READERS' CORNER
The American Partisan is pleased to feature letters from our readers. They help us understand the issues of the day better and give us an idea of how the country as a whole reads what is going on in the world around them and how they react to events, whether they be next door, around the country, or around the world.
Some people feel more passionately than others about issues, and that is understandable; we seek viewpoints from all ends of the spectrum.
We encourage your letters. Please submit them to email@american-partisan.com, and include your name or at least first initial and city and state (or country). All letters will be considered for posting in Reader's Corner, unless you otherwise so indicate at the bottom of your letter.
We look forward to hearing from you and to having your letters featured here on Reader's Corner! Thank you very much!
The Executive Committee of The American Partisan
Regarding "Over The Top" by Timothy Rollins, on the issue of rampant voter fraud in Wisconsin and particularly in Milwaukee, along with the refusal on the part of Governor Jim Doyle (D) to step in and enact meaningful reform on the issue by way of requiring photo ID, this letter came in from the Chicago area:
My fellow Republicans:
It’s easy to make fun of what’s going on in Washington D.C. today. Senator Barbara Boxer and Congressman Conyers are objecting to the presidential election in Ohio. The members of the party that practically invented vote fraud, the party of Tammany Hall, LBJ’s “Box 13” and the 1960 Chicago ghost voters, are complaining about voting “irregularities”. In the Washington State governor race, King County (Seattle) has “found” new votes nine times since November 2nd, allowing the Democrat to turn a 2300 vote defeat into a 129 “victory” 7 weeks after the election. Republicans have witnesses swearing that provisional ballots were counted without verifying their legality---a big reason why King County “counted” 3,500 more ballots than it has voter records. The dead voting, 500 “voters” whose address is a warehouse, military ballots “lost in the mail”---when the fraud in Washington state is so blatant, why should anyone except an extreme partisan listen to anything Conyers & Co. are saying?
George Bush beat John Kerry in Ohio 2,859,764 to 2,741,165 or 50.81% to 48.71%. In the race for Chief Justice of the Ohio State Supreme Court, a black liberal from Cleveland, C. Ellen Connally, lost to Republican Thomas J. Moyer 2,358,135 to 2,073, 886 or 53.21% to 46.79%. It’s not surprising that a black Cleveland liberal ran behind Kerry. But it is surprising that this race only had 78.75% of the Presidential vote---about the biggest down ballot fall off this part time political consultant has ever seen. But what’s strains credulity and doesn’t meet the smell test is that a black liberal from Cleveland could run ahead of Kerry in votes in Auglaize, Champaign, Highland, Miami, Putnam, Van Wert and Warren Counties. These and 6 other counties where Connally virtually tied Kerry in votes are all REPUBLICAN controlled counties. And it is an incontrovertible fact that the biggest of these counties, Warren County, was the only county in the country that locked out all election observers to its courthouse due to some vague “terrorist” threat.
The fact is that any election----punch card, optical scan, touch screen---that is “counted” by computer is at the mercy of the computer program. Even a paper trail can be quietly switched on the way to the courthouse or at the courthouse late at night when no outsider is around. That’s why an advanced country like Canada counts ballots the old fashion way---paper ballots put in an empty glass box, counted in each precinct in front of election observers of all sides. By the way, paper ballots cost less than other systems, which is why penny-pinching New Hampshire still uses them. Sure you might have to wait another hour to get the results, but isn’t that better than the all these post election fiascoes that drag on for weeks?
Yes, at least one major Democrat controlled county in Ohio (Stark) had strange numbers, too. (Moyer ran well ahead of Bush). But even if the “stealing evens out” in the general election, what do you think happens in the primary election? Have you ever wondered why both parties seem so unresponsive and corrupt when they are in office, why it seems impossible to “throw the bums out” no matter who is elected? As long as those who feed on government pork control the computer program that “counts” the primary votes, they win no matter who is officially “elected”.
Paper ballots counted in precinct and no voting (provisional or otherwise) unless you produce a valid photo ID. Until we get these ballot security measures in place, our elections will continue to be farces that give us George Ryan/Gray Davis bipartisan corruption.
Grant D. Noble
Lake Forest, Illinois
Regarding "Much Ado About Belling" by Timothy Rollins, on the benching for a week of WISN talk show host Mark Belling and the pulling out by sponsors - most notably Carson Wagonlit Travel, this came in from Carson Wagonlit:
Having just read your item about us pulling our ads from Mark Belling's program, I would like to set the record straight.
We regret that Mr. Belling has misconstrued our decision to pull our ads as equating an effort by us to take him off the air. Nothing is further from the truth. Pulling ads does not equal a wish to silence him. As an advertiser, we simply didn't wish to be associated with the type of comments that were made.
Additionally, we realize that Mark Belling thinks that we aggressively sought media attention. He has been misled on this point. We did not actively seek out media attention. We issued no news release, and we did not make any pro-active calls to anyone in the media.
As a responsive company, we did what we always do: reply to each and every email and phone call like yours that came into our agencies, as well as into our headquarters. Evidently, a recipient of one of our email responses forwarded our message to at least four media outlets - WISN TV, The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, WTMJ TV, and the Associated Press (I say "at least four" because these were the media outlets that contacted us directly). Each of those outlets called us on Friday, November 5 already
armed with the knowledge that we had pulled our ads.When the media contacted us, we again did what we always do: we answered honestly and forthrightly. Yet at no time did anyone from Carlson Wagonlit Travel Associate Division or our franchisees ever say that we were seeking to have Mark Belling taken off the air. We regret that our efforts to simply respond to the emails and calls we've received was viewed by Mark Belling as aggressive.
Mark Belling received a second chance -- we'd like one, too.
Best regards,
Steve Loucks, CTC
Senior Director, Public Relations
Carlson Wagonlit Travel, Associate Division
Regarding "Sluts in the City" by Jennifer King, regarding the halftime show at the Super Bowl in Houston, this came in from Canada: (WARNING: Mature themes discussed in this letter only. May offend some, and is not recommended for all readers.)
I just finished reading your article regarding Sex and the City. I find no fault with your objections to the show. I myself find it to be a despicable program. I pity those who would admire the characters on that show. However, I did want to briefly write and correct some of your misconceptions about the "sex positive" movement. I was not heavily involved with this movement in college, but was friendly with some of its primary advocates on campus, and did attend some of their events.
