Printed letters, Feb. 4, 2010
Voters are being jolted out of voting for Dems
There’s no doubt now that Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts last month turned politics on its ear and made the conservatives giddy.
But, Brown is not conservative, just not a Democrat and, most notably, not a Kennedy. His great accomplishment was having broken a political grip that had endured for decades. Apparently the liberal voters there perceived him to be the lesser of two evils.
Changing the status quo in Washington was what many Bay Staters hoped would come with President Obama’s stated goals and eventual election.
That happened, but the changes apparently weren’t what they envisioned. Instead, they saw changes, perceived them to be crippling and perceived there were more to come. It took the siren song of health care socialism to jolt them out of voting for a (D).
The message has been sent, through two previous governor’s races, and now this. Politicians beware. Perception can be a very real factor.
Is this the beginning of a trend, or a fluke times three, as some Democrats would have us believe?
Brown should be more than a ‘lifestyle’ candidate
It remains to be seen if Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., will prove to be worthy of his state. It is disturbing, however, that, according to Dave Kearsley’s understandably enthusiastic support, Brown’s most valuable blue-collar political attributes are a college education, driving a pickup, being a great outside shooter and having down-to-earth humor and a residence somewhere near Route 140.
Add to this his nude posing abilities and he surely has all the narcissism needed for membership in the most exclusive club in Washington.
Good thing Brown didn’t drive a sedan, play racquetball, live in Boston or had never thought of flaunting any body parts, because the party would have had real trouble selecting him to run for office in that case.
I hope the GOP did look for something other than a “lifestyle” candidate to support its rescue plan for the nation. If so, those qualities were not apparent to Dave Kearsley, whose euphoria over the 41st Republican vote in the Senate seems to have overcome his usually more stable attitude.
Residents understand importance of uranium
I was privileged to be with a group of concerned citizens recently. We were discussing our local issues and candidates. The Nucla uranium mill hearing came up. I had just finished reading Fran Didier’s letter to the editor, and wanted to express my position.
I was born and raised in this valley and, being in my 70s, have seen a lot of the uranium and oil shale booms and busts. We have always been a mining and agriculture area. Recently, we have become diversified with tourism and manufacturing, which have helped maintain some stability from the downturn in oil and gas exploration.
Several people in my group traveled to Nucla for the Jan. 21 hearing. They spoke with many of the local people and found them to be very supportive of the mill opening and mining commencing. They would welcome good-paying jobs and a revitalization of their community.
Granted, huge mistakes were made 60 years ago, but today we have the knowledge and the regulations in place to safeguard the miners and the environment.
These same people have lived in Nucla for generations with the uranium all around them. Deer, elk and other wildlife have thrived. Why has it suddenly become deplorable for people in the community to made a decent living?
The United States uses 60 million tons of uranium a year. We produce 5 million tons. This makes us dependent upon foreign countries to make up the shortfall and ensures we continue with trade imbalances. Why can’t we become self-sufficient?
Our dependence on foreign oil and gas should have taught us to look to our own resources. It behooves us to listen to the people in Nucla, who are in place and know first-hand the pros and cons.
Where’s the outrage over socialist DOW?
One dictionary defines “socialism” as a “social organization which advocates ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole and their administration or distribution in the interests of all.”
Colorado Revised Statutes, Section 33-1-101 (1) says, “It is the policy of the state of Colorado that the wildlife and their environment are to be protected, preserved, enhanced and managed for the use, benefit and enjoyment of the people of this state and its visitors.”
Section (2) says, “All wildlife within this states not lawfully acquired and held by private ownership is declared to be the property of this state.”
Let’s see now: Ownership and control of fish and big game by the community as a whole (the people of the state of Colorado) and administration and distribution of the fish and game in the interests of all (the people of the state and its visitors).
The Division of Wildlife is a gigantic socialist scheme to control hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing. Call out the Tea Party. People of the state (including sportsmen) and visitors rise up, throw off the shackles of socialism. We can’t have a bunch of socialist game wardens administering this valuable asset.