Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
© St. Petersburg Times, published January 30, 2001
Re: A wrong choice, editorial, Jan. 22.
Your editors have made a wrong choice in opposing the nomination of John Ashcroft to be attorney general. He has been opposed by TV-grabbing Democratic senators and so many left-wing organizations, which you apparently support. You also have supported an administration that has been full of moral and ethical lapses, which makes it difficult for me to believe that you could be fair.
I share most of John Ashcroft's convictions, and I do not consider myself a far-right ideologue. I simply believe in what is moral and ethical, with fair justice for all. And I believe in God. Why is it so hard to believe that such positions would make it hard to deliver fair law enforcement decisions?
Your compass is pointing in the wrong direction. You had better turn it to what is right in the eyes of most Americans: a desire to do what is right for all the people in the eyes of God.
-- John Bichsel, Dunedin
President Bush's choice of John Ashcroft to be U.S. attorney general -- an official whose responsibilities include enforcing our nation's environmental laws -- could hardly be more out of step with mainstream America. Take a look at this disturbing list: He introduced legislation to undercut efforts to limit emissions of man-made greenhouse gases. He voted to roll back clean water protections and prevent the EPA from enforcing arsenic standards for drinking water. He voted to allow chemical manufacturers to avoid compliance with community "right to know" laws so they would not have to report on emissions of some toxic pollution. He even voted to allow mining companies to dump cyanide and other mining wastes on large areas of public lands next to mining sites.
How can we trust this man to enforce environmental protections that most Americans support when he has tried to jeopardize our health and security by undermining them?
His record on environmental protections is as bad as his record on civil and reproductive rights and First Amendment freedoms. There has to be a better person for this crucial job!
-- Nancy Corson Carter, St. Petersburg
To the thoughtful observer, most of the hysteria directed against John Ashcroft's Senate confirmation for attorney general appears to be coming from those having an unfounded suspicion that he will not justly enforce the law. However, their true alarm is more likely that he will impartially enforce the law without exempting even those who regard themselves as "politically correct."
-- John V. Koontz, St. Petersburg
The Times editorial of Jan. 22, A wrong choice and Jeff Jacoby's column, Ashcroft's enemies are the zealots, poses an interesting exercise in juxtaposition. As they used to say in the old television series, "Will the real zealots please stand up?"
Throughout his political career, John Ashcroft has actively opposed many federal and state laws and court decisions with which he disapproves. He also maintains that his disapproval of these laws and court decisions are based on his deeply held religious convictions.
It therefore seems rather odd that during his recent confirmation hearings he said, after taking an oath, that if appointed attorney general he would uphold and vigorously enforce the very same laws and court decisions that he opposes on grounds of religious conviction.
It is by no means self-evident how Ashcroft could bridge the gap between his ideology and those things he would be required by law to do in the position of attorney general. You do not have to be a zealot to wonder whether Ashcroft's performance at his confirmation hearings demonstrates an amazing capacity for compartmentalized thinking, or whether he wants the job so badly that he may be willing to sacrifice both his personal and ideological integrity in pursuit of his political ambitions.
On balance, it seems that placing John Ashcroft in charge of the office of attorney general is closely akin to placing a member of the Flat Earth Society in charge of the space program.
-- W.G. Marks, Tampa
Re: Various letters concerning Sen. John Ashcroft.
As long as Ashcroft doesn't legislate his "evangelical" Christianity on me or other Americans who do not share the beliefs of the "Christian" right, a lot of problems will be avoided.
Many Americans know the old story about how we would have the Roman pontiff governing America during John F. Kennedy's presidency. The anti-Catholics had a blast with this baloney, and fortunately nothing happened.
Perhaps Ashcroft deserves a chance to prove that he will be a fair attorney general, as he will have us believe. As a result, fear of him will begin to subside.
-- Manuel Perez, Tampa
Re: Lieberman's nomination brought celebration, Ashcroft's brings criticism, Jan. 21.
Charles Krauthammer is eloquent as he outlines what he believes is a blatant inconsistency: The very religious (Jewish) Joe Lieberman received almost "universal applause"; the very religious (Christian) John Ashcroft's nomination set off the old liberal and religious reflexes.
