Letters to the Editor

Editor,

I would like to applaud the letter that appeared last week encouraging a rethinking of the proposed school start times. Not only does the proposal ignore the latest research, but it also does not take into account the effect on working families. With the proposal that Mt. Daniel and TJ not start until 8:45 a.m., most working parents will have to put their child into before school daycare. Right now with start time at 8:30 (and kids able to be dropped at school at 8:20) it is just possible to drop off your child, commute to one's job and be there at 9:00 -- just barely. Working parents often cannot participate in the committees that make these recommendations and their voices are not heard.

In addition, much of the reason for the early start time for high school was so sports teams could travel to away games. High school sports are supposed to be “extra curricular” but they have become the tail that wags the dog. Creating an optimal learning environment for our children should be the first consideration and after school activities should be way down the list of considerations. The school system has done all sorts of research on the opening of the middle school and how to structure the program to fit the latest developmental research on children of this age but seem to want to simply ignore the research on sleep cycles because it appears to be problematic. If we are going to be leaders, let's be real leaders and try bucking the norm. As a small school system we have the rare opportunity to try changing traditional start times and see if our children benefit. Let's take that opportunity. What we find out may benefit not only our children and possibly serve as a national model.

Rebecca Hill Falls Church

Editor,

“The absurdly thin strip?” Once again I have to ask myself “What meeting did the editor attend?” Having read the editorial in the Dec. 16, 2004 issue of the News-Press, it couldn't possibly have been the same one I and 30 of my fellow citizens attended. First, we did not endorse the FCHC project as you proclaim; we said we would accept the project if there was a true 50/50 division of the property as specified; and that the project stayed on its side of the property, including buffering. Sorry you missed that little fact, it was only repeated 30 times.

Please, give up the boogie-monster of “commercial development.” The West End isn’t upset by the prospect of a viable tax paying business being built next to the park. A business, without question, would be required to meet all current zoning and buffering requirements: unlike the special treatment demanded by FCHC.

Let's try and put this “absurdly thin strip" into perspective. Your neighbor sells his house. The new owner knocks the old house down to replace it with a McMansion. He goes to City Council saying "to make this economically viable I want special treatment on the buffering requirements; my setback buffers should be in my neighbor's land. It is after all, an absurdly thin strip they won't want to fight over.” So he gets a zoning change, a change to the comprehensive plan and a special exception and builds his house to the edge of his property line. Shutting the sunlight from your windows and yard...

Funny, I think the neighbors would fight that request. Good buffers make for good neighbors. We agree whole heartedly with the FCHC request to City Council that they be treated like any other development. Smart developers and good neighbors don't try to use land that doesn't belong to them. Bad zoning practices in support of a “good cause” are still bad zoning practices; and do not support the effective development of our city.

Anyone thinking the neighbors won't fight over this “absurdly thin strip” might want to think again. We have offered FCHC a fair compromise... If FCHC is unwilling to take yes for an answer, well, there are other venues available in which we can, reluctantly but resolutely, continue this process.

William T. Edmonds Falls Church

Editor,

I write in reply to Nicholas Benton's editorial of this date on “Happy Holidays” in the Falls Church News-Press. Mr. Benton's greetings for the season to his readership are thankfully accepted; however his flawed case against the very holiday of Christmas deserves response. The history of Christmas, traditionally celebrated on December 25th, is rich and diverse. The word itself, Christmas, comes from the old English “Cristes maesse” meaning Christ's Mass. That is, then, the real reason for the holiday, Jesus Christ's birth; we celebrate his birthday on the 25th of December as Christmas, not as a “happy holiday”!

Lacking from Mr. Benton's editorial was the historical Christmas record of this nation, across all religious faiths, accepting Christmas and annually celebrating its arrival. As a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles, the United States has historically embraced Christmas. The Federal holiday of Christmas was signed into law by President Grant in 1870, is based on the Christian religious holiday, and as such it has remained, until recent 'politically correct' secularists have attempted to, at very least de-emphasize the holiday, or at most, have it removed from our national consciousness. In this effort, the secularists have appealed to the diversity crowd by promoting the greeting “Happy Holidays” over the more precise “Merry Christmas.”

It is not embracing the Christmas celebration by generically lumping it into a "happy holiday" any more so that this nation does not celebrate civil rights by reducing Martin Luther King's Day in January to “happy civil rights day!” Indeed, celebrations of holidays, particularly Federal holidays, are integral to this nation's character. In this way, the celebration of Christmas stands central to Christians and non-Christians alike as pivotal to observance in December.

Other faiths recognize Christmas and as such they too should be recognized. The Hanukkah and Kwanzaa celebrations and their distinct observances are important and widely practiced. However their occurrence during the month of December lend no credence to lumping the season as “happy holidays” as Christmas stands to most the central “reason for the season” and the Federally-recognized holiday of Christmas and the birth of Jesus Christ.

Merry Christmas to you Mr. Benton.

Christian A. Brahmstedt Falls Church

(Editor's Note-"Merry Christmas" is a wonderful greeting for the holiday season, except in contexts where it might be construed to exclude or offend those of other faiths, or none, also celebrating special days this month. A more inclusive greeting in those cases, such as "Happy Holidays," is more in keeping with the spirit of the season.)

Editor,

Thanks for your column “Happy Holidays.” As a non-Christian American, I appreciate it. I have been told “this is a Christian nation” alot lately, and although I know otherwise, your eloquent quote from Paine was very reassuring. Now, if I can only get those “Christian nation” folks to read Paine, or Washington's Letter to the Jews in Newport, Rhode Island..

Joanne Seiff Bowling Green, KY

Editor,

I read with interest Wayne Besen's recent column in which he spoke of how insufficient civil unions are when compared to marriage. “Without marriage,” Besen wrote, “same sex families are not eligible for 1,138 federal benefits including Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, tax relief and immigration rights. With civil unions, you aren't even covered under federal law to take off work to care for a sick domestic partner.”

Please remind Besen that the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act keeps these federal benefits off the table for same-sex families who have a legal marriage, such as those in Massachusetts. If he wants to argue that having marriage gives gay couples grounds to argue for the federal benefits in a court of law, let him say that. Otherwise, his remarks are misleading.

The same goes for his complaints about the lack of portability. There have been numerous lawsuits nationwide that show that civil unions have legal effect in some states and not others. It is silly to think that the patchwork-quilt storyline will suddenly change simply because gay couples have the M-word attached to their relationships.

I fully agree with Besen that opponents to same-sex marriage will fight against civil unions. I know this first-hand. As for Besen's rhetorical claim that civil unions replicate a separate-but-equal regime, I invite Besen to come to Vermont and show me, a black gay man who has a civil union, where the civil union hospital wards are. In short: drop the separate-but-unequal argument. It offends too many people, especially our potential black allies.

Let us fight the back-of-the-bus issue if and when it becomes a problem. Currently, gay couples aren't on the bus at all. And Besen's column against civil unions does little to get us on the bus.

Steve Swayne Woodstock, VT