Editorials from around New England

Editorials from around New England:

MASSACHUSETTS

The Cape Cod Times

Aug. 9

Few would argue that the public is ever better-served by a more opaque government, and yet that is exactly what the federal agency that regulates the nation’s nuclear arsenal has decided to do. The Pentagon confirmed in early July that it would no longer disclose any information about the country’s nuclear weapons facilities, arguing that even the very basic results of a pass-fail grading system potentially provide too much information to the nation’s enemies. Left unspoken was the fact that those reports also provided important information to the very people who fund the design, construction and maintenance of these same weapons, and who live with them in their midst.

The United States military has, understandably, never willingly disclosed detailed information about its weapon systems; such information could expose potential vulnerabilities that could make an attractive target of forces hostile to the country. The Pentagon has, however, routinely shared public broad information about the state of its various nuclear sites, awarding them pass/fail grades. Military officials, however, have now determined that even this most basic of information could be leveraged by an antagonistic entity.

Although some see the military’s efforts as prudent, others have called the Pentagon out for withholding information that is arguably not only important to the public, but to the military itself. Steven Aftergood, a member of the Federation of American Scientists, said the move makes it appear as though officials have something to hide, noting, “Clearly, nuclear weapons technology secrets should be protected. But negligence or misconduct in handling nuclear weapons should not be insulated from public accountability.”

The news is particularly troubling given the Pentagon’s checkered history when it comes to its oversight of the country’s nuclear cache. Last year, the Government Accountability Office released a report that disclosed that the United States military continues to rely on 1980s computing software to regulate its nuclear weapons, including floppy disks. But even that report was less troubling than one from 2014, when The Associated Press revealed widespread negligence within the Air Force in terms of the maintenance of the United States deadliest weapons. The report found security lapses, poor training and problematic leadership, and prompted the Pentagon to order an independent investigation that confirmed many of AP’s findings. An internal review by the military itself, ordered by then-Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, was never released to the public. Neither were the recommendations of that study.

Ironically, military spokesmen cited this very review - the one that was never released - as the reason for the heightened level of secrecy.

Hagel, who has since left public service, would not comment specifically on the Pentagon’s current course of action, but recently described the public’s trust and confidence as “coin of the realm for leaders and nations.”

“Certain specifics must always stay classified for national security reasons but should be classified only when absolutely necessary,” he wrote. “When you close down information channels and stop the flow of information you invite questions, distrust and investigations.”

Such is the case with today’s Pentagon. The more it seeks to control information, the more it appears to have something to hide. Such actions harm not only the public trust, but the very ability for the organization to police itself. For if the public is not sufficiently informed and enraged by incompetence, what will motivate the military to rectify those problems? Surely the very real need for security can coexist with the public’s right to know. After all, how can citizens of the United States truly feel safe if they cannot trust the very people who have been charged with defending them or the equipment being used in that pursuit?

Online: https://bit.ly/2fytRBd

___

CONNECTICUT

Republican-American

Aug. 7

There are many reasons a university’s enrollment may rise and fall, but the University of Missouri and Hartford’s Trinity College have emerged as object lessons in how not to maintain the flow of new students and alumni cash.

Two years ago, “Mizzou” hosted protests over alleged policies of bigotry by the university’s president and campus chancellor, Tim Wolfe and R. Bowen Loftin. Before long, the face of the university became that of journalism professor Melissa Click, who called for “some muscle over here” when a student tried to videotape a protest. Since then, black high-school seniors, convinced the school was in fact a hotbed of racism, didn’t apply, while white students avoided Mizzou out of fear they would be perceived as racists.

“Freshman enrollment at the Columbia campus, the system’s flagship, has fallen by more than 35 percent in the two years since,” The New York Times reported July 9. “(T)he university is temporarily closing seven dormitories and cutting more than 400 positions … .”

