Perspective

Today's Letters: U.S. vigilance gives freedom to nitpick

By Letters to the editor
Published January 6, 2008

Freeby goes to courageous colonel Dec. 30, Robyn Blumner column   

None of the carping about Guantanamo, Blackwater, domestic wiretapping, etc., would be taking place if it weren't for one fact: There have been no follow-up attacks in the United States after 9/11. Not one.

Is this because no one in the Middle East wishes us ill? Hardly. Is it because they are afraid of us? Not with every other young Muslim aspiring to "martyrdom." Is it because the people of the Middle East don't have the money or means? We have shoveled billions of dollars over there in exchange for their oil.

There have been no further attacks on the United States because of the diligent work of the FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, Justice Department, local police departments and, yes, the George W. Bush administration. They are victims of their own success.

We have forgotten the threat hanging over us and are free to nitpick and to send the president's approval ratings to the cellar.

Pete Wilford, Holiday  

Pakistan is in need of sound political institutions

The Pakistan People's Party - the party of the assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto - has chosen her 19-year-old son to be her successor. As reported in the media, he has no political grooming or experience whatsoever.

The choice shows the lack of stable political institutions in Pakistan in general and its broken political system in particular. Probably this is why United States has always relied upon military dictators, as they head the only stable and organized institution in the country, Pakistan's army.

But then the danger is that military dictators usually lack the support of the public, and they don't carry the experience, passion and skills required to run the country and to act as a conciliatory leader for different classes of people.

In my opinion, if we want stability in Pakistan (or in any other Third World Muslim country), we should work on stability of political forums and institutions there, rather than depending on individuals like Benazir Bhutto or Pervez Musharraf.

Laiq Azam, Tampa

Darwin survives another debate Jan. 4, story

How many theories?

So, the debate still lingers over whether we should teach more than Darwin's theory of our origins or should also include "faith-based theories"? Will these other faith-based theories include the Islamic version, the Hindu version?

Where will they draw the line? How many acceptable theories are there? How many religions? Should we only teach the Christian version, as we're a Christian country? Wouldn't this be putting religion, or philosophy, into a science classroom?

When would the scientists of tomorrow have the time to prepare for the technologies of the future if they were discussing philosophies of the past?

Bill Brasfield, St. Petersburg

Know your candidates Jan. 2

Valuable information

Just a note of thanks for putting together this page comparing the positions of the candidates for president. It's very valuable as the primary elections come closer and candidates clarify their message and proposals.

I used it to mark out the concepts I don't agree with and came out with a clearer idea who will get my vote.

Please keep this wonderful model to evaluate the candidates through the coming months!

Marcia Thompson, Dunnellon

He deals to build fields Dec. 30, story

It's different turf

I just finished reading the story about Michael Kalt, who is credited with the new stadiums for the New York Yankees and the Mets. Yankee Stadium is in the Bronx and the Mets play in Queens - not exactly prime real estate.

Our waterfront park distinguishes us from other cities. Do we need a Ford Amphitheater-type outdoor stadium to intrude on the serenity of our waterfront? We are not the Bronx. It would be criminal to destroy such a natural resource for the benefit of entrepreneurs speculating that the "glitz" of a waterfront stadium will put more money in their pockets.

Kalt could do with the Rays as he did with the Yankees and Mets: Build a new stadium next to the old stadium or "go to Disney World."

Harold H. Dean, St. Petersburg

Selective history on religion Dec. 31, letter

Sensible separation

Obviously the letter writer from Brooksville who responded to David Ignatius' column (What would the Founding Fathers do?) did not understand what the man was saying.

Ignatius' point was that, yes, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were religious men but they did not believe in faith-based politics. He was not saying that presidents haven't been Christians. In fact he calls Adams the more religious of the two.

Why are members of the "religious right" so quick to think that they are being attacked?

Barbara Tourtelotte, Seminole

Holy immigrants Jan. 2, letter

But what about the law?

To the letter writer who used the Bible to support illegal immigration: Do you respect and follow other laws and rules of this country, and if so, why? If laws and rules are simply an inconvenience to you and your so-called morality in one area, why do you feel the need to respect any law? For that matter, why should the rest of us follow rules and procedures put in place by our local and federal governments?

I doubt the letter writer would agree that we only teach our kids to obey laws we like or agree with. His logic on illegal immigration is truly frightening.

Pat Pearlman, Largo

The same old bosses

I wish I could share Robyn Blumner's optimism that when George W. Bush completes his term all will go well with national policy. The Bush administration brought to the surface (for all to see) how our nation has operated since the end of World War II.

Corporate protection and expansion have driven our policies for 60 years, probably longer. We started overthrowing popular regimes and propped up despots protecting our interests since the '50s.

It's the trickle-down theory expressed so well during the Reagan years: What's good for Corporate America is good for Americans. Both Democrats and Republicans have bought into this, and whatever the rhetoric, the proof is where the rubber hits the road.

The war gets funded, human service dollars dry up, there's no hint of a national health care plan, and we have a shrinking middle class.

Will a new president change things? It's doubtful. The face changes, the personality changes, but the influence peddlers are the same. Their successes will continue, often at the expense of the American people both in blood and quality of life. We'll see.

Marc Yacht, Hudson

[Last modified January 5, 2008, 20:56:06]