Letters to the Editors

State's high court deserves rebuke from the voters

© St. Petersburg Times, published August 11, 2000

Through the hard work of Florida volunteers during the last year, more than 200,000 signatures were collected from citizens wishing to place the Florida Civil Rights Initiative on the ballot. If approved, the initiative would outlaw the practice of racial and gender discrimination that our government engages in routinely.

Last month, though, through an act of historic judicial arrogance and lawlessness, the justices of the Florida Supreme Court unanimously threw out the initiative in total disregard for the Constitution and the rights of the Florida people.

Three specific FCRI initiatives were presented to the court. Each one affected a different area of public policy: education, employment and contracting. In addition, a fourth initiative was presented that covered all three areas. The language for the initiative that affects public employment, for example, states: "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment." The other two specific initiatives offered the same language for public education and public contracting. The fourth comprehensive initiative contains the same language for all three areas of public policy. This was done so that the court could not argue that education, employment and contracting were three separate subjects.

Constitutionally the court is required to ask only two questions of a proposed initiative:

1. Does the petition deal with a single subject?

2. Are the title and ballot summary written clearly?

The justices, in a blatant effort to preserve discrimination and kill the chance that Florida's people could vote on it, shot down the initiative, claiming it does not satisfy either of these two requirements. This was a brutal and arrogant attack on the people of Florida and represents judicial activism at its worst.

The justices smugly assume there is nothing the people can do in response to this violation of their rights, but they're wrong. We can fight back at the voting booth. All Supreme Court justices come up for what is called merit retention every few years. At these times, the people of Florida have the opportunity to retain the justices in office or send them back home.

Three of the justices are up for merit retention this November. They are Barbara J. Pariente, R. Fred Lewis and Peggy A. Quince.

The people of Florida should show what they think of the justices' ruling on the Florida Civil Rights Initiative and other citizen initiatives they have thrown out by voting against the retention of these justices. We should remind the Supreme Court justices that they serve at the will of the people, not the other way around.
-- Ed Mullen, Tampa

Keep the Community Alliance

Re: Biracial group loses financial backing, Aug. 8.

The Community Alliance has existed for more than 30 years. It is an organization respected by both African-Americans and whites. Perhaps it hasn't been in the limelight for the past couple years since the "disturbances," the riots that tore St. Petersburg apart in 1996. At that time, this organization provided a structure for communication, for beginning dialogue and healing.

This city and its residents need such organizations in place so that they can move quickly to relieve tensions. It takes months, even years, to build such infrastructure. We are kidding ourselves if we think we no longer need forums where African-Americans and whites can come together for discussion and positive action. I can assure you -- unfortunately -- that tensions will erupt once again. We are not over "the race thing."

St. Petersburg is far ahead of other communities in having a Community Alliance. The St. Petersburg Area Chamber of Commerce should continue to fund the organization. Let the chamber make cuts in other areas. This is a small expense compared to the cost of rebuilding a city following riots.
-- Kitty Pelster Rawson, St. Petersburg

Nader is wrong on aircraft retirement

Re: Aircraft should face mandatory retirement for the public's safety, by Ralph Nader, Aug. 5.

While Ralph Nader has done much good work in the area of consumer advocacy, I have to take issue with his assertion that aircraft should face mandatory retirement time.

The airlines and the aircraft manufacturers aren't stupid. They know that their operations are under a public microscope. The way airliners' lives are extended is with comprehensive, thorough and continuous inspection programs. Yes, inspections do miss things, but that means the inspection programs need to be improved not that the airplanes should be scrapped. As long as an airplane is capable of passing inspections, there is no reason it should not be able to continue in service. As the inspections become more comprehensive they become more expensive until the older airplanes become simply too expensive to operate. That's the point at which they get retired.

I would say the answer is to make the inspections rigorous enough to catch safety problems before they occur. Aircraft also can be refitted with more modern technology to make them safer to operate. With proper inspections and refits there is no reason the current fleet of airliners cannot fly safely well into the future.

Nader touches on regulatory foot-dragging by the FAA in mandating fire-suppression and explosion-suppression equipment aboard airliners. Here I wholeheartedly agree, particularly on fire suppression. Study after study has shown that most people killed in airliner crashes are not killed by the crash itself, but by the post-crash fire.