Trinity faces some of the same difficulties in the aftermath of a controversy surrounding Professor Johnny Eric Williams, who approvingly posted an article on a social-media account of his that “urged a show of indifference to the lives of bigots,” The Hartford Courant reported last week. He used the article’s headline as a hashtag: “Let Them (Expletive) Die.” The result? Sixteen incoming students have withdrawn, and $200,000 in anticipated donations no longer are forthcoming, the Courant reported Aug. 1.

This is what happens when universities coddle “snowflake” students of any race, focus on baseless grievances rather than academics, and look the other way when professors engage in unacceptable behavior.

Online: https://bit.ly/2vu6rRa

___

RHODE ISLAND

The Westerly Sun

Aug. 6

Insult was added to injury last week when the police charged a Pawcatuck man with possession of marijuana after firefighters reported finding a little more than an ounce of the stuff in his apartment following a fire on Stillman Avenue.

The cause of the fire has been determined to be accidental, likely stemming from an electrical malfunction. The man is a tenant in a three-family building and the fire started in the kitchen portion of his apartment and was contained there. He was not home at the time of the incident.

This was the man’s first offense, based on Connecticut court documents, so there’s a good chance he’ll get far less than the maximum penalty of a fine up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail - if there is any penalty assessed at all. Connecticut has decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana, as have many states. Decriminalization typically means no prison time or criminal record for those who are first-time offenders in possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal consumption. This national move toward decriminalization - even legalization - along with more states moving toward the use of medical marijuana, is a clear indication of how attitudes toward marijuana have changed over the years.

On Friday, The Associated Press reported that the Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety, a group of prosecutors and federal law enforcement officials, had come up with no new policy recommendations to advance Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ aggressive anti-marijuana views. Instead, the panel largely called for retaining the status quo of more lenient pot policies ushered in by the Obama administration.

In the Stillman Avenue case, the man consented to a search of his apartment by police after the fire - after firefighters told police what they had found while inside his private space.

This wasn’t a drug lab leading to a fire that could have threatened volunteer firefighters with an explosion. Westerly firefighters faced that situation a few years ago in a condo fire that could have endangered lives.

If anyone should be charged after a fire it’s the person who dozes off while smoking, potentially putting others at risk and prompting volunteers to respond to a situation that is completely preventable.

This guy’s “crime” was leaving his pot out and living in an apartment that apparently had some wiring issues - and those may not even have had anything to do with him. Fire officials didn’t say he had extension cords all over the place powering appliances that draw heavy amounts of electricity. Even that isn’t a crime, though maybe such preventable fires should be considered a crime since every fire means potential harm for firefighters.

The pot charge on Stillman Avenue represents an invasion of privacy that led to the discovery of an “offense” that had nothing to do with the matter at hand.

For police to spend time on this simple case of possession of a small amount of pot - accidentally discovered - is a waste of taxpayer money. Meanwhile opiates and fentanyl-laced drugs continue to proliferate seemingly unchecked in our communities.

Online: https://bit.ly/2vWhANY

___

MAINE

The Portland Press Herald

Aug. 9

President Trump’s promised “major briefing” this week on the opioid epidemic - held the same day the federal government reported record-high overdose deaths - spurns his own commission’s public health-oriented recommendations in favor of tough-talking, enforcement-centered policies that have already been shown not to work.

In 2015, we lost about 142 Americans every day to overdoses - “a death toll equal to September 11th every three weeks,” notes the July 31 report from the president’s panel - and the toll is still climbing. The fatal overdose rate in 2016 reached a record 19.9 deaths per 100,000 population between July and September, compared to 16.7 per 100,000 over the same period in 2015, according to federal estimates released Tuesday.

On the heels of this devastating news, the president announced no new policies. Instead, he doubled down on ineffective current ones, calling for more abstinence-based addiction treatment and vowing to ramp up drug prosecutions and tighten drug sentences.

The president’s tragically shortsighted proposals are at odds with the recommendations of his Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, which formally urged Trump to take steps that could make a real difference, like declaring a state of emergency - which would allow states or communities deemed addiction “disaster zones” to use federal funds for things like addiction treatment or the overdose-reversal medication naloxone.

