August 2002 letters to the editor:

Wellesley College 'Alum' Proves Our Point

I have read with amusement your diatribes against Wellesley College. Being an alum, and current Co-President of the Wellesley Alumnae of Boston, I would have to say your information and sampling needs tighter work.

First, while I flip to the class notes when I first get the magazine, I read and regularly discuss the articles in the magazine with other alum. I know for a fact many alums really enjoy the articles and we all are pleased with the content (even if we don't agree with it) relative to other alum magazines we get. I suggest you ask the college how many letters to the editors it gets.

Second, when I read the article on violence I did not agree with all the comments quoted by the magazine, but, by and large, was pleased to see the issue brought to light. Too often Wellesley women are portrayed as being successful and in control so it was gratifying to see otherwise. While I agree the abuse described was not the hospital ER stuff seen in the inner city, who am I to judge the damage done? If you think the control issues for the woman with four kids was limited to spending 'his' money at the mall then you have very little faith in our courts. I read it as an obsessive compulsive thing.

Overall, I found your questioning of the veracity of the stories childish and unsubstantiated. I learned at Wellesley that good journalism involves investigation, not mudslinging. Your article sounded like sour grapes from someone who has been on the opposite side of a similar conflict.

Finally, would you please lay off the feminist, man-hating stereotyping. A large majority of us alums are married, with kids and very supportive of our wonderful husbands. Many of us have given up great careers to be home for our kids or to pursue life-enriching (and less profitable) activities. We know we have some very visible alums who re-enforce those stereotypes but there are many more, including a good number of doctors, lawyers, business people, artists, authors, etc., who don't. We are women who give a lot back to our communities. Give it a rest will you?

- Paula Vanderhorst '81
Needham

Editor's Comment: You have to feel sorry for this poor woman. She obviously has never read any of our print papers. She's trying to "wing" it from a quick glance at the online edition which carried the story in three installments. That just doesn't work for an in-depth story like this. It's necessary for any serious critique to look at the print edition. But this person believes we are so far beneath her that she can handle us with a little sarcasm. In doing so, she makes our point about the unprepared Wellesley College alums and the superiority feeling of most people there. She feels entitled to be "amused" at our paper, but she is totally unprepared.

She has no clue that I was a lawyer before she was born. I have earned the right to have "lost my faith" in Massachusetts courts. She obviously has not read any of the myriad of our stories about our failing court system. She also does not appear to understand that I have excellent knowledge of the alums, being married to one of them.

She is even so nasty as to flippantly suggest that I have personally battered women. Talk about an ad hominem attack.

She says she was "pleased to see the issue [of domestic violence] brought to light" by the Wellesley magazine. Brought to light?! In that shallow, emotional piece which had no serious discussion at all? Her letter points out that everything we have been saying about this woman's school is more than true. Just re-read this superficial letter.

If she would like to try again (we'll be sending her a copy of this print edition), it would be great to have an intelligent discussion. We will print whatever she sends. But don't hold your breath on her doing so because there is nothing in any of our Wellesley articles to refute.

Catholic Charities is Not Catholic

I finally got around to calling Catholic Charities after your article appeared about Howard Brown in MassNews. I wanted to see what action they had taken with regard to Brown. I spoke with a Joseph Walsh, Director of Human Resources, who told me it was none of my business. He was also critical of MassNews and suggested it should be closed down. This is a letter which I sent to the Cardinal's Appeal as a result.

The Legislature Turned its Back on the People on July 17

July 17, 2002 will forever go down in my mind as the day the Massachusetts legislature turned their collective backs on the very people who put them in office. By voting 137 to 53 to adjourn the joint session of a Constitutional Convention rather than remaining and debating the issues before them, they in effect told the voters "screw you!" I know that's putting it rather crudely but I can't think of another polite way of expressing what they did yesterday. Mind you, this was the third time for these kinds of political shenanigans! All three sessions of this Convention were adjourned, thanks to Senate President Tom Birmingham.

