I am saddened to learn that Jon Kitna will not be returning to the job he so rightly earned ("Lewis opts for Palmer method," March 2). Once again, big business has shown us that being a loyal, productive employee is not what it takes to keep your job. Carson Palmer, without comparable experience but with the big paycheck, puts Kitna, who has proven his many capabilities, on the bench.
Kitna brought team unity and excitement to the game and gave Cincinnati something to cheer for each week. I have been a loyal, proven Bengals fan. I watched, cheered and cried during the many bad seasons; and I watched, cheered and cried during the fun ones. I am proven; should I be benched?
Bettyann Marx, Bethel
Whining about Schott inexcusable
Regarding the letter "It was never OK to hate other people" (March 4), the writer doesn't have a clue as to the meaning of the words hate and intolerance. Marge Schott didn't owe anyone a dime, and yet she gave so much to so many. Unfortunately, it's people like this writer who have to look at the negativity in others, rather than the good.
I find it odd that people choose to concentrate on her declining to pay for an injured player's plane ride home, turning out unused lights and sending used flowers as condolence, when she contributed millions to Cincinnati. We will have no future together as a community until people get over the past, stop whining and start noticing the goodness in others instead of negativity.
Chuck Casson, Bellevue
Respect Marge Schott as an original
Shame on Paul Daugherty in regard to his column "She was a true original" (March 3) about Marge Schott. His callous, flippant portrayal of her life was disappointing. It touched upon every worn-out cliche that we've all heard recycled through the media again and again. Instead of celebrating Marge as a true individual ahead of her time in many regards - how many women do you know are capable of treading through the "old boys" network, bringing a major league baseball team from mediocrity to world champions? Instead Daugherty chose to dwell on the idiosyncrasies of her personality that kept media types salivating for more. I am guessing Marge was well aware of her actions and opinions. The difference between her and the rest of us is that she had no regard for the politically correct confines we all tiptoe around; she was a true original and one hell of a gal. In the long run, her legacy will out last the petty media criticisms that plagued her for the last 10 years of a colorful, productive life.
Trish Brands Miller, Hyde Park
Abstinence would cut sexual diseases
The Feb. 25 Enquirer on Page 2 reported that half of young Americans will get a sexually transmitted disease by age 25 ("Study: Half of young adults will get an STD") - while Page 1 reports that medical researchers, including those in Cincinnati, are having difficulty finding enough women who do not have the herpes virus to participate in a study an experimental vaccine ("Vaccine testing short of subjects"). It seems a little abstinence is needed.
J. Patrick Conroy, president, Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati
Scalia's conflict of interest is obvious
I was pleased to read the editorial "Scalia misfires in Cheney case" (Feb. 13) confirming the conflict of interest inherent in U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's decision to review the case involving undue influence by energy industry executives on the President Bush/Vice President Dick Cheney's energy policy committee. It is clear that Scalia and Cheney share a friendship, and under these conditions it would seem to be an ethical imperative that Justice Scalia recuses himself from the case. It is common sense to doubt the objectivity of any person who might personally benefit in some way from an opinion or decision they offer.
Moreover, most professionals are obligated to perform their duties within a code of ethics that clearly identifies dual relationships or conflicts of interest as threats to objectivity, requires them to avoid conflicts of interest, and requires them to challenge other professional colleagues on apparent breaches of ethical principle.
For a member of the Supreme Court and the vice president of the United States to be blind or insensitive to these issues suggests either ignorance of basic ethical principles or an arrogance that has compromised their judgment.
David Loy, Oxford
EDITORIAL PAGE HEADLINES
Stop stalling mega highway bill
Lawyer now owes truth to the living
Winners and losers: How we see it
Imagine your highest vision, and live it
Letters to the editor