DEAR EDITOR:
I was outraged after reading last Friday’s column by Denise Baer
Apuzzo. Ms. Apuzzo crossed the line when she decided to
”
character assassinate
”
two Gilroyans, who had recently and rightfully expressed their
opinions on sensitive issues by way of letters to the editor.
DEAR EDITOR:
I was outraged after reading last Friday’s column by Denise Baer Apuzzo. Ms. Apuzzo crossed the line when she decided to “character assassinate” two Gilroyans, who had recently and rightfully expressed their opinions on sensitive issues by way of letters to the editor.
I have two major beefs.
First, I pose this question to The Dispatch management … What happened to this open invitation, “Readers are encouraged to share opinions by sending letters to the editor”?
Well, I guess now we all better think twice and three times before we ever write to the editor, because if The Dispatch staff doesn’t agree, be prepared to be publicly disgraced. Gosh, what a terrible precedent to be set here.
I had always valued reading the letters and have on occasion written myself. I think this section serves a very valuable purpose in our community, allowing a free and open public forum to exercise our First Amendment right and for everyone to understand how other Gilroyans feel about important issues affecting our lives and families.
I feel Ms. Apuzzo’s column damaged the newspaper’s image and has put into question the community’s trust and confidence to be open in expressing views in The Dispatch without fear of reprisal and in this case public humiliation.
The Dispatch should remain fair and balanced letters should stay in “neutral territory.”
If The Dispatch cannot maintain this simple courtesy then “readers beware,” your rightful opinion can and will be used against you in the kangaroo court of mass media!
Secondly, it was bad enough that The Dispatch printed Ms. Apuzzo’s column at the expense of Mr. Wayne Scott and Mr. David Kaeini’s reputations, but what’s even worse is that her criticisms were factual incorrect and inconsistent.
For example, Ms. Apuzzo describes Mr. Kaeini as “clueless”, because he stands against abortion, is pro-life and questions the use of artificial birth control. Ms. Apuzzo then states that she is herself against abortion but favors contraceptives because they are intended to keep a pregnancy from occurring.
The real truth is that most modern forms of artificial birth control, especially birth control pills are really “abortifacients.” That is, they chemically do not allow an already fertilized ovum from anchoring and forming in the womb. The reality is that in most cases human life has already begun but denied the right to grow. The latest craze in “morning after pills” speaks for itself.
Ms. Apuzzo mistakenly goes on further to include “natural family planning” as equivalent to modern forms of contraception. This is also factually incorrect since the main objective of natural family planning is abstinence during fertile days, thereby eliminating the possibility of this method ever being an “abortifacient” (since life was never created). That is precisely why many Christian and Catholic groups prefer this method of family planning.
You know we are all perhaps guilty at times of being “clueless.”
Sometimes I may even feel angry or threatened when the opinion of another differs from my own, but I’ve gotten over that by learning to respect their right to express it. Certainly no one person has all the answers or is right about all things and thus we should be careful in our judgment and criticisms of others, especially in public forums.
There is a great saying that applies well here, “Before you remove the splinter from your brother’s eye, you should first remove the log in your own.” I hope The Dispatch learned something from this one and offers an apology to Mr. Scott, Mr. Kaeini and all readers and future writers to the editor.
This one should have never happened.
David Rivas, Gilroy
Submitted Tuesday, July 27 to ed****@****ic.com
Editor’s Note: There are many strong opinions expressed on the editorial page. We welcome those and, at the same time, encourage writers to be respectful. A point of clarification: columnists are not staff members. They are members of the community who write regularly for the editorial page.
