Letters to the Editors

Weaknesses in airport security better left unsaid

Re: Florida airport security lacking, Feb. 23.

What were you thinking to publish such an article -- and on the front page?

You told us that more than 80 percent of the small airports don't check IDs and that the planes and fuel aren't secure.

This reminds one of an article you published not long ago telling of some homemade bomb and how it's made. It also reminds me of the 60 Minutes television show years ago that ran a short on GM car thefts -- and it showed you how it was done. Then the nation was amazed to find cars missing the next day. What's wrong with this picture?

You and the rest of the media must somehow believe that the thief or the terrorist doesn't read the paper or watch television. I have news for you, they do!

I only hope that by publishing this kind of story you haven't opened the door of opportunity to an evildoer at one of our airports. Why do you need to drag out the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's findings of security ineptitude in airports and then tell the world! The public doesn't need to know everything!
-- Dick Miller, St. Petersburg

Media are killing us

Re: Florida airport security lacking.

Talk about encouraging terrorism! This front-page article sure did it! The information about the smaller airfields in Florida was a gold mine for any terrorist.

The media are killing us!
-- Joan Glazier, Palm Harbor

General aviation is ready to help

Re: Florida airport security lacking.

While security in general is a matter of high concern right now, and will certainly remain so for the foreseeable future, Chris Tisch and Leon Tucker's article regarding security at small airports does not mention the fact that the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association is actively working with the FAA and other government agencies to increase security at general aviation fields.

As early as mid-December, a list of suggestions on how general aviation security could be improved without crippling the industry, was forwarded by AOPA to the Transportation Security Administration. The response to these suggestions has been minimal to none. In fact, as stated in the article, the TSA offices did not even return the Times' reporters phone calls.

The general aviation industry is ready and willing to cooperate and help in any way possible to ensure the safety of the general public, while at the same time protecting our freedom to fly. A response from the TSA is required before structured changes can be implemented.
-- Tim Hyden, Bradenton

Work to protect liberties at home

Re: Amid new probe, Al-Arian speaks, Feb. 23.

I suggest your reporters and editors read Steven Emerson's book, American Jihad: The Terrorists Among Us. There is an entire chapter devoted to the University of South Florida and Sami Al-Arian and his brother-in-law and what they have done to promote the terrorist group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

They use what freedoms we have in this country to promote their beliefs, raise money to pay for the widows of suicide jihadists and to fool us all.

It would be beneficial if the St. Petersburg Times would take on the cause of America as opposed to always trying to protect the underdog. Why not do an investigative report on the terrorists right here in Florida? You do a wonderful job with your investigative reports on other topics. Let us start to protect our liberties right here at home.
-- Mary Ann McLachlan, Clearwater

Academic freedom is different

Re: Should he stay or should he go? by David Scheiber, Feb. 22.

In considering University of South Florida president Judy Genshaft's choices concerning the case of Sami Al-Arian, Schieber writes that on one side of the issue are "the heated subjects of academic freedom and free speech and faculty outcries that firing Al-Arian would grievously infringe on his basic rights."

I write to lower rhetorical heat on freedom of speech in this controversy and to take "academic freedom" off the burner of controversy. I believe the public deserves to know "academic freedom" is distinct from and unrelated to "freedom of speech." Simply stated, when I retired after 35 years of employment as a professor in higher education, I gave up my academic freedom, because I gave up tenure. However retirement from employment at the university did not require me to give up my freedom of speech. Freedom of speech refers to protections of our public utterance, provided by the First Amendment. Academic freedom as a component of tenure refers to specific boundaries and codes of conduct that define appropriate behavior for a faculty member employed at a specific college or university.

Academic freedom does not protect or encourage a faculty member to say anything at any time he or she feels. Academic freedom, a component of tenure not freedom of speech, provides the necessary safety for the professional to pursue research in an area of expertise and then, through approved curriculum, present some or all of that research to students in a classroom. To accuse USF of violating academic freedom, Al-Arian's advocates must show how his appearance on The O'Reilly Factor, his creation of a political action group, and his speeches about Israel-Palestine, belong to his academic discipline of computer engineering and to his professional duties as a professor in the Department of Computer Engineering.

To date, Al-Arian and his supporters have failed to show any credible link between his position as professor of computer engineering and his political action. Al-Arian and his advocates have failed to establish a basis to argue violation of his academic freedom.

