for the U.S. Military Community
| |
 |
|
| |
European edition letters for the week of Oct. 27-Nov. 2, 2002
Day care flap
| Letters index (Click on date to jump ahead) October 27 October 28 October 29 October 30 October 31 November 1 November 2 |
When I started to read the letter “Day care” (Oct. 22), I found it interesting. I agreed with the writer about the need for more facilities and providers until he started to basically whine about being last on the totem pole. And then he threw in his “moral” opinion on our military personnel.
The writer needs to look at the mission of Ramstein Air Base, Germany, and ask himself if he is contributing to Ramstein’s purpose overseas or if he’s riding on his wife’s coattails and enjoying Germany’s beautiful scenery. Like everyone else, the writer and his wife made the choice to either take the assignment or not. They also made the choice to have two children on an E-3’s salary. Where is the responsibility in that? I suggest the writer either join the military or be thankful and just enjoy his time in Germany with his family. However the writer looks at it, the child development center was established to help military personnel accomplish their mission in the Air Force. That includes our “dysfunctional” singles and “spoiled” military to military, like me.
What irritates me most about the letter is that the writer’s not even in the military, but he thinks what he says will make a difference. If he’s not a club member, he better not complain about the rules. His letter would have made a bigger impact if he just plain said, “Please stop spending money on beautification projects and hire more day care providers so they don’t have to prioritize among military.” But instead he had to insult the majority of his audience. Now his point isn’t heard.
I wish the Air Force had enough people to watch all kids. But it doesn’t, so its main concern shouldn’t be dependent spouses who are ticked off because they have to stay home with kids they chose to have. If this is the only thing keeping the the letter writer’s family on the fence to stay in or get out of the military, then I say don’t let the door hit them on the way out. If the writer’s wife has the same judgmental attitude toward her fellow airmen as the writer does, I do not want her in my Air Force.
Staff Sgt. Elise P. Lindblom
RAF Mildenhall, England
Ongoing struggle
I’m writing in response to “Day care” (Oct. 22) about the inadequacies of day care at Ramstein Air Base, Germany. Although I’m single military with no dependents, I’ve watched over several years at many different bases the struggles of military members to obtain adequate day care. This isn’t the letter writer’s problem alone. It’s an ongoing struggle for many.
Since the writer is not in the military, let me shed some light on a few things for him. Day care services provided on military bases are there for military members. And like everything else, including housing, there are sometimes waiting lists. Does the writer know how many people these services cater to?
The writer began to make a valid argument at the beginning of his letter. But then he turned his attention to making snide, unnecessary remarks toward servicemembers, single parents and dual military couples. Like these dual military couples, the writer’s wife, no matter what grade, gets paid for the writer and her other dependents as well. So maybe the writer should get private child care.
If the writer still isn’t satisfied with Ramstein’s day care, maybe as an overseas dependant it’d be better if he applied for a position at his local day care facility. This would help with the obvious amount of free time the writer has on his hands. The military is about sacrifices. When the writer chose to accompany his wife overseas, he, like everyone else, must get in line.
Danielle Cyran
RAF Mildenhall, England
Leaders letter
I want to voice my support for the letter “Where are great leaders?” (Oct. 23). I agree that we need more leaders like Gen. George S. Patton, a man who didn’t want the de-Nazification of Germany to happen because “he admired their efficiency,” and a man who went around slapping a hospitalized soldier.
The letter writer also said we should have more prayer in schools and that he “understands the whole separation of church and state.” Obviously he doesn’t. If he did, he’d understand our First Amendment rights: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of. That guarantees us the freedom to and from religion. He would also understand that church and state are like Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman: Separate. Not together.
The letter writer also alluded to the “under God” debate. That phrase was inserted by Congress in 1954 to separate us from “godless communists.” Nobody has made an effort to throw out the Pledge of Allegiance. They just wanted the phrase “under God” removed.
Lastly, the letter writer wants us to have more prayer in schools and decries any attempt to remove it. I can’t recall the exact date that it became the responsibility of school systems to raise children. If the letter writer feels that his children are not getting enough prayer at home and at church, maybe he should send his kids to a private school. Or better yet, he could home school them. That way my kids would not get tainted by his kids’ twisted world view.
Jacob Robertson
Darmstadt, Germany
Where are we headed?
Are we sinking to the same level as the beast? Is this the beginning of the end? All we have to do is look at both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide to understand that violence, including terrorism by a state or occupied population, rarely stops further violence as long as the grievances motivating them are not addressed.
In the context of a world where conservative estimates declare half of humanity to be living on less than $2 a day, asking the CIA or other military agencies to fight terrorism is probably not going to work. The blow back from policies that produce ever-widening gaps between rich and poor, between and within countries, will likely be at least as bad as the blow back produced by the CIA overthrow of the Mossadeq government and installation of the Shah of Iran in 1953.
From a broader perspective, the ever-growing world trade in arms, which fuels violence at all levels, has multiplied opportunities for anyone with a grievance to spread terror anywhere, including in the United States. Yet our entire military-industrial system is based on the large-scale trade in arms, which helps to fund our own defense budget. Finally, since much of the rest of the world, especially citizens of the global south, harbor deep resentments against the United States for its “cultural invasion” as much as for its economic and foreign policies, using unilateral acts of large-scale violence in the war against terrorism will only feed that hatred.
