Catering to the rich can bring benefits to a community
Letters to the Editor
Published October 15, 2005
Re: Why worry about the rich? letter, Oct. 13.
Catering to the "rich" helps our overall economy and those among lower socioeconomic ranks, as well. The letter writer's comments about wasted news on Champagne tastes, boutique shortage (Oct. 10) missed these economic truths. In fact, serving the narrower tastes of the wealthy actually helps the lower socioeconomic ranks participate in new forms of wealth creation.
First, the merchant has a new market in St. Petersburg for, say, exotic cheeses, designer clothing, jewelry, art or fly-fishing rods. In turn these merchants hire clerks and other workers to assist them in filling these needs. These same clerks, workers and merchants then have incomes so that they may purchase nonexotic cheeses, posters and frozen cod, increasing the demand for such wares from other merchants and the like. And so the dollar cycles through - the "multiplier effect."
Many of the nonrich may also relish opportunities to purchase a dry-aged steak, or a schoolteacher might like to visit a Bern's on a very special occasion. Such items and places might be more commonplace to the "rich," but many others ("nonrich") benefit from the presence of the "rich" newcomers.
The alternative is a community where the rich have left, or have never come in the first place. Instead, we will see the rich contribute to the symphony and our museums, increasing the level of culture that trickles down to us all. We should welcome our new neighbors with enthusiasm and hope they will also be charitable and help us with the homeless in the parks.
-- John F. Jewell, St. Petersburg
The rising cost of stuff
Re: What's really the point of having all this stuff?, by Sandra Thompson, Oct. 8.
Good for Sandra Thompson. For a long time I've been saying the same thing: "With all the things we are expected to have, no wonder people can't afford to live."
It gives me great concern to read of proposed ideas and legislation that would "subsidize" individuals so they can afford to live here. Are we going to create a welfare system for the middle class?
I would prefer to see teachers, police officers, firefighters and the other essential service personnel be given a "living" wage.
And if we subsidize housing payments, will this not encourage increased housing prices, because then the owners (investors) can charge more since the government might help pay for the cost? It is a spiral I think we can neither afford nor encourage.
-- Lucy Peak, Palm Harbor
Look on the bright side of Tampa
Can we please have a break from Sandra Thompson's week-in week-out whining about living in Tampa? Instead of delivering her weekly dose of gloom and doom about living in Tampa as compared to the almighty New York City, how about sending her out to enjoy the great things there are to do here in terms of art, food, music and culture.
Tampa is not a bad place to live, and we are all tired of her complaining about living here.
-- Ilan Weiss, Mulberry
This isn't progress
Want to know a new oxymoron? Progress Energy! Thanks to the "tier billing" (this is where you are billed one rate for the first 1,000 KWH and another rate for anything above 1,000 KWH!), I have adjusted my lifestyle:
1. I wash my dishes by hand in the sink with cold water.
2. I turn the thermostat up to 80 degrees and move out onto the porch which has a smaller air conditioning unit, and do as much work there as possibly until it is time to go to bed. Then I get to come back "into the house."
3. I hang clothes out to dry.
4. I wash only once a week.
5. I limit the TV and radio.
6. I have energy control on the appliances in the house.
7. I limit the time for cooking and eat out a lot.
8. I limit the number of showers and baths.
9. I do not turn on any unnecessary lights.
Progress! This isn't progress. This is how my mother was living 50 years ago!
-- Margaret Hyde, Clearwater
NOAA stays on top of the weather
Re: No excuse for NOAA failures, editorial, Oct. 12.
Wow, are your thoughts off the mark. NOAA does everything necessary to warn communities of impending storms. Whether communities take that seriously is the real issue.
I listen to NOAA broadcasts daily on 162.55 and associated frequencies on weather radio. Do you? The weather buoys in the Gulf of Mexico have been fully functional, save for 30 days after Katrina disabled one 200 miles west of Captiva Island, in the heart of Katrina's path. That failure has proven to be inconsequential.
I have heard commentators say that New Orleans had only two days' notice to evacuate, when the NOAA cone of uncertainty included New Orleans for five days. Thank goodness most mayors and governors on the gulf paid heed and evacuated for Katrina and Rita.
The NOAA forecast cones of uncertainty have been right-on this year, and last. We were lucky here in Spring Hill last year when Hurricane Charley swerved to the southern end of the cone.