The panel also called for equipping all police officers in the U.S. with naloxone; increasing the use of medication-assisted treatment; expanding the number of treatment beds; cracking down on synthetic opioids, and broadening legal protections for people who seek help for overdose victims.

All these are recommendations that those who are familiar with the drug crisis have been making for years - including in Maine, where everyone from addiction experts and treatment providers to police officers and corrections officials agrees that we won’t be able to combat the opioid epidemic until we address the shortage of beds in treatment programs and the lack of government funding to treat uninsured Mainers who need help but can’t afford it.

And as bad as the crisis is in Maine, where a record 376 people died of overdoses last year, there are signs that it’s growing even more dire.

Talk in the Portland-area drug treatment and recovery community - combined with the publication since July 22 of seven Press Herald obituaries that cite a drug overdose as the cause of death - has raised fears of a possible spike in overdoses in Maine’s largest city, caused by more powerful synthetic opioids such as fentanyl or carfentanil.

Fentanyl, which is 50 times stronger than heroin, has already made inroads here. The percentage of overdose deaths in Maine involving the painkiller more than doubled between 2015 and 2016. But the influx of the elephant tranquilizer carfentanil, which is about 5,000 times as potent as heroin and officially claimed its first life in Maine in April, could cause the epidemic’s toll to metastasize to unprecedented levels.

As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump pledged to help those struggling with addiction. As president, he’s squandering an opportunity to follow through on his promise, instead putting forth a substance-free plan of action that may beef up his tough-on-crime image but will do nothing to help the millions who have seen their own or their loved ones’ lives ravaged by this merciless epidemic.

Online: https://bit.ly/2wPNW9y

___

VERMONT

The Rutland Herald

Aug. 9

A recent profile of Sen. Bernie Sanders in The New Yorker magazine contained an unusually colorful quote from Republican operative Brady Toensing.

Toensing is the one who stirred up controversy about the finances of Burlington College when Sanders’ wife, Jane, was college president. Toensing said that in a state other than Vermont the matter would have become a scandal far sooner than it did here. But Vermont, in Toensing’s view, is more hospitable to progressives than other states are. “For a progressive, Vermont is like the Galápagos,” he said. “You get to evolve without predators.”

It is an interesting comparison, not least because it casts Toensing himself in the role of predator, ready to feast on a progressive politician when he spies a weakness. But it is interesting, too, in what it says about Republican predation and the battle for survival that progressives outside of Vermont must face.

Hillary Clinton was mocked years ago when she referred to what she called a “vast right-wing conspiracy” that had dedicated itself to attacking President Bill Clinton. It seemed she was whining, or at least exaggerating.

Over time Bill Clinton’s character flaws were revealed, as was the machinery of right-wing predation that exploited them - the hidden money fueling campaigns of character assassination based on lies or exaggerations and distortions. The investment of huge sums by the Koch brothers and others to pay for groups to attack the Obama agenda was part of the continuing predation that progressives faced outside Vermont. Donald Trump’s lies about Barack Obama’s birthplace were part of it.

Vermont is different, like the Galápagos. But what accounts for that difference? It helps to look at who the predators are and to note that they are mostly absent in Vermont.

There is the revanchist element of Southern segregationists that has never accepted the civil rights gains of recent decades. Leaders seeking to broaden voter participation face the attacks of those working to suppress voting by blacks. Also, the war on drugs became a “new Jim Crow,” a way to imprison and oppress a major segment of black America.

Progressives who stand up against these abuses face resistance in many parts of the nation, but Vermont has a different history. Vermont was the first state to outlaw slavery, was a bastion of abolitionism and has long favored civil rights. The state psyche did not endure the moral contortions suffered by those who felt compelled to justify slavery. A Vermonter like Sanders is not imperiled by predators motivated by racism.

