Published: August 28, 2008 12:51 pm            

Readers' Forum 8/30 | Gaining security means loss of liberty

Regarding the articles concerning security cameras zooming in on Johnstown’s Central Park and other areas (“Under the lens: Central Park camera raises privacy questions,” Aug. 24), what I find most alarming is that, according to polls, 71 percent of Americans back use of such devices.

I didn’t notice an opportunity for local citizens to participate in a poll; the results of such would probably reflect a similar percentage.

Another important question would be, “How important is the Constitution?” City Manager Curt Davis’ statement, “If you’re not doing anything wrong, you shouldn’t have a problem with it,” has no place in a free society.

I do, however, see a difference in surveillance of a parking garage at night and a public park during the day.

The photo on Page A2 does not show much of the park. It shows a busy street intersection laden with shops. I wonder how many store patrons realize they were being watched and were not aware of it. I see plenty wrong with that.

There should be signs warning of such surveillance.

I would be hesitant to shop in places such as downtown Pittsburgh – and now Johnstown – where I am bring monitored like some criminal. Where a private citizen shops is of no concern to anyone else.

The right to privacy is a subject that needs to be clarified. However, Benjamin Franklin said it well with his famous quote, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

Donna Overdorff

Windber



Enforce laws that protect others

College and university presidents are calling on Americans to rethink the national drinking age. Too bad The Tribune-Democrat could offer no better than a thoughtless knee-jerk reaction.

If colleges don’t try hard enough to enforce the 21-or-older law, they face massive lawsuits. But the harder they try, the more dangerous the situation becomes.

Cracking down on beer parties gives students an incentive to switch to more concealable (and more dangerous) hard liquor. It pushes the drinking out of a social environment to where it is less likely that someone who overdoses will get medical help.

It also gives the over-21 students an incentive to drive off-campus to bars rather than deal with Mickey Mouse rules.

How ironic, therefore, that Mothers Against Drunk Driving opposes any reduction in the drinking age.

We actually have undercover agents infiltrating college campuses, posing as students, to gain their trust and then bust them for drinking. Aren’t there enough unsolved murders, rapes and robberies to investigate? Aren’t there enough terrorists to spy on?

Let’s vigorously enforce laws against behavior that directly endangers others – such as drunken driving. But it’s time to let go of nanny-state paternalism that undermines respect for the law and drives an unnecessary wedge of distrust between college students, administrators and the police.

Let’s stop telling people they are old enough to join the armed forces, to kill and possibly be killed in war, but not old enough to decide whether to drink a beer.

Allan Walstad

Upper Yoder



Right wing’s closet harbors many skeletons

Ron Marol wants to throw “the liberal trash” out of our government, meaning Democrats who “allow openly gays into our armed forces” (“Liberals don’t belong in government,” Aug. 21).

I suppose he believes, then, we should keep closeted conservatives as our governmental and church leaders.

He can find a list of the top 100 Republican pedophiles and homosexuals at www.dkoso-pedia.com/wiki/Republican_sex_scandals.

Likewise, of course, the Wikipedia entry on Democrats had to be extended to 1845 and include money scandals to even come close to the Republican count.

The hypocrisy of the right wing and its bold maneuvers to focus on homosexuals at the expense of horrific deeds of the pedophiles they think should rule the country should make everyone pause for thought.

Oh, but they claim to be pro-life – with a wink and a smile.

Kelly Ohler

Windber



Conservatives face tough election

Illegals from Marxist countries steal into America yet resist assimilating. They love American freedoms but want their native culture.

Their country’s socialist regimes, contrary to claims, do not bring people prosperity but rather an equality of poverty and hopelessness.

Americans died to shrug off tyrannical government. Unwilling to pay that price, immigrants, legal and illegal, flee to America, where freedom’s price was paid.

America, the most uniquely free country ever, is hated by Marxists for its continuing testimony to Marxist hypocrisy, which claims to be for common people yet actually oppresses them.

Ironically, Marxists – such as the Barack Obamas, wealthy media elites and leftists – display utter contempt for the capitalism that prospered them. Hollywood blacklists conservatives with tactics they decried.

Socialism’s promoters rail against hate discrimination while harboring irrational hate for George Bush. Nancy Pelosi feels your pain yet prevents legislation (drilling) which would bring real relief to the poor.

Wealthy, elitist Americans, whether Republican, Democrat or whatever, enjoy lavish lifestyles and consumption which America affords, yet view the peasants– you and me – with disgust and disdain.

Only a fool still thinks our government is responsive to average people’s needs.

Obama’s challenge: To hide his true identity. He’s a pro-abortion, anti-gun, anti-American, wealth-redistributing Marxist – hardly biblical Christianity.

John McCain’s challenge: Convince us he’s not really a Democrat.

Socialists and squishy moderates have a choice. It’s the lesser of evils once more for conservatives.

Barry Billings

Portage

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.