|
|
Disagrees With Article About Barney Frank DSS Series Creates Anger Youth Can Determine Their Sexual Orientation Integrity and Honesty Narrow Minded Newspaper Pulitzer Prize For Ed Oliver Schools Hostile to Christian Faith A Voice for More Father’s Rights Poultry Owner Complains Free Publicity is Unfair Great-grandmother Praises Mr. Oliver Military Enlistment Out of Control DSS Disagrees With Article About Barney Frank In the article, "Concord Can’t Find ‘Homophobia’ In Their Town," the author offers counter-arguments to Barney Frank’s "inaccuracies." The article makes Frank out to be a total buffoon. I don’t buy this, but let’s just focus on the author’s own problems here. [Editor’s note. The portions of our article that this reader quotes in his letter are in boldface.] ...90 people from the greater Boston area, many of them homosexual activists, were drawn to the event to hear Rep. Barney Frank tell inaccuracies about many issues. He said: "The notion that a teenager would voluntarily choose homosexuality is bizarre." Obviously, Barney Frank has not discussed this with the psychiatrists and psychologists who believe that it often is a choice. He only talks with those who agree with him. Anyone who does not agree with him is a ‘hater’ and a ‘homophobe.’ Obviously, the author hasn’t talked to these psychiatrists and psychologists either. Why else would he have failed to quote them or cite a reference? In college, I certainly was marked down for forgetting this stuff. However, I must give the devil his due here as this author must have done very extensive, exhaustive research in order to determine that Frank "only talks with those who agree with him." While I might be able to vaguely discern the author’s point, he should be more careful in order to avoid "inaccuracies." ...there are many Christian and Jewish groups who wish to welcome homosexuals without agreeing that ‘God made them that way.’ This group in Concord summarily dismisses anyone who disagrees with them as ‘haters’ and ‘homophobes.’ Hit me up with some of these groups here. I believe the author but failing to mention any certainly doesn’t strengthen the argument. Again, I think I definitely lost points on a paper for this once. The Defense of Marriage Act is a way for anti-gays to get around appearing to be mean. ‘The notion that gay marriage threatens straight marriage is utterly nonsensical.’ Frank did not mention whether he would also approve marriage between a man and two women (or more), or marriage that would be incestuous, or whether we should just abolish the institution entirely. The concept of marriage was started by the Jews four thousand years ago, not to help the parents but to protect the children. The nerve of Frank! How dare he fail to mention these other things simply because the topic was "same sex marriage" – not polygamy, incest, or abolition of marriage. As long as we are on the subject, I am a little miffed he didn’t mention baseball, heroin or sailboats either!! Getting confused and getting off the topic – yet another deduction. Those who do not agree with me believe that, ‘If you are nice to these gay, lesbian or bisexual kids, if you treat them fairly, if you protect them against all kinds of abuse, if you tell people that you should not mistreat them because of their sexual orientation, you’ll wind up with more of them.’ This is such a distortion that it doesn’t even merit an answer. From where does he get such nonsense? Nice work on that one. That is by far the dumbest thing I have ever read in print!!! One cannot say something "is such a distortion that it doesn’t even merit an answer." If the issue is that clear, a biting, well-documented refutation is just waiting to be written!! So write it!! Don’t leave me guessing. If you can’t write it, then stop babbling. I’m ‘frustrated’ by the notion that, ‘It’s okay to be abusive to gays.’ We’re all frustrated by that notion, Barney. But we’re even more frustrated by your implying that any responsible person in Concord has that notion. Who do you know who says that? Nice work on calling Frank on specifics. You don’t use them all the time, so why should he? All right, thanks for letting me vent here. I am interested in a response, though, so I will be checking my e-mail as well as your web site. So, at least another person is checking your site now. – Tim Delaney Editor’s Comment: Because we have written volumes about the questions Mr. Delaney asks, we cannot repeat them in every issue. If he would like, we would be happy to mail him some of them, including a copy of our original mailing from last January which caused a "firestorm of controversy across the state" according to Chet Curtis on Channel 5. If he has any questions after reading them, we would be happy to attempt to answer them. They are available to anyone as noted elsewhere in this paper. We have a videotape of the entire meeting in Concord. If we did anything inaccurately, we understated the atmosphere of superiority that was present there. Your DSS series is creating more than enough public anger to ram corrections down gagging legislative, administrative and judicial throats. It’s about, by God, time! But I wish to raise four points that have thus far escaped publication. 