Every year at election time, all we hear is, "don't forget to vote, voting is what democracy is all about, whatever you do, vote!" Phone banks are set up to get the vote out. Candidates will send people to pick you up to get you to the polls to vote. Signs appear on people's lawns with one message, "get out and Vote!"

Well, the people went to the State House yesterday to watch our wonderful democratic system in action. They saw it alright, in Massachusetts style! Our "esteemed" legislators, 137 of them, voted not to debate the issues before them, but to adjourn so they wouldn't have to have an open, fair, informative and honest debate. They did this in full view of not just the hundreds of people who crowded the State House but everyone watching on TV Channel 44. The program is called "Gavel to Gavel." Funny, how the time period between the opening and closing gavel keeps getting shorter and shorter!

Has our legislative system here in Massachusetts become so dysfunctional that a vote to adjourn can be called "democracy in action?" That's what Sen. Tom Birmingham called it. Excuse me? A vote not to vote is democracy at a standstill, Mr. Birmingham. True democracy would have demanded that each legislator stand up and make his argument, for or against. Then when everyone had been heard, a vote would have been taken, up or down, for or against. At least that way everyone involved in the effort to bring the Protection of Marriage Amendment to the ballot in 2004 would have had a sense that their work had not been done in vain. Instead the hundreds of people who worked to bring this initiative petition to fruition, people who collected signatures, people who signed petitions, ordinary citizens who wanted to be honestly informed of the merits or lack of same, of the Amendment all lost yesterday. In effect, the door had been rudely slammed in their faces.

We don't elect legislators to duck the issues. We elect them to debate in open session. We expect they will have the political courage to stand up and argue for or against any matter that comes before them, and try to persuade us with the strengths of their arguments. That's how people learn. That's how people become informed and involved in government. Instead, what happened yesterday is proof that the majority of our legislators don't really care about us or what we think. What they did on July 17 was an egregious insult to the voters of Massachusetts. They only care about us at election time, when they're looking for our votes. Then it's kiss-up time, until the election is over, then it's back to business as usual.

What we have in Massachusetts, and yesterday is proof positive of this, is a government run by political hacks, beholden to special interests, who genuflect at the altar of influential lobbyists and unions and who can be bought for a mere 30 pieces of silver or whatever they need to run for their next political office.

Thomas Birmingham thinks that he and his cohorts scored a victory yesterday, but he is wrong. There was no victory for anyone yesterday. Instead every single person who values the freedoms embodied in the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, who values the right of every person to be heard, who values the idea of voting for what they believe in, who remembers from our history books what this country once stood for, all of us lost yesterday. But even more, we lost hope and any illusions that we are "a government of the people, by the people and for the people." We now know those are just nice words that a nice President said once a long time ago. At least in Massachusetts, thanks to politicians like Tom Birmingham, those words haven't been true for a long, long time. Maybe, someday, they will be again.

- Jennie Maroney
Framingham

Marriage Referendum is Not 'Hate'

The following letter was sent to the Cape Cod Times in response to their editorial of July 19 about "hate."

Your editorial response to the citizens' referendum, that would continue to define marriage for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as being between a man and a woman, was drooling with sympathy for the homosexual cause.

The headline; "A blow against hate," carried the assumption that any disagreement with what the homosexual lobby demands, is automatically called "hate". It is interesting to find that this is the position of the Cape Cod Times.

Politics is filled with people who disagree with one another, but now it is politically correct to make it a "hate" crime to disagree with any homosexual position. Is this what our Constitution calls free speech? The USA is apparently only slightly behind Canada and Europe in forbidding any public opposition to legislation desired by the homosexual lobby.

You indicated that the bill did not pass your "smell test" and deserved to die, but did not specify which part of it offended you enough to want it killed. As usual, no factual information, just the dragging out of meaningless words to smear the great majority of the people who do not wish their tax money squandered on something they totally disagree with.

For example, you say it was the "homophobic" (majority) attempting "to assert their dominance over the state's gay minority". That is ridiculous. It was the majority attempting to do what is their legal right, namely, to get the chance to allow everyone to vote their conscience, after having gathered 130,000 signatures, much more than required to put it on the ballot.

