SHORTCHANGED

Your Short List (March 1-7) included a rather dismissive passage addressing the St. Pete For Peace protest against Hillary Clinton during her Feb. 25 fundraising appearance in Tampa.

We demonstrated against Sen. Clinton primarily because of her 2002 vote to authorize Bush to go to war in Iraq, her continued support for the occupation and her refusal to demand an immediate U.S. withdrawal. Mrs. Clinton has also made repeated calls to sanction and punish Iran and Syria, even though they have not threatened us, and she has proposed increasing the size of the U.S. Army by 80,000.

Hillary Clinton also supports the Patriot Act, has called for a federal law against flag burning and she has comfortable political relationships with radical right-wing figures like Newt Gingrich.

Anti-war Americans must stand against such pro-war politicians and refuse to vote for candidates, from either party, who will not work for an immediate end to the war in Iraq.

Our protest against Hillary drew a politically diverse crowd, garnered a lot of interest from the public, and hopefully got our message across to the senator. For the Weekly Planet to relegate our grassroots political efforts to the joke page tarnishes its own journalistic integrity.

Tampa Bay progressives rely on the Planet for detailed political analysis, and for reports on local events and opinions, especially in an election year. Don't let us down.

James Marvin

St. Pete for Peace

IN THE HOOD

The message implicit in the Tampa Tribune's tossing of the Central Tampa Section is that Central Tampa is not important (Urban Explorer, "Fightin' Words," by Wayne Garcia, Feb. 22-28). I've lived in Riverside Heights for six years now and have learned to deal with the subtle and often unintended classism when people find out where I live: "Oh, that's up way north of Kennedy — is there anything up that way" or even "That's sort of in the 'hood, isn't it?" Now this point of view has been validated in a way by the Trib.

Brad Hissing

Tampa

PIPING UP

You, of all people, Mr. Sugg! You, who have defended Sami Al-Arian on the basis that the evidence was slim and trumped-up! Now it turns out you are more than willing to move on slim-to-no evidence when it suits your political agenda. How intellectually dishonest can you be (Commentary, "Cartoon Villains," by John Sugg, Feb. 15-21)?

I refer to your allegation that Daniel Pipes is a political ally of the Danish editor who ran the infamous cartoons that were used as an excuse for demonstrations and terror around the world. Facts are so inconvenient when they don't conform to your worldview, aren't they?

You searched Lexis-Nexis and found almost nothing about this purported political allegiance. Most people, on finding nothing in a reliable database of information, would conclude that there is nothing. You came to the opposite conclusion — that the lack of evidence is proof of conspiracy! That makes you a better comedian than an observer with a valuable perspective.

Did you contact Pipes for his response to your charge before submitting your piece for publication? Why not? Or did you get a denial and choose not to include it in your column?

Many insightful commentaries have been published on the Danish cartoon brouhaha, from both the left and the right, because it has so many fascinating facets. Yours was pure junk, and further evidence that veracity and intellectual rigor are the last thing on your mind when you write.

Perhaps the Weekly Planet wishes to lean to the left. I respect that. And perhaps it enjoys being provocative. I really like that. But intellectual dishonesty need not accompany leftist and provocative writing. I think the Planet should place credibility and honesty a lot higher on their list of values.

Steve Marx

Tampa

John Sugg responds:

What's clear is that Daniel Pipes confirms the meeting. Rose's politics are pretty clear, and they're in perfect alignment with Pipes'. I've caught Pipes in a number of lies in the past. The most telling was that he went around claiming 15 percent (about 200 million people) of Muslims are potential killers. When I and others challenged him for proof of that assertion during an appearance at Emory, he at first dodged the questions. Then he obfuscated. Finally, in anger he admitted he had no proof, only that he was sure the number was more than one-tenth of one percent of Muslims. Of course, more than that same percentage of Quakers are likely violent.

I quoted the Washington Post, which described Rose's initiative as overt provocation — exactly the sort of tactic for which Pipes is famous. Do we know the content of their meeting? Was it journalism, or the convergence of two fellow travelers? What's clear is that Rose embarked on his provocation. Pipes was a cheerleader.

This article appears in Mar 8-14, 2006.