Great to have my visit to the beautiful state of Maine where I was fortunate to spend much of my childhood. As I return to California I have looked back on the letters and opinions posted in your August 22nd issue.

From the “Notes from Lime City (Rockland, Maine)” on page 4, Ms. Glaser and Mr. Davis bring attention to readers of how divided and difficult it is to talk politics without someone’s blood pressure rising and possibly someone blowing his top. I can understand the parade organizers attempt to head off the escalation of tension. A difficult position of responsibility to all. I can understand how the organizers have chosen to stop it from being a soapbox event though it might be conceivable to allow the political commentaries and attempt to see if you could allow a balanced amount of “political” opinions, possibly including room for some who wish people would stop all the fear in either direction and talk to one another instead of spreading political heat. You would think that weaponry might be a good place to say no to in a celebration of lobsters and a strong local economy.

Midcoast Maine Indivisible might be indivisible but those who disagree might have their organization that is just as indivisible. Two organizations divided by the issues, refusing to talk, communicate, understand or ponder issues that have actually plenty of room for debate. However debate might be a threat for Indivisible. One person in disagreement might threaten the whole show.

The big issue of the day is “freedom of movement,” and in Glaser and Davis’ perspective it is a given that there can be no restraints. Does this new vision of the planet without borders deserve debate, and understanding, of all it implies? Particularly without implying or saying that those who disagree are morally in the wrong.

Then I see State Senator Miramant’s letter describing his freedom-chilling experience with border patrol agents. I do hope Senator Miramant directs his anger as a representative of the people upwards using his office to get a response and to get this policy changed. I share his deep concern with being constrained by law enforcement personnel, if even for minutes, without a warrant or reasonable cause. However, the senator wants to see the issue from a lens of race. When he says people come here “in spite of our unwelcoming policies,” is he referring to the legal process of admittance that many throughout the planet abide by? In fairness to all, can we admit that mass migration in the face of poverty and whatever adversity someone faces is not a sustainable policy? That the verbal beating down of your constituents who react differently to our state of affairs by invoking of terms of “White Supremacy” or historic racism blinds all of us to the nature of the debate that needs to be engaged in.

Part of that debate would be a need to look at our “workforce” shortage and what are the requirements for our economic and industrial growth as far as a ready supply of unskilled workers, and how does this affect all Americans as we become increasingly divided by “progress” to the rich and everyone else? Does enshrining the idea of a special “workforce” that provides all the dirty work for the rest of us create a future of benign government support for said “workforce”? Do we attempt to shut down the resistance to this dominant economic ethic as “racist” when those who protest might have a fundamental clue that “something is rotten in Denmark” (no offense to Denmark)?

Senator Miramant thinks he has a solid constituency of those who echo the “racist” cudgel. Apparently he does.

Then we turn the page and read of Molly Mulhern’s take on race. Let’s make this perfectly clear, to bring Bernie’s voice into the picture of reorganizing America. America is in a fragile state and re-organizing is our destiny to simply survive. Molly, you will have the same hard time visiting Iowa, and most of America away from our great cities. According to the U.S. Census, there are 76.5 percent of Americans in 2018 who are “white alone.” How do we deal with this dominance of racial statistics?

Are you able to be OK with the mix as it is and attempt not to judge anyone by their race [but] by the content of their character as MLK once said? Do you feel the need to re-organize America based on racial preferences? Is that the goal based on our country’s past history of slavery or belief in the superiority of European culture? Is this the time for revenge or do we simply want to find some absolute where every community should have some equal proportion 76.5 percent White, 13.4 percent Black or African American, 18.3 percent Hispanic or Latino, 5.9 percent Asian, etc.? I personally see incredible strides in humans enjoying each other’s company all the more for our ethnic differences. I also see tremendous global pressures from planetary over-population with deep environmental impacts of our need to satisfy human hunger as well as economic desire. You may be too young to see what overpopulation has done to this country. After all, your friends say “there is plenty of room.” For America’s destiny I prefer to think that race is immaterial, not admissible evidence of anything. It is time to bear down and recognize that all humans are in the same predicament, we need a great revolution of environmental consciousness and part of that consciousness is looking at all people without a judgement of race, nor culture, nor politics. How do we get our ship unstuck from this weird sandbar of hate and wallowing in victimhood. My progressive friends tend to believe that their moral argument can’t be questioned.

I am attempting to stand up to our current cultural wave of perceptions in history that have decided that there is a correct color lens to view world affairs through. Where “white” deserves a special place of shame or now your turn to be in the back of the bus. Forget it people, the task on hand is way bigger, mental slavery goes on, as we decry our ancestors we are blind to the battle in front of us. We are part of a culture of consumption and waste and population growth that only serves those who think they control our world. The blind spot in the progressive movement is this inability to see that we the 99 percent, the rainbow, have a world at our control, just remember your lessons from back in the ’60s. Deeds not demands. People have the power. We are one. Love wins. Do these slogans have any meaning?

Our current progressive world view demands an enemy that must be beaten, it refuses any notion of personal responsibility and it sees that only a giant government reorganization of society can set our planet on a course of sustainability.

I don’t see this as a viable path.

Guy Meyer, Lagunitas, California