Opinion: Casey Martin ruling not a good one for athletes

If walking the course is indeed "peripheral" to the game, then the correct solution is for every pro to use a cart. But the premise is false: Walking 7,000 yards per round over a four-day tournament in 90-plus degree heat and summertime humidity exacts its toll on every player. Conditioning and physical stamina may make the difference when the last holes are being contested and the players need their strength to drive the ball or to make 7-foot putts.

But more than that, the ruling by the Supreme Court interferes with a sports organization's right and ability to rule itself. Will the court next tell the Bucs what plays to use Warren Sapp on, or will it tell Venus and Serena to slow down their serves to let their opponents have a chance? This is not a good ruling for the autonomy of all athletes and athletic organizations to set their own standards.
-- Tom Malone, Spring Hill

Scalia's disturbing comments

I was delighted to read of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld disabled golfer Casey Martin's right to use a cart under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

However, I cannot help but be disturbed by the dissenting opinions of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. There is something disingenuous (on a scale so huge it defies description) in Scalia's statement that he could envision a child with attention deficit disorder making a reasonable-accommodations request to be allowed four strikes in a Little League game.

In making this statement, Scalia seems to have either overlooked or forgotten the limitations of "reasonable accommodation." These limitations include the denial of a reasonable accommodations request because it would result in a "fundamental alteration of program." Since the fundamental rules of baseball include "three strikes and you're out," such a request would likely fall under the "fundamental alteration" exclusion.

More important, however, Scalia's comments are not germane to the Martin case. Martin did not argue that the game of golf should be played in less than 18 holes, or that his bogeys shouldn't be factored in his score. Nowhere in the game of golf does it say that walking is a fundamental requirement. If such were the case, no golf course in the United States would have carts available.

Golfers like Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus can be excused for being on the wrong side of this issue. (And, incidentally, when was the last time Palmer and Nicklaus physically carried their own golf clubs during a tournament? Perhaps we should think of this as a "reasonable accommodation" for able bodied people?). But for Scalia, a member of our nation's highest court, to miss the boat so completely is nothing less than frightening.
-- Mark S. Alper, New Port Richey

Fanatics are at work again

Re: Taleban orders Hindus to identify themselves, May 23.

It would appear that Satan is at work again and unleashing an old evil upon the world. The Taleban is requiring the Hindus to wear a yellow religious symbol on their clothes to "label" them.

Nazi Germany required the Jews to wear a yellow religious symbol on their clothes to label them. After labels came forced cloistering in ghettoes, then concentration camps and finally exterminations -- genocide! You can bet your very life that the same path will evolve.

We have already seen Bahais singled out, persecuted, killed in Iran by the fanatics there, their women raped, businesses forced to close. Also witness Idi Amin in Uganda, Pol Pot in Cambodia, the Chinese in Tibet and too many others to mention.

All fanatics, regardless of culture or belief, are capable of doing anything and everything. Their efforts yield horrific consequences in pursuit of misguided zeal. "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" is an old but painfully true statement.

The question that now troubles the world conscience is when do we call it to an end? Will we stand by until more millions die? Do we send more Neville Chamberlains to pacify evil while the innocent suffer?

I am sure many Jews cringed when they heard "wear yellow religious labels." After World War II it was said that "this should never happen again." Alas, it does and has numerous times already. Perhaps we just do not really care. After all, if they are not our people, then they must just be untermenschen.

So where will the civilized stand? Will they do something, hope it goes away or announce "Sieg Heil"?
-- Mel Routt, Clearwater

Don't reward tyranny

It was interesting to read your editorial, (Taleban's tyranny, May, 31) about the law in Afghanistan forcing all non-Muslims to wear yellow labels, for their "self-protection," and women being deprived of their basic human rights as a matter of law, (including most recently, the right to drive a motor vehicle). This is the country where Osama bin Laden is being given sanctuary to keep him from standing trial for murdering scores of American citizens in terrorist attacks.

Tell me, is this the same Taleban that was just given $43-million in aid by the Bush administration?

I think that $43-million of our tax money could be put to better use than as a reward to those who support terrorism and human rights violations!

What ever happened to the Republicans wanting to end foreign aid?
-- Paul Wilsbach, Palm Harbor

A flying real estate business

Re: It's impossible to find rationality in air fares by Internet or ticket agents by Howard Kleinberg, May 27.

