I understand that having contributors to your newspaper with strong opinions, in theory, garners more attention and perhaps a wider readership. However, when these opinions are not balanced with other contributors that have opposing views, the newspaper inherently becomes slanted.

It is safe to say that John Balentine is a strong supporter of the current president, Donald Trump. Supporting him is fine, if in fact the support is backed by evidence. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Among the numerous claims he makes in this article (“Here’s Something: Mind your P’s this election season,” Sept. 30), all of which are simply Trump talking points, one really stands out. The following draws my ire: “One important P … is, the pandemic. It’s funny how Republicans saw the importance early on of reopening businesses and schools while Democrats seemed happy to ‘stay safe at home’ and let civilization crumble around them.”

The only evidence thus far provided regarding COVID-19 comes from medical experts. This is factually based and data driven. It is subject to the rigors of science. What their evidence shows runs contrary to what Mr. Balentine spews.

The main reason this country has been affected by COVID-19 more than any other country in the world, regardless of this country’s advanced medical technology, is because science has taken a backseat to the political aspirations of someone who disregards the value of science.

Mr. Balentine continues this backwards trend and The Forecaster publishes his opinion. For some readers, who assume that because it is published it is somehow validated, the opinion only furthers the spread of COVID-19.

I would suggest that you make an effort as a newspaper organization to limit “opinions” that threaten public health. First Amendment rights are limited. You can not scream fire in a crowded theater and this is exactly what has been done here.

Patrick Bernier
Portland