 |
Letters to the EditorCorrection:
The
following letter corrects captions in the article about Robert
Bradley's service in Vietnam. Someone
else wrote the captions for my Vietnam War article that you
published in the June edition of the Massachusetts News. Two
corrections on the captions are in order: My Swift boat
patrolled along the coastline and in the Cua Dai river basin of
I Corp, which was 400-500 miles from the area where Senator
Kerry conducted his missions. I transported Seals on two
missions in the Cua Dai river basin, not "many
missions." Thank
you for publishing my article. -
Robert H. Bradley Well
Said, Mickey Mouselover!
"People
for the Ethical Treatment of ALL Animals" is a brilliant
idea! Inspired! Now,
let us take PETAA to the next level. All animals, all life on
Earth, must be protected and cherished. All life is precious or
the whole protection argument becomes a lie. All
meat must be outlawed, immediately. No more murder of cattle,
pigs, chickens. Our furry friends deserve much better treatment. Heaven
forbid that fish are stressed by the hook! Can nets be any less
stressful? No more seafood (what a horrid term) at all. No more
fish, calamari, clams, oysters. Our finny friends deserve
ethical treatment too. We
should eat nothing but vegetables. But
wait! Vegetables grow in huge fields, where our little furry
friends are excluded. That can't be right. Starvation is
certainly unethical, so let those deer and raccoons have free
run of the fields. Outlaw all fences, for they keep our friends
away from their food. Insects
are alive, so they deserve ethical treatment. No more
pesticides! What could be worse than dying in a foul mist, like
some World War I soldier gasping for breath in a gas attack? Ban
all pesticides, even the organic ones, for they are certainly
cruel to our six-legged friends.
The
more life in those farm fields, the better. Grab a picket sign
and go tell your local farmer how you feel. Locusts need love
too, you know! In
fact, why are we stopping any animal from feeding in their
chosen way? Ban all mosquito nets and repellents now! A beaver
is alive and deserves legal protection, but mosquitoes are not?
Where did that disgusting concept come from? There
is so much life on Earth, and all life is important! Period! Not
negotiable! And
just because we can't see some of these life forms, does that
mean they deserve cruelty and unfair treatment? Of course not! Bacteria
and germs are just as alive as you and I, so why are they shown
such brutality? No more soap, no more antiseptics, no more
forced sterilization. If you have a festering sore, rejoice! You
are hosting millions of little friends in that oozing cut!
Antibiotics are cruel to our single-celled brothers and sisters.
Ban them too! All
life on Earth is precious, and must be protected. All of it. -
Bill Conlon Abortionists
Should Choose Life
The
Bible says, "This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses
against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings
and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may
live." (Deuteronomy 30:19) Recently
it was the Prolife Action Network's "choice" to
"out" abortionist Steve Ralston in Boston by a picket
of his home area. May he and all other abortionists choose life
for themselves and for all. This is my prayer. -
Robert Mayo Thanks
for Courageous Reporting
I
write to thank you for your honest courageous reporting,
especially on the Fistgate scandal. GLSEN
is now expanding their sex programs in Cape Cod schools. I wrote
two letters to the Editor of the Cape Cod Times concerning the
scandalous results at Tufts. Neither letter was printed. I
am writing to John Wilcox, president and publisher of the Cape
Cod Times on this matter. I also am asking why no mention of the
killing of Max Kolb, a Massachusetts resident, although it made
headlines in the Boston Herald, New York Post and was even
reported by the New York Times. I,
like most parents, good parents, can argue on the proper
teaching of tolerance toward an individual who engages in
harmful activities. However, this does not mean approving,
condoning or promoting such unsafe practices as homosexuality,
illicit drug use, tobacco use or any activity that is harmful to
the moral or physical welfare of children. In
this regard, your role is as a beacon of truth and courage. Keep
up the good work. -
Kevin J. Donnelly Digging
to China
Y'all
ever think of applying for citizenship in the People's Republic
of China? They can't be very far left from where your state is
headed. I suspect we will be accepting refugees from
Massachusetts soon. You have my sympathy. -
James A. Cherolis III Libertarian
Encouraged by 'Honest Journalism'
I
have just been made aware of your paper/site. I am very
encouraged to see such a source of honest journalism. I am
simultaneously saddened to learn the extent of the media
blackout of such important issues in the Commonwealth as your
paper has shed light upon. Rest
assured that your site will be daily reading from this time
forward. -
Jim Fredrickson Father/Child
Relationship Neglected by Courts
Recently,
many of our nation's major newspapers and magazines cited the
U.S. Census Report 2000 statistic that shows a steady decline in
married households with an increase in single parent households.