First, let me correct a misstatement. The author says, "Ever since airline deregulation came into being during the Reagan administration, fares have fluctuated wildly . . ." Correction: The concept of airline deregulation was developed during the Kennedy administration think tank era when it was viewed that regulation is inflationary and deregulation is deflationary. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 was signed by Jimmy Carter in October 1978. Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with deregulation.

Secondly, there are approximately 30,000 takeoffs daily (and landings, hopefully) in the United States alone. The largest GDS (Global Distribution System -- a computer system that displays flights, schedules and prices), SABRE, stores approximately 30-million air fares. As many as 10 percent of those 30-million air fares change daily. Perhaps you need to look at the airline industry as a real estate business. The airlines are leasing real estate in parcels of 2 feet by 2 feet that happen to move from point A to point B (in essence it is a four dimensional real estate business). Another way to look at it is, for example, my daughter pays $4,000 a month for an apartment in New York, whereas the same apartment could be had for $400 a month in St. Petersburg. Everyone has accepted the concept of location, location, location in real estate.

What seems irrational to the outsider is perfectly logical. You have approximately 300-million available aircraft seats (moving real estate parcels rented for a few hours each) daily. Each one of their prices can change depending on what every other parcel sells for, how many have been sold at that point in time, and what the prediction is as to how many will be consumed.

Lastly, Web prices are flexible. Just go to www.LowAirfare.com, and it's the only site where a live agent will help you with your reservation. Good luck.
-- Peter M. Sontag, chairman and CEO, 800 Travel Systems Inc., Tampa

A better example of power deregulation

Re: Beware the power of deregulation, letter, May 22.

Abe Lincoln once asked a friend: "If we call a dog's tail a leg; then how many legs does a dog have?" "Five," his friend answered. "No, still only four," Lincoln responded. "Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one!" And so it is with California's electricity "deregulation" story.

Contrary to the politician's excuses and widespread reports by the mainstream media; "deregulation" is not what caused the current electricity disaster in California. In reality, back in 1996 California lawmakers actually "restructured" the electricity industry. These meddling political lapdogs imposed retail price controls, dictated how and when utilities could purchase power, discouraged new competitors from entering the market, imposed difficult new regulations and created numerous barriers to building power plants and transmission systems. This intrusive use of governmental force can hardly be considered deregulation!

In contrast, the electricity industry in Pennsylvania was truly deregulated. As the Reason Public Policy Institute points out, this Libertarian model of deregulation has lowered prices 30 percent, allows consumers to select service from 130 different companies and resulted in 20 percent of the customers freely choosing environmentally friendly "greenpower."

In Pennsylvania, neither the power industry conglomerates nor the intrusive government sets the standards; consumer freedom does. This exemplifies the difference between the unconscionable use of government force and allowing people the right to exercise free will over their own lives.

Floridians should insist that our elected officials and their cronies adopt the Libertarian model for successful deregulation of our electricity industry. Freedom rules! (And it works, too.)
-- Daryl Henegar, Pinellas Park

Two minds on the same track

Re: Message to graduates: Try to give of yourself and serve your communities well, by Bill Maxwell, May 27.

It is interesting to note how two strong minds can blend into one powerful thought. After I retired as a corporate executive and as a practicing attorney, I spent 19 years in a volunteer organization called SCORE, an acronym for "Service Corps of Retired Executives." In addition to counseling entrepreneurs going into business, I chaired a committee screening applicants desiring to join SCORE, for qualifications and dedication. In order to impress upon the applicant the obligation assumed by membership in SCORE, I used an article published in Parade by Elie Weisel, a 1986 Nobel Prize winner.

The ideas expressed by both Weisel and Maxwell are almost identical in stating that we have an obligation to pass on to others the knowledge we have gained.

Maxwell: "Whether you know it or not, you are privileged people. You are graduating from a fine school with a degree that will open doors. As privileged people you have a moral obligation to serve."

Weisel: "The realization that what I receive I must pass on to others. The knowledge that I have acquired must not become imprisoned in my brain. I owe it to many men and women to do something with it."

If I were screening these applicants now, I would be hard-pressed to decide which article to use. I would probably use both.
-- Stone M. Smith, Clearwater

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 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.

Back to Opinion

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

From the Times
Opinion page