Response to Editorial: What we should remember on Martin Luther King Day
Date: January 25, 2001
"Rational" Side-Stepping of the Problem
I don't espouse the opposite view to Mr. Locke on the question of affirmative action. I don't personally consider it an effective approach to resolving issues of various inequities in our country.
However, I see several problems with his arguments.
First, you can't describe the issue the way he suggests in the following quote:
Taking jobs away from one group in order to compensate a second group to correct injustices caused by a third group who mistreated a fourth group at an earlier point in history (e.g., 1860) is absurd on the face of it and does not promote justice; rather, it does the opposite.
It isn't just a question of compensating people today for injustices experienced by their forebears. Racism is alive and well today. We've made a lot of progress over the past few decades, yet I, as a white person, run across prejudices of various types with some frequency.
This in spite of the fact that there's somewhat of a taboo on expressing prejudiced ideas. You can bet people's real attitudes are somewhat less appealing than the ones they're willing to share.
Mr. Locke sets up his fictional example to involve a "quirky" prejudice on the part of the owner of a certain company. The owner dies, and since the prejudice is so silly and obviously wrong, it disappears along with the owner.
We all know this is not analogous to the experiences of racial minorities in our country today. Any large company has people in it with unfortunate racial attitudes. They haven't magically disappeared. Affirmative action isn't just aimed at rectifying past experiences, but in part to deal with present circumstances.
As I say, I don't think it's a great approach to dealing with this problem, but we can't evaluate it based on simple and grossly skewed analogies or examples.
And when you express it in those terms, people who've experienced racism are likely to tune you out pretty quickly. They know you don't understand the problem.
I think the comments in the later part of the piece are admirable. We do need to supplant prejudice with individualism -- viewing people on their own merits as individuals.
William Swann
Response to Guest Editorial: Third Party Blues
Date: 08/29/00
While Mr. Denvil's observations on the reaction of Republicans and Democrats to "Third Party" candidates, he misses the reality of these candidates. From Anderson to Nader, these have been parties of one. The only credible approach to establishing a legitimate third party is to start with election victories to the House and Senate. If fifty legislators can get elected over, say six years, and they vote as a bloc, they can put forth a presidential candidate that will probably win.
While I don't like the current arguments for not voting for Ralph Nader, he has a big problem... who will do his bidding in the legislature? How will the polocies of a candidate be carried out without help from the Capitol? A President without a core of legislative loyalists might be Commander-in-Chief, might have a novel foreign policy, but will not be able to get the laws that count passed.
Thomas Flattery
Response to Editorial: Elian Gonzalez
Date: 7/12/00
Elian is a refugee from Cuba, regardless of his age the law must still stand. He was given a trial; the judge's outcome should be final. How many other countless Cuban nationals have made it to the states and were granted a trial? Countless. The only thing is that we never hear about them. Why? Because they are not a little boy whose face has been plastered all over the place except for on the front of a Wheaties' box.
Being that his mother passed on, he is the responsibility of his father. My belief is that he was not granted stay due to the fact that his father is still living and breathing. Tell me, all of you mothers and fathers, how would you feel if a judge made a decision to keep your son in another country? You might be thinking, "They gave the father a chance to stay here in the U.S." Well, if you grew up in the US and your son was granted stay in Mexico, would you move to Mexico, if you had the option of returning to the US? Probably not. Remember home is home. To us, Cuba may seem ruthless and vulgar. But to a Cuban national it's home, and like every citizen of a country, a deep sense of patriotism exists, regardless of it's political roots.
I also think Mrs. Janet Reno made the right decision to "seize" Elian from his relatives' house. They did it in a quick and professional matter. Many pictures of the infamous MP5 pointed towards Elian have been circulated, but this is nothing but journalistic propaganda against the ruling to return Elian. (Remember the press will always be on the side of the majority.) Many people would say that the use of guns were not necessary, but law enforcement officials must be prepared for anything. Remember in many domestic violence calls the victim usually ends up turning on the officers. Use of weapons was strictly a defensive safety measure.
I could go on and on, but I'd rather hear a few comments and remark on them. Hey, I'm only 17, so take it easy on me. Got three cents change for my nickel?
Adrian Gonzalez
Response to Guest Editorial: Privacy in the new millennium
Date: 07/04/00
Good article. Thanks for speaking out for the public.
David Lee
Responses to Editorial: The Kidnapping of Elian
Agree with Mr. Painter's stand. Compared with almost 5 month trauma. Elian's Miami relatives have done the poor child, the three minutes raid is nothing. Mr. Painter did an excellent job in summarizing the issue. Enjoy reading your articles.