The census also indicates that single mother households with
children outnumber single father households by more than 3.5
times. Additionally, but not cited in the report, is the
commonly known statistic that mothers are awarded custody of
children about 90 percent of the time in divorce and separation
while fathers are relegated to non-custodial
"visitors" of their children. Our
nation's family courts determine custody in this manner with,
what appears to be, a faulty interpretation of the "best
interests of the child" standard since research indicates
that children with their dads do just as well as or better than
they do with their moms. The notion that children are served
better when mom cares for them is just another myth in the realm
of family law that puts the child/father relationship at a major
disadvantage. Why
does the bias exist? One theory is that America is infatuated
with groups that qualify for "victim" status -- so
much so that our state bureaucracy is ever ready to aid these
groups regardless of whether innocent people, like fathers and
children, suffer unjustly. A
victim group in our society can receive layers of government
funding and benefits. Yet, if you are not from that select
group, well then, you are just out of luck. For instance,
divorced and unwed fathers receive little assistance from our
government, and even if, by slim chance, a father is granted
custody, he will rarely receive child support from the mother
because the courts do not impose or enforce it. There
are times when men and fathers inadvertently receive state
assistance, but not under the guise of victimhood. They receive
it in the form of "crisis" intervention when they are
incarcerated for not being "responsible" or when they
become homeless, destitute or chronically infirmed as a result
of sex discrimination against them. Massachusetts
is just one of several states in this country with bad family
law and policy. The Commonwealth has been highly effective at
creating a subculture of poor fathers who have been forcibly
dissociated from their children even when these dads have proven
that they are willing, competent and loving parents. It is
tragically sad to see fathers in their twenties emotionally
wounded because they have never had the opportunity to truly
parent their children or to be more active in their kids' lives.
This epidemic continues even when there is evidence, such as in
a recent Harris poll, that indicates young men are approximately
seven percent more likely to give up pay to be with their
families than women of the same age group. This is an obvious
cultural shift that the government fails to recognize. Why
does the court play interference on fathers? Does it do so to
protect its own interests in the name of protecting a select
group of victims? Regardless
of bureaucratic motives, men, fathers and children continue to
be violated by the family court, a forum having little to do
with justice or equal rights, but more to do with helping women
and mothers receive entitlements based on their
"victim" status. Fathers become hostages to an
oppressive system the first time they seek justice during
custody disputes in family court. So why are men not considered
victims? Perhaps it is not our time; however, if we can only
convince the state that men and fathers are present- day
victims, we might be able to get government aid without having
to go to jail, the poor house or the hospital. -
Mike Franco Judge
Lopez and Others Can Hide
Tell
me why you never see repeated what Judge Lopez said on the news
about how crimes to children, on a scale of 1 to 10, are very
low on the scale. Hence her decision. Seems the very same for
all the juvenile justices in Massachusetts who have nothing to
worry about; after all, they are appointed for life and can
"hide" behind confidentiality in their cases. There's
no accountability. -
Kathleen Bruens Too
Many Articles on Homosexuals
I
am a graduating high school student and non-practicing Catholic.
