Support for ban
It is short-sighted and unfair (to ban Russian tennis players from Wimbledon). The players don’t deserve to be banned. This is the opinion view of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in the Commentary section of Tribune-Herald on May 3.
The opinion is in reference to Wimbledon officials banning top tennis players from Russia and Belarus in this summer’s Wimbledon tournament. Indeed, even Rafael Nadal, one of the legends in tennis, is against the ban, saying it’s “not their fault” regarding the war in Ukraine.
Yours truly concurs entirely with the ban on Russian and Belarusian tennis players (none of which have condemned the invasion of Ukraine by Russia) from Wimbledon. However, I lacked the voice of impact to convey my thoughts, but that voice has been located in one Sergiy Stakhovsky.
Sergiy Stakhovsky was a former Ukrainian tennis star who competed against Nadal. Stakhovsky now serves in the Ukrainian army after enlisting in February. His response (via Twitter) to Nadal’s “not their fault” quote was compelling:
“Please tell me how it is fair that Ukrainian players cannot return home? How is it fair that Ukrainian kids cannot play tennis? How is it fair that Ukrainians are dying?”
Wimbledon is not the sole entity banning Russian and Belarusian performers from practicing their craft. Enlightened countries with a conscience have revoked contracts with unabashed Putin supporters such as opera diva Anna Netrebko and conductor Valery Gergiev.
Listen to Braddah Kerry: If Ukrainian kids can’t play a simple game of tennis that could result in their arms and legs blown off due to Russia’s “special military operation,” then I’m in complete agreement with sanctions and prohibitions, especially against Russians and Belarusians who fail to condemn Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
What is your stance?
Kerry Meyer
Hilo
Bad canine bills
New laws that nobody reads or knows and which do not solve the problems are not a day’s work well-done — they merely add to the decades of wasteful ignorance our lawmakers display when it comes to all things related to dogs.
This new law (“Legislation would give landlords the OK to question tenants about assistance animals,” Tribune-Herald, April 26)confuses the issue by resurrecting outdated labels for dogs who help people and leaves landlords empowered to check to see if the dog’s training is matched to the person’s disability, while not being allowed to ask about the type of disability?
How drunk are these folks?
If that makes sense to you for more than two days straight, see a doctor, because you’ve had a stroke.
We need ID tags for service dogs and a system for getting them that involve documenting both the disability and the dog’s training, period.
Our last dumb law change just weeks ago was to create an arbitrary schedule of fines for harm done by a dog while completely ignoring psychological harms and the fact that actual harms have unpredictable financial consequences. The dog owner should bear responsibility for them all, pure and simple.
And we ask the police to be our dog-catchers and animal-control professionals, but give them no training for this? Why not — they have lots of free time on their hands, right? Sad.
Carl Oguss
Hilo