What are the alternatives to our current policies on terrorism and our unilateral policies concerning Iraq? In terms of international law, there is a clear recourse in situations of this sort: going through the U.N. Security Council, the only body under international law that can authorize military action, or even authorize the equivalent of an international arrest warrant. Moreover, there are at least nine international multilateral terrorism conventions that the United States can use as the basis for a legal war against terrorism through international law, rather than unilateral war. There is also the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which has the moral and legal basis to enter this process, be it state or nonstate actors who are ultimately accused of engaging in and/or supporting terrorism. This would clearly constrain the range and freedom of action of the U.S. government in prosecuting its war on terrorism. But that is precisely the point of the U.N. — to limit the use of violence by member nations to secure international peace and security.
In the last analysis, breaking the cycle of terrorism, and the incredible violence that fuels it, requires a radical rethinking of a world system that forces half of its members to live in abject poverty and destroys ever more of the earth that sustains it. Today we all stand under judgment: colonizer and colonized, exploiter and exploited.
Nicholaos Nicoletopoulos
Stavanger, Norway
Mail privileges
All military retirees living overseas and not employed by U.S. forces cannot receive mail through the military postal system weighing more than 16 ounces. Retirees are required to place an “R” next to their box numbers. Retirement councils of the different services have tried for years to get this changed to no avail.
Sometime ago an Air Force major general made a written request that the 16-ounce requirement be changed. Well, we finally got an answer which denied her request, and I want retirees around the world to know who the person is who denied us the privilege of receiving more than 16-ounce packages. That person is Mr. Earl B. Boyanton, assistant deputy undersecretary of defense.
In his denial, Mr. Boyanton said the following:
1. Elimination of the restriction would place an additional work load on our troops and increase costs. (We have no problem with paying the postage.)
2. After reviewing this issue with the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s general counsel and in consideration that three of the services non-concurred with removing the 16-ounce restriction, I have determined there is no compelling reason to remove the restriction. (I don’t believe it.)
I don’t believe we should let this assistant deputy undersecretary be allowed to make this decision without a fight. I’m now encouraging all retirees affected by this 16-ounce restriction, and all retirees who support us, to start a letter-writing campaign to Mr. Boyanton, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and military associations such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion to get this restriction lifted. Let’s keep their mail bags filled until they see the injustice of this restriction.
Fate J. Kirby
Pordenone, Italy
Oil prices
As my drill sergeant always said, “Stop the madness.” I’m extremely weary of the tired and ill-conceived arguments made against President Bush and his administration in the letters to the editor. Nearly every day I read a letter or two that critiques and demonizes the president because of erroneous information accepted as fact.
One such misconception is that because Bush received money from oil companies, he now seeks to “take control” of Iraq’s oil to help his “oil company buddies.” This is the most preposterous notion I’ve ever heard, and I’ll explain why. Have readers ever heard of OPEC, the oil monopoly of which Iraq is a member and the United States is not? OPEC is an organization of a few countries, mostly from the Middle East, that all possess vast oil reserves. They come together as one entity and decide how many barrels of crude oil they’ll produce. As a result, they control nearly all the oil in the world and set the world market price for oil. This is what an economist would call price fixing and is the typical behavior of a monopoly.
As a monopoly, it is in the best interests of OPEC members to keep the number of barrels of oil produced below demand. Why would they want to do this? Think about it for a second. If there is less oil than the world market needs or desires, this forces the price of oil in the world to increase, because there are those who still really need oil and are willing to pay more to secure their share. Subsequently, the price of oil-related products also increases, including gasoline. So now readers know that OPEC is mainly responsible for the fluctuations in gas prices.
Where do Bush and his “oil-company buddies” fit into this scenario? As I said, the United States is not a member of OPEC, and because we do not have large oil reserves, the United States is unable to influence the world market price of oil. And so the United States is a “price taker,” and because of our good friends in OPEC, who cause the price of oil to be higher than it should be in the world market, oil companies in the United States are making more money than if OPEC didn’t exist. Yes, readers, read that right. Because of Saddam, the OPEC oil monopoly, and the existing situation in the Middle East, oil companies in the United States are making more money. If the president were really more concerned with oil companies than the American public, he would leave the current oil situation alone, and he certainly wouldn’t take control of Iraq’s oil reserves and flood the market with oil. That would drive down oil prices, and the “evil” oil companies’ profits would be greatly reduced. How would this help the U.S. oil industry? The answer is that seizing control of more oil would not help the president’s “oil-company buddies.”
There is no question that the president cares more about the security of the American public than the profits of any special interest group. He wants to ensure that the security of the United States is never in question. That will only happen when Saddam and Iraq are properly dealt with. Exactly how Iraq will be dealt with hasn’t been decided yet. But once this administration deals with Iraq, readers can be sure that all other countries in the “axis of evil” will be dealt with in a timely manner.
All the naysayers who are lost in ignorance, please shouldn’t take my word on the subject of oil and the U.S. oil industry. I encourage readers to learn the true facts of this situation on their own. If they research this subject, they’ll realize that a war with Iraq is the last option Bush wants to employ for the sake of the military and the economy. Readers should draw their own conclusions, and please don’t just blindly accept the liberal propaganda that is based mainly on emotion rather than fact.
