Opinion: U.S. should not have sent plane on spy mission

With all the sophisticated spy satellites and other eavesdropping devices at our command, why were we flying this mission so close to China's sovereign air space? How would we react if China, Russia or any other nation were flying off our coasts?

My sympathy goes out to the 24 U.S. military personnel, their families and loved ones. They were only following orders, orders that placed them in harm's way. And those orders should never have been given. President Bush leaped right in when he should have stopped and assessed the situation a little more closely. The Chinese pilot, who undoubtedly lost his life, has left loved ones behind, and we owe an apology to them and to the Chinese government for any possible wrongdoing on our part. Along with that apology should be a statement by President Bush that from this day forward, at least during his term in office, that no further missions similar to this one will be made.

Ike, if you remember, had egg on his face, when he got caught flying U-2 flights over Russia. Welcome to the club, President Bush. How can we possibly have increasingly good relations with China when we act so irresponsibly.
-- James B. Mitchell, Largo

Apologizing to China

A letter of apology to China and its leadership:

We, the American people, are truly sorry.

We are sorry that your pilots in their fighters are unable to out maneuver a large lumbering aircraft such as the EP-3E.

We are sorry that your pilots do not know where their borders end.

We are sorry that you choose to fly too closely to aircraft operating in international airspace (which you were warned about in December).

We are sorry that you are so hungry to steal technology (because of your inability to develop it yourselves) as to turn this accident into an incident, in order to buy yourselves more time to rummage through American property.

We are sorry that your aggressive actions have caused our men and women to be detained against their will.

We are sorry that communism is such a failure.

We are sorry for the oppression you inflict on your own citizens.

We are sorry that you are unable to join the rest of the global community as trusted and respected members.

Hopefully, in your attempt to "save face," you will not lose you place in the world.
-- Robert Bryant, St. Petersburg

Who said sincerity was needed?

Re: A U.S. apology to China.

So let's play Chinese politics. China faults the United States in the spy-plane incident and suggests the release of the crew hinges on an official U.S. apology.

Give it to them -- just keep the fingers crossed. Our politicians can do that with a straight face.
-- Laszlo Tenzlinger, Kenneth City

Scientology should be treated differently

I represented the Lisa McPherson Trust and the 10 or more individuals who were acquitted in the recent trial before Judge Thomas Penick. Attorney F. Wallace Pope Jr.'s March 28 letter to the editor (Extra-duty program deserves praise) is just what one would expect from a Scientology mouthpiece. In his letter, Pope repeated a willful falsehood he was once forced to retract in court. In fact, no one was convicted of contempt in the recent trial before Judge Penick. Adjudication of guilt was withheld as to two of the approximately 13 people Pope and Scientology haled into court; the rest were acquitted outright.

Pope said that Scientology obtained an injunction against the Lisa McPherson Trust and certain critics but neglected to point out that after he saw what was going on, Judge Penick enjoined every Scientologist on Earth (or "Teegeeack," as Scientology calls our planet) from coming within 10 feet of people affiliated with the Lisa McPherson Trust. Judge Penick also enjoined this "church" from committing acts of violence and harassment.

Pope's letter also omits some important distinctions between Scientology and any other organization that might seek to hire off-duty police officers:

The president of the Church of Scientology International skipped bail in Spain and is currently a fugitive from justice.

Leaders of Scientology, represented by at least one lawyer who works with Pope, were convicted in a plot involving infiltration and burglary of federal government offices.

Scientology officials and organizations have been criminally convicted in Canada.

Scientology tried to frame and destroy Gabe Cazares when he was mayor of Clearwater.

There is now a civil suit pending over the death of a young woman who lost 30 percent of her body weight and died in the hands of Scientology in downtown Clearwater.

Scientology and its web of alter-ego corporations have been repeatedly cited for abuse of the courts and for framing their enemies and publishing lies about them.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. If Pope and Clearwater police Chief Sid Klein can't tell the difference between Calvary Baptist Church and a syndicate like Scientology, they are a lonely pair indeed.

Pope claims that the police officers working on Scientology's nickel are not off duty but are engaged in regular police work as "extra duty." He fails to report that one of Scientology's pet police officers admitted under oath at the trial that Scientology decides where he stands and what he does as long as Scientology is paying for his services. Furthermore, if these officers were working "extra duty" as police officers, they would have to be paid overtime wages -- and they aren't. They are acting as security guards and are paid straight-time by their employer, Scientology. If anyone doubts that the cash flow has affected the judgment and behavior of some officers, the Lisa McPherson Trust can provide enough videotaped evidence to lay those doubts to rest.
-- John M. Merrett, Jacksonville

Faith is a full-time thing

Re: Religious freedom needed, editorial, March 28.

