News, music, movies & restaurants from the editors of the Silicon Valley's #1 weekly newspaper.
Serving San Jose, Palo Alto, Los Gatos, Campbell, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Fremont & nearby cities.

September 13-19, 2006

home | metro silicon valley index | letters to the editor

Letters to the Editor

Greens Could Learn From T.J.

I enjoyed reading the article on T.J. Rodgers ("T.J. Rodgers Knows More Than You Do," Cover Story, Aug. 30) and emerged with great admiration for the subject's fearless honesty and unabashed reverence of freedom. Without freedom and capitalism, we would be reduced to the resentful resignation of so much of the world.

As to his profit motives behind environmental investments, if only the Nature Conservancy could be so forthright!

Deborah Ettinger, San Jose

Don't Forget Art

My name is Art Maurice and I am one of the six candidates who are running for the District 6 position in San Jose this fall. I was humored but disappointed to read your article entitled "Secret to District 6 Race: Cardio," (The Fly, Aug. 16). Although Metro takes political sides with some stories and issues from time to time, typically your reporting is unbiased and fair in presenting several viewpoints. Fly, you took the time to make sure you had the correct number of candidates, but didn't even do us the decency of presenting all of them. In an all-too-typical fashion, this article simply glosses over the candidates and chose to only provide exposure to the Fly friends. I think this misleads your readers and does not provide the entire story about who is in this race.

I would like to propose that you run a new article in a future issue on the other three candidates so that you can remain unbiased in your coverage of this race. Your readers deserve to read articles that are thorough in research and unbiased in coverage.

Art Maurice, San Jose

We were pleased to humor you, Art, and we will continue to humor you in the future. It was pretty mean, though, to make Fly think for a moment that it had friends.—Editor

Kids and Courts

Re "Who's Your Daddy?" (Cover Story, July 19): There are so many things wrong with the family court system, child support/custody it's hard to know where to begin. But lets start with the very idea that the government has the "right" to award custody to one parent, and have the other parent "pay" for not seeing their children. Here are a few Supreme Court rulings on the subject:

"Parents' right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect." Reynold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NF. 2d 858; 68Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).

"The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one's children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent's custodial rights absent due process protections." Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538. D.C. Conn. (1981).

"Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs." Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982).

"The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake." Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205: US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984).

"Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of "liberty" as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment." Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973).

It seems to me California and any state that doesn't enforce "shared" parenting, even in the cases where couples aren't married, are not following the mandates of the Supreme Court.

Robert Getchell, Boulder, Colorado

Any Taste, As Long As It's Mine

Re "Up the Sandbox," (MetroFilm, Aug. 16): Boy, what a stupid review by Richard von Busack.

Critics, and audiences, are free—even encouraged—to have different reactions, tastes, and opinions regarding the movies.

The House of Sand is, indeed, slow; perhaps, at times, even tedious. But there is a lot more to it than your reviewer, Mr. von Busack, is apparently capable of understanding.

Clichéd zingers, evaluating sex scenes for "hotness," and seemingly unfamiliar with the word allegory, the reviewer impresses me as a poster child for the glib dumbing-down of culture.

The movie is definitely not for everybody—and that's the way it should be.

Perhaps if there had been gun fire, car chases, more "hot" sex scenes and some bankable stars like Angelina and Brad, maybe that would have helped Mr. von Busack maintain his interest.

John Barrett, San Jose

Uh, judging from his review of 'Mr. And Mrs. Smith,' I'd guess not.—Editor

Send letters to the editor here.