For past Letters to the Editor, view our Archives by publication date.

Bad Links?
Other glitches?
Notify Webmaster

What our Readers Are Saying

Letters to the Editor

Firefighter roulette: PTC declines grant

There is no denying that Peachtree City Fire/Rescue needs more firefighters.

Everyone has agreed and publicly admitted to this from city management, city council, and insurance inspectors to the fire department consultants specifically hired by the city to study this very issue.

For the past six years the department administration has been requesting additional manpower in an effort to allow our firefighters to perform their job more safely and efficiently.

The addition of these personnel would allow us to meet minimal national standards and lower insurance rates for homeowners throughout our city.

They have been met with denials, delays, and excuses.

Why does the City Council continue to delay the increase of obviously needed firefighters?

Kedron Hills’ homeowners witnessed the result of limited manpower on initially arriving units Tuesday night.

Many neighbors were heard asking why so many fire trucks came to the house fire in Kedron Hills.

It was explained, “It’s very simple: we can only staff one firefighter per fire truck.”

It is really elementary: there are certain tasks that must be accomplished during the first few minutes of a residential house fire.

If a fire department does not have enough personnel during the first five to 10 minutes to accomplish all these tasks, the fire is going to grow expeditiously, doubling in size every minute, requiring many more firefighters to extinguish it.

More importantly, if occupants of the fire building are unable to escape the smoke-filled environment and are in need of immediate rescue, this must be accomplished quickly to expect any possibility of survival.

Peachtree City Fire/Rescue has a great response time, less than five minutes, but one firefighter can only do so much until others arrive.

They cannot enter an environment that is hazardous to life safety until a minimum of six firefighters is on scene.

It is extremely difficult standing at the doorway of a home where occupants are unaccounted for waiting to enter until other trucks arrive.

The city seems to think that the answer is automatic aid. Automatic aid and mutual aid will NOT positively impact the final outcome because the additional manpower arrives well after the critical first few minutes.

Mutual aid is best suited for large residential, multi-family and commercial fires that have gotten too much of a head start prior to the arrival of the firefighters.

If those critically needed positions could be partially funded with free money, it would seem to be a no-brainer, right?

The question that should be posed to city officials is why did they stop the Fire Department administration from applying for federal grant money for additional manpower?

That’s right. For the first time in history, the federal government initiated a grant program in Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05) to fund additional firefighting personnel for local fire departments. The federal government had funded $65 million for this program. Any public fire department could apply for the grant.

Peachtree City Fire/Rescue has been very successful in the past applying and receiving grant money for equipment.

The department has received all its personnel protection gear, some radios, thermal imagers, air filtration systems for the stations, and much more through the federal grant program over the past four years.

The FEMA SAFER Grant Program is a five-year program. The first year the federal government would cover 90 percent of the personnel costs. The second year would be 80 percent, third year 50 percent, fourth year 30 percent and the last and fifth year was the total responsibility of the city government.

What a great idea. The Fire Department administration thought it was a good program and would have saved the city hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It was estimated that it would have only cost Peachtree City approximately $80,000 for the addition of six personnel or two firefighters per shift during the first year.

If awarded the federal government would have funded approximately $216,000 for the first year.

Yes, the share of personnel costs would increase over time, but if the city has a way of “sharing” the cost of addressing manpower needs, why not ask?

Granted, there was no guarantee that Peachtree City would have been awarded the grant, but if you do not apply, it’s impossible to receive.

The Fire Department (and so should you) was absolutely stunned when it was told that they could not submit the application paperwork for the FEMA Grant.

The Department was trying to be fiscally responsible. All the paperwork was complete; the Fire Department only had to receive an OK from the City Council and then push “send” on their computer and off the application would have gone.

A neighboring county official was recently quoted, “You’d be stupid not to apply for this grant money for additional firefighters.”

Well, if the shoe fits. It seems as if the city has never heard the adage, penny wise and pound foolish, spending a little money now to alleviate the exposure of a multi-million dollar wrongful death suit would appear to be in the best interest of the citizens’ tax dollars.

