LETTERS
|
I just got through looking over my complimentary issue that I received
through the mail. I am only happy that my 14-year-old did not decide to
look through it. I can’t believe that you are allowed to print such filth
in a newspaper. The article referring to homosexual sex acts with the step-by-step
lesson included was, to say the least, beyond disgusting. And for you to
send something like this to my house to be read by anyone who receives
it is appalling. I am going to complain to the U.S. Postal Service and
to the local police department. There is a reason they keep pornographic
materials behind the counter at the convenience stores. You have no right
to send something like that to private homes unsolicited. I do not ever
want to see another one of your newspapers in my mailbox again.
Editor’s Comment: We hope that you also complain to Gov. Cellucci because his employees are the ones who are teaching this material to children younger than your 14-year-old in the schools of Massachusetts. We wish we didn’t have to send this material to your home but we know no other way to alert parents to what is happening when the schools continue to do it, and then deny it. But they can’t deny it any more. This session is recorded on tape. The subtitle of the April 11th article, "Holocaust Survivor" sensationalizes while misrepresenting a horror by proclaiming, "Molested by Homosexual Guards." Wish it were that simple. Unfortunately, the events Stephen Ross described in this article no more describe homosexuality than the molestation of young girls by straight men defines heterosexuality. What Ross is describing are not consensual sexual acts but rape pure and simple. In fact, Ross’ experience is anything but unusual. There is tremendous historical precedent for this phenomenon. Simply put, it is a case of victors using sex to dominate and to inflict humiliation on the conquered. Today, we are learning about how the Christians in the Serbian war gang-raped Moslem women. The Japanese in China set up brothels housed by local women conscripted for that purpose. On a PBS show I heard a former Japanese soldier admit he, like many of his comrades, killed the women when they were through with them. Historians tell us that in ancient times, Roman soldiers among other Empire-building armies carried out these same practices on the battlefield. To humiliate vanquished soldiers, the victors often sodomized the captive enemies. This practice was so common that, in fact, the Holy Bible itself indicates "our side" carried out similar practices. The point then about Ross’ situation is that guards in concentration camps having sex with young boys at the point of a gun is rape, not consensual adult sex. What the article fails to report is whether these guards were married or single. Not that this fact becomes a mitigating factor, but rather it speaks to the point of sex being used as a tactic in the Politics of Domination. It also speaks to the fact that many straight males use, in the sense that they objectify and exploit as objects, other males when no females are around. There have been many sociological studies of the phenomenon of prisoners offering protection or outrightly coercing younger inmates to submit to their will. Upon release, these Alpha males revert to their normal patterns of dominating women. Evidently, it is no more appropriate to condemn all of homosexuality for what are really not crimes of sex but crimes of aggression than it is appropriate to condemn all of heterosexuality for male assaults against women, always bearing in mind that on a one-for-one basis, the incidence of heterosexual rape is greater than that of homosexual rape. - David Scherzer Ph.D.
Editor’s Comment: Doesn’t this reader really understand why Mr. Ross desired to speak about this? Or is the reader spoofing us? There’s a lot of talk lately by activists that homosexuals suffered terribly, just like Jews, Gypsies, Christians and others, in the Holocaust. Mr. Ross says that that is not true. While he was a prisoner for five years, he did not see evidence that homosexuals suffered in the Holocaust; to the contrary, they were part of the system. Therefore, he says, the message we are hearing from activists in Massachusetts is not true. I must take great umbrage with many of the reader’s comments about "alpha males." Having served in the U.S. Navy in WWII and the U.S. Army in Korea, I can guarantee that heterosexual U.S. servicemen did nothing like what he describes. He obviously has never served in the U.S. armed forces. To say that all heterosexual males are sexual predators is a terrible lie. Where in the Bible can he find anything that "our side" carried out "similar practices?" As to Serbia, we haven’t heard the truth about that war yet. To say that a man who has sex with a boy is not a homosexual is to deny the obvious. I realize that this has become the standard mantra of the activist. However, they are wrong because such a person is a homosexual by definition. In addition, look at the members of the North American Man/Boy Love Association who thrill at the idea of molesting a boy. Or look at the show on WGBH which glamorized a love affair between a 29-year-old man and a 15-year-old boy. These men were surely homosexual. This does not mean that every homosexual is a pedophile. I know many with integrity who would not think of doing such a thing. But to deny that it exists, as this reader is attempting to do, is simply not true. People have compared the situation of Elian Gonzalez to that of a child traveling with his father, say, in Canada. If something happened to the father, they say, is there any doubt that the child would be quickly sent back to his native country and to the custody of his mother? Something is overlooked in this metaphor. Elian’s mother lost her life
in a desperate attempt to escape. She sacrificed her life to bring her
child to freedom. She gambled everything to bring him to a land where he
would not have to fear the knock on the door in the middle of the night,
the jack-booted thugs breaking down the door…. Oh, never mind.
