I am a Republican, and I have a disagreement with President Bush's philosophy of government, but I have a much bigger disagreement with John Kerry's.
President Bush is fond of saying that the government can help the people, that we citizens need to trust our government. Yet the very structure of our government was created on the opposite assumption. Power is divided among three branches of government precisely because the founding fathers knew that you can never trust those who desire power. They must be played off against each other in order for the people to remain sovereign. Nobody but God is absolutely trustworthy.
The person you can trust the least with power is the person who wants it the most. The founding fathers knew this first hand, after spending their lifetimes dealing with British tyrants. But if President Bush is a little off the path on this issue of trusting those in power, Senator Kerry goes entirely in the wrong direction. Senator Kerry rejects programs that include any form of choice reserved for citizens. President Bush's programs often include such powers of choice - for example, medical savings accounts vs. government-dictated health care.
I ask myself: Of the two candidates, which one has had a life outside of the acquisition of power? This principle clearly favors President Bush. He has been a businessman and a baseball executive, and is an active Christian and rancher. You can decide for yourself whether these are good or bad. But Senator Kerry, from the time he was a very young man, has focused his life entirely on the acquisition of power. That is not a healthy thing, for himself or for those over whom he wants it.
CHARLES F. MILLER
It has been said that when the undecided voter goes to the voting booth on Election Day, he votes with his wallet. However, in this election year, things are different.
The undecided voter will vote with the thought of which candidate will make him and his family feel safer in this era of terrorist attacks on American soil.
We now have President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Department of Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, and a strong military.
The Democrats will give you John Kerry, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Michael Moore, and a slashed, undersized military.
I wonder who Osama bin Laden would vote for?
Many have questioned the wisdom of the City's decision to add legislation strengthening its ability to compel property owners to properly maintain their property. Some think the new law and prescribed fines are over-reaching; I believe it is a law long overdue.
I am very much a live-and-let-live individual, but having dealt with many ill-kept properties, I know the old system, entailing warnings, citations, then court appearances (or more often, not), then more citations, was not working. It was a fair system. It was more than fair to the offender, but unfair to the neighbors of the offender who suffered the consequences.
With this legislation, a fair deal is being given to the long-suffering neighbors of blighted properties. Perhaps those who feel this legislation is invasive and unjust measure their distance from ill-maintained properties in miles not feet.
I attended the council hearings addressing this legislation; most who gave voice to their concerns felt that the $75 progressive fine was not severe enough. The idea for this new law came from city hall and the law was passed by council. Both were driven by the will of people who care about neighborhoods. The voice of these folks has been heard and acted upon accordingly. This is good, fair, and reasonable legislation that addresses a huge concern in our city. It hits derelict property owners in the wallet and it is working. I applaud it.
West Benalex Drive
Homosexual activists from everywhere are converging on Michigan to harass people into voting against Amendment 2, which states that only a marriage between a man and a woman is legal in Michigan. They claim same-sex couples in some schools and universities would lose their benefits if it passes. These benefits should never have been given to begin with, especially at taxpayer expense. Heterosexual couples who co-habitate do not receive benefits, nor do elders who live with relatives or friends who share a home.
Two male cousins who lived together all through college, grad school, and the start of their careers loved each other as family, shared expenses, and wore each others' clothes. They had a closer, longer, and more committed relationship than many marriages. These decent, law-abiding men would not be given benefits that homosexuals demand, merely because they did not choose to engage in sodomy!
Why treat homosexuals, who already enjoy all the same privileges and protections we all have, with such elevated consideration at taxpayer expense, by mere virtue of their peculiar sex habits?
This is particularly inappropriate when you consider that it is well documented that AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, domestic violence, drug abuse, pedophilia, depression, and suicide are considerably higher in the homosexual community than in the general population.
Vote yes on the Marriage Protection Amendment 2.
With the most critical and important presidential election in this nation's history upon us, I find it disturbing and shameful there are so many in this country who refuse to vote, and they cite the most lame and selfish reasons.
All of these silent protesters need to realize that a true democracy will only work when everyone participates. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of souls have died to give each of us the opportunity and the right to vote; currently men and woman are dying every day to preserve that very same privilege.
I urge and hopefully inspire eligible voters to take a stand, to arm your weapon of mass change by registering to vote, to educate yourself on the issues, then vote come Election Day. Voting can no longer be viewed as a right or a privilege. Voting has become a duty and obligation as an American citizen.
I read the Crime Stoppers article seeking information regarding 17 burglaries, and found it interesting, especially since my son's house was burglarized and the police simply took a report. We suspect someone, yet no effort was made to look for fingerprints, which were no doubt all over the house, or to compare them with the prints of our suspected perp.
I always thought a burglary of an inhabited dwelling was a felony of a rather serious nature, and I wonder how our suspect feels, knowing he can behave in such a manner with impunity. What kinds of lessons are we teaching this miscreant, and what will he do in the future?
It is not the fear of punishment that deters crime, it is the certainty of punishment. I fear there is something seriously lacking in our police protection and prosecution.
RICHARD M. REDER
How humorous was the letter writer who wondered about the possible side effects of his prescription blood pressure medication?
He cited headache, nausea, diarrhea, blurred vision, fainting, fever, chills, and dry cough, to name a few.
I wonder why he doesn't just replace the drugs with fresh fruits and vegetables, along with some exercise.
An apple a day and park your car a mile away.
FRANK ALBERTS III