Dear Editor,

Rejoinder to Terry Harfield’s letter to the editor June 10.

How nice. At least my letter of May 31 was read. From Colorado, no less. Our local newspaper is widely read.

(Editor’s note: Letter writer Terry Hartfield of Colorado is an EagleHerald subscriber.)

Terry Hartfield reflects the discourse of the right, singling out words or points out of context to angrily attack to “own the libs.”

“Big Oil,” was used in my letter to describe one of the factors, out of several stated, to trace the rising price of gas. The term dates back to the last century, used by the so-called “muckrakers” in their investigations of industrial monopolies. Presently, the oil companies are factors in the soaring price of gas. That is not a political statement, but it is used it to make a personal attack, a favored strategy of the right, who shout, but are short on policy.

“Profligate.” Certainly our use of petroleum is directly related to vast improvements in our everyday lives, that is not in question. However, observe long lines of vehicles on our streets and highways with only the driver. Millions of land and water recreational vehicles burning millions of gallons of fuel. If it is a freedom issue, if someone prefers a non-essential vehicle using from 3 gallons per mile, or 8 to 12 mpg, that is their choice, but don’t complain about the price of gas.

Pipelines? Hartfield cites one, its proposed placement under the Mackinac Bridge, rejected for reasons relating to the potential harm, if not catastrophe, to the Great Lakes, sources of life and livelihood for millions of people. Every thing isn’t political

Build Back Better? What did Trump’s $8 trillion deficit bring?

Democrat? Yes, and proud of it. At 82, I have lived through the recessions and crashes that have accompanied every Republican administration since Ike (a very nice man). Look it up. Plus, if it could be called that, a relatively stable world owing to both Democrats and Republicans until trade wars, “fun and easy to win,” trashing of NATO and sucking up to dictators upset the World Order that had taken so long to achieve.

Yes, I believe Democrats do want to see resources spread around to effect a secure living for as many people as possible.

Remember the story of the man with the bread and fishes. He didn’t give them to one person, he divided it to the multitudes, a story probably passe in today’s world of “me, me” selfishness. Is it nature’s way that l0 people should own more than 40% to 60% of the rest, or should governments intervene in gross inequality to forestall the violence and chaos that has occurred resulting from such imbalance throughout history.

In it together? Doesn’t seem so anymore.

David Larson