I'll give you this much, Times: You can certainly paint a nice word picture. But your bigotry is showing in your choices of words.

When you contrast "insightful" and "sensitive" Citrus County School Board member Carol Snyder, heroically "standing up" against the religious right, to the devout Patience Nave, "defiantly refusing to separate her fundamentalist religious convictions from her duty as an elected official," or the "extremist Christian troika" of Lake County, or Snyder's cowardly colleagues with their "religious bent," it's not difficult to figure out which side of the debate you're on.

Only the flexibility of liberal doublespeak, combined with skillful wordsmithing, could manage to make that most feared of all radical, subversive groups, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, sound like the most dangerous group since the Nazi SS. You luridly describe them "luring" unsuspecting students to their meetings and "pressuring" them to accept Jesus. How low can they go? ("What, you mean I'm saved now? Gee, I thought I was just cutting classes.")

Only liberal doublespeak can make having a "religious bent" or "fundamentalist religious convictions" seem like crimes against nature.

Here's a news flash for you: Believers in any faith, Christian or otherwise, can't turn it off and on like a faucet. One either believes or not. If one believes, one has to believe that obedience to God comes first, even before obedience to the state, the local newspaper or political correctness. Real faith is a 24/7 deal. Unless we're reading from different copies of the Constitution, no one is (yet) required to check their faith at the doors of the courthouse, the voting booth or the schoolhouse.

What's that you say? Your point was really that "no taxpayer should be forced to listen to an authority figure diminish his or her religious belief or culture." I'm glad you agree. Please remember this the next time you hear that authority figure, the school science teacher, flatly tell impressionable students that "evolution is a fact," and "the Bible is myth."
-- Jack W. Crenshaw, Parrish

Too much religious strife

Our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and freedom from religion. All religions are beliefs. Atheism and agnosticism are also beliefs. Throughout history, so-called religious beliefs have caused more bloodshed, cruelty and hatred among the races than anything so far created by man. This hatred flourishes today in all parts of the world among the so-called religious groups.

Will mankind ever learn tolerance, compassion and understanding of the rights of others to believe as they see fit, or are we doomed to endure "religious strife" forever?

Maybe we would have a much safer world without so-called organized religions.
-- George W. Wilde, Beverly Hills

Killing is unacceptable as entertainment

Bubba the Love Sponge undoubtedly went too far in his latest quest for publicity. The procurement and killing of any animal cannot be considered "entertainment." He and the participants should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

To consider the killing of an animal as "entertainment" is outrageous and offensive to the community. Rational people do not seek this for entertainment and should not accept this act lightly. Our leaders should be adamant that this is unacceptable for our community.

What is the next step for broadcasting? Holding down stray dogs and killing them for "entertainment"? It seems a logical progression for people who find this behavior entertaining.
-- Mark Jones, St. Petersburg

Certainly an act of cruelty

Re: Prank wasn't a criminal act, letter, March 31.

In reply to this letter, I would state that castrating and slitting the throat of a wild boar would have caused, without doubt, the most excruciating agony to the already terrified animal and was most certainly a despicable criminal act of cruelty.

I worked for a company that manufactured "Pig Tongs," electrical stunning implements for rendering pigs unconscious prior to slaughter. The writer's analogy to the treatment of food animals is not valid.

Might I suggest that the next time the writer goes to the dentist, that he requests both his eye teeth be removed without any anesthetic? This may give him some glimpse of what a "prank" may feel like.
-- Leonard Kay, St. Petersburg

Protect children over livestock

Re: Outraged Bubba goes back on air, March 31.

For the last 10 years or so, Bubba has been telling little girls to go to school without their panties on, and no one said a word. I even heard him while filling in on a Saturday talk show one time tell a little boy (fifth or sixth grade) to go to school on Monday and try to buy drugs from someone just so Bubba could see if they sold drugs at that school. After the boy hung up, Bubba laughed and said that should get some calls.

Now people want to throw him in jail for playing a sound effect on the radio. Let's protect our children over our livestock.
-- Bobby Spurr, Clearwater

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.

Back to Opinion

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

From the Times
Opinion page