Paper’s ‘caveman caucus’ editorial reeks of sexism
Your editorial con- cerning Judge Brett Kavanaugh was a dismaying, not to say shameful, exercise in prejudice and unprincipled pettifoggery. The arrant sexism of the editorial leaps out of the first sentence, in which it tars the male majority of the Judiciary Committee as “the caveman caucus.”
Does The Vindicator really propose to pre-judge people by their gender? The offensive prejudice of that characterization is manifest by considering how offensive would be its equal opposite. Were The Vindicator to slander an all-female committee as the “bimbo brigade,” readers would quite rightly howl in outrage. The principle is the same.
Like the senators on that committee, I am a male, and no longer a young one. I am also the loving father of daughters. I would no more want to see them denied a just consideration of their claims than I would want to see my sons be the victims of unsupported accusations of criminal behavior.
To say that a committee of men cannot justly consider the former question is as foolish as saying that a committee of women cannot justly consider the latter question. Shame on you!
Your editorial’s headline states that the “FBI could easily investigate claim against” Kavanaugh. What nonsense! The allegation concerns an unknown place and an unspecified date some 35 years ago. The five people who the accuser says were present at the time all deny having any knowledge of such an event. How does one investigate an accusation which is as insubstantial as it is damnatory? Far from rushing to judgment, the Judiciary Committee has been solicitous to hear from the accuser, while it is she who proffered one dubious demand after another to delay the proceedings.
Defaming and delay are the purposes underlying the 11th-hour efforts of the Democrats and much of the media. You cannot be so na Øve as to not recognize that fact; sadly you are not candid enough to acknowledge it.
Dr. Eric Chevlen, Liberty Township
How can government know number of rapes?
In Sunday’s Our Voice editorial about the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, The Vindicator states, “The Associated Press noted the government says fewer than 1 in 4 rapes and sexual assaults were reported in 2016”.
My question is how do they know that if reports were not made?
Edwina Schrader, Canfield
We must pick candidates with integrity on Nov. 6
Our country is in desperate need of leaders (and that includes Supreme Court justices) who possess integrity and stability. American citizens are responsible for voting for candidates who will protect our rights and lead responsibly.
These people we vote into office are forming our laws and deciding our future. All U.S. citizens need to pay attention to the blatant mismanagement our country is experiencing.
Fox news should not be our go-to source for how to run the country. We did not vote for Sean Hannity. We have an ill-informed president making many important decisions that affect all of us.
Republican senators are pushing through a candidate for Supreme Court justice, while a red flag is clearly in place. Apparently, their power has been compromised, and they will do anything to hang onto it.
We all need to get to the polls to vote. A lot is at stake here. Each one of us has the power to change things for the better by our vote. Use it while we still can. Who knows what tomorrow will bring?
Carol Friedman, Columbiana
Democrats make mockery of ‘advice and consent’
From your editoR- ial last Sunday, it appears that The Vindicator is willing to cast aside hundreds of years of British Common Law in which our judicial system is built upon. You have a woman who makes a serious accusation after 35 years, offers absolutely no proof and whose individuals that she gave as witnesses have no recollection of the event – one of which is one of Professor Ford’s best friends.
The Republicans have done everything possible for her to provide her testimony. Although frankly I am not sure why they have done this. Apparently you want to live in a nation where the accused has to prove their innocence. If you think this will just stop at sex crimes then perhaps reading some history would help.
Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China and the French Revolution all punished the accused without any evidence. Robespierre, one of the leaders of the French Revolution and responsible for the Reign of Terror ended up losing his head.
The Democrats have made a mockery of advice and consent. I don’t recall the Democrats telling Keith Ellison to step down. I guess only conservatives are asked this.
Does The Vindicator remember the Duke University lacrosse case? The individual lives were ruined because of a false accusation. I presume that they came from wealthy white families, which made this acceptable. This lack of reasoning will only lead to a tyrannical government, which will end this fine experiment known as the United States.
Jim McCloskey, Boardman
School officers pact takes advantage of taxpayers
The protection and safety of students is the responsibility of the school system. Recently the city negotiated five-year agreements with the Canfield Local Schools and Mahoning County Career and Technical Center for resource officers. Council unanimously approved the agreements.
The net result costs the Canfield taxpayers $515,000 over five years. Why are the city taxpayers paying for school security when that is the responsibility of the school system? The school system has the financial ability to do this. The city is not obligated to provide school security.
At the end of the 2017 school year, the school had $14 million in unallocated funds remaining. In addition, the agreement does not provide resource officers for the grade schools. A recently passed renewal school levy was supposed to include safety. We all agree that all students should be safe at school. That is not the issue here. It is who is obligated to fund them.
These agreements cover three officers. All of these officers were recruited from city police officers. They work nine months as resource officers. Then the city pays each of them for three months to work as regular police officers in the city. Since the three resource officers came out of the regular police force, additional officers had to be hired to bring the force up to strength. Then in the summer months, the resource officers are additional and revert to the city payroll.
One officer works in the high school. The city and township each pays 50 percent of the cost for nine months’ salary. In the remaining three months, this officer works in the police department and is paid by the city.
A second officer works in the middle school. The school system pays for nine-month salary. In the remaining three months, this officer works in the police department and is paid by the city.
A third officer works at MCCTC and is paid by MCCTC. Typically, this is 75 percent of the officer’s annual salary. In the remaining three months, this officer works for and is paid by the city.
The city is being taken advantage of to pay costs that are not ours and are the result of these agreements.
The practice of using city officers as resource officers has incurred additional costs to taxpayers. These agreements are not in the best interest of the taxpayers and certainly not sound financial management. Did council recognize the cost of these agreements? Are we being represented with good fiscal decisions?
Frank A. Micchia, Canfield