Letters to the editor

Spend more to prepare and adapt

It is great to read that, “Donations from Realtors across the country will go to those affected by Hurricane Sandy, and will help rebuild thousands of homes along the east coast (“Realtor Relief Fund helps rebuild homes” by Stephen Baker, published Nov. 8).” Considering the hundreds of millions of dollars now desperately needed, the project needs all the help it can get.

There is a source of money that should now be tapped to help prepare for the next big storms that will inevitably hit the Eastern Seaboard in future years. Of the roughly $97 billion spent each year in the world on climate finance, only 5 percent of it goes to preparation and adaptation. Ninety-five percent of it is devoted to controlling global climate decades into the future, something increasing numbers of climate experts tell us is impossible.

It’s time to re-evaluate our priorities.

— Tom Harris

Executive Director

International Climate Science Coalition

Tragic defeat of Mitt Romney

In American jurisprudence there is a concept known as the “last clear chance” doctrine. Its essence is as follows: that a person who commits clear acts of negligence resulting in their own injuries may nonetheless recover damages against another person involved in the chain of events when that person had the last opportunity in time to avoid the damage or injury. Though not widely followed, this tenet imposes a duty to act to avoid damage or injury even when the injured party was engaged in contributory, damage-causing negligence first.

In hindsight it is almost miraculous that a leader such as Mitt Romney appeared at exactly the moment that was our last clear chance to save America from Obama. While the president exhorted us that we’d “come too far to turn back now,” it was clear that a second term for Obama would mean for certain continuation on the path of crippling national debt, devaluation of the U.S. dollar, zero net job creation, and handing fully one-sixth of the national economy over to the government via Obamacare… a recipe for disaster if ever there was one. Obama seemed doomed to fail to win re-election by virtue of his dismal record of four years. But after a Sully Sullenberger-type landing at the Democratic National Convention by surrogate Bill Clinton, Obama emerged with a fighting chance, one based not on the strength of his record or rhetoric, but on the strength of Clinton’s. Now that four more years under Obama are assured, two things loom large in the immediate future: the fiscal cliff and the guaranteed implementation of Obamacare. Obama never put forth plans for averting either disaster but had no qualms about running for re-election despite this fact.

Into this morass enter Mitt Romney, a man of stellar character and a long record of achievement. It was almost as though a shining knight had appeared to come to America’s rescue. Gov. Romney saw the perils looming for America if she did not right her fiscal house. He gave us our last clear chance to save her. His performance in the first debate galvanized supporters and dazzled even his detractors. But Obama had mounted a long and brutal assault on Gov. Romney’s pristine character and record of achievement in both private enterprise and in government. (This assault was begun even while campaign finance laws denied Romney the financial ammunition to answer.) Mitt Romney was portrayed as a killer of seniors and wives of laid-off coal miners, an enemy to the 47 percent, a detractor of women, a corporate raider, a foe of the environment, a war monger, an outsourcer of American jobs and a selfish fat cat… none of which was true. This merciless assault on his character and credentials by Obama was Romney’s reward for being willing to come forward to serve at the precise moment when America needed his sure hand the most. It was as though the GOP had no right to even put forth a candidate in opposition. Wherever two roads were presented during the campaign, Romney always chose the high road, Obama the low.

In the end, it was actually rather close. Almost 50 percent of voters were convinced by Romney’s inconvenient truths that only discipline and shared sacrifice could right the course. This nearly half of all America wanted to accept the antithesis to disaster that Romney offered. Conceding defeat on election night, Romney told us he gave his all and it is clear that he did. The toil and sacrifice on Romney’s part in attempting to save the country he loved was immeasurable. The full-frontal assault he was willing to endure on our behalves just to be able to serve us was breathtaking. I, for one, want to express my sincere appreciation and profound gratitude to Gov. Romney. A servant and steward such as he comes along but once in a lifetime. That it was at the time of America’s last clear chance was remarkable. Thank you, Mr. Romney, thank you. You handily earned my vote. On Nov. 6, you were not the loser — America was.

— Beth Hall

Winter Park

Should cell phones be banned in schools?

The question of whether cell phones should be allowed in schools has been hotly debated over the years. Let me outline for you some of the issues concerning this topic and you can make up your mind whether cell phones should be allowed in our schools.

The first question we must ask is why would students need to have their phones during class? The only obvious answer is “to stay connected.” From personal experience I know that students usually forget to turn off the ringtone and alerts, which then bothers the whole class. Not only does it distract the students, but also the teacher. Even though required to shut off their phones, students simply place them on silent. When I was in public school, the kids were checking their messages every few minutes instead of listening to the instructors. Worse, they would text during class. When confronted about this, their response was they were good at multitasking. Mobile phones with a connection to the Internet can be even more of a distraction for students with features like Facebook and Twitter, etc.

Well, not everything is bad about having cell phones during school. Parents can be in touch with their children, and know their whereabouts. The Pew study noted that 48 percent of parents use the phone to monitor their child’s location. In addition, kids can reach parents quickly in case of emergency, and vice versa. If in danger, your children can reach the proper authorities or a medical provider. Also before cell phones were widely available, it was much more difficult for parents and their kids to change plans. Now we have the convenience that was previously unavailable.

I go to Camden Military Academy in Camden, S.C. It is a small, private boarding school for young gentlemen in 7th through 12th grades. We are allowed to have cell phones at the school, but while we are in the academic halls we are not allowed to have phones. I believe that this is a good idea. When I went to public school in Winter Park, Fla., we were allowed to have phones, but they were supposed to be turned off during classes. You could turn them on after class and during extra-curricular activities. No one seemed to obey this rule. I asked my friend from Thailand, “Are the schools in Thailand strict about having cell phones in class?” He told me, “Yes, if they catch you with a cell phone, they will take it and not give it back until the next break.” This issue of cell phones in schools appears to be a worldwide problem.

The reality is that bans on cell phones in schools are hard to enforce. A 2010 Pew Internet and American Life Project study found that 65 percent of cell-owning teens at schools that completely ban cell phones bring their phones to school anyways. While allowing cell phones in school, phones should be banned from classrooms and especially during exams since cases of students cheating during major exams has been documented.

The cat is out of the bag. We cannot ban cell phones from schools, however, we must make every effort to ban them from the classrooms.

—Andrei Sujka

Winter Park native

Senior at Camden Military Academy, South Carolina