NOAA has weather satellites in orbit that I, and any modestly endowed weather fan, can listen to, copy images from, and draw our own conclusions from. Do you analyze those images?
Ask weather analysts around the world about the accessibility, usefulness and predictive ability of NOAA products. I hear their opinions regularly on the Internet. Then go on to other matters.
-- A. LaMont Shultes, Spring Hill
One more government failure
I am surprised that I can be shocked by the ability of government departments to fail to perform. A close family friend, a disabled Vietnam veteran, lost the roof to his apartment in the recent hurricane. He and his 70-year-old wife lost all their furniture, clothing, etc. FEMA has repeatedly turned down his claim.
In a vain effort to help, I called the department. After the requisite 20 or 30 minutes of hold time the department picked up the phone. A pleasant young man assured me that the victim had not checked the right boxes on the claim, and he would refer this to his supervisor to correct the claim, and send out an inspector.
Pleasantly surprised the matter would be resolved so easily, I asked for the name of the person to whom the young man would pass the case. He refused to tell me the person's name. So how can I hold someone accountable if the matter is not resolved? When I asked to speak to the supervisor, he advised me management was in a "meeting." When I asked for the name of the person who instructed him not to give out any names, he advised me he was ending the call and cut me off.
I am not aware of any security issues with FEMA that would make this information secret. I labor under the misconception that civil servants should be civil and serve, not hide away from their employers, the American people.
I am at a loss to know how I can best assist this wonderful family.
-- John Mollaghan, Clearwater
Where is the accountability?
Re: Lawyer: Beating video doesn't show police officers' side of story, Oct. 13.
Anyone who has had a run-in with police (and if you're a black male, there's a 1-in-4 chance you will during your lifetime) knows that they are hired for being neither Einsteins nor Gandhis. Both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International cite significant amounts of police brutality throughout the United States and cite as the biggest reason an institutionalized lack of accountability.
This raises the question: Are serving and protecting even ancillary functions of the police department? If you consider that the police in the video weren't simply "hurricane weary," that this doesn't simply happen when there's a video camera handy, and that police everywhere are sanctioned by the state to use excessive violence, then we should ask ourselves: How often does this really happen and how can we demand accountability?
-- Vince Longo, Tampa
Political civility is lacking
Re: More like a thug than a leader, letter, Oct. 10.
The letter writer's diatribe against former congressman Richard Gephardt of Missouri was, suffice it to say, misguided. The letter writer called the former House Democratic leader a "wimp."
He obviously confuses civility with weakness, as Gephardt was merely paying his former political opponent a tribute in obviously tough times brought upon, admittedly, by self-inflicted wounds.
However, in my estimation, Gephardt's remarks stand out as the kind of bipartisan spirit that is missing in Washington today. Republicans and Democrats often see each other as "evil" and corrupt. Leaders like former congressmen Bob Michael, Richard Gephardt and Tom Foley and former Sens. Sam Nunn, Bob Graham and Warren Rudman, who put country over partisanship, are often missing in action in today's Washington. Today, the tone has only gotten worse thanks to ideological orthodoxy on the left and right, as well as McCarthy-like tactics of the right wing, where the patriotism of even moderate or liberal veterans is now fair game.
Maybe some do not like that Gephardt, the son of a Teamster and milkman, does not come from the "MoveOn.org" wing of the party. Maybe some want a bomb thrower as their leader, and not a statesman. However, to me, Richard Gephardt will always be remembered as a Humphrey-style Democrat who paid more attention to the concerns of working Americans rather than the latest wishes of the New York Times editorial board or pollsters looking to triangulate politics into a bland sport of merely existing for existence's sake.
-- Luis Viera, Esq., Temple Terrace
Consider Christian violence
Re: Gamemakers call on holy warriors, Oct. 10.
The Rev. Ralph Bagley has a wonderful idea regarding video games: Make them a force for "good" rather than for "evil." Make the good become aggressive and triumphant! Defeat evil! How much more wholesome for young, tender minds currently enthralled with violent, ugly conflict.
I hold no brief for the sleazy and the sordid in current entertainment. I certainly deplore the hours youngsters may spend "fighting" via video games. But, as the Rev. Bagley charitably remarks, this is a country dedicated to free expression.
