December 2002
Letters to the Editor

Send a letter to the editor

Is Hollywood Turning Against Abortion?

This letter is from Nancy Sutton who was a big activist here for many years with her Families First organization, which she now runs out of Colorado where she and her family live.
Recently, I have noted a very strange but encouraging phenomenon emanating from, of all places, Hollywood. I am not yet sure what it means.
For the first time, the financial cost of abortion is being discussed among our leaders, from Mr. Greenspan to Congress. Even other countries are beginning to realize the financial repercussions of this global problem. Recently Mr. Greenspan lamented the looming financial problems between ageing "baby boomers" and the dearth of new people entering the work force. European leaders are expressing the same troubling realization. Maybe this pending financial crisis is the reason for the unexpected reversal of this war.
The war, simply put, is the unprecedented attack upon the unborn. The anti-life policies of the past two decades are now exacting their price. Those of us on the pro-life side have apparently and suddenly acquired some very unlikely allies.
In the past couple of weeks, I have seen something I never thought possible on a TV program -- eloquent defense of unborn life. In three separate and unrelated programs, it seemed to build and finally reached crescendo.
On the program "CSI - Miami," a pregnant corpse was discovered. In the attempt to identify her, it was decided to try a DNA match to find the father of her unborn baby. As they were extracting the DNA sample from the unborn and now dead baby, the main character appeared very uncomfortable. He remarked, "It isn't just a mass of cells, is it?" It passed by so quickly, it could have easily gone unnoticed. I did notice and I did a double take. I could hardly believe my ears.
Later that same week, on the program, "The Practice," one of the most eloquent speeches I have ever heard was made defending an unborn child's right to live and be protected. It went far beyond the usual arguments even we pro-life people make and encompassed the state's obligation to assure every unborn baby's right to protection and to be born alive. I was stunned and wished I had been recording the program.
But the crescendo came on "Law and Order." The newly elected DA ordered his irascible assistant to argue a case using an argument that struck at the very heart of Roe v Wade. It was pointed out that the law of abortion on demand was forced upon the people by "men in black robes." The people were never allowed to decide for themselves. The "right" to abortion was created from "whole cloth" by these black-robed men and has no basis in law inasmuch as the Constitution contains no such provision as a right to privacy. The argument was made so forcefully, I almost fell out of my chair.
Has Hollywood finally seen the light?!! That is almost too much to hope for, but one thing is certain, something is changing. As I see it, it is giving us an opportunity we could never have imagined. With the "sacred" right to privacy being challenged from the very camp that developed it, it only makes sense to carry it to its logical extension. It does matter what people do in their bedrooms! Indecent sexual behavior is how we got to the place that necessitated and permitted the creation of this "right" in the first place.
There is no constitutional right to privacy, but for sure, there is a right to expect normal sexual behavior from people so that indecent and perverted sexual practices are not advanced in our schools and culture as normal. Even more important, there is a right to expect that the historic, traditional and honored religious view of marriage not be corrupted by those who insist their "private" bedroom acts are deserving of making major changes in the definition of marriage.
Those acts cease to be private when society is required to enact policies and pass laws encouraging and sanctioning them. Decent sexual activity belongs in the marriage bed only, and marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman only. We should take courage from the fact that even Hollywood is questioning the basis of a law that has done so much damage to our moral fiber.
While sex acts may have an expectation to be hidden from public view, their consequences cannot be. There is only one sex act with consequences beneficial to society, and it occurs exclusively in the marriage bed. This is the logical extension of the war we stand on the brink of winning. Now is the time to advance the defense of and protection of marriage, and to assure that marriage remains marriage as God ordained it.

Much Worse than Sweden

I read what you wrote about Sweden, "The only way to raise children, according to this, is to have them raised by the federal and state governments. The role model for those with this philosophy is of socialism, as evidenced in Sweden, Cuba and other socialist countries."
I was born and lived in Sweden for 23 years. In many ways, that Sweden is much more of a free country than is the U.S. and far from the extreme "socialistic" country many so often label it.
Yes, day care is available, for a fee for all who need it but so is also money (kind of like a tax credit) allowing those who choose to stay home and raise their children to do so. Most parents stay home with their newborns for 1-2 years when it is the most important.
Sweden has a court system that is not a political web and which provides real justice and which is as fair as anywhere I know.
Unlike here in the U.S., fathers who don't get custody, pay in the neighborhood of 12% of their income for two kids in child support (using my brother as an example) and restraining orders and the abuse that is so rampant here is unheard of. In fact they don't believe most of the horror stories they hear from over here.
While Sweden is technically considered a "socialistic" country, it has not been near ruined by politicians and lawyers who have themselves in mind, first and foremost. It is a great place for kids to grow up. Please do not compare Sweden to Cuba anymore. I hope you get a chance to visit Sweden and to see for yourself what I have tried to tell you.
Peter Grahm
Hudson
Editor's Comment: Thanks for your comments. We did not mean to compare Sweden to Cuba, which is a dictatorship. We only wanted to point out that the socialism which the extreme feminists are seeking for us is not necessarily an "evil" system, just something that most Americans would not care to emulate.

