tbo: Tampa Bay Online.
Tuesday, Jun 19, 2018
  • Home
Letters To The Editor

Letters to the editor: Cut-and-paste


Regarding “The real criminals” (Your Views, Aug. 9): Louis Suarez’ comments appear to be cut-and-paste from Hamas’ propaganda. It is a telling indicator that those who side with Israel usually bemoan the loss of innocent life, while those who buy the Hamas line say little or nothing about the callous and calculated savagery of arbitrary rocket attacks from behind human shields.

It is also indicative of misguided or purposeful bluster that he refers to Israel as hungry for land when productive Gaza territory was relinquished by Israel to Arabs who promptly used it as a base for attacks. The innocence of the bulk of Gazan residents may also be called into question since they voted Hamas into power over them and continue to harbor weapons in their schools and mosques willingly or unwillingly.

The blockade (imprisonment) of Gaza on three sides (by land on the east and south, and north by sea) is maintained to protect Israeli citizens after several terrorist attacks. It is obvious that Hamas’ tunnels were not for trade and civil exchange purposes. By the way, the western blockade is maintained by the Gazan’s Muslim neighbor, Egypt, which grew tired of the criminal and murderous actions of Hamas. We could speak factually about the real criminals, but I don’t think the writer is up to it.

Dan Coggins

Wesley Chapel

Big difference

I’m sure mine isn’t the only letter you received regarding Louis A. Suarez’s flawed logic when he says that “it is time to stop listening to anything Israel has to say; it cares nothing about peace, and it’s self-defense alibi is nothing but a red herring.”

He draws a faulty analogy to the United States killing Floridians. The United States does not deny the right of Florida to exist. Furthermore, the USA has not vowed to wipe Florida off the face of the Earth. A big difference there, Mr. Suarez.

Mike Grab

Spring Hill

A loving option

I cannot fully understand the pain of Richard McTear’s mom, but I wonder about whether an earlier decision she made on Richard’s behalf would have saved her from that pain. When she realized that she could not take care of the child to whom she gave birth, did putting him up for adoption occur to her as a loving option?

There’s no mention of Richard McTear Sr. Was he around? It would have been painful (maybe for both her and his father) to let her child go to another family, but might it have been a little bit less painful than letting the prison system take custody of him? I hope McTear’s mom makes the most of what she knows. Encourage young women (and men) who are in the same dilemma as she was — unable to take care of their child/children — to consider adoption. Thousands of good homes would welcome these children — and save them from a lifetime of pain that both McTear and his mom now must endure.

Good luck to her in her recovery. Please help others to keep this from happening again.

Sister Claire LeBoeuf, CSC


Misused words

Ammon Shea makes some strong points regarding English language usage and its common abuses, especially in newspapers (“The English language as a teenager — acne, attitude, creative,” Other Views, Aug. 9).

I would like to add several words we see used by “professional” print people:

♦  Eatery and beanery for restaurant — cute (once) but hack usage.

♦  Shuttering for closing.

♦  Epicenter for center — epi is not an intensifier. Nor is pen as in penultimate.

♦  Namesake for eponym — or vice versa.

♦  Turkey Day — an offensive horror.

♦  Parsing — why not dissecting?

♦  Fiscal cliff — cliché — cliché along with “troops on the ground.” Where else would troops be?

Icon and iconic seem to be used for anything and everything. Same with iconoclast.

Tom Lenfestey


Not a brainy quote

Regarding “Sheriff’s office fights theater deposition” (Metro, Aug. 9):

This story, referencing the terrible “cellphone shooting” some time ago in a local movie theater, points out exactly why the ordinary, law-abiding citizen like myself has so little respect for criminal defense attorneys. Richard Escobar, the attorney for Curtis Reeves Jr., the shooter of Chad Oulson who was (heaven forbid!) using his cellphone before the movie started, makes it clear why they are not a member of the world’s most admired profession in a single quote:

“There appears to be a double standard for law enforcement officers, acting as law enforcement officers, who shoot in self-defense vs. a lay person who shoots in self-defense.”

I have a challenge for Escobar. Look all over this country and find one law enforcement officer who shot someone for using a cellphone when they shouldn’t have been doing so — or for spilling or throwing popcorn on him or her.

I can easily say those words were, without a doubt, the most foolish, most ridiculous I have ever heard uttered by a lawyer of any kind.

Defense attorneys — don’t ya just love them?

Steve Webb


Weather Center