The Chelsea Standard
A Heritage Newspaper
Weekly Publication
Letters to the Editor
PUBLISHED: October 30, 2008
To the Editor: For the crowd who packed the Chelsea High School auditorium Monday evening, the concert was superb! For the folks who missed it, it was your loss.
Advertisement
From the first note of the first song to the last note of the finale, "Night on Bald Mountain," it was outstanding! And, of course, the costumes, well, (Jed) Fritzemeier as Mr. Incredible, what more can I say.
Please remember that you pay to see your children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews play football, march in the band, cheer, play soccer, etc., so if this concert was worth at least the cost of a football ticket, please donate that or more to the Music Boosters.I am not a member of the Boosters, but my daughter used to play the violin in school and in Chelsea House Orchestra. My husband and I have always supported the music programs in Chelsea and are proud to continue to do so.
Lynn Fox
Chelsea
To the Editor: It has come to my attention that Mr. Phil Jones has been removed from his position as advisor of The Bleu Print. As I was the assistant editor of The Bleu Print under Mr. Jones in the 2003-2004 academic year, I was deeply concerned by this information.Almost two years ago, Editor-In-Chief Joy Wilke's article regarding the preferential treatment of football players was pulled from The Bleu Print by then-principal Ron Mead.
As a former editor and then-student in the journalism program at Emerson College, I found myself at ill-ease when thinking that the paper I had worked so hard for had been tested by the administration. Mr. Mead had always supported The Bleu Print articles that we wrote, even when Editor-In-Chief Rachel Dotson wrote a questionable article on underwear, specifically thongs, during our senior year.
Wilke's article was the beginning of the end for the First Amendment at Chelsea High School. Preferential treatment is a common occurrence across our country: from Kenton, Ohio, were two students were given special treatment which allowed them to complete the football season before serving 60-day sentences in juvenile detention in 2006, to a story just this week in Cahokia, Ill., where a high school football player was permitted to commute to and from school from his jail cell after being convicted of several felonies.
Since Wilke's article, it seems as though Chelsea High School's journalism students have undergone some hardships. The program was cut for economic reasons (the class was cut because of low numbers of students), forcing the students to produce The Bleu Print as an independent study course rather than a journalism course. Now, their trusted advisor, Mr. Jones, has been stripped of his duties. I am not saying that it was right for Mr. Jones to call Mr. Killips "spineless." However, I do believe that Mr. Jones had valid concerns regarding the roll of the administration and its encroachment on the student body and the students' newspaper.
It is not in good taste to have censorship in high school newspapers. Newspapers are meant to be an open forum for students and faculty to get a sense of how the student body feels. Wilke was not alone in feeling outraged at the idea that certain students were getting special treatment. She was not the first in the country to feel this way or to speak out against it. And Mr. Jones is not the first advisor to be removed from his position for supporting the rights of his students.
I am a college graduate of journalism. I worked with writers first hand from newspapers around Massachusetts, broadcasting and writing about the world and the news as it happened. I learned a lot of what I knew from Mr. Jones, and I learned that freedom of speech is what every student, and every citizen, has to fight for.It disappoints me that Chelsea would allow such an atrocious removal to happen. I hope that the students realize at what a disadvantage they will be without the guidance of a talented advisor such as Mr. Jones.
Jennie Palluzzi
Chelsea (Class of 2004)
To the Editor: I urge voters of Dexter Township to elect Jonwaine Collins as trustee. Jonwaine is hard working and dedicated to the community. He is approachable, accessible and listens; he gets it.
Dexter Township needs a strong, engaged and proactive participant in the community with a vision of the Townships future needs. Jonwaine has the conviction of strong fiscal responsibility and accountability for our community. We need a board that is more responsive to the public, and to the safety of our families. He will maintain and improve our quality of life while preserving the character of our community. Jonwaine has been endorsed by both Democrats and Republicans which is a testament to his ability to mediate with bipartisan support to accomplish results. Jonwaine will encourage more community activities to foster a more involved and safer community.
Jonwaine has the strong leadership skills needed to navigate these difficult times. He will work with all departments and all surrounding communities and counties for the improvement of standards of Dexter Township residents. He is a conservative fiscally orientated person who will always be and hold others to a high level of accountability.
