 |
|
Letters to the Editor Children and Their Fathers | Marriage Amendment | War | Other Issues | Other Comments
Reform Impossible in DSSCurrent hearings before the legislature do not confront the serious issue of child removal for non-abusive reasons and where no danger exists. Furthermore, I don’t see how any reform legislation could ever be effective because social workers do not observe the existing laws and department policies, which govern their conduct. As for putting our extended trust in external law enforcement, we should keep in mind that it has been widely publicized that police officers reportedly threaten arrests when parents refuse to accept social worker services. The Attorney General’s office has full access to the files and serves as counsel to represent social workers. It does disregard department procedures, state laws and constitutional rights. As someone put it, “They all collect their pay checks from the same place and do not tell on each other.” I have not yet heard anyone address the fact that not one case against a social worker has ever been tried by a jury of our peers, the reason being that our court judges dismiss all jury trial cases against social workers in an unconstitutional court procedure called the “summary judgment” process. Another disturbing fact is that social workers verify “abuse” without a trial, with no conviction, no arrest, no doctor’s examination and sometimes no charges (if they’ve been withdrawn). This is America? At some point, we must realize that government has barred “the people” from decision-making processes, that millions of our state and federal tax dollars are funding a moneymaking, child-snatching racket, and that our liberties and freedoms are quickly evaporating under the illusion of safety. Since the social service system (inspired by the Soviet Union in 1918) is disengaged from the principles of a democracy, there is only one solution to this dilemma – pack them up and ship them out. - Marcia Ancona MassNews Helping FathersKeep up the good work of reporting and seeking the truth. I thank you all for having the courage to do so, and for helping us fathers who have been through the ringer and are still standing in front of judges and various state agencies, being stripped of our rights to be fathers to our children. - Michael J. Mullaney NH Rep Would Limit ‘No Fault’ Divorce to Those Without ChildrenI have introduced a bill which permits “no-fault” divorce only if there are no minor children. Life starts with unlimited dreams. We look to mom and dad for the hand we need to realize them. But for so many little ones, the hand they reach for is there only every other weekend. In 1960, 1-in-100 children tried to end their lives. In 1990, 1-in-20 became so desperate as to make an attempt on their lives. We have to send the kids to schools that have metal detectors; many pack their books in clear packs for security reasons. Why are young people killing each other? Why have our test scores declined? Why are our daughters becoming mothers far too soon, and why, with so much, are our children so unhappy? While blacks are disproportionately represented in jail, Asian youth are disproportionately seen in Harvard. Three out of four Asian children are raised with both biological parents; only 1-in-4 black children are brought up in a home with both mom and dad. As we march our children off to school this fall, we shouldn’t blame the teachers for our children’s failings. We should look to ourselves, for we have robbed them of the security they need to thrive. When one in two marriages ends in divorce, it should come as no surprise that our children seem to fight just to keep their heads above water. - Representative
Gary S. Hopper Need ‘Solutions,’ Not ComplaintsWe are always ready to complain about things that affect our families and us, but what we need is solutions, not so much “problem identification.” That is not meant as criticism of your efforts, but I thought that you might be interested in what Rep. Gary S. Hopper intends to do about things. [see above letter] We do need reporting on proactive events as well. Positive actions affecting our families in positive ways are so few and far between, it is easy to overlook them. - Walter H.