What led me to read your paper was the fact that there were at
least nine articles on homosexuals. Can
a paper really be that interesting if all you are going to do is
bash what you call "pride?" How many children who have
grown up with either two mothers or two fathers have come out
screwed up compared to the ones who came out fine? And wouldn't
you think homosexuals would all change if they could,
considering the crap they have to deal with -- nine articles in
one newspaper! Why
are homosexuals bad people? Do they hurt others? Only as much as
you or I do. You
are not God and neither are these people who you discriminate
against. Please stop attacking people who you claim see
themselves as "different." The only way they are
"different" is because they are obviously more
open-minded. I have more respect for them because at least they
don't go around writing articles about how stupid
straight/heterosexual people are and making them feel like s--.
You mocked their Pride March and picked them apart because of
one small bad incident about some lesbians teaching people to
chant obscene words! More than 1000 students marched in that
parade and they were not all gay or lesbian! That is fact! And I
bet only 1/5 of the marchers saw these women and repeated after
them. Please
write back. With an understanding that life isn't fair I can
understand an article or two in a newspaper about homosexuality
in a negative tone, but not the 8 or 9 that I saw it mentioned
in your newspaper. That's beyond uncalled for! -
Caitlin Editor's
Comment: I wish you would write back and tell us where you find
anything in our paper that says that homosexuals are
"bad" people. You can go through all the papers we
have ever printed and you will never find anything that is even
close to that. Many
of us are concerned because students are taught only very
positive things about homosexuality. They are not being told the
many negatives. I have friends who are cigarette smokers, but I
would not want them teaching that smoking is a wonderful habit.
I don't hate those friends. I just don't want them advocating
smoking in the schools. As
for the number of articles, please remember that one of our
primary missions is to counter the tremendous influence of the
Boston Globe. And they talk about homosexuality a lot! If they
mention it a lot, we must do so also if we are going to respond.
(I also believe your count of our homosexual stories is high.) Gun
Article Poorly Researched
I
received your complimentary copy of The Massachusetts News in
the mail today and I can't quite understand if your views are
coming from the extreme right or the extreme left. In my case, I
think of myself as a conservative Catholic Republican, but I'd
like to think that most of all I am all about common sense. Of
all the articles I had read, the one by Curt Lovelace concerning
the Concord Police Department and Mr. Alec Costerus bothered me
the most. I
work for a suburban police department as a civilian dispatcher,
and I deal with many issues regarding firearms and firearm
licensing. Your article does not paint a complete picture of
what occurred, or how the licensing works. First
of all, the old FID cards, although they did not have an
expiration date on them, the new law expired the old FID on the
holder's upcoming birth date that year. Secondly,
the article does not clarify which type of Firearm Safety Course
he is qualified to teach. Under the new laws, there are courses
for FID-rifles and long guns, and other courses for LTC-handguns
and large capacity weapons. Even
with a valid FID and having attended a certified FID training
course, his possession of the handguns would still be invalid
because he didn't have a license to carry/LTC course. And I also
believe that under the new gun laws, even with the firearms
being at his home, he still might have been in violation of the
law. Now
it does sound as if his home was searched without a warrant, and
his arrest seems out of the ordinary, but that was not verified
in your article. And in the letter the chief of police sent him,
it mentions Mr. Costerus' "recent involvement in domestic
and firearms related issues in the Town of Concord." What
did he mean by "domestic issues?" Has he been in
trouble with the police before? This was never clear either. How
can you say your publication is any better than the Boston Globe
or other forms of media when your article leaves so many issues
unclarified and unresolved? I believe that Americans have the
constitutional right to bear arms, but I also believe that we
should follow the laws that we have until we can change them
through the process that our forefathers started. I
think that next time you want to advertise for someone's defense
fund, as in Mr. Costerus' case, you should complete all of the
information so that the reader can make a decision on his own.
My common sense tells me that your views are almost as one sided
as the other guy's. P.