1. Massachusetts’ child deaths at DSS hands are mirrored in every state. Some have begun curtailing the abuses. In Oregon and Tennessee, related new statutes were recently enacted. In Illinois and Utah, lawsuits are in progress. This is the tip of the iceberg. 2. The root source of the problem is federal. They use money to ram patently unconstitutional rules down state DSS throats. Officially, it’s called, "The Safe Families Act." In the streets, we call it, "The Baby-Snatcher Act." 3. Now we get to the nitty-gritty. Look at your Letters to the Editor. They’re from all over the U.S. On Internet sites, they come from all over the world. You touched tender parental nerves with that one! 4. Your policy statement says that you are for local interests. However, DSS, fetal-cell and related issues are attracting national and international attention. I like what you are doing, but would like to see you acknowledge your scope and expand your policy statement to fit. – Eugene Austin
Editor’s Comment: Our newspaper and our focus will continue to be on Massachusetts. However, we appreciate the interest and compliments from outside the state. Youth Can Determine Their Sexual Orientation I received a copy of your "newspaper" in the mail this week and was horrified at the content of the printout. You pride yourselves that, "If you agree with everything we write there is something wrong. We’re searching for independent thinkers." Yet this is an amazing contradiction to your content. You pave a way that shows narrow viewpoints on everything. About one fourth of the articles were direct attacks on other similar institutions. And the middle portion of the paper, a special on homosexuality, was particularly disturbing in its direction. The group of articles dealing with homosexuality stated that (more or less) young people did not have the knowledge, or maturity, to determine their sexual orientation. This is both a hateful printing and a view posed from ignorance and blind aversion. If the youth is not able to think for themselves, you are imposing that they not choose one of the paths that is set forth for them. These articles disturbed me in their disregard for equality and tolerance. While the articles in question may not blatantly scream out their homophobic message, certainly it is seen how you try to steer the youth of America like cattle to your beliefs. I believe in equality, peace, and freedom for all of America, not just those I agree with. – Dan Schrager
Editor’s Comment: 1) The CEO of the APA, Dr. Raymond Fowler, sent a letter to Congressman Tom DeLay on June 9 in which he said that his organization should have evaluated the article "based on its potential for misinforming the public policy process" but it "failed to do so." He also promised to create legal briefs attacking any use of the article which would help pedophiles in the courts. A report about this can be found in our July edition at page 9. 2) On October 20, Kevin Steward, an elementary school gym teacher in Maricopa County, Arizona, was convicted of sexual molestation of seven boys. His attorney cited the APA article at sentencing. After being informed about this, the APA filed a brief in opposition to the use of the study as it had promised to do in June. Let me begin by thanking you and everyone else at the Massachusetts News for bringing more integrity and honesty to media. It is encouraging to see that there are people who see through the cloud of dust that is most newspapers’ coverage and are able to report on REAL ISSUES. Some months ago I spoke with Paul Moreno of your publication regarding last year’s Ballot Question #2, the affirmation of which resulted in the so-called "Clean Elections Act". Now that a budget has finally been passed by the legislature, Clean Elections and Campaign Finance have once again reared their ugly heads. Despite the hypocrisy of the people who supported Question 2, the question was passed. They gladly solicited and accepted huge donations from people while campaigning using the slogan "Get Big Money Out of Politics." Because candidates are encouraged to stay "clean" by the Act which provides them with Taxpayer money – without Taxpayer consent – they find themselves able (or is that "willing") to raise less money and hence desire a pay raise to offset their increased personal contributions to their campaigns. And since the effectual end of campaign finance "reform" is to allow those in power to stay in power without letting newcomers get a chance, those in power can get away with voting themselves pay raises, as was attempted with the recent budget. We have also seen how Mr. Finneran and Mr. Birmingham have attempted to further pervert an already immoral law by allowing unlimited fundraising until 6 months prior to the election, at which time legislators would be able to dip into Taxpayers’ pockets for more cash. It is clear that the law is immoral because it gives taxpayer money to candidates for publicly elected office, without endorsement or support of the people whose money it is in the first place. I would be particularly pleased if The Massachusetts News were to continue to report and comment on campaign finance reform and the ill wind that is the "Clean Elections Act." Also, any coverage of similar activities at the Federal level, such as the Shays-Meehan Act, would be most welcome. As a representative of the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts, I take great pride in saying that no Libertarian will ever accept State or Federal matching funds for any election, a claim that the other major parties of Massachusetts can never make. – Kamal Jain
