Letters: Readers discuss D-Day sacrifice, divided Kansas City and flavored tobacco

·4 min read

They gave all

Thanks to The Kansas City Star for the excellent and moving reminder of D-Day in France in World War II. (June 6, 14A, “Normandy quietly marks D-Day anniversary amid pandemic”)

It is also good to remember that in addition to our Western allies of Great Britain, France and Poland, Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov and the men and women of the Red Army, Navy and Air Forces launched simultaneous, massive attacks against the Nazis’ Eastern Front to prevent them from reinforcing Normandy. The total sacrifice in Russia and the other 14 countries in the Soviet Union in whipping the Nazis was 28 million dead men, women and children. U.S. casualties on D-Day and in the entire conflict, terrible as they were, would have been many times worse if not for them.

It is also good to remember that there were many other U.S. D-Days in WWII, including Tarawa, Kwajalein and Eniwetok. We owe so much.

- Bill Shefchik, Kansas City

City so divided?

A few weeks ago, The Star published an editorial that discussed the purported divide in Kansas City for the areas north and south of the Missouri River. (May 27, 8A, “North-south KC divide a lot like the old divide in the US”) The tone did not at all reflect a desire to unify the city, nor have other comments I’ve heard from elected officials.

Then, in Friday’s Star, we got an enlightened observation by a letter writer that “the South in this instance that drives the engine, while the North tags along, specializing in extras, fancies and et ceteras — soccer, softball, segregation.”

Most of the area north of the river now has electricity, and a good many folks now have indoor plumbing. There are some pretty good schools, and most of the roads will be paved before long. Certainly, the door is open for people fortunate enough to live outside Clay or Platte counties to come and visit us anytime. We can even feed you.

Maybe another possibility is to consider dividing the city into two municipalities, much like Little Rock and North Little Rock, Arkansas. That’s not likely to happen but perhaps ought to be investigated.

- Jim Carney, Kansas City

Adults’ choices

Last year, Kansas City’s City Council made the wise decision not to follow through with a citywide ban on flavored tobacco products. While that may sound like an admirable cause, it would have devastating consequences on the business community and its workforce. Yet again, the council has decided it is a good idea to consider a tobacco flavor ban ordinance despite its negative side effects.

As a business owner, I have a responsibility to look out for my employees. I fear that if the City Council decides to adopt a citywide flavored tobacco ban, I will have no choice but to let some employees go in order to keep the doors open. If the intent of the ordinance is to keep flavored tobacco products out of the hands of minors, we’re already doing that. My stores take pride in making sure we’re in compliance.

Why take away an adult’s ability to choose freely? It feels like an incredible amount of government overreach. Members of the City Council, I urge you to think critically about the unintended consequences of this ordinance on business owners and their employees. Please don’t support this short-sighted flavor ban language.

- Babir Sultan, Kansas City

In the bin

I noticed last Friday morning that the contents of my recycling bin were thrown in the same truck as the trash. I hope and trust that this will not be a continuing practice.

- Ellie Dawson, Kansas City

Self-protection

I don’t understand The Star Editorial Board’s logic in saying Missouri Gov. Mike Parson’s signature on the Second Amendment Preservation Act violates the U.S. Constitution and endangers people. (June 14, 7A, “Anti-constitutional gun bill endangers all Missourians”)

Maybe you’re not using logic or “following the science.” Our forefathers wanted the citizens of this country to be free of tyranny, and I think we can agree that the 262 million people killed by their governments in the 20th century — a number from the late peace scholar R.J. Rummel — would support that if they could.

The Second Amendment, says in part, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Following your line of thought, would it be OK if the states enforced federal immigration law? The feds don’t seem to think so. Why is that?

You want to save lives? By some estimates, medical errors may be responsible for 250,000 deaths a year. Write about that.

- James Jessel, Kansas City

Our goal is to create a safe and engaging place for users to connect over interests and passions. In order to improve our community experience, we are temporarily suspending article commenting