Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Youth corps has had consistent success in its mission

The St. Petersburg Times has recently run several articles and an editorial critical of the Florida Youth Conservation Corps (Youth charity falls short of promise, June 26; Charity or cheap labor?, editorial, June 28; Fasano targets youth program, June 29). We at FYCC believe your reporting contains flaws that present a false and misleading picture of FYCC.

The Times mischaracterized FYCC's primary mission by suggesting that its purpose is to provide scholarships and life management skills training. FYCC is a nonprofit youth work experience program, providing at-risk youth with work experience that assists them in obtaining better-paying jobs. We consistently succeed in this mission. Rather than highlighting this fact, your reporters buried in the 74th paragraph the fact that virtually all Department of Transportation officials interviewed expressed satisfaction with our efforts.

Neither the DOT contracts we hold nor the legislation that authorizes them requires us to provide scholarships or life-management skills training. We have voluntarily offered them to help the youths we serve. Our scholarships are one-time awards providing up to $4,725 in book and tuition reimbursements. This won't fund four years of college, but it may help our participants get a taste of higher education and spur them to continue their education. None of the participants who qualified for these scholarships presented us with invoices of receipts for books or tuition. While we may not have perfected the administration of this program, we are continually striving to improve it, and we remain willing to work with any participant who qualifies for these benefits to ensure they are able to use them.

Your stories suggest that FYCC mishandles taxpayer dollars for the personal gain of its administrators and that we somehow "cheat" young people to "make money." Where are the facts to support these false assertions? Your reporters know DOT does not give taxpayer dollars to FYCC without accountability - our contracts are performance-based and we are paid based on the work we complete.

Your reporters also know FYCC is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Not once were they able to show that FYCC has violated applicable accounting principles or that FYCC's principals have profited personally. All FYCC participants were paid $7 an hour or more.

Finally, the Times claims our management has engaged in "exorbitant" spending on travel. Over the most recent four years, this spending amounted to less than 2 percent of our gross revenues. This money went to cover food, fuel and lodging (usually at a Ramada Inn, Holiday Inn or the equivalent) for ordinary business travel across Florida by our managers for crew oversight, contract meetings and equipment delivery and repair, among other things. During that time our two top officers attended a total of four in-state, transportation-related conferences - in all cases staying at budget accommodations. By what standard do you deem this exorbitant?

Your articles show a disturbing willingness to misrepresent FYCC's mission, mislead your readers about key facts and parrot the claims of a small group of individuals who have united in an attempt to smear FYCC for their own personal purposes. These actions are not consistent with your claim to be "Florida's Best Newspaper."

Rove case: a tempest in a teapot

Re: Karl Rove controversy.

At a time when our elected representatives should be concerned about the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq, the scandal in the United Nations oil-for-food program, the eradication of Social Security funds and the status of our health care, they are, instead, incensed about the Karl Rove controversy.

There is little or no justification for this display of partisan politics. In this country where the Constitution requires a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, the liberals have presumed Rove guilty without any proof just as they did to Clarence Thomas. This is their modus operandi. They scream fanciful suppositions loudly and often and hope that the unthinking will believe their propaganda.

They continuously call President Bush a liar despite the fact that Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Vladimir Putin all agreed that Iraq possessed WMDs. The Rove matter is a tempest in a teapot and will continue to totally disrupt the work that needs to be done legislatively.

It's about the rule of law

Re: The Rove affair, editorial, July 14.

In regard to the potential prosecution of Karl Rove for revealing the identity of an undercover CIA operative, the editorial stated: "Regardless of whether anyone is charged with a crime, assuming a crime has been committed, there will be no winners."

I must disagree. The rigorous prosecution of Karl Rove would be a victory for the rule of law. Rove has shown by his actions that he believes the rule of law does not apply to him, or to other highly placed government officials.

His arrest would also be a victory for the professional intelligence community of America, which the Bush White House has belittled or ignored. Outed agent Valerie Plame worked to protect our country from WMDs, and Rove endangered America by preventing her from continuing her undercover work. This was done to punish her husband for daring to state the truth: Bush was exaggerating Saddam Hussein's efforts to build a nuclear arsenal because Bush wanted to begin the Iraq war.

The agent, her husband and the American people deserve to see Karl Rove marched from the White House in handcuffs. It would be a victory for the American people and the rule of law.

Accusers ought to apologize

Re: Karl Rove.

