I quite sympathize with the outrage over the recent shooting of Ella the deer (8-13, A4, “Rewards posted in death of cemetery deer”). However, I wish to offer some food for thought in the wake of this sad situation.
Why are we upset when an animal we personally love dies while we ignore the vast amount of animals that are killed because of hunting and food? Why do we subconsciously believe that humans have an inherent right to life but that animals do not?
In modern America, most of us — unlike wild animals — do not need to kill animals to survive. So why do we continue to unnecessarily kill countless innocent animals? Our attachment to Ella does not mean she had more of a right to life than any other creature.
On another note, a recent peer-reviewed study in the journal World Watch found that 51 percent of greenhouse emissions are because of livestock.
I realize that everyone has his own perspective. I respect people but humbly propose that a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle is easier to maintain today than ever before.
Sales tax proposal
Taxpayers have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in our basic and vital infrastructure — our roads and bridges, parks, fountains, convention facilities and entertainment districts. But what major investments are we making, as a community, to create new, vibrant jobs, industries and businesses and to ensure a healthier, more prosperous future for ourselves and our children and grandchildren?
The Jackson County Legislature has an opportunity to seek voter approval for a proposed new Jackson County Institute for Translational Research and Medicine. This institute would employ in Jackson County the best physician-scientists from around the globe to “translate” new knowledge and discoveries into breakthrough medicines, treatments and cures.
Operating as a partnership among Children’s Mercy, St. Luke's Health System, the University of Missouri-Kansas City and the Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute, this institute will make Jackson County a leader in improving American health care in the 21st century.
We hope Jackson Countians who share our vision for a healthier, more vibrant future will join us in supporting this proposal.
Donald J. Hall Jr.
Chair, Civic Council
of Greater Kansas City
Immediate Past Chair
Rodeo clown, Obama
Apparently, the only ones upset over the rodeo clown masked as President Barack Obama are the politicians and certain civil rights groups (8-13, A1, “Nothing humorous about clown rodeo skit”). From what witnesses have said, the vast majority of the audience approved of the stunt by its applause and cheers.
It makes one wonder who are really the clowns in all this.
Walter C. Humphrey
Stick to announcing
You don’t have to like President Barack Obama, but the Missouri State Fair’s political stunt in Sedalia showed no respect for the president of the United States (8-12, A4, “Anti-Obama stunt rebuked”). They call it a stupid activity.
Tell the announcer next time to stick to calling rodeos.
I am outraged, completely outraged, that any Missouri State Fair official would have allowed the clown stunt at the rodeo on Saturday to continue for any length of time. Why would I want to go and support that?
Letters to the editor on Aug. 10 and Aug. 12 responding to an Aug. 7 story, “Kansas’ Huelskamp stands up to party,” on Kansas 1st District Congressman Tim Huelskamp label him such things as a “petulant child” and a “rigid fringe ideologue” and “zealot.”
The letter writers don’t say though what specifically bothers them about Huelskamp. Could it be his strong defense of life, traditional marriage and the family?
Or is it his call to defund and repeal the disastrous Obamacare in favor of patient-centered health care?
Or could it be his defense of free-market entrepreneurial capitalism, spending cuts, limited government overall, a strong defense, low taxes, a regulation overhaul, local control of education, domestic energy production or legal immigration?
Or is it his efforts to get to the bottom of the numerous Obama administration scandals?
It’s likely all of these points and more.
But what seems to really bother most liberals about Huelskamp is that he is a man of his word.
He is actually going forward with the conservative policies that he ran on and fearlessly goes after the many overreaches of the Obama administration and even the Republican establishment when necessary.
Whatever Huelskamp’s leadership is labeled, much more of it is needed in Congress.
Mark S. Robertson
Shifting tax burden
The objective of business is to make profits, not provide employment. The only reason businesses employ people is to enable the company to make profit.
Under no other circumstances are they going to provide any employment.
Therefore, the argument that tax breaks will somehow cause businesses to hire more people is senseless. Businesses will hire only if they think doing so will result in more profit.
History, research and common sense confirm that employees are usually the biggest expense for businesses.
Businesses typically want to reduce the number of employees to the bare minimum, thereby increasing profit margin.
What the tax-break fever is really all about is simply to enable businesses and the wealthy to avoid paying their fair share of the legitimate administrative, physical and social infrastructure costs of society.
This causes a reduction in essential services or causes more of the costs of government to be paid by the poor and working classes.
I continue to be mystified by the folks who complain about Obamacare. They rail against the so-called effects of the law when, in fact, their anger is about cutbacks on employee hours and employers’ insurance coverage.
The Affordable Care Act does not mandate such unfairness. It does, however, profoundly promote basic health rights, ensures ethical insurance practices and roots out fraud.
Because the Affordable Care Act is one of the greatest pieces of social-justice legislation passed in recent history, we ought to put our efforts behind its implementation rather than trying to stonewall it or crying for its repeal.
Now that the Supreme Court has spoken, and not so clearly, to allow same-sex marriage, we need to consider the next frontier in our evolving social morals. Consider the oneness of marriage of a man and woman and additional partners.
I must admit as a lifelong bachelor that life with a woman would be strange, new and a bit confusing. Married to more than one woman would be frightening, perhaps insane.
So let’s consider the marriage of a woman with two or more men in a “sanctified relationship.” When one man tires from chores and other duties, the woman can replace him with another.
There could be additional specialization of labor. One guy can go to long-hair concerts with his lady while the other guy performs other functions. One works on the car; the other keeps the computer working.
The wife should always have time to cut the grass, rake the leaves, cook the meals and shovel the snow.
Who do others, and the government, think they are to disallow bigamy? There is new legal precedent.
We can perform multiple-party actuarial calculations. Anything goes.