George Bush: A Real Man

I don't know why tears come to my eyes when I watch him speak on television. In my hands I clutch a postcard I bought in Kennebunkport on vacation last year, picturing him and his father. At the risk of looking like an obsessive stalker of the 21st century, I must express my pure admiration for this man.
I am from one of the most liberal states of our fifty and birds of a feather stick together. It takes a lot more strength to stay different. If there are any others who feel as I do, they are the silent ones. We boast so loudly, "We are the land of the free," and "This is where it all started" and "First amendment rights," yet I never hear a soul brag about this man in my state; my neighborhood, or sadly, my family. Is it fear of standing out amongst the throng or is it a fear of rippling waters under a shaky vessel? Or is it an abundance of vapor with no substance?
From the arrogance of a media coupled with the shameful self-loathing of many privileged Americans, comes the minutia that this man bumbles his words, mispronounces every three syllable sound, and is a warmongering cowboy. It makes me wonder if he is the splinter that we are forced to focus on rather than the rafter blocking the sunlight to our soul.
How often have I mangled a word? How many times has passion sprung forth from my soul seeking revenge for the poor 5-year-old girl stolen, molested and killed by some animal who gets more sympathy from our man-made laws, than God's precious gift of life?
What is wrong with a man who speaks with an unedited heart? What is wrong with a man who gains much strength from his God and is unashamed about it? What is wrong with a man who stands up straight with a gun in one hand and his child in the other and says, "I know you are out there and mean us harm and I will not rest until I get you."?
Could you look him in the eye and believe absolutely that he sees our brothers and sisters as cattle? When I look at him I see the weight of many lives on him. It is a mighty responsibility that is his. Don't be mistaken. There are many who have him in their crosshairs, too.
I look at my own father, a product of the 60's. The last time I saw him was 23 years ago and before then, 5 times total in my life. He grew up with all the material things that living in this country grants. Yet he is without God. He is without love. He is not a man.
Why are we told to mistrust everything from anyone who has something? As if their birth is a crime. He is from a family who has served many. He is full of love and is wise because of it.
My eyes fill with tears when I watch him because there is no question God is with him. Through him I realize that I have walked away from the only strength I ever knew, and I cry in mourning. All through history the most honorable are the ones that never walked alone. Hand-in-hand they walked, talked and fought passionately with their God for what they believed in.
My baby is going to enjoy life in America as a free soul because of all the men and woman risking their lives to keep ours.
Jacqui Lyons-Heffernan
Whitinsville

Iraq Is Not Free

First the birds keeled over, then the animals, closely followed by the people, all dying agonizing deaths from Saddam Hussein's chemical attack on his own people. This description was provided by an eyewitness on a recent Sean Hannity radio show. The attack on his own people cements in stone forever the evil of this barbarian and is analogous with other tyrants of the twentieth century, Hitler, Stalin and Tojo.
We now witness three liberal U.S. Congressmen in Iraq, Jim McDermott, Mike Thompson and David Bonior, essentially calling our President a liar by insinuating that the President wants to start a war to find favor with business interests in America. These representatives of the Congress sounded more like representatives of the Iraqi government. It brings to the fore that one should never provide aid and comfort to the enemy. No one questions their right to express their views, but at the right time and in the right place. It also sends a message to our service people who may soon be asked to serve their nation by putting their lives on the line in our fight against terror for ourselves and for the civilized world.
Saddam is playing a deadly game as he always has. America must remain vigilant. Imagine an American city under attack, nuclear or otherwise. We must have the resolve to eliminate that threat no matter what it takes to accomplish it. The terror appeasers be damned! Margaret Thatcher, the great Prime Minister of England during President Reagan's terms once stated, "If the United States doesn't get it right, heaven help the rest of us." These are wise words from a great leader. Current Prime Minister Blair has lent his support to President Bush and is proving that America has an ally we can be proud to call friend. The issue is freedom at any cost.
Edward P. Shallow
Dorchester

