Wednesday, June 18, 2003
Respect the flag, but don't put it ahead of basic rights
EDITOR:
The Congress of the United States is proving once again that they haven't a clue as to what the American people want or need.
While our nation's school systems are disintegrating and health care is virtually unaffordable, our House of Representatives feels that now is the time to amend the Constitution of the United States to make it a crime to desecrate our nation's flag.
As a former Marine and Vietnam veteran, I was a flag waver long before it was "fashionable" and wouldn't dream of letting the flag touch the ground or burn it in protest. We as a people better wake up and smell the coffee. This isn't a seat-belt law. This is your First Amendment right. If you let the government take these rights away one at a time, it won't be long before they're confiscating your guns just as they did in Nazi Germany.
So I applaud U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Niles, who had the guts to vote against the measure that passed 300 to 125. This probably will not make him popular among the "fashionable" flag wavers, but it certainly does with this Vietnam veteran.
WILLIAM HUNTINGTON
Youngstown
Injured workers' rightsraise many questions
EDITOR:
Who makes a determination that a worker was injured on a job? The employee? The employer? Medical testing and doctor's documentations? Government agencies? Who is right? Maybe all of the above?
Should the answer also be determined by how long the employee has worked at his or her job and take into consideration work record and credibility?
I would say the answer should be "yes" to all of the above. I would also state that the medical testing and medical professionals should be the utmost critical determination in that right.
What, then, if it's determined that the employer has the most rights? Right or wrong?
I would hope the answer would be wrong! But if the employer has the right to state that the injury was not a result of a work-related accident, should then the employee be entitled to sick benefits while he or she was off work? This should be a definite yes, wouldn't you agree?
It seems to me that the employer cannot have it both ways. From all sides -- from government agencies and attorneys -- the answer is the same: the employee is entitled to one or the other -- there is no in between.
Yes, the employee can fight the employer and hire an attorney, which costs money. And don't forget the employee has yet to see any of that for several months.
But yet, what if you choose to be lazy, to not work and to go ask the government for help?
Yep, you got it -- the government is there for you! They'll support you! Crazy isn't it?
A person works for many years, has an unfortunate accident, and gets kicked where it hurts -- both physically and mentally.
So is this right?
BEVERLY and DENNIS SPICER
Girard
Maybe Traficant could savethe day for the Valley
EDITOR:
The Valley is now concerned that it might lose the Vienna air base.
Little too little and a lot too late.
Sen. George Voinovich can't help us. It is unfair to send U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan galloping up to Washington like Sir Galahad to save the day, since he has already decided that he'll only vote the party line and he'll only come limping back with a broken lance.
Of course, the local Democrats will probably cheer him, the way they did Al Gore and John Glenn after they sold the Valley down the river on the Pentagon accounting deal that would have delivered 6,000 federal jobs. This alone would have changed the dynamics of the entire Valley for generations to come.
Perhaps the best bet for local Democratic leaders is to use their influence to spring former Congressman Jim Traficant for a week or so. He could go to Washington in his orange suit and speak out on our behalf. At least they know who he is, and he knew when to vote Republican.
GODFREY ANDERSON
Youngstown