Letters to the Editors

Life is sacred; we should end the death penalty

Re: Protect the innocent, editorial, April 13 and Panel: Radically change death penalty or drop it, April 15.

In August 2000, the Times called the execution of a retarded man in Texas "a disgraceful act." Recently, the Times has expressed concern that, "because science is proving our fallibility, it is becoming obvious our procedures are insufficient." Everyone "should agree . . . innocent people shouldn't be executed." And now, in Illinois, a bipartisan commission is calling for a sweeping overhaul of capital punishment in the state. In fact, a narrow majority has concluded the death penalty should be abolished.

Apparently, for many, ending the death penalty in this country is more disturbing than the brutal act of execution. No one -- retarded, not retarded, innocent, guilty -- should be "put to death." The very expression is disturbing.

Life is sacred. None of us gave life to anyone, so none of us has the right to take it away. Certainly there should be punishment for murder, but we should not punish by murdering. That's legally killing for illegally killing. Life in prison without parole is a merciful alternative.

The Times says "death is the only punitive measure that cannot be reversed." The Illinois report indicated simply revising the death penalty would be costly and, maybe, abolition would "avoid the moral minefields of the political debate." Okay. So end the death penalty for purely practical reasons, for heaven's sake. But why do we have such trouble seeing and saying that the death penalty is inherently immoral? And, by the way, it has been proven not to prevent murder. To my mind, it merely provides revenge.

It troubles me that our respect for human life doesn't seem to have changed much since the days, 2,000 years ago, when people screamed, "Crucify him! Crucify him!"
-- Jack Bray, Dunedin

Our collapsing health care system

Re: Cost explosion fuels health care crisis, by David S. Broder, April 17.

I find great hope in David Broder's column. First, it recognizes that the health care system is in crisis.

Second, the objectives of health care are clearly set out: "affordable, high quality health care for all Americans."

And last, that those organizations most closely tied to the existing "insurance company" controlled system, are finally joining the fight for reform. (It's interesting that we spend 17 cents of our health care dollar on paper work and administration, and that roughly 17 percent of the population is not covered!)

When I hear so many people say, "I'm covered; what's the problem?" Or "I'm getting that test anyway, because my deductible is covered!" I know the system is sowing its own seeds of destruction. Now all we have to do is ensure that all Americans have a real say -- not just the lucky ones who are clinging to the slowly collapsing existing system.
-- David Knowles, Indian Shores

A vote for Nader . . .

Five of the 10 letters on your April 17 opinion page contained complaints about the Times coverage of the April 14 Ralph Nader rally.

Perhaps your coverage decision was dictated by the much lower percentage of Green Party voters compared to those in the two major parties. Anyway, I hope that having allowed them so much space to air their gripes, they will consider your paper at least somewhat redeemed.

As much as one can respect Ralph Nader's fine work as consumer advocate over many years, his candidacy would result in a reduction of available votes for any major-party candidate who is similarly interested in ecology, health care, poverty, etc. In other words, a vote for Nader can likely turn out to be a vote for most of what Nader is against and little of what he endorses. Could something like this have occurred in the last election?
-- Art Palmer, Largo

Sticking with the Democrats

In response to those who have written in regard to their dismay over the Times' coverage of the Nader rally versus that of the Florida Democratic Convention, I'd like to remind them of some things. For one, it was less expensive to go to the Nader rally than to the Democrats' meeting. For another, the Democrats met at a place that couldn't hold as many people as the Sun Dome. More than 2,500 Democrats were at the convention in Orlando, one of their largest crowds ever. Every single special event was completely sold out.

Democrats here in Florida are trying to pull off something that still not many people believe we can do: unseating Jeb Bush. I hope that instead of helping Jeb Bush walk away with another four years as one of the worst governors in Florida history and continue his assault on the education system, those in the Green Party would want to help oust him.

I take strong offense with the theory that somehow Democrats and Republicans are all the same. All you have to do is contrast the social issues stances of both parties to know there is an ocean of difference between the leadership of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

As for Nader, with all due respect, he is what I would consider a persona non grata in the political arena. He knew he had no chance to win the presidential race and he knew he was taking votes away from Al Gore. He collected approximately 97,000 counted votes in the 2000 presidential election here in Florida. Not only did he help George Bush take (notice I didn't say win) this state, but he got less than the coveted 5 percent he wanted for matching federal funds. His ego got in the way. I'm sorry that the Greens don't like the two-party system, but guess what, that's the way it is right now.