Sgt. Clyde Brett Barnes
Tuzla, Bosnia
Lack of common sense
I’m writing in response to the letter “Day care” (Oct. 22). It was written by an Air Force dependent who evidently had a tantrum about not being afforded a slot in day care. Why? Because priority is given to dual military couples and single parents.
The letter writer’s lack of common sense is amazing. The writer claimed to have done some research on the issue. The sources must have ended within the confines of his own mind. That’s the only educated guess I can come up with, especially with the writer having such a shallow opinion of servicemembers who proudly serve our country. They guard the very freedom that others can only fathom as “dysfunctional.”
It sounds to me like the writer might be speaking from experience — just as I can speak from experience. I’ve been on both sides of that “dysfunctional” sword. I was once half of a dual military couple, and now I’m a single parent going on 10 years, raising three children. I suppose terms such as “honor roll,” “respectable” and “well-disciplined” just goes to prove that there’s all types of “dysfunctional” activity going on in my arena.
I seriously doubt that the writer’s complaint will be forwarded for consideration of a change in policy. So I’d just like to make a few suggestions. As the old saying goes, “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.” The writer should see his local recruiter so he can choose from the following: 1. “Aim high.” 2. Join an “Army of one.” 3. Become one of “a few good men,” or, 4. Continue on “full speed ahead.” If not, the writer could always become a child-care provider and help out the military community.
Staff Sgt. Patricia E. Davis
Baumholder, Germany
Not ‘dysfunctional’
I’d like to respond to the letter “Day care” (Oct 22). I’m a single parent who has been in the U.S. Army for six years, and I’ve never had any family care plan issues. I was very furious when the letter writer, who is a spouse, called people such as me “dysfunctional.”
I’ve done field time since I’ve been in the military, and I’ve never been anywhere that gave single parents priority. I was put on a waiting list just like every other parent. So the writer is telling me that if I had a spouse that I should get out on a hardship discharge if my spouse all of sudden was gone? When did the writer get the authority to dictate what the Army should do because he is having day care problems?
So it’s a behavior now? The writer calls it some kind of behavior, because I’m a single parent. Just like the writer said, he’s a spouse and he can’t sit on his butt. Well, since he can’t sit on his butt, he needs to get off of it just like I do and find someone to take care of his kids. For the writer’s information, I don’t go to the legal office to find care for my child in case I deploy. I have to have a family care plan for that. Legal is only there in case I have to give someone the power of attorney.
It’s no one’s concern but the letter writer’s to find day care. If he’s not working, why should he get a slot for day care? He’s not doing anything all day. The next time the writer wants to stereotype somebody, he needs to take a look at himself, because I’m not “dysfunctional.”
Spc. Jalil Davis
Baumholder, Germany
Thanks
I’d like to thank the members of Task Force Falcon medical for their professionalism while we embarked onto their hospital compound from Sept. 16 to Oct. 22. The personnel attached to this hospital displayed every leader’s dream of total team management and togetherness. At no time did a request for support get denied.
I’d also like to thank Stars and Stripes for providing us with current news and a wonderful newspaper. It will be sadly missed, as we have reported back to the USS Nassau for our next journey. Thanks again to Stars and Stripes. We hope to hit another land detachment so we can read its articles again.
Michael T. Boner
24th Marine Expeditionary Unit
USS Nassau
Spangdahlem overlooked
I’ve been at Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany, for the last 22 months. It seems that almost every time a movie star, athlete, rock group, or any type of major event comes to Germany, Spangdahlem Air Base is either forgotten or ignored. They travel to a lot of Army posts and one Air Force base, Ramstein Air Base. I look in the paper or watch on AFN to see who is coming to Germany and Europe. It would be nice if Spangdahlem Air Base were one of the bases they’d be visiting.
I could understand if Spangdahlem AB was a small base in the middle of nowhere. But it’s a large base with more than 7,500 active-duty military, civilians, and dependents. It’s the only base in Germany that has fighter aircraft that support so many deployments, exercises and real-world situations. But when it comes to boosting our morale with visits from people or having special events, we are often overlooked.
The articles “Bone marrow donors sought” (Oct. 23), “Papa Roach to visit” (Oct. 23), and “Afghanistan according to Robin” (Oct. 23) didn’t mention a visit to Spangdahlem AB. How many other days are articles published about visitors or major events and Spangdahlem AB isn’t listed?
In the bone marrow article, the C.W. Bill Young/DOD Marrow Donor Program is looking for people to register as bone marrow donors. They’re having a bone marrow drive at 10 locations around Germany, eight Army posts and two Air Force bases. The two Air Force bases, Ramstein AB and Sembach AB, are located within a few miles of each other. Do readers think if they had included Spangdahlem Air Base that they would be able to increase the number of donors? The closest to Spangdahlem they are scheduled to come is Ramstein AB, which is 90 minutes away. Most people from Spangdahlem Air Base will not be able to participate because the drive date is during the week.
We actually got to see Howie Long and Tops in Blue this year. It’d be nice to see more people or have more major events.
Greg Barnes
Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany
Day-care controversy
In the letter “Day care” (Oct. 22), a spouse contended that U.S. Air Force Europe is not family-oriented because of its on-base day-care procedures. He didn’t write an Action Line letter, but did “extensive research” into the problem, although he only shared opinions and criticisms.
