It took a long time but The Blade finally has me mad enough to respond. The editorial on April 25 about the shooting of the dog was both a slap in the face of the police officers who protect this city and ignorant in its approach. First of all, the dog was running loose; second, it was not licensed, and third, it approached the officer in a manner that was construed by him to be attacking and with the intent to harm.
To suggest the officer shouldn't shoot the animal because he's in a neighborhood is foolish, I suppose. Using that argument, officers shouldn't use their service revolver on criminals either when they are in a residential area.
To further suggest they should use pepper spray like the Postal Service is flawed also. When postal workers have a route, they know their customers, which ones have dogs and which don't, and whose dogs are mean and whose are not. They see them every day.
A police officer has to make a decision on the spot with little or no knowledge of the animal's temperament. Pepper spray an attacking dog and you'll probably never type again. I'm not sure that would be a bad thing.
Judging police easy behind a keyboard
As The Blade's editorial writers sit safely behind their keyboards writing what you feel are unbiased and supposedly newsworthy editorials, I can imagine how much danger they face from 50-pound to 100-pound dogs charging them. Getting ink on their clothes is a greater danger.
Are the neighbors talking about this "not dangerous dog" the same people who cry and lament about the neighborhood gangster killed or in a drive-by or drug deal and always say, "He was a good boy and was starting to turn his life around"? I would guess so.
The editorial says "there is little reason to believe conclusively that the dog was either dangerous or posed an immediate threat." Is this based on the in-depth investigation by The Blade of all the facts, or is it based on the statements made by the myriad of unbiased neighbors who spoke up in the dog's behalf? I would guess the latter.
Stimulus shopping list can't include car
This is in response to the contributor to the April 21 Readers' Forum who wrote that the taxpayers can use their economic stimulus payments to help the U.S. economy by going out and buying a Kia, Honda, or Toyota. My understanding is that the most a couple who files a joint tax return can expect to receive is $1,200, assuming they have no children. Can the writer tell me where I can buy one of these cars for that kind of money?
Or maybe the writer is figuring that the difference will be made up using the $300 additional per child the taxpayer will be receiving as part of the stimulus package. With a new car costing in the neighborhood of $20,000, that figures out to 62.67 children per couple. Do Kia, Honda ,or Toyota make buses?
Government makes sure it gets paid first
I heard recently that the federal government is upset over the stimulus checks being used to pay bills instead of making purchases so they go back into the economy.
I have been waiting and planning for my stimulus check, just to be told I won't get one because I owe taxes so it will be applied to what I owe them.
I have made arrangements with the federal government for payment of my taxes. They are getting their money, so why shouldn't I get my stimulus check?
What is the difference if people use it to pay their bills or if the federal government uses it to pay our bills? I thought it was all about the economy.
I think the rules change on a daily basis to suit their purpose. It's not right and it's not fair.
If we have a check coming, unless we owe the government and have not made arrangements, then we should get the stimulus check.
Abuse by priests is still swept under rug
Here we go again. The Blade recently printed a story about another priest in Maumee being accused of sexual misconduct. And again this seems to be being swept under the carpet by Toledo officials and the Catholic church. It appears as nothing has changed in the last 20 years.
The priest involved quickly resigned and left the church for spiritual counseling. Does an innocent man do this?
Now it has come to light that he has previously been charged with sexual offenses in another county and was moved to Maumee, yet no one was told of his indiscretions. When will this stop? Isn't it time for the Catholic Church to give full disclosure? How many more cases will surface before we have all the answers?
The prosecutor in Sylvania has stated it was "only" inappropriate touching. How dare he look at it as "only"? This is a repeat sex offender who has been allowed to skirt the system.
With Pope Benedict XVI recently in this country denouncing this kind of action, why do the Toledo diocese and the legal community in this town continue to sweep things under the rug?
Expel cardinal from Vatican sanctuary
Pope Benedict XVI's recent expression of shame about the sexual abuse crisis is a little late - by decades actually. What is now needed is action not words.
A first act he might consider is expelling Cardinal Bernard Law, a criminal who is receiving sanctuary in the Vatican after he fled the United States nearly four years ago before charges could be filed for his part in covering up the sexual abuse of Catholic children in the Diocese of Boston.
County Republicans need to make change
It is time for a change in the Lucas County Republican Party. The current leadership condones shenanigans that most people find disturbing. From Joanne Wack forging signatures and marginalizing voters in her own party to Doug Haynam trying to further discredit voters.
This "leadership" is not leadership at all. They don't even attempt to field candidates. I don't want to hear that there aren't any Republicans willing to run. The climate is ripe now for a change in local politics, and all they want to do is whine about how hard it is to be a Republican!
I thought Republicans fought for what they thought was right. It seems to me that Jon Stainbrook wants to get the party active again, and not just be a club for blue bloods. I applaud Jon and his efforts and wish him well in this venture.
Gore makes millions off global warming
The news media have finally shed some light on the consequences of Al Gore pushing his "green agenda." For many years now, Mr. Gore has traveled the world, "alarming" governments with the consequences of global warming. Well, guess what, these consequences are finally getting some press coverage.
These green initiatives that countries have implemented, including the United States, are finally being directly felt by the poorest of the poor across the globe. I'm not referring to America's poor, who have air conditioning, cable television, and cell phones. I'm referring to the poor of the world who consider two bowls of rice for the day a luxury, shared by a family of four.
All the while, Mr. Gore's net worth has gone from $2 million in 2000 to $100 million today. One has to ask, who is really benefitting from the global warming scaremongering? Is it the globe, its population, or Mr. Gore's checking account?
Why not put every oil company executive on regular salary so that they can attempt to juggle their weekly paycheck as so many American drivers are now struggling to do?
I am tired of the corruption going on in this country.