In a better day with better men, they would rush to microphones to apologize to Karl Rove with the same speed they ran to the microphones to denounce him, accuse him and demand his resignation. Based on little more than leaks in grand jury testimony, Democratic Party buffoons like Charles Schumer, Harry Reid, Howard Dean and others demanded Rove's removal for leaking the name of not-so-secret CIA agent Valerie Plame.

Now, we learn it was journalist Robert Novak who gave Plame's name to Rove shortly before publishing his article.

I won't be expecting any apologies from these prominent Democrats as that would take both a sense of shame and humility of which the Democrats have none.

Rove needs to go

I just saw a story on an online news outlet that Karl Rove is now saying it was actually the media that gave him the name of Valerie Plame. This is unbelievable! These people manipulate the media like cowherds drive cattle. Meanwhile, Congress and the Senate sit on their hands. An investigation has been going on for two years trying to get to the bottom of this crime.

President Bush said he would get rid of whoever was responsible. Now they are splitting hairs over: Whether a crime was committed. Did he actually say the name? Did he tell the reporter or did the reporter tell him?

The president and his administration haven't been credible on a variety of issues since they took office in 2000. People on both sides of the aisle are going to lose any respect they may still have for the president if he doesn't keep his promise and fire the person responsible for the leak. Rove needs to go.

Crumbling credibility

Perhaps it's Karl Rove who needs "therapy and understanding." The little bit of credibility the White House had has just been lost. I can't wait to see Bush's poll numbers now! His agenda is doomed!

It's not a First Amendment issue

Re: A neutered press means a neutered democracy, by Howard Troxler, July 10.

In his arguments Troxler erroneously equates freedom of the press with a privilege for journalists to be immune from contempt of court charges when refusing to reveal sources in courtroom proceedings. No violation of the First Amendment takes place when journalists face or experience incarceration from such refusals. In general, such immunity merely makes the journalist's job easier because informants would have less fear about being identified.

Freedom of the press is an essential right, without which we face terrible consequences. However, requiring journalists to comply with the same courtroom proceedings as the rest of us does not negate the First Amendment. Journalists are being put in jail for the same reasons that any citizen would be jailed.

Court needs consensus, compromise

The words "liberal" and "progressive" have been demonized and now with the appointment of at least one new Supreme Court justice, who will hold a most powerful position for perhaps the next 20 years, these right-wing fundamentalists are making the words, "consensus" and "compromise" into dirty words.

If you think your elected officials are wishy-washy, you need to let them know that you support them in standing up for someone who not only understands the Constitution and the rule of law but also respects the rights of all people. Any family knows that successful problem-solving is achieved through consensus and compromise, and these are values important to bridging our differences not only at home but also within our country and around the world.

It will do our country no good to have Supreme Court justices who are ideologue extremists not able to think outside the box of a particular political agenda.

We live in a complex and nuanced world and we need leaders with a progressive vision who know when to compromise and how to create consensus in a world that has become so divided. Compromise and consensus are not dirty words; in fact, those may be our only path to survival.

Call the Capitol switchboard at (866) 340-9281 and ask for the office of your senator or member of Congress. They want to hear from you.

Take a prayerful path

Re: For high court, Bush asks: Who would Jesus nominate? column by Garrison Keillor, July 9.

George Bush certainly will pray for guidance in selecting a Supreme Court nominee, just as many of us pray for God to lead us in the right direction. However, I would imagine he would ask God to lead him to someone who has actually read the Constitution, and if that person understands the Constitution as intended by our Founding Fathers, it would be a real plus.

This reality could have been useful

Re: A little too close to home, other comment, July 13.

Although I have never been a fan of TV "reality" shows, I disagree with this editorial, which supports the ABC network for pulling a show after "protest from many quarters." The show was apparently going to present competing families - blacks, Latinos, Asians, gays and Wiccans and other seemingly "undesirable minorities" vying for a home in a white conservative, upper-middle class "Pleasantville"-type neighborhood in Austin Texas. And of course, the Pleasantville neighbors will judge who gets to move into the neighborhood.

I believe - the degradation issue aside - this ill-fated reality show would actually demonstrate how much we, the American masses, are still prejudiced, racist, bigoted and otherwise unaccepting of human beings unlike what we perceive ourselves to be!

Of course, we Americans hate to admit these ongoing shortcomings, so I suppose we would rather settle for reruns of the mediocre Desperate Housewives.