The only issue in the Elian Gonzalez saga is the issue of Fathers’ Rights.
Two facts bear this out. Fact one: There is unanimous agreement that if
it had been the father who had placed his son’s life in jeopardy (simply
to accompany his unscrupulous lady friend) and the mother was the lone
surviving parent, Elian would have been sent back to Cuba quick as a wink.
Second: If there is any doubt about fathers’ claims regarding the existence
of unspeakable gender bias permeating throughout the courts, look no further
than the case of Elian Gonzalez. It took no less than the combined efforts
of the Department of Justice, the U.S. Marshal’s Service and the President
of the United States to get a father custody of his son, even after the
mother was dead! How hard must it be then, for an everyday dad to get even
50-50 joint physical custody of his child with the mother alive? It’s next
to impossible. As any divorced dad can tell you, the last place to receive
justice is in Probate and Family Court. That is the most biased anti-father
venue in existence. It’s a complete fallacy that Family Court judges are
unbiased; moms win virtually every time.
Cardinal Bernard Law came out publicly in favor of shipping Elian Gonzalez
back to communist Cuba. He has bought the Clintonista line of "he needs
his father." What Elian needs is his freedom and so does his Daddy.
Cardinal Law said the United States should lift the trade embargo. I say,
as soon as they lift the dictatorship of Fidel and get a real republic
there.
Lawyer Agrees About ‘Poverty Lawyers’ I totally enjoyed "Poverty Lawyers Out to Embarrass Governor Cellucci" in your April 2000 issue. The article was right on point. I agree with the comment that "the SJC could be making a ruling in a suit filed by their own organization" (referring to Legal Services, a creation of the SJC). Many judges are associated directly and indirectly with Legal Services (either by virtue of their personal association with the law schools and their deans or through teaching at the law schools that regulate and oversee these Legal Services). Yet they sit and make decisions (on a daily basis) on cases where one side is represented by these Legal Services. Any practicing attorney knows how frustrating it could be to have to appear before a judge who teaches at any one particular law school and who knows that the opposing counsel (from Legal Services) is also a teacher at the same law school. Isn’t it clear and evident that there is a conflict of interest? Doesn’t anyone see that when the judge steps down and hangs up his/her robe, that his/her next cup of coffee could be in the faculty lounge with that lawyer, who all of a sudden (after five) has turned into a colleague? Any practicing attorney also knows how frustrating it could be to know that the judge making his/her next decision is a close friend with the dean of the law school that oversees the Legal Aid services representing the other side. How can a just and fair outcome come out of any decision from that judge? How can the judge not voluntarily ask to recuse himself/herself? We do not have to wait until the "Welfare Reform Case" reaches the SJC to make a finding that the entire legal system is failing its people. Not only are our clients being robbed of their money by forcing attorneys to designate an IOLTA account but they are also robbed of their right to their "day in court." - Alba C. Corona-Perez, Attorney at Law
Trial Lawyer Says Liberals Dominate SJC It was heartwarming for me, a Massachusetts trial lawyer, to see Professor Charles Rounds of Suffolk University Law School and Attorney Chester Darling of Boston, both of whom have worked tirelessly and thanklessly at personal cost over the years to uphold genuine Constitutional rights, featured in the April Massachusetts News. Isn’t it ironic that here in Massachusetts, where individuals took up arms for liberty in 1775, Professor Rounds and Attorney Darling have been treated as pariahs for upholding clear Constitutional rights in the face of hostility and opposition put forth by entrenched, intolerant, doctrinaire, reflexive, self-righteous, self-serving, hypocritical liberals. These liberals now dominate the Supreme Judicial Court, the Massachusetts Bar Association and the legal advocacy groups to which citizen tax dollars are funneled by our porcine liberal legislators. In addition, I.O.L.T.A. dollars, extorted by the Supreme Judicial Court from clients through their lawyers, are funneled to these groups as well. To make matters worse, the Supreme Judicial Court Justices are dependent for their pay and for the judicial budget upon the same porcine liberal legislators who continuously root around for more and more citizen tax dollars over at the Beacon Hill Hog Wallow located a few hundred yards from the Justices’ Pemberton Square chambers. It’s just one big happy incestuous family. While the Supreme Judicial Court was forcing Professor Rounds and Attorney
Darling to go all the way up to the United States Supreme Court in order
to vindicate obvious Constitutional rights, did it act as the champion
of citizens’ rights? No it did not. Two examples should suffice. First,
the Supreme Judicial Court upheld the Amiraults’ convictions, despite overwhelming
evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, including the manipulation of child
witnesses. All other convictions of day-care providers similarly obtained
during
a period of mass hysteria in Washington, California, New Jersey and Florida
have been thrown out by the high courts in those states. Second, the Supreme
Judicial Court came up with bogus and heretofore unheard of reasons for
invalidating citizens’ ballot initiatives, making it harder for the citizens
of Massachusetts to protect themselves from a venal, graft-ridden and predatory
legislature.
