Letters to the Editor 10-27-1997
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By -
- R-Rated - Disliked Cartoon - PPVs - Gun Rights
R-Rated
Editor, Times-Union:Last Sunday I dropped my 1-year-old daughter at her grandparents' for the afternoon so her father and I could see a movie together. We went to the local theater complex to see an "R"-rated film that was well-reviewed and whose preview we had seen. We weren't exactly expecting what we saw, on screen or off.
As we took our seats, we observed that the theater was full of children. I don't mean just young teenagers, although there were a handful of them. I'm talking about little kids - 2, 3, 4 years old.
This particular film featured everything a parent would not want his or her child viewing. I'm no prude, but I was pretty shocked by the film's content. It had gory, bloody violence, scary monsters, extremely foul language, full frontal nudity, satanism, rape, suicide, murder. It covered every category unacceptable for children. Directly in front of us was an entire family - mother, father and three kids under age 6. At various points during the film, when something particularly horrifying occurred and the audience let out a collective gasp, I could hear a small voice asking, "What happened, Mommy?"
First, as a parent, I was totally appalled. What possible rationale could these people have for intentionally exposing their children to something (a lot of things, actually) that a loving parent would hope his child never saw? Even had they been expecting something entirely different, once it became clear what they were seeing, which was about five minutes into the picture, why not leave? I mean, I saw "Snow White" as a child and had nightmares about it, and believe me, this film was no Disney cartoon. And, secondly, as an adult moviegoer, I can't say I could really even follow the movie, I was so preoccupied with, and disgusted by, seeing it through the eyes of these babies.
I have seen children before in "R"-rated films, but never in one so completely and totally unsuitable for kids. I am aware that the rating system for films makes it legal for parents to accompany their children to an "R" picture. So I can't fairly take issue with the theater owners for allowing it, although I wish I could. My issue is with the parents. Don't get me wrong - I know it can be tough to get out without the kids, and not everyone is as fortunate as I am in having my parents on hand to babysit our daughter. But there is no excuse to be made for the parents in that theater Sunday. When I think of those little kids seeing all those awful things it really breaks my heart. Childhood is supposed to be a time of wonder and joy, when we as parents have a responsibility to shield our perfect little children from the inevitable horrors of reality. They will see for themselves the vast imperfection of the world around them soon enough without being trotted off to the local movie theater at age 4, by their own parents, to watch it on the big screen.
I would be willing to bet that for about as much money as they spent on three movie tickets, the couple in front of us could easily have come up with two or three hours of child care. And if not, then they should have stayed home and rented "Benji" and saved the adult entertainment for another more appropriate time. I certainly hope, for their children's sake, that next time they do.
Alexis Hatton Sideris
Warsaw
Disliked Cartoon
Editor, Times-Union:I am writing to say how very much I disagreed with your Opinion cartoon a week or so ago. It was of five men, all look-alikes, who were looking at a family album and the caption was "We and a few of the guys at the Promise Keepers Rally In Washington," then in smaller print was this "We just had lunch at Hooters" (A topless bar, I'm told).
The men were there to find ways to help each other to be better fathers, workers, etc. They left busy lives to stand up and be counted for what and who they will serve. That says something to me. This world is full of chaos, and we make a choice: Will I be part of the problem or part of the answer? They choose to be part of the answer as we all should.
As the saying goes, "I am proud of each and every one of these fine men."
Leona Walther
Warsaw
PPVs
Editor, Times-Union:Excellent job on the two stories you ran concerning the Warsaw City Council's recent decision to prohibit riders in city police vehicles. Warsaw taxpayers need to know more of what is taking place and how their reaction might influence policy in the future. I don't live within the city limits, Therefore, I do not pay taxes to the city of Warsaw, resulting in very little attention to anything I might have to say. In other words, I don't vote for city council members. My only "political" recourse would be to urge my father to have his hair cut at Conley's rather than ... where he does.
I guess my purpose for bringing any of this up at all is the simple fact that if I need police services at my home, just west of Zimmer Road, the city would most certainly respond along with the county police. And the city police most assuredly would respond should the closest county officer available be in Silver Lake, for example. Not to mention several police officers and dispatchers being friends of mine. In the past I, as with many others, have been permitted to ride along with various police officers over the years for various reasons. All justified and for good reason. As a teenager in Explorers for Law Enforcement, and now as a paramedic, I have seen the value of permitting those outside of the EMS system to take a look first hand at how we function and hopefully provide a better understanding of what we do. Police, fire, hospital and emergency medical trainees, all learning by observing.
