Email letters, May 11, 2012
Sentinel should have covered Tea Party rally
I just wanted to concur with Kent Carson’s letter to the editor today. As a consistent financial supporter of The Daily Sentinel, I am very frustrated that this rally was completely unreported.
This newspaper is supported with advertising dollars by many businesses in this community. Bassett Furniture, as well as many other businesses that advertise in your paper, is conservative and should be represented as well as the liberal supporters.
The tea party rally was attended by two national celebrities and was well supported with attendance from the valley. Why did you report on the Occupy rally but not the tea party rally? This was an offensive omission on your watch.
Unfortunately, we have no other alternative print media to advertise our business in this valley. But please know that we noticed and will continue to evaluate where we spend our advertising dollars.
Child abuse, neglect still far too costly for taxpayers
We should all celebrate the impact of innovative programming, such as the expansion of home visiting services, when it comes to the recently reported 19% national decrease in the number of substantiated child abuse and neglect victims.
However, an economic impact analysis just released by Prevent Child Abuse America estimates that, despite this improvement, child abuse and neglect will still cost taxpayers nearly $80 billion in 2012 alone.
The report, Estimated Annual Cost of Child Abuse and Neglect, is the third in a series of economic impact studies, following reports in 2001 and 2007. This report was co-authored by Dr. Richard Gelles and Dr. Staci Perlman.
In Colorado the total annual cost has been estimated at nearly $1.4 billion. The fact is, these costs and the adverse outcomes associated with not preventing child abuse and neglect are unacceptable. We still have a lot of work to do to ensure the healthy development of all children.
JAMES M. HMUROVICH, PRESIDENT & CEO
Prevent Child Abuse America
KENDRA DUNN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Prevent Child Abuse Colorado
People in same-sex relationships run greater health risks
Advocates for social acceptance of civil unions label anyone opposed to them as bigoted, close-minded and motivated by hate.
But I have to ask, if gay relations are promoted as healthy and normal, then why are they so dangerous?
A March 2010 Center for Disease Control press release reported that active gay men were more than 44 times more likely than non-gays to contract HIV and more than 46 times more likely to get syphilis.
If these data are true, doesn’t it make sense to ask why? And if we really cared about others, instead of encouraging such risk-taking by conferring formal recognition on them, shouldn’t we be alerting them to the risks?
It seems to follow then that discouraging same-sex relations would be the obvious thing to do, and failing to do so would be a huge disservice.
I realize that publicly opposing homosexuality is likely to be interpreted as hurtful, but I’d like to suggest rather that it’s an expression of concern. I think love includes a willingness to tell someone something that may result in the loss of friendship, if the message is for the good of the other.
Society has an interest and an obligation to support, defend and encourage ideas that are healthy and life-affirming. In addition to protecting the rights of the individual, civil law should help structure society to promote what is good and discourage what is not.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that homosexual activity be criminalized.
Rather, like other activities that are unhealthy – smoking, abusing drugs and eating junk food – the answer is not to prohibit it. But there is a profound difference in tolerating something and encouraging it. Formally recognizing gay unions sends an unambiguous message to people and will only serve to encourage this unhealthful behavior.