Glenn Beck is a liberal
In the BDN’s Sept. 15 letters to the editor, Cindi Rosso wrote, “I will admit that we have seen some Republicans who are not really conservative, but have we seen a Democrat who is not liberal?”
According to the dictionary, a liberal is one who has a broad, enlightened mind, without narrowness and bigotry, who advocates individual liberty. Politically, this one is inclined to have democratic or republican ideas, as opposed to monarchal or aristocratic aims. So, a liberal is a true American who believes in the Bill of Rights and the ideals of freedom, as did our Founding Fathers. Thus, folks like Glenn Beck and the tea party are actually liberals. Anyone who stands against liberalism should be suspected of anti-American motives — the leader of Iran, for example.
Conservative means one who tends to preserve the existing order of things, and one who is opposed to change or progress. According to this, the only real conservatives in America are the Amish, who wisely stay out of politics. Politically, a conservative would not accept the progressive ideas of our liberal Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights, but would be advocates for a monarchy, like the conservative Tories back in the days of the American Revolution. So Glenn Beck and the tea party are not conservatives, but liberals.
So, perhaps it’s time for the labeling to stop so that we can come together as a nation again and work toward being the progressive democratic republic that we were meant to be.
Nature and complaining
No one in his or her right mind would dare suggest placing windmills in places as sacred as Acadia National Park or Baxter State Park. Yet, there are wild areas of the state that are just as scenic as these two special places, especially the western mountains.
For windmills to be placed in areas such as these would create a visual impact of an unforgivable nature. It would be better to place wind turbines in areas already developed.
As far as Mars Hill is concerned, that mountain was already a ski resort with towers on its summit to begin with, yet some people have complained.
No matter the situation, some people will find an occasion to complain. I guess that this is the nature of things.
The real hero died
I am writing in regard to the front-page article about the hunter who was attacked by a wounded bear. I am truly sorry for the pain and fright that the victim of the attack endured.
I have no objection to hunting done by adept hunters who shoot and kill an animal immediately. This man, although called an experienced hunter, merely wounded this animal, causing it to become enraged. The bear turned and attacked the man after being shot again and mauled by dogs and other hunters. It is remarkable that in the confusion no one was shot and killed.
The picture of the man seemed to imply that somehow he was a hero because he survived an attack by a wounded and grossly outnumbered bear. I submit the opinion that the real hero in this situation is dead.
The recent article “Delegates say Internet limits would hurt Maine” contained some interesting quotes from members of our congressional delegation suggesting that without additional Internet regulations rural communities like those in Maine would be placed at a disadvantage.
However, telecommunications companies have been investing billions into enhancing and expanding broadband across the country to meet consumer demand. At a time when many are worried about another recession, the Internet is one of the few areas of robust growth and consumer empowerment.
New burdensome regulations would discourage, not encourage, the expansion of broadband to less populated areas. This would also limit broadband providers’ ability to choose to invest in new technologies and services, essentially creating a disincentive for companies, hindering the spread of services to new communities and hurting existing businesses that depend on broadband to sustain and expand their market.
Maine’s economic development is directly linked with its broadband access. Currently, the competition in place has kept costs low and encouraged broadband expansion. It is important that we oppose excessive government control and regulation and enable the Internet to continue to flourish.
Rep. Stacey Fitts
Libby as a nanny
This may seem like a fine point to some, but I find it illustrative.
Sen. Libby Mitchell, Democrat candidate for governor, wants to require that at least 25 percent of food served in schools, prisons and state facilities be locally grown or harvested.
Sounds like a great idea, right? How could one argue with the idea of eating more nutritiously and supporting local farmers at the same time? But nowhere in the proposal is the concept of choice introduced or whether it makes sense economically.
It does show, though, the mindset of big-government, career politicians. Their answer is always another “nanny” government mandate that would cost us all more of our hard-earned money. How much more government growth and intrusion is enough? I guess we’ll find out in November and again in 2012.
If the GOP wins
The decline of America to third-world status is happening right under our noses. Witness teachers, policemen, firefighters, municipal workers and others being fired wholesale; libraries being closed; jobs being outsourced overseas in the name of corporate profits; money spent on war taking priority over helping the unemployed, poor and sick; the demonization of labor unions, once the engine driving greater prosperity for many Americans; deterioration of America’s infrastructure, including bridges and roads — the list goes on.
America’s work force was once kept busy making things — now it’s hard to buy anything made in the U.S. Can a nation be prosperous if it’s not producing and only consuming?
Right after Franklin Delano Roosevelt became president in 1933, he made job creation his highest priority, and brought about laws, since repealed, that prevented banks and Wall Street from indulging in the wild speculation that caused the 1929 crash. This same urgency exists today, and if it weren’t for Republican determination to bring down Obama, even at the expense of the nation’s best interests, such action could be taken.
The return of prosperity depends on putting even tighter rein on the financial industry, putting Main Street’s interests above those of big oil and big business and their armies of lobbyists, getting out of Afghanistan and associated bloated military spending, bringing back taxes for the rich, and working to create jobs with an urgency like Roosevelt’s. Should the Republicans gain big in November, these things will never happen.