Every four years in America there is an interesting convergence of baseball fever and political fervor in the month of October.
Four years ago the rookie from Texas was brought up to see how he'd fare in the major leagues. The rookie had a good name but little experience, yet we gave him a try.
We all remember his blundering defensive play in mid-September, 2001, but we gave him a pass on that. Then there was that bonehead error of not chasing down that long fly ball during the Afghan series.
Although he spent money like a drunken sailor, we kept him on for a second season.
He was quite the goat during the series with Iraq, dropping easy fly balls and striking out on numerous occasions. His bloated salary nearly bankrupted the team but he tossed pieces of penny candy into the stands to keep the fans happy. His hitless streak is now approaching an all-time record.
Now he wants his contract extended for four more years. Although fans are charmed by the candy, the winks, and the promise of a better season next time, I think it's time for him to go back down to the farm team in Crawford to play in the Bush League.
In response to the lady who cringes when she sees the "Catholics Against Kerry" signs and hopes to see them replaced by "Democrats Against Abortion," I would say that is not likely to happen.
Mainstream Democrats will never have that and so signs like the ones causing the cringing, in one form or another, will remain as long as necessary.
There, is of course, the branch offshoot of the party called "Democrats for Life," but they, too, have been infected by the base sophistic philosophy granting license to homosexual marriage. I would say that the phrase is now an oxymoron.
Yes, there are many Democrats against abortion and with them I have common cause. But sadly, there are now few (and most likely no) Democrats who are truly pro-life anymore.
In their first debate, George W. Bush responded to John Kerry's call for improved homeland security by saying, "How's he going to pay for it?"
Shouldn't keeping our families safe be a priority for the President of the United States? Apparently not.
According to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Bush tax cuts amount to more than $270 billion of the current budget deficit. By contrast, increased homeland security has cost just $20 billion.
Does George Bush really think tax cuts for his friends and contributors are 10 times more important than keeping America safe?
I take strong exception to your Oct. 11 editorial cartoon showing an Afgan couple voting and commenting that both their voting process and the voting process in America are corrupt.
First of all, this supports and perpetrates the liberal concept that George W. Bush, in particular, and the Republicans, in general, stole the 2000 elections from the Democrats by corrupt and illegal means. In actuality, an unusual situation played itself out in complete accordance with the laws of the land.
Further, all unofficial recounts, performed by media and watchdog groups on all imaginable bases, confirmed the same outcome. If Al Gore had won the state on an equally thin basis, he would just as rightfully be the president today. For the Democrats to continue to suggest that the election was somehow stolen from them is a disservice to the country, and a disservice to the Democrats themselves. The sooner they get over it, the better.
Second, what "corruption" in the Afgan election? International voter rights group haven't cited any. In fact, they said that the few irregularities encountered were the result of local situations, and not of any attempt to sway the election results, and had no impact on the final outcome. Three years ago women were being publicly executed during the half-time of soccer games for opposing the Taliban regime. This time they are voting and holding office.
And finally, American men and women have died to give the Afganis the opportunity to vote, an opportunity which they enthusiastically embraced despite threats of violence from the Taliban.
How dare you so casually and callously discard their sacrifice in the interest of perpetrating a cheap lie?
As we approach Nov. 2, I want to commend The Blade for the great coverage regarding youth voting. As a 22-year-old preparing to vote in my second election, I feel more included in the political process than during the last election cycle, and hope that the attention paid to young voters only continues to increase in the future.
I know that many young people like myself feel distant and removed from politics. However, one of the most important things we can do for our own future is to vote - to elect a candidate who we believe will leave us a strong, healthy nation. Regardless of who people vote for, I am thrilled to see this recent increase in political interest.
Ever since the voting age was lowered to 18 in the 1970s, the number of young people who have exercised their right to vote has declined consistently each year, dwindling until only 36 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds voted in the last election cycle. Only 36 percent!
I hope that this is the year that we reverse that trend. And, with so much great work being focused on this forgotten group, I believe that this will be the year that the youth vote makes a powerful resurgence.
This is the first time that people like me can see how important our vote really is, and I believe it is the youth vote that will win this election, giving us the attention we deserve as a large and important voting constituency.
I just ask that every young person, like me, votes this November.
New Voters Project
I have a very easy answer to the city's problem with low participation in its recycling program:
Collect regular garbage only from those Toledo residents who also have a recycling bin at the curb.
Or charge those residents who don't recycle for the cost of collecting their regular garbage That should greatly increase effective recycling, decrease the speed with which our landfills are being used up, and provide the city with additional income from the sale of the recycled materials.
Other countries have effective recycling programs, why can't ours?
Your Oct. 10 editorial headline should have read: "Issue 1 goes too far right."
If a heterosexual couple isn't willing to make a legal marriage commitment, why should they be given benefits offered to couples that do?
All the things mentioned in this editorial are available through other means except for private business practice offering health benefits.
Even these are given to offsprings of such a union if the employee is legally responsible for them.
If John Kerry is able to work on bipartisan efforts, if John Kerry is a uniter not a divider, if John Kerry wants health care for all, if John Kerry had a Democratic president for eight years of his Senate career, why don't we have a health care plan for everyone? Because it's about what you do, not what you say.