He obviously didn’t consult with anyone in the financial world, or he would have found out that different categories of funding apply to the facilities that he tried to compare. A complex combination of appropriated and nonappropriated funds finance golf course and enlisted club improvements, the building and maintenance of child-care centers, and compensation for employees in all facilities. As a result, they can’t be compared.
He criticized the base commander, management of the Services Squadron, and all civil service employees responsible for “this tragedy.” Much like in the medical world, child-care centers have priority lists as a method of triage. Whoever needs the service most receives it, but it is based on the family unit.
How dare the writer take other people’s choices to task, yet fail to accept responsibility for his own? Single parents fill out a family-care plan well in advance of deployments to optimize the readiness he questioned. It’s none of his business what “circumstances thrust these individuals into being single parents.”
“Dysfunctional families” is an outdated phrase. Compositions of families can be very different, and none should be insulted or ridiculed. I’ll bet there are four sets of grieving parents who wish their daughters would have removed themselves from marriages to soldiers at Ft. Bragg, N.C.
The writer also had the audacity to suggest that a military member who’s grieving the loss of a spouse should “get out on a hardship discharge in the interest of their children.” That’s a very personal decision based on many factors, such as years in service, family history back home, and civilian job potential. In many cases the surviving spouse considers keeping the child or children in familiar surroundings (home, school, and friends), which is very important in the healing process.
Military couples also complete a family care plan, and I seriously doubt they are as compensated as the writer thinks. The writer should applaud all of these parents for their dedication to duty and family.
What other options could the writer and his E-3 wife have considered? She could’ve PCS’d to Germany on a two-year unaccompanied tour while he worked a job near his or her family (for child care). Or they could have started a family when in a better financial position. It may just be that their budgeting skills need attention. I’m sure a representative of Ramstein’s Family Support Center could offer tips.
With the long waiting lists for base facilities, a home business beckons the letter writer, as his child-care skills are apparently needed.
Tech. Sgt. William Franklin
Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany
Discriminatory attitude
I was appalled and angered by the letter “Day care” (Oct. 22). The writer has obvious distaste for all those who are not “married with children” and those families in which both parents have chosen the great responsibility of serving in our armed forces. While I sympathize with the writer’s frustration over what sounds like a serious problem obtaining child care, I can’t agree with his obviously discriminatory attitude toward single parents and military-to-military families.
The writer asked, “What business do (single parents) have being overseas with children?” They have as much business being overseas as the writer’s spouse does. Some of these single parents work harder and are more dedicated than those with nonmilitary spouses. They work every day and entrust the care of their kids to others. They do their jobs the best they can because they believe in defending freedom and democracy. They often miss out on their children’s “firsts” because they’re busy cleaning teeth, fixing planes, helping deliver children, giving families shots, guarding the gates to our bases, and in general serving their country.
My husband has two single parents who work in his dental clinic. On behalf of them, I feel compelled to tell the letter writer that he knows nothing about what they go through. And he obviously doesn’t care, because his answer to the problem is that they should get out of the military for the sake of their children.
The writer said single parents came to be a single parents because they were “irresponsible,” whether they became pregnant out of wedlock, got divorced, or their spouse died. I suppose the writer thinks that those single parents who divorced abusers and retained custody of their kids to save them from being abused should have stayed married. Then it would be OK for them to get child care, as was the case with one of my husband’s troops. The writer’s remarks were totally uncalled for. He should keep his opinions to himself instead of insulting those who are out there serving in our military despite hardships.
I understand that the child-care situation overseas isn’t the best it could be. But priorities are there for the good of the mission, not for what’s convenient for working spouses. Maybe the letter writer needs to be reminded of the Air Force’s core values, especially the second one. 1. Integrity first. 2. Service before self. 3. Excellence in all we do. That includes single parents.
Maybe instead of bashing single parents, the writer could do some “extensive research” on how much it would cost to expand the child-care facilities and help get more providers hired. Or maybe he could start a community program in which single parents could get child care from some of us who in his words, “have the money to sit on our butts.”
There are two kinds of people in this world. And if the letter writer isn’t part of the solution, then he is part of the problem. Which category does he fall into?
Mrs. Melanie A. Thiess
RAF Lakenheath, England
Damaged vehicle
On Oct. 5, strong wind gusts knocked a big old tree onto my Jeep and my neighbors’ vehicles next to it. My wife and I saw the tree fall from our living room. We ran outside in panic. I was speechless and in shock. My neighbor called the MPs.
A private first class MP showed up. I asked him if we’d have to pay for the damages to our vehicle. I’d never had this happen before. The MP said, “I have no idea.” After explaining to the MP what had happened, my wife said we needed to take some pictures, and I went to buy film.
After taking pictures, I went to my neighbor’s home, where my wife was writing a police statement. We asked the MP when we could get a copy. He said the following morning. The next morning we went to the MP station. We asked the desk sergeant for the statement and explained what it was for, but he immediately refused. We asked why, and he said, “Because it takes about seven to 10 working days for it to be processed, and it wasn’t even on the blotter report yet.”
We responded that the private said we should be able to get it that day. Then the desk sergeant said, “Aren’t you the one who harassed the MP on duty last night?” I said no. Then the desk sergeant explained that I had asked, “Who is going to pay for this?” I agreed with the desk sergeant that I did say that. I also told him that I didn’t feel that it was threatening. The desk sergeant rudely replied that I would have to pay for it before being reimbursed by my car insurance company. He also said the tree falling onto my vehicle wasn’t his fault and there was nothing he could do about it.
