Sons of truck drivers don't have to be profane

Sons of truck drivers don't have to be profane
EDITOR:
I have never been a fan of talk shows, but I find I must agree with Dan Ryan on the appearance of James Traficant on a radio show that he controls and on which only pro-corruption callers will be taken. Allowing him to spew his profanity and unfounded accusations is a disgrace to our community.
Jim Traficant always alludes to his truck-driver father. My stepfather was a truck driver, and I am a retired truck driver. Most drivers I have known can address the public without senseless profanity.
As far as any chance of resignation goes, it won't happen. Most of our crooked officeholders have held on as long as possible before resigning and taking a deal. Everyday they can stay on the public payroll increases their pension and retirement benefit plans. Traficant also has to overcome a great ego problem.
The only solution to corrupt politics is give those officeholders one term at a very good salary, pay into their security account and then send them back to the common working world. During their term, they can then focus on the people's business instead of raising money to stay in the trough.
You will never get a career politician to support this, but voters can refuse to support an incumbent or a term limited pol from playing musical chairs with public offices. One term as a public servant and back to work.
Also none of these thieves should have a pension for their crooked service. If they are proved corrupt, take away everything. If your rep doesn't support this, vote him out.
ROBERT HUSTED
New Springfield
Child criminals shouldn't be subjected to television
EDITOR:
In the recent trial of Nathaniel Brazill, we all watched him testify as to what happened on that fatal day in his school. My question is, why did we watch him? Why are there cameras in the courtroom filming a 14-year-old boy while he is telling why he killed his teacher?
Trials should not involve news cameras. We hear enough about them without watching them. Nathaniel's testimony should have been left in the courtroom and not brought out into the public. We shouldn't want to watch a young boy being convicted of murder. If I wanted to watch the trial take place, I would go to the courthouse. I'm not saying that he shouldn't have been tried, just that we didn't need to see it. People are always criticizing how much violence is on TV, but no one seems to question watching someone become a convicted murderer.
People always talk about how grueling and stressful the trial process is, so why are the cameras allowed to film it so it can be aired on the evening news? Children and teen-agers who have to learn how our judicial system works in an unfortunate way, shouldn't have to deal with cameras in their faces, especially not in the courtroom. Not only children and teen-agers, but adults as well. Why would we want to give such a terrible event so much publicity?
The courtroom should be one of the few places where news cameras aren't permitted. The judicial system can work just fine without cameras present to catch everything. The courts should be let alone to conduct a fair trial. That's what they are there for.
AMANDA PURNELL
North Jackson