As a resident of Dexter Township and a concerned parent, Jonwaine is the obvious choice for the future of our community. Please vote for him on election day.
Kimberlee DePaoli
Dexter Township
To the Editor: Hunting and firearms ownership rights are important issues to citizens of Michigan's Seventh Congressional District. Congressman Tim Walberg has a solid and consistent pro-gun and pro-hunting voting record on these issues.
As state representative, Walberg voted for Michigan's shall-issue concealed carry law. In Washington, he signed the Congressional brief supporting the Heller case in the US Supreme Court, which affirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Walberg is "A" rated and endorsed by the NRA.
His opponent, anti-gunner Mark Schauer, cannot be trusted. Schauer was originally elected state representative with the help of hunters and shooters when he pledged to support concealed carry reform efforts. Schauer promptly betrayed this support by voting to deny average Michiganders the right to carry a sidearm for personal self-defense. He is endorsed by anti-hunting and radical animal rights groups.
Schauer refused to answer NRA's questionnaire for 2008. Responses to NRA's 2006 questionnaire show he supports the gun-control agenda of anti-gunners Obama and Biden. Schauer is rated "D+" by NRA.
For hunters and gun owners in Michigan's Seventh District, the choice is clear. To defend freedom and gun ownership rights, re-elect Tim Walberg to Congress.
David G. Coy
Member of the Board of Directors, National Rifle Association of America
To the Editor: The document "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" (FCFC), published by the Catholic Bishops of the U.S 11 months ago, is a 36 page, carefully nuanced document which all citizens will find worth consideration (faithfulcitizenship.org).
But I have a completely different interpretation of FCFC than William J. Hahn (Letter to the Editor, Oct. 23, 2008).
No candidate or party is perfect because we are all fallen. But we need to do the best we can to promote the good and avoid evil. We also need to apply prudential judgment, which includes applying principles to specific issues, wisdom about what actually works, what are unintended but foreseeable side effects, etc.
FCFC discusses a well-formed conscience, the virtue of prudence, and intrinsically evil actions. The previous Letter's list of issues includes many which are included in FCFC, but it leaves out many other critical issues. The Letter wrongly attributes the Democratic Party and its Presidential candidate with receiving a "ringing endorsement" based on the issues. Au contraire.
First is the principle that intrinsically evil acts that cannot be promoted in any way. "Abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human life and dignity." (paragraph 64). "The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is always wrong and is not just one cause among many" (page 28).
According to a chilling article by Robert P. George, a leading American Catholic intellectual, Obama goes beyond being pro-choice - he is actually pro-abortion. ("Obama's Abortion Extremism," Oct. 14, 2008, www.thepublicdiscourse.com). George quotes Obama himself: "...the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA), which, as George explains, "[i]n essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion..." Obama supports virtually unlimited embryonic stem cell research, another intrinsically evil act. So, central to Obama's policies is the promotion of actions that are intrinsically evil. These are not side issues to Obama and not side issues to FCFC.
Does McCain also support policies that are intrinsically evil? The Letter on some issues is factually incorrect - McCain does not support torture or the immediate deportation of illegal immigrants. Other issues listed are those where prudential judgments can arrive at different conclusions. For example, one may oppose minimum wage increases because they hurt the very people they are intended to help.
Most economists (liberals included) agree that increases in the minimum wage mainly help white, middle-class suburban teenagers while they hurt black, inner-city teenagers and young adults. For an analysis of economic and social justice issues from a Christian perspective I recommend The Acton Institute (www.acton.org).
Must all Catholics vote for McCain? Not at all! To quote FCFC "... a Catholic who rejects a candidate's unacceptable position [Obama's pro-abortion and embryonic stem cell research policies] may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons." (page 35). What are other morally grave reasons? One was identified by Peter Kreeft, a leading Catholic philosopher. If a voter seriously believes that McCain is a war monger (an intrinsically evil act), then that voter could vote for another candidate, like Obama, who clearly promotes intrinsically evil acts. I think few voters believe McCain is a war monger.
