Naples growth and infrastructure, books censored, third party candidates | Letters

Letters to the editor should be 250 words or less. Include your name and city or community of residence. Guest opinions should be 600 words or less and include a brief summary of the author’s credentials relevant to the topic. Guest opinions may include a head shot of the author. For the Fort Myers News-Press, email submissions to mailbag@news-press.com and for the Naples Daily News to letters@naplesnews.com

Infrastructure can't handle growth

I recently had an opportunity to travel around a part of eastern Collier County and was taken aback by the overdevelopment. I've been a resident of the county for over 40 years, there's gridlock everywhere. Our county commissioners should be impeached for letting this happen, paradise is truly lost. Does no one study the demographics before they build? You don't have to be an engineer to see what's occurring, the infrastructure cannot handle this growth. Water, sewage, utilities and traffic. I do believe there's a strong connection between politicians and developers. Great Wolf Lodge a mega-water park with 475 rooms, the traffic on city-gate boulevard is a nightmare now, what happens when it opens? The traffic coming from the East Coast it will be horrendous.

Now they want to move the airport to the east, then they can develop the airport property to create another traffic nightmare.

Frank Setera, Naples

Doorstep of ridiculous

Someone please enlighten me.  Apparently, I’m too thick to understand the chosen books being taken off library shelves. By removing all that have anything related to LGBTQ it will turn these folks back to their rightful gender.  It’s only because they’ve read about being gay or trans makes them that way.

Why didn’t we think of this before? Those darn people are not fitting the mold we decide they should. These “woke” people trying to be themselves.  They must resist loving someone other than who fits the conservative mold.

I get controlling pornography, both homosexual and heterosexual, etc., but did we walk through a doorstep of ridiculous? (To Kill a Mockingbird?! Seriously? Their Eyes Were Watching God?! - Kiterunner?!). So that will put a stop to that nonsense.  There.

I’m also confused why sexuality is on the attack but not violence? Read all you want about chainsaw attacks, gang fights, blood and guts, shootings. Oh yes, especially shootings. All fine. But if two people are having a loving relationship, don’t dare expose to our children. Pearl clutch!!

So I solved all the “woke” issues and will go don my handmaids hood and cape and zip it!

Sue Caferro, Cape Coral

Man who would be king

Remember Henry the Eighth? Now there was a guy who knew how to get things done. Disappointed with a wife? Displeased with a subordinate? Lop off their heads and move on. Why be king if you can't take a little liberty here and there. Go for it, and don't waste valuable time and energy justifying your whims and peccadillos. It's good to be the king.Donald Trump has recently told us through a surrogate (an attorney) that the American presidency ought to confer absolute, Henry the Eighth style immunity from consequences for any and all actions, up to and including politically motivated murder. Well, it worked for Henry. After all, Donald Trump is running for the throne in '24; isn't he? Wait, what's that you say? He's not? Presidents and kings are not the same?America was born out of the impulse to refute the divine right and absolute authority of kings. Trump is certainly unhinged enough to be George the Third, but in actuality he's just an unprincipled kid from Queens who got very, very lucky. And he's telling us out loud that he's the man who would be king. That just doesn't sound very American to me. We don't do kings here, do we?

Geremy Spampinato, Naples

Christian In Name Only

C.I.N.O. or just CINO is a very descriptive acronym!

"Christian In Name Only" (CINO) applies to those who call themselves Christian but tread on Christian values, ethics, morals and sit in judgment of anyone who disagrees with them.

For the most part CINOs are "Biblical Literalists" and/or "Christian Nationalists" who feel superior and who want to impose their personal beliefs on everyone and every other religion.  These CINOs are great at "cherry picking" Biblical passages that support their own warped ideology, political thinking and desire to force their views on the entire country.  (CINOs ignore Bible passages that do not work for them).  CINOs fail to recognize inconsistencies in the Bible resulting from the fact the Bible has changed over thousands of years.  The Bible emanates from oral histories/stories translated into ancient languages; then translated into Greek and Latin; then given to popes to revise; then given to kings to rewrite to their benefit; then translated into English and other languages. Get the picture?

There are great teachings in the Bible, it is just that CINOs impose their perverted interpretation of the Bible in order to sit in judgment of others, discriminate and advance their political agendas with total disregard for the separation of church and state.