MassNews is a narrow minded, self-serving, hate mongering, anti-American, chauvinist piece of garbage. I do not want this trash in my mail. I am perfectly capable of understanding and making right choices on my own. I certainly don’t need your help. – Frances Jeffers O’Connell
Mr. Oliver, I believe you may receive a Pulitzer Prize for the DSS series. It is wantonly overdue by the serious press. The "cruel and unusual punishment" dispensed by this agency must be stopped. – Mary Ann Costello
Schools Hostile to Christian Faith In response to your December editorial "The Religion of Humanism Is Drowning Us," I quite agree. Last year I asked my state senator and representative to file a bill that would seek to restore religious neutrality to our schools. The result was S.225, An Act Relative to School Superintendents. "No person shall be employed as a superintendent unless he has demonstrated proficiency with the text of School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203. The department of education is hereby authorized and directed to promulgate rules and regulations for implementation by all superintendents to accomplish the goal of avoiding the establishment of a religion of secularism." The Supreme Court case referred to is the 1963 school prayer and Bible reading decision, in which it said: "It is insisted that unless these religious exercises are permitted, a ‘religion of secularism’ is established in the schools. We agree of course that the State may not establish a ‘religion of secularism’ in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus ‘preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.’ Zorach v. Clauson. We do not agree, however, that this decision in any sense has that effect." Today, there is a lot of talk about teaching "character education" in the schools. I am very leery of that because I am not sure what this will lead to. Any guidelines formulated under S.225 would be inherently friendly to people of Biblical faiths. It would require that schools teach accurate American history and the way that Judeo-Christian values and beliefs have led to the development of a free, stable and prosperous society. See the Religion and the Founding Exhibit at the Library of Congress. All of the controversial issues our society is dealing with – abortion, homosexuality, condoms in schools – and that are now dealt with in the government schools – have a history of being litigated before the Supreme Court after this benchmark 1963 decision. It is therefore my contention that schools should make a special effort to deal with these issues in a balanced way. After all, people of Biblical faith have to pay for the public schools too – and most of them still use them. When I found out that the state legislators are not interested in this bill, I became involved as a volunteer for Exodus 2000. Exodus has a simple message: "Today some 12-15 million evangelical Christian children, or 90% of the children from Christian families, are still attending government schools which are now totally hostile to their faith. If these families were to leave Pharaoh’s schools for the promised land of Christian schools or home schooling, it could trigger the spiritual awakening we are all praying and longing for to renew our churches, our nation, and our debased culture. This event could seriously cripple the power secularism now holds over our culture by holding our children as near-hostages in state schools." – Lawrence Andrade
A Voice for More Father’s Rights I just finished reading the feature by Mark Charalambous on the Fatherhood Coalition. Additionally, the expose on the workings of the batterers’ programs was especially candid and compelling and demonstrates just how backwards we still are in how we treat and react to domestic violence. As a member of CPF and one of the co-chairs, I have had my own personal experiences and have dealt with thousands of phone calls directed towards our office number. Many are placed by women who are in touch with the realities of the current problems with the system. They call on behalf of men who won’t come out and seek help as victims. Shame and pride still remain obstacles for most men to come forth on their own behalf. Recently, New England Cable News featured Ned Holstein and a battered women advocate discussing the issues surrounding domestic violence. The battered women’s advocate could only cite 1994 Justice Statistics and called upon Mr. Holstein to provide some statistic or data to support his positions. I’m sure she is very aware of the academic studies that have been conducted over the past 30 years supporting the fact that domestic violence is gender neutral. Why are we not treating it accordingly? As far as Dept. of Justice statistics cited by the victim/feminists; they are flawed for the following reasons: 1. They reflect complaints and arrests. Until recently, men were always the ones arrested in any police response to a complaint of domestic abuse. Men have been viewed as the primary perpetrators, regardless of the realities of any given situation. With a history of a predisposition to arrest the man, what else would one expect to find in DOJ statistics? This is beginning to change to a very small degree and has been getting national attention. Every academic study reflects the fact that perpetration of domestic abuse is pretty much an even deal. But, with police, judges and other agencies getting their information from well-financed victim feminist groups, they typically arrest the man. Very few can argue that men, due to their generally dominant physical strength are generally able to generate more serious injury. Hundreds of men get arrested for restraining a woman who is in the act of assaulting them. Their attempt to defend themselves might even leave marks on the arms of such women. Thus, men are pointed out to be the aggressor. 