Get Connected
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • Sign In
  • Classifieds
  • Sections
Print

July 19, 2013: 'Nanny state'; Marshall priorities; privacy rights; Trayvon Martin

Product labeling and the 'nanny state'

Editor:

On a recent grocery shopping trip, I bought some usual household products. On two of the containers, I noted a warning something like, "It is a violation of federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling."

Gosh. So if I use insecticide to spray spiders, I'm breaking a federal law? Talk about the "nanny state."

But to the point, this makes me wonder, is it legal to eat oyster crackers with clam chowder?

Justin Bertrand Galen Skywatcher

Wellsburg

 

Marshall has its priorities wrong

Editor:

A no-confidence vote is a sign of serious problems at any university. One reason the Marshall faculty voted no confidence in their president is that while faculty earn far less than the average for faculty at universities like Marshall, administrators earn more than the average for administrators at universities like Marshall. Faculty hasn't had a raise in a decade, yet student costs at Marshall have gone up by 89 percent (compared to a national average of 33 percent) and enrollment has fallen.

With jobs so scarce in the last few years, many young people who can't find a job with a decent salary would get more schooling if they could afford it -- or had any confidence they could pay back a student loan. West Virginia youth doing without a college education have issued their own no-confidence vote. I know many forces influence budgets. However, if Marshall can't afford to pay faculty a competitive salary and ensure our youth an affordable college education, but can afford luxuries for a few super-sized salaries and supplements for top administrators; a rec center that many West Virginians could never afford access to; and a stadium many West Virginians can't afford tickets to, there's a serious problem with its priorities.

Edwina Pendarvis

Huntington

 

U.S. Surpreme Court violates privacy rights

Editor:

At a time when more and more American citizens are being incarcerated, recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court have struck yet another blow to a citizen's right to privacy. The court has ruled that the police can forcibly obtain a DNA sample from anyone in police custody, regardless of the seriousness of the offence. How the justices justified this decision must be held in question as this is an obvious and blatant violation of one's constitutional right to privacy.

In another recent decision, the court has ruled that one's silence can and will be used against them as a tool of prosecution. The ruling found that, although not under arrest, if one chooses not to answer questions by police or prosecutors, one must invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In other words, if police ask something you don't want to answer, your silence will be deemed as an admission of guilt unless you invoke the Fifth Amendment.

It seems that rather than protect our most precious right, the right to privacy, the high court is all too willing to allow sweeping violations of this right. Such rulings as these can only be seen as wrongly decided. Such rulings do nothing to protect the country or citizenry as a whole, but rather violate personal privacy. The public is not served by these rulings.

Walt Lindsay

Madison

 

Trayvon Martin's killing racially motivated

Editor:

I have read all the media on the George Zimmerman trial. I have another theory. Zimmerman may have gotten the bloody, swollen nose and the lacerations on the back of his head because he attacked Trayvon Martin, and Martin was fighting for his life.

He called the police, and they told him not to approach the teen. So why did he if it wasn't a racial thing with him?

Besides, I thought a Neighborhood Watch was to watch for suspicious activity. This kid was just walking to where his dad was.

I see no reason for Zimmerman to confront this kid. I think they need to do a lot more investigating on this case. It just doesn't add up to me. Zimmerman had no business killing that kid because he shouldn't have confronted him to begin with.

I am inclined to agree with the Martins that it was a racial thing. If it was, I hope he gets what is coming to him.

Kay Reed

St. Albans


Print

User Comments