Shocked By WGBH 

I was shocked when I read the article in your July issue regarding WGBH exchanging its donor list with the Democratic National Committee.WGBH tries to explain away the incident by saying that the list swapping was a mistake made by a low level employee. If I remember correctly, a very similar explanation was given by the Clinton administration when 1,100 FBI files mysteriously turned up in the White House. I hope this matter is investigated thoroughly by the IRS and the appropriate action is taken. 

– Denise Torraco 

Pastor Draws Compelling Parallel 

The sin that I struggle with is gluttony. I could make a very strong case that I was born with it. I was a very large baby, and I have always been larger than my peers. My genetic inheritance is to have a large appetite, and I have been culturally conditioned by parents who experienced the Depression to finish every bit of food on my plate. I still do not understand how this helped "the starving children in Africa," but the conditioning is, nevertheless, indelible. 

But does the fact that I was born with a predisposition to gluttony and conditioned to it as a child make it any less of a sin when I yield to the temptation? Does the truth that I am helpless to resist over-eating without the help of God make gluttony an acceptable life style for me as a Christian? 

As a pastor would I be true to my calling to accurately preach and teach the Word of God if I taught that gluttony is not a sin? What would other Christians think of me if I openly practiced gluttony and celebrated it as an alternate life-style? (It is next to impossible to be a closet glutton. In the first place you probably don’t fit in the closet, and in the second place over-eating is a sin one wears for all to see.) 

Fat people are definitely discriminated against in our society. Does this mean I would be justified in God’s eye in seeking legislation to protect my rights as part of a minority group? 

I know that God loves me, but does He like my negative witness in persisting in the sin of gluttony? Does God want me to be proud of abusing the temple of my body by eating too much of the wrong foods? Would Jesus want me to go into the public schools and teach our children that gluttony is another alternative to the healthy food pyramids? (How could I even think of teaching gluttony when only low fat and high fiber are politically correct?) 

Jesus loved the woman taken in adultery, and He prevented others from stoning her, but He did not say that what she was doing was all right because she could not help herself. Jesus said to her, "Go, and sin no more." 

Jesus forgave sin but He never condoned it. Jesus demonstrated in His own struggles with temptation that some things can only be resisted with the help of the Holy Spirit. 

I struggle with the sin of gluttony. Please welcome me and love me as God loves me. Confront my sin and, with humility, help to restore me to resist this sin. But please do not affirm and condone and celebrate the disobedience that hinders my relationship with God. 

Any comparison with a contemporary "dialogue" that is ravaging Christ’s church is most definitely intended. If the millstone fits please do not continue to wear it as a necklace of pride. 

– Rev. Carolyn Clarke  
Pastor, First Baptist Church of Belmont  
Belmont, MA  fbcbel@ici.net  

Conservative Is Not "Alone" 

I am delighted to have a subscription to Massachusetts News. Sometimes I think I’m the only conservative in the Commonwealth but as I read through your publication, I don’t feel quite so alone. 

–Richard Collins 

Teletubbies Are Good For Children 

The recent article by John Pike on the harmfulness of the Teletubbies TV show was absolutely ludicrous. Though I understand Linn’s, Poussaint’s and Levin’s concerns and reasons for not approving of television at such a young age, the examples and evidence they stated were ignorant and in one case even dangerous. Teletubbies target audience is between the ages of 1 and 2-1/2, an extremely active age in which babies are just gaining the feelings of being able to move around on their own, doing what they choose to do and playing what they want to play with. I have never seen a passive or inactive 1 to 2-1/2 year old, yet Levin claims that TV is harmful at such a young age because "the activity is passive...they need interaction with the real world." Recently I have done much babysitting for two 18 month old babies, the perfect age for Teletubbies, and in their house the TV is kept on for most of the morning so they can watch Barney, Arthur, and Teletubbies. While they occasionally stand in front of the TV observing what is going on, they are usually actively playing with toys, cups, balls and each other. They know Barney’s name and show and love him, yet they never sit inactively watching TV.  

Another thing the article claims is that children who watch a lot of TV perform poorly in school, yet when I was young I watched many TV programs, some age appropriate and some not, and I was a straight A student. Maybe I’m the exception but many of my friends have the same experience. Levin also claimed that when watching TV, kids "are less likely to learn skills necessary for an academic education," yet a huge part of elementary education lately is multiculturalism, something that Teletubbies center around. She said kids who watch TV are "less able to engage in creative play, and this skill is related to school performance." In preschool, the first grade the target audience would enter, kids learn colors, shapes, how to write their name, and how to socialize with other people, especially people who are different than themselves. Three out of four of these things are promoted by the Teletubbies. However, one that is not taught to young children is to play with balloons. Ms. Levin said that children "need to learn the experimental method by playing with balloons." Children under the age of five have absolutely no business anywhere near an uninflated balloon, and when it is blown up, children to the age of seven should still be supervised. For someone who is very educated and who expresses her opinions so publicly, she should know that balloons are so much more dangerous than a kid’s show could ever be. Balloons have actually been fatal to young children.  