My wife and I then went to the claims department of the Judge Advocate General and briefed its officials about what had happened. A man replied that he needed the police statement in order to do anything, as well as any pictures or witness statements. So I told my wife that we should try to talk to a JAG attorney to get some legal advice. Needless to say, the only advice JAG could give us was to wait until we get our police statement.
So what’s a person to do when a big tree falls on a vehicle? Hope that it ain’t his.
Sgt. Mark. E. Drew
Darmstadt, Germany
Day care uproar
This is in response to the letter “Day care” (Oct. 22). Let me start by paraphrasing an old proverb: “It is better to keep your mouth shut and let everyone think you’re a fool than to open your mouth and actually prove it.”
As an active-duty single parent, I took great offense to the writer classifying my family as “dysfunctional.” Not only do I work full-time, but I also bear the responsibilities of a normal two-parent family. This includes all the usual bills associated with raising a family, and I do it darn well! Where does the writer get off judging me, calling my family dysfunctional and me irresponsible? How can the writer throw out such a vague statement such as that? How does being a single parent automatically rate me irresponsible? Why is it that in the writer’s opinion, the only people who have a right to have children overseas are servicemembers married to civilians?
In regard to military married to military, if the writer is so worked up over them having more money and priorities, etc., then I’m sure the local recruiter has some forms for him to sign. I’m sorry the writer’s family can’t manage without two incomes. Maybe the writer should seek financial counseling. If one were to agree with the writer’s analogy, it begs the question, “Why did the writer have two kids if his family could not afford them?” And also, “Why did the writer’s family incur so many bills to the point that they dictated his family’s need for two incomes?” Answers: It was the writer’s choice, the same as it was my choice to be a single parent, or dual-military to have kids.
I tend to agree with the writer that, “If the Air Force is willing to bring families over here, then it has every responsibility to support them or they shouldn’t be brought over at all.” But again, it’s the writer’s choice, just as is everything else he addressed in his letter. As a dependent, the writer could have stayed back in the States while his spouse left to carry out the mission. It certainly may not be a welcome option, but it’s one for the writer to consider.
Which brings me to priority. Single parents need day care from the moment they arrive at a new duty station. Ditto for dual military with kids. We all have mandatory military appointments and inprocessing, not to mention finding a house. We also have a duty to perform the mission, which, by the way, keeps the writer safe. I believe the priority system is the right way to do it, not just because I’m a single parent, but because it helps those who really need it when they need it — immediately.
Can the writer honestly say that military members who are married to civilian spouses should have the same priority as single parents? Are their needs truly immediate upon arrival? Should it be the government’s responsibility to ensure spouses have a spot on the off chance they can or want to work? Or should the government make sure individuals doing the mission are taken care of? PCSs are tough on everyone. But the priority system gives us single parents and military-to-military one less worry when we arrive. This same system is used in the States, which the writer addressed in his letter. But the writer doesn’t have a problem with that because of the number of alternatives in the States.
Let’s face reality here. The writer’s entire letter was strictly about the number of slots for day care and his family not being able to obtain one, not the priority system. I believe his letter was meant to show his frustration with day care overseas and to push for more slots. But emotion and stupidity got the best of him. By attacking single parents and dual military, the writer lost his meaning and all credibility. I’d also say something in regard to the writer’s comment about “fat salaries for civil service employees,” but I have a feeling he’ll be hearing from them soon enough.
The bottom line is that the individuals the writer attacked are not at fault here. The priorities are set for good reasons, not on a whim. His letter should have stuck to getting more slots and lowering costs associated with day care and the inadequacies of his senior leadership in taking responsibility. The writer took what could have been a good letter about day care problems and made it the rantings of someone who just doesn’t have a clue.
Tech. Sgt. Vincent Castrogiovanni
Aviano Air Base, Italy
Dental treatment
I’m writing to voice my disappointment over how I was treated at the Warner Barracks dental clinic in Bamberg, Germany.
I arrived early for a 1:30 p.m. appointment Oct. 21. I had the oldest of my four children with me. I home school her and she is very well-behaved. I apologize for not being aware of the dental clinic’s rule that children older than 10 can’t sit right outside the room where a patient is being treated. There are chairs that line the wall, and the room’s door was open.
I’m sorry that I didn’t want to cancel my appointment, be classified as a “no show” and then have to worry about a note being sent to my spouse/commander as if we are children. I also apologize to the dental hygienist who I was scheduled to see for sharing with her that these rules are inconsistent, because I’d been seen in the past more than once while three of my children were present. They were well-behaved.
I thank her for helping me show my daughter how to not react as one’s emotions would desire, especially when someone is speaking in a nasty way. And when it was over, I had to explain to my child why I cried instead of going off.
I thank the clinic for hiring this person. Because of this, I realize just how much of a changed woman I’ve become. God bless everyone at the Bamberg Dental Clinic. Last but not least, I thank the receptionist for scheduling me another appointment with a much more pleasant person.
Carol Morris
Bamberg, Germany
AFN and religion
On a recent morning, I was listening to AFN’s Power Network Radio. During the news, a chaplain was given a spot to pitch a pithy mini-sermon about how we need to restore our souls to the way God intended them to be. The chaplain drew parallels between his sermon and the restoration of the painting of Leonardo Da Vinci’s “The Last Supper.” Obviously, this chaplain was appealing to the entire military community from a Christian angle.
