Letters

Editor
Northern Virginia Daily

Sir:

Growing up in Shenandoah County taught me valuable lessons, many pertaining to honesty and fairness. My parents, my church and teachers employed by the county schools reinforced the value of playing by the rules and treating everyone the same.
That is why it came as such a surprise that Del. Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah County) sponsored an amendment to deny proceeds from a special license plate with the message "Trust Women/Respect Choice" to the sponsoring organization, The Virginia League of Planned Parenthood.
Instead Gilbert decided the funds would be diverted to the Virginia Pregnant Women Support Fund, an organization that supports women facing unplanned pregnancies.
This may not seem like a big deal until one discovers that Gilbert and 56 other delegates don't play by the rules. Those rules that apply to plates for "Save the Bay," "Respect Life," "Va. Tech," "Parrotheads" or the NRA, etc., are not the same ones that were applied to Planned Parenthood.
That organization followed all proper procedures for sponsoring a special license plate, including collecting 350 signatures, and yet they are the only organization ever to have their funds diverted to another program.
It is an understatement to say Planned Parenthood was treated unfairly and was denied equal treatment. And it is obvious to many that this is an underhanded and immature way to punish Planned Parenthood and weakens information directed toward women's health issues.
On that playground in Edinburg I learned early on that you don't change the rules because you don't like your opponent. To Del. Gilbert one would only ask that he act upon those early lessons of fairness and equal treatment for all.

JEAN W. CLINE
1510 Concord Drive
Hampton
Feb. 16, 2010

Editor
Northern Virginia Daily

Sir:

In reply to the letters from Dr. Brian Clowes (Feb. 6 issue) and John Fusto (Feb. 11 issue), the condom effectiveness issue is twofold. One, are condoms effective in preventing transmission of HIV between sexual partners? Two, are condoms an effective means of combating the HIV epidemic?
For question one the answer is clearly yes. While less than 100 percent, I have seen no scientific data disputing their effectiveness in preventing HIV transmission.
Question two is more equivocal. I thank Mr. Fusto for introducing Dr. Edward Green. Those interested can search the Internet for "dr edward green princeton" and read his work and Wikipedia article. Green explains why condom-only programs without behavioral changes have not been successful and may exacerbate the problem. He points out the successful program in Uganda, which emphasized behavior changes, including mutual fidelity (or reduction in numbers of sexual partners) and delay of sexual debut, backed up by condom promotion brought down national HIV prevalence by an unprecedented two-thirds.
Fusto infers that Green is opposed to condom use. Not true. I quote Green, "... They should have a back-up role even in the generalized epidemics of Africa. I believe condoms should be made available to everyone. It should be, ..., the ABC strategy: abstinence, be faithful, use a condom."
The pope got a bad rap. His words were widely misinterpreted by the media and its audience, including me, to mean that condoms were ineffective in preventing the transmission of HIV, whereas his statement (I paraphrase) was that condom-only programs were ineffective in preventing the continued spread of the disease and perhaps even contributed to its spread. These are very different.
Clowes was less than forthright. He is a doctor of civil engineering and director of research and training of Human Life International, a Roman Catholic activist pro-life organization headquartered in Front Royal. Clowes not only opposes use of condoms for any purpose, he opposes the use of birth control pills and all other forms of contraception.
I suggest to both gentleman that insults do not make cogent arguments.

Al VanDeGriek
P.O. Box 67
Basye
Feb. 22, 2010

Editor
Northern Virginia Daily

Sir:

With our servicemen and women giving up their lives in Afghanistan to protect our country and other countries, it is time that this Congress (both Democratic and Republicans) quit playing games ("I-got-you politics") by giving us the needed tax increase to win this conflict (war).
President Roosevelt and Congress raised taxes in 1942 to help to win World War II, which saved our democracy. Congress must bite the bullet now before the 2010 elections and raise new taxes and let the Bush tax cut expire in 2011 to save the United States of America from national bankruptcy.

WALTER M. DUNCAN
928 S. Marshall St.
Front Royal
Feb. 18, 2010

Editor
Northern Virginia Daily

Sir:

Ken Cuccinelli would expend scarce taxpayer dollars to sue the federal government over an individual mandate for health insurance. The quixotic attorney general seems unaware of the fact that his own party originated the idea in its alternative plan to President Clinton's health-care reform. The co-sponsors were Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch.
The conservative health economist Mark Pauly, of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, who among others proposed the idea to the first President Bush, (to counter an employer mandate), called it "responsible national health insurance" to curb "free riders" at the emergency room. He is now perplexed at the Republican opposition.
So am I. Was it just a poison pill, or were they for it before they were against it?

Sharon Gochenour
222 N. Lee St.
Woodstock
Feb. 23, 2010

Editor
Northern Virginia Daily

Sir:

I read Leonard Pitts' column in today's issue (Feb. 23). I am aghast at the level of ignorance exhibited by one reader who denied the brave sacrifice of Henry Johnson.
What I objected to was Pitts' "painting with a broad brush" those who would disagree with the liberal agenda being foisted upon the American people.
Are there ignorant people on both sides of the argument? Assuredly.
Seldom in this country's history has critical thinking been more vital to the body politic. There is too much at stake. Are we to swallow whole the leftist agenda without question? What freedoms are we willing to relinquish in order to fulfill Barack Obama's vision?
Are we to accept the cradle-to-grave regimentation of the "nanny state" gone mad? This, sir, is socialism.
As to the Iraq war, was it wrong to overthrow a cruel dictator who had state-licensed rapists on the payroll? Ask the Iraqi people if they want a dictator back in power. Instead now they have a semblance of the rule of law, meager and tenuous as it is.
As to the ignorant idiot who denied Henry Johnson's brave acts in World War I, nobody holds the patent on stupidity -- or wisdom. We are all fallible human beings trying our best. We are locked into our world views by the time we reach puberty. If our world views are skewed one way or another, we tend to try to make reality fit, like a madman trimming puzzle pieces with scissors.
Of course it's wrong to do this, but people do it all the time -- for an illusion of security, for perfectly innocent and reasonable reasons. Human nature is at best a wild guess.

Gregory B. Johnson
560 Brown Ave.
Front Royal
Feb. 23, 2010

About letters
Letters to the editor about current events or topics of general interest are welcomed.
They must not exceed 350 words and must be signed and include the writer's complete address and telephone number. The phone number, which is for verification, will not be published.
Letters should be sent to 152 N. Holliday St., Strasburg 22657. They may also be e-mailed to jhoran@shentel.net or jhoran@nvdaily.com. E-mailed letters do not have to be signed, but a phone number is necessary for verification.