The Editor:
On August 7, Ms. Sarbie Bains wrote a response to my Letter to the Editor on July 23 regarding her appointment to the Blaine City Council. Ms. Bains stated that I wrote the letter “without reaching out to meet her.” It is not my responsibility to reach out to Ms. Bains but rather her responsibility to reach out to the citizens of Blaine, as she is the one running for office.
Ms. Bains was given a public forum in which to introduce herself to the voters, detail her background, education, prior business experience, volunteer work and service to the community. Ms. Bains chose not to do so. Ms. Bains was given questions prepared by city council in advance of the meeting so she could be prepared to respond. She chose not to do her homework on these critical issues facing the city. Ms. Bains would rather follow the lead of the sitting councilmembers. Her words, not mine.
Ms. Bains now states that she is “committed to learning and making thoughtful … decisions that serve all of Blaine – not just the comfortable few.” Who are these “comfortable few” she is referring to and who is showing them favoritism?
Debo Alexander
Blaine
The Editor:
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety,” Benjamin Franklin said.
Fear alone should never drive our decisions. Sacrificing fundamental freedoms in the name of imagined threats weakens liberty itself.
Ronald Snyder’s recent letter claims that President Trump is “destroying the Constitution for personal gain.” I strongly disagree and feel it’s important to set the record straight: Labeling normal policy decisions as fascism is misleading and fearmongering.
Mr. Snyder cites the federal government’s 9.9 percent equity stake in Intel as evidence of authoritarian control. In reality, this investment converted previously approved grants into a passive stake – no board seat, no operational control, and a requirement that the government vote in line with Intel’s leadership except in rare cases. Its purpose was to strengthen U.S. chip production, a critical sector for national security, not to nationalize industry.
Critics may worry that such moves blur free-market lines, and that debate is fair. But equating this with fascism – where government fuses political power with total control of private industry and suppresses dissent – is inaccurate. Nothing about this agreement removes Intel’s independence, imposes political loyalty or dismantles free-market competition. Calling a strategic investment “fascism” exaggerates the threat and distracts from legitimate debate over industrial policy.
Critics may reasonably question whether government involvement in industry sets a precedent, and such discussions are healthy in a democracy. But framing normal interventions as tyranny undermines reasoned dialogue. The Constitution is resilient enough to withstand bold policy choices and robust disagreement.
Fears that Constitutional freedoms are at risk under this administration are unfounded. Many Americans see President Trump’s policies as preserving, not eroding, these freedoms and trust that our system of checks and balances continues to function as designed.
We don’t have to share the same politics to share the same Constitution. Let’s defend it by modeling civil, fact-based debate – grounded in evidence rather than accusations. Constructive disagreement strengthens democracy – baseless fearmongering does not.
Sharman Burnam
Birch Bay
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here