Can’t shake it off

In today’s American sports world, attendance and sales of jerseys have drastically increased by the interest of one pop star — Taylor Swift.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could harness this force to help protect us from gun violence, ugly effects of drug addiction and book banning, just to name a few?

Diane Goodman Dolcourt,

Pinecrest

Honor Surfside victims

Re Martin Langesfeld’s Oct. 1 op-ed, “Surfside leaders continue to disrespect those who died in Champlain Towers tragedy:”

Human hearts heal faster from a quadruple bypass than from the loss of a loved one. A year, of course, is arbitrary, but at least it indicates acceptance of a significant waiting period after a loss before actions to memorialize are taken.

To act or make promises, when emotions are raw and reason is scant, is never a great idea, but it is typical of the way humans respond to such events. When time passes and reason returns and emotions are no longer inextricably woven into our thought process, the landscape invariably looks different. In this case, literally.

Does this mean the victims are disrespected if memorializing them shifts to some other way? If it is a plaque with all their names and an array of blooming flowers beneath it, does that honor all those who perished there any less because it’s not some grand piece of real estate?

The earth is covered in hallowed ground. All us have had our breakfast coffee and gone on with our day trespassing where some tragedy befell, where someone lost a sister, a brother, a loved one. A piece of dirt — no matter how big, no matter if turned into an entire block — is still a piece of dirt.

A better consecration for the victims is to take their memory and use it as inspiration to create something that will have lasting, positive impact. For example, a scholarship program in their honor would give something back for each moment it reflects on them.

Natalie Altman,

Hollywood

Capitalist Cuba?

In the Oct. 2 story “Miami visit gave a rare inside look at Cuba’s fledgling capitalists. Some key takeaways,” El Nuevo Herald reporter Nora Gamez Torres wrote that Cuban entrepreneurs have shown a keen interest in the practices and operations of American businesses.

While I do not question the sincerity of their intentions, they still have much to learn about Cuban communism and its institutional framework.

They should familiarize themselves with the history of the farmers’ market during the Rectification Campaign in the 1980s and how the Cuban Communist Party reacted to private businesses when merchants challenged its influence, notably when certain interests clashed with the Castro family. They should also consider the case of Saul Berenthal and his tractor factory.

Without a credible commitment to institutional reforms that align with the rule of law, envisioning the long-term existence of these enterprises becomes increasingly difficult. There is no guarantee the business owners, over time, will not find themselves in a situation similar to that of political prisoners now detained on the island.

Carlos L. Martinez,

Rockford, IL

Proud American

In the Oct. 3 letter “Reform immigration,” the writer stated that 31% of Hispanic voters supported Donald Trump because Democrats are socialists.

I don’t know the writer’s age, but I and many of my friends and relatives are old enough to collect Social Security and receive Medicare benefits. If this means we are socialists, then I am proud of it.

The writer worries about higher taxes. I wonder if he is was one of the millionaires and billionaires who paid lower taxes under President Trump. Our government is not perfect and will never be, but for more than 250 years, we have maintained our democracy and avoided dictatorships by false elections.

Lainey Nacron, Miami

Standard hypocrisy

I can’t believe that some Hispanic voters, like the writer of the Oct. 3 letter, “Reform immigration,” describe Democrats as “socialists who favor more federal control, bigger handouts, bigger government and more taxes.”

I guess no member of his family or relatives gleefully cash their Social Security checks, subscribe to Medicare or Medicaid, or accepted huge handouts from the government when they landed on these shores.

I guess they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, right?

June Frost, Coral Gables

False rhetoric

While I understand that Ryan J. Rusak’s Sept. 27 Herald online opinion, “GOP debate didn’t pay enough attention to immigration — but you can bet voters will,” presents a conservative perspective, I disagree with the leniency given the Republican presidential candidates while also criticizing President Biden for being lenient with migrants.

Rusak implies that citizens should vote Republican for stronger borders. This narrative is dangerous because it is misinformed.

Gov. Ron DeSantis’ policy of fining companies that hire illegal immigrants harms Florida’s economy.

Donald Trump’s Muslim ban was one of the most racist acts ever committed by a modern president and propagated a harmful narrative.

Republicans have a history of unhelpful immigration policies. Implying they don’t is misinformation.

The solution is not creating a stronger border, but creating more paths to citizenship and taking accountability for the origins of their displacement.

Amaya Garcia,

West Kendall

History on repeat

Like a slow-growing cancer, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany “annexed” country after country while the United States watched, more consumed with isolationism and immigration than taking its place in the world.

On Sept. 11, 1941, Charles Lindbergh, the famous aviator, said in a speech that, “The entire future rests upon our shoulders. If we, the American people [resist joining the Allied Forces in the war against Germany and Japan], independence and freedom will continue to live among us, and there will be no foreign war.”

Less than three months after that speech, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war against the United States. Exactly 60 years after his speech, the World Trade Center in New York City was destroyed.

In March 2014, Crimea, then a part of Ukraine, was “annexed” by Russia. The United States watched.

In February 2022, Russia launched its military operation against the remaining portion of Ukraine, warning that any attempt to interfere will lead to “consequences you have never seen.”

Is Ukraine just the beginning? Isolationism did not protect America in 1941. Will it work better now?

Will history repeat itself while the United States watches, once again more concerned with isolationism and immigration than taking its place in the world?

Marie Peterson, Davie