A Letter to Holyoke Mayor Michael Sullivan

Dear Mayor Michael Sullivan,
I read an article in the Boston Globe about relocating Somali refugees to Holyoke.
It said, "A year ago, a coalition of religious charities told Holyoke Mayor Michael Sullivan they were seeking nearly $1 million in federal funds to relocate as many as 60 Somali Muslim families over the next three years to this city, one of the state's poorest. Holyoke seemed the perfect fit, the charities said, because of affordable housing, entry-level jobs and the city's long tradition of absorbing newcomers. Sullivan agreed, but advised the coalition to find more money for education, interpreters and police training."
Holyoke is now going through tough times and cannot afford the added stress of this offer from religious charities. It appears that well-off, guilt-ridden Americans want to act "charitable" at the expense of the poor and downtrodden. They want to dump a human tragedy onto Holyoke to cleanse their souls. Holyoke with an average income of $29,069 for its population of 43,704 is in tough straights and can ill afford additional people.
I have the solution. I suggest that the Somali refugees be relocated to a town more favorable to the Somalis. The Town of Barnstable has the financial resources to provide the care for the Somalis. Its population of 40,949 has an average income of a whopping $33,529. Barnstable's mild winter weather is better suited to the Somali experience, much more so than that of the fierce snowy winters of western Massachusetts. Somalis would feel more at home in the village setting of Barnstable's seven villages. This is far more compassionate to them as opposed to immersing them into an industrialized urban setting.
I urge you to act quickly to fight for the citizens of Holyoke to preserve the little they have left by contacting the Massachusetts General Court and our Washington delegation of Senators and Representatives. They are in direct touch with the people and will offer their assistance. Senator Kennedy, a long-term resident of the Barnstable Village, Hyannis, is a strong advocate of immigration. He would be more than happy to welcome the Somalis to Hyannis and see to their needs.
Arthur MacLeod
Belmont

Real Democrats are Pro-Life

Thank you for exposing the Boston Globe for the lies and bias news it prints. Their poster girl, Shannon O'Brien, was a failure. If Shannon hadn't been a traitor to the unborn babies, she would have gotten my vote. It grieves me when people like Shannon check their mind at the door and bow down to the so-called wise men of today. Real Democrats are pro-life. Demo-cratic Party, are you listening?
G. Guptill Boston

Democrats and Big Govt. Are Bad for Human Beings

Why did Democrats fail to win this November? The only thing they have to offer is what they can take away from someone else! I know of no Democrat scheme that allows responsible working people to keep more of their hard-earned money. Democrats have become irrelevant. They enact laws infringing the rights of lawful citizens, based upon the actions of criminals. They create social welfare regulations that drive companies out of business. They artificially raise the pay scale, hoping to make up for monetary losses caused by their social welfare business regulations.
Why become a responsible American when Democrats will find a way to cover your needs? As long as people need not act responsibly, there will always be irresponsible people. Imagine if Democrats supported legislation where responsible people were rewarded by keeping more of their money.
Don Schwarz Stoughton

