Wednesday, February 8, 2012
View story as PDF
MAIL BAG LETTERS FROM READERS
Letters to the editor must include the writer’s name, address and daytime phone number for verification. Letters should be no more than 250 words. We reserve the right to edit and limit writers to one published letter every 30 days.
• E-mail: mailbag@timesleader.com
• Fax: 570-829-5537
• Mail: Mail Bag, The Times Leader, 15 N. Main St., Wilkes-Barre, PA 1871 1
The Times Leader’s recent article (“Hazleton mayor’s water proposal is popular way to make money in Pa.,” Jan. 8) provides a refreshingly balanced and thoughtful look at the many elements that must be considered in a community’s charge to provide affordable, clean water for its residents and businesses.
Nearly 73 million Americans – almost one in four – receive water service from a privately owned water utility or a municipal utility operating under a public-private partnership. These agreements help municipalities meet and exceed stringent health and safety regulations, while also affording a host of other benefits ranging from improved infrastructure and water quality to job creation and economic stability and growth.
In Hazleton’s case, this review of available options for water service also comes with an eye toward developing a greener energy economy for the region by building a solar energy station with the funds received from a private water service partnership.
The efforts of Mayor Lou Barletta and the city council to identify the best solution for meeting all of the region’s needs will help to ensure that Hazleton continues to flourish and thrive.
When will the good-old-boys club of the Luzerne County Courthouse, and the other males-only club of the Pennsylvania judiciary, realize that their so-called “misconduct” decision against former judge Ann Lokuta just doesn’t make any sense?
It appears to me, from what I’ve read in the newspapers, that former judge Lokuta ran a tight ship and that some members of her staff, and apparently a few inept attorneys in her courtroom, weren’t able to meet the high standards it took to keep that ship running smoothly; therefore, with a little push from the “boys,” they were able to railroad her right out of her job.
I can’t help but wonder what would happen if former judge Lokuta were able to present her case to a court of her peers in any other state but Pennsylvania.
I have a feeling that after a review of her records by her real peers, they, too, would wonder what kind of county and state judicial systems we have that would allow such a travesty of justice to occur to someone who was just doing her job to the best of her ability.
I look forward to once again, and hopefully soon, attending court in the presence of the Honorable Judge Ann Lokuta, as she carries out the duties of the job she so richly deserves.
In light of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempt to bomb an American airliner on Christmas Day, there has been much discussion about the use of new airport security scanners.
This equipment sees through a person’s clothing to reveal any weapons or explosives and produces a three-dimensional image. I have heard numerous news reports calling these body scanners invasive and even unnecessary. I realize that many people are concerned with their privacy, but when it comes to my safety and the safety of others, I see no problem with their use.
It also has become clear to me that the current security measures being taken in airports are not effective. If someone was able to conceal explosives even after going through traditional airport security, there are obvious steps missing to ensure our complete safety.
Although these body scanners are being used at only about six airports in the United States, I believe that they are a great alternative to body searches.
It is important to realize that the security measures used 10 years ago are not going to work in today’s world. I think we need to ask ourselves, “Would I rather give up a moment of my privacy to guarantee my safety?” or “Would I rather enter an airplane with someone who could possibly end my life?”
I would choose the former.
I am writing about the recent legalization of medical marijuana in New Jersey. I am happy to hear that marijuana is now available for terminally ill patients in 14 states. What I would like to know is why medical marijuana hasn’t been legalized in Pennsylvania?
Think about it. Not only would legalizing it bring medical benefits, it also would bring economic and anti-crime benefits.
Marijuana, if used carefully, has been proven to relieve certain types of pain and ease nausea for patients who have a terminal illness. According to research from The Scripps Research Institute, tetrahydrocannabinol, or “THC,” the main ingredient in marijuana, also has been proven to block amyloid plaque, a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease.
Medical marijuana could even boost this state’s economy. Like tobacco and alcohol, a tax can be collected from the pharmaceutical purchase of marijuana. Jobs can be created in the manufacturing of cannabis. Crime rates might drop tremendously because of the fall of the black market for marijuana.
Of course, legalizing medical marijuana might have its downfalls. For one thing, patients might abuse their privileges of obtaining marijuana and sell it for profit; but, if appropriate laws are made for the selling and distribution of medical marijuana, there shouldn’t be that many problems.
In his letter to the editor (Jan. 20), Edziu Antek Silvent would like us to give credit to our youths who attend the Right To Life (anti-woman’s choice) March in Washington, D.C.
For young women today, please keep in mind that if you sign a petition or march on Washington with the intention of overturning Roe v. Wade, doing so might not be as noble as you think. You just might undermine many of the decent and proud women who came before you, women of all ages, ethnicities and religious backgrounds.
Grandmothers, great-grandmothers, aunts, sisters and friends were denied birth control or punished for using it, forced to give birth, died during childbirth or suffered through dangerous and infamous back-alley abortions.
I don’t know of any self-respecting man or woman who would force another woman to give birth against her will, or punish and incarcerate her for ending a pregnancy – no matter what her personal stance might be on the subject. But I do know that Mr. Silvent and others like him are striving for just that. They are attempting to undo the safe and legal strides these intelligent and precious women have made over the years.
Many women had to literally suffer and fight for their lives, sometimes in secret, to guarantee our constitutional right to freedom of safe reproductive choices, and everyone, especially young people, should think long and hard about the consequences of attempting to take away that for which those women bravely fought.
Michael Deane Executive director, National Association of Water Companies Washington, D.C. Carol Novak Nanticoke Olivia Basar Rice Township Rasha Shaker Fairview Township Sue Haas Dallas
| Tweet | Follow @TLnews |
|
|
Times Leader Commenting Guidelines