The reality of college aged people is that they are often sexually active. Furthermore, they are highly likely to experiment with alternative sex, such as bondage and dominance, sado-masochism, and masturbation. The "sex positive" movement recognizes this reality. As a result, the "sex positive" movement exists to avoid the type of embarrassment that typically surrounds alternative sexuality. Once this embarrassment is dealt with, it is possible to address the issues regarding safety and consent that reduce the physical and psychological damage that can result from uninformed experimentation. (I ask you to keep in mind that this experimentation exists on college campuses with or without a "sex positive" movement.)
In the cases of individuals who are not simply experimenting, the "sex positive" movement provides resources for individuals regarding how to "come out" to your family, friends, and physician. These are not "sex clubs", they are sex EDUCATION clubs. And while I may not agree with all of their practices, I think it is better for them to exist, flawed, than for them to not exist at all.
J. E. Rutberg.
Regarding "Booby Prize" by Timothy Rollins, on the halftime show at the Super Bowl in Houston, this came in from Canada:
Good points. One thing that I don't hear anyone talking about - concerning this incident - is that this act not only bared some flesh, but it showed that it was 'OK' for a man to effectively sexually assault a woman. When Timberlake ripped that bra off of Jackson, they both told a nation of teens and young 20-somethings that 'hey, look, its no big deal to take what I want, and if I want to cop a feel, or more, I'll just go ahead and take it'. So for me, this goes way deeper than exposing some flesh - it drives to the heart of sexual immorality and the reduction of women into sexual objects.
Chris Wheeler
Greater Toronto Area, OntarioRegarding "Queer Nation" by Timothy Rollins, regarding the decision by the Ontario (Canada) Court of Appeal to legalize homosexual marriage, this came in from Canada:
The after effects of same sex marriage legislation - some headlines coming to a newspaper near you in Ontario...
"Young Man acquitted of "Peeping Tom" charges." - using the foundation principle that restriction based upon sex is not constitutional a young man who makes a regular habit of touring women's washrooms and change rooms at the local public swimming pool was acquitted of all charges yesterday. His lawyer declared "Hey, if these ladies want privacy they should stay home. In Ontario, everyone has every possible right under the law that you can imagine - which means that no one really has any rights at all!"
"R&D money from Federal Government awarded to Professor studying marriage relationships" - the professor collected data on every possible combination of cross-sexual orientation marriages (two lesbians, two homosexual men, a lesbian and a homosexual man, a lesbian and a heterosexual man, etc.etc.). "Over the last 10 years there have been significantly fewer divorces from homosexual marriages than from heterosexual. This clearly demonstrates that where heterosexual marriage has been failing, homosexual marriages are succeeding!". When it was suggested that there have been no homosexual marriages for most of that period and therefore no possibility of divorces the Professor replied "That's why the government has given me this funding - to gather this same data for the next 10 years!"
"48 year old man marries 12 year old boy!" - applying the same constitutional challenge regarding sex to age restrictions, the previously convicted pedophile was successful in his petition to have his relationship with the 12 year old recognized and sanctioned by law. "And to think I did jail time back in the 90s where now all I need is a license!"
Steve Senter
Oshawa, Ontario
Regarding "Works of Fiction" by Timothy Rollins, regarding Hillary Rodham Clinton's new book "Living History", this came in:
Only one thing I disagree with in your article. Chelsea has to be Bill's for two reasons. First, Bill lies about everything else ... why should we believe he was telling the truth about being sterile while ducking a possible paternity suit. I can't see him having his manhood clipped and if he told Hillary he had that too was a lie. Is there any corroborating evidence for his "sterility"?
Secondly, who else would have the guts to climb into bed with Hillary. She's shrill, shrewish, scrawny, and I doubt much good in or out of bed. Bill and Hillary's lack of a second heir is hardly surprising. He probably can't bring himself to make the effort a second time. For her, Bill is a rare catch not likely to be repeated (another reason for her aquiescence in his activities). Especially now we're all aware of her nature. So unless you're claiming she did it all by herself (Hail Mary!), I can't see it.
Robert W. Stapler
Regarding the article "Will the Catholic Church Fade Away?" by Dave Gibson regarding Catholic priests and the onslaught of molestation charges they seem to be buried in nationwide and in other countries as well, this came in:
I recently read your January commentary about the sexual abuses by priests and the shameful actions of many bishops in responding to these allegations. There is no defense for the poor judgment (and in many cases the immoral/illegal acts) of all involved and each person deserves whatever punishment is meted out by the legal authorities and by God once they pass from this life to the next. You and I share a very similar Catholic upbringing (although I also attended Catholic college, the University of Dayton) and I very much appreciate the focus on the issue. A couple of statements in your commentary bothered me a bit and I wanted to respond, albeit belatedly.
First, for some reason you seem to tie the abuse problems to the infallibility of the Holy Father. This is a non-sequiter for a number of reasons. First, the incidences of pedophilia, child sexual abuse and practicing homosexuality within the priesthood is equivalent to, and in some cases less than, the general population. Second, the incidences of these types of sexual abuse are equal to, and in some cases less than, those seen with other Christian denominations. Let's face it, people with these predilections tend to gravitate to positions of trust, be it the priesthood, ministry, scouting, etc. As for the Holy Father's infallibility, I think you know full well that this applies to matters of faith and morals and is only asserted at extraordinary times and in no measure relies on the impeccability of the Pope (although our current one appears to be a man of great holiness). In fact the last time it was asserted was in the mid-1800's regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary. There is no connection between the two issues and your raising them suggests another agenda.
Secondly, you referred to Father D in glowing terms and actually suggested he is the kind of priest that you would want working with children. Yet you also indicate that he told or listened to dirty jokes. I must tell you that I would be very uncomfortable having my children around Father D and it is interesting that you are so outspoken about abusive priests (and rightly so!) and yet would condone or even applaud Father D for something that is also a sin. I'm not sure where to go with that observation other than it seems a bit of a contradiction to me.
