Bullying has always been a problem in and out of school, but it seems that a different form of it has taken over, cyberbullying. As a student at Nordonia High School, I have noticed that cyberbullying is getting worse and worse as time goes on. Little do teens know that when they think they’re being funny behind the computer screen, they can cause someone’s death from the internal pain they have caused.

This is very dangerous, and many teens are being affected by it. According to a recent ABC News report, about 42 percent of kids have experienced cyberbullying. Many teens admit they would rather be physically bullied because words go far deeper than a punch. So many kids are suffering from this every day, going to lengths as far as cutting themselves or even committing suicide.

I know there are ways we can stop this and bring awareness about the situation. Parents play a strong role in these situations, believe it or not. They could change it completely.

If they are involved in their child’s life and know what’s going on, there is less likely to be a problem. Social networks like Twitter and Facebook could also be monitored, because these websites are what cause this increasing problem, making it so easy for kids to be bullied.

There could also be a petition in the school that everyone can sign stating each student won’t take part in cyberbullying. A victim of cyberbullying could come in and talk to students about how horrible it is, changing their point of view since it is coming from someone their age.

I strongly believe this problem needs to be publicized so kids realize the harm they are causing others. I feel that this is such a big issue that it really needs to be discussed in the open. Someone needs to make a change.

Halle Sobiech

Macedonia

Keep rolling ?with Amtrak

One has to wonder just how well columnist Scott Burns’ beloved Southwest Airlines would fare if it did not enjoy the luxury of flying in and out of airports built and maintained with large public subsidies (“Amtrak’s 40 years always off track,” May 28).

The airports are served by a highway infrastructure that enjoys even larger subsidies (and no, user fees do not begin to cover airport or highway costs).

Amtrak’s problem is not that it requires a relatively small subsidy, but that conservatives, for some reason, think that it is the only transportation mode that shouldn’t have one.

Energy and environmental efficiency aside, Amtrak’s ridership figures show that a significant number of travelers cannot or would prefer not to suffer the indignities of flying.

An honest comparison of transportation subsidies would show that Amtrak is a bargain our country would do well to keep.

Like Burns, I, too, will be checking to see whether candidates intend to support a vital transportation alternative for America or whether they plan to score cheap political points by thoughtlessly voting to cripple or kill Amtrak.

I suspect, however, that we’ll be voting differently.

Tom Hoadley

Richfield

Gays denied rights?granted by marriage

In response to the May 27 letter by Hanford Gunnerson (“A tradition and cornerstone”) on the “traditional family,” gay people want the same benefits that married couples take for granted. Gay people want the right to inherit jointly purchased property and not have to pay inheritance taxes. They want the right to be the next of kin and be able to make medical decisions for their loved ones, the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital and the right to make funeral arrangements.

They want to be able to file joint tax returns. They want to be able to include their partner on their health-care plans, and they want their partner to be able to receive survivor benefits such as Social Security and pensions.

This is a short list of the benefits denied gay couples since their relationships are not recognized by law. Think about how many more benefits you get as a married person.

Gail Carter

Shreve

Paying the price?for a free society

Betty J. Pinder’s letter regarding the “wretched excess” of a $4 million purchase of a sports jersey struck me as sour grapes (“Priorities of the wealthy,” May 28).

Memorial Day is a day to remember those who fought for our freedoms. The last I heard, we still have the freedom to spend as we please, to be stupid, to be frugal, to be smart, to work hard, to be generous and just plain to be.

I begrudge no one his or her opportunities in this country, and that includes being wealthy and spending money however he or she chooses.

I guess Pinder assumes that because the purchase is frivolous to her, that the person does not donate to charity or otherwise do sensible things with that wealth. That’s not an assumption I would make.

I have visited countries where communism has taken centuries of wealth and beauty and put housing, vehicles and many other things under a “one size fits all” policy. It’s pretty ugly.

Be happy for your fortunate brothers and sisters. It is charitable. too.

Bridgette Thacker

Copley Township

Orwellian dilemma ?of gay marriage

Since President Obama’s comments on gay marriage, I’ve been considering the effect of applying the word “marriage” to a homosexual union.

This should not be done because of the danger inherent in changing a fundamental definition of great importance to society. Indeed, the change has a distinct relationship to the dangers exemplified by Newspeak in George Orwell’s 1984.

“The purpose of Newspeak was to not only provide a medium of expression for the worldview and mental habits proper to the devotees Ingsoc (Big Brother’s State Party), but to make all other modes of thought impossible.” (Appendix, 1984)

Viewed in this light, what are the potential long-range consequences of altering the definition of marriage?

If people desire a homosexual union, that is their decision, but give it a distinct name and definition, and don’t take a step onto the road of American Newspeak.

Marion Pottinger

Akron

Life lessons from ?a World War II vet

I read with interest the recent article about soldiers getting compensation for injuries incurred while serving in the military (“Almost half of new veterans seek disability,” May 28). My father, Robert Stimler, suffered complete hearing loss in one ear while serving in the Army during World War II.

When he passed away a few years ago, I had the honor of going through his things. Along with his Army discharge papers, I found a letter from the government regarding his request for compensation for his injury.

Do you know what he got? He was denied. He received nothing for that loss. Instead of hiring a lawyer in protest or even filing an appeal, he simply lived a full and productive life, without complaint.

He worked for 44 years at Ohio Bell to support his family while raising seven children. He also got to enjoy his 16 grandchildren. I thank my Dad for his service and the many life lessons he gave.

Constance Pacanovsky

Akron

Get real about?gay marriage

Despite Gary Giorgio’s domino theory of the world as we know it coming to an end, various types of marriage have, and still are, working quite well in other parts of the world (“No limits on defining marriage,” May 20).

Legal approval of gay marriage in our society will not automatically lead to other forms of marriage. Our society will ultimately be strengthened by the inclusion of gay relationships into the stability of legal marriage, and the good results will be future generations that are more compassionate and understanding.

Giorgio’s philosophy causes him to attack anyone who does not believe as he does, and when he hasn’t the facts to support his social/religious arguments, he attacks his opponent’s credibility.

My belief is that Giorgio should take himself and his pompous assertions back to school to learn the subject he is arguing. He needs to enroll in classes such as sociology or anthropology.

Because Giorgio’s morality binds and blinds him, I am sure a course in nontheistic philosophies would also help him to think rationally, rather than his delegating that responsibility to his church and government.

There is a conservative-friendly book available at the public library that is opening my mind to new ideas, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, by Jonathan Haidt.

Perhaps it would benefit Giorgio. The voice of reason is soft, but it is very persistent.

William Lally

Doylestown