A letter that appeared on July 10 asserted that any and all of America’s current problems can be blamed on Barack Obama and Democrats because they controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for the 24 months beginning in January 2009.

The writer’s memory is either very short or very selective. President Obama’s predecessor, a man most current Republican presidential hopefuls and power brokers prefer to pretend never existed, left the nation limping fiscally, economically, militarily and morally.

The GOP controlled Congress and the White House from 2001-2007. During that time it lessened regulation and lowered taxes while increasing spending, most notably by doctoring intelligence and lying in order to engage in an obscenely expensive war of choice, which cost thousands of lives and made the United States an international pariah. It was also asleep at the switch when America was attacked on her home soil.

President Obama’s efforts to initiate national recovery have been stymied by individuals clearly more loyal to their political affiliation (and wallets) than they are to their country. The Senate minority leader has gone so far as publicly stating his top priority is limiting Mr. Obama to one term!

Perhaps such knee-jerk critics should stop pointing fingers and instead try helping to mitigate America’s challenges. Stepping outside the extremist echo chambers (on both the left and right) comprised by cable “news” and talk radio would be a good first step. Unfortunately for those addicted to instant gratification, there are no “quick fixes” to America’s long-standing problems, a fact which Mr. Obama clearly alluded to in his inaugural address.

I don’t agree with everything Obama does, but I believe his unique combination of maturity, thoughtfulness, eloquence and competence is superior to that of any American president of the last half-century.

Andrew Young
Cumberland 

Public radio vs. newspaper isn’t a contest: Print wins 

A recent weekend fundraising campaign for Maine Public Radio once again cites “objective reporting” as a reason for public donations to augment its taxpayer subsidy.

I would like to thank The Portland Press Herald for providing greater balance at lower cost. Please keep up your good work!

Tom Collins
New Harbor 

Control population now or world will pay the price 

I would like to ask your readers to think about world population, of both the high-consuming (us) and the low-consuming regions.

We are damaging the ecological and social systems we all depend on, ourselves now and our children of the future, by both our high consumption levels and our enormous human population. In addition, our high population level and any high growth rate makes it much more difficult to adjust to and counter oncoming climate distress and ongoing economic dysfunction.

Until now, it seemed possible that, with a more just land distribution, with fair-trade protections and reform of oppressive governments, we could equitably support the world population, but now we have climate change upon us and our agricultural yields are unstable, less predictable and declining in some places. The Earth will hit 7 billion people sometime this year, and we expect 2 billion more, conservatively, by 2050.

My thinking is that, with fewer people, we will have less suffering. (And with fewer high-consuming people, there will be more to share, so it involves us, too.) It has been improper, for at least a generation now, for environmentalists and social justice activists to speak of our numbers. But we must open up the discussion now.

We cannot cynically expect war, plague and famine to ultimately establish the limits that are needed. We cannot wait for the emancipation of all women, or urbanization and industrialization, to put brakes on our population growth, and even bring us to sustainable numbers. Our numbers now, and the growth itself, are greatly amplifying the damage to our natural life support system.

We can do better. We can reduce population gently, by choice, over several generations, if most of us, nations, states, communities, families, women, and men too, agree to try, through education, the health clinics that we need anyway, and a wide range of non-coercive policies and methods.

This can be done, even with dissenting religions and ethnic “demographic aggression,” and even in the face of economic fundamentalist belief in the necessity of eternal “growth.”

I hope you will consider this enormous problem and its possible solutions. If we can begin this discussion, without fear, embarrassment and shame, I believe we can create a movement toward sustainable population levels.

Beedy Parker
Camden 

Real danger to forests is broken wind turbines 

Your article, “Nationwide drought dries up fireworks,” reveals that from New Mexico to Florida, jurisdictions are banning the use of fireworks.

Parts of Maine almost annually experiences severe droughts and when they occur, our forests will be in jeopardy not so much from relatively mild fireworks but from churning, blazing wind turbine blades that have been known to cast shards for hundreds of yards and even up to a mile.

Neither the state nor the towns have the equipment that can cope with turbine fires and their spreading blazes in steep, remote and heavily winded areas. California alone has now experienced at least eight forest fires caused by broken, flaming turbines.

And the taller the turbines, the more susceptible they are to fires from lightning strikes. I think all of Maine’s wind towers will be at least 400 feet tall. But lightning strikes cause only a minority of the world’s turbine fires — most are due to mechanical malfunctions.

Clyde Macdonald
Hampden 

She’s glad not to have used legal right to kill herself 

I am a retired person who lives in Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal. Our law was enacted via a ballot initiative that I voted for.

I am responding to the Telegram article about assisted suicide. (“Choosing when to go,” July 10).

In 2000, I was diagnosed with cancer and told that I had six months to a year to live. I knew that our law had passed, but I didn’t know exactly how to go about doing it. I tried to ask my doctor, but he didn’t really answer me.

I didn’t want to suffer. I wanted to die with dignity. I wanted to use our law and I wanted my doctor to help me. Instead, he encouraged me to not give up and ultimately I decided to fight. I had both chemotherapy and radiation. I am so happy to be alive!

It is now nearly 11 years later. If my doctor had believed in assisted suicide, I would be dead. I thank him and all my doctors for helping me choose “life with dignity.” Assisted suicide should not be legal.

Also, my mother lived to be 95 years young. Thank you so much.

Jeanette Hall
King City, Ore. 

Studies, courts agree on guns: People have right to own them 

In gun control now, we are told, “The surest way to prevent another Tuscon tragedy is to stop the distribution of semi-automatic weapons.”

All the studies conducted by the U.S. Congress, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Academy of Sciences and the Library of Congress have found no evidence that gun control reduces crime.

In fact, in “More Guns, Less Crime,” scholar John Lott proves that where law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry firearms concealed, violent crime drops.

Second, we are told that there is no constitutional right to own a semi-automatic weapon, but the U.S. Supreme Court, in its D.C. v. Heller ruling, said the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear these types of arms.

Lloyd Donnellan
East Baldwin