A June 24 letter to the editor scolds The Blade for printing a June 6 political cartoon depicting Hillary Clinton sitting by a phone anxiously awaiting a call from Barack Obama offering her the vice president slot on the Democratic ticket.
Frankly, the criticism seems way off base - the cartoon in question is not an example, as the writer suggests, of "blatant misogyny." Its humor seems not to be dependent upon Hillary's being a woman. It makes fun of her because, though prominent, she is defeated and weak. This is equivalent to jeering a boxer who has just been knocked out. It's pretty ugly all right, but it's not misogyny.
Cartoons are a genre of political discourse notoriously and uproariously rude, unfair, exaggerated, and distorted. They mock both losers - Al Gore and John Kerry - and winners - George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Interestingly, John McCain's advanced age (his "geezer" status) is fair game for humor. By contrast, Mr. Obama's blackness and Ms. Clinton's gender are relatively taboo subjects.
We need to consider Harry Truman's advice to all politicians, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
On behalf of Shedd Aquarium's Great Lakes conservation program, Listen to Your Lakes, I would like to applaud Ohio for formally enacting the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact into law. By enacting the Compact, Ohio is doing its part to preserve these magnificent natural resources and bring unprecedented water protection one step closer.
Low lake levels here and droughts around the nation prove that we must act to protect our water resources before it's too late. The Compact establishes fair and consistent rules for responsible Great Lakes water use. It will help us to sustain the Great Lakes so they can continue to sustain us.
Director, Great Lakes Conservation
John G. Shedd Aquarium
Recently The Blade published the story headlined "Talks at UT promote churches' openness to gays."
In my opinion, those churches promoting being open to gays have lost their way. The message of Jesus was that "He came to save sinners," not to protect sinful lifestyles. In describing the sin of sodomy, God said it is unnatural and vile.
I have never met a "happy" homosexual. However, I could describe them this way: distraught, guilt ridden, depressed, lonely, and fearful. I have also worked with people who have forsaken this lifestyle, giving evidence to the fact that they are not born this way.
The wickedness of the homosexual movement is well documented in the Bible and history. Their sin has contributed to the spread of AIDS, hepatitis, syphilis, and myriad other diseases.
Are we to welcome the homosexuals into our churches? Yes, if they will repent and turn from their sin. Without repentance, they are a curse on our cities. If we welcome them into our churches while they are still living in sin, it would be an abomination to God.
To the homosexual reading this letter, the world will not be there to hold your hand on death's bed. Christ is the only person you can go to get true forgiveness and peace. It is Christ who will forgive you and restore you when you repent and believe in His shed blood and His resurrection. It is your decision, but please remember: "It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."
Russ Merrin, pastor
Monclova Road Baptist Church
If City Council members have not learned that Mayor Carty Finkbeiner can't be trusted with taxpayer dollars, they do not deserve another term in office. He is wasting our money on building his legacy of leaving "things" in this city instead of improving his leadership abilities.
We'll trade the bike paths for repaired and level sidewalks. We'll trade the marina beach and fountain for paved streets and handicap ramps at street corners. We'll trade developer Larry Dillin for just about anybody who doesn't double-talk his way into our pockets.
We'll trade automated refuse trucks that leave garbage cans in the street instead of on the curb for our dedicated garbage collectors, less overtime money spent on the long work days the automated trucks necessitate, and removal of the third garbage tax Carty has levied against us.
Someone needs to tell Carty and Council that no contract comes with a guarantee, they only come with penalties for nonperformance and more money spent for lawsuits to enforce the penalties. If we have $20 million to spend, and councilmen can't think of a better place to spend it than on a marina, they aren't worth their pay, and neither is Carty.
If I see one more television commercial threatening me with grave punishment for failing to wear a seat belt, I think I am going be sick. These ads would be laughable if the implications weren't so serious. When did Americans come to accept the idea that protecting us from ourselves is an appropriate role for any level of government?
We need to say "enough is enough" to this totalitarian garbage and start voting for lawmakers who respect our right to make our own decisions. It's not too late to start climbing back up the slippery slope of nanny-statism.
I am responding to the June 14 editorial, "Dilemma of shooting first." The recently enacted "Castle Law," the editorial complained, "In essence gives homeowners and motorists the right to blow away anyone who enters their home or vehicle without permission." This is an overstatement but it's hard to see anything wrong with it.
Look at the issue from the point of view of the intruder, the "blow-awayee" about whom the editorial was so concerned. Such a person knows he is committing a crime simply by breaching the sanctity of the victim's home or automobile. He intends to do harm by taking or damaging property that is not his, and possibly doing physical harm to the rightful owner in the process (mental distress is done, even to an absent victim, by the crime itself).
Surely such knowledge on the part of the criminal implies an understanding that he is assuming some risk? Even the most degraded thug must assume that his actions will be resented by his victim, who in turn will likely take steps to defend himself. That's why criminals so frequently come armed.
The "Castle Law" removes the requirement that the property owner retreat before an intruder; the victim is now legally justified in doing what he was always morally entitled to do - to defend his person and his property. Let the criminal suffer the consequences for his own actions, not his victim.
A "dilemma of shooting first"? Hardly, considering that it was the criminal who put himself in harm's way in the first place. It is a constitutional right of U.S. citizens to keep and bear arms. Society's ills won't be answered by putting more guns into people's hands, but disarming the victims won't stop the predators.
A recent story in The Blade about the Ohio Supreme Court upholding the death sentence of an inmate convicted of killing a prison guard featured a quote from the lead prosecutor in the case, who stated that the fact that the guard was executed to make a point tells you why we need the death penalty.
Let me see if I ve got this straight: Killing someone to make a point is so horrible that the state of Ohio needs to kill someone to make the point that killing someone to make a point is horrible?
There is something deeply wrong here.