Clinton would be change --for the worst
Before America sells itself short by voting for change, the definition of change should be emphasized. Change can be in two basic directions. Change for the better is assumed. Change for the worse is a hidden option.
The real question remains as to whether Hillary Clinton et al (including husband Bill) have the answers for an ailing U.S.A.
Do we really need another philandering liberal president? Does the United States have to be bled to death by traditional Democratic fix-all taxes that are never high enough? Is our federal government not already an overgrown colossus of political pork fat?
Must we have a dose of Clinton castor oil to recover from our economic doldrums or will we be purged of our remaining strength by his exorbitant spending on new (but previously failed) programs touted as "cures"? . . .
If change for the sake of change is voted in, we are asking for a rough and ruinous ride into the realm of enslavement via big government, bigger taxes, even bigger social giveaways and the biggest farce ever perpetrated on the American working class.
Liberalism was the "change" in the '60s. After turning the American dream into a nightmare, do we really need it again?
Ronald L. Dowling
Hurrah for Baltimore, which may get a professional football team. How wonderful! But what's this talk about a possible domed stadium, indoor football on phony grass? How dreary, how dismal, how dull, how flat! I thought multi-purpose domed stadiums were a thing of the past -- except in extreme freezing or rainy climates.
Football is a fall-to-early winter sport that is supposed to be played outdoors on natural grass during beautiful, crisp autumn days or cold -- sometimes snowy -- winter days. As season ticket holders, we attended many such games and enjoyed them thoroughly. Baltimore fans are hardy, like the sellout crowds in Washington, D.C., and Denver.
The outdoor elements add an exciting dimension to the rugged game of football. Let's have an outdoor football stadium with natural grass to match the great new outdoor baseball park we all enjoy so much.
Is it waste or what?
Having some idle vacation days at the end of June and beginning of July, I had the opportunity to witness a trial, which was interesting but not nearly as dramatic as television portrays it to be.
Personally, I had an extremely difficult time trying to decide the guilt or innocence of the two defendants. I was later gratified to learn that my mental processes must have been on line with the jury because it could not reach a decision either.
But, be that as it may, I further observed something that disturbed me even more than my inability to decide the case.
During the many recesses, I learned that three police detectives were associated with the trial. One detective, Vernon Holly, actually testified and the other two just hung around the halls outside the courtroom.
Since they didn't testify, I couldn't figure out why they were present. Then, when summations were in process and no other witnesses could be called, the detectives continued to hang around and even showed up the following two days, waiting for the jury's verdict.
What bothers me most and should upset every tax-paying citizen of this city is that it appears we are paying our hard-earned dollars for absolutely no return on our money.
The only reason I can assume for the detectives' presence was to give moral support to witnesses for the state or to act as cheerleaders for the prosecution. This may be well and good for some, but not for my money.
In fact, it strikes me that this seems to be a flagrant misuse of taxpayers' money. . .
Gov. Clinton is no centrist
Now that Governor Clinton has been nominated, it is remarkable that the chorus of liberal pundits in all media have discovered that he has forged a "centrist" position on governmental policy.
It is evident that none of them have been reading the AFL-CIO News. In May, the News published a long article entitled "Gov. Clinton on the Issues." The article said the positions were derived either from his speeches or interviews.
On labor matters he would favor the "workplace fairness" bill to ban permanent replacement of strikers. He would "even the scales in the way the National Labor Relations Board decides cases in order to create a level playing field" and restore the historic balance between labor and management.
He would sign a bill to repeal Section 14b (permitting right to work laws) as soon as Congress puts it on his desk. (The governor's home state has such a law.)
He would increase the minimum wage to keep pace with inflation, enforce the prevailing wage protections provision in the Davis-Bacon Act and oppose any effect to weaken laws already on the books.
In other areas, he would sign the family and medical leave bill to create a minimum standard of family and medical leave for all workers.