Finally, you state that many people"....are now beginning to see these people for what they really are...Humans, not God-like deities to be obeyed and never questioned." I think with this statement you completely misrepresent (or misunderstand) the essence of Christianity and the Catholic Church. No one, including the Holy Father is "God-like" or someone to be blindly obeyed (i.e., if the Holy Father tells us we should all jump off a cliff, we would rightly discern that this is not a good thing to do). Having said that, I would challenge you to find one teaching on faith and morals of the Catholic Church that would condone the actions of the abusive priests and the bishops who enabled their actions. They simply do not exist and in fact, the Church teaches the exact opposite of what these people have done! You have to separate the essence of Christianity and the Catholic Church from the sinful actions of man, even those that hold positions within the Church. They are not one and the same and in fact, the Church represents one of the last, if not the last, bulwark against the tide of our cultural decline.
Does the Church need to be rid of homosexual priests, pedophiles and bishops who abdicate their role as shepherd? Absolutely! Should those who performed illegal acts (either directly or indirectly) be punished in accordance with civil laws? Absolutely! Should we as faithful Catholics stand up and demand a shift back to the traditional values of the faith? I believe so with every fiber of my being, although I suspect that there may be a number of moral teachings of the Church that you object to. I suspect, although I could be wrong, that your straying from the subject to conduct an ad hominem attack on the Holy Father and the misperception of the deity of priests, bishops, etc. is really intended to weaken the authority of the Church to teach faith and morals based on the sins of individuals.
I am sorry for the tome but I wanted to share these thoughts. I think you are very right to shine the light on these problems but believe that you got off on the wrong track and missed an opportunity to change the Church for the better.
In Christ,
Earl H. Scott
Marietta, GeorgiaRegarding the article "Is Pet Ownership Destroying the Lives of Americans?" by Carole Wade, a firestorm of protest lettters came in - and they just keep on coming in - by the bucketful. Here they are:
Lady, you are talking to a few people who go overboard. The majority of owner train and keep their pets at home.
We do love them, they are a source of pleasure and work. A well cared for pet is a source of pleasure to all who come in contact with them.
You should read the pleasure older people get from them. As far as restricting their activates, usually they enhance them.Rita L. Heywood
Pahrump, Nevada
and the hits just keep on coming:
I don't know what happened to you as a child that would make you feel this bitter about dogs, but you obviously never had one. I've had dogs all my life and I can't imagine my life without them. I also have a daughter who is grown now, so my dogs are my main responsibility now.
I don't own them any more than I owned my daughter. I am their guardian, (my dogs and my daughter) to love and care for and be there when they need me. Usually when a dog bites, it's because they have come across someone like you and they sense your dislike and bitterness of them. Or they have been mistreated and abused and have had a good reason to bite. But contrary to what you believe, dogs do not bite for NO REASON AT ALL!
Unlike humans that will abuse, kill, mistreat and harm other humans and animals, I have spent a lot of money on my pets because I want to. They get the care they need from their vet but I also buy them good food, lots of toys, sweaters to keep them warm in the winter and anything else they want. They have a comfortable dog bed that they sleep in during the day, but every night they are in bed with me or my daughter and her husband. And we all love it.
I would not want it any other way. I will do anything to protect my dogs, because like my daughter, they are my children. YES I WOULD DIE FOR THEM! If that’s what it takes to make sure they are safe. You may think that is stupid, but anyone with compassion and love for animals will know exactly how I feel.
Debra Nelson
this last note however, was the one that finally prompted a response from the Editor:
While caring for animals and having pets is all nice and well - especially in teaching children responsibility and all, what about all the people out there in need of love and compassion as well? Who's out caring for them - Government? We've all seen what 'good' that's accomplished! Florida Department of Children's Services has lost children in their care - and that's just one of the 50 states - for crying out loud, animal abuse gets more media attention than child abuse!
What has happened to our priorities when animals are given preferential treatment over human beings? That story (in Florida again, no surprise) of the minor league baseball player striking a bird with a baseball and killing it has him facing the loss of his career because of animal extremists (or as I prefer to call them for what they are - nuts - wackos - fruitcakes - pick the appropriate term that fits) who have their sense of balance so skewered that they seek to destroy a young man for a youthful indiscretion when a $500 fine and 80 hours of community service in a related area should more than do the trick.
When folks this far out of kilter get control of our statehouses - and they eventually will unless the silent majority get off their butts and SPEAK OUT against their stupidity and foolishness, then God help us all.
Timothy Rollins
Editor, The American Partisan
New Yorkas well as this one:
I cannot dispute a lot of what you have written. However, I think that you are still off base. The dog and its relatives have been companions to humans for thousands of years. Obviously, there is a symbiotic relationship there in some fashion.
Aggressive behavior cannot be taken out of an animal species. Saddam Hussein is but one recent example of the behavior in the human animal. As a breeder, I take great care in the selection of mates for my dogs. If a puppy has a serious defect, then it gets put down. In much of the breeding of livestock, the genetic traits of the parents are of great concern. It is too bad that the human animal does not use the same care in its own breeding practices.
As far as the spending habits of Americans, not just the USA, it is hard to justify a lot of what they do. Only one example is the money spent on sports. How can one justify what is spent on golf - on tennis? Indeed, how can anyone justify the money paid to sports celebrities. The American consumer is looked upon by the retail and service industries as ripe for the picking. That a fool and his money are soon parted is ever more true today than ever before.
The Therapy Dog program is good evidence of the therapeutic benefit the dog can have with the sick and elderly. I my opinion, the elderly would benefit more by visitation than by ownership.
Dave Pateman
this one also came in:
Your story is garbage!
Joe Krug
Shelbyville, KYas did this one:
I'm surely hoping that this was written tongue in cheek or that you wrote this to get responses to your website, because I suspect after this circulates the internet you might have succeeded.
Kay Krug
Shelbyville, KYand they just kept on coming - this one screaming in the process:
WITH ALL THE ABUSE ANIMALS TAKE IN THIS WORLD...... AND ALL THE LONELY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD........................ WHY DO YOU CARE IF THEY PAIR UP?
I AM A NURSE AND AN ANIMAL RESCUER AND I HAVE SEEN FOR OVER 50 YEARS THE WONDERFUL RELATIONSHIPS PEOPLE AND OTHER ANIMALS CAN HAVE. IT HAS LITERALLY SAVED LIVES.......HUMAN AND NON HUMAN.
WHERE PEOPLE SPEND THEIR MONEY IS THERE BUSINESS.... WHO THEY LOVE IS THEIR BUSINESS.
