Making a Clean Breast of It
Regarding Patricia Calhoun's "The Body Politic," in the December 6 issue:
It is typical for Ms. Calhoun to complain when another company is responsible enough to police itself for obscenities while ignoring the smut in her own paper. If only Westword were content to simply print the word "breast." Instead, it seems compelled to show them (and worse) at every opportunity.
I've been an AOL subscriber for about three months now and have noticed that occasionally I have been unable to access certain areas of what I'll call an "adult" nature. If there is one thing I can't stand, it's having someone else tell me what I can and cannot see, read, say or hear. This e-mail is the second-to-last thing I'll do with AOL. The last will be another e-mail to AOL telling them why I'm canceling my service.
Thanks for Patricia Calhoun's informative article about this communistic company.
I just don't understand why some people feel the need to control everyone else. It is very easy to avoid the things that you are not interested in: Just don't go there. If you find something to be offensive, then don't look at it, or read it, or whatever. I am personally offended by the religious people and the things they believe, and I know I'm not alone, but those of us who don't believe are not out there trying to force others to do what we want.
Maybe we should all get together and start working to ban the public display of a cross. After all, it is an incredibly cruel instrument of torture--therefore, aren't those religions that use it promoting violence and cruelty? I know that there will be some right-wing conservative person out there who is offended by what I have to say and will spout something from the Bible to "prove" how wrong I am. But I'll just find some other passage that supports my position.
As for L. Brouhard's letter in the same issue, it is typical right-wing conservative religious crap. Where are the facts to back up the claim about abortion being the number-one legal money-making business in America today? I don't see any multibillionaire abortion doctors anywhere. Where is all that money going? The rest of the letter doesn't deserve any response.
Ricky L. Berry
Anti-Social Services Behavior
Thank you for Michelle Johnston's December 6 story, "Who's the Boss?" Those who consider the Parental Rights Amendment to be "innocuous" are carrying the mistaken impression that parents naturally will do what is right for their children. What is overlooked, yet obvious to those of us who constantly witness children's suffering, is that there are many very brutal, neglectful and rotten parents. Last year 2,000 children died from abuse and neglect. Almost half of them had prior or current contact with Social Services, yet they were sent home or left home to die because parental rights are so strong now that child-welfare systems are reluctant to truly protect children. Child abuse is the leading cause of death for children under four.
Parents who are upset with the general philosophy of society's rules and laws might try looking within themselves to figure out why this is so. Children, unlike television sets, chairs and cars, are not anyone's property. Our society partially recognizes children as human beings by deciding what type of care and education are minimal to optimize children's futures. In the earliest years of our country, women, children and slaves were legal property of men. We have liberated women and slaves, but children wait to receive the human rights adults enjoy. These rights would include freedom from assault and the freedom to be protected from further assault, rather than sent back to the perpetrator as if the child were property.
If we are to create a better world, we must decrease the neglect of children's rights, which has perpetuated the manufacturing of criminal adolescents. The creation of these adolescents is the result of chronic abuse or neglect, by both parents and systems. Confidentiality hides this pattern from the public. The amendment needed, desperately, is one that elevates children's rights.
For an example of why Colorado needs a Parental Rights Amendment, I suggest that readers look at Patricia Calhoun's November 29 column, "The Bottom Drops Out." Parents need some recourse to the power of Social Services.
Once again, the public is indebted to Patricia Calhoun for her courage in revealing Colorado's stormtrooper terrorists: Social Services. It is time taxpayers learned that the worst child abuser in Colorado is the child protection services system, together with certain members of the judiciary.
It is time to end the coverup of incompetency and cruelty that harms children, destroys people falsely accused of abuse, costs taxpayers a fortune in court costs, harms families emotionally and financially, and has resulted in suicides of innocent persons.
Please ask your readers to request that legislators adopt changes in the law to remove immunity from social workers who are negligent, who fail to investigate cases, who are malicious or who coerce family members to perjure themselves by agreeing children are truthful when a child may be stating a falsehood or fantasy. Let's get rid of the multimillion-dollar child-abuse industry created by incompetent child protectors.
Jane K. Conrad
This is in regard to Nancy Collins, and her letter in the December 6 issue about Karen Bowers's November 22 story, "Natural Bored Killers." I think she needs to know all the facts before she tells me I didn't bust a sweat over my daughter!
If she only knew how many tears were shed night after night, but the media doesn't want to write that part of my story. They didn't write about me driving around till 1 or 2 a.m. looking for my daughter. Having the police bring her home from Terrance's, only to have her hate me. Putting her in a detention home, only to have her run away. Asking friends, family and co-workers to help talk sense into her, because they all knew she was taking the wrong path in life. But Rachelle was in love, and love is blind. I was taking her to school every day only to have her go out the back door because Terrance was waiting for her. Fighting to get her into a new school because Terrance was a Blood, and Crip members beat her up because she was dating him. I did get her into a new school, only to have her quit. Then I got together with her past and present teachers to help her with her future and she told me she was tired of everyone always expecting straight As and that she be the perfect person. Which she was until she met the wrong person. Her life was not over just because she was having a baby. I was not a teenaged parent and Rachelle was very much wanted; she was planned.
We talked because Rachelle was afraid, but I told her we'll do this together. She was getting ready for school, me for work. We hugged, kissed and told each other I love you! I asked her not to go to Terrance but she wanted to get their picture taken before she gained weight. She went to school. I went to work, that was the last time I saw my daughter.
All the others were doing drugs, drinking, stealing and planning a murder. So don't tell me I ignored my daughter. I guess I could have controlled her more if I quit work, went on welfare and let you support me and my children. If you know the right answers to raising teenagers, let me know.
In response to the letter about interracial dating: We are all from one God and love sees no color. Rachelle dated whites who treated her just as bad. I do agree there are parents who don't care what their kids do. I do fear for the future of our children.
Regarding the December 6 Off Limits:
Mike Rosen a frequent sparring partner with Pat Schroeder? Ha! Patsy is too chickenshit to duke it out with Rosen. Peter Boyles is more her speed. Like they say, if you can't take the (Republican) heat, get out of the kitchen. Good riddance!
Dennis P. Lima
TV or Not TV?
I couldn't agree more with Bill Gallo's "These Are a Few of My Favorite Thugs," in the December 6 issue. Our society obviously rewards and reveres violent athletes and poor sportsmanship. My beef is this: This subject was covered on both 48 Hours and Dateline NBC just last week. Not only did these shows cover the issue, they used the same examples that Gallo did. His article reads like an exact transcript of either of these shows. I appreciate the fact that you have given space in your paper to this worthwhile topic, but next time, how about a little originality and creativity?
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
Bill Gallo replies: I watch little television and have never, I am happy to report, seen any episode of either 48 Hours or Dateline NBC. However, I have been collecting notes on the issue of excess in sports for several years. These alone were the basis of my story.
For years I have been convinced of the blatant, outright blinding stupidity of the pro-life contingency. So it was with bemused interest, and in the hopes of a good laugh, that I read L. Brouhard's December 6 letter in defense of our local, obnoxious and obviously misguided abortion protesters. Fortunately, I was not disappointed. One has only to peruse her letter on a surface, disinterested level to again be convinced that pro-lifers are incapable of constructing a logical, convincing and well-organized argument.
Please spare us your unwarranted, pious condescension and obvious stupidity. You don't have enough sense to blame anyone for using "illogical thinking"!