Letters to the editor for Friday, March 27, 2009

Why was molester on Page 1?

I was wondering who at Stars and Stripes decides what goes on the front page and what criteria they use when selecting the stories that are placed there.

I ask this question because the March 20 edition that I picked up has a picture of a Josef Fritzl on the front page. He is convicted of homicide, enslavement, incest, rape and other charges. Why in the world would you give him more coverage than he already deserves? The only piece I would want to read about him would be a notice of his execution, but even then not on the front page.

We have many other newsworthy stories that could be put on the front page of Stripes (sometimes the only news source for deployed soldiers). The front page should be reserved for stories that are uplifting and talk about all the great things our soldiers are doing here and at home. We have soldiers at outposts in Iraq and Afghanistan who are constantly facing danger and living in austere conditions.

I know during my last deployment the last thing I needed to spend my limited down time on was reading about horrible events, because I lived with them every day.

I would much rather hear about the good things that are happening around the world and at home than see front-page coverage of a child molester.

Capt. Andrew B. Reichard
Camp Liberty, Iraq

Amy Alkon’s good advice

I am writing to let you know how much I enjoy [the Sunday] Advice Goddess column. I’ve been a servicemember for more than 20 years, I’ve been divorced twice and I’ve watched countless soldiers go through the same kinds of heartache.

There are not many good outlets for men, especially military men, to talk or read candidly about relationship issues. Amy Alkon’s style is blunt and "no-bull," tinged with a healthy sarcastic edge. These young guys of ours need to learn a lot of the stuff she is teaching.

If you can’t give her a raise in this tough economy, give her an "Attaboy (girl)" for me, will ya?

Capt. Tim Merritt
Arlington, Va.

Sex assault plan fails troops

The military, it appears, is slow-learning when it comes to preventing sexual assaults.

In a world where 1 out of 4 women will be sexually assaulted by someone she knows, it is mind-boggling that the military still insists on putting the responsibility of preventing sexual assaults on the potential victims.

In front of the post exchange here [at Camp Victory, Iraq], a big sign reads, "Where is your battle buddy? Prevent Sexual Assaults, Always Have a Buddy" — as if "buddies" cannot sexually assault one another.

Apparently, the military views rape as an act that only happens at night, committed by strangers lurking in the dark. Statistics, however, indicate that just like their civilian counterparts, soldiers will be assaulted in dorms and barracks or on dates, often by someone they know.

Rather than telling women not go out at night by themselves, thereby limiting their access to the public spheres, perhaps it would do the military well to teach men not to rape, and that "no" means "no."

As well, it seems the military’s message of consent is one that’s muddled in good old-fashioned misogyny and distrust of women. Instead of telling soldiers to get consent "in case she claims rape to save her military career," perhaps the military ought to start talking about the plights of rape victims and that no human being should ever face the horrors of rape.

Getting consent, after all, isn’t about preventing oneself from getting in legal troubles, but rather, respecting the wishes of a potential partner and fellow human being.

If military leaders truly wish to stop sexual assaults, they need to revamp the current prevention of sexual assaults program; it miserably fails soldiers. Although they make strange bedfellows, the military could learn a lesson or two about rape prevention from feminism.

Sgt. Marc Loi
Camp Victory, Iraq

Questions over stop-loss

I have been reading all the recent articles on the planned $500 retroactive payment for stop-losses, but there is no mention of whether this will be extended to those of us who are involuntarily recalled from the Individual Ready Reserve.

This is more of a hardship than being stop-lossed. At least with stop-loss there is continuity; with the IRR you are forced to return to the military after a brief and difficult transition back into civilian life.

After some additional research, I discovered that there is some confusion as to what the definition of stop-loss really is. Some people like myself believe that it is any amount of time beyond your initial enlistment. Others have told me that it’s considered stop-loss if you are forced to serve beyond your entire eight-year active and inactive obligation. So which is it?

Pfc. Marc Mckibben
Camp Victory, Iraq

Surrogate situations different

In response to "extraordinary conceptions" (article, March 15), about Angel Howard being a surrogate mother for a French couple: I don’t have a problem with her trying to earn extra money. What I have a problem with is her comment toward the issue of Tricare paying the bill for her pregnancy expenses.

She commented that she and other military wives pay their premiums and have earned their benefits.

Unless Navy Tricare is entirely different from Air Force Tricare, military members pay the premiums for their dependents through direct deposit from the military person’s pay.

Since these are surrogate children and not dependents of the military person, Tricare should not be able to cover any medical expenses incurred during a surrogate pregnancy.

Tech. Sgt. Anthony W. Ciotola
Aviano Air Base, Italy

Our allies allow gays to serve

The writer of "Problems with gays" (letter, March 20) is simply rehashing old, biased arguments and making claims upon wild, unsubstantiated assumptions.

For starters, just because an individual is homosexual does not mean he or she will more inclined to engage in sexual harassment or assault.

The British military has allowed homosexuals to openly serve for nine years now. All of the predictions of increased violence, harassment, blackmail, bullying, etc., did not happen. This is established fact from the Ministry of Defence itself. End of discussion.

U.S. soldiers have been serving alongside homosexuals for years, decades even. Nearly 12,500 troops have been discharged under the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy since 1993, and that’s just individuals who have come forward.

Of our NATO allies, at least 22 of the 26 nations permit open service for homosexuals.

Integration [of gays into the military] can be done because it’s been done by almost every Western military except ours. Naysayers have only fear-mongering and wild claims because the facts speak for themselves.

