Letters to the editor MUST be accompanied by your daytime and evening phone numbers for verification purposes. Letters without phone numbers cannot be considered for publication. Letters must include first and last names. Short letters have a better chance of being selected for publication. We do not publish anonymous letters.
Mr. Postman, handle
this note with care
A couple of weeks ago I mailed a lightweight package first-class through the U.S. Postal Service to Ballston Spa, N.Y. It never arrived.
The package was securely wrapped and taped, and the labels (TO and FROM) had large, clear lettering by computer printer. The labels were glued on and taped for rugged handling. So why didn’t the package arrive?
Days ago I shipped an identical package to the same address by UPS and it arrived the next day. Guess who gets my business in the future?
Through the years I have mailed numerous books, large photos, and charts by the U.S. Postal Service to the same address in New York state. All arrived safely and on schedule. But it only takes a single, unexplained loss to scare away customers — not only customers who lose mail, but their families, friends and co-workers who hear of the loss might also shift to other carriers.
First-class mail is untraceable and any industry where defects cannot be traced to individual employees invites laxity and even skullduggery by some employees. We see this in missing and looted luggage at airports.
Postal employees responsible for missing mail, whatever the cause, jeopardize their jobs and the jobs of fellow workers when customers abandon the service for other carriers.
So wouldn’t efficient, reliable employees — the majority, in this case — benefit by correcting or reporting anything less than ideal performance in their midst?
Alan Gudknecht
Parkwood
How do
you spell, ‘Huh?’
As parents we have an obligation to be involved in our children’s education, including taking or making the time to read and go over words or math problems.
I also feel that our schools should be worthy of taking the time to test our children’s ability to spell words correctly. Children in lower grades, one through six, should be tested.
When we were younger, you knew you had a spelling test every Friday. This enabled a teacher and parents to realize whether or not a child was keeping up. There was no assumption that the child was able to spell.
Spelling is the cornerstone to reading, so you can imagine my surprise when I was at a recent parent/teacher conference and overheard a teacher talking to a parent in the hall.
The parent asked about spelling. As I have great concern for the subject matter, I listened. I was absolutely appalled at the teacher’s reply: "We are told by the school district not to waste teaching time on spelling."
This was hard to swallow. I was going to contact the school district. Instead, I went to the school district’s Web site to check the curriculum — http://www.phila.k12.pa.us/offices/curriculum/supports/2007/literacy/MakingSense.pdf
In the Frequently Asked Questions section, under the What about spelling? passage, there it was in black and white on Page 28:
Note: We do not give a report card mark in spelling, and very little instructional time should be spent on spelling.
How can an educational system that is constantly stating how much literacy is being addressed, have the nerve to undermine the basic principle for reading?
Someone once said, the way to bring down an empire is through the youth. I believe our school district is doing its part to maintain our downfall.
I can only suggest that if your child goes to a Philadelphia public school, you may want to be more involved with their education.
Tim Hanson
Holmesburg
How will you fix
the woes, Mr. Oh?
In response to last week’s I Have Guts letter by David Oh, a Republican candidate for a City Council at-large seat, I read your plea on why the voters in Philadelphia should vote for you and some thoughts came to mind.
Instead of "buzz words" and educating the readers on the obvious, where are your thoughts and ideas that will make our city and neighborhoods better? While I appreciate your credentials, you have to do a better job in communicating your solutions to the problems that you mentioned.
A letter to the editor will not get you votes, solutions will! You raised a lot questions but didn’t answer them. As Philadelphians, we KNOW what the problems are, Mr. Oh, and we want to know how you will fix those problems.
Kevin M. Coughlin
Fox Chase
St. Leo Seniors:
We left on our own
This is a correction to a letter in the Sept. 27 edition entitled Jesus would have done it differently.
The St. Leo’s Senior Citizens Club was NOT removed by Father Farry. The club on its own voted to move out to an easy access facility with no steps to climb for our disabled and elderly members. We were NOT asked to move.
C. Richard Kinley
Past president, St. Leo Seniors Club
‘Stop and frisk’ can
take a big bite out of crime
Guest Opinion
By Councilman Brian J. O’Neill
Last year, there were 406 homicides in Philadelphia. That was an increase of 8 percent from the previous year’s total of 380 murders, for a rate of 27.8 murders for every 100,000 people in the city. So far this year, there have been 308 homicides.
Now, compare this to New York City’s 2006 rate of 4.8 murders for every 100,000 people.
This vast statistical difference — our murder rate is nearly six times that of New York City — raises these questions: Are we doing something drastically wrong, or is New York City doing something dramatically right?
New York City is experiencing an all-time low rate of crime. Its success has been attributed to a number of factors, including a zero-tolerance policy for so-called low-level, quality-of-life crimes, coupled with a determined effort to confiscate illegal guns.
