Today's Letters

President Bush, again, has nixed stem cell research on the grounds that it is not "ethical" and "destroys human life."

I would ask: What about the human "lives" he has destroyed in his war? He thinks nothing of the lives he has destroyed on both sides of the conflict and the lives of those families who have lost a son/daughter/husband/father in his "war on terror." Not to mention those whose loved ones have been maimed and whose lives have been forever altered.

I don't believe President Bush has an ethical bone in his body. Who is he trying to kid? He believes if he signs the bill into law, the Republicans will lose the Christian vote and that is all he is concerned about. He never says or does anything that is not politically expedient.

Carolynne Paul, Brooksville

Blatant hypocrisy

President Bush has once again vetoed federal funding for meaningful stem cell research. He stated, "Destroying human life in the hope of saving human life is not ethical."

Does not everyone see the hypocrisy of this statement? He is personally responsible for destroying the human life of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children as well as 3, 500 U.S. troops and the maiming of thousands more. The lives lost in this war waged on the basis of lies is ethically and morally unacceptable.

Stem cells are not human life, they are simply cells with multiple developmental potential.

Thank goodness there is a time line for Bush's leaving office. We must insist on a time line for our troops leaving Iraq.

David A. Cimino, M.D., St. Petersburg

For private profits

Whatever President Bush's stated reasons for his stem cell funding veto, the likely reason is his continuing push to privatize government.

He doesn't want any discoveries or breakthroughs to be owned by the American people. He wants them in private hands that will make private profits, even if that means Americans with Alzheimer's or diabetes or anything else would have to pay extraordinary prices for treatments which, if owned by the American people through the federal government, could be dirt cheap.

Can't have that.

James McGill, St. Pete Beach

The last, best hope on immigration June 20, editorial

Unkept promises

You're kidding. Sen. Mel Martinez in the middle? Bipartisan?

It is amnesty for illegals, even though some in the Senate and our fearful leader say it isn't. They tell us they will build "the fence" and hire more border patrol officers first - before they implement the rest of this garbage.

They passed a similar bill in 1986 and we are still waiting for that fence. We are still waiting for anything to be done that was promised.

Why should we believe them this time? I, for one, don't.

Geraldine A. Ross, Dunedin

Government doesn't deserve our trust

The federal government cannot be trusted to legislate immigration policy. The immigration policies implemented in 1986 have failed miserably. The federal government has let every American citizen down by not enforcing the current policies and allowing 12-million illegal aliens into this country. Why would I trust the federal government to implement a comprehensive immigration bill when it can't even meet the U.S. passport legislation it passed in 2003?

The most rational approach on immigration is to secure our borders and go after employers hiring illegal aliens. If the federal government really makes this a priority and funds this approach over the next two or three years, we might have a little faith in their ability to adhere to the laws that they legislate. Also, during this time, we can identify a tamper-proof system that can be deployed to manage a guest worker program that is secure, verifiable and achievable.

Once the federal government has successfully secured our borders, punished employers for hiring illegal aliens and established a verifiable guest worker program, maybe, just maybe, the citizens of this country can trust the government to legislate new immigration laws that they will enforce.

I see no reason to support any immigration legislation until our current elected officials in Washington can prove to all U.S. citizens that they care about our security and value our trust.

Kevin Konkler, Palm Harbor

Universities cry out; is anybody listening? June 19, editorial

Sports come first at Florida universities

Your editorial tells us that Florida's public universities' share of the state's $7.1-billion deficit for public schools is $120-million, and that they face enrollment and budget freezes. And Carolyn K. Roberts, chairwoman of the university system Board of Governors, says, "Since I have been associated with higher education and our universities, we have continually shortchanged public university funding."

And in Roberts' published remarks to the state university Board of Governors (It's time to step up for future of universities, June 19), she tells us, "By every indicator of comparison, Florida falls behind in higher education. We do not just fall behind benchmark megatrend states. We fall behind neighboring states with half the size, half or less the wealth, and little real promise for national leadership. ... I do not believe dead last is what we aspire to for our students. Our state deserves better."

Prominent among Roberts' board recommendations is a challenge to Gov. Crist's veto of a 5 percent increase in what ranks as the nation's lowest tuitions, also freezing freshman admissions growth at a level consistent with actual funding.

Florida public universities' athletic programs rank first in the nation; their academic programs rank dead last. Are football and basketball what higher education is all about? Is Gov. Crist among those who tell us that money is not the solution to Florida's education problems?

It is apparent that funding education is low on Gov. Crist's list of budget priorities.

Joseph H. Francis, St. Petersburg

Full disclosure

I am finding it increasingly difficult to hear and read about the shortfall in funding for the university system.

The real travesty is the outrageous salaries and perks paid to university presidents, football coaches, other administrative personnel and tenure. Why are these figures never published when shortfall is discussed? Let's have some full disclosure.

Marlas M. Rietow, Tampa

Deputy's conduct a crime? June 19, story

An intoxicating force

Former Hillsborough sheriff's deputy Daniel Brock should be treated the same way any other person would be treated if he injured dozens of innocent people while driving under the influence.

The court should order him to pay restitution to each person he injured while on his "drunk with power" spree.

Daniel P. Quinn, St. Petersburg

Homeless panhandler triumphs June 19, story

More compassion

I'm genuinely stunned by the cynical comments generated by the recent stories about Steve Angel and the homeless/panhandling issue in general. People have waged vicious assaults against the homeless as well as Lucas Fleming for trying to help.

As a lawyer, I'm cognizant of the bad reputation our profession has in society, and admittedly, it is sometimes justified. Any time a lawyer tries to do something good in the community - in this case, providing pro bono services to the indigent - the public still manages to apply some sordid, negative spin to it.

What many forget (or ignore) is that we are all just one personal tragedy away from homelessness; perhaps the reason people complain about panhandlers and the homeless is that they serve as a reminder of that fact.

Life is unpredictable, and everyone's situation is different. Perhaps instead of pointing fingers and jumping to conclusions, we should be more compassionate and give someone in need a helping hand.

Jowita Wysocka, St. Petersburg

[Last modified June 21, 2007, 22:47:26]