Hence, I will vote for McCain based on FCFC, my best attempts at a well-formed conscience, and my prudential judgments.
Donald A. DeSmith
Dexter Township
To the Editor: In these difficult economic times it becomes even more important that local units of government operate as efficiently as possible. One of the ways our small local governments in Western Washtenaw County can do this is to continue collaborating and providing services on a regional basis.
Recently the funding formula for the Chelsea Area Fire Authority has come into question. City and township officials need to roll up their sleeves and find a funding formula that allows this authority to continue in a manner that is fair to both the city and to townships. We have an outstanding fire department, and it is far less expensive for all of us to maintain a regional fire service.
As a community we have collaborated to extend sewer to rural lake areas to improve lake water quality; we have collaborated to provide recycling services throughout Western Washtenaw; and we have worked together on a Chelsea Area Regional Plan. Regional services make sense for all tax payers and helps keep Chelsea a great community to live in.
Leon Moore
Chairman Lyndon Township Planning Commission
Letter to the Editor: Here are a few crucial reasons why Michigan voters are choosing not to support Proposal 2.
Human embryonic stem cell research is not illegal in Michigan; In fact, University of Michigan's Center for Human Embryo Stem Cell Research is presently experimenting on these cells using federal dollars. Proposal 2 goes further by authorizing unregulated and unrestricted research on live human embryos.
Proposal 2 also does nothing to stop legislation that would legalize human cloning in the future; In fact, leaders of this proposal have introduced bills into the Michigan legislature already in attempts to legalize human cloning. This proposal is so loosely written that it would authorize the buying and selling of embryos for any reason, even for those reasons other than stem cell research.
You may think human cloning may never take place in the U.S. People in Australia probably did too, although the first license to clone humans was just recently given out there.
Proposal 2 says: "All stem cell research...must be conducted...in accordance with state and local laws...to the extent that any such laws do not prevent, restrict, obstruct or discourage any stem cell research..." In other words, if scientists are discouraged, they can ignore the law and proceed down the path to radical science.
They could mix human DNA with animal eggs, which is currently being done legally in England, and in the quest for disease cures, actually open a Pandora's box to interspecies diseases entering the human gene pool.
Proposal 2 claims to engage in research "permitted under federal law," except that there are no federal laws governing this type of research. This deceptively removes the power from the people of Michigan and their elected officials and hands it over to the biotech industry.
Embryonic stem cell research has been going on for over 20 years with no major breakthroughs known, compared to adult stem cell research which is relatively new and for which close to 90 cures for diseases have already been found. Even the progression of ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease) has been slowed in rats using adult stem cells taken from bone marrow. Why don't we hear about this in the media?
Stem cells are found in embryonic fluid, umbilical cords, fat cells, skin cells, and even in menstrual blood. Scientists from all around the world are finding that these adult stem cells are capable of becoming pluripotent stem cells (IPS), which means cells capable of turning into 200 different cell types in the body. The ability to become pluripotent is the big draw for scientists wanting to use embryonic stem cells, however now they aren't needed since adult stem cells can do the same thing.
Plus because adult stem cells are a person's own cells, there is no immune rejection in the recipient since they actually are using their own cells.
There are many other reasons to vote no on Proposal 2. Vote NO on Proposal 2!
Anne Young
Dexter
To the Editor: Are you appalled by the continuing increases in the cost of higher education? I am - that is why I am running for University of Michigan Regent. Campaigning across Michigan, I have listened to families who face the severe financial challenges of paying college tuition.
What will it take to bring the long needed relief to Michigan taxpayers? It will take a Board of Regents which is more practical and responsible with the University's fiscal policy. I have the experience to be such a Regent.
I have a BSE and MBA from Michigan. I led Ford Motor Company's U of M engineering recruitment, became Ford/University of Michigan Program Development Office Director, and presently serve on two Michigan boards - Engineering & Business.
With my experience and passion for U of M I am ready to cut wasteful spending, reduce overall expenditures, and generate new revenue sources.
I am committed to fighting for affordable, quality University education! On Nov. 4 I am asking our citizens to give me, John LaFond, the opportunity to serve Michigan taxpayers!
