Opinion: Red Cross is honoring wishes of its donors

This letter is in response to recent articles and editorials that appeared in the St. Petersburg Times regarding the distribution of donations received by the American Red Cross for the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks. The Red Cross encourages our donors to scrutinize the use of their donated dollars. However, we also encourage everyone to get the facts.

As of Oct. 30, the American Red Cross has received $561-million in commitments and contributions. That includes in-kind donations ranging from vehicles to gloves and other equipment for the rescuers and volunteers.

The wishes of our donors are being honored. Donations from the American public that are specified for the families affected by the terrorist attacks are being distributed to those families. Donations from some major financial contributors and corporations are being used to pay for the administrative costs of the relief operation.

As of Oct. 29, the Red Cross has spent more than $140-million on disaster relief related to Sept. 11 to help pay for rent, mortgages, child care, food and all other living expenses for a minimum of three months. The American Red Cross is using every means possible to notify affected family members and distribute the funds. Unfortunately, the Red Cross has not received a complete list of the victims and must rely on other means to identify the family members.

As part of a comprehensive effort to ensure timely, accurate and responsible handling of funds, special review teams from the KPMG external auditing firm have visited Red Cross National Headquarters and chapters to conduct spot audits. KPMG has completed unannounced on-site reviews at a number of chapters around the country, with largely positive results.

Terrorism and weapons of mass destruction are a new kind of disaster. We have a responsibility under our Congressional Charter and the Federal Emergency Response Plan to be prepared for new disasters. This will include supporting chapter, community and public preparedness, blood readiness and volunteer mobilization on a whole new level. The American Red Cross is helping provide mental health counseling to anyone who is searching for ways to cope. In addition, the Red Cross is now helping the victims of the anthrax attacks. We are also providing emergency assistance to families of the military that have been deployed.

Harold Decker, interim CEO of the organization, has said, "Our highest priority is to ensure that the Liberty Funds are disbursed quickly, efficiently and appropriately to meet the needs of victims and our nation, while retaining the trust and confidence of all those who have contributed so generously."

The victims of these horrific attacks are not only in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Family members of those who have died or are missing are suffering worldwide. In addition, the entire country is experiencing emotional stress in dealing with the acts of Sept. 11. And we will be there for the victims of whatever other attacks that may occur in the future, thanks to the generosity of the American people.
-- Mercedes Karl, board of director's chair,
American Red Cross, Tampa Bay Chapter, Tampa

Guards deserve better pay

Re: Security is no place to privatize, by P.W. Singer, Oct. 27.

Singer's assertion that security must be government run is wrong. It may be true that, as Singer states, "when a company fails to deliver a safe vaccine, lives are at stake." But lives are at stake with surgery in private hospitals, too. And the cars we drive (with help from Ralph Nader), are made safe by private companies. The same goes for the foods we eat.

As Martin Dyckman pointed out recently, it's not whether security guards are public or private, but that they be well-paid. Right now, Pinellas water treatment plants are defended by guards making $7.50 per hour. That's unacceptable. The guards are fine. The public officials who approved these salaries are not fine. It's up to us to let them know it.

If we don't speak up, then we get less security than we should/could/would have if wages were appropriate.

Guards everywhere need higher pay, more benefits, more respect, more training, and they should be fully armed. Since Sept. 11, I haven't seen any improvement in any of these things.

I don't think Americans are really taking the terrorism war seriously.
-- Rosemarie Lamont, St. Petersburg

It's time to make the nation safe

The "good" news about our new world since Sept. 11, is that "only" four planes were crashed by terrorists and "only" 5,000 or 6,000 people were killed, and that "only" anthrax was used by terrorists to kill four people and infect less than two dozen more.

The "bad" news is that if the terrorists had acquired nuclear weapons or a viable amount of the smallpox virus, they would have used them, meaning millions of casualties. We should look at the present as a time for training, preparedness and prevention. It is time to vigorously put into place airline, immigration, transportation, communication and general homeland defenses for the long battle ahead.

If the world does not gain control over terrorism, those and other weapons will be in the hands of these barbarians, and we will have to deal with them. Congress should stop its petty bickering and get down to the serious business of making this nation safe and strong. Many billions will have to be spent for this purpose, and we want the right choices, not ideological pandering. A federalized airport security force, with police powers, would be a nice start. Some in the House of Representatives want a continuation of private companies handling baggage and passenger screening, (we've all seen where that got us!). They claim that it would be too difficult to fire government employees if it were their job. But a large corporation, making large donations to a political party, would sure be hard to fire, or control, if it was doing slipshod work to enhance the bottom line.

