Letters to the Editor 7-10-14

As I read Monday’s article about the Michael Oxley Government Center at the Hancock County Historical Museum, I had to look at it three times to make sure I read it right!
It set my attention on high alert that the public was not invited to such an event.
Even though I am a Democrat in a red part of the state, it would have been nice to have an opportunity to meet and talk with government officials, even if only for a few minutes.
Gov. Kasich and Speaker Boehner were invited, which was expected, but I am wondering why the public, which votes these leaders into office, was not?
Especially with the Republican following here in Hancock County, the people were still left out! Sure we can go and see the center at our own convenience, but not with the high-profile visitors that were invited and would be in attendance.
It seems not just at the local level, but the state and national level, there is a trend of doing what the money of a few wants over the voices of the many. In my opinion, this is just another example of the separation of the ordinary people in government affairs.
I know there are many hardline issues on which many have chosen this side or that, and maybe this was a decision that was based upon the fact that not many people show up when our congressmen and House representatives make themselves available. But I am still baffled by this decision.
We, the people, make up our communities and want to be a part of them. This was one of the ceremonies that I am sure I am not the only one who is disgruntled about the general public not being invited.
I hope readers abound take this non-invite personally and want an explanation why this was only open to the high brass of the city!
I am sure the mayor and others in local government positions were in attendance. This is another example of separating the people from the government which only pushes the gap wider yet. Next time there is a ceremony of this caliber held in Hancock County, I would hope the people who live, work, vote, spend money, pay taxes, etc., would be allowed to participate.
Thanks for telling us about a special event and then rubbing salt in the wound by telling us we are not invited!
Tyson S. Geiser
Upper Sandusky

Saturday’s headlines concerning the crowded jail made me think there may be a better way.
I’m a little short on jurisprudence, but is it possible that nonviolent offenders could be sentenced to community service and/or labor instead of jail time? Are the judges’ hands tied in those cases?
There are plenty of volunteer organizations that need a hand, plenty of streets and roads that need to be cleaned, abandoned houses that need the lawn mowed.
Instead of three days in jail, have them perform 72 hours of service.
Surely, those who have tried repeated times to serve their sentences would be agreeable to this.
I understand the current Hancock Leadership is looking for a project. If it can be done, this could be a great one that serves the community and alleviates a recurring problem.
Charles Gerringer

In response to William B. Smith (letter, July 7): I have so very little in common with the president or the former vice president.
They have money, power, influence, but no plan to stop our downward spiral, record amounts of revenue being taken from the productive class to go to the obstructive class of greedy evildoers, or to turn our country to a far more positive direction.
I don’t have power, influence, or millions in the bank.
I will never have millions in the bank. I currently have no power or influence, but I do have the power of the truth and the only plan to launch the hydrogen economy, hemp, and self-sufficient industry to put our country on the biggest upsurge economically and for the good health of ourselves and future generations. They do not.
God made hemp and hydrogen to use in a way that brings prosperity to many, not just a chosen few, and does not trash this world like fossil fuel and poison chemicals.
I have the same belief that 98 percent of the climate scientists have. Man is wrecking our planet right now. If you wish to believe the 2 percent, that is your prerogative.
In response to Burl Greer’s comment (letter, July 8): “Pot only leads to proven cases of narcissism, delusions of grandeur, and obsessive-compulsive behavior.” Greer just described the two leaders of Findlay’s biggest businesses.
My wife Jane says, “You have described all men.”
But in all of that attempted bashing, there is no mention of hate, greed, jealousy, possessiveness, or violence.
That is because pot does not bring those negative character flaws into your brain cells. It eliminates them like cancer cells, while keeping the good thoughts and cells.
Our world’s greatest, not greediest, minds smoke pot. Greer is not aware of that. Please Google scientific research and real facts about the cannabinoids in cannabis.
Terry Cook

It was with perverse interest and a grain of salt that I read E.J. Dionne’s latest column entitled “Our Progressive Constitution” (Viewpoint, July 7).
Dionne can adulate the virtues of the living, breathing and changing “Progressive” Constitution, versus a tad tighter read that some of us prefer, but some alarming conclusions remain unchanged.
In the national debate on the prowess of the new document, two sides emerged that at least philosophically are still present after two-and-a-half centuries. One side was the Federalists and the other the Anti-Federalists.
The Federalists wanted the adoption of the Constitution and leaned heavily to an ordered society, while the anti-Federalists opposed the document, leaning heavily to a more free society.
The Federalists won, of course, but only after Anti-Federalist insistence that a Bill of Rights be added to protect individual rights from the very government they just created.
While it makes me retch, Dionne tenderly, lovingly and oh-so-beautifully calls this ever-changing Constitution “progressive.” Progressive in this context is nothing more than a loose interpretation or “construction” of the document, giving the government more order (read government-mandated intrusion) in society as opposed to a more tight construction (read individual freedom) favored by us who lost our lunch after reading the man.
The alarming conclusion that remains unchanged is a nearly $18 trillion national debt. I would maintain that this debt is the logical conclusion to a loose, progressive construction of the Constitution.
For example, in 2012, we spent 41 percent of our budget on just three Progressive “entitlement” (think of what this name implies) programs: Social Security (1935-Roosevelt) Medicare and Medicaid (1965-Johnson). To finance it all, along with illegal surveillance, Obamacare (Obama) and an unholy war (Bush), we borrowed and printed $1.09 trillion. Endemic in borrowing is repayment.
Where is the progressive repayment plan, Mr. Dionne?
Michael Janton



About the Author