The acronym "C.I.N.O." also applies to another entirely different group:  These CINOs worship the almighty dollar six days a week and go to church on Sunday.

For the record, I was brought up in a Catholic and Protestant home that taught me good Christian values that have greatly benefited me through all my 78 years.

Jim Laughlin, Naples

Third party candidates

I will start by saying third parties usually appeal to me more than the Remocrat/Depublican cabal. I haven't voted for a major party candidate since 1988 and I was wrong then. "None of the above" has appealed to me since. I just effectively vote "present."

I really fear that Manchin's idea that we need a strong third party presence in the presidential race may bring about a situation that hasn't happened in 200 years. Third party candidates generally stand as a "None of the above" statement and the last third party candidate to get an earned Electoral College vote was George Wallace. (There have been a few rogue electors who threw in an odd name though).

If we actually do get a third party candidate who garners a significant number of "Never Trump" and "Dump Biden" voters there is a real possibility that this gets resolved in the House. This is one vote per state, not one vote per representative, so California has the same vote as Wyoming. There is also no guarantee that they follow the will of their state's voters.

We also had a situation in 1876 where three states had disputed results and sent two sets of electors to DC but that is a whole other thing that could happen. That was decided by a House committee too.

After the 1824 election was settled in the House, J.Q. Adams' administration was tainted because of the back room deal that allowed him to be selected. Henry Clay traded his votes for the secretary of State appointment. A dark horse third party candidate with a handful of EC votes could be the most powerful person in DC for a few days.

Perhaps we should be watching the House vote as closely as the top of the ticket. In the meantime, I am just going to get a big tub of popcorn and watch the show.

Greg Fretwell, Estero

Irony in Naples

Oh, the irony of Naples City Council quibbling over the proposed Four Seasons porte cochere while giving serious consideration to the expansion of NCH that will destroy an established neighborhood.Allow the porte cochere!

David Driapsa, Naples

Books off the shelf

I think it is terrible that the school has to take books off the shelf! “The Story of Anne Frank”! Most of the books are off the shelf. Not thrown away, but pulled for further review! How long will that take and who is going to review them?Plus who is kidding who? Most children have cell phones or iPads or computers that they can pull anything off of them to read or find out whatever they want!MaryJane Harris, North Fort Myers

Nikki Haley’s word salad

Nikki Haley’s problem with race is disappointing since she is the first major presidential candidate of color in the Republican Party who is more than a novelty act like some of her male predecessors.

But she is not only having difficulty addressing race-related issues, but she also is syntax-challenged.

Coming off her blunder in New Hampshire a couple of weeks ago in overlooking slavery as a cause of the Civil War, she stumbled again in New Hampshire this week barely seven days before that state’s first-in-the-nation primary.

This time, in declaring that America “has never been a racist country,” she disregarded that unpleasant institution of slavery, again, as well as Jim Crow laws, the legacy of lynchings, enforced segregation in schools and all public facilities in the South, and a myriad of other degradations based on race.

But her oversights, purposeful or unintentional, are not confined to the states of the Old Confederacy like here in Florida as  well  as her own South Carolina, where the war started. The inequities she bypasses  extend to other parts of the country, including   racially restrictive housing patterns; discrimination in employment; limitations on higher education opportunities; prohibitions on borrowing from financial institutions; exclusion of Blacks from baseball, the national pastime; and other disparities.

Her miscues are also reflective of her tendency to make senseless statements devoid  of substance. After her latest gaffe, she ineffectually tried to make amends by saying that “America has always had racism but America has never been a racist country.”

Her phraseology recalls the mind-bungling remark of John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, who is resigning as the nation’s international climate change adviser to join the Biden campaign. Trying to reconcile his conflicting positions on funding for the Iraq War, he explained  that “I voted against it before I voted for it.”

Haley’s word salad on racism would make Kerry proud.

Marshall H. Tanick, Naples

Democrats destroying country

It's all deliberate, what the Democrats are doing to this country.Forcing and threatening with mandates us to get un-vetted vaccines, buy EV's, taking away our gas stoves and other appliances, house plants, targeting religions as terrorist groups, controlling our speech by changing meanings of words, gun controls, etc. Which are all inalienable rights guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.Inalienable means cannot be taken away for any reason, absolute.Taking away the above mentioned, and soon controls on how we spend money = taking control of our lives and taking away our freedoms. This is not democracy, this is Marxism/communism. Full government control, anti-American.

