Restaurants thrive when smoke free; Feinberg should just say no to BP; Success requires saving, hard work and sacrifice (letters)


Restaurants thrive when smoke free

Some time ago, I wrote a letter to the editor that encouraged restaurants to start taking responsibility where the local and state governments had failed, by going smoke free ("All restaurants should adopt ban on smoking," Nov. 18, 2009).

I referenced a specific family-oriented restaurant with a "wholesome" country store marketing scheme that still maintained a smoking section at the time.

I would like to first congratulate that restaurant chain, or at least the store in west Mobile, for going smoke free.

I want to also congratulate all the other local restaurants that have also "stepped up" for the benefit of their employees and their customers by going smoke free.

I know the Health Department’s new point deduction for not being smoke free is what pushed some to make the change, but I have heard several say that business is better than ever.

Now, if we can just get the local government to demonstrate the level of intelligence that should be required to sit in an elected position.

I could not believe it when I heard Mobile City Councilman Fred Richardson say that it was a "difficult" decision to implement a smoking ban, because there are many smokers who feel they have the right to smoke wherever they want.

It’s time the city of Mobile, if not the whole state of Alabama, showed that we are not ignorant bumpkins who can’t even look out for our own health and well-being. Implement the smoking ban now.



Feinberg should just say no to BP

Reportedly, BP has asked the Gulf Coast Claims Facility to reduce damage payments, claiming the tourist economy has recovered and Gulf of Mexico fisheries are back to normal.

Ken Feinberg said he would take BP’s letter under advisement.

Feinberg’s response should be simple — "No."

Moreover, Ken Feinberg should not be paid by BP.

Otherwise, he remains in an ethical conflict from which he cannot escape.



Success requires saving, hard work and sacrifice

"These are the times that try men’s souls." On that, I believe everyone would agree. What we don’t agree on is why these are hard times.

It is not that some people are making too much money; it is that others are not making enough money.

And why might that be? There is not a finite pile of money (pot of gold) out there, from which some are grabbing more than their share at the end of the rainbow. There is only an opportunity to be successful and that requires education, hard work, resisting instant gratification, saving and investing.

Many don’t understand that most millionaires didn’t inherit wealth, steal it or take it from the poor who have nothing. They did it the old-fashioned way — they earned it. ¶

Letter writer Ed Kahalley Sr. probably would disagree. He has written many essays on how the terrible "rich" don’t pay enough taxes and hurt our country. The fact is, they pay most of the taxes and do most of the hiring.

His latest letter, "Who benefits from the weak economy?" (Press-Register, July 11), is filled with the usual litany of giant corporations, banks, union busters and public officials (Republicans, of course) who are indebted to the rich whose political contributions are designed to keep average Americans oppressed.

Why would a successful person or group not wish success for everyone? Wouldn’t we all benefit?

As for the Defeat Obama "conspiracy" that Mr. Kahalley attributes to the rich and powerful, what’s wrong with that? A lot of us, rich and not-so-rich, think President Obama’s policies are leading our country and its citizens into harm’s way.

On one thing, Mr. Kahalley and I agree: I will join him in prayer and ask God to bless America.