Maryland is no longer the state that Mr. Lee seems to pine for. For one thing, dynastic families like his don’t call the shots anymore. And for another, the state economy isn’t dominated by 19th-century industries. It is a highly modern, diverse economy.
It’s not an accident that Maryland has become one of the most prosperous states in the nation. Life in Maryland has turned much more dynamic and complex, and our state and local governments reflect that. They no longer answer to the narrow, parochial, self-interest of the kind of elite few from whom Mr. Lee apparently developed — or inherited — his opinions.
If Mr. Lee really wants to roll back the clock to some romanticized simpler past of yeoman workers and radically reduced government, maybe he should move to a place like Mississippi.
Mark Mocarski, Bethesda
Your letter’s ad hominem attack employs an array of straw men. Please point to one column — just one — I’ve written during the past 27 years that opposes either democratic rule or inclusiveness.
As for your assault on my family, I’m very proud of the contributions they made to our state and county over the decades. By the way, they covered the complete political spectrum from ultra-liberal (for their day) to conservative. Check it out.
You’re also clueless about our economy, which you call “diverse.” Hogwash, our economy is completely dependent on federal government spending. If the national government wasn’t next door, we’d all be wheat farmers.
Federal spending, not our state and local governments, made Maryland “one of the most prosperous states in the nation.” It takes a lot of conceit and naiveté to believe otherwise.
Finally, like most liberals, you insist you’re on the right side of history and want anyone who doesn’t agree to move out. All in the name of inclusiveness and tolerance. What hypocrisy.
I hope to hell you are planning to run for governor next term. If so, let me know what I can do to help!
Bob Stilwell, Clarksburg
Thanks, but I can’t run because I’ve been exiled to Mississippi for being unenlightened.
I just read your editorial [“Booze Control,” March 8], and I’d like your clarification of this portion:
“High-capacity beverages of more than 10% alcohol content serve no positive public or social purpose. Their chief aim is to induce rapid and long-lasting intoxication. O’Malley’s Alcohol Safety Act prohibits the sale, use or possession of any alcoholic beverage with more than 10% alcohol content.”
Do I read this correctly that you and the governor are attempting to ban every form of beverage with more than 10% alcohol?
Tom Jones, Greenbelt
My column was a parody of Governor O’Malley’s gun control bill. I simply took all his gun control features (ban on high-capacity guns and clips, licensing, finger printing, four-hour training course, fees, etc.) and applied them to booze, which kills more people every year than guns.
The 66 percent of Marylanders who are not gun owners don’t mind imposing these restrictions on gun owners, but they react violently when the same restrictions are applied to booze.
If you think you’re going to get an adult to take a four-hour class you can head to the asylum you came out of [“Booze Control,” March 8]. There is something wrong inside your head.
I know what’s next, any person of consensual age has to take a four-hour sex course on “how to do it” and will have to pay to get recertified. You should be incarcerated, indefinitely, and your company placed in receivership.
It was a spoof on Maryland’s new gun control law. But your outrage and the outrage of so many other readers makes an interesting point: We live in a state whose citizens assume that their elected officials are fully capable of passing such an idiotic law. Scary.
Blair Lee [“The Best And Worse of 2012,” Jan. 23] appears uninformed about Maryland’s new regulations designed to protect streams and surface water from uncontrolled livestock grazing.
The urine and feces of livestock herds are a major source of water pollution when they are allowed unfettered access to streams.
Lee informs his readers that “livestock need water” and “can’t be restrained from pooping,” but the Maryland Department of Agriculture says that the “new regulations allow soil conservation staff to evaluate each site to determine whether alternative practices such as watering facilities, livestock crossings, pasture management techniques or vegetative exclusion will work equally well”.
Dan Pollak, Takoma Park
Let me speak from my four years experience as a full-time cattle breeder. Cattle grow by grazing on pasture most of the year. Because cattle need water, we fence pasture to include streams and creeks. And, yes, sometimes the cattle poop in the creek like they’ve been doing since the beginning of time.
Now you and the bureaucrats want farmers to keep their cattle out of the creeks by building “watering facilities” (i.e. wells, pumps and tanks). Who’s going to pay to build and maintain those facilities? I quit farming because I couldn’t make a living even when my cattle pooped in the creek. Thanks to Maryland’s new regulations many more farmers will soon be quitting, too.
The surviving farmers should be allowed to decide how you live and poop in Takoma Park.