I WON'T SPEND ANY OF MY MONEY ON ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH YOU...... OR THE AMERICAN PARTISAN. YOU ARE THE EVIL, HEARTLESS AMERICANS
YOU ARE TRULY CALLOUS AND DISGUSTING.
ELIZABETH KIRKWOOD
Here's another one:
Hello Carole,
You clearly don't have a clue about the joys of dog ownership. My dogs saved my life when I was in a deep depression. If it were not for them, I would not be here.
My dogs have made me more, not less, active. I know go for walks! I never did that before I had my dogs.
My dogs make me more, not less, social. I have made many dear friends through my dogs. I take them to play parks with my new friends and we all help each other, not just with the dogs, but with many other things.
That I spend on average 250.00 per dog per year on vet services is not a bad thing, but a good thing. No pet owner wants a sick dog running around.
If my neighbor doesn't want to deal with my dog, he does not have to. There are more places to live that ban dogs than accept them. There are plenty of dog free places to live.
No one is forced to pay for my dogs but I am forced to pay for other people's children. I am not complaining about that. I think healthcare, schooling, etc., is very important and I willingly fork over a significant amount of money each year to pay for other people's children. I don't ask a dime for my dogs. In fact, I also donate money for the health of animals.
I surely hope that you meant this article to be tongue-in-cheek. If you didn't, you are missing out on a life experience. Remember, we only go around once, give pet ownership a try before it is too late for you.
Cynthia O'Brien
I am trying to be the kind of person my dogs think that I am.and another:
You are obviously missing one of the greatest joys in life loving and being loved by dogs. You actually sound like you don't enjoy much of anything, except maybe trying to make others feel guilty for what they enjoy. Why don't you try doing something positive with your life instead of trying to spoil the fun others are having?
Sincerely,
marchet anschell dog lover supremeand yet another:
Oh Carole...
Lighten up, and get your self a pet...wait a minute. Don't get a pet, get a houseplant. Yes a houseplant...but wait! What billons of dollars are people putting into their houseplants? Gardening is turning our country into a bunch green thumbs! People actually talking to their plants! Oh, the atrocity! Billions spent on lawn care, fertilizers that poison the earth, overpriced landscapers, potting soil....say it aint so!!! Its evil I say...evil!!
What was the point of this e-mail again? Oh yes, I remember....lighten up! You are taking pet ownership to a level that most people don't...
Teri Robinson
Portland, Maineand one last one:
People don't trust anyone that doesn't like dogs.
Len Provost
but no, they just keep on coming:
Carole,
Please provide factual backup for your allegations in this article which you felt necessary to revise and re-publish.
Seniors not playing golf because they are afraid to leave their dogs home alone? Hogwash. I live in an area where retirees are the predominate population and can tell you that this doesn't happen.
Pets locking their owners at home so that they are less active? Not in this home, and I'm a show dog owner, so I can also attest for the other show dog owners that I have frequent contact with. We are actually rarely home!
Spend our last dollar on a dog psychic reading? Do you really think that we are that stupid?? Provide facts please!!
Non pet owners are not "forced" to remain in apartment or condo buildings and held at the mercy of their pet owning neighbors. they were perfectly capable of reading the condo documents or apartment rules prior to moving in. If you don't like pets, and pets are allowed by the association, seek another which does not. It's that simple.
Those with allergies to pets also have the same option, and I remind you that there are may animals on this earth which are not pets whose hair and dander permeate the air and cause, for lack of another word, "animal dander and hair pollution". Let's slaughter all the wild animals, slaughter the cows which provide food, same with pigs & sheep (although maybe not sheep -- they provide wool, unless of course you're allergic). Just get rid of all of the animals for fear of allergies and <horrors> the possibility that they might spread disease. And while you're at it, do something about the insects that do the same.
Yes, there are homeless men, women and children in this country and others, and each week, I contribute to my church and other charities to help alleviate this situation, but is it right that you should suggest that we who own pets should not have the right to do this or to spend our hard earned money on our pets if we choose to do so? I daresay that you have items that you choose to spend your money on which have nothing to do with alleviating the homeless situation in this country. Is that makeup on your face that I see in your photograph? Speaking about photographs, I'm assuming that you spent dollars on that professional photo? And while I'm at it, I have never purchased my animals a toilet or spent $300 on a facial for them. for you to insinuate that the average pet owner does this is just plain wrong.
I would suggest that you get a life before you begin assaulting others for theirs. Or better yet, get a pet.
Shellie Davis
as does this one:
Unfortunately, you are probably not a dog owner. I find more waste in the American Lottery Systems that a lot of people (mostly low income families) support which gives them no companionship whatever.
I am just one American who finds the friendship (yes ... friendship!) willingly given by my dog, despite my imperfections, to be refreshing. I have been blessed with pets all my life and find their companionship a natural part of my life. I am fortunate to have had the opportunity to retire from a job I held for over 23 years. I have a wonderful social life and do not let the fact that I have a pet interfere with that. Yet, my pet is a part of my "family." My children were left with my husband when I had a need to be away from the family, so why not leave the "family" dog with him.
Your article did not cover all the plus factors of having a companion dog or a "family" dog. It was way too cynical ... the American public does not ... nor will ever agree with you. You want to change your outlook on life? Get yourself a dog!!!
Dee MillerHere is a letter supporting Ms. Wade's position:
I just read your article via a link on bbspot.com. All I can say is "Carole Wade, you're my hero!" Thank you. Your comments about dogs restricting people from interacting with their human friends particularly struck home. A good friend of mine's wife decided to adopt two very "high maintenance" dogs (an ex-racing greyhound and some other dog-shelter refugee), which promptly caused them to not be able to attend any social functions in our circle of friends for months, precisely because they couldn't leave these neurotic dogs home alone. That plus a number of other dynamics I've observed between my friend and his wife, convince me that her own need to completely dominate his life and her inability to "share" him with his friends led her to get these dogs specifically in order to isolate him from his friends. It's very frustrating.
Anyway, thanks for your article. Maybe I'll forward him the URL.
Cloister Bell
Ms. Wade responds:
Writer's Comment: Many of you have expressed great "hatred" toward me personally in your angry and spiteful E-mails and Website essays concerning my article about dogs and the pet food industry.
