Skip to main content
Sarasota Thursday, Jan. 21, 2010 5 years ago

Letters to the editor

by: Observer Staff

+ Carmelites like their V-J Day statue
Dear Editor:
I have been coming to Sarasota since 1991 and have been a resident of the county for 12 of the past 13 years. We gave up residency in late 2002 so my terminally ill spouse could be with our children during the last months of her life. I became a resident again in late 2003.

I am a Marine Corps veteran of the Korean War, but I appreciate the men and women who risked their lives for me and the citizens of our country then, now and in the future.

In your Jan. 7 edition, you quoted Sarasota City Commissioner Susan Atwell saying, “When do we end this?” … “I’m tired of this.”

I truly believe the men and women who were and are fighting for our freedom, many giving up their lives or permanently disabled or losing a family member to death, also thought, “When do we end this?” and probably said, “I’m tired of this.”

My lady friend, whom I met in Venice, lives in Carmel, Ind. When I was in Carmel over Christmas, I noted it had a 10- to 12-foot statue of “Unconditional Surrender” about 100 feet from the main intersection of downtown Carmel. Carmel has at least 10 statues, plus “Unconditional Surrender,” in its arts-and-design district in downtown Carmel.

According to the people I have met there, the “Unconditional Surrender” is the most popular, and all of the statues have been financed by the business people in the arts-and-design district and taxpayers.

I like the downtown Sarasota statue and often show it to my out-of-town visitors. I believe the statue honors our veterans, plus the men and women serving to keep us free. Apparently, this is not the major concern of Commissioners Atwell and Terry Turner.
H.E. Luker

+ Statue story could have had an alternate headline
Dear Editor:
Should not your front-page headline, “‘Unconditional Surrender’ receives its final reprieve” from Jan. 7 have read: “Return to sanity by City Commission in accepting $500,000 gift receives its final reprieve?”
Douglas Montrose-Graem

+ Unnecessary X-ray exposure at airports is rarely discussed
Dear Editor:
I have yet to hear the subject of unnecessary X-ray exposure being discussed in a meaningful manner by the many media pundits and newsprint articles that the public has been subjected to concerning full body imaging. The TSA’s view seems to be weighted on the pro side of this argument, not to mention the potential profit margin for the makers of said units.

Personally, I would rather err on the side of caution and avoid the overuse of this technology as a mandatory procedure and trust that the option of a pat-down will be offered. The accumulation of radiation emissions on frequent flyers should be taken into account. As an aside, I well remember how telephone companies held the view that cell phones were harmless. This thinking has been reversed in some quarters recently.

While in absolute agreement regarding the implementation of stringent security systems at airports, I feel that privacy issues are of secondary consideration. To me, X-ray exposure is the bigger factor.
Shelagh Wakeford


Related Stories