The Blade reported that Ohio attained the dubious distinction of leading the nation in foreclosures. The states of Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan combined were leading all regions in foreclosures.
It is remarkable that Ohio, with its abundance of natural resources, modern infrastructure, educated workers, and central geography, has allowed itself to fall to this level.
Next year, all voters should be mindful to elect state and national leaders who will have jobs, growth, and business development as the primary focus of their campaign and elected mission in both Columbus and Washington.
One of the unique results of our 50 sovereign states is that other states become laboratories of what works and what does not. There are states that have lower unemployment than the national average, lower foreclosure rate than the rest of the nation, yet have wages that are above or equal to the national average.
Ohio needs to learn what is working in these places and adopt similar laws and copy these successful business practices.
With all of the advantages listed above, housing that is very affordable compared to many places in the U.S., and a high unemployment rate where new businesses do not need to hire workers away from existing businesses, one might believe that businesses would be lining up at Ohio's door to benefit from these favorable circumstances.
The fact that new businesses are not starting here or existing businesses are not moving here is a sure sign that Ohio is doing something wrong.
It is time to change so our children and grandchildren have opportunities in Ohio that are enjoyed in other parts of the U.S.
Terry R. Krukemyer
As a boy growing up it was not uncommon for a kid engaged in an argument with another to resort to name calling when a closely held belief was brought into question.
Just imagine the reaction of a 12-year-old Ohio State fan when being told by a Michigan supporter that the Buckeyes are a second-rate team. Your recent editorial on global warming reminded me of the same scenario.
Michael Griffin, an eminent scientist and NASA official, challenged the near hysterical belief held by much of the mass media, liberals, and the self-serving scientific community that global warming is man-made and a threat to the planet. Mr. Griffin dared to suggest that climate change may not necessarily be a bad thing, further noting that it was arrogant of the scientific community to assume the current climate was the best that can be achieved and should be preserved. Your reaction was like that of a Christian fundamentalist who is told that "God is dead" or that Christ was married.
The unmitigated gall of Mr. Griffin to question the holy scripture of the Church of Global Warming! Why, he is guilty of willful ignorance. Why the lack of tolerance for an opposing view on global warming? Could it be that opinions like Mr. Griffin's are a hindrance to the lagging efforts of the global warming alarmists to recruit the common man to the cause?
John M. Stewart
The Blade misunderstands both the concept of rights and the impact of currently pending legislation, which spells trouble for every home and small-business owner in Ohio struggling against the abuse of eminent domain.
The notion that the law requires "equity of rights between government and private property owners" may make for a good sound bite, but that's not the way a free society works. Indeed, just last year, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled without equivocation that property ownership is a fundamental right, a right enjoyed by individuals alone, and applicable no matter where they live.
For far too long the beneficiaries of eminent domain abuse - local governments - have been able to take perfectly fine properties and hand them over to well-connected developers.
But without a constitutional amendment making eminent domain reform applicable across the state, neither the Senate nor nearly ineffective House changes would provide much protection.
Rights should not be based on an address. The "greater good of the community" and the Ohio Supreme Court demand it.
Institute for Justice
Americans who believe that U.S. foreign policy has had little to do with 9/11, terrorism, or anti-Americanism, might consider the following:
•We urge South American nations to stop cutting rain forests while U.S. corporations routinely cut our northwest forests, including some of the oldest trees on earth.
•We complain about seasonal Mexican migration while our employers beckon them with wages.
•We complain about nations tolerating illegal drug production while our citizens offer millions to purchase them.
•We complain about the cost of foreign aid to needy nations, while the lion's share goes to a prosperous nation, Israel.
•We complain about corruption in other countries while our corruption-riddled administration allowed millions for rebuilding Iraq and New Orleans to vanish unaccounted for.
•The administration hypocritically complains about Russian and Chinese human rights violations in the wake of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and clandestine prisons.
•President Bush designates Korea and Iran as members of the axis of evil, threatens pre-emptive nuclear strike, compelling them to become nuclear powers, then complains about it.
•The administration complains about international treaty violations, but violates our own nuclear missile treaty with Russia.
•We support wrongful Israeli attacks on Palestinians and Lebanon, while labeling the victims "terrorists" when they dare fight back.
•The administration loudly claims to be fighting a war against terrorism, but quietly supports terrorist-like incursions into Iran.
•Since Mr. Bush's disastrous invasion of Iraq and infamous "Bring 'em on" speech, he complains about Iraqi attacks on our troops, but refuses to end a U.S. military occupation that no longer opposes a disagreeable government, but the citizens of Iraq.
Shifting our foreign policy from the low road of hypocrisy and violence to the high road of example and diplomacy would clearly reduce anti-Americanism and improve homeland security.
David A. Warner
Before we begin the demolition and destruction of the Sports Arena, have the principals (i.e. City of Toledo and Lucas County) ever given consideration to a feasibility study from SSOE or other firms and/or citizen groups to see if this diamond in the rough can be saved and retrofitted to be of good use?
Could it be used by school children to have ice skating, hockey, and other youth ice shows tailored after the program utilized at Bowling Green State University?
Could the annex be utilized as a permanent home for the Art Tatum Jazz Competition and Festival, the Irish Festival, or any city or county festival, including Rally by the River when the weather turns bad?
Could part be used as a downtown health club? Could the Lucas County Children's Wonderland and other such venues utilize the space? Could the Sports Arena become the East Toledo Family Recreation Center?
It is owned by the taxpayers. Give it a six-month reprieve from the wrecking ball. Then, if it is not feasible, tear it down. If you owned the Sports Arena and annex, how would you use it?
I find it interesting that "no means no" when referring to the comprehensive smoking ban in Ohio, but "no" means "let's just put it on the next ballot" when taxpayers turn down yet another school levy. Sounds like a double standard to me.
Rebecca A. Shadle