Babies love the Teletubbies because they are bright, repetitive, and engaging. They love the toys because they are colorful and soft. Ms. Levin states that "that kind of love for an inanimate object is not good. They love it so much they cannot understand it is pretend." What child does not have a teddy bear, doll, blanket or toy that they love? That they need to bring everywhere? Has Ms. Levin never heard of imaginary friends? These are babies we are talking about; they’ll learn about the real world soon enough. Why not let them create their own world with characters who they love and feel safe with while they still can? Imagination is one of the greatest virtues society can encourage in a child. When Barney came out, I never read these kinds of concerns from so many people, yet children love Barney dolls as much as Teletubbie dolls. The same thing with Sesame Street and Arthur and every other kids’ show. Linn and Poussaint insinuate that the only reason that PBS keeps the Teletubbies on air is all of the commercial profits they receive from it. PBS receives commercial profits from all of their kids’ shows; that is what keeps these great shows on the air.  

Adults rail at this one show because it can’t engage them as much as shows aimed at older kids can. Adults can’t understand what the Teletubbies are saying and get bored with all the repetition. But who tries to teach their one year old to speak another language when they can barely speak their own? Or try to get their two year old to count to 20? Kids that young respond to colors and happiness and movement, which is what the Teletubbies offer. Now, nothing replaces kids’ interactions with parents, caretakers, and each other. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with a show that promotes tolerance, love, independence, social interaction and laughter. I think it is quite proactive.  

– Rachel Breen, Boston 

Newton Not Ashamed 

Newton is not ashamed of the rally against MassNews. As a resident, I am ashamed to have this in my mailbox. Please stop...I am not a subscriber. 

"Independent." You must be joking in your half-truths and biased agenda against teachers, women and homosexuals. 

We don’t need more divisiveness and hate. Get a grip on your ego and listen and see what’s out there. Don’t project your view on every issue. 

– Lucille Magnus, Newton 

Television Is Not Bad For My Daughter 

In defense of the Teletubbies, I strongly disagree with the Harvard professors’ findings. The reality of today’s world is that not too many parents can spend every waking moment interacting with their children. This being the case, other entertainment sources must be found, and I feel Teletubbies and PBS are the safest, most beneficial means available out there for our toddlers. Anything used as a "Babysitting Tool" for extended periods of time is harmful, but that is the parents’ responsibility. PBS cannot be blamed by merely broadcasting the Teletubbies. TV in and of itself is not harmful, but the length of time and what is being viewed is what is detrimental to the long term development of our young children. 

Teletubbies is a show that reaches the toddlers on a level they understand. The child sees hugging, laughing, singing, playing, sharing and loving. A young child needs to know no more than that. A familiar line in the show is "Teletubbies love each other very much!" My daughter understands what that means, and I’m sure it’s comforting to her to know that. At such young ages, simple shows with simple messages are very effective, and despite what some may think, I feel it’s important to know that the world is a happy, sweet place with no hurting or bad things. My two-year-old daughter can learn the truth later when she watches TV shows on other stations. 

The show does not promote passive viewing, in my opinion, but just the opposite. Besides seeing the Teletubbies interact among themselves, other segments show children learning in their own environment. My daughter, Katie, has seen little brother feeding the chickens on their farm, little girls playing guitars, children making pasta and the stories go on. Katie now incorporates these stories into her own life by wanting to do these things herself. In addition, PBS has a website with Teletubbies on it. Because my daughter loves the Teletubbies, she has learned how to maneuver the mouse around the screen in order to play with her Teletubbie friends. That’s interaction! 

In closing, besides showing my daughter different aspects of other children’s lives, teaching her that sharing and playing together without fighting or yelling is fun, and that loving each other is good. Each morning as we leave the house for Day Care, Katie’s little stuffed "LaaLaa" is cradled in her arms and reminds her that she is not alone at Day Care while Mommy is at work. Many times, as I watch Teletubbies with Katie, she’ll lean over and give me a "Biggg Huggg" and say, "Mommy, I want to go there." Well, Katie, so do I. 

– Kathleen McDonough, Brockton 

Paper Providing a Thinking Voice 

Thanks for providing my home state a thinking voice for a change! I’m so sick of the establishment media’s watered down, liberal propaganda. 

My parents on the Cape have a subscription. In those editions they showed me, I learned the Cape Codder, a liberal rag, is indirectly owned by Fidelity Investments. I am divesting my assets from Fidelity forthwith. I wish more people would do the same and start getting on the liberal media’s case.  