Next we have the radio show “Praise Patrol.” The chaplain and his wife on this show are obviously Christians, and they cater to the Christian community. The television ads for the show end with a spinning, computer-generated cross substituted for the “t” in “Patrol.” AFN also televises stateside Christian programming on Sundays featuring church services. And a television show called “Real Videos” showcases contemporary Christian videos on AFN’s Spectrum.
I’m not a Christian, nor do I subscribe to any other organized religion, for that matter. Since I’m an unattached party, I’d like to pose a question: Where is the equal time for all faiths on AFN? Where are the clerics of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism? Does AFN look at the numbers and cater to the majority? Do Christians need the radio spots more than the others do? Why are the other religions alienated while Christianity is illuminated?
When I called AFN to ask if the network gave each religion equal time, I couldn’t get an answer. I researched AFN’s programming for answers and found no upcoming programming for other faiths.
This letter is not an attempt to change the world or start a religion controversy. I wish to raise awareness about equality in all things. I’m not wishing for the removal of Christian broadcasting, but I am pressing for the representation of all walks of life. If America prides itself on equality, why can’t we have it in the Department of Defense?
Staff Sgt. Ken Gentner
Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany
Child care
I didn’t know whether to be amazed, appalled, or amused by the letter “Day care” (Oct. 22) regarding the lack of child care at Ramstein Air Base, Germany. In one fell swoop, the writer of the diatribe managed to insult the base commander, his staff, the staff of 86th Services, civil servants, single parents, dual military families and stay-at-home parents.
Let me see if I have this straight. According to the writer, the base commander is “responsible” for resolving the writer’s disaster of being unable to find child care. If the writer has been unable to find child care that makes him happy, the commander must not have exhausted every effort to resolve the problem. If the matter is not resolved in the writer’s favor, then obviously the commander’s staff members are at fault and are somehow neglecting their duty to the community (namely, the letter writer).
Of course, the fault for the lack of child care must lie with the managers of 86th Services as well as with the civil servants who work in child care. Perhaps taking away their hard-earned wages and using them to build another child-care center would solve the problem. Better yet, perhaps management should work on a system that would force all unemployed spouses to become child-care providers to alleviate the shortage of qualified providers.
The writer asked what business single military parents have being overseas. He seems to think that single military members cannot be both professional and good parents. One gets the feeling the writer feels that single parents are a drain on both the military and the support systems. In the writer’s opinion, single parent families are apparently dysfunctional families. That sort of Neanderthal thinking is what pits single parents against two-parent families over the issue of who are the most fit parents. The single parents I’ve met here in Europe are caring individuals who are dedicated to their children and to the military. They don’t believe that they must do one thing exclusive of the other.
It appears the writer also feels that dual military families are simply taking up space in the child-care system. He seems to think that these couples are making almost more money than they can spend. In his opinion, since these couples are making so much money, they should have to incur the great expense of hiring a nanny rather than using one of their military benefits. In the words of the writer, “They knew what they were getting into.” It makes one wonder if the writer thought about what he would be “getting into” when he made the choice to have children.
Of course the writer wants to work. After all, who wants to sit at home on his or her butt like all of the other stay-at-home parents while all of the other big people are out having fun? It’s incomprehensible that the writer believes parents who elect to stay home sit on their butts. Does the writer really believe what he wrote or was he just on a roll? Does he honestly believe that after the laundry, nursing, teaching, cooking, cleaning and child care are out of the way, there’s always time for those fortunate parents to settle back to enjoy a good box of bonbons and a trashy novel? What an insult. Some of the hardest working people I know are stay-at-home parents. They have a job that I’m relieved to say I no longer have. The hours are long and the rewards can sometimes seem miniscule compared to all of the tears, skinned knees, bottles, laundry and dishes. There is not enough money to adequately compensate moms and dads who choose to work at home.
The writer indicated his family’s expenses dictate that there must be two incomes in his family. It’s understandable that families incur expenses. But that being said, it’s hardly the responsibility of the Air Force, the command structure and all other working parents to make sure the writer is provided the opportunity to work to pay for those expenses. Improvements to base facilities are quality-of-life issues for all members and their families. Single people and those without children shouldn’t have to do without improvements in their daily lives because the writer feels he’s somehow being neglected since his family is not headed by a single parent or the beneficiary of a dual military income.
How about this solution? The writer’s family should lower its expenses and learn to live within its means. That may mean sticking to a budget and buying according to need rather than want. There are programs available on base that can help the writer’s family create a budget that might enable the writer to spend more time with his children and less time and money on child care.
Donna Burrill
Mackenbach, Germany
Cuba policy
Since the presidency of John F. Kennedy, the United States has had a closed-door policy with Cuba, a nation 90 miles off our shore. This is a direct result of our inability to live with communism. That same inability cost us the lives of 58,000 Americans and countless others in hospitals for the remainder of their lives as a testimony to that national nightmare.
President Bush has a golden opportunity to change the flavor of his term of office. He has to but reach out and the prize would be his. It’s time. It’s late in the game, but the golden opportunity is his. President Bush should pick up the phone, call Cuban President Fidel Castro and invite him for a state visit.