David Lee
The one good thing to come out of this Elian Gonzalez tragedy is that it has allowed us to get a quick refresher on which members of Congress are friends of freedom and which members are friends of Fidel. The funny thing about this is that most of the pro-Cuba voices that you see on television don’t live in Cuba, but in our own little slice of socialism, Massachusetts. For the past couple of weeks, I haven’t been able to turn on a news channel or read an article about Elian, without having a member of the Massachusetts congressional delegation do his best to obscure the issues while painting a glowing picture of Castro’s workers paradise.
The worst was a few nights ago. I turned on the Fox News channel and there was Massachusetts’s own term-limits warrior, Marty Meehan, bad-mouthing the Miami Cuban-Americans, while extolling the virtues of family values. I then turned on CNN’s Crossfire where Barney Frank was debating the Mayor of Miami about the merits of the case. Barney, normally a good debater, seemed to be getting the worst of it and at the end seemed to be hoping the Mayor would slip and call him, "Barney Fag," just to get some traction.
I then switched back to Fox just in time to see Representative David Bonior from Michigan. Not being from Massachusetts, he is what the Democratic caucus would call a staunch anti-Communist. What this means is that he really doesn’t have anything bad to say about Fidel and completely respects his efforts to provide 100% literacy (says who) and universal healthcare. If places like Cuba and China would only allow union membership and just a teensy bit more free speech, everything would be hunky dory. Now when people like Bonior use the phrase "free healthcare", they always leave out one simple word, crappy. Because that is what the average citizen gets, free crappy healthcare.
Let’s get to the senior statesman of the Massachusetts delegation, J. Joseph Moakley from South Boston. Needless to say, free socialized healthcare is good enough for Cubans, but you’re not going to catch Joe using it, not Mr. Liver transplant. This guy is a real piece of work. It’s hard to read a newspaper without seeing Joe Moakley’s wiseacre take on the story. This is his comment on the recent raid, "Hey, I would have loved to see six people show up there with blue blazers and chocolates and flowers to get that kid. But that wouldn't have worked." So as long as something works, from Joe’s perspective, that’s all that counts. Isn’t that the sort of thing he has supposedly been opposing in Latin America since the 1980s? Or is it just anti-communism he’s been opposing? Don’t bother him with talk of legality, individual rights or constitutionality; the government was trying to get something done. It is not surprising that he is such good buds with Castro, differing opinions on human rights are certainly no barrier to their friendship.
I’m surprised he hasn’t started his own New England Chapter of the Friends of Fidel. He’d just have to walk down the halls of Congress to solicit fellow members. Perhaps make Cuba an honorary island of Massachusetts. Martha’s Vineyard, Nantucket and Cuba, just another place for the Clintons to vacation. Joe is doing his best to help Castro prolong the most oppressive and evil administration in the hemisphere, well, at least until last weekend. At the same time he is blaming America first for the failures of the Communist system in Cuba. On his website he essentially blamed the US embargo for food and medical shortages, even though Cuba can trade with every other country in the world. Just another Massachusetts Democrat making us all proud.
At one time this state was the home to proud Americans who loved freedom and individual rights, men like Paul Revere, John Hancock and Samuel Adams. Perhaps the Bay State delegation could take a word from Sam Adams, "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Now we have hacks like Moakley, Meehan, Frank and the rest. One of the curses of Democracy is that you get the representatives you deserve.
Joe Duffy
Responses to Editorial: Columbine - "Gun Control" is Not the Issue!
Date: 7/16/99
THE ONLY JOB THAT REALLY COUNTS IS UNPAID
If more parents would put the same effort into raising their children as they do in pursuing their career, less children would grow up in a vacuum of social and moral disconnect.
True, stricter gun control would make antisocial behavior more difficult to carry out. But let's not be so naive to think that's the best solution.
Preventing violence starts in the mind and heart. And the mind and heart of a child needs the bulk of its discipline and direction to come from family and religious institutions--not the state.
Unfortunately, many parents realize that their child's teacher spends more time mentoring their offspring then they do, and therefor assume that the school system will let them know if there is any serious cause for concern. Add to that the fact that people want a quick fix legislative cure for all that ails society and the lesson from Columbine is quickly forgotten.
Gun control is necessary, but in the end, it's a smoke screen obscuring the real issue: responsibility.
Diana Lynn
Date: 6/1/99
I am writing in specific response to Richard Klein's statement, "So yes, by all means lets examine every aspect of the situation, and be more aware of what our kids are involved in. But first, please let's take the guns away. To not do so is just plain stupid", in his response to today's editorial.
