March 31, 2009 06:49 pm
—
Tenure editorial lacking in facts
It’s amazing that newspapers no longer fact check before publishing news items or editorials. In your recent editorial praising the move to eliminate tenure in KCTCS, you overlooked the fact that most of the instructors at the community college teach in areas of general education required for all technical programs and to prepare students for transfer to the universities. These are faculty who aren’t eliminated by changes in programmatic needs.
Likewise, do you see a time when programs such as nursing, electricity, surgical technology, electronics, auto mechanics, diesel mechanics, etc. will need to be eliminated?
Do you see someone who would fill these instructional positions choosing to work at KCTCS when there are other colleges where tenure and retirement and health insurance are available?
The biggest error you made was repeating the information from Dr. McCall and the board that only Ohio of the seven surrounding states offers tenure. I looked at the personnel policies or contacted the systems and found that all except Indiana offer tenure. (Indiana may offer tenure, however, I have not had a response from their system yet.)
All tenure promises is that after 7 years of service, you can only be removed from your position for just cause. Just cause can be the elimination of the program you teach in. It can be for poor performance evaluations. It just can’t be “at will” of a supervisor. Tenure also allows senior faculty to question decisions made by the administration without fear of “at will” dismissal.
So, why don’t you interview some faculty; contact the seven surrounding states about tenure; gather some facts and see if you need to write another editorial based on the facts.
Joe D. Sutton, counselor, Southeast Kentucky Community & Technical College
Tax on tobacco hurts poor most
On April 1 in Kentucky, prices on tobacco will go up because of taxes.
I don’t use tobacco. I’ve had two brothers die from lung cancer because of smoking and a third has damaged lungs from many years of cigarette use. I know first hand that smoking will kill you.
Having said that, I’m upset at the taxes being raised. On one hand, we’re told it’s to stop people from smoking. On the other, we’re told we need the money for children's health care. Which is it? If we need the money for health care, then the government should encourage people to smoke. If it is to stop people from smoking, tobacco should be outlawed by the FDA.
I believe the truth is neither of the above. Tobacco is something that’s safe to tax. Governments need the money, not for children's health care, but to fill potholes, to pay for governmental raises, to lease new cars for the politicians, etc, etc.
The government, federal, state, and local, want your money. Your health, your children's health are all secondary.
When I’m in a difficult financial spot, I stop spending money. That seems to be a novel and unacceptable idea to elected officials.
This talk about children's health and stopping people from using tobacco is a bit hypocritical..
We also have all this lip service on how to help the poor. The majority of smokers are in the lower income levels. The various governments are trying to collect extra money at the expense of the poor. Why not outlaw the use of tobacco entirely?
But that would not get your local or state or federal politician that raise for which they have worked so hard. There might even be some left over to help children with health care — if we’re lucky.
Gaylord Cooper, South Shore
Limbaugh’s glory days are ending
Since Rush Limbaugh is now showing he is the face of the Republican Party, why doesn't the GOP make sure he is their presidential candidate in 2012? He articulates what the party stands for better than any other Republican. It is pretty sad when Republicans in Congress kowtow to him and feel they must apologize when they say anything negative about their party mouthpiece.
Mr. Limbaugh thinks he has all the solutions to America’s problems. If he wants to save American capitalism, he should run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. After all, Ronald Reagan, an actor, and Barack Obama, a community organizer, ascended to the presidency. Maybe, Mr. Limbaugh, a talk radio host, could become president.
In the past, he has said he wouldn't want to be president. He likes what he does and feels like he is more effective in promoting his conservative ideology as a talk radio host than he could as an elected officeholder. He also makes a lot more money talking on the airwaves than any elected official.
I believe he knows he is unqualified to be president and unelectable. Rush Limbaugh’s “glory days” that began in the greedy 1980s are coming to an end as the Reagan revolution wanes. Our country saw we were moving in the wrong direction over the past eight years; that is one of the main reasons Barack Obama won in November.
Paul L. Whiteley Sr., Louisville
Dog snatches beloved cat
On Friday, my dearest friend of 16 years was sleeping in a swing on her back patio when a “monster” grabbed her and ran away. As this is written, her body has not been found.
She was smart and, funny and loved to have her shiny black hair brushed and her neck and back massaged. The “monster” was a large brown dog who also took away a piece of my heart and the last cat I will ever be able to have. She was home where she belonged and should have been safe. Gypsy was as much a part of our family as a child and we will miss her every day,
Flatwoods has become overrun with dogs running loose, especially large ones. Please, dog owners, become more responsible. This heartache could have been prevented. Some will say she was just a cat, but she was Gypsy, my baby.
Rose Bowling, Flatwoods
‘Cash for Clunkers’ has many negatives
The Cash for Clunkers bill (H.R. 1550), which is touted as having long-term environmental benefits, could actually do much more harm than good to the environment.
Proponents of the bill say that it will benefit the environment because it will take older cars off the road, replacing them with new, more fuel efficient vehicles. However, there is an inherent problem associated with this theory. What will become of all these old cars? The answer you don’t hear from the backers of Cash for Clunkers is that these scrapped vehicles will more than likely be sent to landfills, creating more pollution, not less.
Congress and states have considered Cash for Clunkers proposals in the past and in many cases have decided against them because they have come to realize that they are not a cost effective use of government money. In fact, the Cash for Clunkers amendment to the United States Senate stimulus package was withdrawn prior to its passage.
Providing incentives for motorists to have their current vehicles maintained for fuel efficiency would be a better use of federal money that would also benefit the environment. Cash for Clunkers might look good on paper, but in reality it has many unintended, irreversible consequences and should be rejected by Congress.
Aaron Lowe , Vice President, Government Affairs, Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.