I wanted to take a moment to express my sincerest gratitude to the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office and the Tampa Police Department for their handling of the tragic incidents north of campus on Sept. 5-6. True to the excellent reputation of these two law enforcement agencies, these traumatic attacks committed by an individual from another county were handled with precision and professionalism.
The Tampa Bay area is extremely fortunate to have law enforcement agencies with such a high degree of training and expertise to provide public safety. We are even more fortunate to have law enforcement leaders such as Sheriff David Gee and Chief Jane Castor to ensure our safety system functions to the highest standards.
The entire USF community truly appreciates the hard work of all the men and women of law enforcement as we seek to make our community a better and safer place to learn and live.
The writer is president of the USF System.
Alimony bill flawed
Jerry Reiss’ opinion piece, “Alimony reform would kill 30 years of progress” (Other Views, Sept. 6), was 100 percent correct. Those readers who criticized him either have a personal stake in eliminating alimony or are uninformed, or both.
Having practiced family law for over 40 years, I am now retired. Thus, although I do not have a “dog in the fight” I have seen both sides of the picture time and again and fought the fight from every perspective. Under current law judges have an extensive menu of different types of alimony and can tailor it to the demands of each situation (or not). The bill the governor vetoed would have placed extreme hardship on far too many families. Moreover, the portion that enabled courts to retroactively annul agreements was patently unconstitutional.
Reiss gets it. His critics do not.
Alimony reform needed
Regarding “Alimony reform would kill 30 years of progress” (Other Views, Sept. 6): Jerry Reiss made light of the fact that permanent alimony is not merely an option in courts in Florida today but it is clearly the preferred option.
In my recent divorce, my wife was awarded 64 percent of my salary until the day I die, and the ruling cannot be appealed. I was married for 20 years and my wife did not want to work and never had to work so I created a monster in the state of Florida because under that scenario permanent alimony is always awarded along with equitable distribution.
With the high percentage of approval in both the House and the Senate, how can our governor veto such a bill unless he has another agenda?
Support Syria strike
The Senate Foreign Relation Committee granted President Obama authorization to launch a limited strike on Syria to punish Assad for using chemical weapons. It is imperative that the United States carries out this strike to preserve international stability. A military strike prevents Assad from destabilizing the region by attacking Syria’s neighboring countries. Assad repeatedly threatened Israel in the past to boost his image as a strong national leader. Incapacitating his ability to carry out his threats guarantees stability in the region.
While it is understandable that many Americans are war-weary after a decade of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, lack of action against the Syrian regime will lead to an unstable international environment that will drag the U.S. to future conflicts.
Military options perilous
The American people are skeptical, and rightly so. We are being told there will be no “boots on the ground.” Strangely, this is reminiscent of an earlier president saying that under no circumstances would he “send American boys to fight an Asian war in Asia.” We all know how that turned out.
There is a 1925 treaty banning the use of chemical weapons. As the president reminded us, 98 percent of the countries in the world signed it. How is it that the U.S. and maybe France are the only countries who want to take action?
Is it possible that other countries have doubts as to which side used them? Until diplomacy convinces the Russian government to stop backing Assad, every military option is perilous.
Just say no
I agree with the writer of “Don’t legalize pot” (Your Views, Sept. 7). The writer posed two great questions. Why legalize the smoking of drugs and create a further burden on the health care system of America? And with the MADD folks doing all they can to stop drunken driving, why promote a nation full of mindless people wanting to drive while being legally high?
My questions are: Will driver’s licenses now need to be issued with an identifier such as “Pot Smoker”? And should these folks also need to pay higher insurance premiums?
Legalizing pot opens the door to a host of problems most of us haven’t even considered yet. Just say no!
Due to a production error, the last sentence of a Bloomberg View commentary on Monday’s editorial page, “Trying to avoid BlackBerry’s fate,” was cut off. It reads as follows: “Once the central bank begins scaling back its bond purchases, possibly as early as this month, rates will rise and the Vodafone Group Plc acquisition will be more expensive.”