As to shutting some of your minority friends out of "some basic civil rights," nowhere has the right of state sanctioned marriage existed until sodomy developed a strangle hold over the politicians of our state, and even some churches.

Just what was the "pious lie" that the marriage act was built on? Are you referring to the Bible, which most of these wondrous "minorities" really hate? And now, the Cape Cod Times, also?

And is it okay for the Senate President and his quivering henchmen to give the brutal brush-off to a completely legal initiative because you say it is a "waste of time"?

And your bit about not blaming "gay unions" for threatening the institution of marriage, is far out as to being true. The rank and file union membership are unquestionably in favor of marriage as we have known it, with children and families, the solid foundation of our society. No, the opposition came from the union bosses, very secretly, without a vote of the workers. Why?

Your last line finally included some truthful facts; that marriage has belonged to men and women for as many centuries as we can remember.

May I suggest that the positions you have taken on this issue are shocking beyond belief to the great majority of your readers. Ultimately, your future is in their hands.

But let us not forget what the Bible says:" Vengeance is mine. I will repay, saith the Lord."

- Warren B Appleton
Dennis

How to Halt AIDS? Tell the Truth!

When trying to lessen risk for catastrophic illness from, say heart attack, stroke or lung cancer, we in health care routinely caution our patients to reduce or avoid the known risk factors that predispose to the diseases in question, say reducing high fat diet, reducing high blood cholesterol or stop smoking. Yet, when it comes to AIDS, the first "politically correct" disease in U.S. history, many government, educational and private special interest sources shun telling people the truth about how to avoid HIV infection, by avoiding the known reported risk-factor behaviors.

To the end of 2000, America has suffered 774,467 cases of AIDS, of which 765,559 are adult/adolescent and 8,908 are pediatric (age under 13 years). I contend that we in the medical and nursing professions are morally, ethically and professionally obliged to tell people the truth about the risk-factor behaviors that will predispose one to HIV and thus the horrors of AIDS. People must be cautioned to avoid homosexual intercourse, sexual promiscuity, intravenous street drug use and the "free love" of adultery.

People must be encouraged in abstinence until marriage; marriage between one-man-and-one-woman, hopefully for life; not destroying their bodies with intravenous street drugs; be bonded to their marital spouse within a mutually faithful, loving and uninfected relationship.

Another matter the stats reveal is that we may not be quite as sure as to the modes of transmission of HIV as the public is lead to believe. Consider: for both sexes, total U.S. AIDS cases for adults/adolescents, 9% of AIDS cases are transmitted by other/unknown causes. For male U.S. AIDS adults/adolescent cases, 8% are transmitted by other/unknown origin. This raises the issue of the effectiveness of male latex condoms in preventing HIV transmission.

Representatives of the 10,000 member Physicians Consortium say the CDC has known for years that condoms are 85% effective in helping prevent the spread of HIV, if used 100% perfectly 100% of the time. Many authorities, rather than educate people on the known-exposure category, risk-behaviors for HIV, simply advise sexually active people to practice "safe sex" by using male latex condoms. Yet, it is well known that condoms can be defective, slip off, spill, degrade with heat and have microscopic holes within their latex barriers far larger than the HIV organism.

This is not the first time in human history that money and politics have been placed over the health, safety, welfare and very lives of the public. If we are to stop the tragic suffering of AIDS in the USA, we in the medical and nursing professions are bound by our sacred duty to honestly counsel people with the truth.

- Robert W. Baral, RN, CEN, EMT-P
Bennington, VT

Globe Exploits Sex Scandal

Thank you for exposing the exploitation of the child sex abuse scandal by the Globe. To put the issue in perspective, we need only note that the number of accused priests and those who have admitted wrongdoing represent about 1% of the priest population. (Source: Page 1a, USA Today, 6/20/2002). Of course, there should be 0%, but there have also been problems as reported by the news services among non-Christian clergy. One will not find these stories in the Globe.