Thanks again! Keep up the fight! 

– Deran Eaton, Formerly of South Harwich 

Unfair Rules Regarding Retraining Orders 

This letter was originally sent to State Senator Theresa Murray. 

Dear Senator Murray,  

I received your letter in response to my calls to your office concerning restraining orders.  

Per your letter I fully understand that you are an advocate for laws that protect victims of abuse. I am also in favor of such laws. However, if 53,000 restraining orders are issued per year in Massachusetts alone, maybe the victims are not who you think they are. Perhaps you should probe deeper and ask why 145 restraining orders per day are being granted. 

Could it be possible that women and their lawyers are taking advantage of the 209A process in order to ensure custody of their children and a good divorce settlement? What judge is going to give custody of the children to the husband if the wife is claiming abuse? 

Since the judges do not want to be held liable and are granting extensions on nothing more than the woman claiming she is in fear, maybe a jury trial should be permitted to allow a fairer process– and take the liability off the judge. What about stiffer penalties for filing false applications for restraining orders? 

Remember, you represent all the people. Again, I ask you to take a harder look at how this well-intentioned law is being abused, and what it is doing to fathers and their children. Ask some difficult questions of its supporters and yourself. Question the numbers. If just 5% of restraining orders are falsely obtained, that is over 2,500 innocent men this year who have lost their homes, had their families destroyed and had the development of their children detrimentally affected. 

– John Fiumara, Centerville MA  

Boy Scouts Ban On Gays 

The court’s inability to distinguish between true civil rights which pertain to race, color or gender, and that of immorality, is simply a manifestation of its refusal to acknowledge the supreme source of morality which once guided this country. The Boy Scouts were founded at a time when "for God and for country" meant striving for the morality and high idealism in love for God and man. 

It also promises true blessings to those that continue therein, as well as the ruin of nations that forsake the source of truth, purity and true freedom. 

Liberty without wise limits is moral anarchy. 

My prayer is that we return to our senses like the prodigal son [Luke 15: (11-32)] before a worse thing overtakes us. 

– Daniel Hamilton, Chelsea 

Thank You for Shedding Light on the Department of Revenue 

As a social worker who works primarily with homeless mothers and their children, I was excited to begin reading the July 1999 article, "Children Without Fathers on the Increase." 

However, I was disappointed. First, the article was too lengthy. The article was filled with columns of statistics that were only reiterated in separate boxes of statistics. This greatly took away from what the writer was trying to convey. The author had many important things to say, but I think most readers will not get out of it what was intended. He should have also mentioned some of the organizations out there trying to make a difference and who provide legal and social policy advocacy.  

As to the content itself, many women who are either having children out of wedlock or are divorced are indeed not realizing the consequences of not allowing the fathers of their children to be involved. It has been my personal experience that many of the women I work with have many negative things to say about the fathers of their children, but in the context of themselves, not their children. I plan to at least share the statistics provided in this article and hopefully start working on helping them recognize their own issues versus the best interest of their children. 

As a woman, I would also like to validate the author’s level of frustration with the "system." Yes, it needs a lot of work! I also have male friends who are going through many similar things, fathers who want to be fathers, but are told they cannot, and must pay anyway. 

Lastly, I would like to say thank you for shedding light on why DOR seems to be so unfair as to their decisions on what a non-custodial parent should pay. But it still seems to be that there is no rhyme or reason to the equation. I have seen people who should be paying more, pay less, and those who are barely surviving have to give up so much that it makes it nearly impossible to sustain themselves and the family they currently have. 

– Name withheld, Worcester 

An Open Letter to Senator Kennedy 

This Letter was Originally Sent to Senator Edward M. Kennedy. 

Dear Senator Kennedy: 

In the wake of the recent killings, in Atlanta, I would like to request some legislation that I believe will stop the dying. 

As we know, Mr. Barton killed his wife and two children with a hammer. I would like to see the Congress take steps to stop the rash of hammer related deaths in this country. 

There should be a waiting period for the purchase of all hammers from now on. This will provide people who may be upset some time to cool off before buying a hammer–the last thing we need is someone to go off, half-cocked and buy a hammer to kill someone.  

Also, all hammers should be registered at the local police department and with theFBI’s computer system. Hammer owners should have to obtain a license before they are legally allowed to own a hammer. In addition, hammer owners should have to attend and pass a hammer safety course before obtaining their licenses. 

I hope that there will be some sort of legislation to stop the growing trend at the state level allowing "concealed hammer carry" permits. 

But that is just the tip of the iceberg. Hammer manufacturers have long been targeting hammers at young people. The cleverly concealed campaign to get hammers into the hands of children has to be stopped. For starters, Fischer Price must be called to account for their plastic hammers, which glorify this horrific implement of destruction. In addition, the marketing of lighter, cheaper hammers disguised as "ladies’ hammers" needs to be banned.  