-James F. Gettens
DSS Commissioner Is Jeffrey Locke At least on a front page story, have the ability to get the name of
the DSS Commissioner correct. His name is not and, to the best of my knowledge,
has never been David Locke. How does one believe any of your subsequent
"facts" when you can’t even get a name (which is clearly publicly available)
correct?
Editor’s Comment: You are absolutely correct. There are at least four members of the Locke family from Wellesley that we know about. David Locke was the State Senator from Wellesley for many years and was the minority leader in the Senate. His son David is now a judge in Gardner, John is the Rep from Wellesley and Jeffrey is the Commissioner. We were so used to associating the name of Locke over many years with the father that we inadvertently typed David Locke by mistake. Good catch.
Thank you for the insights into the "abuse industry" in Massachusetts
and its unhealthy relationship with DSS. When going through a bitter divorce
(which I initiated), my ex-wife went to the emergency room with my youngest
son (who was "acting out") and immediately sought to end my visitation.
DSS got involved after a 5lA was filed. Although I have never had a criminal
record, I was given a service plan that included a batterer’s program.
I steadfastly refused to accept myself as a batterer and refused to have
this on my service plan. The female DSS worker said to me, "Mr. Rice, you
seem to have a problem with anger!" I am a professional counselor myself
and the cat-and-mouse game DSS plays does tend to raise your ire, which
incidentally only fosters their argument that you need counseling. It’s
an awful system that Nev Moore reports accurately and truthfully. It was
nice to hear a sane voice in the wilderness!
I want to commend you for your articles on DSS and adoption monetary
abuse! Thank you for telling the truth. So many other newspapers won’t
stir the waters with articles like yours. I was also extremely pleased
to see the piece on DSS reform. So much needs to be done. I am wondering
if it’s going to be too late for families in this country. Everyone seems
content to listen to statistics quoted by DSS. Parents no longer have control
over how their children are to be raised or disciplined. From day-one when
they begin attending school, children are told that they do not have to
do anything that they don’t want to. They are also told that their parents
cannot spank them and they are told to report any incidents to the school.
Counselors are rampant in school systems, under the guise of preventive
counseling. Ha! They are just there to add to the ranks of children in
state care. They prey on poor and single parents or anyone who doesn’t
fit their idea of parenting. Counselors seem to have a vested interest
in assuring that there are so many disturbed children. Americans need to
start waking up to the tragedy of what is happening to the family unit.
Thank you again for your article.
Christendom is Foundation of Western Civilization Anguished over what basically amounts to diatribes against the Catholic Church, I am replying to letter writers in the latest edition of the Massachusetts News who seem to think that traditional Christianity is the enemy of human freedom and that secular humanism is our savior. On the contrary, life on earth would be hell without the restraints exerted by a practical conviction in ultimate sanctions — namely, in the existence of a God who rewards good deeds and punishes evil deeds. As Dostoevsky asserted, in the absence of God every manner of evil would be permissible. This historical thesis is amply illustrated by the atrocities of the atheistic totalitarian regimes dominating the last two centuries: beginning with the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution, continuing with the scourges of State Socialism (Nazism and Communism) and culminating in the materialistic left-leaning democracies now suffocating the human spirit (while literally butchering the bodies of millions of innocent unborn babies). Nothing comparable in sheer horror has been perpetrated by adherents of Christianity, despite their sins, notwithstanding the old canards about the Crusades and the Inquisitions of past centuries. In fact, by hardly ever mentioning the contemporary, anti-religious persecutions of Communism (in Red China and Southeast Asian countries) and the oppressive policies of some militantly Islamic nations (e.g., Indonesia, Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.), the politically correct advocates of secularist ideology exhibit a blatant double-standard. Do they know, for instance, that the wicked regime of the Marxist Francisco Nguema in Spanish Guinea (Africa) during the 1970’s subjected thousands of professing Catholics to tortures involving brutal mutilation, live burial, and crucifixion? Are they aware that the murderous Moslem government of Sudan currently massacres and enslaves both Christians and Animists, that it mocks Christianity by threatening to crucify Catholic priests? A serious student of history would understand that Christendom, arising
from its Judaic precursor and incorporating the achievements of Graeco-Roman
culture, became the foundation of Western civilization and the bastion
of all authentic human progress. For example, the advances of science were
nurtured in universities established by the Church in the medieval period.