Hogan Editor's
Response: You are absolutely correct that the story about Alec
Costerus was one-sided. That was only because the Concord Police
Department is apparently too embarrassed to talk about it. We
made several attempts to speak with representatives of the
Concord Police Department. The Chief and the officer involved
declined to comment or return calls. We were eager to include
their viewpoint but were not afforded the opportunity. You
raise the matter of "domestic issues," which Chief
Wetherbee used to substantiate his denial of a license to
Costerus. Everyone is puzzled and troubled by that libelous
statement, particularly Costerus, because he has a clean record
and has never been accused of anything. Regarding
the technicalities of the new licensing law and the transition
from FID cards, we find it odd that you tell us of your
familiarity with firearms licensing because of your position,
yet you seem to be unclear what the law says. Nevertheless, you
are willing to state that you "believe" Costerus
"might have been in violation of the law." If it is
your job to know and you are unclear, how does an ordinary
citizen feel? Actually, It appears that under the new law,
previously-issued FID cards, which were originally issued for
life, expire on a rolling schedule. Each was to expire on the
cardholder's next birthday after July 1, 1999. In the case of
Costerus this would have been April, 2000. Until then, his FID
card would be valid and he could keep his handguns in his home.
The Concord Police Department confiscated his weapons in March
1999, before any FID cards had expired. Under
the new firearms law, there is only one Basic Firearms Safety
Course qualification. There are several ways in which that
qualification can be met. Costerus is certified by both the
National Rifle Association and the Massachusetts State Police
pursuant to Massachusetts General Law. Finally,
we agree with you that "we should follow the laws that we
have until we change them through the process that our
forefathers started." We believe that Costerus sought to
stay within the law at all times. He voluntarily went to the
police station to find out what his legal situation was when he
returned to his home state from employment in another part of
the country. He even offered to turn over his weapons until such
time as he could complete the transition to a new License to
Carry. Now he is seeking to change the law, which he believes
puts too much discretion in the hands of local chiefs of police,
who may use that power in a discriminatory manner. There is one thing we can all agree upon. The treatment of Alec Costerus by the Concord Police Department was apparently outrageous in the extreme. It's no wonder they are embarrassed. Great
Paper, Bad Writing; Hard to Believe Minuteman Library Network
I
discovered The Massachusetts News recently in my drugstore.
Never having heard of it, I picked up a copy and have endeavored
to read it. I begin by stating that I am glad to see there is a
paper in this state that advocates traditional values. In
general I agree with your positions on various issues. However I
find the writing difficult to read and often confusing. For
example: 1.
Some articles are written as if the reader has some
foreknowledge of the subject, such as the business at Wellesley
College. I've never heard about this issue. I know a few
Wellesley graduates and none of them have even mentioned it.
Therefore I would expect an article on the subject to give the
facts of the case before beginning an opinion. 2.
One article had a headline that did not relate directly to the
subject, "Young men cautioned about getting married,"
then it goes into the Newell case. 3.
Some articles are so disorganized I could not understand what
was going on - the Emily Rooney article on page 8 for example.
Was the transcript taken from the talk show or the WGBH
broadcast? It doesn't say who the announcer is. What does
Rolling Stone Magazine have to do with it? The cheap shot at the
Phoenix was not appropriate for good journalism. It may be true
but it just makes you look petty. As in other articles you don't
state the facts about what was said on the original WGBH show. 4.
The article about the Minuteman Library Network had a valid
point but it would have been more effective if you would just
give the reader the website and let him go see for himself. The
article never gave the web address. I had to search for it. The
article states that "Just Say Yes" is the motto of CPS
and the first thing you see on their site. Neither is true. It
is merely a choice on their menu. By exaggerating you weaken
your case. 5.
The Cellucci appointment article went on for pages denouncing
the former governor without saying why he was not suitable. In
fact there were no less than seven articles on the subject and
only one specified your objections. The reader has to read
hundreds of words to get to the heart of the subject. 6.