Schneider Editor’s Comment: The writer, Walter Schneider of Alberta, Canada, is looking to publicize his website which is fighting “fatherlessness” (not abortion as you might think from the title of his website). We agree with him that we must do positive things. But that will be impossible as long as we have female judges who have an intense dislike both of men and of those women who like men (and create families with them). We must have “problem identification” and understand that those dysfunctional people do exist as judges. Dedham Probate Official in ‘Morass’After having read the interview with Ed Harrington [the coordinator at the Dedham Probate Court], I am compelled to offer my own thoughts on this matter. My own experience of the last six years with that court has been nothing less than an education in just how perverse and destructive our family law system has become. Time and space do not permit me to offer the litany of ridiculous and monumentally stupid court actions witnessed in my own case, not to mention the more important matter of the destruction rained upon the lives of my own children. This of course bespeaks the court’s alliance with a decidedly unconstitutional execution of law against fathers who are viciously and forcefully ejected from the lives of their children. - Name Withheld Harrington Fails to Understand FathersI’ve recently read your article regarding the counter protest at Dedham Probate Court. MassNews states some of the arguments made by Ed Harrington, a coordinator at the courthouse. Harrington said that the protestors are going about the issue of unfair family court practices against fathers the wrong way and that “the protestors need to tone it down and get into an intelligent conversation with people to exchange information.” What Mr. Harrington fails to understand is that this situation with people marching was created because fathers have been trying to be heard but the powers-that-be don’t want to listen. How many times do fathers have to go into court with legitimate gripes only to be told, in so many words, “Tough luck”? How many fathers have come into court with documents from health care professionals that state that mom has psychological problems that may cause harm to the child and how many judges look the other way and side with the mentally-impaired mom? Good fathers just want to have a role in raising their kids. We also want the court to be fair. As for Mr. Harrington, if you have worked in the court for 23 years then you should be aware of the information that exists that women get custody 90 percent of the time, that judges are aware that women abuse 209A restraining orders, and that Munchausens and Parental Alienation cases exist. Not all men make up stories to get custody of their children. Some actually love and care about their kids. The fact is that men get the short end of the stick in family court. - Greg Rodgers Time for ‘New Blood’ in CourtsI have watched for some time the problems in the domestic relations sector of the Mass. courts. The Ken Newell case is typical of so many cases across our great nation. Why do judges continue to allow malicious parents to retain custody and to use children as pawns in hateful games of revenge? This case, with what little I’ve read, reeks of so much bias and malfeasance, that were Mr. Newell afforded the opportunity to present his case to a jury and have it resolved, he would have custody and the games would come to an end. But that is not the case. Fathers are subjected to extreme abuse in the courts, the child support collection system, DSS and the flagrant deprivation of their constitutional rights. Police departments like Holbrook and Brockton should have more sense! But they are typical of many such agencies in America that assume men are evil and women can do no wrong! Fathers have tried for years to get the lawmakers and judiciary to fix the problem, but the problem seems to be the lawmakers and the judiciary themselves!! Maybe it’s time for new blood! Who will stand up and lead? - Michael Galluzzo Why Is Mrs. Newell Not Prosecuted?I live in Florida and read your newspaper online. I’m a retired deputy sheriff. After dealing with domestic cases for years, I have a question for your law-enforcement officers. Why in heaven’s name has Mrs. Newell, after filing dozens of false police reports alleging abuse by her ex-husband, not been charged, arrested and prosecuted for these crimes? This shows a very serious lack of justice for Mr. Newell. Massachusetts has a law on the books about filing false reports, does it not? Or is it that your law-enforcement leaders will not let the officers do their duties and arrest her? It has to be one or the other. - Steven Burgess Gay/Activist Violence Nothing NewI just came upon your article detailing how homosexual activists are using violence and intimidation to prevent people from gathering signatures on petitions. What is so frustrating is the actions utilized by the homosexual activists are nothing new. These tactics are part of a “play book” utilized around the country to impose their agenda. Because homosexual activists are considered to be “politically correct,” their activities don’t usually receive the widespread coverage they should. So most people are really unaware of just how violent the homosexual rights movement really is. The fact that it does not receive the coverage it should in the “main stream media” is truly criminal. - Edward Towle Editor’s Comment: The vast majority of homosexuals do not like the violence anymore than anyone else, but they are hesitant to speak out just like we all are. Gov’t Should Stay Out of MarriageGiven that our Constitutions exist to limit democracy, with the goal of protecting individual liberty from the tyranny of the democratic majority, I’m puzzled by MassNews’ apparent support for Bryan Rudnick’s anti-Constitutional petition. This ballot initiative to amend our Constitution to institute discrimination against a minority is a clear violation of its very spirit. Marriage