- Richard F. Russo
Arlington

$2 Million for Roman God

The next time you wonder why women must work to pay the family taxes, consider this. Congress has appropriated $2,000,000 to restore a statue of the god Vulcan, the Roman god of fire, in Birmingham, Alabama.

This passed in the house as H.R. 2217. By a vote of 12-87, the Senate rejected an amendment by Senator John McCain of Arizona to eliminate this funding.

I can just imagine the howls of protest if the statue were of Christ or the Madonna or a large Jewish star. This would be seen as an unconstitutional abuse of power by Congress.

Since we can not even pledge allegiance (under God makes the pledge no good) why would a statue of any god paid for by the taxpayers, let alone a pagan Roman god, be constitutional?

- David Prusky
Chelsea

Importance of Handwriting

John Silber (like others) observes that many write illegibly, not only students, but those who teach them. Like the superintendent whom Silber quotes, many educators neglect their own handwriting as well as their students', and they even brag about it.

Suddenly, though, penmanship counts. Starting in 2005, the SATs will include a handwritten essay test with all essays scanned onto a special website for the scrutiny of college admissions officers. This must shock September's 10th graders, who'll face this new exam as seniors after having learned for years that "handwriting can't matter."

Yet Silber's prescription for teachers and students: "Get back to a Palmer class," may not prove easy to fill. After all, the A. N. Palmer Company, which published the Palmer Method and trained those who provided those classes, folded in 1987. Even if Palmer classes still existed, these might not help us all. More than a few illegible writers of middle age and above; physicians, lawyers and even schoolteachers have shown me Palmer pins and other awards that they won in youth for a legible script which deteriorated thereafter.

In Massachusetts and elsewhere, over the past 15 years, I have successfully taught clear, speedy handwriting to children, parents, teachers, physicians and others who learned the hard way that most schools won't teach this skill. Many, as Silber noted, receive little or no instruction in handwriting and some get vast amounts of ineffective instruction. Result; either they write illegibly from day one or their handwriting nose dives after the lessons end.

I do my best and I hope against hope that others will too, to teach a handwriting that not only attains excellence during the school years, but remains excellent thereafter. Growing neglect of handwriting has infested schools and society at least since 1871 when publications of the Remington typewriter firm advised educators that pens, pencils, and penmanship would soon grow obsolete. Over 130 years later, pens and pencils remain in use; in fact, sales of writing instruments increase yearly. Therefore, we must still teach penmanship by whatever method most rapidly gains the clearest, swiftest and most reliable results.

- Kate Gladstone
Albany, NY

Global Warming Is 'Environmental Fraud'

The Kyoto Protocol calls for a worldwide five-percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 levels. During the presidential campaign, George Bush was adamant in his rejection of the Kyoto protocol because carbon dioxide does not affect human health and is not a pollutant as defined by the clean air legislation. President Bush continues to reject Kyoto because of the lack of evidence and because it does not demand the sacrifices from giant nations such as China, India, Brazil and Mexico. The reason the senate rejected the Kyoto accord without a single dissenting vote in 1997 under the Clinton/Gore administration is that scientists admit that weather satellites, which provide the only true global data, show no atmospheric warming. Basically, there is no real scientific evidence that warming exists. Efforts to reduce CO2 emissions (presumed to be a major cause of global warming), would be futile anyway considering that only 4 percent of these emissions are man-made and the other 96 percent are naturally produced.

To place a cap on CO2 would be extremely damaging to Americans raising energy prices and the cost of living to U.S. consumers. Estimates range from $3,000 to $4,000 per household annually. To say nothing of the number of factories and businesses which would flee to overseas markets, such as Mexico, to escape high cost and reduced profits. We are experiencing this trend already as noted by the recent announcement that Levi Strauss & Co. will be closing six U.S. manufacturing plants and relocating to Mexico to reduce cost and enhance profits. Placing a cap on CO2 would only exacerbate the problem.

