The Sentinel daily circulation is about 250,000. I figure at least 10% read the Op-Ed page, so that means that 25,000 people have read my epistles. If my Blog could get 150 ,000 hits in a span of a few months I could buy a cup of coffee with the ad revenue.
I sometimes cross post my Letters to the Editor here, but have not done so recently. So for those that missed my missives in print, here is a recap of this year’s published letters:
Published 10/13/06
I must confess to a certain Schadenfruede at the GOP’s predicament concerning the Foley affair. But that is overshadowed by my sadness at the further implications. Social conservatives won’t see this as one of their own with feet of clay, but proof that all gay men are depraved sexual predators. They, and the Mark Foley’s that court their support, don’t understand that living an honest, open, and yes, morally upright life as an out gay man, enjoying the full rights and privileges of society, is less likely to drive a person to climb into the bottom of a bottle while cruising teens in internet chat rooms.
Jeff Henderson
Published 10/4/06
I liked the sentiment in George Diaz’s recent column suggesting those on the political left and right tone down their insults and rhetoric. However, I was taken aback when Diaz made Bill O’Riley and Jon Stewart the right-left poster children for the problem.
O’Riley offers himself as a serious journalist delivering truth without spin, Stewart offers himself as a comedian delivering parody on politics and the media. I expect journalists to be measured, careful, truthful, and informative. I expect comedians to be funny and outrageous. Be that as it may, I offer a solution to at least part of the problem: The best way for those on the right to help stem the tide of outrageous comments from comedians on the left, is to stop providing such good material.
Jeff Henderson
Published 9/15/06
The Constitution is in pretty good shape just as it is. It does not need much in the way of change. But it may need some protection against those that do not understand what it is for, what it says or how it works. The constitution defines our nation’s basic system of government and guarantees the rights of its citizens. It is a masterpiece at defining effective but limited government vis-à-vis separation of powers, checks and balances and specific enumerated rights of the people listed in the bill of rights and later amendments.
But so many claiming to be true Americans want to tear apart the fabric of our fundamental freedoms by assaulting, even insulting, the Constitution. The president want to be free to ignore the 4th and 5th amendments, he and others want an amendment to deny the right of marriage for some, but not all citizens. (Why would we use the Constitution to ever deny a right?) Others want an amendment that would protect a symbol (the American Flag) at the expense of the right of free expression guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. How about a school prayer amendment? How about a 10 Commandments amendment? Never mind that several of the Commandments are about the practice of a religion, and therefore specifically prohibited as law by the 1st amendment. Come to think of it, it might be easier to just repeal that pesky 1st amendment. How about a right to life amendment? But be sure to carefully limit that one to stem cells and fetuses because too broad an amendment might cut into capital punishment or the 30,000 gun deaths per year and we wouldn’t want that.
Perhaps there is room for legitimate change. Term limits on Congress? A Balanced Budget amendment? Neither a slam dunk both but worthy of debate, unlike the proposals designed to actually undo the protections of our Constitution.
Jeff Henderson
Publshed 6/13/06
We have amended our Constitution twenty-seven times. Six of the amendments were changes on how our government functions. Two dealt with prohibition. One permitted income tax. The remaining eighteen were about establishing, expanding or clarifying the rights of citizens. Not one amendment exists for the purpose of denying any rights to a class of people or reserving a right for only some of the people. To put something like that in the Constitution is, well, unconstitutional. I am saddened that the President of the United States and the leadership of the Senate would think it proper to do so. But I am down right ashamed that they made the attempt, not to succeed, but to win the support of people who don’t know any better.
Jeff Henderson
Published May 2006
Arch conservative George Will’s op-ed piece on bilingual ballots was flawed.
First he said that Attorney General Gonzales needs a refresher course in the law. Will pointed out that the law requires a person to be proficient in English to become a citizen. Therefore if someone needs a bi-lingual ballot it is proof that the law on citizenship was ignored.
But it seems to me that George Will needs a lesson on demographics. Who does he think bi-lingual ballots are for? Non-citizens (either legal or illegal) cannot vote. Nearly all naturalized citizens are proficient in English, as the law requires. But millions of native-born citizens of this country speak Spanish as their first language and may not be proficient in English. As to the rule of law, no citizen needs English-language proficiency to vote. The voting rights act banned literacy requirements for voting in federal elections. So the use of bi-lingual ballots is indeed rooted in the law, not evidence of ignoring the law.
Will goes on to say that people not proficient in English cannot participate in the “nation’s political conversation.” Has George Will not heard of Spanish Language Newspapers, television, or radio, which is growing by leaps and bounds within this country? Of course he has, but I guess since he cannot understand what is being said in the Spanish language media, then in his mind there is no insight, intellect, or meaningful political conversation going on.
By the way, I speak, read and write only the English language. I think people living here should be proficient in English. I think the advantages of English fluency speak for themselves. But the last time I checked, it was still a free country. Americans are entitled to define the American way of life as they see fit, even when it is not the same as how I define it or George Will defines it.
Jeff Henderson
Published May 2006
In a recent my word column, Dr. Stan Sujka equated adoption by gay parents to the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis study where poor blacks infected with syphilis were unwittingly left untreated so that long-term results of the disease could be studied. This ugly episode in American medical science is of course abhorrent. Dr. Sujka thinks that because children may be unwittingly placed in gay homes either through foster care or adoption that it amounts to the same thing, an abhorrent experiment on children.
Where to begin? First, while syphilis is serious sexually transmitted disease that needs to be treated, being gay is a simply a human trait. It no more identifies a person’s moral character, parenting skills, or ability to love than being left-handed does. It is not something to be hidden, corrected, or ashamed of. The only influence a gay parent has over the adult sexuality of their children is in instilling a sense of healthy acceptance for the small number of their children who will grow up to be gay. Compare that with the influence homophobic, intolerant straight parents have on their children who turn out gay. Many children are homeless on the streets or in the foster care system because such parents threw them out. I can assure you that there is no chance, that any child of a gay parent will be cast out of the house for being straight.
So which is the more abhorrent experiment on children? The one that would leave them on the streets, in institutions or with a series of strangers for lack of stable, loving homes, or the one that might put a child in a stable, loving, church going, soccer mom/dad gay household?
Jeff Henderson
No comments:
Post a Comment