should not be subject to the approval of politicians in the first place. If we had never allowed politics into this highly personal area, then we would not be dealing with the controversy of whether “gay” marriage should be condoned by the state. In a free society, it’s not the state’s job to condone (or disparage) the individual’s choice of spouse. So the answer to this dilemma is not to “let the people decide,” as young Mr. Rudnick suggests. The people have no more right to dictate the gender of their spouses than the politicians have. No, the answer is to get government completely out of an area it should never have entered in the first place. Then the state won’t be condoning a thing. Instead, the matter will properly be up to different churches/religions to decide. - Rich Aucoin Editor’s Comment: Marriage has been created by every society to help and protect children and their mothers, not partners. We have it there to tell men and women that if they are going to produce children, they have a responsibility to care for those children. You can live and play with whomever you want, but we will hold you responsible to care for those children you create. It is a religious issue only for those who are religious. For everyone else it is a secular issue which has always made sense to the vast majority – particularly to the women. The Amendment is not to change the law; it is to keep the law as it has always been. When our Constitution was first enacted, everyone knew that marriage was only between one man and one woman. Because some are now challenging that truism, it is necessary to add the words to the Constitution so that it will continue Your attempt to deprecate Bryan Rudnick because he is younger than you is not nice. With your age and wisdom, perhaps you would like to volunteer and replace one of our “younger” troops who are much too young to be fighting to protect you around the world. (The average age of the teenage soldiers we drafted and sent to Vietnam was nineteen.) Flag Stands for Freedom to Criticize ItMy flag is the one that’s flown proudly and whose country allows us to state our views because they are just views, or opinions. My flag has flown over every naval vessel I’ve served on for 21 years and while I don’t like [Jennie Traschen’s] opinion I’d risk death anytime to keep her free to make it. That’s America. - Keith Ott ACLU Will Protect Disloyal CitizenWTTK Talk Radio host Laura Ingraham interviewed a young Islamic fellow who had been quoted by the New York Post as saying, “If he finds himself torn between Allah and the United States government he will fight the United States government.” The young man in question seemed all too assured that he could enjoy all the benefits of American citizenship while taking up arms against the United States on behalf of a Moslem enemy abroad. There was a time when any American citizen understood the limitations of citizenship. Dual citizenship is no protection against allegiance to The United States. He can forfeit his citizenship and seek refuge in an Islamic country to carry out his religious requirements. He hopes to prove his commitment to Allah. The ACLU will bare its skeleton on this church vs. state case. It will follow the money! - M. Goduti Foreigners See American Flag DifferentlyThanks for sharing your interesting thoughts about the “dark-haired woman named Jennie Traschen.” Her lack of candor, which you point out is so obvious in her utterly insincere rant, “Targeted for Hate Mail,” makes it abundantly clear that the supposed hate emails she got were really just enraged veterans politely disagreeing with her, in the style of classic American lovers of free speech. Although the United States in its short history has been involved in over 200 foreign wars, as Izzy Lyman so astutely points out, Traschen’s “‘I hate America’ sentiments reflect a lack of gratitude for all the blood we’ve shed on foreign soil.” Unfortunately, the millions of foreigners whose blood was shed on their own soil wanted it to happen about as much as the innocent victims of New York did, and so many of those foreigners see your flag differently than you do. I suppose that thought might be beyond what many Americans are able to appreciate, but at least it isn’t beyond one of your university professors. - Bruce MacDonald Editor’s Comment: Izzy Lyman did not say that we have been involved in 200 foreign wars. It would be interesting to know what you include on that list. As for the “foreigners” who see our flag “differently,” would you include Stephan Ross of Newton who says, “What I remember most about my liberation [from the holocaust at Dachau] is my tears being spilled on a small American flag.” Or the South Korean people who saw their subjection by Japan ended after many years in 1945 and their country protected in 1950 from the Communist menace which has made North Korea one of the worst places to live on the planet? Patriotism Inextricable from Love of FreedomIn this time of intense patriotism, who among us is truly ready to risk death for our freedoms? I suspect that many people deeply believe that they are. But which freedoms will they risk death to preserve? The freedom of privacy? Of habeas corpus? Of speech? Of free assembly? Of free expression? The freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Are we willing to risk death at the hands of terrorists as the price for these freedoms? I see many people waving our flag and, remarkably, at the same time proclaiming that we must give up our Constitutional freedoms in order to be safer. I see members of Congress quick to legislate away our freedoms for our safety. Where is the courage and patriotism in that? Now that we must choose between safety and freedom, we must not flinch if our flag is to mean anything: The courage of our convictions is being tested by history. We should let our representative know that we are not so fearful as to have them legislate away the freedoms and privacies that the other generations have died to give us. - Dennis M.
