Letters to the Editors

Our lawmakers' methods look a lot like blackmail

© St. Petersburg Times, published May 25, 2000

When is this absurdist method of legislative government going to end? Which would that be? The one that allows completely unrelated provisions to be attached to bills to insure the provisions make it to law. And I'm not just referring to the "Doc" Myers' provision passed by lawmakers in Tallahassee. This is common practice in Washington as well. Our own Florida Legislature is merely a microcosm of our nation's political machine! How long are we as citizens going to stand for this?

Now I know political science aficionados will argue that it's all about compromise. Hogwash! It's nothing less than blackmail. Its motivation is selfish. Its effect is disruptive. And it does not belong in our definition of "good government." Yet it has been so ingrained into our system that even opponents of it accept it -- and, upon the first opportunity, use it as a weapon for their side. Does this not strike anyone besides me as juvenile?

Imagine a group of people with diverging ideas agreeing to work together to solve a mutual problem in a process that took many sessions of serious dialogue. Imagine that upon reaching an apparent compromise one among them suddenly refused to go along unless his or her totally unrelated personal need was taken care of. The rest of the group would be outraged! The spirit of the whole community coming together, in spite of their differences, would be lost to a gun-wielding impostor who basically was holding the room hostage.

Yet in the United States this is called "politics as usual." Personally, I'm offended.
-- Zenth Lochford, Largo

Candidates have important differences

Re: Seeking a transformational leader, by James MacGregor Burns, May 20.

Burns complains that the presidential candidates "are taking such moderate positions that there's little difference between the two. There's no real choice and, therefore, no real reason to choose."

He goes on to say that "Bush and Gore aspire to be the "education president.' None has succeeded before, and these two won't either. Their incremental approach defeats them before they begin." Then he lists "smaller classes, better school buildings, higher teacher salaries" and the litany of social conditions that liberals always blame for the failure of the public school system.

You are wrong, Mr. Burns. Gore wants no tax money to go to private schools. Bush, by contrast, has proposed that parents be able to send their children to the schools they choose, with a small portion of their tax dollars going to qualified private schools. Private schools, historically, have produced better-educated students. That is a significant difference.

For 30 years, my wife taught both in the public and private school systems. Public classes got larger and became holding, not teaching, classes. Students were promoted to the next grade by mandate, not by merit. When she switched to teach private school, she made little more than minimum wage, but she taught smaller classes and her students excelled.

Children whose parents can afford private school, like Al Gore's children, get a better education. If I had school-age children, I would be furious that Gore denies me the opportunity to use a small part of my tax dollars to give my children the same opportunity to a good education that his children had.

And, finally, Burns' solution is to propose "a national commission -- composed of presidential scholars, political and social scientists, journalists and ex-presidents -- to deal with the toughest questions." Great! Form another committee, composed of the same geniuses that got us where we are today! You just don't get it, Mr. Burns.

And don't get me started on the differences in Gore's Social Security "scare tactics" compared to Bush's Social Security individual investment "option."

Wake up, folks. Do you want another committee or a leader? I pick Bush.
-- Richard Banks, Clearwater

"Choice' offers a reason to choose

Re: Seeking a transformational leader.

James MacGregor Burns has a string of credentials after his name, but the one that's missing is the "M" word -- "macho," for want of a better word. With all due respect, Burns' article reflects the intellectually naive perspective of much of society that assumes that the male experience is the country's only experience. He overlooks the woman's experience completely when he says presidential candidates Al Gore and George W. Bush stimulate "no reason to choose" between them.

Wrong!

"Choose" is the operative word here. "Choice" represents the chasm between Gore and Bush. Gore is strongly for a woman's right to choose; Bush couldn't care less, much like Burns. A woman's right to choose makes all the difference in the world to women's perceived freedom, even to the thousands of women who sneak into abortion clinics today only to denounce them tomorrow.

Here you have yet another man who, for all his education, cannot see that freedom is everything!

Reproductive freedom is not just an abstract concept. Reproductive freedom is "economic development" for women.

And let's not forget it at the polls.
-- Joseph Hanrahan, St. Pete Beach

Send them a message

Recently, Howard Troxler addressed the issue of who will nominate the next two, possibly three, Supreme Court justices (Congress acts while high court checks list, May 17). Will it be Al Gore or George W. Bush? In choosing the next president of the United States, we shall also be choosing whether we want a very conservative Supreme Court or a court more in keeping with the wishes of the majority of U.S. citizens.