* I do not hate dogs ... and I even acknowledged the important role of "Service Dogs." According to my husband, family, and friends, I am not a "lonely" person.
* I cannot change the statistics: dog bites are a major health problem for children and the elderly. Especially dangerous are the rescued mixed Rottweiler/Doberman/Pit Bulls that were bred and trained -- often by criminals -- to attack people.
* Pet Food Industry's lobbyists admit contributing "millions of dollars a year" to push legislation promoting the ownership of more vicious dogs. I want to preserve my “Free Right of Association” -- meaning that I should not have to fear barking, nipping, and biting dogs in my high-rise condominium.
* Today (May 7, 2003) the Associated Press is reporting again about dogs and SARS: "Chinese police said Wednesday that pets owned by quarantined people must be isolated or put to death for fear that the animals may carry the disease. In the eastern city of Nanjing, where about 10,000 people are under quarantine, dogs are banned from streets, parks and other public places, authorities said."
There is also an article called "SARS: China 'culls' pets" in Planet Save.com that further clarifies the issue.
EDITOR'S NOTE: It should be noted that one of Ms. Wade's favorite little friends is her mother's dog Ranger.
Regarding the article "The Mexican Invasion" by Dave Gibson, this one came in from Scotland:
I have never read so much crap in my life!
If my history serves me correctly (taught equally in this country to black, white or brown) the indigenous peoples of America were not white - or were you so deprived that you were not taught this at school?
NO-ONE has the right to play God and create a world that suits our understanding on normative behaviour. Your views are fundamentally no different to the Nazi's of the 30's. Thankfully today we have people still prepared to stand up for human rights and civil liberties - THAT is what makes America great - not idiots like you.
Print that in your rag.
Kenneth Short - Scotland.
Regarding the article "Knickers In a Knot" by Timothy Rollins, this came in from Alaska:
We must not forget that the strongest proponent of abortion, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, was a sympathizer and an advocate Hitler's policy of one race. If the shoe fits, wear it! It is my opinion that Planned Parenthood is a conclave of Nazis & sympathizers to Hitler and their legacy.
Randall Greene
Anchorage, Alaska
Regarding the article "More Hilarity At the United Nations" by Linda Prussen-Razzano (April 14), this came in from Canada:
Dear Linda,
I loved your article on the United Nations. You are quite correct, it is a farce, a do-nothing farce. This was so clearly seen when the President and his administration tried to legally free Iraq, and all the weenies came out of the woodwork, crawling and pouting about and it was not difficult to see each and everyone of them had their own agenda and some of their own actions to try and hide.
Well, it did not work, and in some ways it is good thing, the president knows the real supporters of America and who are not. Sadly our idiot Prime Minister (Jean Chretien) decided to behave like the liberal he is, and put many Canadians into a state of shock. Our Premier (Ralph Klein of Alberta) sent off a letter telling your ambassador that the P.M. did not speak for Albertans and we wanted America to know that. This was before the ambassdor rebuked us, as well he should. I, for one was so angry I wrote many e-mails to our government, the paper etc, since then Alberta has had rallies, created websites, one of which had 75,000 signatures in two days, a farmer in a small town raised money for an ad in USA TODAY to let the Americans know we are not on board with the prime minister, and although he was pretty well asked to step down months ago, he decided to wait until the election year and retire, much to our dismay. We are helpless when it comes to having any power over his decisions and behaviour. I suppose it was the same when clinton was in office, all you can do is wait for the day he leaves. They are rallies planned from Vancouver to Toronto for this weekend, although the one in Toronto may be cancelled because of SARS. So, all the Canadians who support President Bush and the war have had to make some noise as we do not want to hurt the Americans who live in Calgary They are 6 - 8% of our population and do not deserve any flak. I am not ashamed of my country, I am deeply ashamed of my government, but as I know the majority of the western provinces (71%) stand behind America I will not feel shame for our behaviour. The Prime Minister is a monster of a liberal, a man who wants to leave a legacy as with former President Clinton. They are golfing together this week, yuk!
However, former President Clinton spoke in Ottawa and lambasted the president and his administration again, and again and again. I am writing to conservative columnists asking them why they do not write columns that really do a number on clinton. The media will not do anything, they still lie about clinton and his activities. He has no class, no morals, no character, he lies, he discredits his own president and has not changed a bit from the day he became president. His latest lie is a real good one, he is having it said that the forces that won the war were the ones he created. The gall, when everyone knows how he treated the military.
My take on the war is, it was needed and should have been done earlier, America showed the world their military might and awesome it was, but they also showed the world forces that can be tough and strong. They not only did that, they gave the world of a view of what integrity is. It is courage and compassion in one countries forces. Courage and compassion intertwined showed so much integrity, and integrity brings trust, and trust growth and understanding. I know that sounds naive, but if I see it and I am no great thinker, others can as well.
The world is basically in chaos at the moment, and that could last awhile, I see it as God taking the world in his hand and giving it a shake, it happens and then there are different and some times much better ways learned to deal with the problems we are all faced with. In my opinion the United Nations is obselete, has no value anymore, but how to create a better order? It is not going to be easy.
People do not like change, but in the future they will have to be more flexible in their thinking, there will be mistakes, and then more changes and if America has to bring about the changes, with President Bush and his administration more power to them.
Regards,
Carole Graham
Dual Citizen of the USA and Canada
Calgary, AlbertaRegarding the article "The People v. Scott Peterson" by Timothy Rollins, this came in from the author's youngest brother in Iowa:
Tim,
What was the deal with this Peterson loser? Look at Laci...look at the girlfriend. Laci was one of the most beautiful women I have seen in a long time. He had Filet Mignon at home, but he decided to go to McDonalds????
This scumbag had a life that most men can only dream of having. What in God's name possessed him to throw it away?
I think he should be executed in the same way he killed Laci and Connor.
Keep up the good work,
Benjamin Rollins
Iowa City, Iowaalso, this came in from Canada:
Off with the f**ker's head!
The worst part of it for me was that the baby came loose from Mom and was found as a corpse under a pile of large rocks, the first time he was ever held after being pulled away from the safety of his mom. That rotten f**ker.
GOOD JOB TIM!