Keillor's wit is welcome

Re: Garrison Keillor.

It brought a smile to my face when I read that I will be enjoying a weekly dose of Garrison Keillor. For those readers who have not read his books or listened to his radio show, you're in for a real and rare treat. He is modern American humor's descendant of Twain, Tarkington and Thurber.

I will look forward to his weekly column in a way that I haven't since Russell Baker stopped writing his column. Thank you, Times, for a wonderful addition to your already excellent newspaper.

Environmental guilt not needed

Re: When it's too hot for moral arithmetic, July 13.

Oh, how grand it is to see Garrison Keillor's clever words in print. He certainly is a welcome addition to the St. Petersburg Times. I'm glad that he is enjoying the perks of life that come with success.

But what's up with this guilt thing about living an environmental lifestyle? He need not feel guilty about air conditioning, a nice house, a couple of cars. What makes him think that these modern conveniences, that we all strive to have, are contrary to living a "green" lifestyle?

Most environmentalists are not the fundamentalist zealots that he mentions. We are simply saying that we can do better as a nation and world. We can drive more efficient cars, contain urban sprawl, develop renewable energy sources and recycle when possible (even when one lives in St. Petersburg, a city without curbside recycling!).

So go ahead and enjoy your comforts. Just be smart about your choices on how to achieve them.

Separation remains essential

Re: Expressing our beliefs is part of our nature, by William Raspberry, July 11.

Raspberry quotes others to make the point that a secular government must be antireligious. What nonsense. Our government is not antireligious. It simply does not promote the doctrine of any religion. Raspberry also expresses his belief that our Founding Fathers had no intention of creating a secular government. Wrong again.

Like so many others Raspberry misses the point the founders understood completely. They knew that when our governing bodies pick a side and begin to promote a religious point of view, they would, by the very nature of man, discriminate against other religions and those who practice no religion at all.

Those making the most noise about allowing government to express religious preferences are practicing their faith. They are convinced that non-believers go to hell when they die. It is their responsibility to save us all and government is just another tool that can be used to spread the word and accomplish that purpose.

I grew up repeating the Lord's Prayer at the start of every school day. I wasn't given a choice and the teachers and school officials above them were not given a choice. It was the law in our Florida county and people were punished if they did not at least pretend to pray.

There are those who want us to return to those days. Heaven help us if they get their way.

God sees success in the public square

Re: "Holy Land" park wins tax ruling, July 12.

Here is an excellent rejoinder to the frequently heard complaints by zealous Christians that they are being "persecuted." God, they often affirm, is being banished from "the public square." Shame on a crude society for caving in to "secular humanists!"

Now comes a ruling by a circuit judge concerning an elaborate theme park exalting God's own: "Zion's Hope." Its admission of "roughly $35" does not "preclude its being a nonprofit."

To some people these words will ring hollow. For at the very end of the article comes this telling phrase: "Zion's Hope . . . is devoted to converting Jews to Christianity . . ." And the last words cannot be ignored: "A gift shop and cafe operate here, exempt from the state's 6 percent sales tax."

It looks as if the Christian God, at least, is doing well in "the public square."

Subsidizing proselytizing

Re: "Holy Land" park wins tax ruling.

How insulting to learn a theme park is being subsidized by taxpayers for the purpose of converting Jews to Christianity. Have they forgotten the millions of Jewish people killed by Christians when they would not convert? Have we all forgotten the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust?

Would the tax exemptions apply if a Muslim theme park opened for the purpose of converting Christians to Islam, or Christians to Judaism? This park can only cause an even greater rift between the existing religions in this country today, even without the tax exemption.

I think it is time we defined churches and church activities and decided how much of a tax exemption is needed to support their existence. I do not believe churches were designed to be commercial endeavors. I do not believe any church should proselytize at taxpayer expense.

I support the Orlando tax assessor and I hope he can press his assessment of the park.

Set our sights high

Re: Let's get back to Earth, letter, July 11.

Most critics of the space program say that we could use the money to feed hungry people. My response is: We might as well cancel the Super Bowl for the same reason.

The point I am making is that setting our sights on space exploration may in fact help us solve some problems here on Earth. For example it can create more jobs, thus stimulating the economy. Also solving logistics problems such as ample food supply in space may very well prove advantageous here on Earth, as well as stimulate other technological advances.

In short, let's set our sights high and stay focused!

[Last modified September 13, 2005, 16:29:33]