DSS Does Not Follow Own Regulations

I am writing in response to Mr. Fang, who was interviewed by Ed Oliver in an article on your Internet site.
I am sorry to say that Mr. Fang is very confused on how his state system works. Is it a matter of convenient confoundedness or is he really that inept at understanding what goes on in agencies?
These regulations are written by the very people who use them, DSS. They write regulations, they enforce the regulations and they also are the fact finders who investigate any break in regulations. Once they have written the regulations which is a right granted them by the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, they submit it to the legislature for passage. Hardly any legislator in Massachusetts would question the viability or quality of a piece of legislation since they view the agency as the expert equipped to deal with the administration of social services to the public.
Further, DSS investigates any and all claims of child abuse. They can subjectively choose what is and is not considered abuse. It appears there are a far greater number of investigations that occur with biological parents as opposed to any investigations done to foster parents or state-care facilities. Even though many claim they have been abused in foster care or state institutionalized care in Massachusetts, few if any get investigated. You may confirm this yourself with a little research into the complaints that DSS has and presently does investigate. This is easily accomplished with a FOIA request.
The next erroneous assumption presented by Mr. Fang is that it is a matter of the judiciary to check to see if the agency is following its own regulations. The judicial system is there to interpret the law, not to check to see if the agency is following the law. As incredible as this may seem, it is up to the agency to police itself to see that it is following its own regulations. Do you think they would honestly report their mistakes? The court has repeatedly stated, even in Supreme Court decisions, that they do not want to be involved in the state's business to keep a check on a separation of power. If you check case law, you will see very few cases that have ever come to decisions and if regulations that have been written by the state agency allow them to trample on the Constitution, then the question of constitutionality becomes a moot point.
Finally, the Administrative Judge, through the rules of procedure granted in the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, can actually be an employee of the same agency. He merely needs to be appointed to hear the case. The substantial evidence clause allows this employee to consider his co-employees, who are the original fact-finders, "expert witnesses" even though they don't meet the standard set in the definition for "expert witness."
So, Mr. Fang, welcome to the fourth branch of government that was established with Roosevelt's New Deal, the Administrative State. They hold all four branches of governmental power within one agency. So, consequently, it is a system sent into place for parents to fail and for plaintiffs to lose. The winner is the agency who reaps the financial incentives set by the federal agencies, who claim they don't monitor the states and rely on reports produced by the state agencies to see that they are following the regulations set forth. This is a beautifully corrupt system that claims it is built with citizen money to protect citizens, when in actuality they are there to benefit their own bureaucracy. They can never get caught, because they won't squeal on themselves. Pretty airtight, wouldn't you agree?
Effie Belou
Newtown, CT

Your Are Irresponsible

After reading your article saying that liberals are responsible for the illegal vote against marriage, I have come to the conclusion that your news media, at best, is irresponsible.
For one thing, I know of folks who thought that they signed the save-the-horses petition, but ended up signing the so-called Protection of Marriage Amendment. For your paper to deny the fact that the signature-gathering firm pulled this sleight of hand trick shows your lack of credibility! It is one thing to petition people and have them read it and to sign it on its merit. It is totally different to pull this sleight of hand trick that was done to people. Do not tell us this did not happen!
You folks are no different from the neo-Nazi group, National Alliance, who has visited town meetings around various communities in Eastern Massachusetts. Just not man enough to admit to it! Like the National Alliance, you folks have levied attacks on NOW, ACLU, AFL-CIO, and the Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'rith!
Regardless, same-sex marriage will be legal on Earth as it currently is in Heaven. By the way, I am one gay man who is very interested in having our marriage for 22 years to be legal.
That's all. And remember, God loves all of us including gay folks who seek holy matrimony.
Willy LaBarge
Framingham
Editor's Comment: We certainly agree that God loves us all, but we are unable to agree that God believes that your lifestyle is a healthy one. As for the horse petition, we're still waiting for the names of people who were tricked. We would very much like to know. Can you provide a list of them? Please be advised that B'nai B'rith has no connection with the Anti-Defamation League. I am sorry to have to tell you that your comment about neo-Nazi groups does not even deserve an answer.

Please Rethink Gay/Straight Alliance Position

I read your publication periodically to see what crusade you are wrapped up in that week.
I came across your editorial on John Silber's decision to shut down the gay/straight alliance at the BU Academy school. I am in 100% agreement that teenagers should not be encouraged to be sexually active. However, I don't see the promotion of sex as a purpose of the gay/straight alliance. I am a 26-year-old gay male and I wish that organizations like this existed when I was in high school. I praise Governors Weld and Cellucci for creating the safe schools program which includes a great deal of the funding that the gay/straight alliances receive.
You reference your paper's favorite topic, the so-called Fistgate event that has nothing to do with gay/straight alliances. The purpose of these organizations is to provide kids, most of whom are scared, a safe place to talk and just be themselves. I could go on forever and I don't expect to see this posted on your site and I would be happy to discuss it further with any of your staff as I used to work in the Cellucci and then Swift administration. Thank you for your time and I hope you will rethink your stance on the gay/straight alliances in our schools.
Michael Motzkin
Wakefield
Editor's Comment: Thanks for your letter. Fistgate was a gathering of gay/straight alliances from across the state. The schools bussed them in to attend this session which you appear to agree was filth. Please be advised that Fistgate is not our "favorite topic." It pains us that any time at all has to be spent discussing it. There's a big, beautiful world out there. Who would want to spend time talking about the filth we're teaching these poor children? What a drop in the moral fabric of our society!