Terri Wills
Oshawa, OntarioRegarding the article "Have They No Shame", by Timothy Rollins, this came in from the Smart Family in Salt Lake City:
Timothy--
Your March 28, column "Have They No Shame?" about the Smart Family was brought to my attention today. I serve as the Smart Family spokesperson and manage the family's affairs. I want to clarify a few points in your story.
First, the Smart Family (both immediate and extended) did not sell their rights to People magazine, nor did they receive any compensation for interviews or any other participation or publication of the article. In fact, Ed and Lois were not interviewed for the story as they were spending as much time as possible with Elizabeth. The quotes attributed to Ed and Lois were from a press conference and a public celebration at a local park (where both parents spoke to a large audience before receiving a police escort back home). Several members of the extended family did speak with People (but again did not receive compensation of any kind). Ed & Lois did not participate in any one-on-one interviews with print publications. Ed did interviews one morning on the Today Show, Good Morning America, The Early Show and with John Walsh for America's Most Wanted. Since that time, they have not done any interviews.
Second, regarding a potential book and movie deal, the Smarts never intended nor would they participate in either if it wasn't for the fact that if they don't tell the story, someone else will. In essence, signing an authorized deal with a reputable producer and writer who agree to a number of provisions relating to the content will not only discourage salacious unauthorized versions, but will empower the family to tell a faith promoting version of their story.
The Smarts are very cognizant of their position and are taking the utmost care in doing what is in Elizabeth’s best interest. I would greatly appreciate your efforts in clarifying and correcting these errors. In the future, please don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Chris Thomas
Smart Family SpokespersonEDITOR'S NOTE: We appreciate your response to the column run on the date and thank you for your prompt reply and clarification on the issues at hand. In this day and time, it is refreshing to see a matter such as this handled in such a positive fashion.
Regarding the articles run on the Red Cross earlier this year by April Shenandoah and Timothy Rollins, this came in:
Enjoyed your article on the Red Cross. I was punished severely while in the Military for refusing to give to the Red Cross in the year of 1954 at Camp Carson, Colorado. This problem led to other events as I did not give in. The result being that after some 40 or so years I was able to prove the truth and now receive compensation from the VA. I still hate what they represent. They come off like they are a government agency.
Frank Roncone
Regarding "Hierarchy of Evil" (October 14) by Timothy Rollins, this came in:Tim:
Again I reiterate that this is the work of a terrorist cell, pure and simple.
Fact One: If the shot at the gas station was timed with the light, then there had to have been two people involved. It is humanly impossible to fire a weapon (aim & squeeze), shoulder arms then drive off, within 10 seconds. Take any longer than that at a light and you are either gong to get the horn and/or the finger.
A thought just occurred to me: If the shot was fired out the back (the roll-up door), the car right behind them would notice the shooter. Could there be a gun port in the side of the vehicle? A short piece of the muzzle sticking out the side is less noticeable than the entire weapon. If they fired from a fixed position (as in a parking lot) they then planned for a quick get away. Your article was right on. If they took out the trooper, it would have filled every officer with a terrible resolve.
Fact Two: Firing a second shot would have provided a fix on their position. If it was a criminal intent, they then would have taken out the trooper first, then a civilian second.
Fact Three: Is it not the motive of the terrorist to strike at the populace, 'Strike fear into the hearts of the people' and not the government.
Fact Four: Do not terrorists target 'All Americans' no matter what their age, whereas a serial killer targets only a certain section of society?
Whom or whoever it is knows they will not be taken alive. It is my opinion that the authorities will shoot first and take their chances with the shooting review board later!
By the way: Have a nice day (and don't forget to duck)!
Randall Greene
Anchorage, AlaskaRegarding "Blind Faith or Stupidity?" (October 7) by Timothy Rollins, this came in:
Dear Mr. Rollins:
I am very impressed with your article Beneath the Surface. I first became aware of the Rachael Runyan murder after viewing it on Unsolved Mysteries. It has haunted me ever since. Everyhere I turn since I first saw that show, this child has somehow been right there - almost spooky.
I am from a small town in Alabama and I have even tried to research this case myself right from my computer (no luck getting any valuable insight to the evidence), the investigator in charge of this case should not sleep at night. With all the new technology available now that wasn't available then, this should be persued none stop until this monster responsible for this child's brutal murder is caught, I will continue to be haunted by this until he is apprehended, keep up the good work and let these law enforcement officer know that all of America is watching them not just Utah!
Sincerely,
J. Harris
Alabama
Regarding "Child Custody: Where Men hit a Glass Ceiling " (October 7) by Rachel Alexander, this came in from the Editor:
Watching all this is somewhat fascinating in that it seems that Ms. Hawkins is the one who had the choice in the first place on whether or not to keep her pants on - period. As a man and a gentleman at that, if I was able to keep my pants on and remain a virgin all the way through high school and through three years in the Marine Corps of all places, and still remain a virgin until marrying, it is within the reach of anyone - especially with my libido the way it is.
In reading your responses to Miss Alexander's articulate positions, I see nothing but the pathetic excuses of one who, like all too many women who see themselves as nothing more than 'professional victims', also possessed of the mindset that see men as nothing more than 'penises with wallets' to be shaken down by either themselves or the state whenever they get the itch.
Regrettably, it is mindsets such as these unfortunately, that make women in this category seen as not much more than human repellent by the genuinely good men that are out there and who are in fact looking for fine and wonderful ladies with whom to settle down, marry and start and raise their families. With a mindset like the one you seem to possess Ms. Hawkins, you do not seem to be in a position to come across one of these good men who are out looking for one of these good women with whom to share their lives.
In a nutshell Ms. Hawkins, grow up, ask your mother for help as she lives nearby, get the additional education and skills needed to increase your earning power, and in the meantime, KEEP YOUR PANTIES ON!!