The distinction between academic freedom/tenure and freedom of speech allows us to ask another question: "Can an employee use his employer's resources in a manner that puts other employees and also customers/students in harm's way, and then claim freedom of speech protects that choice?" I leave commentary to experts on freedom of speech, and limit my presentation here to academic freedom.
-- Will Grant, Ph.D., St. Petersburg

A failure to understand competition

I am truly amazed that you would print leftist rubbish like the Feb. 20 column by Charles Krauthammer (U.S.A. lost graciousness in Olympics). If it came from a misguided reader, it would be one thing. But to actually pay for anti-American trash like this is quite another.

Krauthammer tries to tell us what a great patriotic American he is, however, he then inserts the "but." Pity the poor Chinese women's hockey team because our team soundly defeated them.

And then Krauthammer suggests that the 1980 Soviet men's hockey team lost because they were instructed to do so. He does not understand how a seemingly less-powerful team can defeat a stronger, apparently superior opponent (see David vs. Goliath or, somewhat more recently in 2001, the Arizona Diamondbacks vs. the mighty New York Yankees).

One gets the feeling that Krauthammer feels our wonderful American (and, yes, we do love the Canadians, too) athletes should "take a dive" so other countries could feel all "fuzzy and warm" about victories they did not earn. Isn't it bad enough we have dumbed-down education so "self-esteem" has replaced academic competence (which, as a retired teacher, I have experienced firsthand)? Do we now reinvent the Olympics so it becomes a venue for other nations to received automatic medals at the expense of our American kids who have worked tirelessly since they were preschoolers for that one special golden (or silver or bronze) Olympic moment?

I get the feeling Krauthammer might be happier as a citizen of China, Korea or even Afghanistan. He certainly is not happy here, where competition is "fair" only when America loses.
-- David Haney, Holiday

Arrogant rhetoric

Re: U.S.A. lost graciousness in Olympics.

I was horrified to read the first paragraph of this column by Charles Krauthammer in which he states, "We rule the world culturally, economically, diplomatically and militarily as no one has since the Roman Empire." That sound like a speech by Hitler in the 1930s.

This is bound to raise the animosity of every person on this planet. It is this kind of arrogance that precipitates terrorist attacks on our homeland. I hope and pray that this doesn't represent the thinking of my fellow citizens. I'm ashamed and embarrased by this kind of rhetoric.
-- Patrick Murray, St. Petersburg

An excess of Olympics nationalism

The German Olympic team was leading the American team 33 medals to 30 with two days of competition remaining. (In the end, the Germans remained ahead, 35 medals to 34 for the United States.) The television media have chosen, for some reason, to nearly ignore this great team of athletes. Considering the fact that the area of Germany is slightly smaller than the state of Montana, has a population of about one-third that of the United States from which to select athletes, it seems strange to me that more praise has not been heaped upon them.

When the Soviet union, before its break-up, was the perennial champion of nearly every worldwide competition, it controlled a vast area including many nations that are independent today. I have not watched every minute of the winter Olympics, but I have seen quite a lot and have yet to hear what the German national anthem sounds like. The critics of the excessive nationalism by the United States have a valid point. Let's give all Olympians the praise they deserve.
-- Fred W. Otten, Lutz

Strengthening our resolve

Re: The death of Daniel Pearle.

When certain people start asking why we are at war with radicals, when citizens of the United States keep saying that we should be "more humane" to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, those people should think and ask themselves, "Where was the "humanity" in the treatment of Danny Pearle!

What has happened to Danny Pearle (and other Americans) just reinforces our steely determination to win the war on terrorism!
-- Deme Varidin, St. Petersburg

Senior citizens suffer, too

President Bush's recent statement that "North Korean children should never starve while a massive army is fed," could be paraphrased by American senior citizens: "We should not starve while our Social Security funds are being used to feed a massive budget to enrich defense contractors and special interests for a war that Bush continues to provoke."

P.S., add U.S. military veterans, as the Bush administration has increased VA prescription fees from $2 to $7, plus adding a $50 fee for each visit to a doctor. Take heed, my fellow active-duty comrades.
-- Bill Yates, senior master sergeant, U.S. Air Force (retired),
Bayonet Point

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright