When the editors pointed out that the president, in his Sept. 7 speech to the nation, "did nothing to invoke a sense of shared sacrifice," it was as if they had hit "play" on a mental recorder that stores my memories. Suddenly, in my mind's eye, I was seeing short videos of my youth during World War II. It was a time of "shared sacrifice."
I remembered playing stickball on my neighborhood street in the Bronx and seeing butter (or was it sugar?) being delivered to our local A&P. "Ma, they have butter!" I screamed as I bounded up the stairs to our apartment to get our "ration book." Like all Americans, we had been "sharing sacrifice" by rationing ordinary foods like butter.
I remembered seeing, for the first time, the small, rectangular banner with a blue star hanging in a lot of windows. "Loved one in the war," I was told. It was a simple, but powerful way to announce that someone in that family was making a sacrifice for America. Some banners had gold stars that, in a vivid yet silent way, announced that a son or daughter was killed in action. Somehow, in an inexplicable way, neighbors shared the sacrifice of neighbors when they saw those banners.
It was a different time. Our lives were completely dominated by the war. It was World War II. Today, we are fighting a "war against terrorists," which sounds more like a campaign slogan than a call to arms. We can't even find the man who is suspected of planning the horrific attack of 9/11. We thought his neighbor was planning another attack with his "weapons of mass destruction." We can't find him, either, or his weapons of mass destruction. It's almost as if this war was just a "reality TV" show on CNN. We're disconnected from it. It does not dominate our lives.
No wonder the president didn't ask for "shared sacrifice."
-- Jack Bray, Dunedin
Dean gives voice to opposition
Re: The obscure front-runner, editorial, Sept. 8.
Your coverage of Howard Dean is appreciated.
Dean's tough criticism of President Bush has struck a chord across the political spectrum.
Bush's supporters try to paint any dissent as unpatriotic and anti-American.
Dean was the first to stand up and shout, "Enough of this - let's take back our country!" and to serve notice that Bush's free ride is over.
Dean has stung the right wingers and ended the myth that criticism equals sedition!
Those of us who oppose Bush have been silent for too long. Dean has given us back our voices and rekindled the will and courage to oppose the vicious gang of extremists now in control of our country. Speak we will, fight we will, and vote we will!
-- Thomas L. Mull, Tallahassee
A candidate worth supporting
Thank you for your coverage of Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont and a Democratic presidential candidate for 2004. For a long time I've been disappointed with the Democratic Party, so much so that I left it first for the Reform Party and then later for the Green Party. I was so sick of voting for the "lesser evil." When I found out about Howard Dean, I thought: Now here is someone who not only has the ability to beat President Bush, since he's the only one who can effectively stand up to him, but also is someone I can support and still vote my conscience.
If Dean were to send my brother off to war, as Bush did, at least I would know that he won't lie to me about his reasons for going, unlike Bush. Republicans who complained about Bill Clinton's lack of character and morality ought to be supporting Howard Dean now, because George W. sure doesn't have either of those.
I'm also convinced he can both balance the budget and bring health care to children, just like he did for Vermont. He's a doctor, so he would know about the health care crisis more than anyone else running.
I also like him because he's not an ideologue; his positions are very practical. We desperately need an honest and intelligent person in the White House for a change.
-- Lynne H. Schultz, Gainesville
Those enlightened voters
Re: The obscure front-runner.
Wow! The editorial says, "Polls show that two-thirds of American voters still can't name a single candidate in the Democratic presidential field."
Are these are the same enlightened folks you want to vote and select our leaders? Or are these folks too busy doing other things to let the "small stuff" bother them?
-- Giles Al Bax, St. Petersburg
Political speech is advertising
Re: Court session puts campaign law in doubt, Sept. 9.
Free speech is not free; it is extremely expensive. The candidate with the most money gets the most free speech. Special interests donate a lot of money to campaigns. They don't do it for nothing. They expect and get something in return. The candidates should have equal amounts of free speech given to them so they are only beholden to the voters.
Free speech is also not necessarily a speech. It is advertising, and our politicians do a lot of false advertising.
There is not a law against free speech, but there is one against false advertising. Let's call paid political announcements what they are. They are advertising, not free speech.
Why don't we have more televised debates instead of expensive advertising? Why do we want to elect someone with good sound bites, good marketing strategy and who owes lots of favors to special interests? Why don't we change that? It will benefit the public. I know it's a new concept. Members of our Supreme Court against campaign finance reform are touting free speech. Well it's not free and it's not speech.