Rapid reductions of CO2 will result in a stiff price to pay. Consider that in January of this year, Japan dropped mandatory restrictions on greenhouse emissions because the restrictions were too expensive for the Japanese industry and the price would do irrefutable harm to their economy. Simply put, the costs to comply with Kyoto are pegged at $350 billion worldwide by 2010 and it could rise to $900 billion in the future decades.

The truth is that the environmental groups have little or no scientific evidence to support their opposition to the many proposals the President has put forth to the people and to Congress. The environmental groups are concerned with collecting contributions more than the impact on American industry and the economy as a whole. Global warming is just another venue for collecting those funds. We must continue to attempt to become more self-sufficient and less dependent on foreign sources by generating our own oil and electric power. President Bush is absolutely right in rejecting Kyoto and protecting our economy.

- Ed Shallow and Cynthia Shallow-Hovda
Dorchester

Another Terrible Mass. Tax

It's bad enough that the legislative leaders of the People's Republic of Massachusetts; Messers Finneran (House) and Birmingham (Senate) ignore the will of the people on income tax rates, capital gains tax rates and personal exemptions. It's perversely humorous when they discover 16 new taxes to assess.

It's downright cruel when the feds sneak into the bedrooms of the oldest and sickest among us and snitch away the few dollars they have left.

Stealing money from one group of taxpayers to make life easier for the victimized group de jour has of course been the signature of liberal connoisseurs since Karl Marx taught them how to do it. The secret is simple; remember that those with less always outnumber those with more. Those with more don't stand a chance if and when the electorate loses its sense of fairness. The professional provocateurs will whip up the passions of the people and the game of redistribution begins.

It will continue until those with more lose what they have and more importantly, lose the incentive to rebuild. Doom follows shortly thereafter. One can never tell at what point a society approaches self destruction, but tax policy yields hints.

It's a hint when the tax system that soaks the rich no longer yields enough revenue for those who would reshape the world. At that point, the middle class comes under tax attack too; the definition of 'rich' goes wild, becomes ludicrous and in effect, punitive.

The federal tax on Social Security payments to low-income seniors is an example, as is the death tax, perhaps, the most repugnant of all.

But certainly a close second has to be this latest example of tax gluttony in 'Taxachusetts,' a proposal that would in effect add $3,300 per year to the cost of living of rest home citizens simply because they are self supporting. That is not only bad tax policy it is also stupid and evil. If it remains as tax law, clever estate planning maneuvers to avoid it, that are currently in play, will become routine, a development that will cause a surge in the number of Medicaid patients.

The proposed tax is based on the assumption that those who have enough really belong to the group that has a lot. They are rich because they saved and pay their way. The average person in nursing homes is over 80-years-old, has a current or potential need for special care and has sold a middle-class home to get the cash needed for a salinger.retirement life style in a nursing home. The new tax would invade their meager cash reserves and hasten their reclassification as Medicaid patients.

Additionally, the matching funds expected from the federal government are, according to experts, not salinger.and could dry up. The needs of Medicaid should never be funded by insalinger.sources of revenue. The proposed tax would worsen the Medicaid problem it is supposed to fix. In short, it is a stupid tax.

And it is also evil. It is the tax from hell because, in its simplest terms, it forces one person who is old and sick to pay the bills of another person who is old and sick. Only a power hungry bureaucratic nut would be able to think of such a reprehensible revenue raising scheme.

It is alleged that Medicaid has a $300 million problem. This is the justification for the subject tax proposal. The budget of Massachusetts will amount to more than $22 billion. The cost of fixing Medicaid could be accomplished by a reduction in the budget of less than 1.5%. If you knew nothing more about the state budget plan than this, would you increase the cost of living of the oldest rest home citizens in the state instead of decreasing by a hair the size of a government that has been growing at twice the cost of inflation for a decade?

Whoever supports this tax, kick them out. Whoever opposes it let them in. We couldn't do worse.