There were three articles devoted to something called
"Fistgate." What on earth is that? What in the hell is
"fisting?" What the hell is GLSEN and why should I
care about them? You need to explain these issues and give the
facts. Don't tire the reader with pages and pages of accusations
and opinions. 7.
The article on the "Parents Rights" bill leads off
mentioning a hearing. What hearing? Where? Who held it? The
state legislature? What do "opt-in" and
"opt-out" mean? Again it's unclear and incomplete, and
you don't provide enough facts. I
apologize for sounding critical; I don't mean to discourage.
What you are doing is important and I applaud you for your
efforts. However, this paper needs better, clearer and more
factual writing to be effective with the general public. -
W.S Editor's
Comment: I understand it's very frustrating when you find
everyone talking about something that you've never heard of.
It's also very difficult for our editors to always go back and
explain things for the reader who is trying to catch up. This
also points out how much someone misses if you're getting all
your information from sources other than MassNews. But I have
one prediction. If you join our thousands of Massachusetts
subscribers and web readers, you will be up-to-speed very
quickly. As
far as the Minuteman Library Network is concerned, there is no
question that the librarians in all of the towns that support
this Network are advising children to be sexually active. When a
child goes to the home site of CPS, they see the logo,
"Coalition for Positive Sexuality," in the upper
left-hand corner. Directly under it is "Just Say Yes,"
which is a link to another part of their site. At the top of
their site in the center of the home page is the following: "You
have the right to complete and honest sex education. Demand
information from your school, healthcare provider and parents. "We
have a quick and easy online tour through the most important
topics for teens who are sexually active or just thinking about
sex. It's called 'Just Say Yes' [link] because we're tired of
people telling us what we can and can't do. There's no
preaching. No moralizing. Just the facts." I'm
sure that 90% of parents do not expect their local libraries to
be recommending sexual activity to their children! What is wrong
with our librarians? Why do they keep recommending this site to
children? Why are they so stubborn? It
is probably good they are doing this because it spotlights the
serious problems that we have with the morals and judgment of
those who are running our libraries. Everyone can see it very
clearly. The only problem is that no one can believe it. Go to http://www.mln.lib.ma.us/teen/hth.htm
and see it for yourself. Should
Infertile Couples Be Prevented From Marriage?
Ed
Oliver thinks "the solution for both sides lies in limited
government and maximum freedom and self-determination." Why
then is he trying to legislate a narrow definition of marriage
that would ultimately limit the freedom and self-determination
of some couples who wish to marry? Marriage
is a spiritual union with legal benefits and responsibilities.
By denying committed, loving couples those benefits and
responsibilities, you are discriminating against their spiritual
beliefs. If those spiritual beliefs mandated theft, arson,
murder, or other violent and non-consensual acts as a condition
of marriage, I might agree with you. But that is not in
question. Your paper repeatedly implies that the potential for
procreation is the condition you seek. Yet, from the headline
"Who Will Raise the Children?" on down, you
consistently cloak the potential to procreate with the ability
to parent. As
an adoptee, I strongly urge you to find another rock to hide
under. Jean B. Healy said, "This legislation will reaffirm
marriage as a natural and healthy state with the promise of
building society with new life." Would she like to tell my
mother and father that they should not be married because they
were unable to fulfill that particular promise? Colbe
C. Mazzarella said that, "Children need their own parents
in a permanent relationship. The government must not send any
contrary message." Is she implying that my parents are less
than my "own" because they gave me love but not red
hair and freckles? Perhaps she feels I would have been better
off in an orphanage? Please
explain to me why I should not interpret these comments as a
direct insult to my family. Better yet, please explain why these
comments have any bearing whatsoever on the proposed
"Defense of Marriage" legislation, which says nothing
about the potential to procreate or the ability to parent, but
does deny the benefits and responsibilities of marriage to
same-sex couples. -
Cheryl Jaffe Editor's
Comment: How could you possibly believe that anyone would tell
your parents that they should not be married? I don't know
anyone who does not admire those who adopt children. As
for the purpose of marriage, it has always been to protect
children and their mothers who are very vulnerable when giving
birth and nursing babies. It is not to protect
"partners," whether heterosexual or homosexual.