2. DOJ statistics do not reflect the disposition of cases. Dismissed cases due to insufficient evidence or "not guilty" verdicts are not reflected in these statistics. 3. Abused men typically do not report. Pride and embarrassment prevent men from coming forth. This does not require a leap of faith to understand. For those who muster the courage to come forth, they are not received by the system with any respect. They are more apt to be ridiculed or actually arrested and blamed for the situation. Rather than explain how their wife threw a punch or ashtray at them, it is much easier to explain a black eye away as a sports injury or an encounter at a bar. It’s tough for a man to admit being controlled, manipulated, and abused by a woman. To go to the system for assistance means losing contact with his children and he knows this. Women are equally prone to drug and alcohol abuse. It’s no leap of faith to assume these same women are abusive to their significant others. While social service agencies are worried about the welfare of children in such circumstances, they totally overlook the significant others who are also effected. Women obtain restraining orders simply by stating they are "in fear." No evidence is required – simply saying the magic words and/or checking off the appropriate box on the standardized 209a form. This usually results in a 1 year restraining order. This is sure to finish off the family structure in a society where we are supposed to be so concerned with so many marriages failing. This adds to the problem. The victim/feminists are always quick to point out the fact that a 7 or 10 day hearing is involved after the initial ex-parte (defendant not required) 209a order is granted. This was intended to provide a hearing where the judge would evaluate the merits of continuing the order. In reality, this hearing is no more than a farce and used as a cover for creating the illusion of due process. Few men are ever heard in their own defense and no evidence or witnesses are allowed to be presented by the defendant (typically a man). It is simply a rubber stamp procedure where the temporary order is continued, usually for a year. All that is required is the woman’s desire to have it continued. There is no fact-finding involved in this process. Men, on the other hand, have great difficulty in obtaining the same treatments and protections by the courts. Having been assaulted by a knife being swung within an inch of my face, windows smashed out of my vehicle, and with a police report verifying that my ex had been stalking my apartment, I was denied a restraining order and accused of using that very hearing as a way to abuse her, by her 3rd attorney. This was absurd. There is no gender-neutral treatment of the administration of 209a restraining orders. This is a myth. No women would need all of what I presented to the court to obtain one. Simply stating "fear" would have been sufficient. I also know of many men who were being assaulted by their wives or girlfriends and were denied 209a restraining orders simply because the judge looked at both parties, saw that the man was physically superior, and denied his request for a protective order. What kind of message is being sent in such cases? "You can handle yourself?" So the next time the man attempts to restrain the woman attempting to attack him, he gets arrested. If a woman goes into divorce court holding a 209a restraining order, the man is automatically demonized and the bias against the father is amplified. Every Family Court lawyer knows this and many lawyers make this a part of their strategy in dealing with their female clients. It’s a big win in the following "settlements" if the hearings are precipitated with 209a. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how all of this can work in favor of the woman. We point out the fact that a woman has everything to gain and nothing to lose in obtaining a 209a. The victim feminists suggest that women have plenty to lose by abusing the system. They claim that a woman can be prosecuted for perjury and other related charges. This is a myth. The District Attorneys don’t have the time to waste on perjury and very few are ever prosecuted, in any type of case. This is a fact. At worst, a women may be denied her motion for a 209a if the judge has enough courage to rule against her petition, if he senses something is fishy about her claims. This happens very rarely as women seeking 209A restraining orders have the well-financed domestic violence industry with an advocate for those women seeking orders to