- Robert Kelly
Peabody

Flight 800: Six Years Later and Almost Forgotten

TWA Flight 800 crashed off the coast of Long Island six years ago this July. Prior to the Trade Center attacks, it was one of the most watched airline disasters. It wasn't televised, but crashed off the Hamptons in the summertime. 670 eyewitnesses were interviewed by federal investigators.

Many Americans recall Flight 800 witness reports in the news: a "reddish flare" streaking through the sky before the crash. That mystery flare fueled all sorts of theories from missiles to meteors and even an ocean-burping methane gas theory. But federal investigators weren't quick to accept any of the wild theories flourishing on the internet. Investigators spent four years finalizing the official theory; a spark in a fuel tank.

Early in the investigation evidence in support of the missile theory was leaked to the press. High speed targets were tracked on radar and by satellite. Explosives and high energy penetrations were found in the wreckage, but the investigators kept looking for some other cause. The FBI took charge of the criminal side of the investigation, and the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) looked for a mechanical fault.

The FBI removed potential missile evidence from the investigation, but the agents charged with overseeing the analyses complained of having "little forensic documentation or guidance on large body aircraft missile engagements." Confiscated by the FBI during victim autopsy examinations were twenty similar objects, five millimeters in diameter, consistent with pellets used in warheads. While agents were finalizing a report on the pellets, the FBI shelved its investigation in November 1997. The pellet report was classified as "secret."

The NTSB meanwhile was looking for signs of a spark in the center fuel tank. Although no conclusive evidence for a spark was ever found, two round five-millimeter holes directed into the center fuel tank were located that contained high-velocity characteristics. The holes were never explained and the NTSB closed its investigation in August 2000, concluding that a spark of unknown origin caused the crash.

As for the rising reddish flare seen by hundreds, it was attributed to Flight 800 itself, after the center wing tank exploded. Simulations were run that showed half of a 747 climb 3,000 feet to help explain the flare. The NTSB's findings have been published in the NTSB's final report at ntsb.gov. However, the pellets and other evidence that do not match the official theory are not included in that report. That evidence is buried in the thousands of documents that make up the Flight 800 public docket.

The radar evidence (NTSB exhibits 13A, available at ntsb.gov) conflicts with the spark theory. It indicates that a very powerful force shot wreckage out the right side of the aircraft. Four separate radar sites record this wreckage, some of it apparently exiting the airframe at speeds in excess of Mach 2. The witness exhibit (4A) confirms the radar data. The powerful force that ejected wreckage is described by witnesses as an explosion of a high-speed object that collided with the aircraft.

Some of the witnesses observed the entire crash sequence. Reference numbers (names redacted by the FBI) to some of their official accounts in exhibit 4A are: 73, 88, 150, 166, and 675. Witness 88 saw an object that looked like a "firework that emanated from the shoreline and ascended leaving a wispy white smoke trail, then he observed an airplane come into the field of view. The object ran into the airplane and upon doing so both the plane and the object turned a real bright red, then exploded into a huge plume of flame."[NTSB Exhibit 4A]

It's no mystery what caused the crash or why federal investigators buried the detailed witness accounts along with the useless ones after withholding them from the public for four years. Classifying the pellet report as "secret" and ignoring the early radar data reduced exposure to holes in the official theory. The obscured evidence and a four year delay in releasing official findings helped the public forget about that reddish flare seen before the crash. Now, six years later, is anyone paying attention?

- Tom Stalcup, PhD
Chairman, Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization
E. Falmouth

Fathers Deserve Equal Tax Rights

I would like to ask the question that no one's willing to discuss. Why can't fathers receive tax relief from the IRS for a portion of the child support payments? We need to not forget that a father paying out child support needs tax breaks too, just like the mothers that have the system standing up for their positions.

- Maurice Tyner
St. Paul, MN

Boston Public Schools Should Check All

It was disappointing to read that Boston Public School counselor Larry Green is alleged to have committed a crime against a child. The authorities at the Boston Public School Department have refused to run criminal background checks on the outside speakers from the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. I think for the sake of the children every safety check should be in place.

If the School Department can afford to pay these outside speakers then they can afford to make sure none of them are criminals.