Because we want to encourage fathers to stay with their
children, the institution of marriage has been made into an
elaborate ceremony with the hope that the father and mother will
raise their children into responsible citizens without a lot of
help from the state. Does it always work? No. Does anyone know
of a better system? No. As our article reported, there are many
forces in Massachusetts seeking to break down the institution.
The most aggressive is the feminists. Then comes the Libertarian
Party of Massachusetts, although many libertarians disagree
because they believe it is the cheapest way to raise children.
Then we have many who wish to avoid any responsibility for the
children they create. And finally, there are the 3% who are
homosexual and believe it will help them to be more accepted in
society They
are being used by the feminists to push their agenda because the
feminists know they have more sympathy with the public. There
are many people who have wonderful friends all their lives, but
we cannot afford to allow everyone to pick a favorite friend to
receive largess from the government. Although it is not perfect,
most of those women who receive benefits because of marriage
deserve them. Fistgate
& Mickey Mouse
Fistgate
at Wellesley College? Was there any fisting going on? As for
Mickey Mouse, PETA people do care about mice. -
Name Withheld Editor's
Comment: Fistgate is a term for adults teaching explicit
homosexual sex to teenagers. That is certainly what is occurring
at Wellesley College where 22-year-olds, and probably faculty,
are teaching 17-year-olds. It does not necessarily include
"fisting" although that appears to be an integral and
accepted part of homosexuality. (You will say that I have no
knowledge about faculty, but the college also has no controls to
monitor it. We know that heterosexual faculty are attracted to
students. Any reasonable person would assume that lesbian
faculty are given the same opportunities, without restraint, to
engage in sex with seventeen-year-olds.) The
PETA article is parody and I am surprised that it hit so hard. I
am sure that many PETA members are concerned with mice and rats.
That is the problem. My concern for animals is more important to
me than to most people but we have no choice other than to
control the population of rodents and many other animals. If we
follow PETA to its logical conclusion, we will have to stop
eating anything. There have been studies which show that plants
also have feelings. I always feel a little guilty when I nurse a
cabbage from seed, transplant it and then go out with a knife
and destroy the plant. It really does bother me. Must I stop
eating cabbage? Are tomatoes okay? Can I mow the lawn? Where do
we stop? I had no idea this would hit you or anyone so hard.
Should all of us humans just commit suicide? Is PETA right that
we should have sex with animals? Love, Marriage and Family (A Song)Love,
marriage and family Man
needs woman Love,
marriage and family A
woman's love There
may be some Love,
marriage and family James
G. Moses The
Venom Publisher
Is a Hypocrite
If
your publisher was so open to having "homosexuals" in
high positions at his previous business, then he is a hypocrite.
He is doing all this anti-gay stuff for the hype. -
Name Withheld Editor's
Comment: The only thing you have ever read in MassNews (if you
have actually ever read it) concerns what is taught to children.
No one, not even you, would say that the instruction in the
Massachusetts schools
is balanced. As for all of the adults in our society, they can,
and will, do what they wish. As
for the hype, there are many easier ways to get that. Editorial
Represents Irresponsible Journalism
I
read the editorial in the June 2001 Massachusetts News on Peter
Singer. Then I turned again to the Nerve.com piece it allegedly
attacks; I say "allegedly" because your editorialist
does not appear to have read Singer's article. First,
any responsible writer would point out that the article was in
fact a review of another book. Failing to mention a pretty
critical piece of information suggests a campaign based on
misinformation on your part. Your writer chides the Globe, etc.,
for bias, but I daresay the reporters who write for those
magazines would be canned for such an obvious oversight as
yours, which is either extremely shoddy reporting or deliberate
withholding of key facts. In any case, it doesn't exactly prompt
any degree of trust in your paper. Prof.
