Vero Beach downtown; abortion solution? FDR; AR-15 facts; Deep State; 2020 race | Letters
Vero Beach downtown should change; how'd Reisman reach conclusion?
I'm not sure how Laurence Reisman could have listened to the "Thoughts from an Engineer" podcast he included with the online version of his column and come away convinced that not reducing lanes on Vero Beach's State Road 60 could be the answer when it comes to safety, livability and best use of tax dollars.
Granted, because the podcast conversation could have been reduced to five minutes and been far more listener friendly, he may not have gotten through it. I multitasked while listening, but the information it conveyed was irrefutable.
A small downtown such as Vero Beach's just is not conducive to four lanes because having them is not conducive to safety or comfort when pedestrians are involved. Bodies are no match for automobiles. The decision before the citizens comes down to their priorities. Is the goal to move cars quickly or to make the downtown inviting to human foot traffic?
I can't see any comparison to Great Barrington, Massachusetts, as a simple glance at the photo in the column shows how different everything is in scale, which makes a huge difference.
When not in Vero, I live in a small, historic New England town where Main Street is a single lane and most buildings are two stories high. No one is speeding because it's impossible to. There is parking on both sides, so pedestrians often pop out between cars to cross the street despite having crosswalks. I can't remember anyone ever being injured by a vehicle.
I don't vote in Vero, as I'm not a year-round resident, and therefore pay much higher property taxes, which I'd like to see wisely spent. As I will visit downtown happily and avoid malls whenever possible, I'd like to see the downtown become more user friendly.
Beverly Palmacci, Vero Beach
Look to FDR to see what matters in a presidency
I write here the morning of Dec. 8, 2023. On Dec. 8, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's personal valet spent more than an hour getting him into leg braces, dressed and out of bed.
Addressing Congress that day, asking for a declaration of war against Japan was another day for FDR in which he had to continue bravely with a physical condition that was for anyone so devastating.
FDR’s challenge that day was not the speech itself, but the approach to the speaker’s platform: walking down the aisle between all those congressmen and senators, flashing camera bulbs, newsreel cameras rolling, microphones on.
His concern was not to fall while making that walk. He did not want the Axis powers to see any U.S. weakness and especially not to allow the citizens to lose confidence. For any man under such circumstances, that was a huge challenge. He did not fall.
His speech was just six and one-half minutes. It gave me chills to hear words I never heard totally until last night on my TV. We were led by a disabled president to fight the biggest war in world history and emerged the strongest nation in the world after entering as a third-rate military power.
We owe so much to FDR for his courage and mental and physical fortitude. And we must never forget those thousands of sailors, marines and soldiers who gave their lives from Dec. 7, 1941, on.
In grade school, I first saw the old newsreels of FDR’s funeral cortege in Washington. Among the crowds gathered there to give their last farewell, many were crying. I did not then understand. I do now.
FDR died in office. We won that war. People are concerned now about President Joe Biden’s age, but it’s courage that matters.
Richard C. Silvestri, Fort Pierce
Here's why we need government regulation
Industry and business owners are always whining about government regulations.
These regulations would not be necessary if all of them would act ethically, morally and honestly, but they don’t. How many times have the government and American taxpayers been ripped off by the banking, defense, oil, drug and insurance industries and a host of others not paying their taxes?
Not only are only a tiny fraction of these white-collar criminals caught, but when they are, they get off with fines, usually with no one going to prison. If they don’t get caught, they continue ripping us off.
Americans are so clueless we even elect them to “serve us.”
Anthony Frigo, Jensen Beach
Move on from abortion battle with this proposal
As a longtime voter, I am tired of having elections swing on the abortion issue, when there are so many other issues with which we should be dealing.
It is complicated, with people of both political parties split on their positions. One must weigh the right of a woman to control her body versus the rights of an unborn child.
After years of debate, in 1973 the Supreme Court ruled to allow abortions (via Roe vs. Wade). This was the law of the land, although many states put limits on timing and circumstances. In 2022, the court reversed its position and declared Roe vs. Wade unconstitutional and left the abortion issue up to each individual state. This made pro-choice supporters panic and influenced the 2022 election.
A fetus is considered viable (capable of survival outside of the womb) at about 23 weeks. One could argue that this is the point at which the rights of the mother are outweighed by the rights of the soon-to-be-born child. Rather than have another 50 years of` bickering, why not agree on a national standard so we can move on to more substantive matters?
I suggest that a woman have an absolute right to an abortion in the first 18 weeks of pregnancy. This would give a woman plenty of time to react to rape, incest or to some other reason for aborting the fetus. After the 18-week grace period, she should carry the pregnancy to term unless she subsequently faces the threat of death or severe injury.
In my opinion, this would solve the issue for 95% of the population. The extremes can fight it out for the other 5%. Let’s move on.
Tom Miller Vero Beach
A lesson on the myth of the AR-15
First, let me thank Tom Pine for his military service.
His letter to the editor regarding AR-15s "shredding victims" is an old myth.
First, we are not talking about the AR-15 (the gun), we are talking about the cartridge, in other words, the 223/5.56. AR-style rifles are available in many calibers, none of which have been involved in this myth. But it is easier to vilify the gun and not the cartridge.
The myth started in 1958 with the original AR-15 chambered in 223; it used a 1:14 barrel twist rate. That rate was too slow to stabilize a bullet of any weight and caused the bullets to yaw or wobble in flight and, upon impact, they could tumble, like a spinning top does when it hits something.
