Free trade dangerous
The editors of The Washington Post who attack Hillary Clinton and the Democrats for blocking Obama’s “fast track” free trade bill in an editorial in the BDN’s May 12 Other Voices seem pretty confident this trade bill is good for America. So how do they know? The Trans-Pacific Partnership was negotiated in secret. Only members of Congress could read it. So what’s the source of their confidence? Apparently the editors simply bought the political narrative they were fed by the Obama administration and the usual champions of globalization about free trade and open borders.
America has a $51.4 billion trade deficit, and we’ve lost 2.1 million jobs to Asian Pacific countries since 2001. Every step of the way, we’ve been told that free trade was good for us. Where’s the evidence? The middle class is shrinking, and wages are stagnant. When we had a strong and growing middle class, we had regulated international trade. What was so bad about that?
And why are free trade agreements negotiated in secret? Why should Congress be prevented from making any amendments to these treaties? And since this agreement concerns the free flow of “services” as well as goods, how many new foreign workers will be taking American jobs, bypassing congressional immigration limits? Do we want a global governance authority making these decisions for our country?
It’s refreshing that both a liberal Democrat, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and a conservative, such as Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, are defying Obama’s globalist agenda and taking a stand for American workers. Maybe we have a truly populist movement emerging in both parties. That would be interesting.
Jonette Christian
Holden
Vietnam service
Regarding the May 9 BDN letter about an event to welcome home Vietnam and Vietnam-era veterans, I am a Vietnam “era” vet who after basic training then spent the next nine months in electronics/communications classes. When I received my orders for Okinawa, Japan, I didn’t complain. Nor would I have complained if they were for Vietnam. I had enlisted in September 1967, and where I was going wasn’t up to me.
I returned two years later, attended Eastern Maine Vocational Technical Institute and went on to a career maintaining large computers. In Bangor, during a membership drive for Vietnam Veterans of America Chapter 185, I met retired Lt. Col. Robert Whelen. He convinced me to join the VVA. When discussing the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, he said the VVA did not want a divide between those who went in country and those who served elsewhere. No member complained about my service.
During the war, many of us were involved with Vietnam and never stepped on the land. Hundreds of sailors died on the U.S.S. Forestal, Enterprise and Frank E. Evans. Rotating C-141 air crews flew the wounded to Japan. A B-52 crash on Okinawa killed several crew members. Hundreds of airmen kept B-52s flying “Arc Light” missions to Vietnam from Okinawa, Guam and Thailand. They did their part. All gave some; some gave all.
We realized the inequities of service during Vietnam, yet we served during America’s most unpopular war. The VVA charter is to recognize all who served.
Ed Brown
Hampden
Gun permits don’t stop criminals
A May 11 BDN OpEd from two officials of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association regarding the proposed legislation to end the requirement to have a concealed weapon permit reveals that there are police administrators who are too far removed from the field and reality. They listed their chief objections to LD 652 being that “people hide things for a reason. Often that reason is that they are up to no good.” And they offered that the current permit system denies permits to people who should not be carrying a hidden gun.
This reasoning envisions a bad guy who is intent on robbing a store backing off because, “Oh, nerts, I can’t do this because I don’t have a permit to carry this gun.” Do these gentlemen really believe that if they deny an unstable person a permit, that person simply will abandon his or her gun? Can anyone believe that a person bent on shooting up a school or movie theatre will stop for fear of being cited for not having a weapons permit?
For good reason, law enforcement officials of every stripe across the country have written and blogged that the weapons permit laws only apply to good intentioned, law-abiding people. Permit requirements don’t keep bad people from carrying guns, but armed citizens can make them think twice before using them.
Dale Sprinkle
Surry
Maine workforce
I agree with Susan Corbett, “Preparing student for tomorrow’s jobs starts in schools today” (BDN OpEd, April 26), that our students need educational rigor, standards and assessments to succeed in Maine’s workforce. As a retired Air Force brigadier general, I can tell you that this is also true for those who choose a career in the military. Progression through training is a process of instruction, hands-on practice with the required level of supervision and evaluation to the “proficient” grade with documentation on training records.
Both the Department of Defense and the private sector face significant challenges finding qualified candidates because of educational skills requirements, physical fitness or criminal record. It is in the best interests of these groups to promote efforts to make the selection field as favorable as possible, not prohibitively small. Partnerships can be built through many agencies to enhance the statistics of available job candidates.
Today’s military is a complex, high-tech enterprise. We need people with excellent reading, writing and math skills, as well as those who are quick studies with challenging technology and who can think critically and work effectively as part of a team. Our civilian sector faces the same requirement to compete in a global economy.
Maine’s schools are on the right track by requiring students to show proficiency in core content areas, aligning that rigor with uniform standards and assessing that students have actually acquired the skills that will help them succeed. Simply put, the military and the private sector essentially are competing for the best and brightest candidates, so we’re both going to benefit if more students graduate from high school with the skills and knowledge we need.
Stephen Atkinson
Glenburn