Republicans fail to honor oaths

The impeachment hearing saddened me when the Republican U.S. representatives present, one after another, responded in a way that clearly defended the president’s actions in regard to his telephone call to the president of Ukraine, demanding President Volodymyr Zelenskiy involve himself in a U.S presidential campaign.

Apparently, they have forgotten the oath, which each had sworn upon taking office. It reads, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations of purpose or evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about enter. So help me God.”

Their recent actions have expressed their foremost allegiance not to the Constitution and our country but to the Republican Party and the president and to their desire to be reelected. These elected officials have brought dishonor to themselves and the offices they hold.

Michael Banks

Joplin

--------------------------------------------

Drop liberal headline; thanks for comic poll

I want to congratulate you for the poll you are taking concerning the comics.

I would also like to say how sorry I am Jeff Swart’s column will no longer be run.

But the front page headline (Nov. 21) read “Key witness: Trump directed Ukraine quid pro quo.” This is a lie. This was in reference to Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s statement, which he later corrected and said there was “no quid pro quo.”

You were quoting The Associated Press that was on the news stand before Sondland had finished his questioning. Your paper has one article after another from The Associated Press and you wonder why it is referred to as “fake news.”

There are some Republican conservatives in the Joplin area who understand the “deep state” and how much money the politicians are making quid pro quo. How do you think Hillary Clinton built up her Clinton Foundation when she was Secretary of State? Promises — promises because she was going to be president and would return the favor. How can you blame the president for checking out other countries before we send them our hard-earned money?

Anyway, thanks for the comics and the articles about the Chiefs.

Barbara Haskew

Joplin

---------------------------------------------

Democracy the enemy for President Trump

Odd thoughts go through my head:

Woodrow Wilson’s enemy was the Kaiser.

Herbert Hoover’s enemy was economics.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s enemies were the Axis powers.

Harry S. Truman’s enemy was communism.

Dwight Eisenhower’s enemy was the USSR.

Lyndon Johnson’s enemy was arrogance.

Richard Nixon’s enemy was himself.

Jimmy Carter’s enemy was micromanagement.

Ronald Reagan’s enemy was the USSR.

George H.W. Bush’s enemy was candor.

Bill Clinton’s enemy was testosterone.

George W. Bush’s enemy was impetuosity.

Barack Obama’s enemy was the GOP.

Donald Trump’s enemy is democracy.

Jim Wheeler

Joplin

--------------------------------------------

Colleges should offer more general education classes

I read in the Globe (Nov. 24) that Kansas universities were cutting general education requirements to meet a Kansas Board of Regents mandate to reduce credit hours.

As a college student 40-plus years ago, I would have applauded such action, but as a recent retiree with 40 years of experience, I see the fallacy of such a move. My career was technical, and I worked with many engineers. Most were good at the technical aspects of their jobs. When one has focused his training on the technical aspects of machines and processes that follow defined rules, decisions are made by these solid rules.

Yet, those who are successful engineers are often selected to fill management positions. This is where, too often, the struggle begins. Once the title of manager is bestowed, a new variable is thrown into the formula. That variable is the human subordinate, often a chaotic element with objectives of his own. There aren’t any finite rules to leading, encouraging and directing these new variables. The solutions are as numerous as the personalities involved.

There are exceptions — engineers who also seem to be natural leaders — but they are far and few between.

Curtailing the general education requirements seems like a move in the wrong direction. Because most general education courses tend to center around human behavior and communicating with each other, maybe there should be a longer path for those who are looking to be leaders.

James Graham

Pittsburg, Kan.

-------------------------------------------------

President cheats, plays dirty to win

As children we learned the importance of playing by the rules. If someone didn’t play by the rules, we called it “playing dirty” or “cheating.” We also learned to abide by the saying, “It’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game.”

Since when in American life has it been OK to play dirty, to cheat and not play by the rules?

For the president of the United States and his cult followers, the saying now has become, “It’s not how you play the game, it’s whether you win or lose.” It is OK with them to cheat. Winning at all cost is their credo, and if one has to play dirty, then so be it.

Is this really the message that we want to send to our children?

Robert Ensor

Joplin

Recommended for you