According to Dr. Lawrence Sherman, a professor of criminology and sociology at the University of Pennsylvania and director of its Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, police departments can use statistical crime data to target known "gun areas" as a focal point for illegal gun confiscation efforts. The logic is that fewer guns on the street reduce the level of violence and murder. Sherman’s theory was put into practice in Kansas City, Mo., and resulted in a 50 percent reduction in gun-related crimes in the areas of concentration.
One of the key tools used by police in both New York and Kansas City is a tactic often referred to as ‘stop and frisk.’ While serving as a deterrent to carrying a weapon, stop-and- frisk has had a dramatic impact on the successful confiscation of illegal guns, and a corresponding reduction in the number of violent crimes and murders in those areas where the tactic was employed.
Sherman, quoted in a 2006 interview, said, "The police in Philadelphia are not looking for guns in the street, and ... the National Academy of Sciences says it is the one thing we know works to reduce the homicide rate. And it’s the one thing we’re not doing in Philadelphia."
Sherman also said, "Looking for guns on the street is not a lock-’em-up strategy. It’s not a fill-the-prisons strategy. It’s a specific and focused deterrent strategy that is trying to deter one thing — and that’s people carrying guns around."
In 1999, Eliot Spitzer, then New York State Attorney General and now governor, concluded that, "the role of ‘stop and frisk’ in furthering the ... goals of order maintenance, deterrence, crime prevention, and a direct attack on gun violence is clear."
Given the New York City Police Department’s "focus on apprehending violent criminals and preventing more serious crimes by aggressively enforcing laws aimed at low-level criminality, ‘stop and frisk’ serves as an important wedge into the criminal element," he said.
While ‘stop and frisk’ has raised some constitutional concerns, the U.S. Supreme Court determined in Terry v. Ohio in 1968 that it was permissible when done properly. New York City’s use of the tactic has withstood numerous legal challenges.
Like many major American cities, Philadelphia is experiencing an escalation in violent crime and must take drastic action to protect our citizens and put violent criminals behind bars where they belong.
I agree with Democratic mayoral candidate Michael Nutter’s position that ‘stop and frisk’ is a necessary law enforcement tool, if we are to seriously reduce the level of crime and gun violence in our city.
I also agree with Republican mayoral candidate Al Taubenberger’s position "requiring all state parolees to sign a conditional release waiver that would permit police to stop and search them at any time without cause."
Protecting our citizens is the most basic and important responsibility of city government. If we can’t accomplish that, nothing else matters.
We need to fully examine the merits of having our police force start using ‘stop and frisk’ tactics as a tool to reduce gun violence in our city. A resolution I introduced in City Council requesting authority to hold public hearings on the issue passed unanimously last week. Let’s examine this issue and see if ‘stop and frisk’ can work for our city. ••
Councilman O’Neill, a Republican, represents the 10th District.
Schools are safer,
and here’s proof
Guest Opinion
By State Rep. John M. Perzel
I have long been an advocate for programs to make Philadelphia’s public school classrooms safer learning environments.
So I felt compelled to respond to the letter that appeared in the Sept. 27 edition of the Northeast Times that asked me to fight the "chaos" in our public schools.
During my years in various leadership positions within the House of Representatives I helped pass several major pieces of legislation to make our schools safer. In fact, we were one of the states chosen as a model by the Colorado Legislature when formulating its safe schools package enacted in the wake of the Columbine tragedy.
Among the proposals I quarterbacked:
• The Safe Schools Act set a "zero tolerance" policy for weapons possession on school grounds and property, and mandated the reporting to local law enforcement of any weapons incident on school property, and established the Office of Safe Schools that provides training, technical assistance and evaluation services to assist Pennsylvania schools in dealing with safety issues.
• Act 36 of 1999 provided additional Safe School Grants that for the first time permitted state funds to be specifically used to purchase security equipment and services and for comprehensive safety planning. This year, the state gave out $23 million in grants.
• The Safe Schools Advocate was created specifically for the Philadelphia School District to assure that the district complies with various laws regarding the reporting of, and response to, incidents of violence on school property. The office also acts as a liaison for the parents of student victims of school-based crimes to local law enforcement and the school district.
• Act 88 of 2002, which established a pilot program exclusively for Philadelphia schools to develop a transition plan for each student returning to the district after incarceration.
• In late 1999, legislation was enacted to allow local school boards to contract with for-profit providers to operate special schools for the most disruptive students. This law makes regular classrooms safer and more productive while giving the disruptive students a second chance to turn themselves around so they do not become today’s dropout and tomorrow’s prison inmate or welfare recipient.
This last measure paved the way for the successful partnership between the School District of Philadelphia and Community Education Partners Inc. which currently provides services to more than 2,000 of the district’s most at-risk students.
As you can see, I have piloted many measures to keep Philadelphia’s public school students and their teachers safer, and I remain committed to enacting additional initiatives that may be necessary to continue the efforts we have already put into law. ••
Rep. Perzel, a former speaker of the House, is a Republican from the 172nd Legislative District.
Share your opinion by e-mail
Click here to return to this week's editorial . . .