- Gay Guptill
Boston

Is Death Penalty Cruel?

On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that executions of mentally retarded criminals are cruel and unusual punishment violating the Eighth Amendment. If a person found guilty of murder can show that they have an IQ under 70, they will not have to face execution.

That IQ test is one that most murderers will to want to fail.

With this new ruling, a person, who is possibly mentally retarded and commits the cruel and unusual crime of murder, will avoid the death penalty completely. That is how the U.S. Supreme Court views justice.

Another interesting point to this case is the statement of Justice John Paul Stevens, who authored the opinion of the court, and stated, "It is fair to say that a national consensus has developed against it."

But there are 38 states that have the death penalty, and the national consensus agrees to the use of the death penalty as a deterrent. Twenty of those still execute mentally retarded convicted murderers. So that is 53% of the states that have the death penalty execute the mentally retarded and 47% don't. That is not a national consensus.

An interesting fact that seemed to miss most major news outlets was an act by then Governor Clinton, when he flew back to Arkansas during the 1992 election for an execution of a man named Ricky Ray Rector who was convicted of killing two people in Arkansas.

Gloria Rubac, an anti-death penalty activist, wrote "In 1992 when Clinton was running for president, he made a point of leaving the campaign trail to go back to Arkansas for an execution, sending a strong message to the American people that he was in full support of the death penalty. The victim was a mentally retarded man named Ricky Ray Rector. The "victim?" The murderer is the victim?

It's the same old liberal claptrap calling guilty criminals "victims." Ms. Rubac goes on and on about the horror of the death penalty and the conditions of prisons, but what you won't find is one word about the real victims. Not one word about the two people that Ricky Ray Rector killed. Not one word.

What she didn't say was that Rector killed a doorman at a dance over two dollars, and when a police officer went to Rector's house to arrest him, Rector shot and killed the officer in cold blood.

It was reported that before Rector's execution, he took his desert and put it under his bed and said, "I'm going to eat it after my execution," Would Rector have been considered mentally retarded? Yes, but you see he wasn't when he committed his crime, his retardation was the result of a gunshot to the head, a self-inflicted gunshot.

I am not in favor of the death penalty in every murder case but when the evidence is overwhelming, the brutality is evident, and it is beyond a shadow of a doubt, then the death penalty is a deterrent that is 100% effective.

I have read the anti-death penalty propaganda and how many innocent people have been found innocent after being on death row. Well the system worked, and eventually these people were cleared. Ms. Rubac states in her article that the death penalty is used against innocent people. Name one, that is all that I ask, name one.

The only case that I have ever heard of is the Sacco and Vanzetti Case. After looking into the story, it appears that they may not have been innocent after all.

According to Encyclopedia.com, "new ballistics tests conducted with modern equipment in 1961 seemed to prove conclusively that the pistol found on Sacco had been used to murder the guard." So, if Sacco did it and no one has ever found any more proof, I'd say Vanzetti is guilty by association and justice was served.

I have read many stories where friends or family members have proclaimed the innocence of someone in prison. They write letters, make phone calls, and sometimes continue the battle to prove the person's innocence for years and years, until finally something breaks and the truth comes out.

If just one innocent person was executed, it seems that there would be at least a couple people somewhere that would cry out to clear the name of the innocent person. With all of these "victims" being executed, isn't it funny that we never hear of anyone crying out that the execution was an injustice and that an innocent person had been executed?

All I can say is that the recidivism rate for murderers who receive the death penalty is zero and that is my side of the story.

- Ken Goodall
Exeter, NH

Editor's Comment: If what the reader says is true and Vanzetti was a partner in a crime, he would be guilty of murder under the felony-murder rule.

Is Mitt Romney Without Fault?

First, I would like to thank you for your valuable publication which I feel has a finger on the pulse of Massachusetts politics.

I would like to make some comments and perhaps some clarifications to your June 6 article "Romney, the 'Cover-the-Road' Politician."

