Letters for August 1, 2002

The real Widowmaker

Re “Hot Stuff Coming” (SN&R Editorial, July 18):

I feel this Editorial should have been on the front page or at least a main feature. I can’t for the life of me understand why Congress passed this [Yucca Mountain nuclear repository]. I also can’t understand why more people aren’t called to action to protest these kinds of bills being approved. I for one feel moved to get my friends and relatives out of their complacency!

I recently saw the movie K-19: The Widowmaker and it left a lasting impression on me. It deals with a true event, a Russian nuclear submarine and the consequences of what can go wrong in the event of a mishap when dealing with nuclear devices.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you stated in your last sentence that wisdom is what is needed from our elected officials now. I am not a Bible thumper, but I found this phrase in Ecclesiastes: “Happy is the nation guided by wisdom, her leaders living by truth, using her wealth for goodness, and not becoming drunk on power.” So appropriate for these times.

Dolores Chapman
Grandmothers for Peace

Just say Episcopalians

Re “Break Away” by Melinda Welsh (SN&R Cover, July 18):

I think the historical background your article provided on celibacy in the Church is filled with inaccuracies. There is a clear historical link between celibacy and the priesthood. We know from the historical record of Church Councils that celibacy in the priesthood was the norm by no later than the 4th century (and probably earlier), not the 13th. So the point that priestly celibacy is allegedly based on irrelevant conditions that existed in medieval times is just not supported by the facts.

What really strikes me as strange about this article is that the people who profess to want to “reform” the Church can find their entire wish list of so-called reforms already realized existing in another Christian denomination (starts with an “E”) that has the same outward look and feel of Catholicism. In this denomination they have married priests, women priests, divorce, even openly homosexual priests—all of this in a liturgical style of worship that is very familiar to Catholics. Why is there a need to change the Catholic Church into something that already exists? Why isn’t it enough for them to just convert and be done with it? Is there no tolerance for diversity?

Ed Thomas
via e-mail

Fungus among us

Re “Fungus Malpractus” by Stephen James (SN&R News, July 18):

Good job by Stephen James on this story. I’ve been fielding letters and questions from people injured by fiberglass insulation for about 10 years now, and they have a remarkably similar experience when dealing with the medical establishment. It seems that if a doctor can’t figure out what’s wrong with you, and if your condition doesn’t respond to steroids or antibiotics, then you must be crazy.

There are so many substances in our environment that injure us in so many subtle and not-so-subtle ways. Most doctors are unprepared to diagnose even the simplest of these cases. Unfortunately, the lack of knowledgeable doctors means that the companies that create the hazards can continue business as usual: big profits and no accountability.

Robert Horowitz
Fiberglass Information Network

Joan is from Mars

Re “Marriage or Healthy Relationships?” by Joan Meisel (SN&R Guest Comment, July 18):

In spite of Dr. Meisel’s good social intentions of creating a happy world where men are docile adherents to social norms and women shouldn’t have to be concerned with providing for their children, it would behoove the reader to understand some of the misguided interpretations of public policy that social scientists like Dr. Meisel both reproduce and perpetuate.

First, by stereotyping fathers of children on public assistance as either lazy, uneducated, uncaring or indifferent, Dr. Meisel does a certain injustice to those fathers who sincerely make attempts to be concerned with the welfare of their offspring. Dr. Meisel’s appraisal of the social norm of “male as breadwinner” is both outdated and out of touch with the modern reality of a dual-income family.

Dr. Meisel places the burden of family support squarely on the shoulders of the male; this is the blatant construction of a social norm that is fostered and engendered in males from the time they are toddlers. When men resist this norm they are casually labeled as irresponsible and “unable to provide for their family.” Indeed, any failure in the family structure is conveniently blamed on the lack of the man to provide an adequate income. Does this seem fair?

The “unhealthy relationships” that Dr. Meisel refers to as shattering the confidence of women are no more than a reflection of the choices the women (who, incidentally, are also socially conditioned to engage in those relationships) make in selecting their partners. I sadly state, Dr. Meisel, that men have, as a result of “unhealthy relationships,” had their confidence not only shattered, but also completely decimated, in a culture that places a premium on the expectation of competition and performance.

No “massive efforts” are needed to help men stay in school so they can become good breadwinning fathers. Massive efforts are needed to change the way society perceives masculinity and the social norms men are expected to demonstrate. Massive efforts are needed to change the way women understand the demands and pressures that are placed upon men. Massive efforts are needed to restructure social and legal norms that both victimize men and destroy the family.

Michael Gilmore
Sacramento

Over the line

Re “Smokes and Tokes” by Rashida Smith (SN&R News, July 18):

Joe McGhee is not alone in thinking that America’s drug prohibition schemes are utterly insane. None of America’s delirious drug laws make any sense because no one was robbing, whoring and murdering over drugs when addicts could buy all of the heroin, cocaine, morphine, opium and anything else they wanted cheaply and legally at the corner pharmacy. When drugs were legal, addicts held regular employment, raised decent families and were indistinguishable from their teetotaling neighbors. Overdoses were virtually unheard of when addicts used cheap pure Bayer heroin instead of the toxic potions prohibition puts on the streets (see “The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs—Chapter 5: ‘Some Eminent Narcotics Addicts’ ” http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cu5.html).

Where drug crime was once unknown we now have prisons overflowing with drug users. Where addicts lived normal lives, we have hundreds of thousands of shattered families. Where overdoses were extremely rare we have tens of thousands of drug deaths every year. The addiction rate is now five times greater than when we had no laws at all. Since drug prohibition is the cause of nearly all of America’s so-called “drug problems,” ending our lunatic drug crusade can only improve conditions.

Redford Givens
San Francisco

In cops we trust

Re Kloss Cartoon (SN&R, July 18):

I am 68 years old and I can leave my apartment, walk two blocks to the bus stop and sit there unmolested until my bus comes. Why? Because there are cops around.

I, and I expect your other readers, am not impressed by cop-bashing. Persons who officers stop sometimes forget they must obey an officer’s orders and they get out of hand, stretching the officer’s sensibilities to the limits.

Sometimes officers lose their tempers; after all, they are human too. A police procedure is in place solely to deal with such occasions. When you consider that there are about 280 million citizens and only about 500,000 cops in the whole country, it is amazing that such incidents don’t occur more often than they do. Your printing of such insinuating cartoons is way out of line.

James Frew
Sacramento

Yet another Pulitzer for SN&R

Re “Child Labor at the Bee” by Sushma Subramanian (SN&R News, July 11):

A few women at the ass-end of the economic spectrum discover they can make a few bucks delivering papers. Maybe they can give their kids a nice birthday or put milk in the fridge. They don’t even have to pop for that big bug-a-boo of the working poor— babysitting—because the kids can come along and even help mommy.

Of course the kids don’t enjoy getting up so early, and then there is that danger—a mother walking down the street with three kids in tow.

Not to worry, some nosy broad turned the SN&R on the miscreants, and that great defender of Big Brother and governmental interference put a stop to this nonsense.

Can a call from the Pulitzer Committee be far behind?

Ross Corbett
Sacramento