Letters to the Editors

We should treat drug addiction as medical problem

© St. Petersburg Times, published April 11, 2001

When, oh, when are lawmen, politicians and especially prosecutors going to realize that drug addiction is a medical problem and not a criminal problem?

The case of Daryl Strawberry is a typical one. Assistant State Attorney Pam Bondi wants him in jail; he is a frail, sick man ridden with cancer! What makes her think he is a threat to society? She said he drives and he might kill or main someone. So have a close friend see to it that he doesn't drive a vehicle.

I agree with Strawberry's attorney, Joseph Ficarrotta, that Strawberry has violated parole many times: SO WHAT! He still needs medical treatment, not hard time as some misguided (or political) prosecutors want.

I am not saying all this because Daryl is a Yankee star but because he typifies many drug addicts who need medical treatment, not jail time. Our jails would be half empty if "they" would offer treatment to all minor drug offenders!
John T. Spera, Tampa

No special treatment for celebrities

I believe that it is time for this country to start living by the idea of liberty and justice for all and stop playing favorites with laws in regard to "celebrities."

In the case of Darryl Strawberry, for instance, if he is guilty of a crime, send him to jail! If he is, as his lawyers and the media want to make us believe, only a sick man who needs treatment, then release several thousand others who are in that same boat and get them the treatment they need.

A celebrity is a person with a job, usually to entertain the masses. They are not gods who are above the written or moral laws! The whole entertainment industry has gotten out of hand, especially with salaries, but also where they have been placed on the pecking order of society. Some celebrities openly instigate violence, sexual perversion, drug use and, in some cases, anarchy.

What is wrong with us? Why do we continue to support astronomical wealth for people who tend to steer us in these directions? Are we really that bored with life that killing and sexual perversion excite us that much? If so, God help us.
Fred Greenwalt, Riverview

End the soft money corruption

McConnell has repeatedly stated that the bill is unconstitutional, would cause the demise of the two-party system and that the public shows no interest in that type of reform. In the House of Representatives, Tom Delay and Dick Armey are also opposed to the bill and will fight to the end to kill it

Don't they know that soft money leads to corruption? The public is well aware of the influence that money contributed by big business and special interests has. Eighty-nine percent of the public feels that our government has been corrupted by soft money and definitely wants change now.

Even though the McCain-Feingold bill doesn't close all loopholes, it is certainly a good start. Here's hoping that the House of Representatives shows that it, too, is convinced that corruption is a detriment to our society and that soft money is something we don't need or want.
Irwin Bergmman, Crystal River

Signs of hypocrisy

The Times seems to think that it is all right to limit how much money an individual can donate to a political party or candidate to further its message, but it is not all right to limit how much parties or candidates can spend in the media to further their message

Most of the articles regarding human nature (race, politics, cronyism, etc.) can be boiled down to one theme: hypocrisy.

It seems that the Times is the poster organization for this problem.
Terry R. Arnold, St. Petersburg

Cut the influence

Re: What should we do?, letter, April 1.

Regarding Robyn Blumner's March 25 column on campaign financing, a letter writer asks, "Does she have positive suggestions?"

With apologies to Blumner, I would like to offer one.

First, it is important to understand that it is not significant that moneyed interests can corrupt congressmen; anyone can be corrupted with enough money. The root problem is that someone might want to buy a congressman, and it is worth asking why this might be so.

When your disposable income is $2-trillion, everyone wants to be your friend. When you have the power of life and death over entire industries, it is natural for both friends and foes of those industries to want to influence you.

No amount of legislation can stop people from wanting to influence congressmen, and the McCain-Feingold bill doesn't even pretend to attempt it. It only deals with the financial shenanigans incident to an election -- all else is presumed to be not worth the attention. It is, however, everything else that we should be watching. In fact, there is only one way to stop the flow of influence money and that is to remove the influence.

If we were to insist that all of our congressfolk limit their business to that which is strictly permitted in the Constitution, there would be far fewer laws, far fewer federal agencies, far fewer dollars sent D.C.-ward each April 15, and far fewer dollars sent Congress-ward the rest of the year. Influence-peddling would no longer be a problem because there would be too little influence to peddle.

How's that for a suggestion?
Frank Clarke, chairman, Pinellas County Libertarian Party, Oldsmar

Indian team mascots are racist

Re: The degeneration of civil rights fight, by Jeff Jacoby, March 29.

