In regard to the shootout at the Route 66 Kitchen: I just finished reading probably my third article on this, and I think the media and politicians are missing a very important point.
While the use of guns in a situation such as this is bad, nobody is talking about the proliferation of weapons. Does it not strike anybody with shock that at least five - count 'em, five - of the patrons of this bar were carrying (likely illegal) loaded handguns, and that they were itching to whip them out and start blasting anybody in their sights? All despite the fact that it is clearly posted that guns are not permitted on the premises.
Walk into a bar in Maumee and see how many guns you can round up. These lawless thugs are the ones who will likely kill anybody for anything - a pair of tennis shoes, a coat, your car - while you are in it. They are also the ones who are ruining urban life in this country. I remember when the city pushed to round up illegal guns. Now their presence in all of our lives is just a given. It is a sad testimony to see what we as law-abiding citizens have to tolerate every day.
I hope the police catch thesepeople and punish them to the letter of the law. And people wonder why normal folks are leaving the cities to the urban animals. Sad, sad, sad.
After watching the shooting at the Toledo bar, I was just wondering if any of those fine gentlemen had a handgun permit. Do you suppose any of them took a gun safety course? How about the guns? Do you think maybe they bought them at a sporting goods store after a complete background check? Maybe they belong to the NRA.
Oh, well, I`m sure their mamas areproud of them.
Using compact fluorescent light bulbs is the right thing to do. They are substantially more energy-efficient than incandescent bulbs and therefore have a smaller carbon footprint. They are also more cost-efficient. However, as a person who already is replacing most of my incandescent bulbs with CFLs, I find a fee of $21.60 for two 60-watt bulbs to be outrageous.
CFLs have come down in price. At a big-box home improvement center, I generally pay about $10 for a multipack of four or five, depending upon the wattage, and sometimes less when they're on sale. That comes to approximately $2.40 per bulb retail. FirstEnergy proposes to ding its customers $10.80 per bulb, approximately 4.3 times the retail price.
I doubt that FirstEnergy is paying full retail. I am sure that it is getting a substantial discount because of the volume of the purchase.
Where is the excess money going? Administration? Shipping and handling? Stockholders?
Why should we be coerced into paying a usurious sum for an easily and cheaply obtainable product that it is in our own best interest to use? Wouldn't it be more cost-effective to simply provide coupons for the bulbs to be used at any retail outlet? These could be included with the monthly bill.
As soon as I heard about "free" energy-saving light bulbs, I knew it was too good to be true. A big utility company looking out for the customer. Yeah, right.
And, of course, the PUCO (Paid Useless Company Operatives) was all for it.
In the end, we were to pay 60 cents a month for three years on our bills, or $21.60 for two bulbs. Truthfully, the bulbs were probably free; the $21.60 they were going to charge is the money they will lose by selling less electricity. It's win-win, don't you think?
Keep your bulbs and I'll go buy my own at a local retailer and keep the extra money in my pocket.
FirstEnergy wanted to send two energy-efficient light bulbs to all of its customers for the extremely inflated price of $21.60 and have us pay for it by adding 60 cents to our electric bills each month for the next three years.
My question is: How can any entity send unsolicited merchandise and automatically collect whatever it charges with absolutely no appeal? This is just a marketing ploy for the sole purpose of generating revenue.What's next, sending energy-efficient refrigerators for $1,500 and spreading out the cost on our bills for the next 30 years?
We have been using compact fluorescent bulbs in our household for many years and consider the Energy Star ratings when purchasing appliances and other energy-consuming products. We don't need our benevolent energy provider helping us in this endeavor. I have contacted the PUCO about this matter and urge anyone else who disagrees with this program to do the same.
James Hoeffel, Jr.
FirstEnergy's plan to distribute energy-efficient light bulbs to their customers, at a profit, is ludicrous. I already use energy-efficient bulbs and should not be forced to purchase more bulbs at a ridiculous cost.
What's next? Will FirstEnergy be delivering new energy-efficient refrigerators to all their customers? How about new washers, dryers, or air conditioners? Why stop at light bulbs?
I read the article about FirstEnergy and its energy-efficient light bulb program. I see the company is sticking it to the consumers once again. As a homeowner whose house is all electric, I have replaced all of the regular light bulbs in my house with compact fluorescent bulbs a long time ago.
I tell you what, FirstEnergy: I have extra bulbs I can sell you at a good price. By the way, I'll be deducting a delivery charge from my next bill to offset my cost of walking the payment down to the mailbox.
It seems as though our politicians will never learn from Korea and Vietnam.
"Limited engagements" have never worked throughout history. Once war has been declared, there is only one option and that is to givethe situation totally to our military and out of the hands of politicians.
The only way to win a war is to go in with an overwhelming force right at the beginning, get the job done, and get out.
Limited engagements guarantee prolonged strife and loss of lives, mostly to no avail, and to expect anything else is foolish.
No sane person likes war. But when war is inevitable, get it over with as quickly as possible instead of dragging it out for years at a tremendous cost in lives anddepleting our economy.Limited engagements only serve to enrich our military-industrial complex and nobody else.
Let’s face it, casino gambling is a sucker play. But if Ohioans want to play, they should be able to play in Ohio. My question is why does it always have to be posed to the voters as some complicated, exclusive cozy deal? Why can’t Ohio’s political leadership give us the opportunity to simply vote to legalize casino gambling and let the competition begin?
Guidelines: Please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. Comments that violate these standards, or our privacy statement or visitor's agreement, are subject to being removed and commenters are subject to being banned. To post comments, you must be a registered user on toledoblade.com. To find out more, please visit the FAQ.