I'm writing in response to the Porkopolis item titled "Who Would Jesus Send Care Packages To?" (issue of Nov. 16-22). In it, Gregory Flannery questions why Xavier University's Students for Life Club would send care packages to U.S. troops in Iraq.

As president of Students for Life, I can respond to this question using his own words: "Even occupation armies are made up of individual human beings who deserve compassion." Whether people agree or disagree with the war in Iraq, they must recognize that thousands of American soldiers are in need of love and support while they are stationed overseas.

A group of Xavier students are showing their love and support, not necessarily their endorsement of the war, by sending these care packages.

-- Anne Feczko, Xavier University

I was shocked and dismayed to discover that CityBeat supported Ohio Issue 5 when this newspaper portrays itself as a progressive, liberal publication (Election endorsements, issue of Oct. 26-Nov. 1). Your advocacy of Issues 2-5 was based largely on the supposition that the political status quo was undesirable, so any "solution" that was proposed should be instated. This is clearly fallacious.

Ill-conceived and poorly constructed solutions can present new problems that might be greater in number and scope than the initial problems. Issue 5 was just such an ill-conceived "solution." It was incredibly atavistic, paternalistic, anti-liberal and counter-democratic. It would have removed power from an elected officeholder (secretary of state) and put it in the hands of several appointed officials.

The general trajectory of U.S. history has been one of greater democracy (within our borders). With time, the franchise has been extended to more and more people, and offices that were once appointed (most notably, seats in the U.S. Senate) have been opened to democratic elections. Issue 5 would have been a step backwards in history and in democracy. It would have transferred power away from the masses, from the voters (who elect the secretary of state), and put it in the hands of a few individuals (namely, the governor, the General Assembly and the State Supreme Court).

I should add, given the governor's recent conduct, do we really want him to have more power? Moreover, the underlying assumption of Issue 5 seemed incredibly naive: A single elected politician is prone to scandal, but several appointed officials will not be similarly corruptible. As if these officials would not have voted their personal views, as if they would not have been swayed by the dollars of the wealthy.

CityBeat assumed that Issues 2-5 failed because voters were confused. But Issue 5 was rejected by a huge majority of voters (70 percent) -- a greater proportion than rejected Issues 2-4. I would like to believe that the Ohio electorate saw through the dangers of this issue and chose not to give away their democratic right to elect the person(s) who oversees statewide election results.

-- Jesse Leigh Jenike Godshalk, Mariemont