Bad trade policy has big consequences for U.S.

Bad trade policy has big consequences for U.S.
EDITOR:
I read with interest the recent articles about President Bush refusing to put quotas on the Chinese export of tubular products to our country, which will eventually put our domestic tubular plants out of business and put thousands of our workers out of jobs. I feel for them and their families. It upsets me when anyone loses a job.
The question, of course, is why this decision was made by our president. The problem that our government and we as individuals and our offspring are facing is our massive debt. It is simply a matter of overspending, by our government, over a number of years. Our government finances the debt by issuing bonds. Who buys these bonds, or our debt? The bulk is bought by China and Japan and most of the rest by Canada, England, Germany and Saudi Arabia. They own our country, especially China. Because of this, we have no bargaining power to control their exports to our country.
All China has to do is demand payment on the bonds that they own. Guess what, our country would not be able to pay them. Our country would be in default and bankruptcy. Financial chaos would follow, putting our country into a depression that would make the 1930s look like a picnic in the park.
China has over a billion people and they are running out of room. There is plenty of room over here. Shortly after our collapse and to protect their interest, they would come over here and pick up the pieces and eventually control our country. If you think this is a pipe dream, you are wrong, it is already on their drawing boards. We are difficult to beat militarily, but we can be beat financially.
By the way, did it ever occur to you why our government never went after Saudi Arabia when the twin towers went done, especially when the majority of the terrorists were from that country? It is because they own part of our debt and we like their oil.
RUSSELL KNOEFEL
Youngstown
The line between religion and public education is clear
EDITOR:
I am writing in regard to the controversy involving the removal of school prayer in the Weathersfield School District. First let me say that I am a life-long Christian and have been involved in a number of volunteer activities at my home church, including leading a Contemporary Christian Issues Class. For six years I coordinated a student-led interfaith baccalaureate service for the Boardman community and I am currently employed as a church secretary. These responsibilities have given me a first hand knowledge of the issue presented.
When I first volunteered to serve as a coordinator for the baccalaureate service in honor of graduating seniors hosted by area congregations and implemented without any school participation, I obtained a copy of the government guidelines involving the separation of church and state involving schools. I found them, in my opinion, to be based on common sense and easily enforceable. It never ceases to amaze me how some school administrators, seemingly well educated, have often been unable to follow simple directions. The guidelines clearly state that a personal expression of religion, i.e. the wearing of a cross or a group of students voluntarily gathering for morning prayer are acceptable. However, a school sponsored presentation of religion such as a Christian prayer said as part of daily announcements is not.
The Vindicator article of Feb. 1 quotes Weathersfield Superintendent Michael Henshaw saying that district officials plan to look into who complained about the prayer. For what purpose? To persecute the individual? That's exactly why the guidelines were put in place to begin with, so that those in the minority would not have the burden and unenviable position of taking on the insensitive majority. Consider this: Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Through some quirk of fate should the Weathersfield Local School District be inhabited by a majority of Muslim residents, would it be fine for the school day to begin with a prayer to Allah? I thought not.
A public school serving students from a wide array of religions has no business favoring one religion over another. Students can pray as often or as much as they like, in private, in their homes, in their places of worship.
In a Feb. 5 letter to the editor, a Mineral Ridge woman lamented the removal of school prayer and mockingly suggested that we remove the words & quot;In God We Trust & quot; from U.S. currency. Actually, that's not a bad idea. Considering corporate greed and the crimes and atrocities humankind has visited upon its fellow man in pursuit of the stuff, having the words & quot;In God We Trust & quot; emblazoned across it seems the height of blasphemy.
SUSAN SHERIDAN
Youngstown
Sweet must act on report
EDITOR:
As an employee at Youngstown State University of over 30 years, I have a number of reactions to Bertram de Souza's Feb. 5 column.
Thanks for pointing out that there is a fire storm occurring over the need to make changes in key administrative positions at YSU and to make a number of other changes. In my opinion, the local media has not covered this story well since the labor-management panel publicly issued its report to the president and the board of trustees.
I observe broad support for the recommendations among faculty and staff (and many administrators) and I believe that it is erroneous to depict this "upheaval" as between Dr. Shipka and President Sweet. It should more properly be depicted as an overwhelming demand from all sectors of the university community for President Sweet to take action on the panel recommendations and not to continue to obfuscate. Dr. Shipka has become one of the prime spokesman for the university community in this regard.
Dr. Shipka is not a puppeteer of the members of the labor-management panel. He is but one of seven members, all of whom are strong individuals capable of making their own decisions on the issues before them. The decisions were made after much testimony and fact finding and agreed to by all members on the panel individually and collectively.
When the senate, comprised of faculty, administrators, and students passed a resolution by a unanimous vote of the members present to urge President Sweet to implement all the panel's recommendations with speed, each member voted their conscience on the resolution. Dr. Shipka, as chair of the senate, properly refrained from speaking on the issue.
I hope President Sweet will heed the recommendations of the panel in total. I believe many competent faculty, staff, and administrators will bail out at YSU because of the current climate on campus.
DAN O'NEILL, Ph.D.
Canfield
Blue-collar tactics pursued in YSU's ivy-covered halls
EDITOR:
Picking up on some words of the late folk philosopher Will Rogers, all I know about the current strife at Youngstown State University is just what I read in the paper. I understand very little about the substance of the issues and won't comment on them here.
What I do perceive, from reading The Vindicator, is that there's some sandbox politics going on. This past week, for example, the Academic Senate chairman said loud and clear that he will boycott any campus function where the YSU president may be present. In the letters column that day a colleague of the senate chairman reported a backlog of 34 unresolved union grievances against the institution.
That kind of militancy has been around for a long time in blue-collar industries. As the poet Vachel Lindsay once put it: "Factory windows are always broken. / Somebody's always heaving bricks, / somebody's always heaving cinders, / Playing ugly Yahoo tricks."
One would expect a higher standard of principled negotiation in an institution of higher learning. Negotiators should be able to "disagree without being disagreeable." They should avoid making demands that they know the other side cannot accept, given the "real world" situation. They should avoid gratuitous insults like "arrogant and intransigent." They should avoid maneuvers that will poison the well for the long-term future.
As a citizen and taxpayer, I value YSU and its many contributions to our community, and deplore strife that threatens to weaken it. In my view, it's time to heed the words of the prophet Isaiah: "Come, let us reason together."
ROBERT D. GILLETTE
Poland
Dragging down the strong
EDITOR:
I cringe whenever I hear talk of regionalization as it reminds me of the crab bucket syndrome -- the way kids who have surrendered to the culture of gangs and drugs react to a kid who is trying to escape it: They do their best to pull him back into the bucket. And it really scares me when the biggest push to strip communities of any remaining distinctiveness comes from the media. Apparently, they feel government should be run like a commercially driven, corporate media oligarchy.
It has always amazed me how we love to complain about paying for things we really need and are truly a bargain, like safety forces, while we fork out outrageous amounts of money on the lottery or go into debt for the latest upgrade.
It is not just to ask communities that have historically supported their safety forces to share in the cost of operating those that do not. Regionalization is not always a bad idea, it can create inefficiencies and efficiencies alike.
KIM R. KOTHEIMER
Boardman