Opinion: Forget private affairs and focus on real issues

I do try to be somewhat objective in reading letters to the editor, but the latest flurry of letters regarding Jesse Jackson's infidelity and its coverage by your newspaper really riled me. Particularly infuriating was a comment that the "liberal agenda fostered irresponsibility" (For liberals, morality doesn't matter, letter, Jan. 20).

I do recall, lest it be forgotten, that several other leaders -- both political and religious but all conservative in their ideologies -- had similar, unfortunate experiences in the area of fidelity, i.e., Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker, Henry Hyde, Robert Livingston, Newt Gingrich, etc. I suspect that if one kept a score card -- liberal versus conservative dalliances -- the tally would be about equal.

Perhaps we would all be better off if less attention were paid to private affairs affecting only the immediate players and more attention went to public policies that affect us all. Such policies might include a $60-billion missile defense system which, so far, is unworkable and will only alienate our allies; privatization of Social Security; and, of course, our nuclear waste and energy problems. Those policies alone offer a full plate for contemplation.
-- Sue Bogart, Dunedin

A hypocritical journalistic softball

Re: Scandal may not damage Jackson, Jan. 19.

If it had been discovered that former Sen. John Ashcroft had adulterously impregnated a junior aide and fathered an illegitimate child, the St. Petersburg Times would have emblazoned a huge banner headline across the front page and joined in with a posturing Jesse Jackson and all the other wild-eyed liberals in demanding Ashcroft's banishment to Siberia. With the story of Jackson's adultery, however, the Times tucks the story into a minor column, explaining why it doesn't think his scandalous betrayal of his wife, family and God's law will jeopardize his leadership position -- a hypocritical journalistic softball, as expected of the liberal Times.

You're right, of course. The Rev. Jackson's claque will defend their corrupt hero to the death.

There may be a special place in hell reserved for hypocritical preachers like the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson. Maybe Jackson can share his accommodations with another infamous "reverend," Henry Lyons. They're cast from the same mold. In an adjacent anteroom, their hypocritical apologists can do their time.
-- Anthony J. Wickel, Clearwater

Jackson no longer a role model

Can Jesse Jackson possibly use the word illegitimate when referring to the Bush presidency in the future? I would think that word will no longer be in his vocabulary. I wonder what he can now say to all those young people whom he preached to about not having children out of wedlock? Certainly he can no longer hold himself up as a model to his young people.

In fact, he has given them an excuse not to worry about the consequences of having children out of wedlock. And what about the child he created? Here is a child without a legitimate father and without a family to grow up in. I think Jesse Jackson needs someone to preach to him.
-- Ronald Dakin, Spring Hill

Judgment shouldn't be set aside

On Sunday, at the Salem Baptist Church in Chicago, Pastor James Meeks said with respect to the Rev. Jackson's recent predicament, "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone."

This is a noble sentiment not practiced when religion and politics are mixed or in racial politics for the most part. I have some belief in the biblical injunction, but not to the degree it renders my intellect non-judgmental. What would the injunction do, if applied, to all pundits and editorial writers?
-- James R. Gillespie, St. Petersburg

No help for the suffering

Our new "compassionate" conservative president, George W. Bush, a man who really cares about the world and its people, is now on the job. In his first day in office, knowing that the rest of the world is suffering from overpopulation and that people, including mothers and children, are dying of starvation, he announces that he will block international funding to any group that sponsors abortion.

It is ironic that on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, which gives women in this country the right to an abortion, Bush, in his "compassion," announces that he will cut off assistance to family planning groups, which help the world's most needy, if they approve of abortions.
-- V. Paradis, Seminole

A strange compassion

Re: Bush bans abortion funding in U.S. aid, Jan 23.

President Bush has delivered his first demonstration of "compassionate conservatism." He revoked President Clinton's executive order authorizing financial aid to international agencies involved in offering assistance in family planning, use of contraceptives and guidance in matters involving abortion to families in Third Countries.

Obviously, the underprivileged women and children in overpopulated nations do not warrant his compassion. Since President Bush promised to obey the law of the land with regard to Roe vs. Wade, can we expect him to show similar "compassionate conservatism" -- with the cooperation of his attorney general nominee, John Ashcroft -- and whittle away at the basics rights of abortion in the United States, as well?
-- Irving Hyman, Largo

Can Ashcroft go against conscience?

Allow me a short observation about John Ashcroft's confirmation hearing. He assures us that he will be guided by the law, not his religious beliefs, if he is installed as attorney general.