But we shall also be choosing a president who will have the authority to stop the war against the civilian populations of Cuba and Iraq. We currently have in place sanctions that say that it is perfectly okay to kill children in the name of peace and democracy. We have a secretary of state who has agreed to keep the sanctions against Iraq in place, knowing that children will die and that the civilian population of Iraq will suffer for the actions brought about by its leaders.

We have an opportunity -- you and I -- to change the foreign policy of the United States by telling both Al Gore and George W. Bush: No more -- no more heartache for the people of Iraq and Cuba. And for those people who believe the leaders of these two countries are suffering, I have a bridge I can sell you.

We are usually a compassionate people, especially when it comes to children. How can we sit back and allow our leaders to continue to kill the children of Iraq (250,000 so far) in the name of freedom? We cannot and should not allow the killing of children to be a central part of our foreign policy. It is shameful, and we need to let our Congress know this -- President Clinton, too, although I have little hope of his listening.
-- Herb Snitzer, St. Petersburg

Let's take back our neighborhoods

Kudos to Bill Maxwell for his scathing rebuttal in the May 17 column, "Black" means tolerating criminality? Maxwell responds to criticism heaped upon him by some in the black community for his stance on the subject of blacks taking back their neighborhoods by, among other things, turning in criminals who seek to deny our right to peace and liberty. He pays special attention to so-called community leaders who, along with others in their misdirected way, seem to think that black people who do not think within the parameters of the perceived status quo among black folk are not really black.

Well, I am a black male and proud of it. I, too am from South Florida. My mother and my wife's mother still choose to reside there. My wife and I moved here to start a new business and obtain a better life for our family. I know how it feels to be pilloried by misguided folks in the black community for thinking for yourself and having an opinion on our state of affairs. My opinion matches one quoted by Maxwell. It is from Stanley Crouch in New York magazine, and it bears repeating: "The greatest threat to black life and limb is not the police; it's the criminals in our community . . ."

Despite all the demonstrations and, at times, rioting, the plain truth is that the number of police-involved killings of blacks is infinitesimal when compared with the overall murder rate of blacks by blacks. No other group or race comes close. When racist killings occur, the perpetrators should be dealt with swiftly and severely. But 94 percent of black murders in the United States are perpetrated by black assailants! The numbers for other violent crimes are equally as staggering. There is no rioting then.

Maxwell is right. We should take our neighborhoods back from the criminals. We should turn them in. And if the criminal happens to be a neighbor, a friend or even a family member, so be it!
-- Ray Hendricks, Palm Harbor

A criminal is a criminal

Bill Maxwell's May 17 column "Black" means tolerating criminality? was truly very sincere. I applaud him because of his truthfulness, his intelligence and his objectivity. I agree with him that a criminal is a criminal, whether black or white, and a person of a particular race is obligated to condemn a criminal no matter what race he or she is.

I feel that affirmative action has its place in many situations because of the discrimination that was so evident in past centuries. A bad precedent would be established if race were the primary consideration when an African-American is victimized by another African-American. One's duty is to report criminal activity no matter who the perpetrator is.

We are all equal under the law, and crime should be non-discriminatory.
-- Irwin Bergman, Crystal River

NAACP reference is misleading

Re: "Black" means tolerating criminality?

Bill Maxwell's column is very misleading and in many ways factually incorrect.

The St. Petersburg NAACP is not a chapter; it is a branch. Chapters are NAACP units found on college campuses.

Perkins T. Shelton, whom he referred to as a well-known former head of the local chapter of the NAACP, was never head of the local branch, but director of branch affairs under the direction of the branch president. Shelton last worked in that position in March 1991, yet nearly every time his name appears in the St. Petersburg Times, it is linked to the St. Petersburg Branch, NAACP. This linkage tends to imply that his views are our views.

When your former employees write letters to the editor or columns, should they be referred to as formerly of the St. Petersburg Times?

Shelton never signs his name as being associated with the St. Petersburg Branch, NAACP, so we would appreciate it if you would discontinue this reference.
-- Garnelle Jenkins, president, St. Petersburg Branch, NAACP

Share your opinions

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 also can be sent 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.

For e-mail users: Letters can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com. E-mail messages must be text only and cannot include attachments. If you're using a word processing program to write the message, you must use its "Save as'' function to save it as a text file, then import it into your e-mail program. Please include your return e-mail address, as well as your name, mailing address and phone number, in the text of the message.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.