Nader is correct when he points out that "Ultimately, consumers have real power to determine whether old aircraft will be taken out of service before they become older than their pilots, regardless of corporate greed or government inaction." But there is a difference between what consumers say and what they do. I am guilty of this myself. We say we want airlines that are 100 percent safe 100 percent of the time. We say we want airlines that are 100 percent on schedule 100 percent of the time. We say we want airlines with big comfortable seats, good food and friendly crews. And then time and time again we speak in the loudest way we can -- with our butts. We put them into the seats of whatever airline offers the least expensive fares.
-- Alan Petrillo, commercial pilot, St. Petersburg, asp@baylink.com

Keep promises to our veterans

Re: Now it's our turn to take care of them, Aug. 5.

I am in complete agreement with this column on medical care for veterans and believe we are way overdue for some action.

During my 22 years, serving my country proudly, we were promised a lifetime of free health care benefits for ourselves and our families as long as we served for 20 years. During the Korean War, we did not complain. When I and others like myself were used as guinea pigs on Christmas Island in 1962 for the last atmospheric nuclear tests, we did not complain. When we went to Southeast Asia (Vietnam and Thailand), we did not complain because it was "our duty" and we were proud to do it.

I have worked alongside many civilian federal employees over the years and they were paid two to three times our wages, but they had none of our duties or experiences with danger or of being killed. We did all the dirty work, but both they and the members of Congress have the greatest benefits package in the United States.

In times of war, we the military, are the greatest people in the world, but as soon as the war is over, people don't want to know anything about us. They want us to fade away, as the saying goes: "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away."

U.S. Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., balks at the price tag to keep these promises. Why should he care about us as long as he is well looked after.

This is supposed to be the greatest country in the world, and yet the government can't even keep its promises to the military community whom we are supposed to be so proud of.

It's enough to make you sick, but then again we can't afford to be, can we?
-- Daniel B. Schlemmer, retired master sergeant, U.S. Air Force, New Port Richey

Leery of Lieberman

Re: The selection of Sen. Joseph Lieberman to be the Democrats' vice presidential candidate.

The fact that Joseph Lieberman is of the Jewish faith does not matter to me. I am a Catholic but did not vote for John F. Kennedy on that basis.

What does bother me is that reports have said Lieberman has switched positions on some key issues within one day of his nomination. He condemned President Clinton for his promiscuity in the Oval Office but voted not to convict him of impeachment charges.

Wiffle waffle, once again.

I believe that his nomination was due, in a great part, to the fact that the New York Jewish vote will bring Hillary Clinton in on his coattails. Tell me that Bill Clinton isn't pulling Al Gore's strings again.

Much was made of the Republican convention's mentioning the name of Jesus -- once. Yet the other day, Lieberman invoked the name of God and even offered a prayer at his acceptance speech.

I am a very active Catholic and believe that God is, and should be, a most important part of our nation. I deplore those who want God out but are willing to strive for the currency that bears the motto, "In God We Trust."

Those of us who truly believe, could never allow the mutilation of a viable baby or the immorality of people living together outside of wedlock to save taxes. Yet these are what the Democrats have sponsored for the past eight years. Clinton has vetoed the ban on late-term abortions and vetoed the increase in deductions for married couples.

I vote by platform, not for power. Perhaps voters should vote by their beliefs, not by their party. Those in power might wake up.
-- Elaine Wagner, Seminole

The oil factor

Re: A reassuring introduction.

Your editorial in the Aug. 5 issue is an example of a situation that should be protested loudly and often: namely, that thus far George W. Bush has not, to my knowledge, said anything about many crucial environmental problems -- not before, since or during the convention. And your otherwise fine editorial did not mention this glaring oversight.

My guess is that Bush and his fellow oilmen, if elected, will at some point early in their administration move to exploit the federally protected lands on the North Slope of Alaska. I pray I am wrong.
-- Paul E. Oberst, Largo

Highlighting human connections

Re: The child is mother to unspoken questions, Aug. 8.

What a wonderful column Mary Jo Melone wrote. She highlighted the very basis of humanity -- our original connections. The love and caring between Mary Jo and her child are part of the "positive" view of the news that people have been asking for since the 1970s. I believe her daughter will grow to be the social being she's meant to be by the very nature of our species.

Mother rubbed her child's back until her breathing became relaxed with the rhythm of sleep, a tiring task for many moms but so important along the nurturing road of our children's lives.

Thank you for this column and for the many other high quality articles in this fine newspaper.
-- Sonja Haught, 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.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.