Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Don't forget to give gift of blood

By LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Published December 12, 2006

As many of us prepare for the busy holiday season by buying gifts, spreading cheer and making donations to those less fortunate, only a small percentage of us will take the time to give blood.

LifeSouth Community Blood Centers, like many blood centers in our country, struggles to meet patient and hospital needs during the holiday season. Schools close for the holiday break, churches offer extra holiday services, often becoming too busy to host drives, and many businesses operate on a small staff during the holidays.

It is ironic that during a season that is about giving, merriment and joy, our community blood supply often dwindles to emergency levels. Statistics show that one out of every three people will need a blood transfusion in their lifetime. Cancer patients, trauma victims, premature infants, sickle cell patients and people undergoing surgery, as well as victims of earthquakes, floods, fires and storms, are just some of the people who rely on the gift of blood to survive.

If you take a moment, you probably can think of someone you know or love who has received a blood transfusion. We all expect blood to be available to us, but only a small fraction of us who are eligible to give blood actually do.

Giving blood isn't hard; it just takes a little time, about 30 minutes total. The actual donation takes less than 10 minutes and the donor qualifications are simple. Blood donors must be 17 years or older, weigh at least 110 pounds, be in good health, and not have donated blood in the past 56 days.

If you are healthy and meet the donor eligibility requirements, please add giving the gift of life to your "to-do" list this holiday season.

Gus Guadagnino, chairman LifeSouth Advisory Council Hernando region

At-large elections are real problem

Re: "Districts are a campaign ploy," Dec. 5 letter to the editor:

The last half of Lynette Ball's letter contains some very astute thoughts deserving of much consideration. However, I think she is way off base in the first half. I want a commissioner who lives in my neighborhood (read that "district").

Yes, as she states, all commissioners do vote on the issues of all districts, but what she apparently does not understand is that when an agenda item pertains specifically to one district, the other commissioners should (and normally do) give strong consideration to the comments of that district's commissioner prior to casting their votes. After all, who best knows their neighbors (and the neighborhood's problems) than those who live in the neighborhood (again, read that "district")?

Although commissioners are required to live in the district they represent, they are elected "at large" (by voters of the entire county). This is bad enough, as it allows for the possibility of more Istachatta voters going to the polls than those of Spring Hill, resulting in the election of a commissioner to represent Ms. Ball and her neighbors that they did not want. Ms. Ball not only wants that possibility to continue, but she thinks removing the current requirement that "commissioners must live within their district" would eliminate future ancy Robinson-Rose Rocco-type problems. She is right; however, it also would make our county elections 100 percent "at large" and that, at least theoretically and with a concerted effort on the part of Spring Hill voters, could allow us to end up with every commissioner being a resident of Spring Hill. That wouldn't be very fair to the people of Istachatta, would it?

Contrary to Ms. Ball's thinking, all districts must, by law, each consist (as much as possible) of the same number of voters as the other. Redistricting is done periodically to meet this "fairness in representation" requirement, and not as a "ploy" to favor anyone.

Like Ms. Ball, I won't get into the Robinson-Rocco issue, but I do recall a time when there was always some kind of hardship connected with casting your vote and, to me, that made it a very distinct honor. Today, things are such that it just really doesn't seem to make any difference to anyone/anything other than lawyers and egos, and it appears we aren't far from having ballots (of whatever kind) hand-carried to the side of every voter's armchair in the country. But, to be fair, I'm sure it'll be delivered by a committee consisting of one member from each party represented on the ballot!

As to eliminating future Robinson-Rocco problems, I think the answer is entirely too simple. Just require any person wishing to run for a district office provide proof they currently live within that district (and agree to live in it throughout the term), as an addition to the qualification papers they currently submit asking that their names be placed on the ballot.

Again, nothing against Ms. Ball, but I would prefer no one be allowed to vote on a district commission seat unless they live in that particular district. I do not like having her, or her Spring Hill neighbors, affecting who will represent me, my neighbors, and our district, (read that "neighborhood").

Leon G. Atkinson, Istachatta (Commission District 1)

[Last modified December 12, 2006, 06:28:12]