Second Lt. Aaron Freed
Camp Adder, Iraq

Pacific edition

Assault stories educate readers

This letter is sent on behalf of the staff and board of directors for End Violence Against Women International, a nonprofit organization dedicated to ending all forms of violence against women. Our mission is to improve the criminal justice and community response to violence against women. As board members and staff, we represent the wide range of professionals involved in the response to crimes of violence against women, as well as survivors, family members of survivors, and others with a stake in this critically important goal.

We are writing to recognize your excellent articles on sexual assault (March 17). [The reporter has] done an outstanding job researching and writing this article, correctly describing some of the many issues that make these crimes so easy for perpetrators to commit — and so challenging for criminal justice professionals to investigate and prosecute.

Ultimately, better reporting on sexual assault in the media means better-educated jurors. Therefore, the type of information you provided in this article helps us as professionals achieve our goal of better serving the needs of victims and holding more offenders accountable.

On behalf of the staff and board of directors for EVAW International, I would like to express our appreciation.

Joanne Archambault
Executive director
EVAW International
Addy, Wash.

A matter of responsibility

I have only two words to say to the author of "NAACP suit applauded" (letter, March 24): personal responsibility.

No institution made anyone take out a mortgage he couldn’t afford. Put the blame where it rightfully belongs — on the folks who wanted a bigger piece of the pie than they could afford.

Contrary to popular belief, banks don’t seek out poor loan risks in the hope they can sell the mortgage at a later day.

The mess we’re in today is a direct result of a few Democratic congressmen being in the pocket of the banking industry and greedy Americans wanting more than they can afford. Simple!

Tim Jenkins
RAF Fairford, England

An unscientific approach

Arguments in favor of abortion, based on a fetus not being defined as a person and based on the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, deserve rebuttal (" ‘Person’ versus ‘fetus,’ " letter, March 18).

The 14th Amendment does not mention abortion. It defines citizenship and upholds equal protection for all people — that no person should be denied life, liberty or property without due process of law. The Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, allowing permissive abortion, failed to extend equal protection to people gestating in their mothers’ wombs.

To engage in rhetoric that the term "fetus" is different from "person" is unscientific. A scientist of the human genome will attest that there is no genetic difference between a person at one stage of development and at a subsequent stage. Without this truth, what’s next? An infant is not a person? An adolescent is not a person? The science is clear: From the moment of conception, a person starts to form and grow. The 14th Amendment is clear: All people are guaranteed their right to life. Lawyers, however, have muddled the issue by using rhetoric to justify the anti-life political agenda.

Annette Groves
RAF Alconbury, England

Leadership in gardening

In a New York Times article March 19, it was announced that first lady Michelle Obama plans to grow an organic vegetable garden in the White House backyard. The article states, "[the garden’s] most important role is … to educate children about healthful, locally grown food." The article also states that all of the Obamas will help weed and maintain the garden.

Now, some reading this may think that this gesture is unimportant, and even a move to gain "liberal-hippie" political support. However, it brings me straight back to my childhood.

My grandmother had a massive garden, and some of my most loved and hated memories are of planting and harvesting our crops year after year.

You see, my grandmother and her generation (in their teens during World War II) knew the value not only of hard work, but the value of having your own locally grown food supply. These values may have been lost over the past few generations but local foods, farmers markets and personal gardens are beginning to make a comeback in America, especially with our current economic situation.

One of the things I look forward to the most about buying my new home (hopefully in the next few months) is having a garden.

I won’t plant a garden because the Obamas did. I had been planning on doing it anyway. But, maybe someone else will. Either way, the Obamas’ leadership by example on the issue of locally grown food and healthful eating is a breath of fresh air in our country of big-box grocery stores and never-ending strips of fast-food chains.

Sgt. Kenneth L. Meador
Camp Bucca, Iraq

Gays meeting standards

In "Shower issue not homophobia" (letter, March 24) the writer mentions that, in his travels throughout the region, he has realized there are limited shower facilities.

I must applaud such a profound observation.

He then comes to the astute conclusion that this means if homosexual men and women are permitted to be open in the military, they will be sharing the same shower facilities with straight men and women they may find attractive.

It escapes me how someone can logically assume there are no gay men and women currently in the showers. Furthermore, the writer assumes just because someone can be open about their sexual preference, they will be open, and that if they are open, they are compelled by some mystical force beyond their control to hit on everyone.

There is a standard regarding sexual harassment that gays who are currently serving in our military are meeting and that will continue to be met if gays are permitted to serve openly. I suggest that the writer and everyone with similar thought patterns get past their own fears and deal with the modern-day integration in an honorable fashion befitting the U.S. military.

Staff Sgt. Cory R. Schneckenburger
Joint Base Balad, Iraq

Our allies allow gays to serve

The writer of "Shower issue not homophobia" is simply rehashing old, biased arguments and making claims upon wild, unsubstantiated assumptions.

For starters, just because an individual is homosexual does not mean he or she will be more inclined to engage in sexual harassment or assault. The British military has allowed homosexuals to openly serve for nine years now. All of the predictions of increased violence, harassment, blackmail, bullying, etc. did not happen. This is established fact from the Ministry of Defence itself. End of discussion.

U.S. soldiers have been serving alongside homosexuals for years, decades even. Nearly 12,500 troops have been discharged under the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy since 1993, and that’s just individuals who have come forward. Of our NATO allies, at least 22 of the 26 nations permit open service for homosexuals. Integration [of gays into the military] can be done because it’s been done by almost every Western military except ours. Naysayers have only fear-mongering and wild claims because the facts speak for themselves.

Second Lt. Aaron Freed
Contingency Operating Base Adder, Iraq