Opinion: Don't undermine the good work of the Red Cross

The attack on Sept. 11 was a tragedy of unprecedented proportion. I am certain that some mistakes have been made in the recovery effort. Our country and our charities have never faced this type of disaster. But the Times has given the impression that the Red Cross is ripping off the general public. One cartoon depicted the American Red Cross "Double Cross" (Mike Peters, Nov. 12.) This is absolutely not the case! As a donor, I understood the wide scope of the recovery from the Sept. 11 attack, including the need for preparedness for future attacks. I had no problem with a portion of the Liberty Fund dollars being saved for future events. It is easy to sit here after two months with no further attacks and second-guess that decision.

In the days and weeks immediately following the attack, we all feared and expected more attacks. The Red Cross has now bowed to public pressure, fanned by the media, to keep all Liberty Fund dollars specifically for the victims of the Sept. 11 attack. I thought that would put an end to the negative press. I was appalled to see that the Times was at it again (Red Cross slowly earning trust, Nov. 23.). Now your criticism is of the amount of blood collected in the wake of the Sept. 11 attack.

The general public is not as foolish as you make us out to be. The Red Cross did not trick us into giving blood. We donated blood even after we realized that the rescue effort in New York had shifted to a recovery effort. We did so because we wanted to do "something" to help. We thought that if we couldn't save the Trade Center victims, we would be ready for the next ones. While the rest of us are thanking God that the blood hasn't been needed, the Times is running cartoons of a fat, bloodsucking tick (Don Addis, Nov. 6.).

Throughout the country, supplies of rare blood types remained rare despite the outpouring of support. Many people were donating blood for the first time. Perhaps now they will become regular donors and thus bring some good out of this tragedy. That is if the Times doesn't make them feel foolish for their decision to give in the first place.
-- Valarie Lossa, St. Petersburg

Red Cross has work to do

Re: Red Cross slowly earning trust, Nov. 23.

Your editorial about the Red Cross hit home with me. Soon after Sept. 11, I received an e-mail from Continental Airlines about donating my frequent flier miles. I had more than 140,000 miles in my account, enough to fly round trip in business class to Australia. With no second thoughts, I zeroed my account with Continental and gave all to the Red Cross.

Then the articles in the news about what the organization was doing with donations started showing up. People have no problems donating to a cause if they know their donations are going to the cause. The Red Cross needs to rebuild the trust Americans had put in them.
-- Bill Sterner, Tampa

Why limit Red Cross' options?

I for one am appalled that the Red Cross has agreed to give all the funds that were contributed in response to its Sept. 11 appeals to the victims of the tragic terrorist attack. I feel for those victims and their families. I can't imagine anything more horrible. But when I gave to the Red Cross after Sept. 11, and any other time I have answered its appeals, I have assumed that my donation would be used where it was most needed. I felt the same after the terrorist attack, and I would never dream of objecting had my donation gone to the flood victims in Honduras.

There are many people in this country and elsewhere who are suffering in the wake of terrible tragedy and catastrophe. It escapes me why so many feel this one group is entitled to so much more than any other victims. I just can't conceive of it.

And I wonder what future victims are going to do. Certainly, America's pockets rarely open this widely for anything. To all those who've forced this change in Red Cross policy, I say: I hope you're willing to ante up the millions needed for the next crisis.
-- Sue Brown, Zephyrhills

Protest deserved coverage

Re: SOA Watch protest.

How does the St. Petersburg Times explain ignoring the Nov. 18 gathering of 7,000 to 10,000 protesters at Fort Benning, Ga.? This peaceful vigil and solemn funeral march commemorates the thousands who have died, disappeared and been terrorized in Latin American countries, many at the hands of graduates of the School of the Americas. Young and old, in growing numbers, from all across the country have followed their consciences to attend this event since its small beginning in 1990. Thousands have risked arrest and imprisonment to call attention to their demand that the school be closed.

At the end of last year, the school was closed and it reopened the first of this year as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. "New name, same shame," say the protesters. This event is newsworthy. It has drawn the largest numbers of people since the Vietnam War protests.

In connection with the weekend protest, a notable ruling was made on Nov. 16, by U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Mallon Faircloth. He denied the request by the city of Columbus, Ga., to keep the SOA Watch protesters from the site where they have traditionally gathered for the past 11 years. Faircloth said, "It was a question of First Amendment rights, and you can't play with that."

