Advertisement

Letters to the editor 2/21

February 21, 2003

Pa. schools need some work



To the editor:


Since the state has failed to assume its constitutional responsibility to fund schools, I think we should privatize them and the states and the parents can work out the funding.

I still fail to see the connection between property taxes funding schools and owning your home. This is Colonial period mentality. Colin Powell thinks the children are everyone's responsibility, so why are property owners singled out to pay for school buildings, athletic fields, weight rooms, teacher salaries, free lunches, etc.

Seniors got a 1.4 percent increase in Social Security, but a 37 percent increase in Medigap premiums, 11 percent increase in home heating oil and it goes on and on. The retirement communities don't want to pay the school tax as they say they are a charity - but don't try to move there unless you have a big bank account with a steady stream of promising income. Long-term-care insurance will help also. Has anyone ever figured the cost savings seniors contribute through their volunteer services? Now we are going to give up our homes because of this unfair tax.

Advertisement

It's time that legislators take some action on tax fairness; they have studied it to death.

I'm for a county system. I really don't think we need 501 separate school districts for 67 counties in Pennsylvania. There should be standard blueprints for schools - that would save big bucks.

Mary Butts

Chambersburg, Pa.




'Moderates' are bad news



To the editor:


I have been plagued for the last several years by what a "moderate" Republican is. These people disagree with almost everything Ronald Reagan or Newt Gingrich ever stood for. So I ask myself, "Why are they Republicans?"

I can be ever so thankful to our new governor, a self-proclaimed moderate, for showing me the light.

As he appoints Democrats to high state office, he refuses to cut the size and expenses of state government, (Republicans believe the best government is as little government as possible) uttered two dirty three-letter words: Gas tax, and awaits a mystic new form of revenue (slots).

It is only too obvious that a moderate is a liberal in waiting.

Allen Magaha

Hagerstown




Old doesn't mean bad



To the editor:


A 10-year-old school textbook may not be out of date or useless. It is the quality and coverage of a text that is important - not age. Our schools should teach 2000 years of learning, not simply the past decade. Lack of bias may be far more vital to young minds than dubious post-1980 achievements.

There is also a disturbing trend of revisionism in school texts conveying social goals rather than realistic knowledge. We read of modern history texts that omit Washington and Franklin. Space limits me to one example:

Currently I teach a college course on history of American journalism and mass communication. The new, required text focuses on news, not media nor entertainment (dominant mass media force). Recording is omitted. While this text concentrates on news, it finds space to cover feminism, minority races and diversity despite mass media's woeful record in all.

Yet another textbook - 10 years-old, found in an antique store - lays out structure, economics and major developments in news and entertainment for all seven accepted mass media splendidly.

Which would you choose? Do we want socialization or facts in our textbooks? May some older texts be better?

David L. Woods

Hedgesville, W.Va.




Customers not treated equally



To the editor:


I am writing to express my dismay over Hancock Antique Mall and Flea Market's erratic method of enforcing their new large handbag "policy."

Recently, one long-time consumer and supporter of the Hancock Mall was approached by a mall representative and publicly informed that her handbag was too large and needed to be taken outside and locked in the trunk of her car.

When the consumer in question pointed out several other patrons nearby, carrying the same or larger-size handbags, the mall representative responded with, "Well, I can't catch everyone."

The consumer discussed the incident with Mall management who informed her, "There's no way we can tell everyone."

I am left wondering: What term does one use to describe a company rule that applies to only one person, or to even only one group of people? Is it store policy? Or is it discrimination?

When I first learned of this incident, from the singled-out consumer and several others who witnessed it, I had to double-check my calendar to make sure this was really the year 2003. Have we learned nothing at all?

Civil rights are "the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to U.S. Citizens by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution and by Acts of Congress." Does this definition permit a consumer to break a store policy that is equally enacted upon all of that store's consumers? Probably not.

Does it protect a consumer, or even a portion of consumers, from being the "only ones" made to adhere to that policy? Perhaps.

The Herald-Mail Articles
|
|
|