When the gun was adopted by the U.S. military, it increased the twist rate to 1:12; still not optimal. That is where the myth started and was perpetuated to shore up confidence in the new rifle/caliber. Modern 223/5.56 caliber rifles use a 1:7 twist, which stabilizes most bullets.
The second part of the myth is that the 223/5.56 is more devastating than other calibers: It is not. It is best described as a target or varmint caliber; some states don't allow it to be used to hunt deer. It is, however, a high-velocity cartridge, not the fastest or unique.
All bullets at high velocity (most modern hunting calibers) cause hydrostatic shock, which creates a large wound channel that kills game quickly and ethically. The 223/5.56 has about half the energy as most popular deer cartridges.
The only things that make the AR-15 so deadly is the news media, politicians and the uninformed public that promote the myth.
Karl Thoma, Port St. Lucie
For the overindulgent, Glow Service could brighten holidays
Many years ago, Boston had a "Glow Service" (I think that is what it was called). If you were drunk in town, you called a cab and the taxi company sent out a single cab and two drivers. One driver drove your car home.
I forget whether you rode in your own car or in the cab. In either case, you and your car ended up at your home and you paid a double cab fare. My guess is that Uber could also figure out how to do the same.
David Valdina, Barefoot Bay
Big business has grip on Florida legislators
The American Legislative Exchange Council is a corporate lobbying group masquerading as a charity.
Some of America's largest, richest companies invest millions of dollars every year to pass laws favorable to business, but that hurt ordinary Americans. They have been responsible for "canned" legislation that hurts the environment, working families, undermines democracy and erodes home rule.
Among their "achievements" are some of the most vile policies passed into American law, such as Stand Your Ground, racist voter ID laws, severe restrictions on reproductive health care, minimum wage, anti-union and rollbacks on environmental and consumer protections. ALEC brings lobbyists and legislators together in secret to help the corporate bottom line and weaken individual rights.
In recent years, public pressure has forced major companies like Coca Cola and Kraft to dump ALEC. Exposing ALEC's extreme agenda has prevented it from operating in the shadows. Grassroots opposition is the only thing that can cause ALEC to lose its power.
ALEC is on board with some of the extreme legislation being considered in the upcoming Florida Legislature. To solve the labor shortage, House Bill 49 wants to change the state's child labor laws, for example. House Bill 109 would permit conversion of public schools to charter schools. Further reducing nursing home staff is another "business solution."
Yet in a recent update to constituents, state Rep. Dana Trabulsy, R-Fort Pierce, boasted of her recruitment to ALEC.
The pressure on corporations to end their relationship with ALEC should be great. But so should pressure on lawmakers not to participate.
Felicia Bruce, Fort Pierce
2020 election: Evidentiary issues remain unresolved
Harvey Glatt's letter cites 5 legal cases (out of 67) to suggest there were several "evidentiary hearings" with respect to the 2020 election. I had claimed in an earlier letter the bulk of the "challenge" cases were dismissed on procedural and constitutional grounds and not because of any "fact-finding" about the integrity of the voting process itself.
For me, evidentiary hearings in these "challenge" cases would have weighted and sifted evidence over issues such as voter fraud and voting irregularities; yet to my knowledge, almost none of this ever happened in any of these cases. For Glatt, on the other hand, there were a few cases where procedural and election administration issues (certification) were decided in fact-finding hearings. That's a different matter entirely.
Take the first case Glatt cites, "Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission." The American Bar Association summarized this case as follows:
"The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin determined that it had jurisdiction to hear the claims, but dismissed the complaint on the merits, finding that the presidential electors were being properly appointed under the U.S. Constitution."
Notice that the "proper appointment" of electors is a "disputed issue of election administration" (a procedural and constitutional issue perhaps), but it is not a finding of fact about the integrity of the voting process itself (invalid signatures, ballot harvesting, drop-box issues, etc.) or, in short, whether the election was actually "stolen." That remains undetermined.
Dom Armentano, Vero Beach
Deep State? C'mon; boot folks who would eliminate our U.S. brethren
"Deep State" is defamatory designation for the 2.79 million U.S. civil servants who are the "arms and legs" (and brains) of our government.
"Deep State" is a nasty term created by Donald Trump and his minions to denigrate and destroy those who serve with loyalty to our U.S. Constitution. These Americans diligently provide the essential services we all rely upon daily, weekly and monthly: Social Security/SSI/VA checks, food and medicine safety, crucial research and development, for example.
Additionally, millions more Americans in the military protect us 24/7. Their careers and leadership should never be blocked by an ignorant Trump-endorsed senator. Also, 650,000 U.S. Postal Service employees bring us vital deliveries six and seven days a week. These are not civil servants per se; they are vital public employees.
These millions are our brothers and sisters, fathers and neighbors, the majority of whom are selected for their merit, experience and expertise. They are not "the enemy." Trump's calls to "drain the swamp" are hateful disinformation of the lowest order.
The majority of us Americans are not vindictive or resentful. We are fair-minded folks who see through the lies of a narcissistic would-be dictator. Most of us want a functioning democracy for all, regardless of race, gender, religion or origin.
Next November, let's throw out the hate-mongers who would destroy our Constitution and reduce our great nation!
Robert A. Gibbons, Stuart
This article originally appeared on Treasure Coast Newspapers: Big Business, FDR, Deep Staters, holiday drinks, presidency | Letters