Does Krauthammer seriously believe that "liberals" were pleased that Lieberman proclaimed his religious views so often and so publicly? Does he not realize that these same liberals accented Lieberman because of his views on abortion and minority rights? Does Krauthammer not understand that Ashcroft poses a threat to freedom of choice and minority rights? It is more than religion, Mr. Krauthammer. It is a matter of very serious issues.
Ashcroft, in his Bob Jones University speech, stated not "the obvious" but very mistaken view, "that the American experiment has always recognized its source in the transcendent." How many weary times must it be reiterated that the Constitution of our country is purposely neutral and secular? That the fact that it is makes us all free?
As a postscript, we might remind Krauthammer that liberals have never really succeeded in freeing the country from religion in government. Observe the church services, the invocations, the "Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving" that accompanied this latest inauguration. And then ask yourself how you would feel if you were an American Moslem, an American Buddhist or an American secular humanist.
-- Abigail Ann Martin, Valrico
Re: . . . and an unpardonable pardon, editorial, Jan. 25.
You printed your obligatory slap on the wrist for Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich, the international fugitive. You purposely failed to print the most flagitious aspect of this pardon.
Jack Quinn, who is Clinton's former White House counsel and chief henchman, is Rich's attorney and no doubt influenced Clinton.
So we have a double payoff: payoff to Clinton's heavy campaign contributor and payoff to Jack Quinn, who no doubt received a fat counsel fee.
This is typical of eight years of Clintonism.
-- Arthur Thomas, Beverly Hills
Re: State parks plan costly job cuts.
On Jan. 13, the Times published a provocative article by Julie Hauserman that said the Department of Environmental Protection's Division of Recreation and Parks was implementing a plan that would result in a higher cost to taxpayers for maintaining the parks. The basis for the story was a report from the Office of Program Policy and Analysis of Government Accountability, an arm of the Florida Legislature.
The report contained a number of useful suggestions for state park system operations, which will be considered by the department's management team. However, some of the assumptions relating to staff reduction and opportunities are premature. The report assumes a step that DEP has not committed to taking.
Contained within the governor's budget recommendation, announced on Jan. 17, is funding for the parks' Core Management Pilot Program. This test program is focused on a handful of the state's least profitable park units. While these units have the same core functions such as public service, information, recreation and habitat maintenance, other functions such as custodial, facility maintenance and concession operations have also been included within the areas of responsibility of these parks.
Under the pilot program, these parks will still be responsible for the non-core functions, but would manage service contracts instead of employees. Managers and rangers would not be asked to perform lawn mowing or other landscaping and maintenance activities, freeing them to spend the bulk of their time interacting with the public. It should be noted that outsourcing of some non-core functions has already occurred in some parks.
After two years, the pilot program will be re-evaluated. If it is as successful as DEP believes it will be, the concept will be applied throughout the park system. Should it not meet expectations, another approach would be considered.
It must also be pointed out that the Florida Park Service is not facing a funding crisis. The governor and the Legislature have given the system its largest levels of funding ever. One mistake contained in the report was that only $4-million was provided for repairs. In reality more than $11-million was provided for 13 separate repair categories.
It is true that more than $100-million would satisfy current and future repair needs, but these needs are being met at a prudent and practical rate of approximately 10 percent per year. Let us remember that the full amount of funding required for Everglades restoration or Florida Forever was not requested, nor should it have been, in one budget year.
DEP is confident that over the next five years a more cost-efficient service will mean that the taxpayers will not be paying more for the same services.
-- David B. Struhs, secretary, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee
On Nov. 7, the voters of Florida indicated that the majority of them are in favor of a high-speed train. Now the politicians say we can't afford it and should forget about it.
France, Germany and Japan, just to mention a few, have high-speed trains. The United States has a higher GNP (wealth), than all three of these countries put together.
Could it be that our military umbrella over Europe and Japan has enabled these countries to save money for their defense and use it for fast-speed trains, national health insurance, city beautification projects, etc? Being the world's policeman seems to have drawbacks, as we see with this train project.
-- Chris Clayton, Seminole
We invite readers to write to us. 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. We regret that not all letters can be published.