Butler would be foolish to reject Rockwell works
This area has thrown countless dollars away on consultants to find new ways to bring revenue to the Mahoning Valley. We now have an opportunity to bring new revenue to the Valley via the Norman Rockwell collection, and the Butler Art Institute wants to throw that new revenue stream away.
Well, I suppose, the Butler feels it would lose revenue from donors because the Boy Scouts of America, a quintessential American institution, has its name linked to the collection. I understand that a Wall Street Journal article made claims that the BSA was guilty of abuse of young Scouts.
I also understand that the BSA has made every effort to rigorously investigate and correct any abuse issues. The BSA owned up to the allegations and took action. There were no attempts to sweep the dirt under the carpet. That is more than other institutions can say about their abuse issues.
The Butler Institute of Art uses the phrase “art is for everyone” as part of its marketing strategy. If that philosophy is true, why prevent anyone from seeing the Rockwell collection?
The Valley has a once in a lifetime opportunity. The benefits of having an art collection so prominent within its grasp and use the reasoning of loss of money, which is only speculation, to not allow the Rockwell collection to be shown in our area is unconscionable.
I’m an art history major, and in studying art we are taught not only to look at the art, but the social, political and economic factors of the time period. Also, who is/was the artist. What and who influenced his/her work and the technical aspects of their work? Art is about many things and gives one the opportunity to investigate and experience history in a truly unique way.
Normal Rockwell is the epitome of the American artist. One would think the Butler museum would be thrilled to have the opportunity to display this collection. What is the reasoning behind their decision?
Christine M. Niemi, Cortland
Karl Hoerig finally gets justice, thanks to many
I flew many missions with Karl Hoerig. After 12 long years, I am thankful that justice has finally arrived for my friend and fellow aviator.
I am thankful for the support of 3,800 members of the “Justice for Karl Hoerig” Facebook page from all over the world. You have provided hope, comfort and assistance to Karl’s family and friends during this arduous journey.
A big thank you to Congressman Tim Ryan and all leaders who fought to bring justice for the Hoerig family. Without you and many other leaders, this would never have happened.
Congressman Ryan never gave up. He wrote letters to U.S. and Brazilian officials and brought attention to our cause. You used every legislative tactic in the book to get the attention of Brazil and her leaders. The “clock” on your website, counting the days Karl’s murderer was hiding in Brazil, let all of us know that justice for Karl was always on your mind.
As expressed by Roxy Vaughn, Karl’s niece, I am hopeful the professionalism demonstrated by our leaders – including Prosecutor Dennis Watkins and his team – will pave the way for increased international cooperation regarding future extradition of violent criminals.
The poise and grace demonstrated by the entire Hoerig family through this time has been inspirational and beautiful to behold. The victim-impact statements made by the family were conciliatory and filled with grace and wisdom. The Hoerigs inspire all of us to be better people.
I am fortunate to have known Karl and am proud to be a friend of this remarkable family.
Larry Diemand, Mentor
Diemand is a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force.
Column on classic autos trivializes youth interests
As a member of the so-called smartphone generation, I do like my smartphone. It’s not the only thing I like, however.
In “Leaving Car Guys in Tech Dust,” your columnist, Tom Purcell (Feb. 6, Page A7), unfairly suggests that young people’s favorite activity is to “run apps on their smartphones.” Though I know he’s writing with humor, the stereotype that young people only care about their smartphones is trite and simplistic.
This column is just one of many to criticize young people for smartphone use. He describes the fun he had at classic car meets as a young person, writing that they included discussions about “the artfulness of classic American cars.”
Yet he can’t imagine what young people today would get together to talk about. He imagines that the only thing they could talk about in a similar way would be smartphones. With this comparison he implies that young people aren’t capable of the same level of sophisticated communication he experienced at car meets. This is untrue, and it trivializes young people’s interests.
Purcell elevates his interests in classic cars above what young people care about. As a college student, I have a lot of pastimes that aren’t related to technology at all. It’s unreasonable to imply there are only two options for a hobby. It’s not a choice between classic cars and smartphones.
I agree that fewer young people today like classic cars than previous generations. I don’t agree that there is something wrong with less interest in classic cars.
It’s unfair to make generalizations about an entire age group just because they don’t like the same things previous generations liked. Change is natural over time, and people like different things.
It is disappointing that Purcell and those who agree with him seem to accept that young people are little more than the stereotypical smartphone addict.
Isabelle Azar, Poland
Credible research lacking in story on vaccinations
This is in response to the article titled “Measles outbreak revives debate over vaccine” in The Vindicator of Feb. 2.
The article was written using scare tactics and is riddled with slanted information to compel people to get vaccinated. It’s preposterous and unscrupulous.
The article states “Numerous studies have shown vaccines do not cause autism ... a common reason cited by those opposed to immunization.’’
It wasn’t mentioned that there are numerous studies showing a definite relationship between autism and vaccines. The key to trustworthy research and conclusions is who is funding the research.
The article also states that 43 people have fallen ill, the measles virus is “extraordinarily” contagious, more than a dozen more cases “suspected,” and this all is raising the “possibility” of more diagnoses in the unvaccinated population. In other words, a frightening disease, although no one has died, along with suspicions and possibilities, was caused by the unvaccinated.
It is a fact that there has never been any research studies that proved vaccines eradicated any disease. This is all pushed by Big Pharma companies who profit by using scare tactics rather than selling their “remedies” to the public or the government.
Drug companies are in business to make money, not make us well. It’s why there’s constant battles to fight the prices of medications. It’s why there are serious and credible allegations against drug companies accusing them of causing the opioid crisis. Folks, do you think they can be trusted?
I have done enough research of my own to say I don’t buy it. Since Big Pharma funds medical schools, medical education institutions reflect drug company agendas: to sell prescription drugs. More attention ought to be paid to trustworthy research.
Nancy Kluska, Austintown