But without the counter-balancing moral precepts that the Church even more
strenuously defends, mankind is inclined to fall prey to the temptation
to play God through abuse of the power that technological innovations offer.
Indeed, in abandoning the Church’s sage guidance, secularism has descended
to such barbaric assaults on human dignity as abortion, harvesting and
marketing of fetal organs, coercive contraceptive programs, euthanasia,
and grotesque genetic experimentation.
Judges’ Ruling on Buffer Zones Is Biased Since February 18, 1981, I have been trying to make an issue of the double standard, existent within both our medical and legal communities, with regard to the so-called lawful, "medically necessary abortions." Since that time, politicians, lawyers, and pro-life leaders have given me the brush-off, most commonly with the silent treatment! Most recently, a ray of hope has entered my life in the form of a complimentary
copy of your paper! Therefore, I have some hope in mind that you might
champion a cause — or that you will at least make what I have said as public
as possible with the power of your press.
The latest issue of Massachusetts News was chock full of great journalism. I simply could not find the hate mail nor the lies and deceptions that some claim to have found. I guess if you report that it’s raining, many will conclude that you hate sunshine. Your ten-second quiz (Are We a "Body With a Mind" or a "Mind With a
Body") was intriguing. Keep up the great work. There is sanity in the state.
Homosexuals and their supporters who advocate the legalization of gay marriage tell us that gays ought to be as free to marry as anybody else, because they are no less human than the rest of us and are just as capable of forming loving relationships which provide mutual benefit. The ability to love and share love for mutual benefit seems to be the all-important justification for legal gay marriage. "Love is all you need." Love alone is the enabling factor for marriage. If you have it, you have enough to be married. Fine, let us adopt "love" as the single necessary and sufficient reason to justify marriage and let us see where this takes us. I love my biological sister and she loves me. We are committed to each
other. Together we are greater than the sum of our parts because our love
makes us better and happier. We want to be married to each other.
You better not tell me God forbids the love that I have for my sister because if you do, I’ll turn around and say that the same God forbids gays to have relations with each other. And if you tell me that you forbid it, I will say, "Who are you to say I can’t marry my sister?" My desires are no less valuable or valid than yours are. That’s what diversity and respect are all about. Just as I’m supposed to respect you even if you are different from me, you are supposed to respect me. If you tell me I can’t marry my sister, then you’re just a narrow-minded bigot. Imagine the nerve of you to say that there is something wrong with marrying my sister! Oh, did I say "sister?" I meant to say that I want to marry my "sisters."
I love all three of them. They love me. Ours is a committed and healthy
relationship.