-- Debbie Terhune, Treasure Island
Pragmatist label doesn't fit terrorists
Re: Middle East peace is no closer for the loss of Palestinian pragmatist, Sept. 6.
To say that the late Ismail Abu Shanab was a pragmatist, as Barak Barfi does, is a stretch at best. Within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Shanab's smiling demeanor and a touching manifestation of fatherly love were of no consequence. Noteworthy and certainly of consequence was his position as a senior member of the brutal paramilitary Hamas that has and still is killing hundreds of Israeli civilians.
As for Marwan Barghouti, to even consider him as a credible and constructive Palestinian peace broker is patently absurd. We must remember that it was Barghouti who, until he was captured and jailed by the Israelis, had been orchestrating the slaughter of noncombatant Israeli civilians regardless of age or gender.
As evidenced by such a nonstarter as their insistence that millions of Palestinian refugees be allowed to return to Israel (and presumbly live there in peace with the Israeli minority), the ultimate and unequivocal goal of such "pragmatists" is a total destruction of Israel.
The tragedy of the raging conflict and lives lost - both Palestinians and Israelis - will continue until terrorists of all stripes are made to understand that they "cannot have their cake and eat it, too." Their talking of peace and, at the same time, sending suicide bombers on their missions is a disconnect and a sham that will doom the Palestinians to another 55 years of misery and thwart their legitimate aspirations for statehood. Elevating avowed terrorists to a status of pragmatist statesmen is counterproductive to finding the still-elusive formula for a just peace in the Middle East.
-- Jerry Rawicki, Seminole
Insurance customers need protection
I can't believe that the media, the beacons of truth, etc., aren't in the forefront on the exorbitant insurance rates being forced upon Floridians. I'm talking about real hardships, not the $6 per month the phone companies are ramming down our throats.
Is my case unique? We went from $800-plus per year to $2,200-plus per year for homeowners insurance in one year. I thought the insurance commissioner was supposed to protect us from rate increases such as this. This is almost what some people pay for their homestead taxes.
How do they get away with it? In our case, one company notified us it was pulling out of Florida but, another one would take care of us. Boy, did it ever. The fishy thing is that when you call the 800 number, it appears the two companies might be one and the same.
Why do we insure our homes? The obvious answer is that we are required to if we have a mortgage. Aside from that, we want protection from fire, theft and water damage. It's mandatory that sinkholes are covered but not mold, which can kill or make one sick. Does that make sense? The cost to remediate and restore our home is approaching $200,000. Without coverage, we would have had to walk away from it and lose our substantial equity. Now, the insurance companies are excluding mold and mildew or, putting a cap on it or, charging extra for coverage.
One might also expect that if fires became an epidemic that insurance companies would exclude them or charge extra. What then would they cover?
If it is mandatory to have homeowners insurance if there is a mortgage, then I submit that the insurance commissioner should scrutinize the rates and coverages and mandate fair premiums. The first thing that should be done is to preclude the insurance commissioner from receiving any campaign contributions from insurance companies. Next, all insurance companies should provide the same coverage and adhere to a standard of rates that are equitable across the board for all Floridians.
Insurance is not like buying a car or any other competitive product. Insurance companies have a data bank that lists all claims, CLUE (comprehensive loss underwriting exchange report), that can be used against us as to whether we can buy coverage or, whether we can sell our homes and the buyer can buy coverage. This is scary.
-- Frank B. Hill, Homosassa
Palmetto shouldn't be denigrated
Re: The lure of wild berries, Sept. 8.
The characterization of saw palmetto as "an indestructible nuisance plant" and a "saw-stemmed weed" is unfortunate and does not contribute to the appreciation of this plant for anything other than its dubious medicinal properties. Far from being a weed, it is often used in landscaping, especially the lovely blue-leaved form. In addition, its flowers sustain pollinators like bees and butterflies, and its berries are an important food for wildlife.
It and other native plants like it should be prized and used more often in our landscapes, which are too often composed of plants that require too much water, fertilizer and pesticide and do nothing to sustain the diversity of wildlife that once lived in the biological deserts now occupied by our homes.
-- Jan Allyn, Largo
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 also can be sent 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.
For e-mail users: Letters can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com E-mail messages must be text only and cannot include attachments. If you're using a word processing program to write the message, use the cut and paste functions to place it into your e-mail program. Please include your return e-mail address, as well as your name, mailing address and phone number, in the text of the message.
