The Fourth of July is here, and I wonder if the Cincinnati Police Department is ready to arrest the myriad of Cincinnati citizens who will be illegally discharging explosive devices.

It is unlawful, you know, for any person to discharge, ignite or explode any fireworks within the city limits. Permits can be gotten, but the name of the fireworks exhibitor who is to supervise the discharge of fireworks has to appear on the permit.

Also, about 11 other criteria must be met to obtain a permit. I doubt our neighbors are going through all that trouble to get their permit.

Harold Schuler, College Hill

---

Team playing with fire with $1 beer

Regarding the article in the Kentucky edition of the Enquirer "Fireworks fizzle, but ballpark beer $1" (July 1): Wow! Imagine that - selling beer for $1 after the sixth inning. What a really great way to get people drunk before they get into their vehicles to drive home. So my question is: Will general manager Connie Hildebrant and the Florence Freedom be held responsible for any deaths caused on the roads by drunk drivers who have just come from a Freedom game?

Be patient, Ms. Hildebrant. When the families of accident victims start filing lawsuits against you and the boys, there will be plenty of fireworks for you and your beloved team.

Gail Chastang, Burlington

---

Take 'Fahrenheit 9/11' seriously

We were shocked, sobered and provoked to thought by Fahrenheit 9/11. Typical fare from the movie establishment is fiction films, usually played for laughs or escape. In Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore uses his documentary skills to shape a film out of today's tragedies, anguish and political decisions. Issues of patriotism, greed, sacrifice, race, leadership, war, ethics, privilege and poverty are all on the table.

Liberals should not make Fahrenheit 9/11 an "I told you so" jingo. Conservatives should not turn a blind eye to it. Whatever your politics, see this film. Then talk about the issues it raises.

Tom and Kathy Romano, Oxford

---

Administration owes answer to film

The letter "Moore's movie hardly 'documentary,'" (June 30) states, "Only a moron would believe something from Michael Moore had any relationship to a documentary." Nowhere does the writer state that he saw the movie. If the facts presented in the movie are so outrageous, why hasn't someone in the administration challenged the facts presented? If slander or libel has indeed occurred, Moore should be stopped in a court of law. Perhaps the individuals in the administration have no defense.

Kate Williamson, Sycamore Township

---

'Fools' attitude may chase some away

The letter "Foolish Democrats deserve expletives" (July 1) was no more than a pointless rant stating that Democrats deserve to be cursed at because they are "shameless ... fools." I find this very offensive, especially since the letter did not talk about any particular issue and merely attacks any Democrat simply because the writer does not like them. This sort of unnecessary name-calling seems to actually hinder the political process and only adds to the hatred in the world.

If what the writer wrote is a prevailing attitude in Cincinnati, it is no wonder why so many of us younger people are happy to move away.

Colin Brush, North Avondale

---

Issues, not expletives, matter most

The writer of "Foolish Democrats deserve expletives" (July 1) is entitled to his opinion, but wouldn't it be more productive to address the reason for the foul expletive directed by Vice President Dick Cheney to Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.?

Cheney was reacting to questions involving his relationship with Halliburton Corp., which has received several huge contracts for work in Iraq without any competitive bidding. Why is it considered so vile to ask Cheney about his relationships with Halliburton? If valid answers to such questions are available, why aren't they provided, rather than to react with profanity? Apparently, if you are not a "foolish Democrat," then no answers are required - faith alone is sufficient to justify any questionable situation.

Milt Galper, Springdale