Can I afford to support my expanded family? This is a legitimate question. People who can’t support the families they create do harm to the rest of us because we have to pick up the tab for their irresponsibility. You may be assured that I can support all of my wives and children even if none of them ever work a day. Children? Yes, we want children. You say our children have a greater chance of being born with some kind of congenital defect? Well, this is true; to say otherwise would be to deny the laws of Darwin and Mendel. But if I can support my children even if they have congenital problems, then it is none of your business whether I do or not. Lots of high-risk people bring children into the world all the time, and nobody says anything against them. For example, older parents have a lot greater risk of having children with Down’s Syndrome. If you can stop me from having children with my sisters, then why shouldn’t you stop older parents from having children too? In fact, while we’re at it, why don’t we simply set up a Nazi-style "Bureau of Eugenics," which will literally have the power of life or death over all pregnancies? After all, if you can define my children as intrinsically illegal, then in principle you have to concede that the government has jurisdiction over all important matters pertaining to the bedroom. Are you sure you really want to go down that road? And while we’re at it, why must I stop at marrying my sisters? After all, if we are permitting gays to marry and if I can marry my sisters, then I want to marry my brothers too! Who are you to say I can’t? I love them and they love me. Are you some kind of narrow-minded prude and bigot? And there’s one more kind of relationship that I want to enter into because I have such a big heart. No, it’s not interspecies love (though I see nothing wrong with that either) but I certainly do want to share love with those of whom NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) says, "Sex by eight or else it’s too late." Yes, I demand the right to make love to and marry children. Why shouldn’t I be able to marry and have sex with a child, some of whom by the way are also my brothers and sisters? After all, Judaism teaches that a child becomes an adult for religious purposes at age thirteen and the Catholic Church teaches that a child reaches the age of reason (and therefore consent) at age 7 (which is why children of that age receive First Communion). If a child of even seven tender years can understand and with comprehension say yes to a question, then who are you to say I can’t have sex with him or her before age sixteen? What magic happens exactly at age sixteen that enables a child to have sex? Is he or she not the same child at sixteen as he or she was the day before sixteen? Anyone who says I can’t share love with a child, whether my brother or not, is simply a reactionary, narrow-minded bigot. For that matter, I want a harem. I want it to be a real Rainbow Coalition of disadvantaged children from all over the world. Needy children, hungry children, sick children whom I can educate and bring back to health and happiness. All they have to do is to say yes when I ask them to marry me. And of course they will because any poor child wants to be magically lifted out of his poverty and misery. Of course, such a child will love me for the sacrifices I make for him. Everybody wins, everybody gains, and no one gets hurt at all. And who are you to say otherwise? I don’t really intend to do any of the above but in case anybody missed the point, here it is. The justification for gay marriage is that gays are as capable of loving, committed relationships as the rest of us. But if we permit gay marriage, we go down a slippery slope for which there’s no end, ever. If we allow gay marriage, we have given away any basis for opposing any kind of relationship imaginable. If gay marriage is valid then any kind of relationship can, ought and will be called marriage by somebody; and we will have lost any logical basis for opposition. Marriage will become subject to individual interpretation and taste.
The harmful effect of such a state of affairs speaks for itself. The society
that starts down this road will become unrecognizable by the time it reaches
the logical end.
I am not at the present time a citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, although at one time I did study and teach there. I just read one of the most startling and shocking articles about a sex education seminar paid for by Massachusetts taxpayers and presented by your state employees, who are sex education "specialists" and child welfare advocates, Margot Abels, Julie Netherland and Michael Gaucher. The article in question may be found at <www.massnews.com/maygsa.htm> (But please be forewarned. The article contains obscene, graphic and erotic descriptions.) According to the article, these three state-employed sex experts presided at and presented a seminar/workshop, entitled "Queer Sex for Youth 14-21." Apparently, children even younger than 14 were encouraged to attend this workshop, and some as young as 12 were in attendance. The adult "presenters" encouraged the children to openly discuss the "pleasures" of certain homosexual erotic behaviors including, among other things, a practice known as "fisting" whereby one sexual partner inserts his or her entire hand into the rectum or vagina of his or her partner to induce either pleasure or pain. In addition, all the other more commonly recognized deviant sexual behaviors and perversions were openly discussed and encouraged before these children. (And, by the way, apparently, there was little or no discussion about protection or so-called safe sex throughout the workshop. The emphasis here was focused strictly on the pleasure side of homoeroticism.) Have you people lost your minds? Do the vast majority of taxpayers in
Massachusetts realize that this is going on? Or do you try to keep
this sort of pedagogical foray into the moral and ethical abyss "under
wraps"?
With the joys of pedophilia and statutory rape now getting such a positive educational spin in your progressive classrooms, one wonders what new teaching vistas are about to be explored in your neck of the woods? After these things are normalized, what’s next? Polygamy? Incest? Bestiality? (Hey, why not? Don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it! Right?) No, seriously...I just wanted to thank you folks in New England for breaking new erotic ground in these important, previously taboo areas of human sexual behavioral patterns. Helping children to understand the subtle joys of inflicting erotic pain is certainly a worthy goal. Juvenile sadism and sodomy have certainly been branded with a bad name for far, far too long, after all! I look forward to the future cutting-edge pedagogical efforts of the Bay State educators. There are, I’m sure, many more exciting realms of sexual liberation and experimentation for children that have not yet been explored. We owe you so much. Keep up the good work! - Tom Graffagnino MFA, UMass ’78 |