I have heard abortion characterized as murder in my wife's Assemblies of God church. Then how can Ashcroft accept the position of enforcing such action contrary to his conscience?

Is this not akin to what we heard at Nuremberg? "I was only following orders."
-- Herman A. Lambert, St. Petersburg

Kennedy is a laughable questioner

Imagine, if you will, John Ashcroft, President Bush's nominee for attorney general -- who doesn't drink, smoke or dance and who has led an exemplary life -- being questioned and investigated by the likes of Ted Kennedy. What a hoot that is.
-- R. Wheeler, Palm Harbor

Ashcroft's reasoning works against him

William Raspberry's Jan. 19 column, Ashcroft's advocacy is unsettling, spelled out some cogent reasoning regarding former Sen. John Ashcroft's qualifications for the position of U.S. attorney general. Raspberry agrees that the candidate has an abundant record of public service establishing a basis for confirmation.

The columnist then goes on to ask why Ashcroft, then in the Senate, had refused certification of Bill Lann Lee, an appointee of former President Clinton, as chief of the Civil Rights Division. The reasoning of the senator was that Lee's liberal leanings would prevent him from applying the rule of law fairly.

Raspberry now asks how -- since the candidate is a far-right ideologue who, for example, does not believe in a woman's right to abortion -- he can fairly administer the rule of law permitting abortion. Ashcroft, by his own reasoning, has disqualified himself.

Now comes Jeff Jacoby, an admired columnist whom I would have expected to agree with Raspberry (Ashcroft's enemies are the zealots, Jan. 22). He comes down hard on the candidate's adversaries, calling them "zealots on the fringe. In their willingness to shred the good name of this admirable man, they are -- yet again -- beneath contempt."

The St. Petersburg Times, after reviewing the records of the candidate and arguments for and against, and knowing that confirmation is in the offing, decided in its Jan. 22 editorial A wrong choice that the senator is a bad choice. I agree.
-- Joseph Kessel, St. Petersburg

This is no way to unite us

Ever since the bitter Florida recount debacle I have been hearing slogans from Republican leaders and Bush supporters that remind me overly much of the righteousness of those who brook no opposition, like the Iranian mullahs who branded us all the evil empire back in the early '80s.

Thus do I feel more acutely than ever the need to express once more the basis for the outrage so many of the large majority who voted against George W. Bush felt by the nominations of John Ashcroft, Gale Norton and some of the others. As a writer, I have always doubted and questioned the rigid certainty of the righteous, whatever their creed, and am especially troubled by such attitudes in my own country.

I don't question or support the misdeeds of Bill Clinton (or Jesse Jackson), but to claim that a lifelong rich playboy, sports team owner and former drug user somehow manifests righteousness and integrity by contrast, is troubling. What is even more troubling, however, is the notion that having "won" the election on the promise of "bringing people together," and "reaching out" to Democrats, Bush does exactly the opposite, by making appointments that fly in the face of the views of the majority of American voters. He behaves as though he'd won in a landslide, rather than through a highly dubious court decision. This is not the way to do what he claims he wants to do, which is to unite the country.
-- E.C. Ayres, St. Petersburg

Solutions to poverty were scarce

Re: Political unity needed to end poverty, Jan. 13.

So called faith-based rallies to address problems like poverty, crime and war always leave me skeptical. This column by Jim Wallis, reporting George Bush's meeting with religious leaders, was a good example. The 1,000 or so words did not mention one real strategy.

There was no reference to low-wages solutions like raising minimums or espousing "living wage" initiatives. There was no reference to access to health care like a national universal-access commitment or prescription drug relief for the elderly poor. There was no reference to disarmament or reduced dependence on military interventions in international conflicts. No mention of any alternatives, if those seem too radical.

So, what I am left with is the impression that conventions of religious leaders are assembled to help the participants feel good about vague intentions. It reminds me of what I used to feel when I used to go the church.

I conclude by addressing Wallis and his "Call to Renewal" federation in his own words to George Bush: "I hope you surprise us."
-- Ron Melancon, Tampa

Cheers to the 'old salts'

Re: Rusting Navy relic finally back home, Jan. 11.

Thank you for front-page coverage of the LST-325 voyage from Europe to Mobile, Ala. As a former crew member on sister ship LST-1122, I fully appreciate all of the hard work, sacrifices and perseverance from the "old salts."

The LST is not a smooth-riding ship and rides high in the water by design for its chosen mission. Crossing the wintertime Atlantic in that vessel is, indeed, quite a feat. My heartiest congratulations to the crew for a job well done.
-- William G. Johnson, Largo

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page