Daily Kent Stater

Turd-burglars beware ? Aman Ali is on the attack

Dear Editor:

In attacking the April 15 column written by Aman Ali, I will use a very popular method of deconstruction. I will take two words from the contents of an entire column, and use them to illustrate a loosely formulated point. This aforementioned column, an absurd diatribe against Sen. Tom Delay, utilizes some very interesting language. The words ?turd-burglar? and ?butt-buddies? appear in the article. These are juvenile language choices from a regular columnist in a student (college, not high school people) newspaper.

One?s point, however valid and accurate, is often rendered worthless when concealed behind words such as these. Politicians should have thick skin. Reporters should have thick skin. Apparently, Mr. Ali believes that others should develop thicker skin themselves.

Joshua Rider

Graduate student, higher education administration and student personnel


Don?t forget the concerns of ?lowly employees?

Dear Editor:

As a 6 1/2 year employee here at Kent State, I would like to commend you on your editorial piece in the Stater. You have certainly touched on a subject that is of great concern to many of us ?lowly employees,? who are feeling threatened continually of the prospect of losing our jobs.

The thing that honestly concerns me the most is that the students are getting the trickle-down effect from all of the cuts and the ?soft-hiring freeze.? It seems that the administration gets larger and larger, and we clerical staff are looking at empty desks and being asked to ?pick up the pace.?

I?m asking you to keep up the good work. Don?t let this subject die ? it is important to so many people.

I will be writing to my state representative.

Diane Luli

VCD secretary


Smoking bans infringe on Constitutional rights

Dear Editor:

I read the point/counterpoint on smoking. As a smoker, I am for keeping bars and restaurants smoker-friendly.

While reading Greg Schwartz?s comments, I find myself thinking, ?Quit whining, if you don?t like the smoke in bars, don?t go to them.? Alas, this mentality is both immature and counter-productive. The argument is that second-hand smoke kills, which is true. However, I have to wonder: Has Mr. Schwartz ever heard of cirrhosis of the liver? This condition is as common to long-term drinkers as lung cancer is to long-term smokers. This is where most people would insert the come-back, ?Yeah, but drinking doesn?t kill other people.? Tell that to the families of drunk-driving accident victims.

Another argument that one could make involves children in restaurants. Think about how many times you have been out with friends somewhere trying to have a nice adult dinner. Everyone is enjoying themselves, when, all of the sudden, the children in the next booth start screaming. No matter what Mom and Dad try, they can?t calm the kids down. This type of behavior is obtrusive to others; does that mean we are going to ban kids in restaurants too?

The bottom line: Most people engage in some form of risky behavior, whether it is drinking, smoking or promiscuous sex. Banning only one type of behavior opens the door for discrimination lawsuits.

Is smoking a ?God-given right?? Yes. Is being able to smoke in public a God-given right? Perhaps it is not, but it is a right that no one can take away. If I am not mistaken, our Constitution ensures us that no one can take away our rights to ?life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.? And being able to smoke inside makes me very happy.

Erin Gadd

Undergraduate sociology major