Most Americans realize this. Democrats are destroying this country from within. Open borders, eliminating energy independence, which funds the wars in Ukraine, Middle East and soon Taiwan. Democrats know what to do to change course but refuse to do it. This is the country and world they want, chaotic. All the signs are in plain sight. This is why Trump is ahead in polls.To the 25% who have your heads in the sand, WAKE UP!!What do you really want? A country in decline in all ways, a world on fire, with a weak leader? or a strong leader, who occasionally creates verbal chaos, but delivers a prosperous country and safer world?That's the choice.

Cathy Lopez, Naples winter resident

Negative comments earned

In Wednesday's paper. a writer lamented the lack of civility expressed in some letters to the editor.  She's right of course except for a couple of items which may have slipped many people's minds.

Recently Congressman Bill Pascroll of New Jersey compiled some interesting statistics which were fact checked by RUMBLE with Michael Moore.

It seems that Republicans in Congress have, 100% of them at one time or another, voted against cheaper gas and lower insulin prices as well as reducing prescription drug prices and child tax credits; stimulus checks; the voting rights act; ending gerrymandering; fighting climate change; and, of course, saving Roe v. Wade.

But they're not done,  99% voted against banning assault weapons.  96% of Republicans in Congress voted against keeping birth control legal and opposed gun background checks.  In a show of downright compassion only 84% voted against increased cancer care for veterans while 72% opposed same sex marriage.

Obviously this track record is shameful but it is balanced by almost heroic achievements by the House of Representatives.  Since they've been the majority in the House they've fought keeping the government open and (can you say "Benghazi") have opened hearings about Hunter Biden.  "Opened" hearings is a misnomer. They want to interrogate him behind closed doors and offer their results (interpretation) to the public.  Biden will only agree to an open hearing where the public can hear testimony first hand.  Which would you rather have if it were you?

Since our elected officials are only in office because like-minded voters put them there, I think there should be some accountability by those voters.  I don't like or dislike anyone because of their political party affiliation, but frankly I find it difficult to understand how any rational person can support such downright arrogance when it comes to, for instance, women's rights and gun control.  But, then again, it's Republican voters who put them there so they should be prepared when negative comments appear in the Letters to the Editor page.  You've earned it.

Robert F. Tate, Naples

Middle East policy

The October 7 massacres of Israeli civilians by Palestinian terrorists were predictably justified then forgotten by Democratic politicians, progressive religious leaders, pro-Hamas media and the UN. Elite academics segued to Israeli occupation, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing to amp up violence against Jews on campus faster than they could say “context.” The ritual demonization of the IDF and handwringing over “the humanitarian crisis,” bromides about “containing the conflict” and wishful fantasies about a “reinvigorated PA” governing Gaza after the war are diplomatic double speak. What they really mean is that America will allow Israel defense, but not victory, against jihadists sworn to its obliteration.From a strategic standpoint, Hamas staged its attack to prevent the emergence of a Sunni Arab-Israel alliance which could thwart the Obama/Biden plan for Iranian hegemony. There is every reason to believe that the Abraham Accords states plus Saudi Arabia would still support such an agreement. But they are realists; they respect power and will go with whoever looks like a winner. We need to make sure that is unequivocally Israel.An American administration that did not have Iranian appeasement as the foundation of its Middle East policy and was not beholden to its antisemitic left wing would use the very substantial, very expensive military assets we positioned in the area to do just that. We need to show both allies and enemies that our warships can do more than steam in circles and shoot down drones and we need to cripple the Islamic Republic’s war machine before it “goes nuclear.”Allen Menkin, MD, Naples

Context does matter

A recent letter writer once again raised the issue of antisemitism in universities and blamed the responses by the university presidents on “how far astray the Left has become.” Apparently, he, and the rest of the world, failed to listen to the question and to his own writing. The question was whether calling for genocide would violate the university’s code of conduct in terms of harassment or, as the letter writer put it, the “rules.” To answer this, one would have to examine what is in the code of conduct and what is “harassment.”