His desire, though, is that a line of videos celebrating Christian violence may become popular. Yes, Christian violence. For such games are "... all about fighting evil. In Catechumen, the object is to battle demon-possessed Roman soldiers "to turn them from darkness to light.' "
Bagley has an ambition concerning the future success of "Christian-themed games." The Bible, he says, is a fruitful source of ideas. "Christian history is so rich and so dramatic in some areas for the next 20 years we have all the game concepts we need." He speaks truly.
One has only to remember the Spanish conquistadors landing on the Mexican coast in the 16th century, intent on gold and on Christianizing the natives. Forced baptisms were the norm. We have only to remember the Inquisition, in which luckless individuals who dared disagree with the doctrines proclaimed suffered unbelievable tortures. We have only to remember the armed Crusaders spreading over "heathen" lands.
In the long painful years since its ascendancy, Christianity has too often preached a gospel of love and peace while waving a bloody sword.
Yes, just the right kind of entertainment for the kiddies.
-- Abigail Ann Martin, Brandon
Creationists seek to expand studies
Re: Evolution debate.
As a Christian minister I am distressed by the misinformation and mischaracterization of the Creation vs. Evolution debate. First of all, I don't know of any credible creationist who wants the biblical account of creation taught in public schools straight from the Bible. It is correct to say the science classroom is not the place for that. But it is incorrect to say there is no scientific evidence for creation, and it is misleading to say the school board in Pennsylvania wants creation taught in school. All the school board wants is a short disclaimer in the science books saying evolution is not settled fact, which it is not.
It is also incorrect to say that no credible scientists accept creationism or intelligent design. Some 400 scientists recently signed a petition saying they do. What about men like A.E. Wilder-Smith, Michael Denton and Robert Gentry? I dare anyone to say those men are not "serious" scientists.
And as for evolutionists insisting that Christianity and evolution are compatible: Both Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21 say that death was the result of Adam's sin and did not exist in the world before then. Evolution says death existed for millions or billions of years before Adam drew his first breath. Those two conflicting ideas are about as incompatible as can be.
In the Oct. 8 Times, a retired science teacher writes that "No serious biologist or scientist today doubts that insects evolve to resist insecticides . . ." He is correct, but the problem is what he has just described is microevolution, which no one disputes. Macroevolution is what the debate is about. That is saying fish evolved into reptiles and reptiles to birds, and apes to men. It is that theory which lacks for evidence.
Creationists do not want to limit what students may study, we want to expand it. I always thought science meant looking at all the data, not just the bits that support a particular theory.
-- J.R. Carrel, Clearwater
And in the beginning . . .?
Re: For evolution's foes, help in high places, Oct. 9.
George Johnson's commentary was a very sensible evaluation of the evolution-creation debate until the very last paragraph. He asks, "Where then did the creator come from? Was he created . . .? Or did he evolve?"
This only confuses the issue, because materialist science itself relies upon the notion of an "uncreated creation," which is a far less rational concept than that of an uncreated creator, and is the irremediable flaw in the materialist's worldview.
The only alternative to the theory of Intelligent Design is Stupid Design, or at its best, mindless, chaotic design.
-- Robert Arvay, Tampa
A perpetuation of intolerance
Re: It's about morality, not prejudice, letter, Aug. 8.
Over the past several years I have found the conservative, religious right's self-declared ownership of "values, character, and/or moral behavior" entertaining. The entertaining or - more correctly - sad part is the same perpetuation of intolerance that plagued religions for millenniums.
Given there are a number of moral values that all humans should agree upon, it appears after this, the decay of an individual's value is quick under the eyes of the right. It seems that if a person, group or country of people does not share the right's subjective (yes, subjective) set of values, then they must be changed or beat down to the point that they will see the world the "correct" way.
I am a heterosexual male. Homosexuals do not bother me in any way because I chose not to be bothered. I have never had a homosexual knock on my door trying to convert me to their way (unlike some of the religious right). I have never been told I am going to hell by a homosexual (unlike some of the religious right). And I have never felt my individual freedoms being threatened (the way I have by some of the religious right). In short, homosexuals do not bother this heterosexual and we coexist peacefully.
These observations lead me into the extreme gratitude I owe this country's Founding Fathers for having the foresight to ensure a separation of church and state. This protects millions of people from the conservative, religious right and protects individual freedoms every day. I am sure these "owners of values" do not speak for everyone, but they seem to receive a whole lot of press.
-- Steve Ryan, Palmetto
[Last modified October 15, 2005, 01:15:22]
