On behalf of Eckerd Youth Alternatives and thousands of at-risk youth who are finding hope and help in our programs, I wish to thank writer Stephen Nohlgren and your newspaper for this compelling and beautifully written article about the life and legacy of Jack Eckerd.
In words and pictures, you created a powerful and inspiring picture of this great man and also conveyed what was truly important to him and to us: the kids.
Jack and Ruth Eckerd founded Eckerd Youth Alternatives 35 years ago in the belief that every child deserves an opportunity to succeed. Inspired and led by their example, we continue to change lives and improve the future, one child at a time. Today's youth face greater risks and challenges than ever before and need everyone's support to succeed.
To learn how to help, your readers can visit EYA's Web site at www.eckerd.org or call 1-800-554-4357.
-- Karen Waddell, president and CEO, Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Clearwater
An inspiring story
Re: The Eckerd elixir.
Bravo for this article by Stephen Nohlgren. How refreshing to have such an inspiring and upbeat article for the Sunday headline! I was so glad to learn more about the Eckerd wilderness camps and the alternative offered to troubled youth and their remarkable success rate. It is certainly a program that we should all encourage our state lawmakers to support and expand.
"Last year, the average camper stayed 11.4 months and progressed 1.2 years in reading and math. A year after leaving the program, almost 90 percent are still in school or working." I hope the dream of a national youth alternative program becomes a reality.
Last but not least, thank you to the Eckerd family for all that they have done for our community and for sharing their story.
-- Genevieve Lykes Dimmitt, Clearwater
Making a difference
Re: The Eckerd elixir.
Jack and Ruth Eckerd represent philanthropy at its finest. Their caring generosity greatly enhances the quality of life throughout our community. Their EYA camps offer troubled youths a chance to turn their lives around and become productive contributors to society.
However, Mr. and Mrs. Eckerd's greatest legacy is stated by their son, Jim Swann, who wants it known, ". . . a second generation of Eckerds will carry on."
In the days of conspicuous consumption, this gracious family will continue to make a difference. What a legacy!
-- J.B. Melges, Clearwater
Eckerd's generosity
I was moved by Stephen Nohlgren's touching article about Jack Eckerd. It revealed a side of this wonderful, generous man that may not have been known by the public at large.
In the mid-1980s, I served as president of PACT, Inc., the nonprofit operator of Ruth Eckerd Hall. Jack and Ruth were the major benefactors of the hall, which to this day needs private financial support to fulfill its mission.
One day late in the year, I received a call asking if I could meet Jack at his office. "Of course," I said, wondering what may have offended him that would cause such a summons to be issued. While Jack and Ruth were, and continue to be, vitally interested in the hall's operations, they were not the types to interfere.
I entered Jack's office, my first and only visit, prepared to be lectured. Instead, Jack handed me a check for $1-million, payable to the hall. He said, "This is anonymous. No one can know where this came from." I asked if there were any conditions attached to the gift. He said "no," thanked me for coming, and wished me a merry Christmas.
Jack Eckerd's legacy will long outlive him. Thank you for sharing that legacy with your readers.
-- Timothy A. Johnson Jr., Clearwater
Say what it is
Re: Return of the male chauvinist, June 8.
I must admit that being male, I was immediately put on the defensive before reading this article. However, I was pleasantly surprised that it did more than just blame the current state of pop culture on the easiest of targets, the male pig. The article could have been just as easily titled "The rise of the party girl," as it pointed out both genders are to blame for embracing the current "retro-sexism."
However, I believe the intellectuals are just as much to blame for the current state of affairs as your average beer-chugging frat boy. And the writer put his finger on it. At the end of the article he muses: "How do you criticize that culture without seeming square, elitist, or even racist? No one has figured out the answers."
Here's the answer: You call it crap! You don't try to rationalize it, you don't buy into it, you don't try to figure it out, and you don't try to be hip to it.
Unfortunately, the intellectuals are too often just as insecure as the women who get breast implants and the men who objectify them for doing so. They all want to be cool. Well, we can see how uncool everything's gotten.
-- William Cote, Hudson
The fundamental question
Re: Reefer sadness, letter, June 8.
Letter writer Calvina Fay's attempts to discredit Robyn Blumner's succinct commentary of June 1 ignore the fundamental question raised by Blumner. That is, should government officials be allowed to use tax dollars for either promoting or discouraging individual political candidates and/or ballot initiatives? The answer, constitutionally, of course is no. This is why four days after Blumner's column ran, the House Government Reform Committee agreed in a simple voice vote to drop the language allowing such nefarious actions by federal drug czar John Walters.
Antimarijuana zealots continue to distort the discussion of allowing legal access to medical marijuana by citing their beliefs about marijuana's danger to children. This ignores the reality that affected patients are not children, but adults - most with serious illnesses like cancer, AIDS-wasting, multiple sclerosis and ALS.
The only pertinent question related to allowing legal access to medical marijuana is this: Should medical patients who elect to use marijuana with their doctor's recommendation be subject to arrest, criminal prosecution and being caged behind steel bars like an animal? It's clear that Ms. Fay, George W. Bush and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft believe the answer to this question is yes.
Fortunately, almost 80 percent of Americans believe this response to be heartless and draconian, which is why the laws have been changed in nine different states to legalize medical pot. Additionally, the Republican governor of Maryland just signed a bill reducing the penalty for medical marijuana possession to a $100 fine.
Canada last year not only agreed to legalize medical use, but also is well on the way to distributing government grown marijuana to qualified patients. Federal officials who see these rational changes to reefer-madness hysteria are willing to do anything, regardless of whether it is constitutional, to stop this inevitable tide of legal change here in America.
-- Stephen Heath, public relations director, Drug Policy Forum of Florida, Clearwater
Subsidizing stinginess
Re: The working poor.
Why has it not occurred to anyone that when the working poor are paid so little that they cannot maintain themselves and must rely on public assistance for essential needs, then it is the taxpayer who is actually subsidizing their stingy employers? These employers are essentially stealing from the lives of their "working poor" and incidentally stealing from the taxpayers, who must spend money to keep the working poor in their underpaid jobs. Public welfare is simply another indirect subsidy for the wealthy.
-- Bud Tritschler, Clearwater
[Last modified June 15, 2003, 01:08:15]
