serve?  Saying NO is a sure path to political oblivion.

We don’t know what we’ll do next to wake up at least one or two folks who might take interest in the subject, but we’re going to do all we can to rattle cages; you can count on that.

It ain’t much, but it’s all we got….


Andy was famous, of course, for the likes of this:


He’s gone now, but if he were still here, and happened to visit the Big Top Deli, Side’s 20 years and counting favorite lunch spot, he might be inspired by an item on their recently revised menu boards.  It may take you a while to see it, or you may never see it.  But try.

         Big Top Menu a

Sorry for the glare; it comes from the copious flourescent lighting overhead.

Andy could always start with something like this, generic as it is:


The real thing, however, eclipses this in every regard.  We happen to think the BTD has the bestest hot dogs around.  The rolls are exceptional, as are the dogs themselves, and the overall prep and friendly service elevate the whole experience even more.  Not to mention the chips and pickle you get with them.

You can trust us on this; we’re not like all the others.  Especially now that our 15 minutes are over.

Technorati Tags: ,,

Saturday, February 10, 2018

Are you one of Eddie Beem’s “white trash Americans?”


If you read the Forecaster, you likely know who Eddie Beem is, or as he likes to be called, Edgar Allen Beem.  He’s their “featured” opinion writer, regularly proclaiming his moral, intellectual, cultural, and overall superiority compared to the rest of us.  He’s not above btragging of how much praise he gets from ordinary people as he makes his way through his extraordinary life.  Like many journalists, he is convinced his “work” is more noble and profound than those of lesser souls.

We frequently joust with Eddie on the comment threads for his columns, and we seem to have a knack for getting his shorts twisted around his neck, causing him to unleash all sorts of uncivilized names at us, and others, when we challenge his thoughts and expression.  We’ve lost track of how many times he’s sworn he would never again respond to our comments, but it doesn’t really matter.  All we have to do is chase his goat around his “journalistic” corral, and sure enough he’ll take the bait and break his promise anew.

Governor LePage and President Trump are particular burrs in Eddie’s tongue, and he can take a column on donuts and somehow find a way to turn it into tirades against either or both.  Over the years, Side has come to believe that his bouts of LDS and TDS have done permanent damage to his coping skills, and his behavior has suffered as a result.

Last week, The Forecaster carried an item of his dated January 29th called “Maine goes to pot.”

In the process of responding to comments posted, he pretty much lost control of his senses, stating that “99% of Trump voters are white trash Americans,” suggesting they were violent cretins who would get their just desserts in the upcoming mid-term elections and beyond.  The Forecaster moderator quickly removed Eddie’s shrill vulgarities, realizing they were not in keeping with the lofty standards of their pages.  Therefore, we can’t recover Eddies full exact words.  Nor could we recover them on his Disqus profile page, since he has it set at “private,” which is probably a good thing for him, since the archive would portray the troubled soul of a self-absorbed yet completely self-unaware opinion writer still seeking the validation of all he encounters.

You can find the comment string here:, and our comments are posted as “poppypapa.”  Furthermore, our Disgus account is available for public perusal.

You’ll note that two comments were deleted in the string; both of those were Eddie’s.  You can tell from the comments of others just how snotty and snooty he got in his remarks.  Here’s a clip cited in someone else’s post:

"I'm afraid there is no other way to describe Trump followers, 99% of whom are ignorant, prejudiced, evangelical, gun nuts, white nationalists and rednecks."

The comment that “99% of Trump voters are white trash Americans” seemed to us beyond anything we’ve seen from Eddie in his saner days.  Especially since it encompasses the Sides, mumerous family members, and scores and scores of friends and acquaintances.  Not to mention tens of millions of American voters.

So we quickly dashed off a letter to the editor of The Forecaster, reading as shown:

I've been jousting with Ed Beem in the comment strings for his opinion columns for many years, enjoying the fever pitch he rises to when challenged in any way, no matter how civilly.

I've always been surprised, and often shocked, by how someone who considers himself a shining example of humanity's best and brightest, compared to most of his readers, can stoop to the very lowest in name-calling and demonization when readers challenge his thoughts, and often, even when they don't.  His devout hatred of anyone to the right of center, and major elected officials for whom he did not vote, clearly brings out the inner contempt and incivility masked by that avuncular head shot at the top of each column.

In a comment on his recent item on going to pot, Ed lashed out at Trump voters by calling them "white trash Americans."  He went further in related posts, asserting that "99% of Trump voters are white trash Americans," and went even further in labeling them with assorted disgraceful terms.

I don't know what percentage of Forecaster readers and advertisers voted for Trump, but I can assure you that there are many more than Eddie might think.  While we don't pay for our copy of the Forecaster, I'd think the editors might be a bit more sensitive to the "diversity" of their readership and ad-buyers.

Eddie clearly doesn't believe in diversity, especially when it comes to opposing those candidates he reveres, no matter who he might offend on your pages in the process.

Maybe Eddie needs a "time out."  Might I suggest one with a TBD end date?

Pem Schaeffer


The Editor not only didn’t publish the letter,  he didn’t even acknowledge it’s receipt.  And Eddie is right back on their pages this week with one of his psuedo-elite-intellectual thought pieces on “the arts,” which he considers one of his greatest strengths.  Not a single mention of his excursions on the unhinged axis the week before, clear as they were for a few revealing moments.

We do note this line in the current item, however:

Maybe I’ve been sensitive to endings lately because at 68 I am making preparations for retirement, developing an investment strategy, getting a will in order, making arrangements for health insurance, long-term care and lugubrious stuff like that.

We humbly suggest that waiting until you are about to retire at 68 is just a touch late to work on an investment strategy.

What we really want to know is whether the editors might have decided that Eddie finally crossed their “line in the sand,” and was told to craft a soft exit for himself in the words of his beloved weekly thought selfies.

In which case, we have to wonder how local groupies will survive without him. 

And where those readers who are not white trash will find validation of their own without him.