Burke Pawlick’s Assertion ‘Bizarre’In his Oct. 10 news analysis, Mr. Pawlick says, “The Boston Globe continues to remind us how they got us involved in Vietnam back in 1965, along with their liberal friends.” How are they reminding us of this bizarre assertion? Apparently by publishing pictures and accounts of allegedly, staged peace demonstrations, the subject of Pawlick’s analysis! How reporting real or fictitious opposition to war could help get us involved in a war is beyond my comprehension. Pawlick’s monomaniacal hatred of liberals has once again led him to an illogical and absurd conclusion. - Stephen Sossaman Editor’s Comment: The Boston Globe does not have the courage to say our troops should not be in Afghanistan. But as soon as the fighting gets tough, they will desert those troops, the same as they did in Vietnam. We were on the right side in Vietnam but we should have helped the Vietnamese fight their own war, not drafted American teenagers. Hopefully, President Bush will be smarter and let the Afghan people solve their own problems with little help from us. The Globe’s staging of a peace protest in Boston shows exactly where they are heading as soon as they think it will “fly” with the people. ‘Ground Zero’ ExampleThose rescue workers, police officers and soldiers are pro-lifers’ examples. For those women and their pre-born babies coming into the abortion clinic, pro-lifers are at Ground Zero. For pro-lifers to stop showing the truth about abortion with those graphic signs would be no different than our police and armed forces abandoning their posts. We must never forget. - Robert Mayo Stay-at-Home Moms Are VitalOne must not look too far these days to find someone placing the blame for society’s many ills on the working mother. The point of my letter is not to dispute the legitimacy of these theories. However, almost every person who engages in “work” (including stay-at-home mothers) wants to feel good about what they do. In the outside workplace, we have to occasionally get a pat on the back (verbal or by raise in pay). Unfortunately, when a mother leaves this praise-filled environment and stays at home to raise her children, she is often met with such comments as “What did you do all day?” with the implication that raising children is an easy job. In addition, many women complain about lack of any say at all in normal financial affairs of the household once they leave their outside positions. The effect of these occurrences is that many women feel that they lose a sense of self-worth for not “earning a paycheck.” Admit it or not, caring for children is the most important job in our society. We must treat the people who put their careers on hold in order to accomplish this mission with appropriate respect. To the mothers who do it, I say: “Consider this more important than anything you were doing outside of the home, because indeed it is.” To the husbands of these women, I say, “Don’t think for a minute that your wife does nothing because she does not earn a paycheck. Don’t change how finances were handled because she doesn’t earn a paycheck. Don’t treat her like she is substandard because she’s raising your children at home, or she just might go back to work like so many others. Perhaps then you can ask the $150/week daycare provider what she did all day.” - Mary Champagne Beacon Hill Won’t ListenWhat does it take to get our representatives on Beacon Hill to listen? A year ago, we were told by the tax-and-spenders that if we passed the initiative petition to repeal the “temporary” surtax that had been added to our income tax ten years ago, the state would be devastated. Essential programs would have to be sacrificed. People would be starving in the streets. We said, “You’re bluffing.” We told the legislature that we wanted our tax reduction, and we were prepared to face the consequences. Year after year of budget surpluses, and year after year of new programs, cost overruns and higher ceilings on the “Rainy Day Fund,” had convinced us that whatever money Beacon Hill had, they would spend. During the last year, we heard many complaints from the legislators about how tough it was to find the money for the new programs they wanted to enact. They didn’t catch on that we didn’t want new programs; we wanted a government that lived within their, and our, means. We heard about how they couldn’t afford to fund “clean elections,” despite our having approved it overwhelmingly. But they could afford to put more and more into the Rainy Day Fund. If the economy suffered, and everyone had to cut back, surely the state shouldn’t have to cut back too. Well, the economy has suffered. Will the legislature finally discover fiscal conservatism? Not a chance, with an election only a year away and lots of special interests to be bribed. Will they tap the rainy day fund? Certainly not when there are cronies begging for patronage positions and golden handshakes. Will they finally cut essential programs? No, they would rather cut our self-enacted tax relief. What does it take to get our representatives on Beacon Hill to listen? That’s a trick question. You can’t get them to listen. You can only throw them out. - Richard N.
