Regarding “NSA admits to ‘very rare’ willful violations of surveillance rules” (Nation & World, Aug. 24):
Senator Dianne Feinstein notes the National Security Agency is admitting that employees made few personal intrusions, so she is satisfied the agency is policing itself. She will review these incidents in detail. But she can only review what is revealed to her and her committee.
Who hasn’t told a bit of truth to hide a bigger indiscretion? Why would she (and we) believe an arm of a government that has weaseled, waffled and covered up its actions on so many occasions, and stumbled, back-tracked, stonewalled and parsed, plead ignorance of events published in national media?
This is an administration that claims not to be responsible for anything. I agree; it is an irresponsible administration.
No fraud at Citizens
Regarding “End price gouging” (Your Views, Aug. 24):
The writer is obviously under the impression that Citizens Property Insurance Corp. is attempting to cheat or defraud its customers through price gouging. He jumps to this conclusion because the corporation collects more premiums for Florida residents than other companies charge residents living in other states. Some states have forest fires, some have hurricanes, some have tornadoes and some have sinkholes. Florida has all of these. I cannot imagine that someone in Vermont wants to subsidize Florida sinkholes any more than a driver in Idaho wants to be included in the same risk pool as the sloppy drivers in Michigan.
The bottom line is that higher risks result in higher insurance premiums. It does not take an actuary to figure out that high insurance costs translate to higher premiums.
No one at Citizens is out to defraud someone who wants coverage in the event of a sinkhole. It’s tough to insure a property for a premium equivalent to 1/100th of its value when the cost of a single event can approach the entire value of the property, which is the case with many sinkhole claims.
The writer suggests a constitutional amendment that would not allow Citizens to charge more than the national average for insurance. That would get us halfway there. The other half of the amendment would put a limit on claims paid that would not exceed the national average.
Makes a whole lot of sense, doesn’t it?
“Verizon asks Tampa employees to speak English only, please” (front page, Aug. 24) got my attention in two languages.
The employee who voiced her complaint to Verizon management about co-workers making her feel uncomfortable in the workplace by speaking a foreign language is certainly justified. In today’s highly competitive workforce there’s no question that being bilingual is an additional benefit to employers, as well as employees seeking an advantage when being hired and in career advancement.
That said, however, we as a society sometimes forget simple basics like good old common courtesy toward others — and in this case the Spanish-speaking employees should always take that into consideration when conversing during their shift.
In my sincere effort to not seem insensitive toward the bilingual employees in question, I greatly acknowledge and respect their additional language skill. And as opposed to using it to potentially offend a fellow worker, I say be proud and embrace it and don’t abuse something that adds value to their job, culture and the potential growth of their respective careers.
Where’s Tribune’s plan?
Regarding “Fight Obamacare, not allies” (Our Views, Aug. 25):
The Tampa Tribune denigrates the Affordable Health Care Act and appears to enjoy not allowing whole and adequate health care for all Americans.
Where is the Tribune’s health-care plan?
James N. Holmes