It is interesting that Jeff Jacoby finds it "intolerable" to stereotype African-Americans through grotesque caricatures such as Sambo, but perfectly acceptable to do the same thing to American Indians via Chief Wahoo or Chief Illiniwek.

Jacoby then, in the height of paternalism, decides for Indian people that Chief Wahoo -- and presumably all Indian mascots -- is not offensive. It appears Jacoby believes the only stereotype of Indian people that exists is as alcoholics. He claims that if Indians were depicted as "savages" he would understand. Huh? Has he looked at the mascots at Florida State University, Illinois or Washington's NFL team? Why does he think they are considered, "stronger, braver and better." Because they are depicted as savage caricatures of indigenous peoples. In reality, American Indian sports team mascots are disgraceful, shameful and racist.

Imagine the Washington Negros, whose Sambo mascot munches on watermelon and runs around picking up cotton. How about the Cleveland Jews, with a mascot Rabbi who runs around the field with a Torah tossing coins around the field? Or the Florida State Catholics, whose the mascot Jesus does the lambada with a cheerleading "nun" and tosses communion wafers on the field while the fans do the Crucifix Chop. Nothing degrading here. Remember we are honoring them, no matter how loudly the African-Americans, Jews and Catholic cry foul.

The reality is the cartoon figures may be "cheerful" but they do demean, and certainly no honor is intended. American Indian students have been greeted at the University of North Dakota by fliers calling them "prairie n-----s" and worse for calling for the end to the use of the Sioux people as a sports mascot. You think they really were intending to honor Indian people? The reality is no other group of people is similarly demeaned with these pervasive mascots.

No one cared about the incredible number of hate crime murders of Lakota people in White Clay, Neb., Rapid City, S.D., Mobridge, S.D., Winslow, Ariz., and elsewhere. Why? Because Indian people aren't seen as a living, breathing, culture by the dominant society, but rather as some cartoonish figures whose culture is ridiculed and trivialized every weekend in a circus-like atmosphere.
Sheridan Murphy, state executive director, American Indian Movement of Florida, St. Petersburg

Spreading stereotypes

Re: The degeneration of civil rights fight, by Jeff Jacoby, March 29.

It appears that Jacoby is woefully naive about stereotypes. The "Fighting Sioux" is not a title of honor. Rather it is a racist stereotype depicting the Sioux (which is a derogatory name to begin with) as savage. It is a name that implies savagery as does redskins and braves. And don't you think perhaps the name Chief Wahoo is poking fun? How is that a compliment, as the writer implies?

Has Jacoby ever been to a reservation or a pow wow or spoken with members of AIM or any Indian nation to get their perspective? Perhaps coming from his white, male privileged background it is easier to play it safe by not really looking at the real meaning behind these "symbols."

Perhaps he should look at and question his own stereotypes and bigotries before writing.
Beth McCormick, St. Petersburg

Keep English our common language

Re: Don Addis' cartoon, March 30.

Don Addis' cartoon -- the throwing away of an "English only" sign and informing us that Hispanics are now Florida's largest minority group -- is no laughing matter. Through the years it is English, our common language, that unifies immigrants and bonds us all as a nation. Today it is the international language as well.

Among the new immigrants, there are now factions that want to turn this country into a multilingual society, insisting that foreigners no longer need to learn English. The American taxpayer is already paying for this advocated multilingualism. In part, in more than 375 districts, American voter ballots are now printed in foreign languages. The Internal Revenue Service has begun printing tax forms in a foreign language. Drivers' license exams are given in as many as 30 different languages. (If these drivers can't read English, how can they read our road signs?)

A most frightening fact involves the town of El Cenizo, Texas, which passed an ordinance declaring that all council sessions and other official city functions must be conducted in Spanish only!

Any group, of course, can speak any language it wishes. In fact, it's to one's credit to know many languages, but for a truly United States we would do well to continue to share our common language, English.

Now is not the time, Mr. Addis, to "forget it." Now is the time to defend it.
Rula Poulos, St. Petersburg

Political correctness alters coverage

Re: Convicted rapist is sentenced in boy's death, March 31.

I was glad to see that the Times published a story on the conviction of one of the homosexuals accused of sodomizing and murdering 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising. This case happened around the time of the Matthew Shepard murder. While the Shepard case was in the headlines and on the talk shows for weeks, sadly, the story of the Dirkhising tragedy barely made it out of Arkansas.

These cases show what a difference being on the side of political correctness can make.
Gerald Olesen, Spring Hill

Share your opinion

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.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

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