The Fire Department is very proud of the fact that Peachtree City was named in the “Top Ten Cities to Live In” by Money magazine. It’s ironic to know that Peachtree City has the least amount of firefighters on duty compared to all the other 11 cities our size in the state of Georgia.

It’s just a matter of time until a tragedy occurs in Peachtree City that could have been prevented with adequate manpower. It’s really a matter of pay now or pay later.

Don Davison
Captain, PCFD
Peachtree City, Ga.

Commissioner feels ‘let down’ by Fayette sheriff

I am let down and saddened. The misleading statements and disgraceful comments that have come from the Sheriff’s Department say that they don’t seem to want to have a real discussion and resolution of issues, no matter what.

I am referring to the ongoing issues between the Sheriff’s Department on one hand and Fayette County on the other.

We do live in a community that is safer than most. We would, or most of us would, like to keep it that way. More and more, recently, we seem to have people who aren’t thinking about that. I do not know what they are thinking about but it doesn’t seem to be public service.

For 14 years, since the founding of the Marshal’s Department by Resolution 89-07 in 1989, the sheriff had accepted prisoners that had been arrested by the marshals.

In 2003, the sheriff decided that he was not going to accept prisoners into our jail that the marshals had arrested. At the time, the reason he gave was that he couldn’t accept prisoners from the marshals because he didn’t think that the marshals office was authorized to make arrests and he, the sheriff, wanted to protect us from being sued for false arrest.

Through the court, an agreement was reached that the sheriff would continue to accept prisoners arrested by the marshals until the courts resolved this issue.

Originally, the judge said that he could not issue a summary judgment because there was a dispute over the facts of the case. He said that this issue would need to be resolved by a trial.

The judge’s opinion was partly based on an affidavit filed by the former county administrator. It said that the marshals office had never functioned as a police force in the past.

His opinion was also based on some comments expressed by a former commissioner during a discussion of the subject.

The judge found last [month] that after review, the affidavit was unsupported by the facts and that the comments were just that, comments. A vote was taken after the comment and the opposite position from the comment was the position that won.

Between these two events, the change in the sheriff’s “attitude” and the latest court ruling, many things happened.

One of the things that happened was a disagreement about how Drug Task Force funds should be accounted for to the public and about having the Sheriff’s Department follow the same rules as other folks for purchasing, personnel and accounting for the public’s dollars.

Then, more recently, there was a difference at budget time. Now that the dust from that particular issue has settled a little, we can try to discuss it rationally.

The budget process used was the wrong process and perpetuates a fiction, I think. Where people are assigned within the Sheriff’s Department is the sheriff’s decision, and only the sheriff’s decision.

The County Commission could say all day long how many people we thought should be in this or that division.

The truth is that the commission has absolutely no power to assign people to this or that division inside the Sheriff’s Department. The actual number would be the exact number that the sheriff decided to assign to that division, not one more and not one less. That is the simple, if surprising, truth.

By doing the budget the way we have, it makes it appear otherwise. The sheriff has been sending over each of his division heads separately: traffic, patrol, jail, [criminal investigation division], etc.

Since we cannot enforce any specific recommendations we make, that is wrong. We should just authorize a total amount to the department, because that is the reality.

And, I would ask you. If you had the power to assign people in your department and if the Drug Task Force is the most critical area in need of personnel, and you were trying to do the best law enforcement job you could, would you have your “most critical” division be the MOST shorthanded? Or, would you have your LEAST critical area shorthanded while the most important areas were fully staffed?

What else has happened? Well, there has been a constant stream of invective from the Sheriff’s Department from the staff to the top.

The commissioners have been called “liars,” “drug dealers’ friends,” “power hungry,” “people who don’t care if officers are killed in the line of duty,” etc. This invective is a tactic to try to get you to react to this situation in a particular way.

Please let me quote something. It is from “The Wounded Minister: Healing from and Preventing Personal Attacks” by Guy Greenfield: “[I]dentifying certain persons as ‘evil’ is not simply demonizing one’s opponents, but recognizing that behavior that seeks to damage another intentionally is more than merely ‘a difference of opinion,’ it is evil.”