Singer in no way implies that the Judeo-Christian is
"nonsense." That's your attribution, and it is
fallacious. Re-read the paragraph in question four times, as I
did. Your
writer says, twice, that Singer believes bestiality is
"fine." He does not say any such thing. Furthermore,
while he cites the book under review (not his own opinions, mind
you) at several junctures -- a scholarly treatise on human
attitudes towards bestiality over the ages, not a polemic for or
against (yes, such things exist) -- he also gives equal time to
theorists who have argued against it, citing from the Bible to
20th century detractors. It's
always fun to see a rabid propagandistic tool fall flat in its
face when it attempts to deal with serious issues in anything
resembling an objective fashion. Singer is perhaps best known
for his defense of animals against some of the crimes
perpetrated against them by humans, such as the incredibly cruel
chicken factories which go uncited in your paper. As one of the
foremost defenders of animal rights in this country-also
unremarked upon by your writer, who instead cites Singer on the
unrelated issue of gay rights (again, is your writer ignorant or
is this another occasion of deliberate misinformation by
omission???) Singer is hardly an advocate of sex-with-animals,
and the review he wrote does not recommend or even defend the
practice. This
would make an excellent piece for any college journalism class:
"How not to write seriously about a serious subject."
What's sad is that I agree that bestiality is wrong-but with
friends like you, who needs enemies? Until you train your
reporters, please stay out of the fray. This is not amateur
hour. -
M. Horan Editor's
Comment: There's one thing that's clear, absolutely clear, about
Prof. Singer's article. He is doing his best to normalize sex
with animals. That is the thrust of his entire polemic. As
to specific comments from the reader, it's tough to comment on a
letter where the writer is so confused. In
the first place, Singer goes on for a couple hundred words
before he even reveals to the reader that he's doing a
"book review." The entire article is about his
thoughts. He uses the book only as a foil for himself. As far as
his views about Judeo-Christian thought, Singer clearly does not
agree with it because he says it teaches that, "Only human
beings have an immortal soul. In Genesis, God gives humans
dominion over the animals." Clearly, Singer disparages and
disagrees with those thoughts. It's
interesting that the reader links bestiality with homosexuality.
That is something we have never seen before. As
to whether Singer "defends" the practice of
bestiality, he says that "some of the acts described in
[the book he was reviewing] are clearly wrong" and he goes
on to mention sex with chickens as being one of those acts, only
because the chicken usually dies. If "some" are wrong
(and he mentions only one), we must assume that the others are
not wrong. I could mention other citations for this point, but
they hardly seem necessary. Mass
News is a Learning Tool
Never
before have I encountered such a hate-filled and misguided group
of folks as those who pen your pieces. Your
publication did serve one positive purpose, though. I was able
to use Mass News as an opportunity to explain to our four
children the importance of freedom of expression in America.
Even if we do not like what we are reading, we have to respect
the rights of those who hold these opinions, or we may find
ourselves the next ones to be censored. So,
thank you for allowing me to explain to my children the error of
your ways, and to show them that while there are people like you
out there who hate and who attempt to skew the facts to suit
their own perverted agendas. We as free thinkers still possess
the ultimate power to sift the wheat from the chaff and expose
you for what you really are. - Lisa Towle Mass News Like PilgrimsWhy
don't you just change the name of your paper to the "Christian
Right Wing”? Talk about the Boston Globe -- you are way more to
the right than they are to the left, and this is coming from a Herald reader. You folks are pretty funny. Maybe you could call yourselves
“WASPs Are Us.” You folks are probably one of the largest hate groups
in the state. The Pilgrims are long gone; why don't you go with
them? - Name Withheld Editor's Comment: The only problem is that I don't know anyone on the paper who is a WASP. What is it that makes you dislike (should I say "hate"?) Pilgrims so passionately? |
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.
|