First, the header states: "We received this story from Utah in early April but thought we should wait and see. We now believe it should be run at this time." Why do you believe it should be run at this time? Is your agenda, "wait until he gains a lot of support and then run this to cut him down a few notches?" If it were worthwhile journalism, it should be run in a timely manner, not helduntil you think it is good for your needs or your agenda.

Second, myself being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a minority in Massachusetts, I believe I have a distinct view of Mr. Romney and his political statements and ideas vs. the faith that he prescribes to. He is not, as the article states, "turn[ing] his back on the values and beliefs of his church for political gain." The two are independent and yet harmonious with each other. As Mr. Romney is reluctant to talk of his religious convictions in relation to his political aspirations, which I agree is a good idea, I would like to look at some of the issues he faces and briefly discuss them in relation to the church.

Abortion: the author is correct that the LDS faith condemns abortion. We believe it takes a human life. However, we live in a country where the practice is legal. One of the articles of our faith states: "We believe in being a subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." Mr. Romney is drawing upon his belief that the law ought to be upheld, despite his moral convictions to the contrary.

Homosexual Leaders for Scouts: Yes, the church condemns homosexuality as a practice. A gay person may join the church so long as they adhere to the standards of morality that the church espouses and expects of all members: no sexual relationships outside of marriage, and no marriage except between a man and a woman. I personally have met a gay man who was active in the church. He lived his convictions and was faithful to these standards. The president of the church has made plain statements on homosexuality.

I don't see in the article that Mr. Romney condones gay leaders for the Boy Scouts, but he does state, "I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation." This is consistent with his moral convictions, and not "in direct opposition to his church." Also he states that the issue rests upon the BSA to make the decision.

Personally, I think that the BSA should not have gay leaders, because of the important leadership roles they play in the lives of the future of America.

Please, let us focus on the issues at hand. Keeping an eye on the goings-on in Massachusetts, the reality that we are fiscally and morally in decay weighs upon my mind almost continually. We can no longer afford to let sloppy leadership put the state into the red, nor can our officials who lead "for the people" continue to ignore the people. I have faith in the people of the Commonwealth that they will make the right decision and elect the best person for Governor. I urge all who read my words to get out and vote. Do what is right for the state. I call upon all who have some moral leadership to rise up and push the Commonwealth to financial and moral stability, a tall banner in a world that shifts constantly beneath our feet.

- Austin Holloway
Holden

Editor's Comment: The reader and I are after the same goals, but we have differing views on whether Mitt Romney is the person who will help us achieve them. We are all fallible. That was the cornerstone of our Constitution and its concept of the separation of powers. Mitt is no exception. He will be a good leader only if we watch him closely.

If you were at the state convention where he was nominated, you saw no dissent of any sort being allowed. He gave us a "coronation," not a nomination. I could tell you personal stories about extreme nastiness and arrogance, but I will not bore you here.

He has gone out of his way to be hostile to conservatives. He will not make a pledge on low taxes. He is in favor of gambling casinos. He is not pro-life. (No one denies that the law on abortion must be followed by the Governor, but Romney has gone far beyond that. Did Ronald Reagan not follow the law when opposing abortion?)

Romney apparently does not believe in traditional marriage and has said nasty things about the Protection of Marriage Amendment which his wife, son and daughter-in-law all signed. If he is afraid of that issue because he is a politician, an intelligent response would have been that this issue is now in the hands of the people and we should respect the Constitution and their decision. Even if we forget the ethical values, that would have been a much better political decision than alienating the 60% of the voters who favor the Amendment. That shows terribly poor judgment.

Mitt Romney is apparently a very ambitious person who will do almost anything to reach those ambitions. If we are to elect him, we must have someone like Jim Rappaport to work with him and keep bringing him back to the core values of most of the citizens in this state.

As far as my holding the article about him for a few months, the reporter has excellent references, but I did not want to challenge Romney until we had seen a little more about what he is like. His conduct so far indicates that the reporter in Utah was very perceptive in his evaluation. Like all people, especially politicians, Romney needs close watching.

(The author of the article, by the way, is also a Mormon.)