President Bush should close his ears to the opposition and the cries from Miami and Congress. If President Bush does this, he’ll show that he is the better man. And he is the better man.
Better a state visit with Castro than a war with Iraq. Flowers have it over body bags.
Richard H. Frese
Stuttgart, Germany
Day-care woes
This is in regard to the letter “Day care” (Oct. 22). It seems that no matter where one goes in the military, there will be problems in obtaining child care. I want to thank all of our child-care providers, both Child Development Center and Family Child Care, for the wonderful service they provide.
I’m a stay-at-home mom. My husband and I are lucky enough to be able to afford it. For many other families, staying home is not an option. Many families today need two incomes to pay for daily needs. In these cases, good child care is needed while single parents, dual military parents, or military with employed spouses go out and earn wages. Many times child care is not readily available. There’s many reasons. Why doesn’t the letter writer stop pointing fingers at others and blaming them for problems that have no immediate solution, and try doing what is best for his children? Why not find a trusted friend or neighbor who can watch his children until something more permanent can be found? Instead of looking for a live-in nanny, why not look for a person who can come to his home during the day and care for his children?
Day-care centers everywhere are severely understaffed and can’t handle the demand. As a stay-at-home mom, I often have appointments or meetings where I can’t bring my children. I can’t expect my husband to take time off work to watch the kids. So I have to find a friend or neighbor who can watch them. Our CDC in Darmstadt, Germany, doesn’t have enough providers to keep the hourly room open, and getting child care depends on how many full-time children are in the rooms. To some this may not seem like a pressing problem. But I’ve met many other parents with the same problem, and they all seem to be able to find a solution without blaming and insulting the very people who are already overtaxed. The problem is that the CDCs are understaffed. Oftentimes the people who work at the centers have children of their own who need care. Why don’t we all try to help recruit more people to work at these centers so more children will be able to attend?
There are also many FCC providers who are more than willing to care for other people’s children. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t have gone through all the trouble of getting licensed. If the writer is concerned about giving his children over to strangers, who does he think he’s giving them to at the CDC? The writer doesn’t know those people any better than the FCC providers. The writer needs to take the time to interview them and get to know them a little bit. Everyone who cares for children in the military receives the same training. Sometimes FCC providers have it worse than CDC providers in that their homes are under scrutiny. These people open their homes and their hearts to care for strangers’ children. Please give them a break.
In addition, working spouses with part-time jobs aren’t allowed to take their children to CDCs. CDCs don’t provide part-time care. Other alternatives need to be found. Many FCC providers won’t provide part-time care either. If the writer wants to get angry about child care, he should get angry about this problem. Many spouses are only able to find part-time positions. Who cares for their children?
If I’ve offended anyone, I apologize. That wasn’t my intention. I merely want to point out that instead of blaming others for a problem they didn’t create, the writer should try to find other alternatives. Child care, and the lack thereof, will always be an issue. It’s not limited to Europe and it’s not limited to the Air Force. It’s across all branches and in every country that the military sends families.
Emily Twombly
Darmstadt, Germany
Child-care issues
The writer of the letter “Child care” (Oct. 22) started his complaint by questioning the Air Force’s family-oriented support system. This is my first issue with the writer. If the Air Force was not family oriented, the letter writer would have been writing from his stateside apartment and would probably instead have been complaining about unaccompanied tours. But the Air Force has given him and his family the opportunity (choice) to accompany his wife while she fulfills her enlistment requirements.
I wholeheartedly agree that children shouldn’t have to take a back seat to anything. But child care falls onto the shoulders of each and every parent, not the base commander. I disagree that day care should be the base commander’s main priority. Has the writer even considered what issues might be on the base commander’s plate? I’m not so sure he has. Otherwise, as important as child care might be to some, the writer would realize that it can’t be the main priority.
The writer also said he’s “done extensive research into the problem” and that “it is not as impossible as they say.” But he offered no facts, figures or solutions to improve the situation. He complained that priority day-care openings “are apparent favors” and that “agendas and policies don’t make sense.” I disagree. Military members are here to support and assist in a mission, and it’s their duty to be compliant to a work schedule or face serious consequences. Hence the need for priorities. As civilian spouses of military members, the only thing that dictates if we work is our families’ spending habits.
The writer then went on to lob insults at single parents and dual military spouses. He went so far as to say that they shouldn’t have the right to serve their country or that they shouldn’t have had children. There isn’t a military member out there — single, married, parent or otherwise — who isn’t essential to the missions of the Air Force. They are just as important to force readiness as the writer’s military spouse. Dual military spouses made a choice when they married and had children, as we all did. This also includes the writer, who married an E-3 and has two children. The writer now sits in judgment of others while he’s chosen not to stay home and raise his children, and he hasn’t offered any remedy to a day care issue that some consider a major problem.
I’ve never heard or seen any implication that because a person is a spouse of a military member that the person can “afford to sit on your butt and watch your kids.” But it’s a fact that a parent can stay home and raise children on a single military income. I’m able to stay home and raise our two children on an enlisted servicemember’s pay and have been doing so since we were junior enlisted. It’s not necessarily easy. But we’ve done it, and I know that we’re not the only family. All it takes is determination and discipline to live within one’s means. So if expenses dictate otherwise, maybe a family is living a little too large.
