Mother of All Bombs
Could not the MOAB, the Massive Ordnance Air Blast, have been named something else?
Perhaps the Awesome or Awful Ordnance Air Blast?
Then it could be referred to as the “anonymity of all bombs.”
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to the Star-Telegram
I doubt that there is any parent who would like something with a high potential for killing called the “Mother of All Bombs.”
Anne M. Sanders,
Just a few short days ago, our government expressed outrage at Syria’s use of chemical weapons that caused the death of innocent Syrian civilians, many of them children.
Now the U.S. has dropped a monster bomb on Afghanistan that analysts say obliterated a huge area and would cause massive casualties and deaths within a possible 30-mile radius (civilians very obviously included).
We don’t yet know how many children died in that horrific explosion, and I doubt we will be told.
It seems that our leaders are only offended at the death of innocent civilians when another country causes those deaths.
If we cause them, it is just “collateral damage,” and we applaud it.
Not only is this hypocritical, it is morally egregious.
Meals on Wheels
I was disappointed to read Thursday’s story that Congressman Joe Barton “promotes Meals on Wheels in the face of potential budget cuts” by proposing a bill giving a small tax break to volunteer drivers who deliver for that organization.
While I agree with this effort, I would not characterize it as supporting the endangered Meals on Wheels program in its time of need.
This crucial community service gives seniors and disabled people the ability to live independently.
If Barton and other Republicans are successful in taking away funding for Meals on Wheels so they can balance a budget that includes paying for Trump’s border wall, there will be a lot fewer meals to deliver.
That would be a big problem for a lot of people in our community — a problem that could not be fixed by a small tax cut to volunteer drivers.
Susan Ashley, Arlington
No on Prop 2
I am a retired Arlington fire chief and served the city from 1982 to 1997.
We set high standards for new applicants and implemented quality written, physical and interview-skills testing of candidates.
We had the same high standards for promotions.
These standards have resulted in the Arlington Fire Department receiving many awards. Many of our members have moved to fire chief positions in other cities in Texas.
Passage of Proposition 2 on the May 6 ballot will make it extremely difficult for Arlington to maintain high standards for hiring, disciplinary issues and promotions.
The Texas Civil Service system only allows written tests and plus seniority points for promotion.
It is next to impossible to identify driving skills by written test only, as well as to identify leadership abilities required for higher ranks.
Vote no on Prop 2.
Bill M. Strickland,
Los Alamitos, Calif.
No on Prop 1
The editorial board has endorsed Arlington Proposition 1, which “would pay for a new ‘active adult’ center” for the city’s aging residents. The older population, you observe, “doesn’t have a center they can call their own.” Moreover, the proposition to build this center “would not affect tax rates.”
Really? Who is going to pay for this adult center, or are we to believe it will be an Arlington freebee? And why should we select aging residents for this benefaction? Why not build an “active Millennial” center instead?
I can’t support Prop 1.
R. Cargill Hall, Arlington
Yes on Prop 1
Please join me in voting for Proposition 1. I have been retired for 15 years and the senior centers in Arlington have assisted me in staying active and healthy. I have seen first hand all the good they do.
Al Vincent, Arlington