I am a Democrat. I was at the convention where I met Sens. John Edwards and John Kerry, gubernatorial candidates Bill McBride and Janet Reno. I'm proud to be a Democrat. I'm also a young liberal who believes in my party.

I want to thank the Times for its wonderful coverage of the Democratic conference, a three-day event whose participants came from every race, religion, age, gender, heritage, ideology and sexual orientation, compared to a one-day event of a failed politico who is extremely unqualified to be president and who has completely lost any respect I ever had for him. He and the Republicans remind me why, when I vote, I generally vote totally Democrat!
-- Dave Cutler, Tampa

End corporate taxation

Re: Where taxes vanish, April 17.

This excellent article serves to demonstrate the illogic of our existing tax code. Corporate profits are currently subject to double taxation: first at the corporate tax rate and then at the personal tax rate applied to the dividends received by shareholders. This inequity is what actually drives the current trend of corporations moving offshore to reduce their effective tax rates.

The solution is simple: Abolish all corporate tax rates. As Nobel laureate Milton Friedman likes to point out, "corporations don't pay taxes, they merely collect them." Ultimately, all taxes are borne -- directly or indirectly -- by individuals. Absent these taxes, competition would force price reductions to consumers or dividend increases to shareholders.

Over the long term, the net revenues lost to the Treasury would probably be small. More important, we would be left with a more rational tax system, freeing corporations to make business decisions on the basis of sound economics rather than upon arcane tax considerations.
-- Jerry T. Ratledge, Tierra Verde

Population problem ignored

Re: Bush is right to expand U.S. aid, April 11.

Authors Carol Graham and Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute state that President Bush "intends to expand U.S. development aid for poor countries" and in a later paragraph contend that "in addition to the link between poverty and terrorism, persistent poverty is usually accompanied by other worrisome trends, such as unchecked population growth . . ."

Excuse me! Is that the same President Bush who has banned federal aid to all international family planning programs, if they even hint at abortion planning, even though such counseling is performed with other independent funds? The United Nations' attempts to assist Third World countries in their efforts to curb overpopulation with its resultant persistent poverty have continually been thwarted by this ban imposed by President Bush and his Republican Congress. Sorry, Bush -- you can't have it both ways!
-- Grace T. Erdman, Belleair Bluffs

Taking a unilateralist approach

Re: U.S.-opposed world court established, April 12.

Isolationism rears its ugly head once again as the Bush administration refuses to participate in the establishment of the International Criminal Court in the Hague. The George Bush crowd fears that our military personnel -- overseas and misbehaving as will happen -- will be targeted unfairly by such a court.

The court is set up to handle criminal cases on the international scene. It is shameful that the United States, fighting international crime of the worst kind, will not support the most logical means of meting out international justice, once again asserting a unilateralist claim in this global setting.
-- Edward Rapp, Inverness

A bigger workplace disparity

Re: Dangerous, dirty jobs take toll on Hispanics, April 8.

This article, regarding fatalities in the workplace being disproportionate for Hispanics relative to their numbers in the work force, presents the usual myopic view of such matters by the Times.

Why limit the demographics to a single group? The Times selectively (consistent with the "victimology" mantra) champions groups by ethnicity/race and gender (excluding, of course, white, non-Hispanic males). Consider gender in this matter of fatalities in the workplace:

In a '90s U.S. Department of Health statistics delineation, the data showed that 94 percent of occupational deaths were suffered by men. Chances are that in the case of Hispanics the number is 100 percent. The comparison of 94 percent fatalities with male workplace representation (50-60 percent) dwarfs the 23 percent of worker deaths versus 18 percent representation in the work force mentioned in the article.

Who will champion this terrible gender disparity in workplace fatalities?
-- Donald H. Barnhill, Trinity

It's an underdog thing

Re: In ballpark, one can see Rays of hope start to shine, by Howard Troxler, April 17.

Thank you, Howard Troxler for your encouraging article on the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.

I, too, am enjoying watching this pesky team attempting the impossible: to win a few off the big-budget teams.

I think that deep down a lot of people like to dream the American dream. We like to root for the underdog, who, by hard work and some good luck, beats the odds. I hear the theme from Rocky playing in the background . . .
-- Jay Schneider, Seffner

Share your opinions

We invite readers to write to us. 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