If the day-care issue is the straw that breaks the camel’s back for the re-enlistment of the writer’s wife, it’s quite possible that she joined the Air Force for the wrong reason. There needs to be serious thought given to this. It takes a great deal of dedication to serve honorably, especially with the current world situations.
I offer one possible solution to the letter writer and those who feel they’re in the same boat. They should consider becoming home day care providers. Not only would this help the day care availability situation, but it would also provide extra income. And that’s not to mention the tremendous help and invaluable service it would offer to those who also have day care needs that can’t be met.
Lee McNees
Ramstein Air Base, Germany
Classes too big
The end of the first quarter of school in Baumholder, Germany, was Oct. 31. At the beginning of the school year, three letters appeared in Stars and Stripes concerning large class sizes. One was written by Dorrie Meckes, the president of the Baumholder Area Education Association and a first-grade teacher. The other two were from parents. Where was the outcry? Where was the onslaught of letters to the editor?
Has the situation changed? No. It’s worse. At Smith Elementary School, the two sixth-grade classes have 29 and 30 students. Our first grades have more than 25 students, and two of our second grades have 25. Our specialists must teach and evaluate close to 500 students. At Wetzel Elementary School, the story is even grimmer. Soon the first grades will increase in size due to combination classes to help out a growing second-grade population. Specialists who are shared with Neubrucke Elementary School must teach and evaluate more than 700 students. Some classes at Wetzel have at least 29 students, if not more. Wetzel has three more teaching slots, but they’re still not enough.
Why should readers care? Because these children are readers’ kids and mine. As the Smith information specialist, I choose to teach every class each week with a combination of information technology and literature appreciation skills. In first grade, that all-important “get reading” grade, I don’t have time to reach all of those 25-plus eager learners. I can’t talk with each of them about what they are reading and make suggestions that take them one step further in their reading progress. There are too many students in the class. There are too many of them in class for each one to get some individual attention every single day. In sixth grade it’s even worse. I’m trying to prepare these youngsters for high-school or middle-school life. They need to be discerning readers and users of information technology. With 29 or 30 students, I can’t find the reluctant reader and help him become a bookworm. I can’t reach the student who needs a little push to do the best job he can on a research assignment. There are too many of them in class for everyone to get some individual attention every single day.
Our teachers are wonderful. They take those large classes and teach their hearts out. Maybe sixth-grader Susan, who just doesn’t understand decimals, or first-grader Fred, who just can’t get those beginning sounds, don’t need any individual help. After all, they can get it next year, can’t they? Our teachers don’t think so. In fact, the BAEA recently held a postcard campaign. Most of the postcards went to Dr. Joseph Tafoya, our director. He indicated that if any change was to be made, the people to contact are Dr. Diana Ohman, the Department of Defense Education Association director for the Department of Defense Dependents Schools Europe, and Dr. Archie Bates, the Kaiserslautern superintendent. Since Wetzel was allotted three teaching slots early in the year, have the Baumholder schools seen any change? Not yet.
It’s time for parents to make their voices heard. Teachers have made their voices heard at the school, district, regional and national levels. We’re getting pretty hoarse. Don’t these children deserve to have individual attention at least some time during the day? Don’t they deserve to be reading on grade level (by third grade, or so DODEA’s goal states)? Don’t they deserve a chance to “be all they can be?” Without parents’ voices, their children in those large classes won’t have as fair a chance as the students in classes that have lower enrollments. Research shows this, and teachers know it. Parents should get busy. They should write, e-mail, speak out and speak up!
Rebecca A. Hodd
Information Specialist, Faculty Representative Spokesperson
Smith Elementary School
Baumholder, Germany
Losing perspective
It’s great to see all this patriotism going around, but people are losing perspective. The writer of the letter “Attack on Bush” (Oct. 7) was way out of line when he said he was sorry we still have people who bad-mouth President Bush. When did we ever not have people who did just that? When was our government ever so perfect that we didn’t need people to make their country aware that there were problems, so they could fix them?
The same goes for the writer of the letter “Bush dedicated, courageous” (Oct. 26) who said that “any soldier, sailor, Marine or airman should understand that questioning the courage and intentions of our commander in chief is disloyal and disrespectful.” The same disloyal and disrespectful citizens are the ones who keep Bush and all politicians on their toes. If any leader was thought by his people to be unable to do any wrong, what are the odds that that leader would try harder to do right by them? None, because he wouldn’t have to. Somewhere along the line he would lose focus and start changing things for his own benefit and his alone.
It’s also important to remember that the United States is a democracy, not a monarchy. We are so fortunate to live in a country without fear of repercussions as a result of saying anything negative about our leaders. Why should anybody be punished for saying that Bush is doing a terrible job as president if they honestly think he is? Suddenly these citizens, with the same rights and responsibilities as any other, are labeled disloyal or nonpatriotic simply because they don’t agree with how Bush is running the country. If anyone has a problem with anyone else speaking out against the government or its leaders, then they should move to a different country where that sort of “no questioning authority” attitude is welcome.
Elizabeth deSaussure
RAF Lakenheath High School, England
Recent Opinion Articles
Blog: The Right to Know
Instant updates from the Pentagon, Capitol Hill and our DC newsroom.
Latest post: Morning Reading (Afternoon Edition), Feb. 9: Frustration and elation in Haiti
Most Popular Stripes Headlines
|
Advertisement
|
Advertisement
Tools
Win with Stripes! |