Freedman MassNews ‘Propaganderish’I feel sorry for you for wasting your time on sad articles that seem to be quite immature in quality and propaganderish in content. As a supposed “news organization,” you should seek the truth. Why not conduct an in-depth research into homosexuality and the Bible in order to show your readers the truth. Please help create a happy loving society that perhaps is a little more caring and understanding, rather than one that is fueled by anger and hate. At the least, lose the biased articles. - Andrew Skilling Editor’s Response: Please write back and specifically tell us which articles are biased. As for the in depth research of homosexuality and the Bible, we did that before we had a print paper but you can still read all 28-pages for free in our Archives under, “An Intelligent Discussion About Homosexuality.” ‘You Guys Are Great’I think you guys are great. Keep up the good work. Keep telling the truth. I wish your newspaper many blessings. - T.W. Gay Lifestyle, Health ConnectedAs a recent blood donor, I have had some concerns about our nation’s blood supply. I submitted my vote for the question, “Should homosexuals be allowed to give blood during this crisis?” [at www.vote.com]. My vote was a resounding “no.” What I found disturbing is that in the nationwide response, there was a sizable “yes” vote column from the participants, though not the majority. However, in the Massachusetts table, the majority of voters said “yes”! Despite any testing methods, why would we ever choose to risk tainting our precious blood supply by knowingly accepting homosexual donors? What is even more frightening is that there are members of society that willfully and knowingly engage in unnatural, high-risk sex acts. Yet, they feel that they are as entitled to give blood like anyone else. The worst part is that they scream “bigot” and “homophobe” whenever someone raises concerns about the connection between their lifestyle and their health. We cannot let gay activists convince us that blood diseases from their community are the same as ones spread genetically (sickle cell anemia, for example). While consenting adults are free to conduct themselves as they please in private, the rest of society should not have to bear the burden of the results of their actions. The bottom line is that I urge us to support screening for donors based on their lifestyle. We should not cave in to a small minority who want their lifestyle protected. Our blood supply is not worth the risk. - Peter Brown Religious Leaders, Hate Crime Law Need ExposureAs a charter subscriber to MassNews, I am most impressed with the newspaper and the void that it fills in this state. While you cover DSS abuses and the homosexual lobby in detail, there are two areas that also need equal treatment. First of all, religious leaders need to be taken to task for their “non-leadership” roles on these issues, Cardinal Law in particular; the Archdiocese should be in the forefront here. You should hit them hard like you do the DSS, but inside a velvet glove, of course. Secondly, these totalitarian “hate crime” laws, which gut the First Amendment, are right out of Nazi Germany, Communist Russia and Red China. Could you find time to cover these areas? They do need the exposure. - Neil F. Dunn Vet ‘Outraged’ at TraschenAs a veteran from a family with generations of veterans, I am outraged at Jennie Traschen’s comments about the American flag. I know that one of our rights as Americans is the right to freedom of speech but when people like her say things like that I can’t help but wonder why they stay here. I know that if I felt like she does, there is no way that anyone could get me to stay here in this country. I would have to find somewhere else to live. - J. Williams Editor’s Comment: It’s too bad that Prof. Traschen is so strident because we need a good debate as to our proper role in all of this. But her intolerant tones are preventing the debate on how far we should go in being the policeman for all the world. Globe Presents ‘Unbiased Reports’When my family received a copy of Massachusetts News at my house, I was angered by the bigotry that I saw. I prefer the Globe, which has mostly unbiased reports, and includes both conservative and liberal views on its editorial pages. The Herald has mostly unbiased reporting too, but their editorials are almost completely filled with conservative views. Yours, on the other hand, had completely opinionated articles, filled to the brim with homophobia and sexism. You say the homosexuals are trying to abolish a law that prevents polygamy and other things. What they are trying to do is abolish a law that prevents gay marriages. If there was a new law that did all those things except prevent gay marriage, then the GSA community would have no problem with it. You also made reference to [Rachel] Cohen [Editorial page editor at the Herald] saying that the thousands of children will have to live in single parent families. What she meant was they will have to live in single parent families without any advanced knowledge, planning, preparation, etc. Now I know you will call this hate mail, but I would call it anti-ignorance mail. Please, look at the fact that people just want equal rights, which is what this country was founded on. - Chris Kelley-Hoffman Editor’s Comment: You obviously do not know what “hate mail” is, because your letter to us does not even come close to that category. But it is sad that you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is “filled to the brim with homophobia and sexism.” Please don’t have that attitude, for your own good. Everyone through the years has always known that “homosexual marriage” is an oxymoron. It’s no different today except that radical feminists have obtained a lot of power because of the Civil Rights Act, and many women do not realize what the feminists have in store for all women. Your attempt to protect Rachel Cohen is difficult to understand. You say that the Editorials at the Herald are “almost completely filled with conservative views” even though you know that Cohen is the Editor. She is clearly not a conservative. Her views are not different from those of the Globe. Gun Owners Bill ‘Ridiculous’The bill to list owners’ names and addresses (bill 11681) is ridiculous. Why not list the names of the Representatives and Senators who gave the police the authority over gun permits in time for the next election? We knocked Cheryl Jacques out in the Ninth District. Maybe we can get rid of some more screwballs across the state. How about listing police stations that force applicants to join a gun club to get a license? Some of these issuing officers make Barney Fief (Don Knotts) look good. If your paper keeps putting out the news like the one I just read, you will have a new subscriber. I cannot sign this because we are becoming a police state and my license would be revoked. The politicians don’t realize that police chiefs don’t elect them! - Name Withheld
|
Copyright ©2001 Massachusetts News, Inc. Photocopying and data processing storage of all or any part of this issue may not be made without prior written consent. |