Ever since its inception, I've been bothered by the concept of double-dipping in the workplace, and usually it's the professional workplace. If a person retires from a good-paying job and begins receiving a pension that most families could readily live on, why should he or she be allowed - in some cases as soon as the next day - to return to that position and continue to receive their salary and a comfortable pension? It makes me think of the old adage: "How much is enough? Just a little bit more."
Although I've remained silent in the past, I feel compelled to speak out in these tough economic times. I am a retired elementary school principal and, sorry to say, I see much double-dipping in the field of education. At the same time, I also see newly graduated, potential teachers who can't find a teaching job due to double-dippers. I have no problem with a retired person going to work in a different field, or filling a position until a new person is hired, to cover for maternity leave, or any other temporary need.
This double-dipping may not be illegal, but to me it is certainly immoral. I would encourage our state legislators to take steps to correct this situation that, in some cases, relegates enthused college graduates who are deeply in debt to have to take jobs completely unrelated to what they've trained for. Give these young people a chance to follow their chosen careers.
Double-dipping is also an unnecessary drain on some retirement systems that are having financial problems of their own.
To the March 24 letter writer so concerned with "the great global warming hoax" ("There go the liberals again") and other issues about which his mind is clearly already made up (closed, slammed shut): The April issue of National Geographic magazine includes several instructive articles concerning the effects of worldwide climate change (a vastly more sensible term than "global warming"), including pieces on extensive drought in Australia, unwelcome flooding and drought in places that have traditionally not experienced those conditions, and the tragic plight of Arctic wildlife as the ice sheets diminish.
On a wider note, since the nonliberal writer was mainly concerned with conservative talk radio, described as "the one stream of truth," perhaps if he availed himself of a greater variety of input he might be able to see other truths. Or at least realize that theories and opinions are not viewed as truth by liberals but, rather, the best conclusions currently available based on the dispassionate data presented.
Conclusions based on information are always possible to modify or change completely when better information is discovered, uncovered, or recovered, and when new ideas are conceived and explored and perhaps verified. The last word's root meaning is truth, and the process of verification means to substantiate, confirm or prove true.
So, if the writer would attempt to verify what he hears on conservative talk radio instead of parroting it as truth, he might realize that at least some of the ideas that he so roundly condemns have merit and conform to data, observations, facts, of which he is, sadly, not aware. Not the least of these is the idea that the warming of the atmosphere (fact) is the likely explanation for local changes in climate like drought, excessive rainfall, melting ice sheets, and unusual bouts of cold or heat (facts).
Congress is taking the first steps towards finally addressing the climate crisis by passing a federal budget blueprint that includes action on global warming.
Limiting global warming pollution and investing in clean energy and energy efficiency will save our climate and create desperately needed jobs in northern Ohio.
Unfortunately, oil and coal industry lobbyists want to knock global warming off the agenda again and keep us hooked on fossil fuels. But the House Budget Committee, including Rep. Marcy Kaptur, of Toledo, stood up for clean energy solutions by defeating a measure that would have stripped global warming from Congress's budget blueprint.
This is a real step in the right direction, and a clear signal that Congress will meet President Obama's challenge to solve global warming. We should be proud of Representative Kaptur for voting against the amendment, and let's hope she continues to do the right thing on this crucial issue.
Once again, I find myself in total disagreement with a poorly thought-out editorial position of The Blade. The opinion about Sen. Ted Stevens' corruption case came to the conclusion that "justice has been served."
I can tell you that most assuredly justice was not served; it was nowhere to be found. What we have here is government lawyers cheating to get a conviction. Whatever their motivation, be it partisan politics or career builder greed, this was a very bad thing.
Corrupt government lawyers withholding evidence will definitely not lead to justice. The guilt or innocence of a person cannot be determined from a corrupted trial. Your opinion giving credence to this tainted trial is nothing but partisan politics and is a disservice to your readers.
As someone who is not a Ben Konop supporter, I find it rather ironic that I am going to come to his defense. The fuss that is being made about Mr. Konop's promise to serve his full term as county commissioner is rather amusing.
When he made the pledge, the economic conditions in Toledo, like much of our nation, were very different than they are today. Toledo's future is very uncertain, with possible bankruptcy in our future, and people are worried about a politician's promise from almost three years ago.
I mean, come on people, are you serious? Why is it that people are willing to overlook some politicians who abandon their current position to seek higher office (Barack Obama, John McCain), but we vilify Mr. Konop? Are you seriously not going to vote for the guy because he broke a promise he made during a campaign? If that is the case, no politician would ever get elected or re-elected.
Why doesn't Toledo try something new, like making the next mayoral election about issues and policies to make Toledo prosperous again, instead of popularity and petty politics? The latter is the formula that has gotten us into this mess in the first place.
I am getting sick and tired of these thin-skinned people who feel insulted at the slightest slip of the tongue.
It seems to me that we should consider the intent of the speaker. I'm sure President Obama didn't mean to insult anyone who is in the Special Olympics. We all know that they are mentally and physically challenged people. Perhaps the President should have thought before he spoke, but we all know he didn't mean any harm to anyone.
Let's all thicken our skins a little and not be so sensitive. We've all said things that we wish we hadn't.
Don t worry, folks. When all the police are gone, Carty and his army of one will protect us. Ha, ha.