This much should be apparent to you. The commission, individual commissioners and commission staff members have made NO public comments in the newspapers or in letters attributing ANY motives or reasoning to ANY member of the Sheriff’s Department. The public should be aware of this major difference between our approaches to this.

Every sitting commissioner, and every former commissioner that I know or knew, has been a supporter of [Sheriff] Randall Johnson.

As for me, back in the early 1990s, a fund-raiser barbecue for Randall Johnson in Brooks was the first local political event I ever attended. That’s why it’s even more of a let-down and sad event for many.

Peter Pfeifer
County Commission, Post 3
Peachtree City, Ga.

PTC manager grateful after bike path injury

On July 5, I was involved in a bicycling accident on the Peachtree City golf cart path system and was seriously injured.

After just a few moments, a number of people arrived and offered assistance, called an ambulance, contacted my wife and waited for the ambulance and my wife to arrive.

Unfortunately, at the time of the accident, neither I nor my wife got the names of the incredibly helpful people who assisted me.

My wife and I would like to offer our deepest thanks to these kind people and let them know that we are indebted to them. These people, who offered help; but not their names; represent all that is good about our community. Thanks for being such good neighbors!

Bernie and Cathy McMullen
Peachtree City, Ga.

McMullen is the city manager of Peachtree City.

What alternate route?

I just read in today’s AJC that the stop light on Ga. Highway 54 West and Planterra Way has been damaged during an accident and won’t be operational until sometime Thursday. The paper suggested using an alternate route and to avoid the area.

What alternate route should I and other travelers use?

If you live off MacDuff Parkway, there isn’t an alternate route. I wish we had some other solution or alternate route.

Oh, wait, I forgot. The city had a chance with John Wieland’s original annexation proposal. The road could have been completed by now.

Boy, that connection off MacDuff to Ga. Highway 74 sure looks like a good idea now.

Dan Williams
Peachtree City, Ga.

What’s up on local drills?

I am wondering why our county did not take part in the recent bioterrorism drill.

It seems just as important for us to be ready as it does for the surrounding counties in the Atlanta area.

Any suggestions or explanations?

Deborah Karas
dbrkr87 (at) earthlink.net

Reporter Lee Williams, who covers local public safety agencies, replies: “Our local public safety agencies did have a huge disaster drill at Starr’s Mill at 2 p.m. July 20. It was in our paper and several of the other local papers as well. Over 160 people from all over the state participated. The drill encompassed all hazards from terrorist attacks to natural disasters such as flooding, which are a lot more common in the area.”

Mayor needs legal advice

Subject: King Ken Steele. Good article. Our elected officials should understand the law before taking a stand on such issues.

I applaud Mr. Nelms for using a recorder to aid him in his efforts to accurately report the news.

Poorly written and misleading news articles stemming from some reporter’s cryptic and obscure notes misinform the public all too often.

As for Mr. Steele’s conduct, it seems that his actions were more disrupting to the meeting than the reporter’s actions.

While Mr. Steele’s intentions may have been noble, perhaps he should seek the advice of legal counsel before he infringes on anyone else’s rights.

Kay Davis
kaydavis (at) bellsouth.net

Move and merge at I-85

Thank you to all of the courteous drivers at the I-85/Ga. Highway 74 interchange who would not merge right and allow me to do the same to gain access to the Interstate.

It is not my fault you chose to wait in traffic for 15 minutes to enter I-85. Do you think the DOT added the right lane entrance to I-85 because they had a budget surplus and couldn’t find anything better to spend it on?

It is too bad they didn’t install a curb to force drivers to merge right.

Michael D. Moore
michael.d.moore (at) delta.com

Muslim headline misled

I wrote the opinion piece which The Citizen printed under the headline, “Most ignorant of Islamic ambition.” I am most disturbed that my letter was printed under a headline that is inflammatory and misleading.

I absolutely do not include all people of the Islamic faith in the activities and ambitions of jihad Muslims and al Qaeda.

