Comment history

Youngstown's mayor aces audition

Bertram: You're batting 1k!

Jay Williams was elected Mayor of Youngstown by the cooperative efforts of Republicans and Democrats, not to watch and wait until someone else in town might tell him what to do and then expect applause for his actions.

On the contrary, his public support of Barack Obama is an exercise of his own knowledge, judgment and courage [aka leadership]--for the primary benefit of the city he leads.

Our next president will also be elected by Republicans and Democrats--we hope they will think as honestly and deeply as those who elected Mayor Williams.

But, as emerging facts indicate, the selection of Sarah Palin as VP candidate was a joke: secret, sudden, peremptory, without due deliberation, poorly researched, reckless. That's why the outcome makes good fodder for comedy. Unfortunately for Sarah Palin, she has become the target.

In this instance, Mayor Williams wasn't ridiculing or berating Sarah Palin; he was pointing out the ridiculous selection process for VP candidate and its outcome--Palin as candidate is not the only victim; all of us may yet become her victims.

McCain's selection of a VP candidate was all about desperation, not about leadership. Granted, his military record shows courage; his congressional record shows he goes along to get along. Hardly courageous leadership! Unless, of course, 90% of our President's decisions were on target.

And as to NoBS's comment about "the unswerving loyalty to the left that's displayed here [in Youngstown]": how quickly we forget former Democrat Mayor GMc who, when term-limited, handed over his support from the Democratic Party to the Republican presidential candidate in exchange for anything he could get. In that, was GMc sacrificing himself for the city, or vice versa?

Talk about "swerving!"

September 21, 2008 at 3:22 p.m. suggest removal

Republicans to America: Go forth and multiply

After decades spent with teens in public, private and parochial schools and a family of my own, I see the problem of unintended teen pregnancy differently. It seems that most, if not all loving responsible parents try hard to protect their own pregnant children from ridicule and provide the mother and the baby with proper medical care during and after pregnancy.

The task may not be more enjoyable but is much easier for families with adequate financial resources: wealthier parents can avoid family embarrassment and "hide" the pregnancies/babies; keep the teen out of school, transfer her or have her tutored at home; place the babies for adoption or abort them; sequester the teens in some other part of the country or with relatives.

In families without financial resources, the options are fewer and more painful: pregnant teens continue to go to school, go to work, see a doctor if/when there is time/money/transportation to do so; endure all kinds of hardships; have the baby; fall behind in school/drop out of school; get fired; find a relative to care for the baby...

The difference isn't so much about family values; it is more about the financial worth of the family. Many outstanding prominent families have had children stray from guidance of the parents. [Palin: case in point]

Recall the story of King David; great parents, a wealthy guy, a king. He committed adultery and then covered his crimes of rape, adultery and murder by sending the woman's husband into battle to be killed.

Centuries later in another story, there was the woman caught in the act of adultery [no indication in the story that she was either married or wealthy]--the good right wing conservative God-fearing righteous people wanted to stone her and almost succeeded in doing so.

We know David's conduct was inexcusable; but how do we know the woman in the later story was even consenting to the sexual act that made her an adultress?

Nevertheless, David is remembered as an ancestor of the Messiah, and the woman...just another woman who committed adultery. Remember, it takes two to tango! What ever happened to her partner?

Now I guess the questions is, Why would a mother with one infant of her own with Down Syndrome and another teen unwed pregnant daughter put them both on a stage before thousands of people and millions of viewers at a political convention, except for [you can finish this one]?

Surely, Sarah's salary as governor should be ample to allow her to insulate her children. On the one hand, she personally doesn't have to hide her children or even be embarrassed by their conduct; on the other hand, her option to put them in front of TV cameras in no way ensures privacy and protects them from public comment.

for ChuckS: Your's is a narrow view of conception: lots of women who practice abstinence conceive--usually because of some guy who doesn't practice abstinence or respect for women or both.

September 21, 2008 at 2:02 a.m. suggest removal