Whether it’s saving barred owls or modern democracy, thanks to Sen. Rand Paul | Opinion

Shooting owls

Kudos to U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., for standing against the unworkable and wasteful U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plan to shoot nearly 450,000 North American barred owls at a projected cost of $1 billion. It is disappointing that U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., voted to advance this unprecedented scheme—an ill-conceived attempt to curb competition between barred owls and the threatened northern spotted owl. No nation has ever carried out such a massive, taxpayer-funded killing of native birds of prey.

Paul, along with U.S. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., was right to question this open-ended program before it becomes yet another perpetual federal expense. Contract shooters could spend years killing barred owls with little to show for it. Trying to keep two native species apart in the wild is akin to trying to hold back the tide with a bucket.

Once the federal government decides it can engineer relationships among native species, we enter a troubling era of runaway spending and ecological micromanagement. Nature is far more capable of balancing itself than any bureaucracy in Washington seeking to expand its budget and justify its existence. Kentuckians should be grateful to Paul for pushing back against an inhumane, ineffective, and astonishingly expensive proposal.

Pamela Rogers, Kentucky State Director, Animal Wellness Action, Washington, D.C.

Paul speaks out

I want to thank U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., for speaking out against President Donald Trump when the president called several Democratic lawmakers traitors. As a reminder, it is never traitorous to remind members of the US military forces that they can and should disobey illegal orders. And it is, as pointed out, “reckless, inappropriate, and irresponsible” for the president to say that such behavior warrants the death penalty.

As for U.S. Rep. Andy Barr, R-Ky., who hopes to become Kentucky’s next senator, what did he have to say about Trump’s accusations? Not much, apparently.

Meg Upchurch, Lexington

Housing vote

I was disappointed and frustrated by the city council vote of Nov. 20, where the Lexington Fayette Urban County Council rejected an upzoning proposal for the apartment development on Maxwell Street from four to eight stories. Councilwoman Emma Curtis, who voted against the proposal, was directionally correct in her concern over the availability of affordable units — but I’m afraid that she is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The price of housing is fundamentally an issue of supply and demand. Because there is a shortage of housing, prices will naturally increase. Halving the size of a development over unfounded traffic concerns will do nothing to address this fact. It seems that politicians who gather our votes on promises of affordability are nowhere to be found when a real opportunity arises to address the issue. I hope that a resident of the third district more able than myself will challenge for re-election next year my Councilwoman Hannah LeGris, who also voted against the measure.

Dylan High, Lexington

Ukraine Peace

President Donald Trump’s Nov. 21 proposal to end the Russian war against Ukraine is, tragically, another example of the political philosophy he has exhibited since coming onto the political stage: Ready-Fire-Aim.

Without conferring with either the Ukrainians or NATO allies, Trump announced a plan that was obviously a wish list from Russian President Vladimir Putin himself. Russia, the invader, would make no concessions. The victims, the people of Ukraine, however, were expected to relinquish uncontested lands and to slash their defensive forces while the protections of the NATO umbrella were foreclosed to them.

Now, after an outcry from both American political parties, from Ukraine itself, and from NATO countries, the Trump administration is belatedly considering the interests of the victims of the war.

Likewise, Trump issued unconstitutional orders to ensnare former FBI director James Comey and NY Attorney General Letitia James, and then trumpeted (again) daydreams of replacing Obamacare. Both schemes were at best half-baked and quickly shot down by the courts, by his own party or by whiplash reversals of his own positions. Truly, our president conceives himself a monarch who expects his every word to become law by proclamation, without regard for the Constitution, the Judiciary, Congress, or the welfare of the people.

Arthur LaBar, Richmond

Trump’s decisions

It’s easy to see why President Donald Trump’s business seldom made a profit. He’s clueless about actually managing employees and controlling costs. He just jumps to conclusions without any forethought. He appears to be delusional and has created an alternate reality in his brain that he is the best at everything, so he is unable to believe that anyone else is capable of making a decision. The result has been a string of failed, bankrupt companies.

What’s hard to understand is why anyone would invest in any of his pipe dreams. For instance, the fools who bought stock in Truth Social, an oxymoronic name for Trump’s social media web portal that he uses to post irrational online rants, is sometimes written by MAGA ghostwriters. It has never made a profit and has never paid a single dividend to the investors. Yet somehow it stays in business, losing the money of the investors every day.

Why anyone would vote for him, as he is trying to transform the United States into medieval Europe with a small rich nobility and everyone else living in poverty?

Kevin Kline, Lexington

Cartoon President

Al Capp, for the few who may remember him, was an American cartoonist and humorist who demonstrated great insight into our political system and American culture in general. One of his characters in Lil’ Abner was Joe Btfsplk. Btfsplk always had a dark cloud over his head, was constantly surrounded by troubles and woe, and succeeded in bringing darkness and despair to everyone around him.

I suspect if Capp were alive today, he would see President Donald Trump as the latest Btfsplk. I find it difficult to support most of Trump’s policies, but I have far more concern about the gloom and chaos which continually follow him and his actions, and which spill over into our lives.

“Are you better off today than you were?” is the question politicians are fond of asking. While the intent of the question is usually focused on economic issues, I would also suggest the question should be considered seriously from a community and humanitarian perspective.

Charles Myers, Lexington

Socialism defined

Trump corruption

President Donald Trump is corrupt! He is using his position for large financial gains. So are his family, government officials and his cronies.

Trump accepted a jet from Qatar, in violation of the emoluments law. Did the Republican majority in Congress (like U.S. Rep. Andy Barr, and U.S. Sens. Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell, all R-Ky.) even question Trump’s acceptance of this plane? No!

Soon after taking office, Trump and his wife launched cryptocurrency companies. Many individuals and governments are buying the crypto coins. Is it any stretch of the imagination that these buyers get special favors from Trump?

Last week we heard about a peace plan for Ukraine. Russian oligarchs and US developer/negotiator Steve Witkoff and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, among others, are salivating at the prospect of development deals for themselves rebuilding Russia and Ukraine. Seems there may be a big conflict of interest between their financial gain and a fair deal for Ukraine.

I saw lots of corruption when I taught in developing countries. Now with Trump, corruption is in full bloom here in the US. Now with Trump, corruption seems to be in full bloom in the U.S.

Call your Congressmen!

Jeanette Coufal, Lexington

Socialism defined

Whenever I hear the word “socialism,” another word comes immediately to mind. It’s “egotistical.” The proponents of socialism vainly insist on reciting their favorite word, even though there are many contemporary economic systems without such deeply negative connotations. Remember the second “S” in USSR, for example.

They apparently don’t know that “government planning” is one of the core concepts of socialism. This authoritarian concept is what most distinguishes socialism from capitalism today.

Neither do they know that socialism lacks checks and balances.

Alongside that, they apparently don’t know that capitalism evolved into several adaptable varieties while socialism ossified in the USSR for decades. The newer varieties include the Nordic model, Rhine capitalism, social democracy, regulated market economies, Keynesian economics, and the New Deal.

I wish they’d read some books on economics and history.

One thing that seems to confuse them is the decline of our economic system in the United States from New Deal economics to “trickle-down” economics in that last several decades. Socialism is not the answer to this regression, however. Let’s read more about it.

Tom Louderback, Louisville

Edited by Liz Carey