This is exactly the type of statement that makes me wonder why it is that so many can see the "slippery slope" that we MUST not tread upon when it comes to violating someone's right to free speech via censorship (no matter how disgusting the content), or someone's freedom of religion via a creche on the town green - but that they can not see the same slope when the right in question is the one to bear arms ! When our entire civilization is degraded by some of the insanity that unfortunately exists, everyone claims that it is the price we pay for a free society... why not now ?
I'm willing to bet, that in some argument somewhere Mr. Klein has uttered the statement, "... I don't agree with what he's saying, but I defend his right to say it."
Please remember that once we begin restricting the constitutional (i.e. God given) rights of law abiding citizens because of a fear of those who will abuse that freedom we are no longer free.
Jason Lavalley
Date: 5/12/99
We always look for blame beyond those committing crimes. For example how many parolies have committed serious crimes time and time again? The liberial criminal justice system has always made an extra effort to give just about everyone a 2nd chance (except the victum). Time and time again in this society (not just guns) the honest people have had to pay with more inconviences, more regulations to make sure we aren't that 1% that commit crime. My question for anyone out there is this - these 2 kids violated over 11 gun control laws plus several explosives violations, the question is name one more law that would have prevented this. We need to get serious about raising our kids as good solid humans. Many of us feel that throwing money at them is all we need to do, or let them do as they please as long as they don't bother us.
You're absolutly right it's much more than gun control, but this may be to painful to look at then acknowledge. We may not like what we see, or like the changes we may have to make. In a poll taken right after the shooting and bombing in Littleton, of teachers and what they worried about in their schools, less then 10% said guns, more the 40% said it is the way students treat and talk to school officials. Thats right, Rudy Crue in NYC is saying it now, our kids need social skills, and they start at home.
Just a fact, today there are 40,000 gun laws on the books. It is intellectually lazy to blame the guns. It's old and pointless. I am more worried about my kids getting hurt or killed by a drunk driver, statly. this is more apt to happen, this is also illegal, but everytime someone gets locked up for that I hear he was only drunk. Honestly, I'm tired ot the foolishness surrounding guns.
Bob Buchanan
Every day in this country, 13 children are killed with guns. Hundreds more are injured. Every day. There are numerous and complex reasons why this happens, and each case is different. But one common factor stands out - the guns.
Certainly there were a number of factors at work in the Littleton tragedy, many of which are yet to be confirmed. Parental neglect, violent TV programs and computer games, Marilyn Manson, all these and more added up to a formula for disaster. But it would take a huge effort at purposeful ignorance to deny the role that guns play in the seductive attraction of violence to those that are susceptible.
True, damage can be done by bombs as well as by guns, but bombs are not sexy. Guns are sexy. Guns are cool. Guns are power. The continuous and ubiquitous glorification of gun violence by the entertainment industry, and even by the news media, has enabled us to raise generations of people, young and old alike, who are attracted to guns more than they are to the opposite (or same) sex. By itself, this childish fascination would not be so bad, but coupled with the obscene ease with which guns of any kind can be procured in this country, provides the means for any and every troubled soul to express their insanity and their hatred.
To make the argument that in the Oklahoma bombing guns were not used is completely irrelevant. That was the exception that proves the rule. In virtually every single case of mass violence in this country, especially involving kids, guns were the weapon of choice. The fact that kids can easily obtain automatic or semi-automatic handguns and rifles points to a form of mass mental illness in this country that needs to be addressed and cured before it's too late. Or perhaps it already is.
The NRA and other anti-gun control organizations are spending millions to try to prevent even the most reasonable measures of gun regulation from passing. In order to drive an automobile you have to pass not just a written test, but also prove in a driving test that you are capable of operating the vehicle. Yet you can buy a more powerful rifle than the police use without any such testing. This is foolish beyond belief.
No one is saying that guns "caused" the Littleton massacre. But contrary to what your editorial states, it would not have happened if Harris and Klebold could not obtain a gun. The bombs were secondary. The excitement was in the guns. The "Doom" and other violent games they were playing did not involve running around planting bombs. Also, without gunfire, the first SWAT teams to arrive at the school would have quickly entered the school and brought them down.
So yes, by all means lets examine every aspect of the situation, and be more aware of what our kids are involved in. But first, please let's take the guns away. To not do so is just plain stupid.
Richard Klein
Just a fact, today there are 40,000 gun laws on the books. It is intellectually lazy to blame the guns. It's old and pointless. I am more worried about my kids getting hurt or killed by a drunk driver, statly. this is more apt to happen, this is also illegal, but everytime someone gets locked up for that I hear he was only drunk. Honestly, I'm tired ot the foolishness surrounding guns.
Click here to respond to an editorial --->