Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
Last Sunday morning I read the article, The soldiers of Ward 57. Or most of it. The second page was most difficult. The picture of the young officer, his wife and the doctor tending what is left of his legs invoked deep sorrow. In another part of the paper it is recorded that four more young Americans died the day before.
The sorrow mutated into anger as I remembered that our intrepid leader had gotten these young people in danger's way and when told of the guerrilla attacks on our forces, retorted, "Bring 'em on."
He, of course, doesn't have to worry about losing his legs or life.
Thank you for publishing the first part of The Soldiers of Ward 57 in last Sunday's Perspective. I wish you would publish the rest of the article. It needs to be read by everyone.
We hear every day about the soldiers being killed; there is little emphasis on the wounded. They are alive, after all.
Nearly 650 soldiers have passed through Walter Reed hospital. More than half have been wounded since the president announced the end of major combat.
Shattered limbs and shattered lives. Their lives - and those of their loved ones - have been broken, never, ever, to be the same again.
We must remember them. We must never forget them. We must take care of them, for they are our own - our sons and daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. They are our own.
Re: Same-sex marriage not the end of morality, but evolution of it, July 27.
The problem that Philip Gailey misses is that of gay marriages opening the door for every other combination and permutation of marital association. If Heather can have two mommies, why not three or six or a dozen or even the whole village? Why shouldn't polygamy and polyandry and consensual adult incest be included?
The "why" is because marriage between one man and one woman is a standard that works better and more reliably than anything else we've tried. And if you doubt this, consider that gay marriage or any other arrangement would attract as many half-wits and blockheads as traditional marriage does. So we're not anticipating a bottom-line improvement in marital bliss when and if gays race to the altar. And we may begin to wonder why it is that people such as Gailey discount every tradition and practice that actually works, solely to elevate the status of a carnival freak-show.
Re: Same-sex marriage not the end of morality, but evolution of it.
I applaud Philip Gailey's discussion of the tangled questions of marriage as a civil and as a religious institution. Before commenting on that though, I object to his extended discussion of the failings of the Catholic Church regarding the sex crimes of priests and also their coverup. It's an irrelevant argument that muddies the waters in troubling ways. Such heinous criminal behavior has no place in an objective discussion of same-sex marriage, or anything regarding consenting, adult same-sex relationships in general.
I agree with Gailey's conclusion that there is no principled distinction here from the way religious beliefs were used to support civil systems that kept women from rising above chattel status and that treated blacks as subhuman brutes to be kept from mixing with "white blood." These, like institutionalized discrimination against Jews and Catholics, are vile and repellent by any standards. Today they are relegated - but should never be forgotten - to the shameful history of the misuse of religious belief.
If we take that history seriously, it is all the more important to distinguish marriage as a religious sacrament from marriage as civil recognition of a relationship between two people. Congressman Bill Frist won't acknowledge that point, instead calling marriage a "sacrament," a particular religious definition he says must be enshrined in the Constitution. Establishing religious viewpoints as the law of the land is one of the dangers that the First Amendment was created to prevent. As Gailey notes, there is a minority of people willing to accept civil same-sex unions in some form, but they are still in the minority. Another principle of the First Amendment is to limit the power of the majority to oppress a minority, taking a clear position against the "tyranny of the majority."
So are we really left with a tug-o'-war over one word, "marriage?" Is granting the same civil rights and responsibilities enough without calling it marriage? Some might say that it's fake marriage and a dead end to progress. Others see it as a huge step forward promising more enlightened times. It may be both, but that should not derail a mature discussion of the merits, distinct from conflicting religious beliefs. Marriage is both a civil legal institution and a religious one. A sad history shows that civil institutions must not be ruled by religious doctrine in a free society.
Re: Critics: Tankers lease just won't fly, July 27.
I worked as an aircraft maintenance technician for 11 years for the U.S. Air Force. The very first airplane I worked on was a KC-135 refueling tanker that was older than I was (I am now 45 years old). I saw the KC-135 go through multiple upgrades during my time in service. I never felt fear from riding in one despite their age.
But the amount of maintenance that it took to keep one operational steadily increased. And if it was simply a matter of replacing faulty parts, I am sure the KC-135 would endure another 50 years.
But there is one thing that cannot be easily repaired: internal corrosion. Eventually we lose the fight with corrosion and weak points develop in high-stress areas. I am not so sure that I would feel as safe riding in one today. And I don't think we should put the lives of crew members at risk because a few senators and government officials want to save a buck.
The lease-now, buy-later program would allow these aircraft to be replaced sooner than a straight purchase program.
Does Sen. John McCain want to risk the lives of air crews to save a few hundred thousand dollars? If so, I wonder where his respect for the military and his priorities lie.
Re: Malpractice task force a lesson in what not to do, July 27.
Martin Dyckman continues to put Gov. Jeb Bush's policies and procedures under the microscope. And it's not a pretty sight. The "blue ribbon task force" assembled by the governor to fix the malpractice problem was a prelude to the Stepford Wives in the state House who act like bobblehead dolls, marching to Jeb's beat. Letting the stakeholders (insurance carriers) rewrite insurance laws is like letting alcoholics rewrite state DUI laws.
When Senate President Jim King began swearing in the witnesses, the truth came out. Unlike some readers' lamentations, the questions weren't designed to get a specific response other than the truth on these issues. No one ever had to tell the truth about what is in the headlines. Truth is, Florida is a great place for insurance to do business! The Florida Medical Association's executive vice president, Sandra Mortham, saw no evidence of frivolous lawsuits. Doctors are not headed for the border. But saying the opposite when not sworn to tell the truth generates great headlines.
I knew the moment I heard Jeb describe his panel as "blue ribbon" we would get what one usually associates with the phrase, a prize-winning pig at the state fair. Just remember what grandma used to say: Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty, and the pig loves it. Keep up the good work.
Re: Sincerely, Bruce D. Kimball, July 27.
I can not understand why you would run a feature story about this man. I am surprised he is out of prison, and now he wants to drive again. Sorry, but he should still be locked up. He cannot undo the wrong he did, and he should be made to pay for it for the rest of his life.
Re: "Branding" at USF.
Since the question of branding at the University of South Florida revolves around the sports teams, here's a suggestion that capitalizes on the geographical designation of our professional football, baseball and hockey teams: Tampa Bay. Why not the University of Tampa Bay? UTB.
It's an ideal geographical designation. UTB, with its hard consonants, sounds stronger when spoken than the mushy sibilant-fricative combination of USF. And someone far more clever and creative than I can do something with the "B" standing for "Bulls."