There should also be legislation mandating that television shows which glorify the hammer like This Old House, The New Yankee Workshop and At Home with Bob Villa, no longer be shown before ten o’clock at night, when children are likely to be watching. 

Also, I propose only ball and peen hammers be allowed from now on. Why does anyone need a framing, roofing, or most horribly, a sledge hammer? No one needs any of those "assault hammers" to hang a picture of you on his office wall, and what else could you possible use a hammer for? 

Finally, I suggest that only wooden handles be allowed on hammers. The new trend towards stainless steel handles, popularized by Hollywood, sends the wrong message to the children. 

Of course it goes without saying that something needs to be done about the growing popularity of hydraulically powered "nail guns." These "automatic hammers" should be subject to all of the above legislation, but in addition I propose that they be locked up whenever they are not in use. Also, they should no longer be allowed on construction sites within 1,000 feet of a school. 

– Yours in peace, 

Eric Darbe, Waltham 

Taxpayers Want Change 

August 6 headline: "Massachusetts Pols Blast GOP Plan to Give Taxpayers Back Some of the Surplus." Why does this not surprise me?  

One thing a liberal will NEVER do is vote to give back some of the money they confiscated from the overloaded taxpayers, even if it is abundantly obvious that they took way too much. They call it a "surplus" and look for some way to spend it. 

Let’s envision any citizen in the local Stop & Shop. He buys $38 worth of groceries, hands the cashier two twenties. She rings it in and closes the drawer. "Wait just a damn minute!" he bellows. "Where is my change?" She smiles sweetly and replies, "Well, that’s a surplus, and we’ll use it for our employees’ benefits program." Two responses are possible. 

1 - He says, "Oh, I understand. Thank you and have a good day!" 

2 - He stomps off in a fit of rage, demanding to see the manager about this ripoff. 

If you’re not sure which it would be, I have this deed to a famous bridge... 

The liberals, whose job is to squeeze every drop of your blood from you in taxes, will invariably wail, "How are we going to pay for these tax cuts?" I defy any reader to find one instance of a legislator asking, "How will the taxpayers pay for these increases?" when the outrageous 1993 gut-shot to the tax-oppressed sailed through. 

A surplus means this and only this: They took too much of your money. Any congressional nitwit who screams when the suggestion is made to refund some of it should be on his/her way out the door in the next election. Barney Frank has long since outlived his usefulness in Congress. He’s a dinosaur, and needs to be rendered extinct, along with all his knee-jerk liberal cronies who never met a tax they didn’t like. 

– Bob Renaud, Washington, MA 
brenaud@berkshire.net 

Liberal Finds Pedophila Article "Hilarious" 

I received a complimentary copy of your newspaper and am delighted! It’s about time we had a political satire newspaper in Massachusetts. 

From nonsensical editorials like "Will Unitarians Apologize for Columbine High School" to the hilariously misconstrued "Pedophilia Still Recommended to Children by Libraries" the stupendously comical advertisement for a book touting "Freedom will Conquer Racism." Ha, ha, ha, ha. 

And what’s even funnier? A lawyer is the editor. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, hee, ha. 

I get it. You’re trying to kill off all the liberals with sarcasm. Great strategy! 

– Jeff Levering, Harvard 

Massachusetts Only State to Keep Bills Off Web 

People familiar with the Internet have long known that Massachusetts is way behind other states in using that technology to make government more "user friendly," but even that description fails to adequately describe how embarrassing the problem has become. 

Two years ago, a group of us researched the availability of pending legislation on-line. We found that 43 states provided the full text of their pending legislation online. When we asked officials at the State House why that was, we were bluntly told that the Bills would not be put online because the legislative leadership didn’t want to do that, so please don’t bother them and waste their time. The best we could hope for was a one-line summary, written by the Bill’s sponsor, that might or might not accurately reflect the contents of a Bill that could run 20 pages or more in length. 

When one of the major Boston newspapers recently mentioned that our neighboring states had the full text of their Bills online, we revisited other state web sites to update our data. Things have sure changed. Massachusetts is the ONLY state in the Union that doesn’t have the full text of their Bills online. ALL 49 other states make the full text of pending legislation available via the Internet. Not exactly something for the "Technology Capital of the World" to be proud of! 

We invite others to look for themselves at the extensive information provided by other legislatures, and compare it with  
the paltry summaries Massachusetts provides. We checked  
our data through the information links provided at: www.capitolstrategy.com. There is no excuse for our high-tech state to have the only flunking grade on a high-tech issue. The fact that we rank behind all the other 49 states in the nation is a disgrace. 

– Jackie Beckmann, So. Dartmouth 
 

RETURN TO FRONT PAGE