Duck boat safety, Obama’s bullying and bipartisan solutions

Yes on Prop A

I have seen a few political yard signs telling us to vote no on Missouri’s Proposition A. Well, I looked up what Proposition A is about, and it would uphold the right-to-work act that was passed by the Missouri legislature in 2017. Apparently, the powerful unions, which receive many millions of dollars from employees’ dues, petitioned the state to have right to work placed on the ballot.

I am voting yes on Prop A. I refuse to pay extortion money to a union so I can have and keep my job. My employment should be based on my merit and not on paying protection money. In addition, many unions contribute money (which they receive from their members) to liberal causes and politicians that I do not believe in.

Nobody is less safe since right to work was passed, and the job market in Missouri is on fire.

Vote yes on right to work, or we will re-enter the dark ages where unions rule.

Martin Walsh

Mountain Grove, Mo.

Safety concerns

Several years ago, I rode duck boats in two different cities, as well as a Baltimore water taxi. In 2004, not long after I was in Baltimore, one of its water taxis turned over and killed five people.

I was astounded at how relatively inaccessible the life preservers were on both types of craft and how precarious the duck boats seemed. On one occasion, I even grabbed a life preserver and kept it on my lap while the other riders looked at me as if I were mad, a wuss or both.

Anyone with any sense could see the dangers of these boats. It truly baffles me that owners, designers and insurers could not predict tragedy. Even human error, including going out in questionable weather, has to be anticipated.

Get with it, people.

Geoffrey E. Allen

Lee’s Summit

Help abuse victims

As the former director of Safehome, Johnson County’s domestic violence agency, I strongly support Kansas City Councilwoman Jolie Justus’ proposed ordinance to protect victims of abuse and stalking who are renters. (July 25, 14A, “Here’s how the City Council could protect victims of abuse”)

I have worked with victims who, despite doing everything they can to get away from their abusers, are found and threatened with violence and death. Without legal protections to break their leases and find new, safer housing, they are left to choose between bankruptcy and possible death for themselves and their children.

At least 27 states have early-lease-termination laws that protect survivors. Unfortunately, neither Kansas nor Missouri is among them. I not only urge the Kansas City Council to adopt these protections, but I also ask our state lawmakers to do the same. Lives depend on it.

Janeé Hanzlick

Overland Park

Lickety-split

If President Barack Obama had visited Russian President Valdimir Putin and said the things President Donald Trump said last week, the Republicans would have had articles of impeachment drawn up by the time he was back in the United States.

Becky Leith

Raytown

Left out?

I watched President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin speak at their summit last week on live TV. I saw and heard an American reporter asking Putin if he wanted Trump to be elected. Putin responded that he did.

The White House put out a transcript of that summit news conference that left out the reporter’s question. Furthermore, the question was omitted in the White House version of the video. (July 25, KansasCity.com, “The Latest: Maddow doesn’t relent on White House transcript”)

How utterly frightening is this? Come on, America: Why would the White House try to change what we all saw and heard with our own eyes and ears as it happened?

Is this America or Putin’s Russia?

Tracy Baker

Lee’s Summit

Editor’s note: The exchange has been restored to the official transcript and video.

No politicking

The investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election has been the subject of much discussion across the political spectrum for months. Republicans say it is a witch hunt, although the president now says he believes the Russians will aid the Democrats this year.

The president claims voter fraud is rampant. Democrats say this is an effort to restrict lawful voters’ access to the polls.

Both sides believe our election process is subject to fraud. What should be done about the official who has benefited from these actions? Without legal consequences to the beneficiary, what motivation do politicians have to fix the system? Why has no one proposed legislation to address compromised elections?

Prosecuting offenders is a start but doesn’t correct the outcome. If foreign meddling or sufficient voter fraud to affect the outcome of an election were proved, what could be done about the compromised officeholder? Do our existing laws address correcting an invalid election?

Ignoring the problem is not fair. Awarding the office to the opposing candidate is tempting but not appropriate. Running a new election is costly.

Let’s begin a discussion about what to do when election tampering is proved.

Kimberly Sheek

Leawood