As a result, the protesters were able to proceed to the main gate of Fort Benning, now closed by a chain-link fence topped with barbed wire. By the end of the Sunday procession, the protesters had decorated the new fence with flowers and other mementos and thousands of crosses bearing names of the men, women and children who have met violent deaths in Latin American countries.

In past years the Times has given coverage to this annual vigil and protest. More notably, you have taken an editorial position in favor of closing the School of the Americas, as have numerous major newspapers. Where have you gone?
-- Mary Berglund, St. Petersburg

Antigun laws don't work

Re: Close terrorists' gun-show access, letter, Nov. 19.

The letter writer and the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence are way off base when they call for closing gun-show loopholes as a crime prevention act. As a most obvious example of their error is the fact that you can buy drugs like marijuana, cocaine and heron in virtually every city, town and village in the United States. That's not to mention the great failure of Prohibition in the 1920s and '30s.

Do antigun laws work? Of course they don't. All the attempted gun purchases by criminals stopped by the Brady bill miss one point. Black markets. If we were to pass a law absolutely prohibiting private ownership of guns in this country you would find them in every venue where controlled drugs are sold. The simple reason is that prohibition does not work but smuggling does.
-- Arnold C. Jones, Dunedin

More gun restrictions not needed

Re: Close terrorists' gun-show access, Nov. 19.

A study conducted by the Department of Justice based on interviews with 18,000 state and federal prisoners found that criminals turn to friends and family to buy their weapons for them, rather than buying guns themselves at stores, gun shows or flea markets. According to the study, almost 40 percent of state prison inmates convicted of crimes involving guns in 1997 got their weapon from a friend or relative, and 35 percent from the black market.

It's not more laws or restrictions that we need. The ongoing efforts of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies and the fact that the vast majority of persons selling firearms at gun shows are federally licensed dealers who abide by the laws regarding firearm sales, ensure that gun shows are not what is falsely portrayed. Criminals and terrorists alike are aware of the scrutiny at gun shows by undercover law enforcement and licensed dealers and therefore rarely choose this venue for their purchases.
-- Ed Mejias, Land O'Lakes

Why not regulate sharp-edged objects?

Re: Close terrorists' gun-show access.

It is a well know tactic of some antigun activists to associate "terrorists" with gun shows, in an effort to sway public opinion. One would think that all the terrorists currently in the United States are intent on arming themselves to the hilt through gun show purchases. Yet, there is no evidence to support that idea. Indeed, the criminals involved in the Sept. 11 hijackings used box cutters and the threat of a bomb to gain control, according to published reports. There is absolutely no evidence that any one of them even attempted to obtain a firearm.

Perhaps it would be a better idea, in light of the terrorists' choice of weapons, to encourage legislation strictly regulating the sale and use of all sharp-edged objects. Then someone, terrorist or not, would have to fill out a form certifying that he/she is not a "prohibited buyer," and submit to a background check. Makes sense to me.

The letter writer includes "terrorists and their supporters" as "a new much more dangerous prohibited buyer." Huh? Are terrorists on such a list? Do terrorists ever admit to being terrorists? Is there a form that states, "Check here if you are a terrorist or terrorist supporter"? There are no special gun show "loopholes." Federal law clearly provides that anyone in the business of selling firearms for profit must have a federal firearms license. That is the law, and I certainly agree that it should be enforced.
-- Lee Hanson, Hudson

Better pay brings better workers

Re: There will always be incompetents, Nov. 24.

The letter writer misses the point. Just raising the pay, and federalizing airport security workers will not increase security. What will increase security is hiring more qualified people for the job. By raising wages and offering benefits, we can be more selective and set higher standards.

The present systems competes with fast food restaurants for applicants. I have nothing against fast food workers -- it's a great way for young people to get summer jobs. I just don't want the same kid who screwed up my order at the drive-through to be the person responsible for airport security.
-- Bob Ash, St. Petersburg

A battery-powered problem

The post office is distributing fliers requesting people to contribute toys for underprivileged children. I would like to suggest that people do not contribute battery-operated toys, as attractive as they may be. I'm sure that parents who cannot afford to buy toys, will not be buying replacement batteries, thereby making the toys useless.
-- Andy Tanico, Palm Harbor

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.

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