Letters to the editor – Tuesday (11-11-08)
Remember debt we owe veterans
On this Veterans Day, please remember America is the home of the free because of the brave. Thank a vet!
ó Lynne Sides
Election over, but the work goes on
Thanks to all of you who supported my candidacy for the N.C. 77th District seat. I regret that our district’s voters were unwilling to try a new prescription to address the ills of joblessness, dropouts, infrastructure disruption, illegal immigration or health care access and affordability. Nonetheless, I will continually work to try to heal those wounds which cause our troubles. I will continue to fight for a better, fairer and more effective North Carolina and America where we follow the dictates of our Constitution in putting citizens first.
ó Dr. Ada M. Fisher
Time to abolish straight ticket
I read your story about North Carolina ballots and how some people were confused because the option to vote for a straight “party vote” did not include the presidential election.
The officials at the polling place where I voted informed me about this, as well as having signs stating that you must also vote on the presidential election as a separate item.
Your story talked about how each party varied in their opinion on if a “straight party vote” should also include the presidential election.
I decided to wait until after the elections to bring this subject up.
I am going to propose something that both parties will probably oppose, even though it is in the best interests of the people and the state of North Carolina.
A “straight party vote” should be abolished. This applies to local, state and nationwide elections.
We need to look at and evaluate each candidate, based upon their individual merits, rather than upon their party affiliation. A “straight party vote” evades your responsibility to vote on who will do the best job in that position.
As a responsible voter, you need to do more than vote a straight-party ticket.
ó Bill McCranie
NCHSAA should rethink rules
The question here is not whether or not the punishment rendered by the N.C. High School Athletic Association was correct under the rules. It was. There was an ineligible player dressed which causes a forfeiture, regardless of the circumstances. This, however, is where the problem lies.
This is a zero tolerance policy. By their very nature, zero tolerance policies are inherently unfair. Policies such as these serve no purpose but to remove the burden of actual decision making from administrators. No matter what the offense, there are always mitigating and aggravating factors. In this case, because of the zero tolerance policy, the mitigating factors are not considered and the harshest punishment available is rendered. As a result, Salisbury has been forced to give away its undefeated season, the fun was taken out of the game for the Salisbury and Providence Grove players Friday night, and regardless of whether or not Pisgah will “have its head rocked” they will be forced to play a very tough ball game when they should be able to stroll right into the second round along with Salisbury.
The punishment has affected many more than those at Salisbury High and has, ultimately, done the opposite of its intention. This rule has removed the fun and fairness from the game for Salisbury and many others. I am not bitter about the NCHSAA’s decision, the result of this case will not be changed, nor should it be. The rule does need to be revised, however, for the benefit of future years. The presence of an ineligible player on the sidelines should not result in an automatic forfeiture of the game.
There is no excuse for the player’s presence, but there is plenty of excuse for being upset about the severity of the punishment.
ó Max Messinger