How can the council strike down all the benefits of education and understanding that for years have been a routine practice? I believe we all understand their concerns for liability. But who is going to sue the city of Warsaw first, me or a prisoner being transported to jail? I signed waivers absolving the city from any responsibility for injury I might incur while in a police vehicle. I know the risks. I trust each officer with my life. If they couldn't be trusted to use common sense while I'm riding, I wouldn't ride. Good things have come from a second pair of eyes in the car. No negative experiences have been reported to my knowledge. Apparently other agencies haven't had negative reports either. I hope the council reconsiders their position. Soon.
Patrick C. Brown
EMT-P
Warsaw
Gun Rights
Editor, Times-Union:Apparently Don Guard should learn to read. I do not know what constitution he quoted from but it was not from the United State of America. The true quote from the Constitution of the United State of America, Bill of Rights, Amendment Article 2, Right to Keep and Bear Arms. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That is it in full, no twisting words for personal agendas, no start and stop quotes. And we need not debate what it means when we can get the answer from those who penned our constitution. What did Thomas Jefferson say? Real quote "The strongest reason for the public to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Alexander Hamilton Federalist Papers No. 28: The Militia is a voluntary force not associated or under control of the state except when called out; a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call. Hamilton reasserted this in Federalist Paper No. 69: The President and government will only control the Militia when a part of them is in actual service of the federal government." Else they are independent and not in the command of the president or the government. The only difference in the two papers, No. 28 and No. 69, is that one alluded to the state and the other the federalist.
In case you missed it, Australia just took everyone's guns. Learn to read? Last time I read of a country taking everyone's guns a nut named Hitler started killing a race of people.
Hunting? Target practice? Hardly. Do you need a pistol to protect your property? Maybe one day we will. Do you have anything so valuable that it is worth another person's life? Yes. How about our freedom.
Daniel Stevens
Warsaw
[[In-content Ad]]
- R-Rated - Disliked Cartoon - PPVs - Gun Rights
R-Rated
Editor, Times-Union:Last Sunday I dropped my 1-year-old daughter at her grandparents' for the afternoon so her father and I could see a movie together. We went to the local theater complex to see an "R"-rated film that was well-reviewed and whose preview we had seen. We weren't exactly expecting what we saw, on screen or off.
As we took our seats, we observed that the theater was full of children. I don't mean just young teenagers, although there were a handful of them. I'm talking about little kids - 2, 3, 4 years old.
This particular film featured everything a parent would not want his or her child viewing. I'm no prude, but I was pretty shocked by the film's content. It had gory, bloody violence, scary monsters, extremely foul language, full frontal nudity, satanism, rape, suicide, murder. It covered every category unacceptable for children. Directly in front of us was an entire family - mother, father and three kids under age 6. At various points during the film, when something particularly horrifying occurred and the audience let out a collective gasp, I could hear a small voice asking, "What happened, Mommy?"
First, as a parent, I was totally appalled. What possible rationale could these people have for intentionally exposing their children to something (a lot of things, actually) that a loving parent would hope his child never saw? Even had they been expecting something entirely different, once it became clear what they were seeing, which was about five minutes into the picture, why not leave? I mean, I saw "Snow White" as a child and had nightmares about it, and believe me, this film was no Disney cartoon. And, secondly, as an adult moviegoer, I can't say I could really even follow the movie, I was so preoccupied with, and disgusted by, seeing it through the eyes of these babies.
I have seen children before in "R"-rated films, but never in one so completely and totally unsuitable for kids. I am aware that the rating system for films makes it legal for parents to accompany their children to an "R" picture. So I can't fairly take issue with the theater owners for allowing it, although I wish I could. My issue is with the parents. Don't get me wrong - I know it can be tough to get out without the kids, and not everyone is as fortunate as I am in having my parents on hand to babysit our daughter. But there is no excuse to be made for the parents in that theater Sunday. When I think of those little kids seeing all those awful things it really breaks my heart. Childhood is supposed to be a time of wonder and joy, when we as parents have a responsibility to shield our perfect little children from the inevitable horrors of reality. They will see for themselves the vast imperfection of the world around them soon enough without being trotted off to the local movie theater at age 4, by their own parents, to watch it on the big screen.
