It is heartbreaking that a young child lost his life while going home from school, especially considering that this car crash was an avoidable accident.
To blame the tragedy on a cell phone, however, is asinine.
There were car accidents before people began using cell phones and there will continue to be car accidents even if they are banned from every car in the state of Ohio.
The woman whose vehicle killed young Dameatrius McCreary was not paying attention and made a fatal mistake. She must take responsibility for her actions rather than blame her cell phone. I truly hope the cell phone is not her defense for pleading "not guilty."
She could have equally been distracted by a child in the backseat or a passenger's conversation next to her.
She could have been digging through a stack of CDs to play on her stereo or flipping through radio stations.
These are common occurrences in every car throughout the city of Toledo and beyond.
You cannot ban conversation, music, or children from cars. The woman had a plethora of violations before this accident.
It is unfair to blame this child's death on simply the use of a cell phone when it is obvious that she was an inadequate driver to begin with.
Thank you for your April 11 editorial, "The big yellow problem." It is imperative that we keep the issue of children's safety while boarding/exiting the school bus front and center! We, as concerned parents and citizens, cannot allow this issue to get swept under the rug.
As the editorial suggested, something needs to change. It is my sincere hope that the local school boards will voluntarily choose to provide an extra measure of safety to children who must cross the street to board/exit the bus.
Dropping children off on their own side of the street may require a longer bus ride, but isn't that a rather small price to pay for peace of mind?
No matter what the solution, doing nothing is not an option.
I recently have seen a lot of people ignoring the flashing lights of a yellow school bus. I think it's because everyone has forgotten what roads you are to stop on.
If it's a two-, three-, four-, or five-lane street, you stop when the lights are flashing. Period!
The only time you don't stop is when there is a median in the road and you are approaching from the opposite direction.
Maybe the state can refresh drivers' memories every time they conduct business at a license agency.
Fred Nofziger's raging lambaste of liberalism was not only unfounded but utterly incoherent. He says that protest is a sign of where we're heading. Where exactly is that? Those who take to the streets have been the same people who have fought to ensure that our government is held to its founding principles. The problem arises, however, in determining what those principles encompass.
Mr. Nofziger overlooks the fact that many of the protesters trying to bring food, water, and communion to Terri Schiavo were "right to lifers," a group generally associated with the conservative right.
Many in the left do recognize the rights and freedoms conferred on the conservative right, despite Mr. Nofziger's contentions. Indeed, it is often the liberal left that fights to ensure government doesn't become too intrusive and curtail those rights.
JOSEPH P. WALSH
Your March 30 editorial, "Unintended consequences," got it all wrong again. Even the title is wrong.
Issue 1 was intended to stop all sexual relationships outside of marriage.
God has declared all types of fornication to be sin, not just homosexuality.
Just because our society has been conditioned to accept domestic live-ins does not make it right in God's eyes.
Domestic violence is always a travesty that should be addressed regardless of one's marital status, but to use it to justify living together in sin is an even greater travesty.
The so-called innocent victims are paying the consequences of poor choices and need to get out of the relationships.
The truly blind people on this issue are The Blade, the governor, the attorney general, both Ohio U.S. senators, and all of those who voted against Issue 1.
The Ohio voters who passed Issue 1 heeded a much greater warning from God.
The recent national upset over Terri Schiavo has generated many letters in the papers I read.
Most are from concerned citizens who are having their morals tested by not being able to do anything to save a woman they believe was killed in a way likened to murder.
As saddened as I was to learn of Terri's death, I do not understand the wavering stances of these people. The unfortunate fact is that people die every day because their family has chosen to let them go, rather than live off a machine.
The only aspect that makes Terri's case different is that there was a difference of opinion between her husband and her grief-stricken parents.
It was an opportunity for the public to become involved and show what good people they are and how spectacular their morals are.
I would raise this question to those who are accusing America of having no heart: Is it only terrible to let someone die who can afford to stay alive?
Our bleeding hearts seem to have been so blinded that they forget about those who die because they cannot afford to be kept on life support for 15 years.
Those who cannot afford surgeries to remove tumors and fix hearts because they do not have health insurance.
Those who cannot afford therapy and medications and even those who cannot afford to go to the doctor.
Those people have no choice. They don't have thousands of people rallying in their support. I cannot imagine what it is like to have to make the choice to let go of a loved one.
But I also cannot fathom what it is like to lose a loved one because you don't have the money to keep him alive.
Your April 12 editorial insinuated that the trafficking of drugs isn't an act of terrorism and doesn't fall inside the scope of the Patriot Act.
In my book the deliberate destruction of lives through supplying and selling drugs is the same as killing with a bomb or germ warfare. Lives are lost or destroyed. Not only the addicts' but their families', as well as the victims of the crimes they commit to acquire money to buy more drugs.
It may not be a headline-grabbing act of terrorism but the result is the same.
Then there is the matter of drive-by shootings where innocent lives are lost, which I believe are the result of drug dealings.
LAWRENCE M. WARN
It seems that our mayor does not like the idea of alcohol sales at the Franklin Park Cinemas. This is because he says this is a family setting. It is strange that he feels this way. I may be mistaken, but isn't Fifth Third Field a family setting? It sells alcohol. This is OK because the county and the city are involved.
The rules change from day to day and venue to venue. This is why it is so interesting to live in this "elegant city."