Virtual Visitation

Virtual visitation via the Internet is now becoming another blow to the well being of our children. Family courts are implementing virtual visitation orders to non-custodial parents in custody disputes to allow one of the two parties (most often the mother) to move hundreds or thousands of miles away with the children of the marriage. Obviously, the children have no say in these arrangements. I can picture a 4 or 5 year old responding to the question "where is your daddy?" My daddy lives in our computer right next to Nickelodeon.
Last week was my son's birthday. I baked him his favorite kind of birthday cake with 14 candles and realized that my little buddy was not little anymore. To celebrate we went to the Birmingham International Speedway for the All-Star racing event. On Sunday we spent the afternoon watching the Winston Cup race in Talladega on TV. After the race, we went to the video store and together picked out a movie that we would both enjoy and returned home to eat homemade beef stew and talk about school and girls and then watch the movie together. My son told me it was one of the best birthdays he had ever had. I would like any and all Family Court judges to explain to me how this memorable experience can be duplicated or replaced by a plastic box full of electronics and a phone line.
Alan Rusmisel
Birmingham, AL

Defense of Marriage Bill

I am a subscriber to your very useful newspaper. Lately, there are many stories on the manner in which the Defense of Marriage amendment was handled by the Senate President, Mr. Birmingham, and the refusal of our present Governor to call the Legislature back to vote as a single body on this matter, as described in the Constitution. I am also aware of your efforts to seek redress in the courts to clarify the duties of the Senate President with respect to referenda.
Now that we have a new Governor-elect, I am wondering if it makes sense to present this situation to him, requesting that he call the legislature together to vote this issue on its merits, first thing in January. If Mr. Romney is the man I think he is I think he will respond favorably. If he is not, then we will at least know the kind of Governor that we will be dealing with.
Thomas Lynn
Amherst
Editor's Comment: That's a good idea, but so far Romney has refused to meet with any conservative leaders. Although we must get this done in December, his leadership could be very helpful in getting a vote as is required under the state Constitution.

Marriage Tax Makes it Tough

I recently moved from Pennsylvania to Massachusetts and have received your paper courtesy of the former owner of our home. My fiancé and I want to get married but cannot for reasons I will explain, thus the article on the Protection of Marriage caught my eye. To say that feminism is the reason many chose not to marry is an over simplification of the current problems with the institution of marriage.
The more obvious reason some chose not to marry is the marriage tax. Many people simply cannot afford to live on less. If the government wants to encourage marriage, then marriage should not be taxed. I would support the elimination of the marriage tax.
My fiancé's former wife had an illegitimate child during their marriage. In many states, including Pennsylvania, deceived husbands and not fathers are the ones responsible for child support. Thus my fiancé pays his former wife child support for another man's child. If he had not married this woman, he could have saved $200,000 toward his own retirement, which he desperately needs. We cannot afford to pay a marriage tax on top of this marriage penalty.
In Paul's case, being married clearly was a disadvantage as it gave the state the apparent right to assign parenthood to a non-parent. Is this beginning to sound like Communism to you, too? If the government wants to protect families, then clearly the laws of this country need to hold people accountable for their actions.
Marriage is a wonderful announcement to the world of the love and commitment of two to share their lives as one. Unfortunately, the laws of this country have ravaged the institution forcing many like myself to choose to opt out for financial reasons. Both Paul and I support legislative changes that will eliminate this barrier to marriage.
Claudia Sayen
Lancaster
Editor's Comment: You are correct that the marriage tax should be eliminated. But as the old saying goes, "Two wrongs do not make a right" or "Don't throw out the baby with the bath water." There is no institution that does not have its flaws, but if we destroy the institution instead of correcting it, we will have nothing left. I empathize with your problems but there have always been problems. The institution of marriage has been our foundation and bedrock for thousands of years. We remove that foundation at our peril.

Judge Lopez Regrets Being Videotaped

"I regret my actions on that day," said Judge Lopez as she gave testimony on November 19, 2002 during a hearing on her conduct in court. Judge Lopez really only regrets that her childish actions were caught on tape, for what Judge Lopez did two years ago happens all the time.
Why do you think that there are no permanent video camera feeds in all Massachusetts courtrooms? If the people of Massachusetts saw how their courtrooms were defiled each day by the current crop of judges, they would revolt. Out of sight out of mind.
We have live video feed from Congress to the State House, from under the ocean to the space shuttle but when it comes to the only place where citizens can seek redress of grievance in Massachusetts, it's a total blackout. I wonder what the courts have to hide, seeing how they're not proud of what they are doing to the people.
Don Schwarz
Stoughton