John LaFond
To the Editor: Letters in the Oct. 23 Chelsea Standard suggest that attacks by our congress member Tim Walberg on his opponent Mark Schauer have persuaded some voters. But some of those attacks may be misleading. Consider the charge, printed on Mr. Walberg's Web site and rehearsed in one of last week's letters, that Mr. Schauer introduced a bill in the Michigan Senate to "increase taxes by 18 percent."
That sounds like a lot. Who wants to pay a state income tax of 18 percent? But then you look closer and find that the bill in question, Senate Bill 605 introduced last year by Mr. Schauer, proposed to change the state income tax from 3.9 to 4.6 percent. Why not say that the increase was "by 0.7 percent" on your adjusted gross income?
That is equally true, and more informative, because you can calculate roughly how much more you'd pay. Then you look at the actual bill (it's on the Web) and see that the proposal boosted the personal exemption to offset some of the increase, favoring people whose incomes are on the lower end (meaning many of us).
Mr. Walberg, by contrast, supports replacing almost all taxes with a national sales tax. That sounds fair, right? Because everyone pays the same rate? But most economists reject such plans. For one thing, a national sales tax devastates poor people, who pay little income tax right now but spend their entire income every month. They'd be socked with huge new taxes on everything they buy. Rich people and big corporations love it, though, because they come out way ahead. Chalk up one more bad idea to the radical takeover of the Republican party and their most reliable partner Tim Walberg.This paper's editor Mr. Jacoby writes that Mr. Walberg "is a good person who cares about the people he represents." Some of us may find this reassuring. But Mr. Walberg does not represent most of our interests. His policies consistently benefit a tiny slice of people at the top who have raided the people's treasury, leaving the rest of us with huge debts and moving toward a bankrupt government that can no longer function.
It doesn't matter that Mr. Walberg voted against the Wall Street bailout, as Mr. Jacoby noted in his article supporting our congressman. So did all but two other Republicans in contested races, as they tried to run away from a record of supporting policies that got us here in the first place.Wayne C. Petty
ChelseaTo the Editor: I would ask the voters to consider a yes vote on Proposition 2, if Article I, Section 27 would be included. My husband and I meet every aspect in Proposition 2 including having a father with Parkinson's who could potentially be helped by stem cell research.
In our situation, after a miscarriage, two years of trying on our own and three years through the infertility processes, we chose to do the harvesting of my eggs, fertilization and Zift, which is surgically placing embryos in the fallopian tube for longer gestation. Twenty-one eggs were harvested and 19 became embryos, and only four were implanted. The remaining embryos were frozen. The Zift did not work! We then unfroze five more embryos, only three survived to try the IVF procedure. The IVF did not work! In May 2000, with 10 remaining embryo's frozen, we decided to adopt. Our infertility doctor wrote a letter to the adoption agency in regards to our inability to have children of our own.
In September 2000, we saw a picture of our daughter in an orphanage in Russia. At Thanksgiving, I found out that I was pregnant, naturally with our son. The two of them came into our lives within 15 days of each other.
I can't even begin to tell you how grateful I am for our miracle! It is not always a happy ending for some. My husband and I and so many couples suffer for years with not being able to conceive a child. The heartbreak is unimaginable! The love we have to give is enormous!
Now five years passes and we receive a letter from our infertility doctor that our embryos have been frozen for five years and we need to make a decision about them. We make an appointment thinking a third child may be nice. As we enter the office, that same sinking feeling hits our stomachs. We remember this feeling from five years ago as we came to every appointment with a smile on our face through excruciating heartache and torture of why me?
We are given four options: Do another IVF? Pay for long-term storage of the embryos? Donate our embryos to another family? Or have the embryos destroyed? In 2005, embryo research was being done, but it was illegal in Michigan.
There are so many couples out there who have conceived babies through infertility treatments, and many who try and do not succeed. They may have frozen embryos and be in the same predicament as us. What would you do? What if you had a son or a daughter or a mother or father with a disability that one-day could benefit from stem cell research? You would do anything to take their pain away!
Yes there are rogue doctors out there trying to do crazy things. And extremely opinionated people with not a fathom of understanding about the heartache of infertility and the possible gift from our torture that we could give to medical science, but for those people suffering from infertility and with this option, let them make their choice!