I would be willing to bet that for about as much money as they spent on three movie tickets, the couple in front of us could easily have come up with two or three hours of child care. And if not, then they should have stayed home and rented "Benji" and saved the adult entertainment for another more appropriate time. I certainly hope, for their children's sake, that next time they do.
Alexis Hatton Sideris
Warsaw
Disliked Cartoon
Editor, Times-Union:I am writing to say how very much I disagreed with your Opinion cartoon a week or so ago. It was of five men, all look-alikes, who were looking at a family album and the caption was "We and a few of the guys at the Promise Keepers Rally In Washington," then in smaller print was this "We just had lunch at Hooters" (A topless bar, I'm told).
The men were there to find ways to help each other to be better fathers, workers, etc. They left busy lives to stand up and be counted for what and who they will serve. That says something to me. This world is full of chaos, and we make a choice: Will I be part of the problem or part of the answer? They choose to be part of the answer as we all should.
As the saying goes, "I am proud of each and every one of these fine men."
Leona Walther
Warsaw
PPVs
Editor, Times-Union:Excellent job on the two stories you ran concerning the Warsaw City Council's recent decision to prohibit riders in city police vehicles. Warsaw taxpayers need to know more of what is taking place and how their reaction might influence policy in the future. I don't live within the city limits, Therefore, I do not pay taxes to the city of Warsaw, resulting in very little attention to anything I might have to say. In other words, I don't vote for city council members. My only "political" recourse would be to urge my father to have his hair cut at Conley's rather than ... where he does.
I guess my purpose for bringing any of this up at all is the simple fact that if I need police services at my home, just west of Zimmer Road, the city would most certainly respond along with the county police. And the city police most assuredly would respond should the closest county officer available be in Silver Lake, for example. Not to mention several police officers and dispatchers being friends of mine. In the past I, as with many others, have been permitted to ride along with various police officers over the years for various reasons. All justified and for good reason. As a teenager in Explorers for Law Enforcement, and now as a paramedic, I have seen the value of permitting those outside of the EMS system to take a look first hand at how we function and hopefully provide a better understanding of what we do. Police, fire, hospital and emergency medical trainees, all learning by observing.
How can the council strike down all the benefits of education and understanding that for years have been a routine practice? I believe we all understand their concerns for liability. But who is going to sue the city of Warsaw first, me or a prisoner being transported to jail? I signed waivers absolving the city from any responsibility for injury I might incur while in a police vehicle. I know the risks. I trust each officer with my life. If they couldn't be trusted to use common sense while I'm riding, I wouldn't ride. Good things have come from a second pair of eyes in the car. No negative experiences have been reported to my knowledge. Apparently other agencies haven't had negative reports either. I hope the council reconsiders their position. Soon.
Patrick C. Brown
EMT-P
Warsaw
Gun Rights
Editor, Times-Union:Apparently Don Guard should learn to read. I do not know what constitution he quoted from but it was not from the United State of America. The true quote from the Constitution of the United State of America, Bill of Rights, Amendment Article 2, Right to Keep and Bear Arms. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That is it in full, no twisting words for personal agendas, no start and stop quotes. And we need not debate what it means when we can get the answer from those who penned our constitution. What did Thomas Jefferson say? Real quote "The strongest reason for the public to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Alexander Hamilton Federalist Papers No. 28: The Militia is a voluntary force not associated or under control of the state except when called out; a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call. Hamilton reasserted this in Federalist Paper No. 69: The President and government will only control the Militia when a part of them is in actual service of the federal government." Else they are independent and not in the command of the president or the government. The only difference in the two papers, No. 28 and No. 69, is that one alluded to the state and the other the federalist.
In case you missed it, Australia just took everyone's guns. Learn to read? Last time I read of a country taking everyone's guns a nut named Hitler started killing a race of people.
Hunting? Target practice? Hardly. Do you need a pistol to protect your property? Maybe one day we will. Do you have anything so valuable that it is worth another person's life? Yes. How about our freedom.
Daniel Stevens
Warsaw
[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092