Not Hunt’s fault
Sam Mellinger is upset with the Chiefs organization over the Marcus Peters trade. (Feb. 24, 1B, “With Marcus Peters trade, Chiefs need to explain their cloak of failure”)
His commentary indicates, in part, that he’s upset about team owner Clark Hunt’s position on Peters’ not standing for the national anthem. (I still don’t understand why employers are chastised for insisting that their employees refrain from publicly expressing their personal political views while on the job.)
But Mellinger’s argument that Hunt, general manager Brett Veach and coach Andy Reid are to blame for failing to correct Peters’ misconduct on and off the field is ludicrous. The blame for that lies with Peters.
Flip the script
According to The Star, “Missouri GOP defends Greitens, attacks prosecutor” (Feb. 24, 1A). Is this hypocrisy, stupidity or placing party above the decency and morality of the normal standards of Missourians? What happened to the Republican Party’s chorus of family values, Christian morality and law and order?
There are three branches of government, and each must be granted its function, privilege and purpose without interference from the threats, cries or false claims of the executive or legislative branches when one of its own is alleged to have broken the law.
A grand jury has spoken and said enough evidence exists to bring charges, and now the legislative branch wants to investigate that grand jury’s decision.
The party must have learned something from the current president. Is this so-called legislative investigation just another way to try and wash the party’s hands and produce a set of alternative facts in an effort to control the news media and feed the talk shows in an attempt to influence the jury pool before Greitens’ trial?
Why did Greitens’ law firm hire a campaign lobbyist if this is not true?
Robert A. Hedrick
I have two issues with The Star’s Sunday editorial “America’s gun violence crisis must end. Here’s how.” (24A)
The first bullet point began well enough, with what I consider sage advice: “The claim that any one approach ‘won’t work’ and therefore should not be tried, is a dangerous nonstarter.”
Yet the very next bullet point stated that universal weapon confiscation is not possible. Isn’t that saying such an approach “won’t work” and should therefore also be considered a dangerous nonstarter?
As for arming teachers, I found the statement, “Firing a weapon or becoming a human shield should not be a job requirement,” ridiculous. Who is advocating making that a job requirement? Absolutely no one I’m aware of.
On the other hand, if you’re summarily dismissing even the discussion of arming some qualified teachers on a voluntary basis, shouldn’t that, too, be considered a “dangerous nonstarter”?
I agree with what I thought was The Star’s position that virtually every idea or proposal to limit gun violence should be on the table. I found it interesting, however, that at least two of its own ideas should apparently be dismissed.
I was sorry to read that The Star is apparently continuing Billy Graham’s column. (Feb. 26, B8)
I don’t understand the need to print only evangelical views. I get more every day out of the Celebrity Cipher (my favorite puzzle), as it leaves me either chuckling or thinking. Graham leaves me cold, especially after I have read the news and the excellent editorials.
I know there are no easy answers to this extremely deranged world.
With the current controversy surrounding assault-type weapons, I find it amusing, in a sick sort of way, that such a liberal newspaper would devote a section to the movie “Annihilation.” (Feb. 23, 6A, “Mind-bending ‘Annihilation’ blows up sci-fi conventions”)
You have a nearly half-page picture of five women standing with assault weapons at the ready. I guess there is no limit to sacrificing moral stances for profits.
This is my last letter to The Star. I have written many letters. Some you print, some you don’t. In every case I have tried to address serious subjects in a serious way. Usually, I am prompted by something in the news.
I can’t do it any longer. The news is no longer serious, and the people in the news are even less so. For example, in Missouri we have a governor who allegedly bound his girlfriend and threatened her. And his party is defending him.
And a president of the United States wants to arm teachers and give them bonuses for substituting as Green Berets, when they’re not trying to get their students’ attention otherwise.