If two students are talking in their dorm room without anyone else present and agree that “Jews should be removed from all of Palestine” but don’t say it to anyone else, it is not harassment – nobody is being harassed. This may be despicable speech but would not violate the code of conduct as it is not harassment – it is their free speech.If, however, the two students chant their opinions at a student gathering, then that could be viewed as harassment and would be subject to discipline according to the code of conduct.Context DOES matter, and Elise Stefanik’s bullying line of questioning should have been more closely parsed than it was by the media and the public at large. If the university presidents had answered simply “yes” then they would have been wrong and subject to accusations of violating freedom of speech.

Elly Wright, Naples

Media hypocrisy

Another example of the hyprocrisy of the mainstream media. MSNBC refused to run Trump's victory speech in Iowa and CNN cut away from it. This is a true example of censoring. However, follow how they comment on censoring of inappropriate books and drag queen shows to small children. They say it is inappropriate censoring. The net impact is that the Left believes that small children should be exposed to sexually explicit material to avoid censoring but no one should be able to hear Trump speak because he has to be censored. Now that is hypocrisy at its finest.

Ron Wobbeking, Naples

Aging candidates under stress

This political hypothesis is from a health care professional. The theory is not related to GOP or DEM but to aging. I hypothesize that either Joe Biden or Donald Trump will not be a candidate for president this November.

Both individuals are not young men, and both are under great stress. The writer is aware that health concerns increase as an individual ages. There is a chance that Trump could be a convicted felon by election day and, of course, Biden will be an even older individual.

Dr. Stanley Freeman, Florida Licensed Consultant Pharmacist, Fort Myers

Quit all the hating

In response to the (MAGA nitwits) article that you published, it reveals again the liberal stance this paper holds. First of all , two wrongs don't make a right. Calling people nitwits is rude no matter what mouth is comes out of. He sounds like Trump himself. Second, we the people will vote for someone to take a position in office regardless of who or what they are. And that's a fact. If a person with 91 indictments enters an election and wins that election based on we the people and the votes, that's democracy in its purest. Hatred of Trump has become a cancer in the minds of many people and that hatred has pushed people to act worse then the person they hate. As for democracy, again I say, we the people are democracy and never will one man or woman end it. Joe Biden says that if Trump gets voted in that it will be the end of democracy when it was democracy itself that voted him in if it were to end up that way. Open up your minds and quit all the hating. It's politics and democracy is stronger than ever. Whoever becomes president in 2024, it was a democracy that voted him or her in. We don't have to like it, but we all have to take it regardless.

Sam Bacino, Naples

Universities and free speech

I was interested in the letter Jan. 6 regarding the conduct of the three university presidents who were called before Congress to answer questions about antisemitism on their campuses.

Like so many people, the writer was missing the facts of this story.  This can be blamed partly on the lack of accurate coverage in the media, and partly on the fact that he seems to have approached this story with bias, judging by his dig at the "Left."

The three presidents were brought in to address the issue of the implementation of their university policies in relation to student conduct. When a purely hypothetical question about calling for the genocide of Jews was put to them by a member of Congress, they answered according to their policies. (Incidentally, to my knowledge, no students on campus used the Neo-Nazi  call for the genocide of Jews. Rather, the majority called for a ceasefire in Palestine, something which a very large percentage of the Israeli population was calling for, too).

The United States does not appear to have laws governing hate speech, as many other countries do. Therefore, purely making antisemitic, racist, misogynistic, or homophobic remarks in the U.S. is unlikely to lead to state legal interventions.  Indeed, the former president, who said a lot of things that could be called hate speech, was doing so under the constitutional right to Free Speech. The Capitol rioters have not been charged because they wanted to "Hang Mile Pence," but because they took physical action as part of their hate speech.

Thus, it is only when people act on hate speech, whether on Capitol Hill or campuses, that disciplinary action is taken.

This is why the presidents responded to the question posed in the way they did.  It's not evasive, it is truly all about context. Did any student, or group of students, make such dreadful remarks, accompanied by behavior which was physically violent or aggressive towards Jewish students?  If not, then they did not violate the right to free speech, as allowed under university policies.

While I would perhaps have answered the provocative question a little more expansively, the three presidents answered it truthfully.  Their university policies are based on the American Constitution, including references to free speech. This means that context is everything.

The fact that these enormously talented women have been hounded out of office for telling the truth is disgraceful.

J.D. Hewitt, London, Ontario, Canada

This article originally appeared on Fort Myers News-Press: Letters to the editor for Sunday, January 21, 2024