We are not talking about harvesting embryos just for medical science; we are talking about people, like me...and my husband who destroyed them.
LD
Dexter
To the Editor: I read with dismay Bill Hahn's comments in the Oct. 23 edition of the Chelsea Standard. While I know Bill, and think he is a swell guy, I maintain that his conclusions based on Catholic Church teaching and U.S. politics are sadly mistaken.
Mr. Hahn states that the Democrat Party should be the clear choice for thoughtful Catholics, and then produces a list of issues that supposedly verify his claim. While I am neither Democrat nor Republican, I do consider myself a thoughtful, practicing Catholic.
Let me address a few of his topics.
To be fair, very few politicians in either party have consistently been in line with the Vatican teaching regarding the Iraq war. The nearly unanimous resolution to initially proceed with the invasion puts virtually all congressmen at odds with the Church's position. Neither party "wins" on this issue, although a select (very small) minority of Democrats have been against our involvement in Iraq from the beginning.
Next, as far as health care, immigration, education, etc. - I believe that Mr. Hahn's mistake is to equate big government collectivism with concern for the poor. Jesus' instructions to his disciples were to care for the sick, feed the hungry, and clothe the naked. He did not say to coerce your fellow citizens to pony up some of their hard-earned money and let Washington (inefficiently) take over this responsibility.
The Church calls individuals to respond to community needs out of compassion and love. And, the principle of subsidiarity holds that when government must be involved, local solutions should trump centralized ones. One of the greatest improvements in healthcare and education in this nation's history came circa 1900 with the growth of the number of Catholic hospitals and Catholic private schools. These were enterprises instituted by private, rather than government entities.
Habitat for humanity, Faith in Action, Catholic Charities, and many other non-government groups help people across the globe without relying on top-down socialist solutions. In my view, individual charity is much more compassionate (and in line with Christ's teaching) than confiscatory taxation and Marxist-style distribution schemes. Studies consistently show that Democrats give a lower percentage of their time and income to charitable causes than Republicans (see the Arthur C. Brooks book "Who Really Cares"). This is not surprising given that many leftists see societal woes as "government" rather than individual or community issues.
In one critical area, most Democrats are clearly opposite to Church teaching. When examining a candidate's positions on abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, we must recognize that the Catholic position is crystal clear. Life begins at conception, as is stated in the Catechism. Any record of supporting abortion "rights" or compromising the future of living human embryos clearly goes against Church teaching. It is in this area where most Democrats fail.
There may be pro-life, anti-war, pro-charity Democrats worthy of Catholic's votes, but to state that this party is consistently better than Republicans on the broad range of issues is just plain wrong. I urge all Catholics, and all people in general, to thoughtfully and prayerfully consider the positions and effects of each specific candidate, rather than make sweeping generalizations about any specific party.
Eric Swager
Chelsea
To the Editor: For just $25 a year, a Washtenaw County family can continue to support affordable - mostly free - outdoor recreation for the entire community. What a deal! That $25 is the average cost to a family for the upcoming renewal of the Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation millage.
Renewing this millage is an investment in our community. The local parks systems - state, county and local - are the envy of most communities around the nation. Think what we get for that money. Low cost swimming lessons for kids at the Meri Lou Murray Recreation Center. Free hikes in county natural areas that remind us that we are surrounded by unique places. An outstanding trail system that extends from one side of the county to the other. Most importantly, this is an investment in our future.
Children who have access to the out of doors in all its forms do better on standardized tests, have more interest in science, are less likely to be involved in drugs and crime, and have more self-confidence. Insuring that access to all the children of Washtenaw County is well worth $25 a year.
The Washtenaw Land Trust believes strongly enough in the role played by our public sector partner that we have taken the unusual position of endorsing this millage renewal. We hope the voters of the community will agree with us.
Not all stories are guaranteed to appear
online. The Web edition contains a reasonable
sampling of the print edition stories.
For the most complete news coverage, we invite you to
subscribe
to the print edition of the paper.
Expanded
Web
Coverage
TOP JOBS