Nor is the state dominated by large corporations. The oil industry has little presence here, and standing up on behalf of the environment is not likely to subject a Vermont progressive to attacks by fossil fuel advocates, at least within the state. Historically, the dominant element within the state was made up of yeoman farmers with relatively small land holdings, all of them speaking up for themselves at town meeting and in state government. Big plantation owners or owners of grand estates, as in New York state, were mostly absent. Big business has not had a major foothold here, though the business community has been an influential voice in fostering fiscal prudence.

Also, the state has not been dominated by the intolerant voices of religious fundamentalists arguing against equal rights or against progressive education. Texas must contend with those who oppose the teaching of evolution and who promote discriminatory bathroom policies. That doesn’t happen in Vermont.

Thus, Vermont politicians, whether Democratic or Republican, tend to favor equal rights for minorities and women, and they do not feel compelled to adopt a subservient posture toward corporate interests. That is how Sanders, as well as Sen. Patrick Leahy and Rep. Peter Welch, have thrived politically. Toensing is correct in noting that the predators who might have driven them to seek cover are mostly absent from Vermont, and they are free to sound the alarm about corporate corruption (Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs et al), about voter suppression (as encouraged by President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions), about the abuse of immigrants and the lack of fairness in the economy.

Eco-tourists like to visit the Galápagos to learn about evolution. Politico tourists could learn something from a visit to Vermont.

Online: https://bit.ly/2vtnH9j

___

NEW HAMPSHIRE

The Portsmouth Herald

Aug. 7

CNN called our newsroom Friday looking for comment on a report of President Donald Trump telling Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto he won in New Hampshire because the state is “a drug infested den.”

Rather than giving them the outrage quote they were looking for, we shared the truth as we know it.

Granite Staters view providing prevention, treatment and recovery services as a shared responsibility. We have seen that drug addiction hurts individuals and families in every corner of the state from every socio-economic background and that no one is immune from the threat.

Over the past five or six years, our police, courts, schools, social service agencies and elected officials have joined with the overwhelming majority of citizens to accept that drug addiction is a public health crisis. Fueled in large part by the overprescribing of opiates, drug addiction is a national issue and we expect most states and communities are working hard to slow the devastation. President Trump, like all the candidates campaigning in the New Hampshire Primary, got an earful from voters about their concerns, because we’re facing the problem honestly.

So how do we feel about President Trump’s comment? In our view, it’s largely irrelevant because it’s not based in reality.

What we do find relevant are the very good things members of our community are doing at this very minute to help. For example:

Monday, as this editorial was being written, hundreds of Seacoast citizens were gathering to participate in the second annual Hungry For Hope event, which aims to raise $30,000 for the Safe Harbor Recovery Center in Portsmouth. Dan and Renee Plummer of Two International Group provided a venue at One Harbour Place, two dozen of the city’s top restaurants donated food and many other businesses provided beverages and financial support.

“This is a community-wide fight,” said John Akar, owner of Cava Tapas and Wine Bar and one of the event’s lead organizers. “It touches home not only personally with us - it is a reminder that it can happen to anyone. It’s not just one segment of the population.”

Monday afternoon in Rockingham Superior Court two young men graduated from a drug court program, which allows non-violent offenders to avoid jail time if they successfully commit to an intensive recovery program.

The drug court requires a massive commitment on the part of our criminal justice system, with each participant receiving supervision from more than half a dozen officials, including the presiding judge. Monday’s graduations were such an accomplishment that U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan attended and offered comments.

On Sunday we were pleased to report about Chameleon Group, a Portsmouth business run by Dana Lariviere of Dover and Steve Tentindo of Stratham, that employees more than a dozen people in recovery.

Working with Bonfire Recovery to identify likely job candidates is not simply an act of good will but also good business because reliable workers are a precious resource at this time of near full employment.

“We’ve taken a risk,” Lariviere said, “but it’s a calculated risk. I think it’s just the right thing to do.”

Granite Staters from all walks of life are stepping up and embracing those who are battling addiction, helping them get their lives back on track. We’re proud of that. Do we have a drug problem in this state? We do. But what defines us is not the problem but our willingness to work together to do something about it.

Online: https://bit.ly/2vMAs1i