Collins ‘on track’

Let’s set the record straight. A recent letter claimed Sen. Collins voted against the $700 billion bailout bill. That is not true. Concerned that taxpayers’ money was being wasted, Sen. Collins rightfully voted against releasing an additional $350 billion in TARP funds. She did so because big banks had refused to tell us taxpayers how they were spending our money.

The TARP money is not the same as the economic stimulus package that Congress is currently considering. Sen. Collins has said that she believes we need a stimulus package and she is working to help make sure the plan will stimulate our economy without wasting our hard-earned money. Once again Sen. Collins is right on track.

Duane Wardwell

Stetson

···

Middle East peace

My immigrant parents were a business couple in Chicago. Their store survived the great depression and grew thereafter. We lived in the back. Only a curtain separated the kitchen from our workplace. School was secondary for siblings and myself.

After the Diaspora, Jews in Europe turned to commerce. For centuries it was the only way they could make a living. No Yid could own property. They were restricted to ghettos. Even into modern times, Jews could not be citizens or vote. Without civil rights they were abused. In 1948 the allied powers restored to them their ancestral homeland.

Men who use women and children as shields are not soldiers. Israelis know this. How difficult it must be for them to strike a defensive balance with the Arabs, being mindful of the time their own women and children were deported to death camps.

A reasonable solution must address root causes of the conflict. A lack of mandatory family planning, the need to train young Arab men for useful trades, the universal right of every child to good health. Surely the Israelis must be aware. The combination of oil, money and misuse of technology may unveil a nuclear tipped rocket. Then both Gaza and Israel will be uninhabitable.

Russell Vesecky

Harmony

···

Professor Obama

A recent letter in the BDN displayed some confusion about President Obama’s professorship at the University of Chicago Law School. The letter raised concerns about a “false portrayal” of President Obama as having been a university professor. Here is a statement from the University of Chicago Law School which clearly states that President Obama was indeed a professor in the Law School :

“From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”

President Obama’s ardent knowledge and strong abilities in law, as well as in a variety of other intellectual and humanistic disciplines, are clearly evident in the strong leadership he has already displayed in these very challenging and troubled times for this great country of ours, and, indeed, for the whole world.

Roderick G. Mack II

Bar Harbor

···

Unsettling observation

I was waiting in line at a local supermarket a couple of days ago when I saw a small child in front of me waiting with his mother. He picked up a news magazine with President Obama on the cover. After getting his mother’s attention, he looked at the cover of the magazine, made a “pointer-finger-and-thumb” gun sign with his hand and pointed it at Obama, saying “Bang, bang!”

It was one of the more upsetting things I have seen in a while, especially coming from someone so young. When will this country get over the fact that people have equal rights no matter what color they are and should be able to hold offices as high up as the presidency without an ounce of scrutiny or threat? I hope the boy just didn’t realize what his attempt for attention really insinuated, however it is a clear demonstration of what some kids today absorb from peers and family life. And that makes me worry a little bit.

David Crawford

Orono

···

Dixmont wise on wind

Dixmont’s wise decision to enact a wind energy moratorium will allow the town to step back and develop the tools to properly analyze the project.

They have one chance to get it right and many questions need to be answered. A few examples:

Towns should have proof that the development is economically justifiable. U.S. Department of Energy wind power classification maps indicate that potential for Dixmont is marginal. There may be greater potential in localized situations but the company that makes this claim should be required to show proof. Currently, there is good money to be made with subsidies, tax deferments, green credits and such, but the question is whether the project is designed to harvest the power of the wind or simply taxpayer dollars. The town should know who will own the project when the mills are depreciated and the tax benefits are gone.

Towns need to know who is responsible for and guarantees maintenance.

These are machines with large moving parts which, like any machine, will eventually wear out and break. Who will be responsible for the eventual decommissioning and demolition of defunct windmills and restoring the site?

Wind energy generating facilities can make great contributions to stemming greenhouse gases, can help make the nation more energy independent and can offer economic benefits to the communities that host them. But towns need to have the tools to determine whether the gains of the project outweigh the costs. The moratorium offers the window of time to do that.

Greg Rossel

Troy

···

A smoker’s lament

Sounds like Renee Ordway has been down on smokers all of her life according to her Jan. 3-4 column.

When I went to school in the 1950s, we didn’t have a smoking section inside the school. We had to do it outside. Smoking in moderation – and that’s the key word here – is not dastardly.

This argument with smokers is over. You’ve won! We get that. But just like everything else we have gotten carried away with this particular issue. We could have smoked in an area with an open window at the office or cracked a window in the car or had an area in the bar with an exhaust fan.

But no, that wasn’t enough. Your dastardly complaining and blowing everything up out of proportion has won the fight for you. We surrender.

Raymond Dean

Northport