The GOP members in the House think that this is a "vast left-wing conspiracy" to increase the size of the reviled federal bureaucracy, but it is not. In fact it is this same federal bureaucracy that millions of Americans are now turning to as our last line of defense to win this war! It is a question of safety, not politics!
-- Paul Wilsbach, Palm Harbor

Why bail out insurance industry?

So now, the government is talking about giving handouts to bail out the insurance industry. Why?

If any of you have had the many disappointing experiences I have had with insurance companies, you should be upset, too.

The whole idea of insurance coverage is a gamble. When you pay your premiums, the insurance company "bets" that the thing you are covering for loss -- won't happen. It usually doesn't, and that is why insurance companies are so profitable. If you do have an auto accident, even if you have paid premiums for 30 or 40 years without a claim, the company boosts your premiums for at least three years -- long enough to have covered the loss. Wouldn't other private industries in times of an economic downturn love to get government subsidies until they return to profitability? Why should the insurance industry be treated any differently.

I am a long-time conservative Republican. I am very concerned at the way our current members of Congress are suddenly prone to give handouts to one and all instead of relying on competition and individual initiative (which have proven successful for years) to succeed in restoring economic normality. Let the government do what our forefathers said it should do: protect this country from its enemies and cease trying to be "big brother" to businesses and individuals alike!
-- H. Scott Woodward, Madeira Beach

Retaliation doesn't work

Re: The lessons of terror, by Kathleen LaCamera, Nov. 1.

Yes, the people of Northern Ireland who have lived with terrorism for more than 30 years have much to teach us at this time. Many who exist there in constant threat of violence have learned that there is no military solution to their problem.

Retaliation is a short cut that is ineffective. It doesn't work. Understanding motivations for horrendous acts like the bombing of the World Trade Center is difficult, and many don't want to consider it. The advice to "put as much energy into removing the motivation for it as you do into mechanisms for preventing it" is counsel we need at this time of national anger.

Getting even may feel good at the moment, but in the long term it just generates more hatred and recrimination. We are intelligent people. Can't we set aside our emotions and work on real solutions, solutions that will preclude more violence?
-- Jean Lersch, St. Petersburg

Harry Potter and moral relativism

Re: Shalt thou read Harry Potter? Nov. 1.

I was very disappointed with this article by Sharon Tubbs. The subhead promised a discussion of two books with different views on whether Christians should read this series. In actuality what we were treated to was the point of view of two different authors both of whom in the end endorse this literature. Furthermore, they proffer judgment against those of us who disagree, as being narrow-minded and judgmental. These are interesting statements from supposedly open-minded and nonjudgmental individuals.

Author Connie Neal states that the Bible very clearly denounces the practice of witchcraft. Yet, she goes on to state: "We are not asking, "Can a Christian practice witchcraft?' We are asking whether Christians are free to read stories that are closely associated with such practices and treat them positively."

With all due respect, by asking Christians to view children's literature that glamorizes witchcraft in a positive light, Neal is speaking out of both sides of her mouth.

This is yet another example of moral relativism that is replacing our culture's innate sense of right and wrong. As Christians we are called to practice what we preach, and those of us who are Catholics are also called to avoid occasions of sin. We are not called to pay lip service to our beliefs against certain activities and in the same breath expose our children to literature that glamorizes the same forbidden activity.

Your readers would have been better served by reading a well-researched and dissenting opinion as expressed by the author Michael O'Brien in his excellent and acclaimed book A Landscape with Dragons: The Battle for Your Child's Mind. In this book, O'Brien contrasts Rowling's writings to the fantasy-rich works of C.S. Lewis in The Chronicles of Narnia and J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. Their heroes espouse self-control and a desire to serve the greater good above their own. In contrast to Rowling, these Christian writers of great classical literature teach that supernatural powers belong to God alone, and that in human hands they are tools of deceit, which can lead to evil.

As a mother of young children, I would much rather expose my children to truly great literature that holds up heroes for them to emulate rather than heroes for them to be confused by.
-- Addys Gonzalez Sasserath, St. Petersburg

Share your opinions

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.

Back to Opinion

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

From the Times
Opinion page