Letters to the Editors

Efforts to build a missile defense are misguided

© St. Petersburg Times, published July 6, 2000

The present debate concerning a limited missile defense system is absolutely ludicrous and at best self-serving. The only support it gets comes from two sources: the defense contractors throughout the country and the politicians beholden to them for their campaign contributions. All indications at this time have shown that the system, if it works at all, will be of very limited value.

Terrorists or rogue nations that want to attack the United States can do so much more easily and more effectively by using methods other than missiles. Bringing nuclear devices, bacteriological agents or chemical agents into the United States by boat or plane is a far simpler and much less costly method.

Billions of dollars have already spent on the missile defense system. However, a portion of the projected billions to be spent in the future could be more effectively used to provide improved methods of detection for these other more probable methods of delivery.
Frank Sacone, Pinellas Park

The drug war marches on

I refer to the legislation recently passed by Congress and ready to be signed by the president. The bill will give $1.3-billion to the Colombian military for the purpose of stopping the growth and production of cocaine in that country.

What a boon to the military! Much of the money will be used for the purchase of helicopters. It goes without saying that those helicopters will be made in this country by some of our largest defense contractors. Coincidentally, those defense contractors are also some of our largest campaign contributors, particularly to the Republicans in Congress.

I'm sure that this program will be about as effective as pouring water down a rat hole -- only in this case, it will be taxpayer dollars, not water.

Despite the expenditure of perhaps $100-billion of taxpayer money, from the statistics I have read, we are no closer to winning the war on drugs than we were 15 years ago. The supply is even greater, the availability even easier. Our greatest achievement seems to be in lining political and bureaucratic pockets and building prisons to house all the people who are caught up in the ridiculous laws passed by the federal and state legislatures. The prison industries love it, especially since privatization has made it so profitable for them, not to mention that they have very deep pockets into which many politicians' hands find their way.

My prediction is that five years down the road, there will be no measurable reduction in drug production or availability. The only beneficiaries will be the Colombian military (who will use the money and the equipment to repress their people even more) and the venal politicos in Washington.
Gerald A. Daigle, Spring Hill

Riders helped get legislation passed

I can imagine why the U.S. House of Representatives decided to pass an emergency package bill with a bipartisan vote and a 306-110 margin. It would provide for $1.3-billion to help in a war on drugs in Colombia, fighting the cocaine and heroin producers and their guerrilla allies who control much of the southern part of Colombia. The bill also specifies U.S. aircraft for anti-drug surveillance.

There were some members who would have preferred a drug-prevention program in this country, and some who feared that the United States could find itself in an unwinnable, 80-year conflict. Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., said that he thought the bill was a profound mistake.

I imagine that the bill passed in the House because there were several "riders" attached: (a) The House and Senate each get $105-million for members' projects; (b) the Pentagon gets $2-billion to pay for the cost of the NATO peacekeeping team in Kosovo and $4.4-billion for fuel, health care and other Pentagon programs. This bill has already been finalized by Senate passage.

I think that as long as there is strong demand for drugs, there will always be an expensive supply available. And I wonder just how long it might be before we insist that Congress enacts legislation requiring all bills to address a single issue.
-- Louis Van Voorhees, Ocala

Abortion procedure should be banned

Do the five justices of the Supreme Court who voted to ban any restriction of partial-birth abortions have to be reminded of Mother Teresa's words: "If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"?

These justices have declared that even in the later months of pregnancy, the mother's womb is no longer a sanctuary for the baby but is now a free-fire zone for the abortionists and their homicidal operations.

Not satisfied with the 37-million legal abortions already done in our country, they are again joining hands with Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry to ensure that no abortion providers will be hampered or restricted in their freedom to suck out the brains of live babies. The nuances of the law as interpreted by these justices will favor the abortionists. No attorney will be allowed to plead the case for the unborn.

Our obstetricians and pediatricians can envision no instance when sucking out the brain of a living baby in utero as a treatment option for the mother's welfare could ever be justified any more than plunging a knife through the baby's heart. How would such an act save the mother's life?

As physicians who care for both the mothers and their babies, we are totally opposed to the efforts of those who would attempt to promote and make respectable such a horrifying and unnecessary killing technique for a totally innocent, about-to-be-born baby.