If the paper were to reprint my letter under the headline, “Most ignorant of al Qaeda ambition,” or “Most ignorant of jihad Muslim ambition,” that would be accurate.

1. I include myself among those who are “blissfully ignorant of the final goals of the jihad Muslims.” Sept. 11 happened in 2001 and it took me until 2005 to read “The Crisis of Islam” by Bernard Lewis. I intend to read more about the Nation of Islam from other authors, so that all of my opinions do not come from the same source. I encourage other people to do the same.

2. When I said in my first letter, “educate yourself about the belief systems that motivate many millions of people around the world,” I was referring to Muslims in general. I was not implying that there are many millions of jihad Muslims or al Qaeda around the world.

3. To repeat from my first letter, “Our Muslim friends, who do not agree with the distortions of Islam which are preached by jihad extremists, are going to have to help us defeat them.”

Terrorists are murdering Muslims, too. It will take the help of peaceful Muslims, whom I believe are the vast majority, to stop the murderers among them.

Marilyn Weigle
Peachtree City, Ga.

Let’s get some facts straight about Rove

Three letters from last week’s edition trotted out the liberal line on a range of issues, from Karl Rove to John Roberts to the Vietnam and Iraq wars.

Some decent points were made. There were even a few attempts at logical argument attempted. But, by and large, they were typical of the liberal mindset in this country: full of unsubstantiated facts, name-calling, and false assumptions.

First, let’s take the Karl Rove issue. Ms. Teri LeFrois said Bush should keep his “promise” to fire Karl Rove because he outed a CIA agent.

Let’s start with getting the facts straight. First, Rove’s actions have not been deemed illegal, yet. They might be in the future, but the investigation is still ongoing, so let’s not jump the gun.

Second, Bush promised to fire someone if what they did was illegal. Considering my first point, you can see why he hasn’t acted on this ”promise” if the alleged illegality has not been proven.

Third, it is only illegal to “out” an undercover CIA agent. Valerie Plame was not undercover at the time of the “outing” and may never have been.

Fourth, Rove mentioned her name to a journalist only after he himself heard her name from a journalist. The info, in other words, wasn’t exactly top secret.

Fifth, he mentioned her name not to discredit Plame, but to discredit her husband, who lied about his wife’s involvement in getting him the assignment to go to Niger.

An investigation has shown that Joseph Wilson lied when he claimed his wife had nothing to do with his assignment. (Also, Wilson’s claim that the Iraq-Niger link was unsubstantiated was itself discredited by the same investigation.)

Young Alan Sarvis, who seems to have already learned the liberal game-plan, has perpetuated this unsubstantiated ”fact” by referring to Rove’s ”illegal behavior.”

Again, keep in mind the points above. No crime yet, or ever, probably. No Watergate Part Deux. No nothing.

So, the reason this story is slowly but surely fading away is not because Bush tricked us by nominating John Roberts to the Supreme Court, but because there was nothing there to begin with.

So I say, liberals, please, at least bother to get your facts straight before calling people criminals or seeking their termination. Aren’t you the ones who are so concerned with justice and fairness, after all?

Speaking of Judge Roberts, Mr. Sarvis accuses him of being a “hack” and of working to curtail “individual freedoms.”

Now, I’m not an expert on Roberts’ background, so the first thing I would do is ask Mr. Sarvis to stop throwing around scary threats and name-calling, and to explain exactly what he means.

If advocating that the Supreme Court and the federal government ought to stay out of certain issues not delineated to them in the Constitution means Roberts is a “hack,” then I guess our Founding Fathers would also earn that epithet.

After all, they’re the guys who came up with the idea in the first place, an idea which has been eroded and perverted by 50 years of judicial activism and usurpation.

Mr. Sarvis also says that the Radical Right will complete their “trifecta” by taking over all three branches of government if Roberts is confirmed.

First, I thought the whole point of having elections was to prevent such takeovers. If you recall, Mr. Sarvis, the Republicans won their current position by the democratic process.

If you consider that to be a form of “take over,” then I guess you don’t care much for democracy.