Timothy Rollins
Editor, The American Partisan
New York
Regarding "Child Custody: Where Men hit a Glass Ceiling " (October 7) by Rachel Alexander, the war of words between Ms. Hawkins and Miss Alexander continues:
Ms. Hawkins replied:
How nice that you have two incomes to support you and that you have an education to help you make the money that you're making. But if you had no degree and you had no husband, and had no financial means to move to a less expensive area of our great nation, what would you do then? I sincerely believe your rant against single mothers was a result of your bad experience with your husband's ex. That, however, does not make your math any less incorrect. The cost of living on one income and raising even one child is entirely too high to manage without great sacrifice. You will notice that if there are no kids to figure into the list below, close to $1680 is no longer needed. Now tell me kids don't cost a huge chunk of change to raise. Like it or not, rent does go up when you add a person to your home, call your local code enforcement officials. Yeah, we could lie and get a cheaper, smaller place, but I'm no liar. The man who helped create the child should be held responsible for that as much as the woman. You say maybe I shouldn't have chosen to become a mother, but we can't change the past. Abortion never even entered my mind because I personally see it as barbaric. Most men in America don't see it that way, and this is part of the problem. They feel that it should be used as birth control, giving them free license to impregnate all over the place without fear of having to actually take responsibility for the seeds they plant.
And I can't speak for anyone else, but I never received anything from my children's fathers. I was taking care of myself when they met me and continue to do so. I have seriously considered relocating, but then my mother would not be there to watch the children (which she should not have to do anyway) and I would be back in the same boat; rent and car insurance might go down, but day-care would go up! Child support exists to provide for the child's basic needs. Those needs are food, clothing, and shelter. As in any complex equation, one value depends on another. You must work to make money, in order to work you must have transportation, child care, and business attire. You also must have a permanent address and a number where you can be reached. You must also eat and feed and clothe your children. I could be doing so many more things with my life if I was childless, but now that I have them, I can't go back, nor would I want to. I just wish their dad's would love them enough to want to HELP their mother provide a safe home, food, transportation, and quality child care. You say that there are too many men being taken advantage of, but it is quite the opposite. There are too many women being taken advantage of and too many children being ignored. By the way, I was never married. I was at least smart enough not to totally chain myself to either of those quasi-men.
Hoping You Figure Out there's More Than One Side To Every Story
Steph
to which Miss Alexander had to say:
Want me to respond and keep it going?
I'm not "lucky," I CHOSE not to have a child until I was financially able to support it. You had that choice also and chose instead to have sex, knowing you might get pregnant. I CHOSE to abstain from sex until I was prepared to support a child. Any 10-yr old knows that when you have sex, you could get pregnant; they hammer that into you at a young age with sex ed. Because I was responsible, and abstained from having the good life of sleeping around, I should be responsible to fork over taxpayer dollars (e.g. welfare) for everyone out there who was irresponsible and had sex before they were financially able to support a child? I should be punished? And when I married my husband and his ex-wife was receiving child support from him, the child support calculations included MY income - so there I am, forced to pay for yet ANOTHER woman who had sex before she was ready to support a child.
Shouldn't it be the other way around, the people who choose to have sex before they're ready to take care of a child, should be the ones being punished, not those of us who worked hard, went to college, and abstained? You deliberately CHOSE to have sex before you were financially ready to afford a child. You had a good old time with the guys. Why should I feel sorry for you now? You knew exactly what you were getting into when you decided to have sex. And no my feelings on this subject have nothing to do with my personal experience; I have acquired them over the years and they became cemented when I took a domestic violence law clinic in law school, and child abuse & neglect, and saw how many women were abusing the system (long before I met my husband).
You say you were smart enough "never to chain yourself" to the fathers of your children. Well, if you could see these "quasi-men" were pathetic, then what were you doing sleeping with them in the first place? Isn't that your fault?
If they're really awful fathers and don't want anything to do with the children, why would you want them even in your children's lives? Why not sever their rights and get rid of the entanglement child support creates? It sounds to me like the only thing you think they're good for is money. If I had two guys like that I couldn't stand, I wouldn't want ANYTHING to do with them, not even money, because that just keeps them lurking around.
Somehow I think that with or without children, you would be whining about not having enough money. Trying to live on less than $30k/yr in Washington D.C. would be pretty difficult even for a single person. Again, why don't you consider getting a better job? Or does it make you feel better trying to collect money from your ex's? You can whine and moan all you want about how much more expensive it is with children, and sure, if you want to make it that way, and insist on a large apartment with spacious bedrooms for your children in one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation - but then you just sound like one of those women who abuses the system. When I was little, three of us kids shared one bedroom and we thought nothing of it, nor did my parents. We didn't go begging to the government (or whoever the law would allow us to collect from) to demand more money. Most people AREN'T well off. But we just don't complain about it, perhaps because there's no generous mooching system set up like the child support system is set up to try and leach money off of.
You say that your mother should not have to watch your children - oh, so who should if not family? According to you, obviously not the "quasi-fathers" who you have disdain for and think should not see their children since they're in favor of abortion. So daycare is better than family? Ok, that makes a lot of sense - blame everything on the father and withhold his children from him, make him pay child support so the child has to be taken care of by total strangers instead of family. That is so backwards.
I just find it odd that you do not want the fathers in their childrens lives, but you expect money from them. My husband and I kindly allowed his ex-wife in his son's life for awhile, until it became too clear that she would never stop abusing and neglecting him, and now that she's stated that she wants nothing to do with him, you don't see us clamoring for huge amounts of child support from her. You see, it's not about the money for us. We have huge credit card debt from school and thousands from the custody fight, and huge school loan debts, so it's tough paying the bills, but you don't see us blaming it on the lack of child support from his ex. That is completely irrelevant as far as we're concerned, and if she was ordered to pay support, and didn't pay it, we'd be happy because then we could sever her rights so I could adopt him. It's not about the money to us, it's about what's best for our son and what's fair. It's not fair to take money from someone who doesn't even see their child. Especially since they're struggling for money just like the rest of us.
RachelNot one to back down from an argument, Ms. Hawkins had yet more to say:
Again, Rachel, I can't help but notice the bitterness you seem to harbor towards people who disagree with your narrow point of view. If you were paying attention, you would have read where I stated that I am not a liar. Wouldn't cheating the system be a form of lying? As for the fathers of my and other children of single working parents, why shouldn't they receive support from their fathers? Do they have less of a right to that than children of married couples? Why would any man want his child to live in an unsafe neighborhood, or endure sub-standard child care conditions because Mom can't afford quality child care on her salary alone?