As obstetricians and pediatricians, we strongly maintain that surgical procedures bordering on infanticide, which all agree are not necessary to save the mother's life, should not be allowed in any civilized society.
-- Matthew J. Bulfin, M.D., secretary, American Association of Pro life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Fort Lauderdale, and Eugene F. Diamond, M.D., president, American Association of Pro Life Pediatricians, Chicago, Ill.

Face the reality of abortion

So the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court thinks partial-birth abortion is all right. I just wish the justices had to witness one before they had made their decision. Perhaps they could have even participated by holding the little body while the abortionist sucked its brains out. Maybe they could have dropped the tiny corpse down the deposal.

This is one of the problems. The deed has become so "clean" that only the abortionist sees the mayhem. If the women exercising their "reproductive rights" were given the remains to dispose of, there would be a large drop in abortions, I can assure you.
-- Tom Wineman, Largo

A too-flawed court

Re: Abortion ruling bait-and-switch effort, July 4.

One would like to believe that the Supreme Court's ruling in Stenberg vs. Carhart sent "shivers" through the bodies of most supporters of "pro-choice."

As mentioned in John Leo's column, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in a "a pained dissent" said clearly what many think of this court: "It has gotten in the habit of simply replacing the decisions of voters and legislatures with its own political opinions."

Many are not going to have much difficulty in agreeing with John Leo: "This decision shows that we don't need a better law; we need a better court."
-- Russell Lee Johnson, St. Petersburg

Melone is on target

Re: Who'll save the serfs in the Land of the Lost? by Mary Jo Melone, June 27.

Kudos to Mary Jo Melone for telling it like it really is.

The Clearwater City Commission and City Manager Mike Roberto may as well change the name of Clearwater to L. Ron Hubbardsville or Scientologyburg.

Vive la France for its move toward cracking down on this so-called religion. Scientology is a big business that calls itself a religion to get out of paying taxes. It even has the Internal Revenue Service buffaloed.

I am very glad that I don't live in Clearwater
-- Tod Grafel, Largo

I note three very similar letters in the July 3 Times from presumed Scientologists lambasting Mary Jo Melone's recent column Who'll save the serfs in the Land of the Lost?.

One letter asks, "Why ridicule a religion?" The answer is, first, because it is ridiculous, and second, because it has the characteristics more typical of a cult than a religion. Granted, many other "religions" are just as ridiculous, but not vicious, as is Scientology. It is not, at least in America, a "religion" of long-standing. It was so designated only in recent years by the unilateral decision of the head of the Internal Revenue Service, which surprised and stunned the IRS professionals, who had not recommended that. One must wonder what Scientology had on the IRS head. One might also wonder what was behind Medical Examiner Joan Wood's recent amazing change of autopsy findings. One does not have to be paranoid to suspect skullduggery.

Mary Jo Melone is a local treasure. Long may she write!
-- Joseph F. Bohren, Tampa

Clear up that contradiction

Re: An absurd contradiction, letter, June 30.

A reader wrote:

"The court silenced prayer in school; yet, all currency here in the United States reads, "In God we trust.' How absurd can we get?"

I am in 100 percent agreement with the writer. It is time that we took the words "In God we trust" off our currency.
-- Dan A. Sparks, Redington Beach

The Trop is fine for the handicapped

Re: Disabled pan the Trop, praise Rays' owner, July 12.

Tropicana Field has now become a target for the self-styled spokesman for the disabled of this area. George Locascio is a nit-picker!

I am in a wheelchair, attend the games unaccompanied and have never found anything lacking. Please set the record straight. There are many places we find uncomfortable or difficult. The Trop is not one of them!
-- Ann H. Grenier, St. Petersburg

Frazzled by the fireworks

President, governor or mayor. Which one of these officials do I beg to stop this insanity of fireworks in Florida? Every year we are subjected to the most nerve-wracking noise because anybody with the money can purchase fireworks in Florida to use at their discretion.

I cannot bear another year of this and neither can my poor cat. Will these people clean their mess off the streets when they are done? I have never seen that happen so far. Another sleepless Fourth of July night has passed, and now I can only pray that next year it might be different.
-- Bonnie Baker, St. Petersburg

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.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.