Second, even if Roberts is eliminated from consideration, Bush will nominate another conservative. He has won the right to do so.

Nobody complained when Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a known leftist with a long affiliation to the ACLU. There was no attempt to slander her character by the Republicans. Rather, her credentials as a jurist were considered and she passed, receiving a 93-7 vote.

All I ask is for the same fair treatment of Roberts and for a cessation to unsubstantiated hissy-fits about him threatening our civil liberties.

Finally, there’s Mr. Timothy Parker, local liberal firebrand and self-appointed righter of wrongs.

I would like to single out just one point of his lengthy diatribe on the military, and that is his contention that history has borne out McGovern’s (and Parker’s) contention that Vietnam was ”ill-conceived” and just plain wrong. Case closed!

Vietnam, like FDR, McCarthy, and Nixon/Watergate, is one of those subjects on which liberals think they have won, hands down, and which they don’t have to bother to explain or defend ever or anywhere.

But the problem is that, once again, the facts do get in the way of the conclusions.

First, let’s consider motivation. Why did we go into Vietnam? Was it for oil (like Iraq!)? No.

How about some other valuable commodity? I guess there were some rubber trees there, but not enough to justify a war (unless our country was run by Goodyear or something).

The reason we went to war in Vietnam was twofold: first, to defend the people in South Vietnam from Communist insurgents in the North; and second, to stem the tide of worldwide Communism in general.

In other words, our motivations were exactly the same as they were in Korea, yet somehow liberals universally regard Vietnam as “wrong” and Korea as “right” (maybe because their beloved United Nations approved of the action in Korea).

Communism was a true threat. The USSR and other leaders of the Communist movement were open about their desire to conquer the world through subterfuge and force.

The U.S. led the free world in opposing that vicious scourge which resulted in the deaths of nearly 100 million. Communism was by any measure the greatest menace faced by mankind in the history of the world.

So, forgive the leaders of a generation ago if they thought it was worth fighting in Vietnam.

Mr. Parker is right in that the military strategy in Vietnam was “ill-conceived.” But not because the cause wasn’t just or the military wasn’t up to it.

Rather, the strategy was hamstrung and then entirely eviscerated by a combination of weak-kneed politicians like President Johnson and the constant negative reporting of the liberal press (e.g., CBS news icon Walter Cronkite mis-reporting that the Tet Offensive was a success, when in fact it was a major failure).

It took Nixon to get us out of Vietnam. He negotiated a peace from a position of strength, only to have his ability to enforce the peace and protect the people of South Vietnam totally undermined by the Watergate scandal.

As a result, North Vietnam broke the treaty and invaded South Vietnam. They imprisoned 1 million Vietnamese in their own version of concentration camps and provided support to the Communist Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, who slaughtered 2 million of their own citizens.

If we had stayed and won in Vietnam, or at least maintained our commitment instead of pulling out like selfish cowards (which is what some liberals want us to do in Iraq), millions of lives would have been saved and some measure of freedom preserved in Vietnam and Cambodia.

So, we did lose Vietnam, but we didn’t have to. It is only as a result of the liberal media, politicians, and radical activists that we lost.

And it is the same mentality behind those people today who, like Mr. Parker, do not believe the U.S. is an agent of good trying to stem the tide of evil in the world.

I realize we make mistakes and that we’re not perfect, but one would be hard-pressed to name another country which has shed so much blood to protect the liberty of others.

Trey Hoffman
Peachtree City, Ga.

Diatribe? Accuser should cut his letters

Whenever I receive a rebuttal to one of my letters to the editor, I usually take it as a badge of honor and take pleasure in the fact that I had made someone think about the issue I wrote about.

On July 27, Timothy Parker responded to my brief 200-word letter with a voluminous rant that covered everything from his opinion of the proper use of the military to George McGovern to the Constitution to the cowardly French to World War II to George Washington and finally, to my supposed ignorance. I would appreciate the chance to defend myself.