As for the exes, you as an attorney should know better than anyone what a headache it is to deal with the bureaucracy that is state government. If I could do it all alone, I would. There is absolutely no joy in schlepping back and forth to court. And withholding the children? Honey, I know people who have done it and been victims of it, and I do NOT do it. These so-called men need no provocation to ignore their kids. They just don't care. When a man demonstrates his lack of interest in his child's life, the only thing LEFT for him to give is money. As for whose "fault" it is that I have two beautiful children, it's no one's "fault". Parenthood is a joint venture, no matter the circumstances of conception. I see absolutely no reason in the world why the men AND women who abdicate their parental responsibilities should not be forced to live up to them. Your angry tirades seem to suggest you think your tax dollars are at risk because of the child support system. What is the correlation, Rachel? Child support is paid (when it's paid) by the fathers of the children, not by the government. Perhaps you are more angry at the so-called "welfare state" than at the child support laws.
Before you go calling a lot of honest, hard working women "cheats" and system "abusers", think about it. By the way, you knew your husband had a kid and a child support obligation when you married him, but you CHOSE to marry him didn't you? Don't expect me to feel sorry for your credit card debt. It's all about the choices you make in this life, but men shouldn't be allowed to just walk away from the choices that they make. It sounds to me as if you want all single women to have abortions and divorced women to give up custody of their kids.
PS: I quote "the people who choose to have sex before they're ready to take care of a child, should be the ones being punished" So are you saying the woman had sex by herself???? And yes, you ARE bitter about the ex-wife.Steph
Regarding "Child Custody: Where Men hit a Glass Ceiling " (October 7) by Rachel Alexander, a reader sent this in:
You suggest that it does not take $800 to support a child. I am guessing you have no children. With each additional child, there are marked increases in rent for larger apartments, more food, diapers, and child care. In the Washington, DC metro area, child care costs at a quality center for one infant range from $180/week to $220/week. Maximum occupancy regulations prevent one adult and two children from legally inhabiting a one bedroom apartment, and the rent for a two bedroom apartment is generally around $200 higher than the one bedroom. Diapers and wipes run between $40 and $50/mo. And heaven forbid the single mother want to enroll in school, who would watch the children while she's in evening classes? And as far as the free legal help is concerned, I wish someone had offered me some. I had to pay all the money I had to my name ($1000) to retain an attorney to sue my child's father for sole custody and child support, and I have yet to even see a dime from him. I understand the argument that women take advantage of the system in order to "make money" off of procreation, but this is not the case 9 times out of 10. I would have way more money and a much greater chance of being able to better myself and my circumstances had I not become a mother.
Now let's say that my child's father got a better job than I have. Would I even consider allowing my child to live with him? Absolutely not. Why send a child into a home with a person who wanted to murder her in the womb, tried to have her mother imprisoned over a frivolous charge, has contributed absolutely nothing to her support, and has made it clear that he is not responsible for her in any way? How dare you suggest that fathers withhold support for their children in order to "punish" women they have impregnated! I have a punishment in mind for men who do not support their children, but I am too much of a lady to say it.
As is evidenced by the list below, a single parent making $30k/yr and bringing home less than $2k/mo cannot afford to make ends meet without the assistance of the absent parent. This parent is also making far too much money to qualify for any type of government aid. The expenses below do not even include money for such things as savings, birthdays, or emergencies. This is just a snapshot of the life many of us are trying to navigate, and hoping to steer our children clear of the dangers of drugs and violence that plague the neighborhoods many of us are confined to as a result of our unfortunate financial circumstances. The majority of American single mothers are not drug addicts, illiterate, or lazy. I strongly caution you against making blanket judgements about such a large segment of American parents. Ninety percent of us are doing the best we can with what we have and not out to defraud anyone.
0850 Rent
0250 Car Note
0120 Car Insurance
0080 Gas
0300 Food/Diapers
0100 Utilities
1400 Childcare (2 children)
0100 Medical Exp. (including insurance and pediatric visits)
3200 TotalStephanie Hawkins
Single Parent in MarylandMiss Alexander responds:
You made your first mistake by assuming I have no children. My husband and I are raising his son together, who we spent thousands of dollars on in order to regain custody from his meth-abusing ex-wife who was coddled by the courts and given primary custody. So I know exactly how much it costs to raise a child. It costs us probably $200/month to raise him, plus any "extras" if we desire - and I don't think children should be coddled the way so many parents spoil their kids today anyways. Just turns them into spoiled brats.
Sure daycare may cost more, but maybe you shouldn't have planned to have children if you couldn't afford them. We don't put our child in daycare, and instead have planned our jobs accordingly with grandma so it's not necessary to put our son in daycare. Of course, when our son was living with the meth-addict mother, she put him in daycare every day of the week, including on her days off, even though we would have been available to take care of him.
If you can't afford to live in D.C., why don't you move to a cheaper area, instead of expecting your ex to subsidize YOUR living? I live in Arizona, which is very cheap; you don't see my husband and I living in NYC and expecting his ex-wife to subsidize us. Until a year ago, I paid $550/month rent for a large apartment.
As for your husband preferring to abort your unborn child, well, millions of women across the world each year abort their children (my husband's ex-wife wanted to abort their child, and aborted another of their children, as well as 8 children from other men she'd slept with), yet the courts never let that prevent these women from getting preferred custody of their children.
As for making less than $30k/yr, well, why don't you consider finding a better paying job if you cannot afford your child? Why should it be your ex's responsibility? You're a capable human being (I assume) and a responsible adult. Why should you make his life miserable too by insisting on getting money from him every month as if you were still together? And I'm sorry, but most of child support money goes to pay YOUR bills, not the direct expenses of a child. You can complain all you want about how your rent is higher because of a child, but we all know that one child makes very little difference in rent, utilities, food, etc. Our son increases our food bill about $40/month, and makes zero difference in rent/utilities. Furthermore, I'm not that sympathetic if you don't have money for "extras." I'm an attorney, yet it's taken me until age THIRTY to have any money for "extras." I've struggled, on my own, for years, with no savings, going paycheck to paycheck. And I didn't ask to have a child right now, it was my husband's choice, but you don't see me complaining and griping to get more child support from my husband's meth-addict ex-wife. And as for your ideas on "punishing" men who don't pay their child support; well, let's just say it's blanket statements like that that are going to finally tear down the awful system of child support. Too many innocent men are being used for money by vengeful or greedy or lazy ex's, and it's those men who are finally going to put a stop to the whole system.
Rachel
***
COPYRIGHT © 2002-2004 BY THE AMERICAN PARTISAN. All writers retain rights to their work.