Friday's letters: Subpoena Publix heiress, dog-whistle politics, true conservatism, more
Question Publix heiress about Jan. 6 attack
It will be interesting to see if the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack will subpoena Julie Jenkins Fancelli, daughter of Publix founder George Jenkins, to find out if there were communications between her and the White House. She can hardly claim executive privilege.
She supplied hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Jan. 6 rally that resulted in the storming of our nation’s Capitol in an insurrection. In addition, she donated $150,000 that might have paid for robocalls urging people to march on the Capitol.
Too bad she did not donate all those dollars toward worthy charities like her mother did over and over again in the area and within the state of Florida.
Time will tell.
George B. Kenworthy, Bradenton
Warning readers about Moms for Liberty
Your article Dec. 12 about Moms for Liberty was necessary because readers must know that influential Republicans organized a seemingly innocuous group to dupe powerless moms into promoting its insidious goals through dog-whistle politics.
More: How to send a letter to the editor
Moms don’t need to belong to such political groups to have their voices heard on behalf of their children. Instead, they could vote and attend school-building and district-level meetings focusing on curriculum improvement. Further, they could attend conferences and volunteer.
Yelling and screaming at school board meetings, petitioning for bounties on teachers’ heads and stalking school board members don’t create positive change; those actions promote misinformation and incite violence.
Michelle Johnston, Sarasota
Brooks takes objective approach to abortion
On Dec. 7, New York Times columnist David Brooks addressed the complex and difficult topic of abortion (“Abortion: The voice of the ambivalent majority”).
His discussion examined the positions of those on both sides of the argument over abortion. It is objective, rational and deeply reflective. While his conclusions are not entirely consistent with my own thoughts on the topic, I greatly respect the manner in which he has drawn on a wide range of experiences, beliefs, attitudes and relevant historical background.
Considered a conservative columnist, Brooks’ approach is consistent with the actual meaning of the term conservative, partly defined by Merriam-Webster as “tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions,” and also as “marked by moderation or caution.”
As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to gut or overturn Roe v. Wade, abandoning 50 years of established legal precedent is radical and not in any way conservative.
Brooks concludes by stating that “majorities don’t rule in this country; polarized minorities do.” The point is illustrated by noting that five of the current justices were nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote and were confirmed by senators representing fewer Americans than are represented by senators who voted against confirmation.
Glen Peterson, Venice
Offensive is not the new funny
I recently saw an ad for T-shirts. The message was straightforward: “You Find This Offensive? I Find It Funny. That Makes Me Happier Than You.”
No, it doesn’t. It makes you seem small-minded, rude and contentious. I’d find that funny, except it isn’t.
Profane suggestion and denigration of others seems to be considered by some to be social commentary that’s clever. If it provokes anger or disgust in one’s ideological opponents that’s the point, and a certain pride seems to be taken in it.
It’s an extension of the “good ol’ boys club” mentality that now seems to be embraced outside the club by a deepening cross section of gender, education and intelligence. Or maybe it was always this way.
In my mind it seems more hateful than it had been. I doubt it encourages many converts, on either end of the social or political spectrum. Or maybe it does. Maybe it moves those on the fence, but in the opposite direction of the offender.
Rick O’Connell, Sarasota
DeSantis’ actions are not impressive
The writer who summarized Gov. Ron DeSantis’ credentials obviously appreciates credentials far more than action – the credentials are impressive, the actions are not (“No Democrat can match Gov. DeSantis,” Dec. 13).
When he praised the governor’s response to the pandemic as a great accomplishment all I could think of was, how could he possibly have reached that conclusion? And he didn’t mention asking Floridians to pay to send our National Guardsmen to Texas or spending state money on frivolous lawsuits so he could impress extreme right voters.
I’ve lived in Florida for over 45 years and have always been a nonpartisan voter, but I am thankful that “No Democrat can match Gov. DeSantis.”
Bob Barnes, Bradenton
This article originally appeared on Sarasota Herald-Tribune: Publix figure should explain rally support, Brooks a true conservative