The liberal left wing took over the Democratic Party in 1972 when they ran Senator George McGovern against Richard Nixon. The American people thought so much of McGovern’s anti-war platform that he won only the state of Sodom and GoMassachusetts. The final electoral vote count was 520 to 17.

The truth be known, the two presidents that preceded Nixon, both Democrats, began and expanded the war in Vietnam and Nixon got us out in 1974.

Mr. Parker claimed he missed my “original diatribe” on Democrats. That was certainly not my “original” letter. I have had over 60 letters published in the AJC, USA Today, The Washington Times Weekly, and The Fayette Citizen, and not all of them have blasted Democrats.

A letter to the editor is supposed to be a short, succinct statement, usually under 250 words, and concerns a single issue. My first one was in 1994 when the Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, took over the House of Representatives for the first time in my life. What a great day that was!

A 200-word letter cannot, in any sense of the word, be considered a “diatribe,” which is defined as “a prolonged discourse.” My letter was short and to the point while Mr. Parker’s column was 10 times longer, had excess verbiage and rambled from here to there and back again. It was much more similar to a diatribe than mine.

I thought it had been written by the Energizer Bunny. It kept going and going and going. He tried to say everything but actually said nothing. What a colossal waste of column inches.

Mr. Parker stated that George Washington “spoke little and wrote less.” It is a shame that Mr. Parker had not been more like Washington and had written less.

Lastly, I am many things but ignorant is certainly not one of them. I am able to express myself more clearly in 250 words than most people can in 2000 and I thank God for that ability. Perhaps The Citizen will allow us to write an article each week to see who has the most to say and the best writing ability. I welcome the challenge.

Kevin D. Arnold
Fayetteville, Ga.

Book attribution in error

Last week I erroneously attributed the book “Flyboys” to Stephen Ambrose. In fact Ambrose’s book on the B-24 pilots flying out of North Africa and Italy was entitled “Wild Blue Yonder.” I apologize to the now-deceased author.

“Flyboys” was written by the author of “Flags of Our Fathers,” the son of one of the flag-raisers on Iwo Jima.

Curiously his book, “Flyboys,” was about the Navy pilots captured and executed by the Japanese on the nearby island of Chi Chi Jima. One of the naval aviators who got away was the current President’s father who was shot down, but fortunately rescued.

One can’t help but ponder the resumes of the two men. The first, a Yale honor grad, athlete, war hero, successful businessman, congressman, ambassador, CIA chief, vice president, president.

The second barely a Yale graduate, arrested for drunk driving, wartime national guard pilot stripped of his flying duties, draft dodger, failed business man, born again so that solves everything, governor, foolish president.

Sometimes the apple does fall far from the tree.

Timothy J. Parker
Peachtree City, Ga.

Court right to halt fed funds for Scouts

How is it that Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee has a letter to the editor in The Citizen? Does he live in Fayette County? No. Does he live in Georgia? No.

Why does Senator Frist lie, saying that the ACLU said that the Boy Scouts of America violate the Establishment Clause because they require members to “privately exercise their religious faith as directed by their families and religious advisors.” The ACLU court complaint said nothing of the sort!

All U.S. citizens have the right to freely exercise their faith as they see fit. That’s a constitutional right. What the Boy Scouts do not have is the right to receive $7 million dollars per year from the federal government for funding of their activities.

That’s how U. S. District Court Judge Blanche Manning in Illinois ruled in the ACLU case against Boy Scouts of America back on June 22.

The ACLU argued that the Boy Scouts are a private religious group, since they do not allow non-religious people or gays to be members or leaders in their organization. And since they are a private religious group, the government should not fund their activities. Federal Judge Manning agreed.

So the Boy Scouts may freely discriminate as a private religious group, denying the non-religious and gays access to employment or membership in their organization. But as a private religious group, they do not have access to federal funds to pay for their activities.

The judge’s ruling was correct.

If Senator Frist wants the Boy Scouts to receive federal funding, the Scouts will have to stop their discrimination against gays and non-religious people.

Steve Yothment
Peachtree City, Ga.

Yothment writes that he is president of the Atlanta Freethought Society.