coach them right through the process. The batterers programs are no more than an extension of the correctional institution system and used as punishment. Battered women’s advocates or their subsidiaries run most. Thousands of men are funneled into these 6 month to year sessions where they sit with 20 or so others who have been funneled into these programs; each paying around $50 a pop. What a great cash cow these programs have established to further fund the already well-financed victim/feminist groups. According to a recent study published by the National Research Council Institute of Medicine, there is no evidence these programs are accomplishing anything other than providing punishment and further fattening the pockets of the victim/feminist groups. And you don’t find women in such programs. They simply don’t exist. This strongly suggests that there are no women who are abusive or in need of treatment or punishment. Something is certainly wrong here. Men’s groups and fathers’ rights groups who are trying to create a realistic balance in how we view and treat the ills of our society are all pretty much disenfranchised fathers who have no funding outside of whatever they can draw from within. They are all volunteers with no paid experts or staff. This makes for a very lopsided situation in an arena where there are some serious concerns, which need to be addressed. Even members of the Joint Judiciary Committee validated the need for some reforms, that the problems are real and even cited cases of abuse themselves. All this while victim/feminists refused to acknowledge any notion that 209a is something that is abused. That day, last fall, the victim feminists were the best advocates to our positions. They are in total denial of such problems publicly, while they know such activity is prevalent behind closed doors. We all need to support those who are truly abused and need protections. However, this is not a system intended to be abused, constantly erring on the side of caution, denying that women are equally abusive and violent, and not recognizing the victimization of men in the home and at the hands of the current system in place. Finally, I don’t support so much government intervention in our lives. But, as long as it already exists, we ought to look at mandated "sentences" for couples to get therapy to deal with their issues and hopefully save the relationship, rather than the overflowing cases of 209a restraining orders for 6 months to 1 year, which typically put a certain end to the relationship. I would submit that 80% of 209a cases would be better served by such action. The other 20% would reflect the real evidentiary process of establishing the serious abuse we are all concerned with dealing with in our society. If we are sincere in our desire to heal the ills of society, care about our children, and be honest about interpersonal dynamics, we need to reconstruct the current system that serves lopsided special interests and is creating more real harm than good. If we are really interested in achieving such goals, maybe we don’t need to be at war. – Raymond Saulnier
Poultry Owner Complains Free Publicity is Unfair Your article on "The Country Hen" is both interesting and gives a kindly description of the company’s owner. However, isn’t it advertising? No doubt that eggs are in general a good product, but it seems prejudicial to single out one successful company in the way that this article does. Our farm runs a small, specialty egg business, and there are many, many other poultry farms in Massachusetts. Such free publicity to one seems unfair, and thus a policy that any media should consider. The Boston Globe ran a small article on the same company last spring. Though briefer than your article, it also could be seen as free advertising. – E.A. Sisson
Great-grandmother Praises Mr. Oliver Thank you for your superb, informed, informative articles. I only wish the people of Springfield, Missouri could read them and/or have someone as learned and caring as you, to expose DFS there! I am a great-grandmother (52-years-old) fighting to get two of my grandsons from DFS Greene County, Springfield, MO. It is costing me an "arm and a leg" and countless months of worry, heartache and an ocean of tears. I live in Hawaii and am a RN. I use this medium to help me (and cut lawyer costs) by finding facts such as you print. My heartfelt thank you and please keep those articles coming! Thank You, – Rita M. Miller
A combat or special force needs to be in top physical shape. A military band’s members are picture perfect. Not all members of a unit are sent into combat. There exist routine background jobs that require only intelligence, honesty and love of country. A physically challenged or overweight person should not be denied the right to military service. The solution to unfilled military ranks is to allow each American citizen the opportunity to serve in their country’s military. – Donald O. Rajotte
We have received a complementary copy of MassNews and have sent for a one-year subscription. Your article in the December paper about what is really happening in the DSS case is really informative. There is an excellent book about the System. It’s titled Out of Control: Who’s Watching Our Child Protection Agencies? by Brenda Scott, that I’d like to recommend. – Mary Jones
|